Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Baron might be right about NYC's bid. But I don't think the idea of ferries supplementing the Bay Bridge to get people to and from Treasure Island is infeasible. The bridge enters the island from two sides (east and west), and has 5 lanes coming from each direction. With special purpose buses, ferries, and cars, I'm pretty sure it's feasible.

When the US Open was held at Olympic Club in 2012, they sold 33,500 tickets per day, plus press and USGA, the golfers, commerce tents, probably brought it to around 40,000. This was for a venue with no public parking, where every spectator who drove had to park at the Candlestick parking lot and take a shuttle bus, and the public transit option also involved running shuttles from the Colma BART station. I went and it worked fine, without a huge number of buses, despite the roundabout route you had to take to get to the course. A freeway running to the venue with five lanes coming from both directions and on-site parking would have added a lot of capacity (which a golf club could not handle, of course).

I would say that, for something that lasts only a couple of weeks, the constraints that would apply to building a permanent venue like Levi's Stadium do not need to apply. Assembling buses, ferries, and parking lots on a short term basis makes a lot of sense to me, and the IOC should be flexible about that. If the IOC would go for a partly temporary stadiium, I think Treasure Island is a feasible idea. There are lots of other big ifs of course, mainly economic, that are harder for me to reason about. But if the money were there from the likes of Larry Ellison and/or other local billionaires, and cooperation from Lennar, I can imagine it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not gonna happen. Completely unrealistic. They've built the new 68,000 49ers stadium in Santa Clara at a confluence of THREE (3), count'em THREE freeways...and u're going to build an 80,000 seater in an island with only one land access to it...and adding ferries (which idea the IOC shot down in the NYC 2012 bid)? R u nuts?? :blink:

He must be. Even my idea for NYC 2024 with regards to further land reclamation at the piers near Battery Park is more plausible than this "Treasure Island" deal for San Francisco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He must be. Even my idea for NYC 2024 with regards to further land reclamation at the piers near Battery Park is more plausible than this "Treasure Island" deal for San Francisco.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That land reclamation idea is pretty bad. Not that this is any better, but if that's what your measuring stick is of what a bad idea is, you're setting the bar as low as it can go.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baron might be right about NYC's bid. But I don't think the idea of ferries supplementing the Bay Bridge to get people to and from Treasure Island is infeasible. The bridge enters the island from two sides (east and west), and has 5 lanes coming from each direction. With special purpose buses, ferries, and cars, I'm pretty sure it's feasible.

When the US Open was held at Olympic Club in 2012, they sold 33,500 tickets per day, plus press and USGA, the golfers, commerce tents, probably brought it to around 40,000. This was for a venue with no public parking, where every spectator who drove had to park at the Candlestick parking lot and take a shuttle bus, and the public transit option also involved running shuttles from the Colma BART station. I went and it worked fine, without a huge number of buses, despite the roundabout route you had to take to get to the course. A freeway running to the venue with five lanes coming from both directions and on-site parking would have added a lot of capacity (which a golf club could not handle, of course).

I would say that, for something that lasts only a couple of weeks, the constraints that would apply to building a permanent venue like Levi's Stadium do not need to apply. Assembling buses, ferries, and parking lots on a short term basis makes a lot of sense to me, and the IOC should be flexible about that. If the IOC would go for a partly temporary stadiium, I think Treasure Island is a feasible idea. There are lots of other big ifs of course, mainly economic, that are harder for me to reason about. But if the money were there from the likes of Larry Ellison and/or other local billionaires, and cooperation from Lennar, I can imagine it happening.

It's pretty unfeasible. Okay, 40,000 people per day at Olympic.. you're dealing with double that for an Olympics. And with Treasure Island, you're talking about a location with literally 1 road that's going past it, and I'm pretty sure that road is going to be full of rush hour traffic right around the times you're trying to get people to and from the venues. There will be better options out there for a location so ill-served by transportation as the one you're proposing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. That land reclamation idea is pretty bad. Not that this is any better, but if that's what your measuring stick is of what a bad idea is, you're setting the bar as low as it can go.

I'm just proposing it because it's been done before. Sooner or later they will do this eventually, especially when those piers become more and more unused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty unfeasible. Okay, 40,000 people per day at Olympic.. you're dealing with double that for an Olympics.

Actually, you can take that 80k figure, multiply it by the number of athletics sessions in a day and then you get your magic number of specatators. Of course, that doesn't take into account media, support staff, athletes, caterers etc. And that's only for an Olympic Stadium. Put in a few more venues and that number creeps up even more. On its busiest day London's Olympic Park had well over 300 thousand people in it - not all there at the same time of course, but those are the sort of numbers you're looking at if an Olympic Park is being proposed.

Work backwards with the transport needs from there. :)

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just proposing it because it's been done before. Sooner or later they will do this eventually, especially when those piers become more and more unused.

It has? I must have missed this one.. please, tell me when a land reclamation project has been done for the purposes of building an Olympic park? Or any sports venues for that matter. Do you honestly think the city of New York is about to embark on a project like that to build a stadium that outside of the Olympics it has very little use for? It's not happening, no matter how feasible you think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you can take that 80k figure, multiply it by the number of athletics sessions in a day and then you get your magic number of specatators. Of course, that doesn't take into account media, support staff, athletes, caterers etc. And that's only for an Olympic Stadium. Put in a few more venues and that number creeps up even more. On its busiest day London's Olympic Park had well over 300 thousand people in it - not all there at the same time of course, but those are the sort of numbers you're looking at if an Olympic Park is being proposed.

Work backwards with the transport needs from there. :)

I was thinking just the stadium would go on treasure island, plus the Olympic Village. The housing piece fits with development plans for TI, and regular transit options that would be put in place for residents would handle the athletes coming and going. So I'm going to go with 200,000 extra people per day coming onto the island, beyond what will happen after the Olympics. Let's see how we could do that:

(1) A parking lot for 20,000 cars on the island (to be grassed over for parkland, or redeveloped after the Olympics). This is 5,000 fewer than will be at the new Levi's Stadium in santa clara, and about 2000 more than are at Candlestick. The Bay Bridge carries 240,000 cars on average per day (again, about half coming from the east and half coming from the west). Let's assume 40,000 additional private cars coming onto the island each day (not all would park in the new lot), carrying 2 people each on average. That's 80,000 people coming to the island in private cars each day. This is not infeasible for the bridge. It would be like days when there are big sporting events on both sides of the bay. But I'm assuming, as happens typically during the Olympics, that non-Olympic traffic would be reduced. Many people would take BART instead of driving for their everyday transit during the Olympics, as happens routinely during other big events.

(2) A hundred buses running all day, spread over three public transit hubs: the West Oakland BART station for people coming from the east bay, Embarcadero near the Ferry Building (for BART and Muni metro in sf), and the Transbay Terminal (for Caltrain and buses). Assume a 15 minute trip each way to the island from each of these convergence spots, and buses carrying 50 people at a time, with people arriving over an eight hour span each day. Figure 5 minutes loading on each end for each bus, so each bus takes a trip every 40 minutes to the island. That's 12 trips to the island for each bus each day. 12 x 100 x 50 = 72,000 people coming onto the island by bus.

(3) Ferry boats average about 500 passengers per trip. (For example, Blue and Gold Fleet, in san francisco, has nine boats with capacities between 300 and 787 according to their website.) Ferry ride to treasure Island takes 10 minutes from the Ferry Building in sf, 18 minutes from berkeley, and 23 minutes from oakland according to http://www.watertransit.org/proposedRoutes/treasure_overview.aspx. Assume 15 minutes loading time for each boat so each boat is taking one trip to the island and back per hour on average (more from Ferry Building, less from Oakland obviously). We need to get 48,000 people onto the island by ferry over 8 hours each day to get to the 200,000 total. We get 8 x 500 = 4000 from each ferry, so we need 12 ferries to get to 48,000, spread over the three points of embarcation.

So that's a way to get 200,000 extra people per day onto the island for the two weeks of the Olympics. The transportation system in the bay area is used to short term shocks. We have had long periods when the entire Bay Bridge was down for repairs, days when BART was not running due to strikes, etc. Those are far worse than the surge that would happen during an Olympics, and again, I'd expect people to adjust plans over that two weeks as they did in london and elsewhere. This does not look infeasible. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, you posted /\/\ before I prepped with this answer (and got interrupted by an impt. phone call).

While the 40,000 attendance at the 2012 US Open might seem feasible, you do know that it's NOT just going to be 80,000 who will be converging on a Treasure Island scenario, do you? There will be 9,500 athletes; 1,500 concession workers; 12,500 OC performers and production staff; another what? 5,000 security forces. So you're really looking at 107,000+ bodies all having to be there by 7:00pm; done by 11:00pm. And everyone disgorges TI at 1:30am at the latest?

I don't know what security measures were employed at Olympic Club for that event in 2012, but I had a dialogue with Kenedian a week or so ago about his experience attending the Vancouver Opening in 2010 becuz I was curious as to how they used the 1 or 2 airlocks needed to get people in and out of BC Place, and how that was processed. He said it was not so much the airlock procedure that was time-consuming, it was the security checks before that. People were asked to arrive 2.5 hours before curtain time to get everyone processed. (And that was only for a 55,000 seater venue + all the extra numbers).

So an "island" scenario that your propose with people streaming in from say, at least 4 ducts, including the Bay Bridge access (allowing crowds coming in from both the SF and Oakland sides), where would security screening take place?? Where would you allow for the back-ups for the crowds waiting to go thru the security gates? On TI itself or before they got on the ferries and special buses? Where would organizers get extra ferries to handle the crush?? Renting ferries capable of carrying 800 or so people/trip is not as easy as chartering buses which only carry 45 bodies a time.

Further,

1. There are already OTHER plans in place for TI.

2. A main Oly stadium also, always including an auxiliary venue of at least 8,000 which is needed for the OC.

Finally, if Istanbul had won 2020 and proceeded with their ceremonial stadium by the Bosphorus, and better heads NOT prevailed, you will see what a shambolic disaster it would have been to crush, engorge 100,000+ people in one confined space at one time.

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

It has? I must have missed this one.. please, tell me when a land reclamation project has been done for the purposes of building an Olympic park? Or any sports venues for that matter. Do you honestly think the city of New York is about to embark on a project like that to build a stadium that outside of the Olympics it has very little use for? It's not happening, no matter how feasible you think it is.

What else do you expect. This is the same "peep" that advocates the same H.S. that hosted the worlds media back in the winter of 1980 to do so again for a 21st Winter Olympics. This is also the same "peep" that still brings up the name "Tulsa" & endorses it for a 2023 Pan Am Games. This is also the same peep that "thinks" flashy renders & bid book covers seals the deal. Is it no wonder why you're questioning him on yet another one of his lunacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Further,

1. There are already OTHER plans in place for TI.

2. A main Oly stadium also, always including an auxiliary venue of at least 8,000 which is needed for the OC.

Finally, if Istanbul had won 2020 and proceeded with their ceremonial stadium by the Bosphorus, and better heads NOT prevailed, you will see what a shambolic disaster it would have been to crush, engorge 100,000+ people in one confined space at one time.

Baron, I respect your knowledge in general, but here are a few things I'd say in addition to the math in my post above:

(1) There is no plan in place for TI any more as far as I know. See this story from last spring. This is the crux of why I think it might be feasible to center and Olympics there. The bay area is a great place for the Olympics, with the stadium issue being the main one that needs to be solved.

(2) The bay area transportation system has tremendous capacity for overload. We have had days in sf alone when over a million people come to events - Gay Pride 2013, the day in October 2012 when the Giants, Fleet Week, and Hardly Strictly Bluegrass at GGP were all happening at the same time. Numbers in the range we are talking about for cross-bay traffic are not infeasible. If you play with my numbers and assume three or four people instead of two per private car, for instance, you get up in the 200-300K range per day to TI even without the extra ferries.

(3) I agree that there is an issue with processing people on the island. But I don't see why it would be substantially harder there than at a place like Levi's Stadium. Screening everyone is just a huge pain, no matter where it is done. I'm guessing most of it would happen on the island itself, in lines heading into the venues. Maybe screening before people get onto the shuttle buses in addition or instead. There would be lots of security people watching everything - the bridges, transit hubs, etc. Same as at any other candidate venue. An island actually has advantages from a security standpoint because access is much easier to control.

When I read these posts, in general, I feel you could conclude that most past venues were infeasible based on a priori capacity. Somehow they make it happen. No Olympics I know of has crashed because of transportation bottlenecks. Correct me if I am wrong there. If there is land available for building, the main issues are economic and political. In that department, the bay area may or may not be in good shape for an Olympics, I'm not really sure. There has been a lot of enthusiasm for big sporting events here over the last few years - US Open, America's Cup, Super Bowl L in 2016, etc., and we have the big money people who could make it all happen if they want to, is all I'm saying. Of course that doesn't mean it will happen. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard anything concrete from Ed Lee's office re specific plans for 2024.

Did Ellison, in spite of his winning AC 2013 and his billions, cover the $$$ shortfall for the race for which SF fronted the money?? I no longer get the SF Chronicle, so I'm not always up to snuff on what's happening in SF.

Oh, TI would also have to be the venue host for Sailing.

From a security standpoint, I think the processing should be done before letting people onto TI. So it should be done at the ferry docks in SF, Oakland & wherever. Only official and pre-cleared buses and vehicles should be allowed on special Olympic lanes on 80.

But again, is the current Lee admin going anywhere with this... either for 2024 or 2028??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\/\ I'd give that a C-. I know it's merely a student paper...but doing a project on a future SF Olympics w/ NO mention of BART whatsoever can't be taken seriously. And she's an architectural student but look at her designs for the OV. I mean even the long-dead commie socialize-block-housing architects would probably be laughing in their graves. TOTALLY unimaginative.

(BTW, I flew out of Minetta Int'l in San Jose yesterday, first time ever...and it's quite a beautiful airport. I imagine it will be put to great use for the SuperBowl.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard anything concrete from Ed Lee's office re specific plans for 2024.

Did Ellison, in spite of his winning AC 2013 and his billions, cover the $$$ shortfall for the race for which SF fronted the money?? I no longer get the SF Chronicle, so I'm not always up to snuff on what's happening in SF.

Oh, TI would also have to be the venue host for Sailing.

From a security standpoint, I think the processing should be done before letting people onto TI. So it should be done at the ferry docks in SF, Oakland & wherever. Only official and pre-cleared buses and vehicles should be allowed on special Olympic lanes on 80.

But again, is the current Lee admin going anywhere with this... either for 2024 or 2028??

On the America's Cup, my understanding is that Lee thinks the City benefited from this year's Cup, despite the many obvious problems and the inflated estimates from AC backers when it was originally on the table. So he wants to do it again and thinks it will be better in 2017. Ellison hasn't covered the $5.5M spent by SF taxpayers. Lee says he is making calls to get it from private sources, and the BACEI says the AC brought in more than that in tax revenues.

My reasoning is that Ellison might decide to make the Olympics his local sports legacy. He is much more interested in sports and big events than others in his wealth class, and he seems interested in the development of sf in particular. So it makes a certain kind of sense. I have no direct evidence of his interest in the Olympics, but he clearly sees the Cup and the Olympics as in the same category. See this story from August. My sense of Ellison is that he presents a tough exterior but that he cares about his legacy and is responsive to criticism, e.g. shifting to making the entry requirements more inclusive for the next AC. I don't really know what all this means though. On treasure island, it might be possible to fund a lot of what is needed through development.

I would think sailing would be anchored at Marina Green, like the next America's Cup if it happens in sf. That and the waterfront adjacent to Crissy Field are the center of sailing in sf.

You may have seen this, but Lee expressed considerable interest in the Olympics earlier this year, and at the recent USOC board meeting (in sf) they mentioned SF as a city they are talking to for 2024.

I don't know if anyone in a position to matter is thinking about treasure island, but I think they should consider it. I like it in part because I think it could be done in a progressive way that would build housing and develop the area without displacing lots of people. Treasure island development plans have generally not drawn the same kind of opposition we usually see in sf from various consituencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's a way to get 200,000 extra people per day onto the island for the two weeks of the Olympics. The transportation system in the bay area is used to short term shocks. We have had long periods when the entire Bay Bridge was down for repairs, days when BART was not running due to strikes, etc. Those are far worse than the surge that would happen during an Olympics, and again, I'd expect people to adjust plans over that two weeks as they did in london and elsewhere. This does not look infeasible. B)

Todd, it's one thing to offer up those numbers. It's another entirely to apply those to a real world situation. Okay, so you've got 12 ferries and 100 buses in your fleet to go people to/from Treasure Island.. how about all the citizens of the Bay Area that need to get to and from work on those days that would otherwise need those transportation links as well. You talk about 240,000 people using the Bay Bridge.. that's spread out over the course of the entire day, and I'm assuming most of them don't use the 2 small roads to/from Treasure Island. That's going to create 1 heck of a traffic jam. Plus, the big problem, as baron noted.. what about all those nights of competition and the ceremonies which won't finish until late in the evening and you're looking at all of those people needing to leave the island at once? How exactly are they all going to get off the island without having to wait in line for a bus or a ferry for hours? And if you're going to compare it to the US Open at Olympic, remember that was only 1 stream of people in and out each day and they weren't there well after dark and needing to use BART and other public transportation systems trying to get home at Midnight.

London's plan worked because they built their Olympic park near existing transit well-connected to the rest of the city. You're offering up a very temporary plan at a location not well served by public transportation and not really taking into consideration the surge of people you need to have in 1 location that's not comparable to, say, an SF Giants victory parade which is in a much more accessible location. Sorry Todd, but if you think Treasure Island is the solution for SF's Olympic aspirations, it's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Todd, it's one thing to offer up those numbers. It's another entirely to apply those to a real world situation. Okay, so you've got 12 ferries and 100 buses in your fleet to go people to/from Treasure Island.. how about all the citizens of the Bay Area that need to get to and from work on those days that would otherwise need those transportation links as well. You talk about 240,000 people using the Bay Bridge.. that's spread out over the course of the entire day, and I'm assuming most of them don't use the 2 small roads to/from Treasure Island. That's going to create 1 heck of a traffic jam. Plus, the big problem, as baron noted.. what about all those nights of competition and the ceremonies which won't finish until late in the evening and you're looking at all of those people needing to leave the island at once? How exactly are they all going to get off the island without having to wait in line for a bus or a ferry for hours? And if you're going to compare it to the US Open at Olympic, remember that was only 1 stream of people in and out each day and they weren't there well after dark and needing to use BART and other public transportation systems trying to get home at Midnight.

London's plan worked because they built their Olympic park near existing transit well-connected to the rest of the city. You're offering up a very temporary plan at a location not well served by public transportation and not really taking into consideration the surge of people you need to have in 1 location that's not comparable to, say, an SF Giants victory parade which is in a much more accessible location. Sorry Todd, but if you think Treasure Island is the solution for SF's Olympic aspirations, it's not going to happen.

Well, I'm no expert. This is just an idea that others who are reading this, or that I might contact and who know much more, could explore if they are so inclined. But I should point out that treasure island, which is an artificial island, was actually built in order to host the 1939-40 Golden Gate International Exposition, and was meant to accommodate 250,000 visitors per day to the fair in the early years of the Bay Bridge. So it wouldn't be at odds with the original vision for the island to have a huge event there. I do think that enhancing the access between TI and the bridge would need to happen in any case to accommodate the eventual development of the island, so it would make sense to include that in any overall plan to host events there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at my brother's computer and the Quote function isn't working somehow. Anyway, Todd, the "250,000" number quoted for the 1939-40 World's Fair seems like a hyperbolic number; and that was pre-Munich 1972 and pre 9/11. As you well know, the Olympics and the rest of the world changed after those two events. So I think that estimate for 1939-40 really means nothing in an Olympic context today. It's safety and pure practicality that rule the day. I still think the IOC might not go for the TI idea. It's packing too much in a very tight space and time.

P.S. Todd, I also wanted to add becuz it came to me afterwards that 250,000 might have been an achievable estimate for the 1939-40 World's Fair because they had trains/streetcars running on the lower level of the Bay Bridge at that time. So those conveyances could handle larger capacities. But since they took them out either in the late 40s or early 50s, then those numbers are difficult to achieve. As you well know, it's mostly private vehicular traffic now.

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

Sooo... How about NYC? I saw this on SSC:

http://nypost.com/2013/12/11/new-york-soccer-rivalry-already-brewing/

They're talking about a new stadium in the south Bronx for a NYC Soccer team. Could this play as a potential OS for an NY OG in the future? They seem to be focused on the small Soccer arena end of it an not looking long term into an Olympics. You guys probably heard about this already. But I just thought I would put out the recent news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sooo... How about NYC? I saw this on SSC:

http://nypost.com/2013/12/11/new-york-soccer-rivalry-already-brewing/

They're talking about a new stadium in the south Bronx for a NYC Soccer team. Could this play as a potential OS for an NY OG in the future? They seem to be focused on the small Soccer arena end of it an not looking long term into an Olympics. You guys probably heard about this already. But I just thought I would put out the recent news.

Well it is the only sporting league in NYC without a local derby. So sure, any potential Olympic Stadium could be downsized to become a new MLS venue.

A local derby? That's not really an expression that ever gets used here, so I had to look it up. Doesn't really apply here anyway.. the Jets and Giants have their annual preseason rivalry, but they only play once every 4 years in the regular season. But I digress..

I'm tempted to smack my head against the wall every time I hear this kind of backwards logic. Anthony is right.. this is a soccer arena with little to no consideration being made for potential Olympic use. LD, you can't reverse the flow of time here. The earliest NYC could bid for an Olympics is for the 2024 Games (which they're probably not going to due to a lack of interest). So more likely you're looking at the 2028 Olympics, the planning and voting for which is going to take place from 2018-2021. Pretty good chance they are going to build an MLS venue before that time. So unless there are provisions made for an Olympic bid (and I'm fairly confident that won't be the case), you're talking about a pre-built MLS venue being converted for an Olympics, not an Olympic Stadium being downsized to become an MLS venue.

This is where I talk about a city's long-term planning all the time. We all here think about these things in terms of what it would take to host an Olympics, but right now there's no interest from New York in hosting an Olympics. There is, however, interest in building an MLS stadium, and that's a project that can push forward now, as opposed to an Olympic Stadium which, even if you plan for it, you still have to win the vote in order to make it worthwhile. That's why the NYC 2012 plan, for all of its failings, at least centered around what would be a permanent venue that would be used by 1 of the local teams, not some temporary venue with little to no purpose after the Olympics. And again, you can't look at an MLS venue and envision an Olympic stadium if the people involved with its design and construction have no interest pursuing an Olympics, which is almost certainly going to be the case here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post Quaker. If the timelines were different, NYCFC would no doubt be happy to have an athletics stadium converted to a football stadium if it's done in the same way as it was in Manchester (NYCFC's owners are, after all, the same people who own Manchester City). But they'll want something much sooner than that as you say, so it's a moot point.

It does make me laugh to hear an MLS sporting director of a team founded in the 90s trash-talking another team by citing 'history'.

What we've got here is the money that made Seb Vettel F1 Champion 4 times in a row (Austrian Dietrich Mateschitz of Red Bull) vs the money that made Manchester City a force in English football (Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi). There's nothing romantic or historical about either club! But a local derby in the US can only be good for the game domestically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A local derby? That's not really an expression that ever gets used here, so I had to look it up. Doesn't really apply here anyway.. the Jets and Giants have their annual preseason rivalry, but they only play once every 4 years in the regular season. But I digress..

I'm tempted to smack my head against the wall every time I hear this kind of backwards logic. Anthony is right.. this is a soccer arena with little to no consideration being made for potential Olympic use. LD, you can't reverse the flow of time here. The earliest NYC could bid for an Olympics is for the 2024 Games (which they're probably not going to due to a lack of interest). So more likely you're looking at the 2028 Olympics, the planning and voting for which is going to take place from 2018-2021. Pretty good chance they are going to build an MLS venue before that time. So unless there are provisions made for an Olympic bid (and I'm fairly confident that won't be the case), you're talking about a pre-built MLS venue being converted for an Olympics, not an Olympic Stadium being downsized to become an MLS venue.

This is where I talk about a city's long-term planning all the time. We all here think about these things in terms of what it would take to host an Olympics, but right now there's no interest from New York in hosting an Olympics. There is, however, interest in building an MLS stadium, and that's a project that can push forward now, as opposed to an Olympic Stadium which, even if you plan for it, you still have to win the vote in order to make it worthwhile. That's why the NYC 2012 plan, for all of its failings, at least centered around what would be a permanent venue that would be used by 1 of the local teams, not some temporary venue with little to no purpose after the Olympics. And again, you can't look at an MLS venue and envision an Olympic stadium if the people involved with its design and construction have no interest pursuing an Olympics, which is almost certainly going to be the case here.

Great post is right! This is exactly what I was trying to confirm to myself. The fact that they have no Olympic plans with the NYCFC stadium makes me sad, and even no plans in general makes me sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post is right! This is exactly what I was trying to confirm to myself. The fact that they have no Olympic plans with the NYCFC stadium makes me sad, and even no plans in general makes me sad.

New York City FC Stadium is only 28,000 seater. The Olympics requires around about 80,000 Seater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...