Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not only that, but all the IOC members who were here for the assembly and the Games in 2 years time will be accustomed to the city, which I think will help it when it comes to voting. Also Toronto was the only interested city for 2015.

No it wasn't. Lima, Peru and Bagota,Colombia made bids. It was Toronto's which was seen not only as professional, but more appropriately the safest bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most countries of the world have only one, or at most two, Olympic sized, ready cities. You wouldn't have a French Olympics anywhere but Paris. Toronto is probably the only Canadian city that could win a bid, the IOC wouldn't want Montreal again. The IOC all but said to the UK that it's London or nothing. The US has at least ten cities that could be capable of hosting the Olympics. If you have one city, it's much easier to focus all your bids there, & host small events there to build up reputation for staging events well. They need to pick a city, & bid for 2024/28 without feeling like it's their god-given right to win, yes, host the Pan Am, it might not matter to the US, but it matters to South America & the Central/Caribbean bit, & give them a good games, it'll get votes, they all count. But do it all in the same one city. LA, NY, DC, Chicago, Boston, wherever. If you get the city known, then by the time 2032 comes round, Paris & Durban have had their day, the US city has bid & lost twice in a row, hosted a successful Pan Am, & whatever else they might host, & 36 years have passed since Atlanta. You're on to a winner there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem with hosting a Pan Am Games in the U.S. Who would show up? The Pan Ams get practically zero media coverage. You'd have half empty stadiums and arenas.

If it was held in LA, Texas or Miami or NYC, it would get sufficient live audiences.

Actually, it would be a good practice run for New York. Just throw in bleachers around the Unisphere in Flushing Meadows for the Opening ceremony; that would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know San Francisco has been brought up and the numerous problems it would have regarding an Olympic Stadium. The Oakland Raiders play in one of the most out of date stadiums in the O.co Coliseum. Seems like razing it and building a new stadium would solve it but then you'd have to change the name to an Oakland Olympics if I'm not mistaken. Shame too because that would be a great legacy.

What about Berkley? I know Memorial Stadium was recently renovated so that's out but what a temporary stadium that could be downsized to 20,000 on the University of California-Berkley campus, preferably on the site where the aging Edwards Stadium (home of the university's athletics and soccer teams)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could still be called San Francisco. If their 2012 bid was ultimately called "San Francisco 2012", with mostly everything being centered around far-flung Palo Alto, then Oakland is no big deal right across the bridge. But the problem with a San Fran bid is not just the stadium, but the OV as well. Where would that go. If an Oakland stadium (& is a new one really possible there) is proposed, then you'd have to put the OV in Oakland as well. Otherwise, you'd have the same big logistical headache that Istanbul 2020 had with their Bosphorus stadium proposal. Getting everyone out over one main bridge to get to the OV & all the other main accommodation on the SF side once the opening show was over. Although, an Oakland stadium would provide great, dramatic view of San Francisco as the Bosphorus would've of Old Istanbul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people really need to get over about the Pan Ams being some sort of savior for Olympic Bids. For starters, the IOC only cares about their show. So showing some 'humble' approach in hosting the Pan Ams first isn't necessarily going to win you massive brownie points when it comes to the IOC. There's about probably only a dozen Latin American votes anyway, & that won't be enough to persuade the broader IOC on that one topic alone - "but the U.S. showed that they could host the lower-end show first". Come on.

Besides, it's hard enough to try & find a U.S. city to go for ONE Olympic bid, let alone two or three, & on top of that the bid & hosting of the Pan Ams. No city in the U.S. is going to go for this. Not to mention, who's to say that the U.S. bid would even win the Pan Am Games in the first place. A totally clumsy & very wasteful 'strategy'. And let's not forget that Toronto first went after the Olympics TWICE before making an attempt at the Pan Ams. More like they settled for the time being than it being some sort of 'humble' strategy.


"without feeling like it's their god-given right to win,"

you mean like Lula acted with their 2016 campaign, but the U.S. 2016 was the low-key & 'humble' one. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could still be called San Francisco. If their 2012 bid was ultimately called "San Francisco 2012", with mostly everything being centered around far-flung Palo Alto, then Oakland is no big deal right across the bridge. But the problem with a San Fran bid is not just the stadium, but the OV as well. Where would that go. If an Oakland stadium (& is a new one really possible there) is proposed, then you'd have to put the OV in Oakland as well. Otherwise, you'd have the same big logistical headache that Istanbul 2020 had with their Bosphorus stadium proposal. Getting everyone out over one main bridge to get to the OV & all the other main accommodation on the SF side once the opening show was over. Although, an Oakland stadium would provide great, dramatic view of San Francisco as the Bosphorus would've of Old Istanbul.

So having the ceremonies in Oakland wouldn't violate the Olympic Charter? As for the Olympic Village, it looks like the Golden State Warriors are going to be getting a new arena in San Francisco so I would assume the Oracle Arena would be set for demolition afterwards. You could build the OV on that site. As for a new Oakland stadium, the Oakland Raiders are pushing for one. An Olympic Stadium on the site of the O.co Coliseum would provide the legacy needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to add this to my last post. Another possibility for an OV in Oakland is the site of a current industrial area directly across 66th Street from the current Oakland Coliseum. That was where the Oakland Athletics initially proposed building a new stadium. Build the OV there and build the stadium where the coliseum sits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So having the ceremonies in Oakland wouldn't violate the Olympic Charter?

It's like PyeongChang 2018, there's no "city" of that name, just a county. And somehow, "San Francisco 2012" (really "Palo Alto 2012) was getting away with it. I don't think that every ceremonies has been "technically" within the city limits of the host anyway.

As for the Olympic Village, it looks like the Golden State Warriors are going to be getting a new arena in San Francisco so I would assume the Oracle Arena would be set for demolition afterwards. You could build the OV on that site. As for a new Oakland stadium, the Oakland Raiders are pushing for one. An Olympic Stadium on the site of the O.co Coliseum would provide the legacy needed.

But again, you still have the great logistical headache of getting everyone across the Oakland Bay bridge after the ceremonies are over. This same type of plan was a big concern over Istanbul's 2020 bid. Both the stadium & the Olympic Village need to be on the same side in order to avoid this type of huge problem & make the bid more compact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could build the OV on that site.

U're going to have the SF Bay Area realtors ROFLing their asses off on that one. Maybe 5% of those units would sell.

The only 2 viable sites for an OV in the SF Bay area are: at Hungers Point (2016 plan); Moffett Field (2012...when the main stadium was going to be at Stanford)...or if things get tight...Treasure Island - quite secure but a bitch to get everyone in and out easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it got tweaked for 2016.

Hunter's point was more than being 'tweaked', though. It was actually IN the City of San Francisco, instead of being in far-away Palo Alto, some 30 miles south of San Francisco. The "Bay Area 2012", which what is was called actually in the beginning, then later changed to San Francisco 2012, was a pseudo 'San Francisco' bid. To this day it still amazes me how the USOC made them a final-two, along with New York, for their 2012 candidate. It's like Los Angeles proposing to have everything in Ontario or Orange county instead of actually being in, or even near L.A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunter's point was more than being 'tweaked', though. It was actually IN the City of San Francisco, instead of being in far-away Palo Alto, some 30 miles south of San Francisco. The "Bay Area 2012", which what is was called actually in the beginning, then later changed to San Francisco 2012, was a pseudo 'San Francisco' bid. To this day it still amazes me how the USOC made them a final-two, along with New York, for their 2012 candidate. It's like Los Angeles proposing to have everything in Ontario or Orange county instead of actually being in, or even near L.A.

Distances appear much smaller in SF. It's part of the magic of the Bay Area. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem with hosting a Pan Am Games in the U.S. Who would show up? The Pan Ams get practically zero media coverage. You'd have half empty stadiums and arenas.

I really don't believe that. Americans love sport. People would absolutely turn out for Pan Am Games and they would get publicity if they were hosted domestically. I don't believe turn out will ever be an issue.

Incidentally, some nay sayers made the same arguments about the World Cup in '94 and that turned out with record ticket sales despite the fact that Americans supposedly "have no interest in soccer."

It really is beside the point though because hosting Pan Am Games is not going to make an American city any more electable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding this issue of the "humility" of a bid, it is especially important for the United States to project a very open, welcoming demeanor to all. I believe that the new revenue deal constitutes quite a bit of humility on the part of the USOC. I don't think anyone is chanting "you owe us." The measured approach that the USOC is taking to the bid process makes it crystal clear that they know it's going to be a struggle and they don't expect Olympic Games to fall in their lap. Humility is cultivated and evidenced over a prolonged period of time and in a variety of ways -- not least in one on one relationships with other IOC members.

Just because the US doesn't bid for Pan Am Games doesn't mean the US is saying "the Pan Ams are beneath us." It just means that no American city felt the Pan Ams were the right event for them at a given time. Hosting Pan Ams is not going to make the IOC think "Lets give the US some Olympic Games. It was so NICE of them to take on the Pan Ams!" I just can't imagine anyone viewing the situation that way.

I can totally imagine a city like Miami being a great Pan Am host once they decide it's the right time to bid. However, that's really neither here nor there where the Olympics are concerned unless we're talking about Miami as the next American candidate. While not totally far-fetched, that does not look particularly likely right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Some on here are putting way too much stock over the Pan Ams as far as the Olympics are concerned. Again, how many cities, besides two in countries that had a compelling appeal TBW, have hosted the Pan Ams. They're not a make it or break it deal for an Olympic bid like some here are trying to portray it. Atlanta nor Montreal didn't host any Pan Ams before they were awarded the Games. It's really a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Some on here are putting way too much stock over the Pan Ams as far as the Olympics are concerned. Again, how many cities, besides two in countries that had a compelling appeal TBW, have hosted the Pan Ams. They're not a make it or break it deal for an Olympic bid like some here are trying to portray it. Atlanta nor Montreal didn't host any Pan Ams before they were awarded the Games. It's really a moot point.

Atlanta hadn't even hosted their first Super Bowl before they got awarded the Olympics. I think they hosted a Final Four in the mid-70s, but that was before the event was held in football-sized stadiums. That's why it amuses me when folks here are saying that a city like L.A. or New York needs to host 1 of these events first. I know it's not on the same scale as a Pan Ams, but New York did host a multi-sport event in the Goodwill Games back in 1998. NYC has hosted political conventions before. The region is about to host the Super Bowl. We're annually the host to a Triple Crown horse race drawing over 100,000 spectators and the longtime home of the U.S. Open. I know none of these are on par with the challenge of hosting an Olympics, but it's not like New York needs to prove its abilities to host a large-scale event. Other cities and other countries benefit from that type of experience. Here though, it's simply not a necessary prerequisite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess most here missed the point a little. It's not about the Pan American Games. It could be a FINA or an IAAF World Championships or whatever international sports competition that works as a display of logistics to any eventual bidding city. A good example is Melbourne, Australia, constantly welcoming and reminding us it's on the international sports map. But in the particular dynamics of the US, the previous experience is always the previous Olympic Games or the large domestic sports shows.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cautious steps the USOC seems to be taking on their next shot includes a big and proper review of the discourse behind the bids of 2012 and 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC or any other American city doesn't need it -- but the US has been absent from any real significant world championships or major regional Games by the time the election for 2024, 28 or 32 come around that, other than LA or NYC, something like a PanAms would be nice on the resume of SF, Dallas, Boston or even Philly. Not obligatory...but at least gets that city/US back in the psyche of int'l sports officials. But it won't happen unless the host city gets a lucrative TV deal which it won't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess most here missed the point a little. It's not about the Pan American Games. It could be a FINA or an IAAF World Championships or whatever international sports competition that works as a display of logistics to any eventual bidding city. A good example is Melbourne, Australia, constantly welcoming and reminding us it's on the international sports map. But in the particular dynamics of the US, the previous experience is always the previous Olympic Games or the large domestic sports shows.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cautious steps the USOC seems to be taking on their next shot includes a big and proper review of the discourse behind the bids of 2012 and 2016.

Again.. New York hosts the U.S. Open tennis championships every year. Los Angeles is hosting the 2015 Special Olympics World Summer Games. I know these aren't necessarily a swimming worlds or an athletics worlds, but they're still large high profile events that help to display these cities' abilities to host a large event. It's not like the only thing the United States has to fall back on is past Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC or any other American city doesn't need it -- but the US has been absent from any real significant world championships or major regional Games by the time the election for 2024, 28 or 32 come around that, other than LA or NYC, something like a PanAms would be nice on the resume of SF, Dallas, Boston or even Philly. Not obligatory...but at least gets that city/US back in the psyche of int'l sports officials. But it won't happen unless the host city gets a lucrative TV deal which it won't.

Well, Boston will be hosting the World Series this year :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...