Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

New York City official NOT interested in bidding for the 2024 Olympics.

Mayor de Blasio Has No Plan to Go for Gold

Let this put to rest the "absence of information" from NYC issue and replace it with a very definitive statement of NYC's lack of interest (and yes, it sounds like you can fairly directly tie that to the election of de Blasio as mayor

Link to post
Share on other sites

So......realistically which US city do you all think the USOC will choose to bid for 2024? It's an interesting set of cities they are talking to: San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Dallas, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and Boston.

Blackmun said, "there's no matrix for how we'll choose a city. There's no scoring system. It's going to be which city has the most voter appeal, which city can provide the best experience to athletes, which city can provide the best experience for spectators and which city has the best economic situation to host a Games. We don't want to take substantial financial risks".

so the city with the most aesthetic appeal while at the same time having a good economy and being a relatively low investment? That would probably be LA. However, I personally would like to see a dallas bid. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes I'm curious to see the Dallas bid myself :) - realistically though I think if San Francisco can get a solid venue plan they would have a good shot. For DC I'm hearing that most people in the district oppose bidding, then again that's more word of mouth as I haven't seen formal polls conducted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes I'm curious to see the Dallas bid myself :) - realistically though I think if San Francisco can get a solid venue plan they would have a good shot. For DC I'm hearing that most people in the district oppose bidding, then again that's more word of mouth as I haven't seen formal polls conducted.

One word San Francisco and all the cities need to focus on is this...LEGACY

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see the Bay Area getting behind hosting an Olympics. On the surface, sure there will be support but then, once the environmentalists get ahold of the impact, they'll scream and holler and dissuade the Bay Area from proceeding. Beyond that, transportation is a mess in the Bay Area, and that's on a good day. Three weeks of the Olympics? No way. Not to mention, BART workers have a nasty habit of going on strike fairly often.

Mind you, if the Bay Area wound up becoming a host city, I'd find that to be an acceptable reason to visit family and friends in the area, lol. Er, rather, utilize their guest rooms and/or sofa beds while attending some events. But, really, I cannot begin to express just how chaotic and awful the traffic in the Bay Area is (lived in the Central Valley and worked in the East Bay for 20 years). That and that alone makes me think that hosting an Olympics is probably not feasible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see the Bay Area getting behind hosting an Olympics. On the surface, sure there will be support but then, once the environmentalists get ahold of the impact, they'll scream and holler and dissuade the Bay Area from proceeding. Beyond that, transportation is a mess in the Bay Area, and that's on a good day. Three weeks of the Olympics? No way. Not to mention, BART workers have a nasty habit of going on strike fairly often.

Mind you, if the Bay Area wound up becoming a host city, I'd find that to be an acceptable reason to visit family and friends in the area, lol. Er, rather, utilize their guest rooms and/or sofa beds while attending some events. But, really, I cannot begin to express just how chaotic and awful the traffic in the Bay Area is (lived in the Central Valley and worked in the East Bay for 20 years). That and that alone makes me think that hosting an Olympics is probably not feasible.

Traffic is NOT an issue. Freeway traffic disappeared during the 1984 and 1996 Games in Atlanta. Lived in both areas at those times. It would be the same for a SF Bay Area Games...which will NOT be happening. (Also, mind you, Atlanta used SF's BART system as the model for their MARTA system which was in its infancy for the 1996 Games and worked well then. So, how can bring up this whole traffic business? Do a little more research on it. NOT an issue.)

More importantly, there are no funds (or future tenant) for whatever will comprise a supposed 'Olympic stadium.' There will be a place for it at the old Candlestick Park when that facility is demolished starting in April. But then, what will become of it afterwards? Also, the plans for what would've been a 2016 Village have moved on. So I don't NOT what the USOC and Mayor Lee's office are talking about -- not unless they're planning to use Stanford or the refurbished Cal stadium in Berkeley as the main stadium -- in which case, that would involved Berkeley as well.

Those are the reasons an SF bid will NOT happen; not because of traffic issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic is NOT an issue. Freeway traffic disappeared during the 1984 and 1996 Games in Atlanta. Lived in both areas at those times. It would be the same for a SF Bay Area Games...which will NOT be happening. (Also, mind you, Atlanta used SF's BART system as the model for their MARTA system which was in its infancy for the 1996 Games and worked well then. So, how can bring up this whole traffic business? Do a little more research on it. NOT an issue.)

More importantly, there are no funds (or future tenant) for whatever will comprise a supposed 'Olympic stadium.' There will be a place for it at the old Candlestick Park when that facility is demolished starting in April. But then, what will become of it afterwards? Also, the plans for what would've been a 2016 Village have moved on. So I don't NOT what the USOC and Mayor Lee's office are talking about -- not unless they're planning to use Stanford or the refurbished Cal stadium in Berkeley as the main stadium -- in which case, that would involved Berkeley as well.

Those are the reasons an SF bid will NOT happen; not because of traffic issues.

Ummm pull anch

Traffic is NOT an issue. Freeway traffic disappeared during the 1984 and 1996 Games in Atlanta. Lived in both areas at those times. It would be the same for a SF Bay Area Games...which will NOT be happening. (Also, mind you, Atlanta used SF's BART system as the model for their MARTA system which was in its infancy for the 1996 Games and worked well then. So, how can bring up this whole traffic business? Do a little more research on it. NOT an issue.)

More importantly, there are no funds (or future tenant) for whatever will comprise a supposed 'Olympic stadium.' There will be a place for it at the old Candlestick Park when that facility is demolished starting in April. But then, what will become of it afterwards? Also, the plans for what would've been a 2016 Village have moved on. So I don't NOT what the USOC and Mayor Lee's office are talking about -- not unless they're planning to use Stanford or the refurbished Cal stadium in Berkeley as the main stadium -- in which case, that would involved Berkeley as well.

Those are the reasons an SF bid will NOT happen; not because of traffic issues.

Ummm pull a Chicago and build a temporary stadium.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm pull a Chicago and build a temporary stadium.

It didn't work for Chicago; and Chicago is a much bigger city. Don't you think SF planners haven't thought about that? The numbers aren't going to work for a city as small as and with the political climate of SF. That's still at least as little as $150 million down the drain--for what? A 2-week festival. It's not as easy as muttering "... build a temporary stadium."

You think the "temporary" basketball venue in London was a success? It didn't work; it wasn't viable to send it to Rio; let alone being used in Glasgow That was a big failure. I also don't see how they are going to downsize Fisht stadium to 20,000 after 2018. "Temporary stadia" is a big myth.

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

It didn't work for Chicago; and Chicago is a much bigger city. Don't you think SF planners haven't thought about that? The numbers aren't going to work for a city as small as and with the political climate of SF. That's still at least as little as $150 million down the drain--for what? A 2-week festival. It's not as easy as muttering "... build a temporary stadium."

You think the "temporary" basketball venue in London was a success? It didn't work; it wasn't viable to send it to Rio; let alone being used in Glasgow That was a big failure. I also don't see how they are going to downsize Fisht stadium to 20,000 after 2018. "Temporary stadia" is a big myth.

Exactly, Temporary stadiums are built then torn down. Just more money down the drain, unless it's location has some serious benefits. That's the tie-breaker for the games, any city could host, but not every city can come up with a working legacy plan and that can decide whether the games were a great investment or a financial boondoggle.

Ummm pull a Chicago and build a temporary stadium.

Ummm Chicago's was not temporary towards the end, instead it would just be "downsized"

Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't work for Chicago; and Chicago is a much bigger city. Don't you think SF planners haven't thought about that? The numbers aren't going to work for a city as small as and with the political climate of SF. That's still at least as little as $150 million down the drain--for what? A 2-week festival. It's not as easy as muttering "... build a temporary stadium."

You think the "temporary" basketball venue in London was a success? It didn't work; it wasn't viable to send it to Rio; let alone being used in Glasgow That was a big failure. I also don't see how they are going to downsize Fisht stadium to 20,000 after 2018. "Temporary stadia" is a big myth.

The choice for London was either to build a permanant basketball arena in the Park, then be left with a huge cavernous arena not far from the O2 and right next to the smaller Copper Box, or go temporary.

We still don't know the fate of the basketball arena, but it's owned by a private company and it's up to them what to do with it. Given the choice between a massive white elephant and a temporary solution, London made the right one. It wasn't a massive failure even if BARR still haven't sold it off, but the only alternative would certainly have been. Imagine the stories now if we had a 12k seat arena in the Park laying empty. That land is now being used for new housing instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn't work for Chicago; and Chicago is a much bigger city. Don't you think SF planners haven't thought about that? The numbers aren't going to work for a city as small as and with the political climate of SF. That's still at least as little as $150 million down the drain--for what? A 2-week festival. It's not as easy as muttering "... build a temporary stadium."

You think the "temporary" basketball venue in London was a success? It didn't work; it wasn't viable to send it to Rio; let alone being used in Glasgow That was a big failure. I also don't see how they are going to downsize Fisht stadium to 20,000 after 2018. "Temporary stadia" is a big myth.

The choice for London was either to build a permanant basketball arena in the Park, then be left with a huge cavernous arena not far from the O2 and right next to the smaller Copper Box, or go temporary.

We still don't know the fate of the basketball arena, but it's owned by a private company and it's up to them what to do with it. Given the choice between a massive white elephant and a temporary solution, London made the right one. It wasn't a massive failure even if BARR still haven't sold it off, but the only alternative would certainly have been. Imagine the stories now if we had a 12k seat arena in the Park laying empty. That land is now being used for new housing instead.

i would rather go temporary than white elephant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...