Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here are some laughs for you all to make you feel better today,Funniest and most pathetic pipeline US bid cities:

At school today some friends revealed their crazy ideas of Olympic host cities, these are the top 10 funniest.

10. Tampa

9. Pittsburgh

8. Cincinnati

7. San Diego

6. Columbus

5. Oklahoma City

4. Tulsa (yes it gets worse)

3. Baton Rouge (keep going)

2. Mobile

1. Detroit (The sad part is that a bunch of my friends agreed with it)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bernham, a few points:

1) I take issue with the idea that nobody remembers the LA games. The games are twelve years older than the Atlanta games and the media has advanced light years ahead in recent years so maybe people don't remember them as vividly as the more recent 96 games (particularly the young'uns on this board who grew up in the 90s/early 00s), but it's not like people shrugged off another games in LA because they were occurring in one of the country's largest cities.

2) I don't see in the slightest how Atlanta was a new modern city in 1996.

3) To get the games, people have to want to come to the host city. Try to tell an IOC member from Europe that Austin would make a better host city than New York because its "newer" and see how they laugh at you. Also tell them that they should go to Austin in the July/August heat and see what they say.

And re: people saying two pages back that the US should only bid when they know they can win: good luck waiting for a surefire winner. There is always competition for these bids and it's a crapshoot to predict what will be the factor that determines the host city (who'd have known four years ago that Madrid/Spain would be tanking economically, Turkey would be politically unstable, and Japan would almost have a nuclear meltdown?). If the US can find a good bidder, I still say that they should bid. It may lose and that would stink, but it takes some risk to win the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say is that the USOC rather than going for a city where the Olympics seems like something old choose a city that would be memorable and new. The only city out of the ones I mentioned that could host the Olympics in the future is Austin the others were used to say how the Olympics need to be in a city that would help the entire nation economically (not that those cities would).

I've lurked on these forums for years - since at least 2007 and perhaps before. I think this might be my first post. Anyway. I live in Austin. I believe I can say there is about zero chance Austin would consider a bid for the Olympics in the next 10 years or so. We got F1 and that was super-controversial locally. Now we have the X-Games, which seems less controversial. Anyway. I think it's laughable to think that we could host for the foreseeable future - or that our city government would be interested in hosting. I follow local politics closely and we'd have to see a sea change there for that to happen. Perhaps with the onset of single-member districts, I don't know. But right now it's just completely laughable to contemplate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bernham, a few points:

1) I take issue with the idea that nobody remembers the LA games. The games are twelve years older than the Atlanta games and the media has advanced light years ahead in recent years so maybe people don't remember them as vividly as the more recent 96 games (particularly the young'uns on this board who grew up in the 90s/early 00s), but it's not like people shrugged off another games in LA because they were occurring in one of the country's largest cities.

2) I don't see in the slightest how Atlanta was a new modern city in 1996.

3) To get the games, people have to want to come to the host city. Try to tell an IOC member from Europe that Austin would make a better host city than New York because its "newer" and see how they laugh at you. Also tell them that they should go to Austin in the July/August heat and see what they say.

And re: people saying two pages back that the US should only bid when they know they can win: good luck waiting for a surefire winner. There is always competition for these bids and it's a crapshoot to predict what will be the factor that determines the host city (who'd have known four years ago that Madrid/Spain would be tanking economically, Turkey would be politically unstable, and Japan would almost have a nuclear meltdown?). If the US can find a good bidder, I still say that they should bid. It may lose and that would stink, but it takes some risk to win the Games.

1. Reporting or not, the LA games wre held during a strong economic time for the US and a time when the longest war of the twentieth century was ending. There were many things about LA that made them memorable to those who remember, but people assume that cities like LA have hosted the games and so it's not as significant as when a newer city host.

2. When Atlanta won the games in 1989 the city was viewed as the Southern Big Apple and was starting to grow; this made it a new city so to speak.

3. No doubt in my mind that a want to visit plays a major role; I'm not say Austin should bid, but that if the city wanted to, was willing to invest in the time and infrastructure needed, and made the city a tempting city they could host the games in the future.

I've lurked on these forums for years - since at least 2007 and perhaps before. I think this might be my first post. Anyway. I live in Austin. I believe I can say there is about zero chance Austin would consider a bid for the Olympics in the next 10 years or so. We got F1 and that was super-controversial locally. Now we have the X-Games, which seems less controversial. Anyway. I think it's laughable to think that we could host for the foreseeable future - or that our city government would be interested in hosting. I follow local politics closely and we'd have to see a sea change there for that to happen. Perhaps with the onset of single-member districts, I don't know. But right now it's just completely laughable to contemplate.

Like I said; not in the foreseeable future, your wave of change, and with large community support they could host.

Well, for starters, look who's saying that Austin would make a good host. A 15 year-old, newbie.

Enuff said.

Does it matter? I have been reading this board for a while now and I feel informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say is that the USOC rather than going for a city where the Olympics seems like something old choose a city that would be memorable and new. The only city out of the ones I mentioned that could host the Olympics in the future is Austin the others were used to say how the Olympics need to be in a city that would help the entire nation economically (not that those cities would). Those large cultural cities won't do crap for our nation. As for Atlanta the goods of their games outweigh the bombs effect, but it is still something that keeps it in peoples mind.

A games in LA/NYC/Chicago seems normal (which is good, the games should feel natural) but for the US it is too normal that citizens notice it when it happens and when it's over it leaves their mind. Atlanta at the time was a new major city (I would compare it to modern Dallas). Being a major city the games fit and felt natural, but the games felt new; people saw Atlanta as a new city and host and it was exciting. LA seemed like the everyday grind; nothing new, nothing special. The only way that this could be reversed (in my opinion) is if New York bid and went all out with their games, both visually and organization wise. Thanks for reading and hope this did not make you more stupid.

Don't think I'm stupider, just questioning why I'm arguing with a teenager here that thinks he knows what he's talking about, but probably doesn't.

Let's get some perspective.. you're 15 years old. That means you weren't even alive yet when the Olympics were in Atlanta (wow, I suddenly feel a lot older). So I don't think you're in a great position to tell us how those Olympics were remembered relative to another Olympics. And you're showing a little teenage arrogance here that you think you know better than the rest of us. Clearly you're not as informed as you think you are, so let us help a bit.

The `84 Olympics came on the heels of Munich `72 (athletes murdered by terrorists), Montreal `76 (a city left in debt for 30 years), and Moscow `80 (marred by a major boycott). Many were questioning if the Olympics would survive. Los Angeles steps in, hosts 1 of the most successful Olympics of all time and is largely credited with saving the Olympic movement. Atlanta comes along 12 years later and while we don't need to get into the merits of those games since that will start even more arguments here, yes the Olympics had a somewhat transformative effect on the city, but a lot of people viewed it as the Games of the American South. Not necessarily the Olympics that belonged to the country. And I don't know anyone who has ever referred to Atlanta as the Southern Big Apple. The region had been growing steadily for years, so it's not like it was some undiscovered treasure when the Olympics were awarded in 1990 (not 1989).

I'm still failing to understand you're "people assume bigger cities have hosted the Olympics" logic where smaller cities should host. That's not license for those cities to make a case for the Olympics. Your statement "Those large cultural cities won't do crap for our nation" may be true in terms of the Olympics, but again, what exactly would an Olympics in Austin, Texas do for the nation? And an Olympics in a big city is too normal? Then in your next statement, you say it should be New York. None of that makes sense.

Beyond all that though, here's the problem.. those other countries out there are putting up their biggest and brightest cities. Sydney, Beijing, London, Tokyo, etc. If the USOC were to put up Austin or New Orleans or some other smaller city, how are they supposed to compete with an Istanbul or a Paris? That's not even a competition. The IOC is going to want the biggest, most diverse, most multi-cultural cities they can get offered. That's what they will find most appealing. You're not going to get that from these C list cities, especially when they're competing against A list cities from around the world. And especially with a city like Austin.. if the IOC wants to experience Texas, why Austin and not Dallas or Houston? Either way, unless they pulled about $100 billion out of their collective asses, Austin is not hosting an Olympics. Even though, they still wouldn't host. The fact that anyone here has to explain this to you might be 1 of the bigger wastes of time for us here lately, and that's saying something given some of the nonsense we've seen here in the last few months

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it matter? I have been reading this board for a while now and I feel informed.

Obviously not informed enough if you think that Austin (& New Orleans) could host. Even civic leaders there said back in February, when the USOC letter was sent out to the 35 cities, that Austin "could 'not' do it alone. That it would have to be a 'state-wide' effort". Nevermlnd the fact that the city wouldn't be electable in the eyes of the international community in the first place.

Yes, Atlanta was a growing city back then & had the title of "the Big Apple of the South". But it's Atlanta's lackluster performance in 1996 that would make the IOC leery of a similar situation again.

On technically merit alone, though, the only Texan cities that could pull it off are Dallas & Houston. Established, full-service cities in their own right. And even those two would be pushing the envelope. Anything else below that is a pipedream & only few notches above a Tulsa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think I'm stupider, just questioning why I'm arguing with a teenager here that thinks he knows what he's talking about, but probably doesn't.

Let's get some perspective.. you're 15 years old. That means you weren't even alive yet when the Olympics were in Atlanta (wow, I suddenly feel a lot older). So I don't think you're in a great position to tell us how those Olympics were remembered relative to another Olympics. And you're showing a little teenage arrogance here that you think you know better than the rest of us. Clearly you're not as informed as you think you are, so let us help a bit.

The `84 Olympics came on the heels of Munich `72 (athletes murdered by terrorists), Montreal `76 (a city left in debt for 30 years), and Moscow `80 (marred by a major boycott). Many were questioning if the Olympics would survive. Los Angeles steps in, hosts 1 of the most successful Olympics of all time and is largely credited with saving the Olympic movement. Atlanta comes along 12 years later and while we don't need to get into the merits of those games since that will start even more arguments here, yes the Olympics had a somewhat transformative effect on the city, but a lot of people viewed it as the Games of the American South. Not necessarily the Olympics that belonged to the country. And I don't know anyone who has ever referred to Atlanta as the Southern Big Apple. The region had been growing steadily for years, so it's not like it was some undiscovered treasure when the Olympics were awarded in 1990 (not 1989).

I'm still failing to understand you're "people assume bigger cities have hosted the Olympics" logic where smaller cities should host. That's not license for those cities to make a case for the Olympics. Your statement "Those large cultural cities won't do crap for our nation" may be true in terms of the Olympics, but again, what exactly would an Olympics in Austin, Texas do for the nation? And an Olympics in a big city is too normal? Then in your next statement, you say it should be New York. None of that makes sense.

Beyond all that though, here's the problem.. those other countries out there are putting up their biggest and brightest cities. Sydney, Beijing, London, Tokyo, etc. If the USOC were to put up Austin or New Orleans or some other smaller city, how are they supposed to compete with an Istanbul or a Paris? That's not even a competition. The IOC is going to want the biggest, most diverse, most multi-cultural cities they can get offered. That's what they will find most appealing. You're not going to get that from these C list cities, especially when they're competing against A list cities from around the world. And especially with a city like Austin.. if the IOC wants to experience Texas, why Austin and not Dallas or Houston? Either way, unless they pulled about $100 billion out of their collective asses, Austin is not hosting an Olympics. Even though, they still wouldn't host. The fact that anyone here has to explain this to you might be 1 of the bigger wastes of time for us here lately, and that's saying something given some of the nonsense we've seen here in the last few months

Thank you for the history lesson (I know what happened from Munich onward though), I appreciate your time; didn't mean to come off as arrogant. My logic was supposed to come down to the fact that the US is a very hard nation to get a host out of. They need to pick a city the fully represents the US and provides economic opportunities for the entire nation. As for the Austin and New Orleans - they were examples of cities that in the future could use the games to rebuild their cities and promote a global image.

The only real host I see coming from Texas is Houston, to me Dallas seems like a western Atlanta. Houston (or any Texas city) could celebrate the wild west and provide large economic growth for Texas and surrounding states. Something else I want to point out- in some articles I have read they list cities in the following order: " London, Moscow, Beijing, Paris, Sydney, Atlanta, and many other cities..." LA or Atlanta or both are always left out. Any thoughts on why that happens?

Obviously not informed enough if you think that Austin (& New Orleans) could host. Even civic leaders there said back in February, when the USOC letter was sent out to the 35 cities, that Austin "could 'not' do it alone. That it would have to be a 'state-wide' effort". Nevermlnd the fact that the city wouldn't be electable in the eyes of the international community in the first place.

Yes, Atlanta was a growing city back then & had the title of "the Big Apple of the South". But it's Atlanta's lackluster performance in 1996 that would make the IOC leery of a similar situation again.

On technically merit alone, though, the only Texan cities that could pull it off are Dallas & Houston. Established, full-service cities in their own right. And even those two would be pushing the envelope. Anything else below that is a pipedream & only few notches above a Tulsa.

I do not think they could host now, but in the future. Anything wrong with economic and urban hope? Not trying to be mean, but I say two minor cities and it's like I said Tulsa would host the best games ever (which is totally untrue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the history lesson (I know what happened from Munich onward though), I appreciate your time; didn't mean to come off as arrogant. My logic was supposed to come down to the fact that the US is a very hard nation to get a host out of. They need to pick a city the fully represents the US and provides economic opportunities for the entire nation. As for the Austin and New Orleans - they were examples of cities that in the future could use the games to rebuild their cities and promote a global image.

That's my whole point though.. you say you want a city that represents the entire nation. What about Austin and New Orleans will ever make them those particular cities over the alpha cities that the world associates us with already? And yes, the US is a very hard nation to get a host out of. But ask yourself why that is? It's not because Los Angeles doesn't represent the United States. Olympic bidding costs a lot of money. Unlike other countries with the national Olympic committee handles a lot of the funding, it doesn't work that way with the USOC. It's largely on the city to come up with the money. Plus, an Olympics requires things like a stadium with an athletics track and an aquatic center, among other things. Those aren't venues a city needs, so you need to find a city that can work that into their own urban planning. London was able to pull it off as other cities have before. If you're going to build all this infrastructure in a city that may or may not really need it, where would you rather have it? In a large metropolis like New York or a smaller city like Austin? If you're going to use the narrative of rebuilding and rejuvenating a city, why not put forth your larger cities. Look at London. Look at a city like Barcelona. It worked there. You keep talking about how the economy and population of a city like that might grow, but will a city like that ever be as large or internationally appealing as a New York or a Chicago? Probably not anytime in out lifetimes. There's nothing wrong with urban hope, but it is beyond a pipe dream to think these smaller cities that you're offering up will ever be big enough to be in the conversation for an Olympic bid. Again, if you're offering up a general theory how a small city might grow bigger, that's fine, but it's still poor ideology to think those types of cities are up and coming in the next few decades to the point they'll unseat the big boys of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It's just not happening, let alone soon enough to have an effect on the next round of U.S. Olympic bidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Countries #2, #5, #8, etc., etc. are offering, their PRIME A-1 cities (to name a few...Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo,Sydney, Madrid, Istanbul) and the richest country on the planet is going to offer Austin and New Orleans, etc.??? :blink::blink: Mr. B...it's a joke, right?? You ought to go back to the end of the line..

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

That's my whole point though.. you say you want a city that represents the entire nation. What about Austin and New Orleans will ever make them those particular cities over the alpha cities that the world associates us with already? And yes, the US is a very hard nation to get a host out of. But ask yourself why that is? It's not because Los Angeles doesn't represent the United States. Olympic bidding costs a lot of money. Unlike other countries with the national Olympic committee handles a lot of the funding, it doesn't work that way with the USOC. It's largely on the city to come up with the money. Plus, an Olympics requires things like a stadium with an athletics track and an aquatic center, among other things. Those aren't venues a city needs, so you need to find a city that can work that into their own urban planning. London was able to pull it off as other cities have before. If you're going to build all this infrastructure in a city that may or may not really need it, where would you rather have it? In a large metropolis like New York or a smaller city like Austin? If you're going to use the narrative of rebuilding and rejuvenating a city, why not put forth your larger cities. Look at London. Look at a city like Barcelona. It worked there. You keep talking about how the economy and population of a city like that might grow, but will a city like that ever be as large or internationally appealing as a New York or a Chicago? Probably not anytime in out lifetimes. There's nothing wrong with urban hope, but it is beyond a pipe dream to think these smaller cities that you're offering up will ever be big enough to be in the conversation for an Olympic bid. Again, if you're offering up a general theory how a small city might grow bigger, that's fine, but it's still poor ideology to think those types of cities are up and coming in the next few decades to the point they'll unseat the big boys of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It's just not happening, let alone soon enough to have an effect on the next round of U.S. Olympic bidding.

How can the Olympics not be urbanely integrated into smaller cities. Lets work with the theory that New Orleans became a city close to the likes of Barcelona pre games. The city bids and creates an Olympic Island with all venues (once again theory). After the games venues are turned into shops and homes are built, where temporary venues were parks now sit and small streams run through these parks. Some permanent venues are kept as a legacy and training facilities for athletes. Ten years after the games the island is a thriving part of the city. How is that not integration to the cities urban scene? This theory could work with any city, but i think it would prove more powerful for a minor city. London did just this and while London is an alpha city the games effect is looked upon well because it boosted the UK's economy. Imagine the benefits a well known minor city could have from hosting the games.

Countries #2, #5, #8, etc., etc. are offering, their PRIME A-1 cities (to name a few...Beijing, London, Rio, Tokyo,Sydney, Madrid, Istanbul) and the richest country on the planet is going to offer Austin and New Orleans, etc.??? :blink::blink: Mr. B...it's a joke, right?? You ought to go back to the end of the line..

Baron stop being pissed because I called you out in the Paris 2024 thread. I also guess you can add my post to your list of "post I took out of context".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron stop being pissed because I called you out in the Paris 2024 thread. I also guess you can add my post to your list of "post I took out of context".

I'm not pissed becuz of your Paris 2024 comment. But seeing that it came from you, I completely ignored it. Wasn't worth a spit of my time. I replied here becuz...and see with lengthy posts...I skip many parts...I gathered the gist of your posts on this thread, and it's really incredulous. Enuf said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not pissed becuz of your Paris 2024 comment. But seeing that it came from you, I completely ignored it. Wasn't worth a spit of my time. I replied here becuz...and see with lengthy posts...I skip many parts...I gathered the gist of your posts on this thread, and it's really incredulous. Enuf said.

Well sense you ignored it you missed a compliment which I guess you don't need from me anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The central problem with the US is that unlike other countries they don't have THE city. You could argue with me, but we don't have a London, Paris, Rome, Beijing, Sydney, or whatever international city you can come up with. All those cities have a NATION that would be effected by the games. How does San Francisco hosting help Mobile or Columbus? It doesn't. The US has many cities that are capable of hosting the games, but they do not have a single city. The only one that comes close is New York which does not seem interested and another loss would not help. The US can't pull a Barcelona because the cities that could use the Barcelona plan do not fit this misconception that only major US cities can host. And lastly it would not have truly national support like London 2012 and Paris 2012 had. The USOC needs to find a city that the entire nation will rally and they will not rally LA, Chicago, or New York. In most Americans eyes those cities get everything from scandals to major events and the Olympics would be nothing new; I'm willing to bet most Americans would think that it's not the first time New York hosted them. The American public does not give a s*** if New York/LA/Chicago hosts they would rather see a city that's never had an event or reputation like the games before. Take Atlanta for example - it was held 12 years after LA and most people fondly remember Atlanta(alot in part because of the bomb), but not LA. It's because Atlanta was new, it was fresh, and memorable LA while memorable for Olympic fans, California, and the IOC- the US doesn't even remember it. That's why the IOC should pick a new city like New Orleans or Austin and have them host the games; I guarantee that people will talk about those games, an NYC 2024 would not be remembered. I step off my soapbox.

Forgot to add that they do not remember LA'84 because it was nothing new or unusual for the city. People tend to remember unusual things more than what seems usual.

Again, I disagree with all the above.

The US has plenty of iconic cities -- an embarrassment of riches.

There's no such thing as "pulling a Barcelona." Barcelona had their unique Olympic experience and no other city in the world can or will have the same experience. No city will follow an identical pattern as any other city. There's obviously more than one way to stage successful Games, including some we have yet to discover.

As someone who lived through LA '84 and remembers it well I can tell you it absolutely changed the city and transformed the whole Olympic movement. YOU may not remember it because you are too young, but your assessment is totally off base.

For the most part, Atlanta is not remembered especially fondly, unless you're Baron.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


There's only about 4 cities that I think would be compelling enough for the IOC to pass over new territories and other exotic locales in order to give the US another turn. Those cities are NY, LA, Chicago and SF...DC would also make a decent candidate but the political undertone of a DC bid would overshadow the city's attributes. Australia, England and Japan all learned this same lesson, put your best foot forward. Australia put forward a bid for Brisbane, Melbourne, before finally succeeding with Sydney. England put forward bids for Birmingham, Manchester, then succeeded with London. Japan came up with a bid for Osaka before finally sticking with Tokyo. One would argue that the US failed putting forward bids for NY and Chicago, but there's no denying the odds were stacked against them and a lot of things went wrong that neither city had control over. First there was a lot of fatigue towards the US hosting 4 Olympics within a 22 year time period (Winter Olympics include) from 1980-2002, NY failing to secure the Jets stadium causing a last minute switch in venues, and the IOC/USOC tv revenue debacle that created a rift between the two organizing bodies which Chicago took the hit for. Midsize cities were once capable of pulling off the Olympics but LA '84 lifted the Olympics to a whole nother level. Some believe that Atlanta was a gift rewarded to the US due to LA's success and practically saving the Olympics. The Antwerps and Helsinkis of the world are no longer viable, the Summer Games are now on such a grand scale that most countries only have 1 city capable of handling such an event, typically including the financial support of the entire country which is so daunting even for some, the aftermath of Athens makes a great case for this, which is possibly why the IOC is still very reluctant to go to a place like South Africa. Rio might be a new frontier city but Brazil is now the 6th largest economy.



The US is a bit of a catch 22, unlike other countries, we're fortunate to have a handful of cities that are capable of producing a great bid that can match up against practically any other city in the world, but that just means the support of the entire country is too divided in order to rally under 1 candidate with the possible exception being NY, which is the Alpha of all Alpha cities on a level no lower than that of Tokyo, London and Paris. The only problem is that NY is showing little sign of interest, however MLS is looking for an Expansion team in NY with plans to build a stadium in Flushing Meadows, which to me would be the ideal location for an Olympic Park that are typical of most recent host cities. New Yorkers have too much going to really care for an Olympics in their city right now but if they can muster up support I believe they could be the leading candidate. Chicago's city leaders are showing no sign of interest in bidding after feeling rejected in the last Olympic race. Chicago imo is the most "American" of all the cities I mentioned. It's the one city that epitomizes that true major American city, which is probably due to it's location in the heartland while the other cities have major foreign influences being on the coasts, but Chicago has enough diversity to make visitors feel welcome. If Chicago can gather support again, another bid with a plan similar to the 2016 campaign would still give it a great shot against any foreign city. Both NY and Chicago already have the experience of being former candidates, so a city like Paris shouldn't have an advantage on either one. San Francisco is the city that visitors would love to visit for an Olympics, however the city's setting both poses as it's blessing and it's curse. With the bay being in the middle of the metro area and venues split between SF, the Peninsula, the East Bay and South Bay is a recipe for disaster, or atleast a logistical nightmare. There's also the dilemma of where the main stadium would be located, how to fund it, and what it's use would be after the games. The new Stanford Stadium is already built and the 49ers stadium is under construction in Santa Clara, the only option would be for a new Raiders stadium which means T&F plus opening/closing ceremonies would take place in Oakland and not SF. If Oakland is willing to relinquish top billing in order for the region to shine, it just might work, but Oakland has always had this inferiority complex with SF, having all the social events in SF and the cameras panning out to the city by the bay might make it difficult for SF and Oakland city leaders to coordinate their efforts.



Which all leads to the city I think with the best chance, LA. I know a lot here probably have this anywhere but LA mentality and too much too soon, but somehow LA manages to be the right candidate at the right time, when it comes to the Olympics, they practically have a love affair. The new IOC president wants future cities to make sustainable development a key priority, and what other city in the country is in most need of sustainable development? LA can run with the bid campain slogan something like "LA helped change the Olympics, now the Olympics can help change LA", it's almost written like a Hollywood script. The revitalization of the LA River can be the centerpiece of redeveloping LA, and many infrastructure projects such as the purple line subway extension, the Hollywood Freeway Cap, The 101 Freeway cap, bringing back Broadway, the downtown streetcar, the 405 tunnel, the airport lightrail extension, a new NFL stadium/team, a redeveloped Dodger stadium, more transit oriented developments, etc. Most of these are already underway but the Olympics would expedite all these projects and add a bunch more in the pipeline which is exactly what the Olympics want and LA can offer, a great legacy. Changing a city that once relied almost entirely on the automobile, to a city with brand new parks, more transit options, more people walking in the streets than sitting in their cars, and more people being involved in their communities. Most of the venues are newly built, although the main stadium for T& F plus opening/closing ceremonies might once again be the memorial coliseum, but the IOC has proven with Tokyo that they don't mind accepting a facelift compared to a brand new stadium, and it will be the only stadium to host 3 Olympiads. An NFL team or two might finally relocate to LA as a result since there will finally be a reason to construct a few new stadiums that doesn't involve the developers and team owners that are currently wrangling each other. There's no shortage of entertainment options, tourist attractions, and fun activities that are aside from the festivities that the Olympics naturally bring, so the city will present a very lively atmosphere. The IIOC have shown that they do follow trends, and by selecting Tokyo, 2 out of 3 successive Olympiads are now repeat cities. LA might seem fairly recent, but 1984 and 2024 will be 40 years apart, it's not that far from the 52 year gap between '32 and '84. It will be a new generation of spectators by then, it will be a much different atmosphere, LA has always been evolving but it can finally move forward, it just needs that push and the Olympics is that one thing that can push it. Public support will be fairly high I believe as Southern Californians love sports and outdoor activities, the support of the country will follow along once they're reassured that they won't be footing the bill for all the infrastructure projects as they are mostly under way already. So there it is, my vote goes for LA, but each of the 4 cities have a great chance if they decide to bid, any other US city would have a difficult time presenting a reason for the IOC to return to the US.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can the Olympics not be urbanely integrated into smaller cities. Lets work with the theory that New Orleans became a city close to the likes of Barcelona pre games. The city bids and creates an Olympic Island with all venues (once again theory). After the games venues are turned into shops and homes are built, where temporary venues were parks now sit and small streams run through these parks. Some permanent venues are kept as a legacy and training facilities for athletes. Ten years after the games the island is a thriving part of the city. How is that not integration to the cities urban scene? This theory could work with any city, but i think it would prove more powerful for a minor city. London did just this and while London is an alpha city the games effect is looked upon well because it boosted the UK's economy. Imagine the benefits a well known minor city could have from hosting the games.

Again, you can't skip forward in the process to where a minor city like New Olreans has already been awarded the Olympics. It doesn't work that way. New Orleans has to beat out the domestic competition for the USOC's nomination (which they're not going if a Los Angeles or a Philadelphia or a Dallas is bidding) and then go up against some of the biggest cities in the world to host the Olympics. What good does building all these venues do if you haven't been awarded the Olympics already? The IOC isn't looking for that type of urban renewal with a minor city. That's why London is such a success. They're one of biggest and most prominent cities in the world. Why would that effect be more powerful for a minor city? What is that going to do for a country's economy? If the IOC is going to have the Olympics transform a city, they'll want it to be a bigger one, not a smaller one. That's their selection criteria because of the amount of money and resources and infrastructure an Olympics requires. A minor city isn't going to be what they're looking for, so even if maybe in theory they could handle it (and you're not making a compelling case with your hypothetical New Orleans plan), they're not going to get selected for it in the first place.

You say imagine the benefits of a well known minor city could have from hosting the games? Well, how about the benefits of a well known MAJOR city could have from hosting the games. You think it would register throughout the world, let alone the UK if Manchester had been the Olympic city? I doubt it. The Summer Olympics are a once every 4 years event that a lot of cities around the world want to host. Because of that, the IOC has the luxury of only choosing the biggest and brightest cities to award them to. That's not changing anytime soon. That's why a minor city has no shot of beating a major city in a competition between the 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Austin and New Orleans - they were examples of cities that in the future could use the games to rebuild their cities and promote a global image.

What??? Why do you assume that Austin needs to be "rebuilt"? Have you ever been to Austin? What you are saying makes no sense. Not to mention that events like F1 are already giving Austin a global image.

Look, I'm an Olympics fanatic and the prospect of an Olympics in my city would be AMAZING. But I also don't delude myself that Austin would ever choose to be and even more, that it could win if it did bid.

We might have a few venues that could be used, mostly associated with UT, for example the Lee and Joe Jamail Aquatics Center. But so many of the venues would need to be built that it seems impossible. Plus the fact of our horrendous traffic/transit situation that our regional governments can never quite seem to work out for themselves. And not to mention the 100-degree temperatures throughout July, August, and even September. The forecast was for 97 degrees here today. I mean, why am I even talking about these impossible logistics when the whole idea is ludicrous.

Personally, I would love to see a Texas Olympics but if there is a city that should bid it is Houston. Houston is a city of immigrants, very diverse, and could use a bit of makeover in the world's eyes I think. One thing I will say, is that traveling in Europe, when you say you're from Texas, people are often surprisingly warm about it. They have that favorable "cowboy" impression of Texas. For that reason I'd like to dream Houston could work, just so I could go and volunteer for the Games, but honestly I don't think the USOC would ever choose Houston as the bidding city. So end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What??? Why do you assume that Austin needs to be "rebuilt"? Have you ever been to Austin? What you are saying makes no sense. Not to mention that events like F1 are already giving Austin a global image.

Look, I'm an Olympics fanatic and the prospect of an Olympics in my city would be AMAZING. But I also don't delude myself that Austin would ever choose to be and even more, that it could win if it did bid.

We might have a few venues that could be used, mostly associated with UT, for example the Lee and Joe Jamail Aquatics Center. But so many of the venues would need to be built that it seems impossible. Plus the fact of our horrendous traffic/transit situation that our regional governments can never quite seem to work out for themselves. And not to mention the 100-degree temperatures throughout July, August, and even September. The forecast was for 97 degrees here today. I mean, why am I even talking about these impossible logistics when the whole idea is ludicrous.

Personally, I would love to see a Texas Olympics but if there is a city that should bid it is Houston. Houston is a city of immigrants, very diverse, and could use a bit of makeover in the world's eyes I think. One thing I will say, is that traveling in Europe, when you say you're from Texas, people are often surprisingly warm about it. They have that favorable "cowboy" impression of Texas. For that reason I'd like to dream Houston could work, just so I could go and volunteer for the Games, but honestly I don't think the USOC would ever choose Houston as the bidding city. So end of story.

Of course I have been to Austin! It's a beautiful city, but like you said Houston would be better. When I was visiting the city I could just imagine the games there, but alas I guess it will never happen.

Again, you can't skip forward in the process to where a minor city like New Olreans has already been awarded the Olympics. It doesn't work that way. New Orleans has to beat out the domestic competition for the USOC's nomination (which they're not going if a Los Angeles or a Philadelphia or a Dallas is bidding) and then go up against some of the biggest cities in the world to host the Olympics. What good does building all these venues do if you haven't been awarded the Olympics already? The IOC isn't looking for that type of urban renewal with a minor city. That's why London is such a success. They're one of biggest and most prominent cities in the world. Why would that effect be more powerful for a minor city? What is that going to do for a country's economy? If the IOC is going to have the Olympics transform a city, they'll want it to be a bigger one, not a smaller one. That's their selection criteria because of the amount of money and resources and infrastructure an Olympics requires. A minor city isn't going to be what they're looking for, so even if maybe in theory they could handle it (and you're not making a compelling case with your hypothetical New Orleans plan), they're not going to get selected for it in the first place.

You say imagine the benefits of a well known minor city could have from hosting the games? Well, how about the benefits of a well known MAJOR city could have from hosting the games. You think it would register throughout the world, let alone the UK if Manchester had been the Olympic city? I doubt it. The Summer Olympics are a once every 4 years event that a lot of cities around the world want to host. Because of that, the IOC has the luxury of only choosing the biggest and brightest cities to award them to. That's not changing anytime soon. That's why a minor city has no shot of beating a major city in a competition between the 2.

Okay what I said was wrong, incorrect, and delusional. Can we go back to real potential US 2024 bid cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only about 4 cities that I think would be compelling enough for the IOC to pass over new territories and other exotic locales in order to give the US another turn. Those cities are NY, LA, Chicago and SF...DC would also make a decent candidate but the political undertone of a DC bid would overshadow the city's attributes. Australia, England and Japan all learned this same lesson, put your best foot forward. Australia put forward a bid for Brisbane, Melbourne, before finally succeeding with Sydney. England put forward bids for Birmingham, Manchester, then succeeded with London. Japan came up with a bid for Osaka before finally sticking with Tokyo. One would argue that the US failed putting forward bids for NY and Chicago, but there's no denying the odds were stacked against them and a lot of things went wrong that neither city had control over. First there was a lot of fatigue towards the US hosting 4 Olympics within a 22 year time period (Winter Olympics include) from 1980-2002, NY failing to secure the Jets stadium causing a last minute switch in venues, and the IOC/USOC tv revenue debacle that created a rift between the two organizing bodies which Chicago took the hit for. Midsize cities were once capable of pulling off the Olympics but LA '84 lifted the Olympics to a whole nother level. Some believe that Atlanta was a gift rewarded to the US due to LA's success and practically saving the Olympics. The Antwerps and Helsinkis of the world are no longer viable, the Summer Games are now on such a grand scale that most countries only have 1 city capable of handling such an event, typically including the financial support of the entire country which is so daunting even for some, the aftermath of Athens makes a great case for this, which is possibly why the IOC is still very reluctant to go to a place like South Africa. Rio might be a new frontier city but Brazil is now the 6th largest economy.

The US is a bit of a catch 22, unlike other countries, we're fortunate to have a handful of cities that are capable of producing a great bid that can match up against practically any other city in the world, but that just means the support of the entire country is too divided in order to rally under 1 candidate with the possible exception being NY, which is the Alpha of all Alpha cities on a level no lower than that of Tokyo, London and Paris. The only problem is that NY is showing little sign of interest, however MLS is looking for an Expansion team in NY with plans to build a stadium in Flushing Meadows, which to me would be the ideal location for an Olympic Park that are typical of most recent host cities. New Yorkers have too much going to really care for an Olympics in their city right now but if they can muster up support I believe they could be the leading candidate. Chicago's city leaders are showing no sign of interest in bidding after feeling rejected in the last Olympic race. Chicago imo is the most "American" of all the cities I mentioned. It's the one city that epitomizes that true major American city, which is probably due to it's location in the heartland while the other cities have major foreign influences being on the coasts, but Chicago has enough diversity to make visitors feel welcome. If Chicago can gather support again, another bid with a plan similar to the 2016 campaign would still give it a great shot against any foreign city. Both NY and Chicago already have the experience of being former candidates, so a city like Paris shouldn't have an advantage on either one. San Francisco is the city that visitors would love to visit for an Olympics, however the city's setting both poses as it's blessing and it's curse. With the bay being in the middle of the metro area and venues split between SF, the Peninsula, the East Bay and South Bay is a recipe for disaster, or atleast a logistical nightmare. There's also the dilemma of where the main stadium would be located, how to fund it, and what it's use would be after the games. The new Stanford Stadium is already built and the 49ers stadium is under construction in Santa Clara, the only option would be for a new Raiders stadium which means T&F plus opening/closing ceremonies would take place in Oakland and not SF. If Oakland is willing to relinquish top billing in order for the region to shine, it just might work, but Oakland has always had this inferiority complex with SF, having all the social events in SF and the cameras panning out to the city by the bay might make it difficult for SF and Oakland city leaders to coordinate their efforts.

Which all leads to the city I think with the best chance, LA. I know a lot here probably have this anywhere but LA mentality and too much too soon, but somehow LA manages to be the right candidate at the right time, when it comes to the Olympics, they practically have a love affair. The new IOC president wants future cities to make sustainable development a key priority, and what other city in the country is in most need of sustainable development? LA can run with the bid campain slogan something like "LA helped change the Olympics, now the Olympics can help change LA", it's almost written like a Hollywood script. The revitalization of the LA River can be the centerpiece of redeveloping LA, and many infrastructure projects such as the purple line subway extension, the Hollywood Freeway Cap, The 101 Freeway cap, bringing back Broadway, the downtown streetcar, the 405 tunnel, the airport lightrail extension, a new NFL stadium/team, a redeveloped Dodger stadium, more transit oriented developments, etc. Most of these are already underway but the Olympics would expedite all these projects and add a bunch more in the pipeline which is exactly what the Olympics want and LA can offer, a great legacy. Changing a city that once relied almost entirely on the automobile, to a city with brand new parks, more transit options, more people walking in the streets than sitting in their cars, and more people being involved in their communities. Most of the venues are newly built, although the main stadium for T& F plus opening/closing ceremonies might once again be the memorial coliseum, but the IOC has proven with Tokyo that they don't mind accepting a facelift compared to a brand new stadium, and it will be the only stadium to host 3 Olympiads. An NFL team or two might finally relocate to LA as a result since there will finally be a reason to construct a few new stadiums that doesn't involve the developers and team owners that are currently wrangling each other. There's no shortage of entertainment options, tourist attractions, and fun activities that are aside from the festivities that the Olympics naturally bring, so the city will present a very lively atmosphere. The IIOC have shown that they do follow trends, and by selecting Tokyo, 2 out of 3 successive Olympiads are now repeat cities. LA might seem fairly recent, but 1984 and 2024 will be 40 years apart, it's not that far from the 52 year gap between '32 and '84. It will be a new generation of spectators by then, it will be a much different atmosphere, LA has always been evolving but it can finally move forward, it just needs that push and the Olympics is that one thing that can push it. Public support will be fairly high I believe as Southern Californians love sports and outdoor activities, the support of the country will follow along once they're reassured that they won't be footing the bill for all the infrastructure projects as they are mostly under way already. So there it is, my vote goes for LA, but each of the 4 cities have a great chance if they decide to bid, any other US city would have a difficult time presenting a reason for the IOC to return to the US.

Your last paragraph made me excited for an LA bid. I would be okay with DC LA and NYC hosting Chicago for me does not excite me as much as 2016 did. I feel that 2016 was supposed to be their games, but Rio's time to shine was then too and their games will be beautiful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>>> You say imagine the benefits of a well known minor city could have from hosting the games? Well, how about the benefits of a well known MAJOR city could have from hosting the games. You think it would register throughout the world, let alone the UK if Manchester had been the Olympic city? I doubt it. The Summer Olympics are a once every 4 years event that a lot of cities around the world want to host. Because of that, the IOC has the luxury of only choosing the biggest and brightest cities to award them to. That's not changing anytime soon. That's why a minor city has no shot of beating a major city in a competition between the 2.

Things change. There was a long stretch not too long ago when the biggest and brightest cities didn't want to host. In the 70's only what we would consider 2nd tier cities bid... and heck, Denver gave the games back. In the 80's things were so bad nobody wanted the Olympics other than as a cold war battefield. In the 90's we got back to 2nd or even 3rd tier cities.

So, sure, we get nothing but the best bidding these days. But how long will that last?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...