Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

For legacy you need to follow the London model. Find an inner city brownfield or industrial wasteland, regenerate it with parkland, affordable housing and a permanent aquatic center/arena/etc, with at least one building of iconic architectural stature. Construct the temporary stadium and wrap it with some kind of LED screen, but demolish it after the games unlike London. Extend some transit line or build another, improve airport facilities, etc.. Help inner city kids get involved in sports. There you have it, a perfect recipe for a fantastic legacy. Do not bid with all ready built facilities. The IOC want to see tangible progress made and a real hard product left over. I do not believe Chicago went far enough on legacy. For one thing, there were no signature architectural statements made.



Neither were there any transit improvements of any significance in the Bid.

I can think of several places to regenerate in various cities...

NY - Sunnyside Yards / South Bronx / parts of Queens

DC - Anacostia waterfront/Inner N.E

SF - Area around Candlestick Park

Chicago - South Side



Regarding Transit:

NY - New Air-Train to Laguardia Airport or JFK-->Manhattan direct rail.

SF - New light rail lines

DC - Extension of street car project / Metro extensions

Chicago - Extension of L, Fast rail to O'Hare, Light Rail for South Side.



Finally, if we are not going to bother we might as not bid. The competition is intense and most of the other global cities will be building such structures and transit improvements. You need to compete or don't bother. They LOVE legacy, it seems a huge factor in their decision making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did Minneapolis - mpls2020. Doesn't mean it was legit or that the city was actually 'gunning' for 2020, though.

Well, Dallas' site was reasonably respectable looking and there were several news stories that said Dallas was targeting 2020. Some of those stories even said they were "rumored" to be the leading candidate before the USOC pulled the plug (not that that makes a great deal of sense, but some stories said it).

I'm not in love with Dallas, I'm just saying that some sort of groundwork had been laid for 2020. Therefore, it's not too surprising that news stories about them would pop up for 2024. They're composed similar, vague content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a piece on Anita's thoughts ahead of the USOC meet:

America loves and wants the Olympics says DeFrantz as USOC prepares to discuss bid

December 18 - American International Olympic Committee (IOC) member Anita DeFrantz says her country loves the Olympics and Paralympics and wants to host the Games with the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Board set to meet this week to discuss a potential bid for either the 2024 Summer Games or 2026 Winter Games.

DeFrantz (pictured top) is part of a five-person bid Working Group that was set up by the USOC in August to investigate whether America should put itself forward for 2024 or 2026 after they ruled out a bid for the 2022 Winter Games.

The Working Group, who are all USOC Board members, are now set to report their findings to the full USOC Board at their meeting at the Electronic Arts headquarters in Redwood City, California on Thursday (December 20).

It is unclear whether the USOC Board will make a firm decision on whether to bid for 2024 or 2026 at the meeting in California but DeFrantz made it clear that a bid for one of the two Games is now imminent.

"Americans care about the Olympics and the Olympic Movement," she told insidethegames.

"As Americans, it is part of our makeup to appreciate the world's best athletes representing their country which is obviously the core part of the Games.

"So it is no secret that America loves and wants to host the Olympics and that is what we are discussing."

DeFrantz, who has been an IOC member since 1986 as well as a former vice-president of the organisation, has taken a lead role for the five-person Working Group that also includes fellow IOC member Angela Ruggiero, USA Hockey executive director Dave Ogrean, executive vice-president of business operations for Major League Baseball's Atlanta Braves Mike Plant and former executive vice-president and chief marketing officer of Visa USA Susanne Lyons.

Experts are predicting that the Working Group will advise the USOC to mount a bid for the 2024 Summer Games given that it would be far more finacially lucrative than a 2026 Winter Games but DeFrantz said the team are looking carefully at all the information available.

"The information on how much money a Summer and Winter Games makes is not something we need to research in depth because that information is already out there in the public domain," she said.

"The key factors for a bid are whether you have the facilities in place or need to build them, what will happen to those facilities after the Games and whether the type of investment involved for a Games makes sense for a city and a country.

"So the variables are obvious and the information is not secret.

"The question is how to make the right decision with information you have available and that is what we are trying to do."

An American bid for the Games became a very real prospect in May this year when the USOC finally reached an agreement with the IOC over their high-profile revenue-sharing dispute.

The dispute had caused New York's bid for the 2012 Games and Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games to falter embarrassingly.

But, after a new revenue-sharing deal was reached during SportAccord in Quebec City in May, the door was opened for a successful American bid.

USOC chairman Larry Probst and chief executive Scott Blackmun are set to give a press briefing following the conclusion board meeting where they will reveal the findings of the Working Group.

Insidethegames

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's bound to spark a bit of debate, but noted an interesting comment (bolded below) in a USA Today story on the USOC report:

...

The U.S. Olympic Committee is considering bidding for the 2024 Summer Olympics or the Winter Games in 2026. A USOC committee exploring both options will report its findings to the group's board of directors at a meeting Thursday.

...

Given the larger scale and cost of hosting a Summer Games, the contenders could be far fewer, said Fraser Bullock, the chief operating officer of the 2002 Salt Lake Organizing Committee and an advisor to the recent proposal.

...

Bullock speculated that perhaps only New York or Los Angeles could handle the magnitude of a Summer Games. He pointed to the lack of an Olympic Stadium in New York as an issue. Dallas has indicated interest in the past.

Full story: USA Today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think this decision could go either way. It's interesting to read that a bid is "imminent." That means they're not planning on sitting out both races. The fact that Anita's talking about existing vs. new venues makes me think they must be looking at very specific cities. You can't conduct that type of analysis generically. To me, this supports my hypothesis that once they determine which Games they are targeting they probably already have a clear idea of who the contenders are -- or perhaps even of the identity of the candidate -- though I don't expect them to say so publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think this decision could go either way. It's interesting to read that a bid is "imminent." That means they're not planning on sitting out both races. The fact that Anita's talking about existing vs. new venues makes me think they must be looking at very specific cities. You can't conduct that type of analysis generically. To me, this supports my hypothesis that once they determine which Games they are targeting they probably already have a clear idea of who the contenders are -- or perhaps even of the identity of the candidate -- though I don't expect them to say so publicly.

Well the decision doesn't mean they will go with what they decide. I think the USA should bid for 2024 and if they fail bid for 2026

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it seems that this latest news piece doesn't answer much than what has been discussed at great lengths already at the nearly 300 pages of this thread.

The fact that DeFrantz talks about "existing" venues vs. new ones & also "gauging" the other dynamics that are crucially involved in this complex process, & Bullock talking about how the Summer Olympics have seemingly outgrown most U.S. cities other than maybe NYC or LA says one of two things to me:

Either A) the USOC is leaning more towards a 2026 Winter bid, considering there are 3 potential cities waiting to jump at the chance, or B) Los Angeles seems to be the likely candidate in consideration, considering the content in this article, if the USOC is thinking 2024 Summer. Nothing too groundbreaking here, imho, other than the usual ambiguity.



*the emoticon wasn't intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC doesn't need to propose a temporary stadium. The MLS has said many times that they want to build a stadium in the city, so perhaps that could be tied into a bid for the games. Also, if the MLS stadium in Queens idea fell apart, perhaps we would see the stadium in Brooklyn. The borough president of Brooklyn stated that he thinks a soccer stadium belongs in Brooklyn, I'm pretty sure he would support a campaign for an olympic stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you that there has not been a peep about a future Olympic bid here in Chicago. I speculate if any city would be put forward for a 2024 bid, it is going to be LA.

Ditto for New York. If something were going on here, I have a feeling we'd have heard at least something about it already

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it only convinced 18 voters; and not the other 85 or so. So, whaddya think?

You know those voters were evaluating more than the stadium plan. Their votes were not cast on the basis of that one issue. In fact, I doubt a single vote was cast for that reason.

I can tell you that there has not been a peep about a future Olympic bid here in Chicago. I speculate if any city would be put forward for a 2024 bid, it is going to be LA.

LA hasn't said a word about it either (apart from one news story that was no more substantial than any of the stories that have mentioned Chicago). Plus, California is flirting with bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might behind the scenes that its being kept extremely secretive. Did we know Las Vegas submitted until it actually made news? No so..

I thought there was a bit of noise coming from them even before they submitted - just that no-one thought they were serious.

So it sounds like the committee recommended "ongoing exploration" with no commitment to either 2024 or 2026: http://www.miamihera...-potential.html

Lets try that again: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/20/3150856/ap-sources-usoc-keeping-potential.html

Great ... back to speculating on nothing again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it sounds like the committee recommended "ongoing exploration" with no commitment to either 2024 or 2026: http://www.miamihera...-potential.html

Lets try that again: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/20/3150856/ap-sources-usoc-keeping-potential.html

Given what we're seeing, I don't think this could come as a big surprise. Chicago and New York don't seem to be out there. California has money issues so that hurts both Los Angeles and San Francisco. And who knows what the USOC would seriously consider below that.

Reading between the lines here would seem to indicate that the USOC is probably not that confident about what they have to work with going into 2024. It's not like they have to make their intentions known at this point, let alone mention any cities, but this non-committal stance of theirs definitely has me wondering if they believe they have a decent shot at landing 2024.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^agreed, Q01. I can't see this continued procrastination as a good sign for a complex Summer bid campaign that should be well under way in two years time. But yet at the same time it's keeping the options open for the Winter bid after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^agreed, Q01. I can't see this continued procrastination as a good sign for a complex Summer bid campaign that should be well under way in two years time. But yet at the same time it's keeping the options open for the Winter bid after that.

Neither do I. We presume the USOC is about to make a public statement about their bid intentions. If they're still on the fence about 2024, and it seems like they are, then if you're someone in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles, now is the time to "make noise" and make it clear to the USOC that you're interested, just like the Winter candidates have done on a regular basis. I think we all agree that the USOC's tact to have a slightly less open bid process is probably the right way to play it. At some point though they're going to have to get a little focused on their goals, and I think they need to start doing that sooner rather than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...