Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

The bigger question is will Durban want to bid if it looses 2024. They are not like other cities such as Istanbul and Detroit who would bid no matter what until they got the games. I see 2022 in Olso, 2024 in Paris, 2026 in??, 2028 Durban, 2030 Argentina?, 2032 US

My history is a little fuzzy.. when did Detroit get the games after they kept bidding no matter what?

I'm with olympicsfan that these predictions for the next decade are pretty pointless. And really.. Argentina for a Winter Olympics? Wouldn't count on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing pisses me off more on this site than when some poster predicts the next 10 Olympic hosts. It's near impossible to predict who will win 2 Olympics from now, let alone 10.

Tony is an exception! He is a gifted 16-year old from London, England no less...who can see far into the future. I think the spirit of my grandpappy, the original Baron Pierre de Coubertin lives in this 16-year old wunderkind from London, England!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony is an exception! He is a gifted 16-year old from London, England no less...who can see far into the future. I think the spirit of my grandpappy, the original Baron Pierre de Coubertin lives in this 16-year old wunderkind from London, England!!!

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing pisses me off more on this site than when some poster predicts the next 10 Olympic hosts. It's near impossible to predict who will win 2 Olympics from now, let alone 10.

Actually five.

My history is a little fuzzy.. when did Detroit get the games after they kept bidding no matter what?

I'm with olympicsfan that these predictions for the next decade are pretty pointless. And really.. Argentina for a Winter Olympics? Wouldn't count on it.

I never said they did. I was implying that Durban is not a country that will bid however many times until they get the games (insert Istanbul and Detroit two cities who have bid countless times and still have not won.)

Also never said that my predictions were true and I doubt they are, merely an exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush could have gotten them to the second round based on pure humor. The thing that was terrible about Chicago's final presentation and entire bid was that it was not global or even national enough. It was too business like and very American. I think they should have gone for a more global view, maybe talked about how the Chicago will inspire the new generation of kids by it's athletes, it's culture, progressiveness, architecture, beauty, and diversity. .

I think you're being somewhat unfair on the Chicago 2016 bid - and the impact of Obama. If anything, the outcome would have been worse for Chicago.

That aside - I also highly doubt Chicago's business like presentation had that much an impact - regardless of if it brought out the fuzzy bid rhetoric like London did in 2005 (which was very savvy) Chicago still would have lost.

Chicago 2016 was clearly doomed due to no fault of its own - in fact the only fault I can really think of is aspects of its venue plan, and Atlanta and Salt Lake (2016, IMO, was still too soon for the US). Aside from that, it fell victim to tactical voting. Ultimately all four candidate cities could have delivered the goods (perhaps Madrid to a lesser extent) but the North American city was always going to go first . That would have been Toronto, New York or Los Angeles bowing out in that first round too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was never expected for the North American city to be tossed out first for 2016. Not when you had Madrid going after it right behind London 2012, & Tokyo not that far behind after Beijing 2008. It was expected to be a Rio/Chicago final. Rio most likely still would've won, but that was more the outcome that was viewed. Even at the session in Copenhagan there were gasps coming from other members inside the hotel when Rogge announced that Chicago was out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Durban could lose 2024 and I they'd be such a heavy favorite for 2028, I don't see how they could sit it out . The IOC wants to go to Africa and South Africa is the only country now and probably in the near future that is capable of hosting an Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just realized my above post is a bit fuzzy. Let me clarify, South Africa is the only country in Africa right now and in the near future that is capable of hosting an Olympics.

South Africa is the strongest in Africa, but as an alternative, Morocco could host the Games in Casablanca.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the funny thing is....someone close to the bid wouldn't tell me who the traitor(s) were. I mean he's no longer with the USOC, I don't see why he couldn't spill the beans and get it off his chest!!

There's no way they can know for sure who the traitors were. It was a secret ballot. Peowcan hint and intimate and guess, but really no one knows which members promised votes to Chicago and chose not to honor that promise.

Correction: "People can hint and intimate...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Africa is the strongest in Africa, but as an alternative, Morocco could host the Games in Casablanca.

Oh please. If some on here are griping that South Africa, with their lower GDP than place like Russia & Brazil, shouldn't host the Games, then much, much less Morocco that has a fraction of GDP that South Africa does. It's South Africa or nothing for Africa. Not to mention, that South Africa would be more stereo-typical "African" than Morocco would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please. If some on here are griping that South Africa, with their lower GDP than place like Russia & Brazil, shouldn't host the Games, then much, much less Morocco that has a fraction of GDP that South Africa does. It's South Africa or nothing for Africa. Not to mention, that South Africa would be more stereo-typical "African" than Morocco would be.

I have never stated that South Africa can't host a Games. I have said many times, Durban will be a favourite for 2028 Summer Olympics. I'm just saying, if Africa was desperate to finally land the Summer Olympic Games, but South Africa didn't want it for some reason, Morocco wouldn't be a bad choice in Casablanca. 2024 is coming to Europe, most probably Rome, Italy. If Rome decides not to Bid, or pulls out again, then it will probably go to Paris, France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said they did. I was implying that Durban is not a country that will bid however many times until they get the games (insert Istanbul and Detroit two cities who have bid countless times and still have not won.)

Also never said that my predictions were true and I doubt they are, merely an exercise.

Well, you are right about 1 thing.. Durban is not a country

Seriously though, we don't know what will happen if South Africa bids and loses. Maybe once they enter the fray, they won't stop till they win. Istanbul has tried so many times and been unsuccessful, but do you think Durban could bid that many times and not win it? I'm in the call that says South Africa needs to earn it and it's not as automatic and some folks think, but it would surprise me if it took more than 2 or 3 tries to get there. Either way, I don't think we can know for sure what happens following a loss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Seattle and a couple of people I know would like to have the Olympics here. (Because they were inspired by Vancouver.) While a Seattle Olympics is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, that got me thinking about what the next American city that gets the games should do.

In 1909 Seattle had a world's fair ("1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition") and used the exhibition grounds to create the University of Washington campus, one of the top 5 in North America. In 1962 Seattle had another world's fair, cleared out a lot of suburban land and created the 74 acre Seattle Center that is now home to festival grounds, a large arena, small football stadium, several museums and theaters and the city's opera and ballet. In both cases the city did a good job of creating a new public area within the city that will define it in perpetuity.

While I laud the fiscal responsibility of using existing venues like Los Angeles and Atlanta did, this doesn't really accomplish anything for the city in the long term. The decision by Los Angeles to spread the events out at multiple universities and suburbs in the SoCal area did nothing to address Los Angeles' biggest problem: of all the major cities in the USA it has the worst public parks. (I grew up in Fullerton; I am not slamming the city, just being honest about its positives and negatives.) The Olympics were a great opportunity for Los Angelenos to create an Olympic Park that would serve as a public park in the future.

The worry I have over a Boston bid is that it will repeat the same mistake as LA and Atlanta. Boston is already very well developed, and any plan to raze a large plot of land in the city will likely cause a riot among Bostonians. But spreading the events around Massachusetts would burden the city with the operating costs of the Olympics without the long term legacy improvements of a concentrated games. All other potential American bids seem to have the same issue: people don't want to spend money like Barcelona or Sochi, and would actually want the games to pay for themselves. But the hidden costs of holding the Olympics (trade imbalance, displacement of existing commercial activity, maintenance costs for white elephant buildings, etc) mean that the Summer Olympics are never a good decision purely from a financial perspective. (And the Winter Olympics are going that direction too.) It's only worth holding the games if you plan on using them to leave a lasting legacy in the host city.

Is there any chance that Boston will go for a full-on Barcelona style games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Seattle and a couple of people I know would like to have the Olympics here. (Because they were inspired by Vancouver.) While a Seattle Olympics is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, that got me thinking about what the next American city that gets the games should do.

In 1909 Seattle had a world's fair ("1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition") and used the exhibition grounds to create the University of Washington campus, one of the top 5 in North America. In 1962 Seattle had another world's fair, cleared out a lot of suburban land and created the 74 acre Seattle Center that is now home to festival grounds, a large arena, small football stadium, several museums and theaters and the city's opera and ballet. In both cases the city did a good job of creating a new public area within the city that will define it in perpetuity.

While I laud the fiscal responsibility of using existing venues like Los Angeles and Atlanta did, this doesn't really accomplish anything for the city in the long term. The decision by Los Angeles to spread the events out at multiple universities and suburbs in the SoCal area did nothing to address Los Angeles' biggest problem: of all the major cities in the USA it has the worst public parks. (I grew up in Fullerton; I am not slamming the city, just being honest about its positives and negatives.) The Olympics were a great opportunity for Los Angelenos to create an Olympic Park that would serve as a public park in the future.

The worry I have over a Boston bid is that it will repeat the same mistake as LA and Atlanta. Boston is already very well developed, and any plan to raze a large plot of land in the city will likely cause a riot among Bostonians. But spreading the events around Massachusetts would burden the city with the operating costs of the Olympics without the long term legacy improvements of a concentrated games. All other potential American bids seem to have the same issue: people don't want to spend money like Barcelona or Sochi, and would actually want the games to pay for themselves. But the hidden costs of holding the Olympics (trade imbalance, displacement of existing commercial activity, maintenance costs for white elephant buildings, etc) mean that the Summer Olympics are never a good decision purely from a financial perspective. (And the Winter Olympics are going that direction too.) It's only worth holding the games if you plan on using them to leave a lasting legacy in the host city.

Is there any chance that Boston will go for a full-on Barcelona style games?

There's been lots of discussion here:

Boston 2024

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is that ANY future American bid is going to follow that same path, though. The New York and Chicago bids were more of the same. The New York bid used scattered venues in each burough rather than building a real Olympic Park somewhere like Harlem. (Yes, I know London had events in other spots of the city, but they had a large focus area that reshaped the East End.) The Chicago bid would similarly have little lasting physical impact on the city.

When the Olympics come back to the USA I hope it will be a dynamic revitalization of some city that needs it rather than a disruption in a city like New York that doesn't need either the prestige or the infrastructure. New York and Chicago already have great public parks and good mass transportation. The Olympics should go somewhere like Philadelphia, and only if that city is interested in a real restructuring of the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of speculation today that the path is open for a US bid. But that presupposed a bid. The USOC doesn't just get to pick a city. The city has to want it.

Realistically, the only cities I can see bidding are LA, Boston and.... maybe Dallas.

If I had to bet, I'd say no US city will bid. Not becuase they are afraid of touch competition. But because they don't want to spend the money to get the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the city that should bid should be New York becuase they would make the perfect host and it is time for them to bid. Another city would be chicago. But both of them aren't interested. Out of the cities that are interested I think either DC or San fransico.

And r u going to foot the bill if the cities won't?? :blink: Becuz the cities have to first say they are seriously interested before any armchair Johnny can anoint them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of speculation today that the path is open for a US bid. But that presupposed a bid. The USOC doesn't just get to pick a city. The city has to want it.

Realistically, the only cities I can see bidding are LA, Boston and.... maybe Dallas.

If I had to bet, I'd say no US city will bid. Not becuase they are afraid of touch competition. But because they don't want to spend the money to get the games.

Agreed. The Toronto news doesn't change the fact that the USOC may or may not have their bid city yet. And I don't get the sense that the folks in LA or Boston or Dallas saw the Toronto news yesterday and thought it meant a thing. It's the USOC's job in this process to exercise caution and know whether or not their bid has a shot at winning, but even without that, I still don't get the sense that any of the interested cities are overly enthusiastic about the prospect of hosting an Olympics. Except maybe for Los Angeles, but they're still the kid in the candy store who you ask if they want a lollipop. Of course they'll say yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Olympics come back to the USA I hope it will be a dynamic revitalization of some city that needs it

Dynamic revitalization = expense. The United States can stage enormously successful Olympic Games without breaking the bank. In an era when the cost of the Games is skyrocketing and prospective bidders are dropping like flies, the IOC has to consider whether they want to follow the trajectory of purpose-built Olympic parks all the way to the likes of Doha and Dubai, or whether they're willing to adjust the scale and style of the Games to something that can realistically be rotated around the world.

I don't see Toronto's news as any great help to the US mainly because I never saw Toronto as a serious threat to American aspirations.

As others have noted, the US needs a great city with great passion, great vision, great leadership and great financial backing. It remains to be seen whether any (much less all) of those stars will align. More importantly, it is still unclear what other bids are out there. The likes of Paris and Durban should factor into the USOC's considerations.

I still think it's totally possible that the USOC won't bid for 2024 and I think that may well be the wisest course of action.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dynamic revitalization = expense. The United States can stage enormously successful Olympic Games without breaking the bank. In an era when the cost of the Games is skyrocketing and prospective bidders are dropping like flies, the IOC has to consider whether they want to follow the trajectory of purpose-built Olympic parks all the way to the likes of Doha and Dubai, or whether they're willing to adjust the scale and style of the Games to something that can realistically be rotated around the world.

I don't see Toronto's news as any great help to the US mainly because I never saw Toronto as a serious threat to American aspirations.

As others have noted, the US needs a great city with great passion, great vision, great leadership and great financial backing. It remains to be seen whether any (much less all) of those stars will align. More importantly, it is still unclear what other bids are out there. The likes of Paris and Durban should factor into the USOC's considerations.

I still think it's totally possible that the USOC won't bid for 2024 and I think that may well be the wisest course of action.

I really agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And r u going to foot the bill if the cities won't?? :blink: Becuz the cities have to first say they are seriously interested before any armchair Johnny can anoint them...

Really cause DC has expressed interest, they even have a twitter. San Francisco kind of.

Dynamic revitalization = expense. The United States can stage enormously successful Olympic Games without breaking the bank. In an era when the cost of the Games is skyrocketing and prospective bidders are dropping like flies, the IOC has to consider whether they want to follow the trajectory of purpose-built Olympic parks all the way to the likes of Doha and Dubai, or whether they're willing to adjust the scale and style of the Games to something that can realistically be rotated around the world.

I don't see Toronto's news as any great help to the US mainly because I never saw Toronto as a serious threat to American aspirations.

As others have noted, the US needs a great city with great passion, great vision, great leadership and great financial backing. It remains to be seen whether any (much less all) of those stars will align. More importantly, it is still unclear what other bids are out there. The likes of Paris and Durban should factor into the USOC's considerations.

I still think it's totally possible that the USOC won't bid for 2024 and I think that may well be the wisest course of action.

You think they are going to go through this whole thing and not bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...