Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I value infrastructure over "size." San Diego has the majority of the venues in place, with the exception of a stadium and arena. With a mayoral election behind us, I think that stadium issue will be taken care of fairly soon. If it comes down to population over city fit, culture, etc, then you might as well put all the candidate cities into a bag and choose randomly.

Stadium wise, San Diego and Los Angeles are in the same boat: We lack a state-of-the-art facility. However, San Diego will soon put to vote a 70,000 seat stadium downtown. To have opening cerimonies downtown, next to the Convention Center, a new arena and Petco, right on the water, would be incredible.

And San Diego can pull off the games for well under $10 billion. We have the necessary hotel space, and are working to radically transform our infrastructure and public transit. The only real stain on our resume is that pesky airport, oh yeah and we only have 3 million in the region, which obviously makes the games in this area an impossibility.

For the Summer Games, San Diego is as good a fit as Los Angeles, in my opinion. LA just happens to be bigger and has star-power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to talk about the US being a shoe in in 2032, but which city? Neither LA, New York or Chicago seem like locks to even be interested. Since the US economy is likely to further deteriorate by then it's hard to imagine Chicago will have a better bid for 2032 than they did for 2016. (You can't grow your way out of debt when you have a huge trade deficit and are bleeding capital.)

Los Angeles is the easy frontrunner for making a bid, but I frankly can't see them having a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the IOC to go back instead to LA instead of Paris, Shanghai, etc. Any LA bid is going to be based around existing venues. That will appeal to taxpayers in the US but not the international voters.

well you should ask Tokyo. they based their bid on existing (and modified) venues. but were not taking about Istanbul2020

IMO, "glamor" is places like London, Paris, New York & Milan. Rio to me is nothing but a party town, with Carnival & beautiful sandy beaches, much like the French Quater, South Beach & Las Vegas. A place where you can get down & party! That's why I'm so looking forward to their opening ceremonies! I'm hoping for a real SAMBA par-tayyyy come Aug. 2016!!

LOL! I was going to post similar before, then thought I didn't want to derail a USA thread.

But....

If you're talking "glamour", Rio left Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo in the shade.

another thing i would like to ask, what the appeal of durban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I value infrastructure over "size." San Diego has the majority of the venues in place, with the exception of a stadium and arena. With a mayoral election behind us, I think that stadium issue will be taken care of fairly soon. If it comes down to population over city fit, culture, etc, then you might as well put all the candidate cities into a bag and choose randomly.

Stadium wise, San Diego and Los Angeles are in the same boat: We lack a state-of-the-art facility. However, San Diego will soon put to vote a 70,000 seat stadium downtown. To have opening cerimonies downtown, next to the Convention Center, a new arena and Petco, right on the water, would be incredible.

And San Diego can pull off the games for well under $10 billion. We have the necessary hotel space, and are working to radically transform our infrastructure and public transit. The only real stain on our resume is that pesky airport, oh yeah and we only have 3 million in the region, which obviously makes the games in this area an impossibility.

For the Summer Games, San Diego is as good a fit as Los Angeles, in my opinion. LA just happens to be bigger and has star-power.

i agree with you. maybe san diego should bid for a youth olympic games,just to test the waters.

One word - Africa.

i get that. besides elephants and lions in the Savannah, what the appeal of durban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I value infrastructure over "size." San Diego has the majority of the venues in place, with the exception of a stadium and arena. With a mayoral election behind us, I think that stadium issue will be taken care of fairly soon. If it comes down to population over city fit, culture, etc, then you might as well put all the candidate cities into a bag and choose randomly.

Stadium wise, San Diego and Los Angeles are in the same boat: We lack a state-of-the-art facility. However, San Diego will soon put to vote a 70,000 seat stadium downtown. To have opening cerimonies downtown, next to the Convention Center, a new arena and Petco, right on the water, would be incredible.

And San Diego can pull off the games for well under $10 billion. We have the necessary hotel space, and are working to radically transform our infrastructure and public transit. The only real stain on our resume is that pesky airport, oh yeah and we only have 3 million in the region, which obviously makes the games in this area an impossibility.

For the Summer Games, San Diego is as good a fit as Los Angeles, in my opinion. LA just happens to be bigger and has star-power.

If we're going to have a serious discussion about infrastructure, you're only fooling yourself if you think San Diego is in the same category as LA. Los Angeles has 2 large scale stadiums (whether or not either can be a centerpiece remains to be seen). I'll believe a downtown 70,000 seat stadium in San Diego when I see it.

What about arenas? Los Angeles has several. San Diego I believe has 2 of a decent size. Athlete housing? LA much better set up for that. Travel? Do we really need to compare airports here?

The fact that San Diego ever considered partnering with Tiujuana tells you what the folks in SD think about the size and infrastructure of their city. I know their line of thinking was to include another city and NOC, but that's not the way to go. You're darn right Los Angeles is bigger (much bigger) and has a lot more star power. Those factors make them a better fit than San Diego to host an Olympics.

another thing i would like to ask, what the appeal of durban?

One word - Africa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTQbiNvZqaY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And San Diego can pull off the games for well under $10 billion. We have the necessary hotel space, and are working to radically transform our infrastructure and public transit. The only real stain on our resume is that pesky airport, oh yeah and we only have 3 million in the region, which obviously makes the games in this area an impossibility.

For the Summer Games, San Diego is as good a fit as Los Angeles, in my opinion. LA just happens to be bigger and has star-power.

Star power is what it's all about when it comes to the IOC, though. Who makes the most compelling case.

And no city can pull off a 21st Century Summer Olympics for under $10 Billion, especially one still not on par with their bigger sister with the list you just gave. By 2024 post-Olympic dollars, that figure could easily double by the time it's all said & done. City officials always underestimate early on anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i get that. besides elephants and lions in the Savannah, what the appeal of durban?

As opposed to anywhere else in South Africa?

Climate (by far the warmest city in the IOC's mandated time window), has a lot of the top order facilities in place already with room to accommodate what else they need (which I think is important when you're considering the social responsibility and cost of taking the games to SA), a reputation as the most multicultural city in the Rainbow Nation, and, well, it may not have a flat landmark mountain behind it, but it's hardly unattractive. A pleasant coastal city with a nice beach coastline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another thing i would like to ask, what the appeal of durban?

Have you not been reading this thread. Since several members here have already thoroughly answered that for you since the last time you capriciously asked it. It's not rocket-science to see what is the "appeal" of Durban. It's the same appeal that Rio had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're going to have a serious discussion about infrastructure, you're only fooling yourself if you think San Diego is in the same category as LA. Los Angeles has 2 large scale stadiums (whether or not either can be a centerpiece remains to be seen). I'll believe a downtown 70,000 seat stadium in San Diego when I see it.

What about arenas? Los Angeles has several. San Diego I believe has 2 of a decent size. Athlete housing? LA much better set up for that. Travel? Do we really need to compare airports here?

The fact that San Diego ever considered partnering with Tiujuana tells you what the folks in SD think about the size and infrastructure of their city. I know their line of thinking was to include another city and NOC, but that's not the way to go. You're darn right Los Angeles is bigger (much bigger) and has a lot more star power. Those factors make them a better fit than San Diego to host an Olympics.

Well, San Diego is most certainly not pairing with TJ. The USOC rejected that bid, but encouraged a San Diego-only bid for 2024.

LA's stadiums are on par with Qualcomm Stadium. And as of today, the plan is to put to vote a 70,000 seat stadium downtown, which would be funded with help from the NFL, Chargers, and the selling of the mission valley and sports arena sites.

So far, Los Angeles has a better airport and more people, and we haven't heard a peep from them on the bid. Today, the Port of SD voted to fully back the 2024 bid as well as the 2017 America's Cup bid. With stability in the form of a new mayor, San Diego can finally focus on those infrastructure improvement that makes us a serious contender.

All I'm doing is defending San Diego as a viable city that deserves a look from the USOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only purpose behind bidding with Tijuana was to bring a progressive new concept to olympics that nations can come together, even in the worst of times, and unite to put on a show for the world. When the USOC and IOC rejected the concept of a "binational" olympics (and not the cultural aspect), San Diego moved forward on its own. According to the EC, there's a lot of support and buzz around the SD bid, and we will make it past the next cut.

Star power is what it's all about when it comes to the IOC, though. Who makes the most compelling case.

And no city can pull off a 21st Century Summer Olympics for under $10 Billion, especially one still not on par with their bigger sister with the list you just gave. By 2024 post-Olympic dollars, that figure could easily double by the time it's all said & done. City officials always underestimate early on anyway.

What I mean by this is that San Diego has no need to build an Olympic Training Center, or Mission Bay Park, or a waterfront, or Del Mar. We have most of the venues already in place or under construction (Convention Centers). Reducing costs isn't going to be at the expense of the bid itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean by this is that San Diego has no need to build an Olympic Training Center, or Mission Bay Park, or a waterfront, or Del Mar. We have most of the venues already in place or under construction (Convention Centers). Reducing costs isn't going to be at the expense of the bid itself.

gotta be over 10 billion though??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the tick box answer is not a question anymore. i want to know why the IOC should choose durban 2024

also, rio had it samba and its canival to boost the bid. it was an exciting city to host it and that was the appeal of rio

The more than "ticking the box" has already been answered countless times already. It's a chance for the Olympic Movement to finally represent the last continent, with over one Billion people, that's yet to host the Games. Since the Olympics are mainly about people & not about "sambas".

And no, Rio's appeal was not carnival & samba, that was merely icing on the cake. The IOC chose Rio moreso cuz South America had never hosted the Games before. That was the Brazilians plea to the IOC, hence why the Rio 2016 bid team always carried that MAP with them wherever they went for IOC gatherings. Deny it all you want, but that's mainly why Rio got the 2016 Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more than "ticking the box" has already been answered countless times already. It's a chance for the Olympic Movement to finally represent the last continent, with over one Billion people, that's yet to host the Games. Since the Olympics are mainly about people & not about "sambas".

And no, Rio's appeal was not carnival & samba, that was merely icing on the cake. The IOC chose Rio moreso cuz South America had never hosted the Games before. That was the Brazilians plea to the IOC, hence why the Rio 2016 bid team always carried that MAP with them wherever they went for IOC gatherings. Deny it all you want, but that's mainly why Rio got the 2016 Games.

this is still a tick box answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean by this is that San Diego has no need to build an Olympic Training Center, or Mission Bay Park, or a waterfront, or Del Mar. We have most of the venues already in place or under construction (Convention Centers). Reducing costs isn't going to be at the expense of the bid itself.

Where do city officials though, cite under $10 Billion. Building infrastructure & even just a few venues still costs a lot of money. And you still have the stadium issue, which that alone would cost at least a billion. Not to mention that still leaves something that would need to be done with the airport. And let's not forget the all-important security budget, too. (Although, the Feds would supply most of that) So no, "under $10 Billion" is still not a realistic figure, not for San Diego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is still a tick box answer

What was it for China, other than "you need to finally give 1.3 Billion people the Games". Or Rio & Lula's "it's time for South America". Or Russia's "we're a strong winter sports nation to yet host the Winter Olympics" - "ticking the box". There's no host that has a laundry list of "ticking the boxes". It's usually just ONE big tick. Stop with your capriciousness now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only purpose behind bidding with Tijuana was to bring a progressive new concept to olympics that nations can come together, even in the worst of times, and unite to put on a show for the world. When the USOC and IOC rejected the concept of a "binational" olympics (and not the cultural aspect), San Diego moved forward on its own. According to the EC, there's a lot of support and buzz around the SD bid, and we will make it past the next cut.

What I mean by this is that San Diego has no need to build an Olympic Training Center, or Mission Bay Park, or a waterfront, or Del Mar. We have most of the venues already in place or under construction (Convention Centers). Reducing costs isn't going to be at the expense of the bid itself.

LA has FAR more buzz and has announced they want to bid. San Diego sounds nice, but America needs a new city with a true and full culture that can be celebrated. Something more than a beach that draws people in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do city officials though, cite under $10 Billion. Building infrastructure & even just a few venues still costs a lot of money. And you still have the stadium issue, which that alone would cost at least a billion. Not to mention that still leaves something that would need to be done with the airport. And let's not forget the all-important security budget, too. (Although, the Feds would supply most of that) So no, "under $10 Billion" is still not a realistic figure, not for San Diego.

Here are our venue needs, with pretty generous estimates.

SD Stadium (70,000+) $1billion

SD Sports Arena (20,000, possibly funded, owned and operated by AEG) $500million

SD Convention Center Expansion $500million (already funded)

SD Olympic Park/Athlete Village $???

SDSU College Stadium (40,000, no concrete plans for construction) $300million

Aquatics Center (20,000) $???

Chula Vista Convention Center (unaware of plans, funding sources) $>500million http://www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Development_Services/Planning_Building/bayfront.asp

And, for venues, that seems to wrap things up. I included the link for the second convention center because I'm uninformed on that project.

LA has FAR more buzz and has announced they want to bid. San Diego sounds nice, but America needs a new city with a true and full culture that can be celebrated. Something more than a beach that draws people in.

I'm not sure if you are from LA, but tell me, what draws people in to LA over San Diego. We are far more than just a beach.

I know that they have expressed interest, but is that all? Have they had talks with the USOC. I don't know, and I can't seem to find much on their bid other than the fact that local officials are all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.A. sent their official declaration to the USOC with "great enthusiasm" almost a year ago. Virtually immediately after the USOC sent their letter to 35 U.S. cities. So L.A. is definitely one of the cities that the USOC is talking to.

I'm not doubting that LA is a finalist, nor that it is the USOC front runner at this point. But I am doubting that there is great buzz around the bid. I haven't heard much noise about it.

It makes perfect sense for the USOC to be talking with them. But I haven't heard any public statements, articles, reports or updates on the bid. In San Diego, we've heard a lot about the bid, and while SD doesn't make the national news, I don't think San Diegans are shrugging off the idea, despite being more or less unenthusiastic about the SD-TJ joint bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you are from LA, but tell me, what draws people in to LA over San Diego. We are far more than just a beach.

I know that they have expressed interest, but is that all? Have they had talks with the USOC. I don't know, and I can't seem to find much on their bid other than the fact that local officials are all for it.

hollywood would be a strong buzz for it

the underground culture (street art, rap, etc)

the music possibility (from beach boys to green day)

i see LA not a city bid but a bid state bid.

with possible succession to the union jk ;)

much like Scotland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are our venue needs, with pretty generous estimates.

SD Stadium (70,000+) $1billion

SD Sports Arena (20,000, possibly funded, owned and operated by AEG) $500million

SD Convention Center Expansion $500million (already funded)

SD Olympic Park/Athlete Village $???

SDSU College Stadium (40,000, no concrete plans for construction) $300million

Aquatics Center (20,000) $???

Chula Vista Convention Center (unaware of plans, funding sources) $>500million http://www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Development_Services/Planning_Building/bayfront.asp

And, for venues, that seems to wrap things up. I included the link for the second convention center because I'm uninformed on that project.

Yeah, that's pretty 'generous', especially when they all-important things like the OV left blank. And again, that's only the venues. It's not emcompassing the operational budget, which that alone would run in the $3 Billion mark, at least. And added infrastructure that's needed. Yeah, wayyy more than just '$10 Billion'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not doubting that LA is a finalist, nor that it is the USOC front runner at this point. But I am doubting that there is great buzz around the bid. I haven't heard much noise about it.

It makes perfect sense for the USOC to be talking with them. But I haven't heard any public statements, articles, reports or updates on the bid. In San Diego, we've heard a lot about the bid, and while SD doesn't make the national news, I don't think San Diegans are shrugging off the idea, despite being more or less unenthusiastic about the SD-TJ joint bid.

We haven't heard too much about the other cities either, TBH. It makes sense that you're hearing about San Diego in your local news. The same could be said of the other cities as well, though. L.A. could just be waiting until more definitive news is made, since it is of course L.A. & they have other things to bolster about in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...