Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

He's trying very hard, quite obviously, to try to goad everyone.

How about everyone IGNORE him from now on??

To NOT see his posts, click on the Drop Down button right of your user name (upperight hand corner of the page); click on "Manage Ignore Prefs,"....and I am sure you can take it from there.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's trying very hard, quite obviously, to try to goad everyone.

How about everyone IGNORE him from now on??

To NOT see his posts, click on the Drop Down button right of your user name (upperight hand corner of the page); click on "Manage Ignore Prefs,"....and I am sure you can take it from there.

Can a moderator ban him! Evidently he/she is here to piss everyone off with their stupid 8 year old comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

look your achievements, you failed in security part

Yes, we failed on 9/11 too. Fortunately, not much has gone unnoticed since then.

The interesting thing about all this is that US security has become so much more rigorous in response to terrorist attacks that generally the IOC is more likely to complain we are too cautious. This viewpoint is most evident regarding their attitude towards American immigration (visas, customs procedures, etc) and their attitude to the US' response to 9/11.

George, I think you're the only person I know suggesting the US get tougher on terrorism. I guess there's no way to please everyone....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we failed on 9/11 too. Fortunately, not much has gone unnoticed since then.

The interesting thing about all this is that US security has become so much more rigorous in response to terrorist attacks that generally the IOC is more likely to complain we are too cautious. This viewpoint is most evident regarding their attitude towards American immigration (visas, customs procedures, etc) and their attitude to the US' response to 9/11.

George, I think you're the only person I know suggesting the US get tougher on terrorism. I guess there's no way to please everyone....

OK, it's a cliche. DON'T FEED THE TROLL! That's exactly what he's looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's trying very hard, quite obviously, to try to goad everyone.

How about everyone IGNORE him from now on??

To NOT see his posts, click on the Drop Down button right of your user name (upperight hand corner of the page); click on "Manage Ignore Prefs,"....and I am sure you can take it from there.

Here's an even easier way to ignore him.. when you see a post that says George_D, don't read it. Actually, you know.. "ignore" it. There, problem solved.

OK, it's a cliche. DON'T FEED THE TROLL! That's exactly what he's looking for.

Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You retrun to a city for two reasons

- The showed they are great hosts

- They have infrastructure that can be reused.

Atlanta fails both tests. While many here vastly exaggerate the problems of '96, Atlanta was at best an average host. Nothing memorable that makes you want to return. And Atanta doesn't really have any useful leftover infrastructure. Expensive venues (400m stadium, pool, etc.) were dismantled/altered after the games, the veledrome is outdated. Sure you have some stadiums and exhibition space, but every city has that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's one football field left but otherwise, most of the locations and venues were either of the Fair and/or torn down already.

Francis Field. Still stands on the campus of Wash U-St. Louis. It is, in fact, a registered historic landmark. The stadium didn't undergo its first significant renovation until 1984, 80 years after the Olympics. Francis Gynmasium, also built for the 1904 Olympics, I believe still stands as well and, according to Wikipedia, currently houses an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

As history tells us, the 1904 Olympics were largely a sideshow, but at least those 2 venues from it have stood for more than 100 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I've been wondering. We've said on this thread that for a city to be capable of bidding they must have a population over 1 million at the minimum. But SanFran doesn't. Does that mean they aren't bidding, shouldn't bid? be capable of bidding?

It's NOT just the population of the anchor city in its narrowest city limits. Atlanta's population was pegged at est. 420,000 when they hosted in 1996, but the greater metro Atlanta area was already nearing 2 million -- really the minimum to support a present-day SOGs. Similarly, while SF population is around 800,000, it is the anchor city of a greater metro area of 4.5+ million which is all a very all accessible and compact metro area due to a quite strategically-placed BART system. Pretty soon, BART will reach to the outskirts of San Jose making the whole Bay Area almost one quick commuter loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remembered that one of the gems of the Philadelphia docks is the mooring of the flagship of the American (Atlantic) ocean liners of the 50s and 60s.

http://www.ssunitedstatesconservancy.org/about/history/

Maybe a Philadelphia bid can be centered around the ship or the storied ship can play an important part in a Philly bid. We (my family) sailed on the S.S. United States from Southampton to New York in June 1968. The following year, she was taken out of passenger service and just sits in the Philadelphia harbor these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remembered that one of the gems of the Philadelphia docks is the mooring of the flagship of the American (Atlantic) ocean liners of the 50s and 60s.

http://www.ssuniteds.../about/history/

Maybe a Philadelphia bid can be centered around the ship or the storied ship can play an important part in a Philly bid. We (my family) sailed on the S.S. United States from Southampton to New York in June 1968. The following year, she was taken out of passenger service and just sits in the Philadelphia harbor these days.

So Philly should base their olympic bid on a boat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking around on the internet a bit and I found a very interesting website:

http://minneapolis2024.weebly.com/index.html

Now before you start criticizing me, I in no way shape or form support this bid. BUT, it is a great bid. However since MSP is not an international "powerhouse" I don't support it. But if it was, I probably would. The reason I bring this up is because this is the bid the candidate city will need. I like this bid more then NYC and Chicago's and I don't know why.....But if a city like Chicago, NYC, LA, SanFran want the games they will need to have something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell you what, this is my first seeing the Vikings new stadium, and it looks beautiful.

It looks extremely beautiful and is a gigantic improvement over the dump that is the Metrodome. But unfortunately, it raises the same question it always does.. will they be able to convert it into an Athletics venue for an Olympics? From the looks of those renderings, it doesn't look like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks extremely beautiful and is a gigantic improvement over the dump that is the Metrodome. But unfortunately, it raises the same question it always does.. will they be able to convert it into an Athletics venue for an Olympics? From the looks of those renderings, it doesn't look like it.

Then again it hasn't been built yet. Like future football/soccer stadiums a track could be build in during construction and then given minor renovations to take it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an effort to get some substance back into this thread (as those of us on the East coast hunker down in preparation for the arrival of Sandy), I thought we could revisit everyone's favorite question of who is interested in the 2024 Olympics. And I think we have an answer. These articles are a little dated, but I didn't see them posted elsewhere here (which is a little surprising knowing this crowd) and they definitely deserve to be shared, because sports fans.. THIS is what actual interest in an Olympic bid from a city looks like...

http://www.wfaa.com/...-166479916.html

http://www.nbcdfw.co...pics-/165202666

So what do we have here? A well formed organizing committee, including someone to lead it (that has been involved with previous Dallas efforts, not to mention bids from other cities). Evidence of planning. Carryover of efforts from previous bids. And as if that all weren't enough, the guy running the show (Matt Wood) was in London during the Olympics to survey what was going on there. I think we can very much consider Dallas an interested party for the 2024 Olympics. I'm sure we'll continue to debate the merits of our bid here, but these are the types of planning efforts a city needs to make in order to go after an Olympics. And it's all very much out in the open, as it should be.

This all is in stark contrast to what we've seen from Chicago (as posted earlier this month)..

http://www.suntimes....s-a-chance.html

http://chicago.cbslo...or-the-l-of-it/

http://www.nbcchicag...html?fullSite=y

These strike me more as opinion pieces than any sort of news to report. It's more 3 writers asking the question "gee, wouldn't it be swell if Chicago could host the Olympics?" No mentions of any people they talked to or any planning efforts that were occurring. No indication whatsoever that these things are occurring or will be occurring to their knowledge. It's where I would say that these articles not only fail to indicate there's any interest from Chicago in 2024, the way they were written suggests to me there is no interest. Either that or these writers aren't so good at gathering and reporting facts, less we're led to believe that not 1, but all 3 of them know something and don't want to share it with us.

1 more article from the folks around DC..

http://articles.balt...ition-dan-knise

Again, like the Dallas articles, it mentions people by name. It cites some key figures and says "There have been some informal discussions with people" We all know that the USOC's stance (we haven't decided on 2024 and 2026 yet) might cause some hesitation amongst potential host cities. But clearly a city like Dallas, which is actively preparing, is going to have an edge over a city that is not preparing. It might not be enough for Dallas to win the USOC's approval over a Chicago or a New York, but you have to be in it to win it. As far as I can see, Dallas is in it. Chicago, at the current time, does not appear to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no, no.

1. Dallas is horrible in the summer.

2. It's too much like Atlanta.

3. Besides, Durban is going to get 2024 anyway.

So, unless the USOC has a death wish for a 3rd time, I just don't see Dallas happening, regardless of what the Dallasenos think.

\

I don't know about Durban. In a hypothetical situation I see Toronto, Paris, New York up against them. Not to mention cities that lost out on 2020. Durban has the appeal for the games and the city would probably support it. But the competition will be super steep. Much harder then 2016 and 2020 in my opinion. If they want the games. they would need to put out a perfect bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...