Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

The question I have, is if Chicago does bid for 2024, how different will it be from the 2016 bid? Will they have found a location to permanently put a legacy main stadium (even if downsized dramatically) or even an Olympic Park?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebuild Soldier Field, add a retractable roof, increase capacity to max 90, and hold a Superbowl before or after the Olympics.

That wouldn't be the smartest idea. It got a full scale renovation in 2002 in which it was almost completely demolished and built up again. My opinion, Soldier field is almost out of the question as an olympic stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reno was so widely panned and hated. I realize it's unlikely but I also can't imagine a more impressive or less complex alternative to create a stadium with the allure to attract the IOC votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reno was so widely panned and hated. I realize it's unlikely but I also can't imagine a more impressive or less complex alternative to create a stadium with the allure to attract the IOC votes.

Yes, I hear you. It sure would be a nice change, but nobody is going to support pouring more money into Soldier Field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I hear you. It sure would be a nice change, but nobody is going to support pouring more money into Soldier Field.

Regarding the stadium, I know I've brought up this idea before and its gotten mixed reviews, but could an olympic stadium be built, then renovated for a MLB team, probably the Cubs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I hear you. It sure would be a nice change, but nobody is going to support pouring more money into Soldier Field.

This is what I bring up all the time.. Cities have their own plans for facilities and infrastructure that they usually won't want to put on hold for an Olympics. And in the case of an already built (or in this case already renovated) stadium like Soldier Field, it's not going to work. If they could have timed the Soldier Field renovations for the 2016 bid, they would have had something there. But unfortunately, that was never destined to work out. At least with NYC 2012, you had a city with several teams looking to replace and/or build new facilities. So while the West Side Stadium project clearly was never meant to be, at least the bid was based somewhat on need.

Regarding the stadium, I know I've brought up this idea before and its gotten mixed reviews, but could an olympic stadium be built, then renovated for a MLB team, probably the Cubs.

You don't know Chicago too well, do you. First off, the Cubs won't leave Wrigley until the place literally crumbles to the ground. In terms of another city though, it is possible, but there are very few teams left out there that haven't built a new stadium in the past 2 decades or so. And unlike the building boom of the 1970s where the trend was to build multi-purpose stadiums to house both football and baseball, the trend of late has been to move away from that, and the thinking now is that most of these newer stadiums should last longer than their predecessors. So I don't believe you'll be able to find a city willing to do a Turner Field-like deal. It's a sensible idea, but I don't know that you'd be able to apply it anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think Turner field was one of the ugliest Olympic stadiums ever. It is a solution, but in comparison to what the rest of the world is offering, why would the IOC go for it?

I agree. Turner field looked awful. But if a city like Chicago wants the games, what other option would they have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think Turner field was one of the ugliest Olympic stadiums ever. It is a solution, but in comparison to what the rest of the world is offering, why would the IOC go for it?

Turner Field was ONLY odd in its Olympic mode because of the batters' corner that was askew. But the back-end was nice in that it was low and afforded a panoramic view of the old Fulton County stadium and the Atlanta skyline -- which NOT many Olympic stadia (just thinking of the last 4 (Torino, Beijing, Vancouver, London) do since they are pretty much fully enclosed bowls. BC Place was actually a pretty ugly structure for its kind.

(I don't know why you are sooo down on Atlanta, considering you are an American.)

Sometimes you have to turn a blind eye to something that isn't entirely perfect; but you get a totally functioning facility which its community is enjoying very much even a decade after its initial use. You certainly can't say the same for the Birds Nest.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Turner Field was ONLY odd in its Olympic mode because of the batters' corner that was askew. But the back-end was nice in that it was low and afforded a panoramic view of the old Fulton County stadium and the Atlanta skyline -- which NOT many Olympic stadia (just thinking of the last 4 (Torino, Beijing, Vancouver, London) -- pretty much fully enclosed bowls. BC Place was actually a pretty ugly structure for its kind.

(I don't know why you are sooo down on Atlanta, considering you are an American.)

Sometimes you have to turn a blind eye to something that isn't entirely perfect; but you get a totally functioning facility which its community is enjoying very much even a decade after its initial use. You certainly can't say the same for the Birds Nest.

He has a point. That's why I didn't like the idea for a temporary stadium for Chicago2016. It seems like a waste to build a stadium and then tear it down it just a few years time. However, if Notre Dame ever wanted a new stadium they could suggest to build one in Chicago. But I don't know how likely that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And just because the old nabobs at the IOC didn't find it to their liking for the 2-week lease that the Atlantans let them have the facility, doesn't mean the addled old IOC'ers had the final word on the looks of the stadium. They wouldn't be back after their 2-week party whereas the citizens of Atlanta would have to live with the structure for the next few decades. So if it was good enough for the Atlantans and Georgians who were paying for it; it should have been good enough for everybody else, even fortnightly squatters like the IOC. They should have put up or shut up. They didn't pay for the damn thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go - a new city for speculation. Has anybody ever proposed Charlotte before?

What’s next for Charlotte: Olympics? Super Bowl?

CHARLOTTE – Nearly a year before Charlotte pulled off a successful Democratic National Convention, business leaders gathered to kick around what they city might do next.

A Super Bowl? Maybe a G-20 Summit? Or perhaps what one entrepreneur suggested, the biggest event on Earth – the Olympics.

Any thoughts of those kinds of grand events are still just dreams, said Charlotte Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Bob Morgan. But Charlotte is the kind of place that often gets what it wants and usually wins on the first try – just look at the NFL’s Panthers, the NBA’s Hornets and Bobcats and the convention.

“It is part of the DNA of those of us in Charlotte to continually aspire to be more than what we are,” said Morgan who would like the city to double in size to 4 million in 20 years.

Basking in the glow of his city’s success Friday, Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx said he thinks the city is poised to do whatever it wants, from the Super Bowl to the Olympics, as long as it continued to work and sell itself hard.

“I think what’s more important to me in the future of the city is not whether we can host another large-scale event, it is really that we reminded ourselves all over again of what we can achieve when we put our minds to it. This city’s ability to achieve great things is absolutely limitless and I think we’ve proved that to ourselves all over again this past week,” Foxx said.

But the hurdles to landing any of the world’s hugest events are significant.

G-20 Summits, which host government, financial and bank leaders from the 20 major economies in the world, don’t come around very often and have already been hosted twice in four years by the United States.

Charlotte has never made an organized attempt to get a Super Bowl. The Panthers’ stadium was built in the mid-1990s and is older than half the others in the NFL. The league has also been leery about awarding its biggest game played in February to an open-air stadium outside of Florida and California, although New York landed the 2014 Super Bowl.

The Olympics might be the hardest event to attract. The U.S. hasn’t hosted since Salt Lake City in 2002, and recent bids by New York and Chicago flamed out spectacularly. But since then, international and U.S. Olympic leaders have settled a fight over future money from TV and marketing deals, which some blamed for the rejections.

Charlotte leaders point out Atlanta parlayed its 1988 Democratic convention into a successful Olympic bid for 1996. But Atlanta, a large metropolitan city, was already well into the process of landing the games. Charlotte hasn’t started. Bids for the 2024 games start in just three years, and bids for the 2028 Olympics start in 2019.

Also, the Atlanta games were the last paid for privately. Cities and countries now have to promise billions of dollars to Olympic organizers.

“You’re going to have a government willing to put a pot full of money into an event like this and back it financially,” said A.D. Frazier, who was senior vice president for the committee that brought the games to Atlanta.

But plenty of people have been wrong about Charlotte before. When the city was trying to get its first professional sports team in the mid-1980s, an out-of-town columnist wrote that the only franchise Charlotte was going to get is one with golden arches. The NBA Hornets were awarded to the city two years later.

And that competitive fire and desire to be a world class city spreads to residents as well. Locals swelled with pride when visitors praised the clean streets or the helpful volunteers for the convention.

“We are putting on a great Democratic convention. We should be able to hold anything. The Republicans should be back in four years,” said Andre Harris, a butcher at a Harris Teeter grocery store who rode the light rail train into downtown Thursday just to see what it looked like during the convention. “We’re cleaner, better looking, more beautiful and just a better place than Atlanta.”

While Olympics, Super Bowls and other huge events are fun to dream about, Morgan said big events serve a more mundane purpose for a city that has grown over every census since 1790.

The Democratic convention brought more than 300 representatives of foreign governments to Charlotte, and the Chamber of Commerce arranged tours of the city’s banking centers, energy companies and major health care providers, hoping to get into a mostly untapped vast international market for the city.

“We are a region today of less than 2 million people. We are going to double that over the next 20 years,” Morgan said. “We want that growth. We think that growth brings increased well generation for the citizen of this region.”

That’s what is really next for a city whose growth has been driven by cash and banks, whether it was institutions lending to textile mills a century ago or banks on the cutting edge of technology. Just like the succinct slogan the city had in the 1970s: “A Good Place to Make Money.”

Rocky Mountain Telegraph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baron, I don't hate all things Atlanta. I do think Turner Field made the ugliest Ilympic stadium in recent memory. Just because a city can't come up with an alternative to an adapted MLB stadium, doesn't mean the IOC will go for it -- especially after seeing how it turned out in Atlanta.

I let others debate the merits of Alaska.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska for 2024. They have strong argument. Olympics games have never been held in Arctic. Do you agree Athensfan? :):lol:

At the risk of feeding the trolls here, a little history on Alaska..

The USOC picked Anchorage over Salt Lake, Denver, and yes, Reno-Tahoe in the mid-80s as their next Winter Olympic hopeful after Lake Placid. The thought was that it was relatively equidistant from both Asia and Europe and would provide a great location for training facilities for U.S. athletes. As time went on though, they saw Calgary's games and realized putting on an Olympics would be more expensive than they had been thinking. And eventually, the USOC came to their senses and realized Alaska is too remote from the rest of the continental U.S. to make it a useful base for U.S. Olympic athletes.

So no George.. Alaska doesn't have a strong argument for anything. Not for a Winter Olympics and sure as hell not for a Summer Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...