Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Minneapolis wouldn't even get the 18 votes that Chicago got in the first round. I doubt it would "Frost Chicago's Balls"

 

You didn't read what I said. I said Chicago's balls would be frosted if little 'ol Minneapolis went for and got the U.S. bid. I didn't make any comments about us then doing better than Chicago at the international level. (Although we couldn't do WORSE...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

You didn't read what I said. I said Chicago's balls would be frosted if little 'ol Minneapolis went for and got the U.S. bid. I didn't make any comments about us then doing better than Chicago at the international level. (Although we couldn't do WORSE...)

If Chicago wasn't in the running, I'm guessing they wouldn't give 2 craps who wins it. Even if it's Minneapolis.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

History also tells us that Atlanta isn't all that well revered in Olympic circles either. Whenever people talk about "amazing" Games, Barcelona & Sydney always seem to top the list. Atlanta is hardly ever mentioned. Even the IOC wasn't all that impressed.

Simply bcuz an "underdog" American city won the 1996 Games doesn't automatically mean that it could happen again. On the contrary, Atlanta's lackluster history could spell "North Atlanta" for a Minneapolis "bid" (if it even gets that far) to the IOC. Even Atlanta beat Minneapolis in the 1996 domestic competition.

And also simply bcuz the 2020 Olympic bid race seems to be in dire straights, doesn't automatically equate that 2024 would be hard pressed too. It appears this early on that those Games could be well contested. And if Toronto decides to join in as well, & if the USOC is actually dumb enough to go with a city like Minneapolis, if they even decide to bid, I can't see the IOC passing over Canada's premier city (even despite Vancouver 2010) for Atlanta 2.0. if North America is actually where they want to go.

I really don't get some of this love affair with some people with third rate American cities, when other countries are bidding with their top-rate cities.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

History also tells us that Atlanta isn't all that well revered in Olympic circles either. Whenever people talk about "amazing" Games, Barcelona & Sydney always seem to top the list. Atlanta is hardly ever mentioned. Even the IOC wasn't all that impressed.

Simply bcuz an "underdog" American city won the 1996 Games doesn't automatically mean that it could happen again. On the contrary, Atlanta's lackluster history could spell "North Atlanta" for a Minneapolis "bid" (if it even gets that far) to the IOC. Even Atlanta beat Minneapolis in the 1996 domestic competition.

And also simply bcuz the 2020 Olympic bid race seems to be in dire straights, doesn't automatically equate that 2024 would be hard pressed too. It appears this early on that those Games could be well contested. And if Toronto decides to join in as well, & if the USOC is actually dumb enough to go with a city like Minneapolis, if they even decide to bid, I can't see the IOC passing over Canada's premier city (even despite Vancouver 2010) for Atlanta 2.0. if North America is actually where they want to go.

I really don't get some of this love affair with some people with third rate American cities, when other countries are bidding with their top-rate cities.

Do you EVER take any time off from your busy high-school schedule to NOT post on the Gamesbids forums? ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History also tells us that Atlanta isn't all that well revered in Olympic circles either. Whenever people talk about "amazing" Games, Barcelona & Sydney always seem to top the list. Atlanta is hardly ever mentioned. Even the IOC wasn't all that impressed.

I really don't get some of this love affair with some people with third rate American cities, when other countries are bidding with their top-rate cities.

At least Atlanta HAD an Olympics. Which is more than I can say for your precious, underachieving Chicago. :D

FYI, stop frosting this guy's balls, seriously... ;)

LOL. Don't you have some stained, crooked teeth you need to get taken care of?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for starters, I highly doubt that Atlanta would even be interested again so soon. Second, they didn't exactly leave a gleaming, lasting impression upon the world. And thirdly, Atlanta, really? So soon after 1996?

If many people say that even Los Angeles is still too soon after 1984, then how would Atlanta be received by the broader so soon again? If the U.S. is going to have another repeat host it should be L.A., not Atlanta. I also doubt that the IOC would really want to go back to the U.S. "South" so soon anyway. They didn't exactly leave there with raving reviews.

I was not basing this assessment on whether or not Atlanta had the best reviews or has the best perceptions of 1996 - but rather practicality. If the US has the muscle for 2024 we are all lead to believe, then surely it can get away with a second tier city more than other countries can?

I'm not the biggest fan of Atlanta 1996 - but from a practical perspective - there is no reason why Atlanta can't be ruled out for 2024 - even if it is only 28 years later. It wouldn't be ideal, but it is not entirely impossible. The USOC issuing Atlanta an invitation to express interest in 2024 (even though they have expressed none) is reflection of this.

IF the USOC is faced with a situation with interest from only Minneapolis, Atlanta, Tulsa, Las Vegas and perhaps (as an example) a vastly spread out plan from SF-Bay area - then surely Atlanta would be the best option. While I doubt its chances compared to LA or Chicago - it is a city with a distinctly positive Olympic legacy (despite perceptions of the Games themselves) that would not be a total write off. Up against Durban, Dubai or Madrid (or even any of the 2020 bidders), it would have certain potential. I know people are mocking me for this opinion, but I think its pretty ridiculous to rule this out.

Admittedly, if I was right and Atlanta was the outcome, I'd be disappointed and hoping like hell that Paris or Durban put forward a stella bid, but if the US really wants 2024, and none of its alpha cities step forward, will it settle with the second tier locations that have potential?

Edited by runningrings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not basing this assessment on whether or not Atlanta had the best reviews or has the best perceptions of 1996 - but rather practicality. If the US has the muscle for 2024 we are all lead to believe, then surely it can get away with a second tier city more than other countries can?

I'm not the biggest fan of Atlanta 1996 - but from a practical perspective - there is no reason why Atlanta can't be ruled out for 2024 - even if it is only 28 years later. It wouldn't be ideal, but it is not entirely impossible. The USOC issuing Atlanta an invitation to express interest in 2024 (even though they have expressed none) is reflection of this.

IF the USOC is faced with a situation with interest from only Minneapolis, Atlanta, Tulsa, Las Vegas and perhaps (as an example) a vastly spread out plan from SF-Bay area - then surely Atlanta would be the best option. While I doubt its chances compared to LA or Chicago - it is a city with a distinctly positive Olympic legacy (despite perceptions of the Games themselves) that would not be a total write off. Up against Durban, Dubai or Madrid (or even any of the 2020 bidders), it would have certain potential. I know people are mocking me for this opinion, but I think its pretty ridiculous to rule this out.

Admittedly, if I was right and Atlanta was the outcome, I'd be disappointed and hoping like hell that Paris or Durban put forward a stella bid, but if the US really wants 2024, and none of its alpha cities step forward, will it settle with the second tier locations that have potential?

[sarcasm] Sure, Atlanta would be a very practical Olympic host. They built a beautiful Olympic Stadium. No reason they can't hold another track and field competi... oh wait, that's right.[/sarcasm]

The number 1 issue that U.S. cities struggle with is their main stadium. And Atlanta, having converted Olympic Stadium to baseball, is in the same position as every other city in that they'd lack a primary track & field venue. To compound matters, they're in talks to build a brand new stadium for the Falcons that will not be suitable for track & field, so would Atlanta be willing to build yet another stadium to try and attract another Olympics? They have all these hurdles (not to mention the aquatics venue.. not sure how easy that would be to re-expand to FINA standards) plus their 1996 venue plan was fairly spread out. So even if Atlanta hadn't hosted in `96, I don't know what they'd bring to the table here. They are so far from ideal that yes, it's pretty close to impossible, particularly for 2024. The USOC issuing Atlanta an invitation only means they're 1 of the 25 largest cities in the country.

If the USOC was left with the list of cities you mentioned, they wouldn't bid. Atlanta probably wouldn't even be the best of those options and if they were, then I can't see the USOC putting them forward. You're right, I absolutely am mocking you. I don't think it's impossible the USOC could win with a 2nd tier city, but Atlanta has about as much chance of hosting the 2024 Olympics as I do of winning an Olympic medal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[sarcasm] Sure, Atlanta would be a very practical Olympic host. They built a beautiful Olympic Stadium. No reason they can't hold another track and field competi... oh wait, that's right.[/sarcasm]

The number 1 issue that U.S. cities struggle with is their main stadium. And Atlanta, having converted Olympic Stadium to baseball, is in the same position as every other city in that they'd lack a primary track & field venue. To compound matters, they're in talks to build a brand new stadium for the Falcons that will not be suitable for track & field, so would Atlanta be willing to build yet another stadium to try and attract another Olympics? They have all these hurdles (not to mention the aquatics venue.. not sure how easy that would be to re-expand to FINA standards) plus their 1996 venue plan was fairly spread out. So even if Atlanta hadn't hosted in `96, I don't know what they'd bring to the table here. They are so far from ideal that yes, it's pretty close to impossible, particularly for 2024. The USOC issuing Atlanta an invitation only means they're 1 of the 25 largest cities in the country.

If the USOC was left with the list of cities you mentioned, they wouldn't bid. Atlanta probably wouldn't even be the best of those options and if they were, then I can't see the USOC putting them forward. You're right, I absolutely am mocking you. I don't think it's impossible the USOC could win with a 2nd tier city, but Atlanta has about as much chance of hosting the 2024 Olympics as I do of winning an Olympic medal.

My thoughts are that if Atlanta sees the benefits of attempting to bring the Games back, then an Olympics could be factored into the Falcons Stadium proposal. The stadium issue seems to be the achilles heel of all US cities - at least with Atlanta there appears to be an opportunity, with a relatively significant US city, with an existing Olympic legacy, looking to build a new stadium. There is a great deal of land around central Atlanta ripe for redevelopment, which could accommodate venues, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the downtown area. Sure, there are hurdles to be faced, but all US cities have them.

From the perspective of an Urban Planner, I find the prospect of Atlanta intriguing.

Obviously I can see (and am aware) of the great deal of cons to Atlanta, but there are also some positives that I feel are being too easily dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that if Atlanta sees the benefits of attempting to bring the Games back, then an Olympics could be factored into the Falcons Stadium proposal. The stadium issue seems to be the achilles heel of all US cities - at least with Atlanta there appears to be an opportunity, with a relatively significant US city, with an existing Olympic legacy, looking to build a new stadium. There is a great deal of land around central Atlanta ripe for redevelopment, which could accommodate venues, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the downtown area. Sure, there are hurdles to be faced, but all US cities have them.

From the perspective of an Urban Planner, I find the prospect of Atlanta intriguing.

Obviously I can see (and am aware) of the great deal of cons to Atlanta, but there are also some positives that I feel are being too easily dismissed.

The same can be said for Los Angeles. It has an olympic legacy and a much brighter one then Atlanta. It also has more venues and a wide amount of public support. There's a good chance the LA coliseum will be renovated so an olympic bid could be mixed into that. Not to mention two new NFL stadiums are going to be built in the area. Also NYC is in the works of getting a new MLS stadium in the area. Bottom line, I think the stadium needs to be permanent, it can't be taken down 2 months after the games.

PS: I'm not trying to break hearts but I doubt Chicago is bidding. http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/2024-Chicago-Olympics-Bid-Mayor-Still-Says-No-191870591.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not basing this assessment on whether or not Atlanta had the best reviews or has the best perceptions of 1996 - but rather practicality. If the US has the muscle for 2024 we are all lead to believe, then surely it can get away with a second tier city more than other countries can?

I'm not the biggest fan of Atlanta 1996 - but from a practical perspective - there is no reason why Atlanta can't be ruled out for 2024 - even if it is only 28 years later. It wouldn't be ideal, but it is not entirely impossible. The USOC issuing Atlanta an invitation to express interest in 2024 (even though they have expressed none) is reflection of this.

You may not base your assessment on those things, but since when does the IOC vote purely based on "practicality". You yourself have said in other threads that you're not that gung-ho on Tokyo 2020 bcuz they're a previous host, so what makes you think that the IOC would be all that excited on Atlanta again a mere 28 years later. At least Tokyo 2020 would be 56 years later from 1964 (twice as long). Not to mention that Tokyo is Japan's largest city & capital of the world's 3rd largest economy, & a very intriguing city at that, imho.

The USOC also sending Atlanta an 'invitation' doesn't reflect too much either, considering they also sent letters to Rochester, Tulsa, Memphis, Jacksonville, St. Louis & Indianapolis, cities that certainly aren't up to the task of a 21st century Summer Olympic Games. I'm sure the IOC doesn't really care how practical an Atlanta bid would be either. Sorry, but it seems quite clear now that you're basing your view on the subject is based on your profession & partiality. Something the IOC is quite an expert on themselves, but they wouldn't be looking at another Atlanta bid with your same type of 'intrigue'. On the contrary, they'd be looking the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Chips, I couldn't get your link to work, but I did find this one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-usoc-sounding-out-25-cities-on-2024-summer-games-bid-20130219,0,2561812.story

Very sad. I had hoped that over the last few months something might have changed Emanuel's mind, but apparently not. I still believe Chicago is the best host for the next American Summer Games. Very disappointing they don't see it that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sad about this too. I think Chicago would make a magnificent Olympic host, and the obvious American city to be next (seeing all accounts say NY is not practical).

Moving on from Chicago - I'm interested in Philadelphia. It could be the US's answer to London, with the huge potential for urban renewal legacy, especially along the water front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that if Atlanta sees the benefits of attempting to bring the Games back, then an Olympics could be factored into the Falcons Stadium proposal. The stadium issue seems to be the achilles heel of all US cities - at least with Atlanta there appears to be an opportunity, with a relatively significant US city, with an existing Olympic legacy, looking to build a new stadium. There is a great deal of land around central Atlanta ripe for redevelopment, which could accommodate venues, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the downtown area. Sure, there are hurdles to be faced, but all US cities have them.

From the perspective of an Urban Planner, I find the prospect of Atlanta intriguing.

Obviously I can see (and am aware) of the great deal of cons to Atlanta, but there are also some positives that I feel are being too easily dismissed.

If Atlanta isn't interested in pursuing another Olympics though (and I think it's pretty understandable why they wouldn't be), than everything else is moot. If they hadn't already hosted an Olympics, then maybe it would be something they would look into. That they had, regardless of the perception of how successful or unsuccessful those Olympics were, it just adds a major obstacle towards their winning a bid that the risks far out-weigh the positives here.

As for the stadium, that's probably not going to work. The current price tag for the stadium is already close to a billion dollars (last I saw it was $948 million). A lot of that money is going to be contributed by Falcons' owner Arthur Blank. He'll want that stadium designed to his specifications so that it's best suited for his football team. So how much money is it going to cost the city of Atlanta to build the stadium with the provision for a 400-meter track and then, before and after the Olympics, to ensure the stadium is as friendly for NFL football as it can be. All of this going beyond the issue of timing.. building this stadium right around the time of the vote for 2024. IMO, that makes this less possible, not more possible to work.

If Atlanta were closer to being Olympics-ready (somewhat like Los Angeles, which is much closer than Atlanta), I'd give them a slightly better shot. But that they're no further along than most other U.S. cities, the chances of their landing a 2nd Olympics are so remote, than I do believe they can be dismissed, especially until we hear from them they're into it.

It wasn't just fated for Chicago. I don't know why people here cry for Chicago. I didn't think it was such a great bid; and neither did the IOC. So someone must be off.

Even if it was the greatest bid ever.. if they don't want it, then what can you do. You can't force a city to be interested in the Olympics. It's easy for us Olympic fans to say that Chicago would be a great host, but they may not see it that way. Much like New York, it seems like they took their 1 shot and not they're moving on without the Olympics, and you certainly can't fault them for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco is starting to establish a foundation to raise money for a bid. The mayor is also on board.

Where did u get this news? I don't see it in today's Chronicle.

Anyway, if Lee wants 2 go for it; great. But the big question still is, is it in the budget to even spend $180 mil for a temporary Oly stadium? For the other major venues, going from the 2016 plans, with a new Warriors arena in SF and an expansion of Moscone, basketball from the 2016 plan can now go to the new Pier arena in SF; gymnastics could possibly be moved from the HP Pavilion in San Jose to Moscone. So it will be a much better plan for SF. But they will still need the Oly stadium.

Am off to sea tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it was the greatest bid ever.. if they don't want it, then what can you do. You can't force a city to be interested in the Olympics. It's easy for us Olympic fans to say that Chicago would be a great host, but they may not see it that way. Much like New York, it seems like they took their 1 shot and not they're moving on without the Olympics, and you certainly can't fault them for doing so.

Totally agree with this. Also find it interesting, that Chicago was so quick to announce that they weren't interested again whatsoever. They gave it their all for 2016, & felt stung by the very early exit. Had they been in the final round with Rio instead of Madrid, I'm willing to bet that a bid might've been more in the works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree with this. Also find it interesting, that Chicago was so quick to announce that they weren't interested again whatsoever. They gave it their all for 2016, & felt stung by the very early exit. Had they been in the final round with Rio instead of Madrid, I'm willing to bet that a bid might've been more in the works.

If true, that raises an interesting point. Does the IOC's voting system inherently work against its own interests. Could a voting system be devised which provided the same outcome (Rio 2016) but which wouldn't have left a sour taste in Chicago? I can't think of one off the top of my head to be honest. If you end up with a small share of the vote you end up with a small share of the vote. But the sheer shock and drama of "going out first" seems to be the thing that hurt more than the rejection. So could a voting system be devised that didn't lead to the outright dejection Chicagoans felt, one that had it been in place would now see us talking about Chicago 2024?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And there were those reports where several IOC members were in 'gasp' when Rogge said after the first round that Chicago was elminated from further voting. Another bid still may have not come into fruition, but I think that the waters would've at least been tested again.



..instead of an outright 'no' as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...