Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Temporary's fine but there is also a cutoff point where it's worth it. And any temporary stadium costing more than $100 million to set up, tear-down, IMHO is NOT worth it. And an Olympic T&F stadium leaves such a big imprint. The IOC will have to alter its template if it wants more cities to bid in the future. Remove T&F.

And I called the 2012 basketball arena a "failure' in that no one has picked it for use as they had originally planned. And that any use in another continent just doesn't cut it. So maybe they should plan 'temporary' for just a 1x use rather than extrapolating 2nd uses for it.

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

Temporary's fine but there is also a cutoff point where it's worth it. And any temporary stadium costing more than $100 million to set up, tear-down, IMHO is NOT worth it. And an Olympic T&F stadium leaves such a big imprint. The IOC will have to alter its template if it wants more cities to bid in the future. Remove T&F.

And I called the 2012 basketball arena a "failure' in that no one has picked it for use as they had originally planned. And that any use in another continent just doesn't cut it. So maybe they should plan 'temporary' for just a 1x use rather than extrapolating 2nd uses for it.

REMOVE TRACK AND FIELD?!?!? Have you gone mad. That is one of the most important and exciting part of the games. One of the most watched sport of the olympics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the alternative to building a temporary stadium for Track is building a stadium that will continue to see use after the games. Take DC for instance: Tear down RFK Stadium (happening soon anyway) and build a track/Olympic stadium that can be easily modified to be the new home of the Redskins (who likes Landover, anyway?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how many times we have to say this. THE NFL HATES TRACK STADIUMS. The only option for building a track stadium in the US is a university.

Not if you go London and modify the seating to have a Football field in the center.

Then it's not coming back to the US until 2032...with Los Angeles again.

Well that's going to happen any-ways. Although they should loosen the expectations and regulations on the T & F stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it's not coming back to the US until 2032...with Los Angeles again.

Probably not coming back here until at least 2032 anyway. That's a lot of time for a city somewhere to come up with a solution to this problem, the solution not being to remove track & field from the Olympics.

Link to comment
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.

Traffic might disappear but it is mighty hard to transport those folks using BART (which is a decent enough system, especially when combined with the other commuter train options that traverse the Bay Area as a whole - CalTrain and ACE) if the BART workers go on strike. Do you know how many times they have either gone on strike or come so close to striking in the past two years? At least twice that I can recall off the top of my head. And I know that for a fact, thanks to the many friends I have who live in the Bay Area and rely upon BART for their daily commutes. Maybe it wouldn't be an issue but there's no guarantee that it won't.

As far as the stadium issue... Unless the IOC demands that the Olympic Stadium be located in San Francisco proper, I'm not sure why it would be a problem to use the stadiums at either Stanford or Cal, or even the new 49ers home, Levi's Stadium. Another option, would be to tear down that cesspit known as the Oakland Coliseum and build something newer/better for the Raiders. Of course, nothing's going to happen on the Oakland front until MLB works out its territory rights issues between the Giants and A's and lets the A's move down to San Jose since the East Bay stadium options for the A's are all dead in the water. But I expect that there will be definitive movement on the A's front, which will impact the Raiders (they'll be jealous and begging for a new stadium of their own after Levi's Stadium opens anyways), far sooner than any decision on a possible SF Olympic bid.

With respect to the Olympic Village issue - there's all that land that's going to be sitting empty once Candlestick is torn down. I can't think of a better place to rejuvenate than Candlestick Point. I haven't researched the land requirements necessary for an Olympic Village though so I'm not sure if there is enough acreage out there. It's been a good 15 years since I've had a need to visit Candlestick but I like the idea in theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if you go London and modify the seating to have a Football field in the center.

Which brings us back to a temporary stadium that is reconstructed after the games.

As far as the stadium issue... Unless the IOC demands that the Olympic Stadium be located in San Francisco proper, I'm not sure why it would be a problem to use the stadiums at either Stanford or Cal, or even the new 49ers home, Levi's Stadium.

None of those stadiums are equipped with track lanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed before, but using the new 49'ners stadium in Santa Clara (almost 50 miles from SF) no longer makes it a "San Francisco" bid but a San Jose one, since everything else, like the OV & all of the other main arenas, would have to be nearby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings us back to a temporary stadium that is reconstructed after the games.

None of those stadiums are equipped with track lanes.

Which is going to be a problem at just about any stadium in the US, regardless of whether it's an NFL stadium or a college stadium. And, with college football as big a business these days as it is, I can't see many universities wanting track lanes around a brand-new, state-of-the-art, swankly football stadium.

I can't see a temporary stadium being a popular option anywhere in the US but it worked for London so maybe it would work somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is going to be a problem at just about any stadium in the US, regardless of whether it's an NFL stadium or a college stadium. And, with college football as big a business these days as it is, I can't see many universities wanting track lanes around a brand-new, state-of-the-art, swankly football stadium.

The difference is that the NFL is a multi-billion dollar independent enterprise while public universities are at least indirectly run by the same governments which would be supporting the bid. If a collection of governments want to build a new stadium for a university at the same time they want to bid for the Olympics then the two can be solved together. The NFL only has one priority ($$$) while governments and public universities have several different goals, some of which might be accomplished with an Olympic stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traffic might disappear but it is mighty hard to transport those folks using BART (which is a decent enough system, especially when combined with the other commuter train options that traverse the Bay Area as a whole - CalTrain and ACE) if the BART workers go on strike. Do you know how many times they have either gone on strike or come so close to striking in the past two years? At least twice that I can recall off the top of my head. And I know that for a fact, thanks to the many friends I have who live in the Bay Area and rely upon BART for their daily commutes. Maybe it wouldn't be an issue but there's no guarantee that it won't.

As far as the stadium issue... Unless the IOC demands that the Olympic Stadium be located in San Francisco proper, I'm not sure why it would be a problem to use the stadiums at either Stanford or Cal, or even the new 49ers home, Levi's Stadium. Another option, would be to tear down that cesspit known as the Oakland Coliseum and build something newer/better for the Raiders. Of course, nothing's going to happen on the Oakland front until MLB works out its territory rights issues between the Giants and A's and lets the A's move down to San Jose since the East Bay stadium options for the A's are all dead in the water. But I expect that there will be definitive movement on the A's front, which will impact the Raiders (they'll be jealous and begging for a new stadium of their own after Levi's Stadium opens anyways), far sooner than any decision on a possible SF Olympic bid.

With respect to the Olympic Village issue - there's all that land that's going to be sitting empty once Candlestick is torn down. I can't think of a better place to rejuvenate than Candlestick Point. I haven't researched the land requirements necessary for an Olympic Village though so I'm not sure if there is enough acreage out there. It's been a good 15 years since I've had a need to visit Candlestick but I like the idea in theory.

I live in the Bay Area; am kept in the loop of BASOC (Bay Area Sports Organizing Committee) which spearheaded the last 2012 and 2016 efforts. Was almost recruited to work with the SF 2016 effort before it folded prematurely due to some turncoat moves of the 49er organization. The IOC charter requires that the main stadium and/or Opening/Closing take place within acknowledged city borders. Yeah, stretching that rule might be possible...but if you are up against a Paris or a Durban where their projected main stadia are totally w/in their city borders...and mix that with the always dubious anti-American vote in the IOC who will pounce on anything not within the letter of the IOC 'law;' and you have a very weak bid -- and you might as well not run.

All your worries have been thought of and countered; and in the previous bids (which do look down 9-10 years down the road); all of those have been crunched. Also, FYI, whether SF won 2016 or not, BART hopes to have a whole new fleet of cars by 2017. I am sure if 2016 had been designated for San Francisco, they would've pushed for delivery a year earlier. Also, this "fear of strikes," the governor can again invoke the "no-strike" situation for 60 days which is what he did in the last round of strikes/negotiations last October. Again, it is an unfounded fear.

As I said, nearly all of your thoughts had been addressed and crunched to within reason by the previous efforts. For some reason, I think the current Lee administration is not working with BASOC and/or listening to BASOC input which is why they got partially shafted by the watered down America's Cup last summer. SF City Hall seems to be bent on reinventing the Olympic wheel which is why I think they don't know what they're doing. But if they can't even deliver the new Warriors Arena on the SF waterfront which would probably be the marquee Gymnastics venue in any future SF Olympic bid, what more another Olympic stadium, and let's call it temporary becuz there will absolutely be NO use for an 80,000 seater after any future Games? Lennart Housing, who was to partner for the Village in the 2016 bid, has altered and downsized their plans for the Hunters Point area where the 2016 Village was to go up.

Like NYC and Chicago, SF realistically is NOT viable at this time for a 2024 Olympics. You can choose to believe me or not but I pretty much gave the lowdown on SF's chances for a future Olympic bid. A few pieces are missing...but those are the key pieces to another viable Bay Area bid.

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

. The IOC charter requires that the main stadium and/or Opening/Closing take place within acknowledged city borders.

The stadium in Berkley is closer to downtown SF than London's Olympic stadium was to "the city of London."

We had an Olympics - LAST WEEK! - where the stadium and events were 30 miles from the named host city.

The nitpicky deatails of where municipal borders technically lie are totally immaterial to IOC votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Paris bids, the main stadium won't be in Paris, but in Saint-Denis.

And if an american city were to build an Olympic Stadium with a football legacy, they should just build the same kind of mobile stands as Stade de France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Paris bids, the main stadium won't be in Paris, but in Saint-Denis.

And if an american city were to build an Olympic Stadium with a football legacy, they should just build the same kind of mobile stands as Stade de France.

To an American city, football is much more important than the Olympics. Modular stands aren't going to go over well with an NFL team that wants to build a stadium to their preferences and specifications. They're not going to want to make sacrifices just to keep open the option of hosting a major track & field event. The best bet is to build a stadium for the Olympics and then convert it (permanently) to use for football. Unfortunately, most cities in the US are not in need of such a stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Memorial Stadium in nearby Berkley is a non-starter. It just underwent a massive renovation. Any attempt to retrofit it for an athletics track would draw a large protest from the university (heck I can remember when the fans at the University of Georgia were practically up in arms when the hedges were moved at Sanford Stadium during the Atlanta Olympics).

For San Francisco, there is one team (actually two) in dire need of a new stadium, both of Oakland's teams (they play in the last of the "cookie cutter" stadiums) and arguably the worst professional sports stadium in the country. Tear down the coliseum and build the Olympic Stadium. The argument I've seen against this would be traffic across the Bay Bridge to San Francisco, however, could this not be eased by constructing the Olympic Village next too a new stadium in Oakland rather than in San Francisco or would this be stretching the rules a bit? Again, this is all a moot point if the Oakland Raiders pack up and return to Los Angeles which I could see happening now that Al Davis is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Paris bids, the main stadium won't be in Paris, but in Saint-Denis.

And if an american city were to build an Olympic Stadium with a football legacy, they should just build the same kind of mobile stands as Stade de France.

Well, Saint-Denis is part of Paris metro area -Actually inner circle of urban agglomeration-, so the Stade of France is still part of a potential Paris bid.

It's the same with the Omnilife Stadium during 2011 Pan American Games. The stadium is in Zapopan, but Zapopan belongs to Guadalajara metro area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stadium in Berkley is closer to downtown SF than London's Olympic stadium was to "the city of London."

We had an Olympics - LAST WEEK! - where the stadium and events were 30 miles from the named host city.

The nitpicky deatails of where municipal borders technically lie are totally immaterial to IOC votes.

Ugh, not this again. No, Sochi is NOT 30 milles away from Adler, it's half of that at 15 miles.

http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_Sochi_RS_and_Adler_RS.html

Not to mention that Adler is merely a DISTRICT of Sochi similar to the boroughs of New York City. So technically, it's still PART of Sochi. And besides, perhaps the fact that Putin was willing to give the IOC a party that ended up costing $51 Billion, the "nit pickiness" didn't matter to them at that point.

And you're comparing a Winter Olympics (which how much is there to do in Sochi, & where the organizers & governments of other countries told you not to wander off too far from the venues anyway) to Berkeley.

If the stadium is to be in Berkeley, then mostly everything else has to be centered around there, too. Otherwise it'd be a logistical nightmare trying to cross the bay, especially when the ceremonies end & the mass exodus begins. And by that point, it's no longer a "San Francisco" bid but a Berkeley one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2024 is LA's to lose in the domestic front. NY and Chicago are no longer interested in bidding, Boston is too compact, DC has the disadvantage of being the nation's capital with security a major issue, and the SF Bay Area is a logistical

nightmare and cooperation between cities remains a challenge. All other cities lack the international cache.

I know everyone feels like LA is another been there done that, but London and Tokyo being so close to each other disproves the idea that the IOC is constantly looking for new frontiers. In fact I think the tide is beginning to turn with budgets blowing out of proportions, too many white elephants being the lasting legacy in some cases, even countries going bankrupt. Countries craving to be in center stage have recently gone too far over the top, and I think the IOC is starting to see that a back to basics approach is the way to go during these times, and if Oslo wins the 2022 Winter Games, that's even more obvious.

LA already has a lot of goodwill within the IOC, LA has a lot of legacy projects that could be expedited with an Olympics, and LA is that rare city that is both developed but still developing. From rail lines being expanded, airports getting renovated, bridges getting rebuilt or replaced, downtown cores getting revived, freeways being capped with parks, and a river that's in thirst of being rejuvenated, there are so many things an Olympics can and will put it's stamp on. The recent revenue deal between the IOC and USOC cleared the path for an American city to have a fair chance and the field of cities interested in 2024 doesn't seem to be that strong so this is the biggest window of opportunity the US has had in recent years. Most importantly, LA has always had strong support from the city for their bids regardless of its chances.

Most venues are already in place, a lot of them newer ones built since '84. LA always has the memorial coliseum as backup for T&F and ceremonies but efforts to bring the NFL back to LA has picked up steam in recent years, those proposals came up short but the Olympics could be the catalyst for that happening. The NFL has expressed their interest in Chavez Ravine alongside Dodger stadium as their preferred site as opposed to the downtown stadium AEG proposed next to Staples. A temporary T&F stadium could be built that would be converted to football. Chavez Ravine is near what would be a great site for an Olympic Village right next to Union Station above the railyards along the LA river. That area is already being proposed for future development and there's a lot of potential for green space in that area which is exactly what LA needs. Another great location for an Olympic Village and/or a satellite cluster of venues would be in Inglewood where Hollywood Park racetrack just closed last year. That's a huge amount of land that just became available in an area not too far from the center of the region. Besides The Forum recently being renovated next door, it's the perfect location for equestrian, BMX and other outdoor events.

There's a lot more that makes LA the appealing and logical choice for the Olympics. Traffic won't be a concern, LA already had 2 carmageddons and those went extremely well. NY, Chicago and SF would've all been ideal but the timing never seemed to be right with those cities. LA just happens to end up as America's Summer Olympic City, it always has been.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2024 is LA's to lose in the domestic front. NY and Chicago are no longer interested in bidding, Boston is too compact, DC has the disadvantage of being the nation's capital with security a major issue, and the SF Bay Area is a logistical

nightmare and cooperation between cities remains a challenge. All other cities lack the international cache.

I know everyone feels like LA is another been there done that, but London and Tokyo being so close to each other disproves the idea that the IOC is constantly looking for new frontiers. In fact I think the tide is beginning to turn with budgets blowing out of proportions, too many white elephants being the lasting legacy in some cases, even countries going bankrupt. Countries craving to be in center stage have recently gone too far over the top, and I think the IOC is starting to see that a back to basics approach is the way to go during these times, and if Oslo wins the 2022 Winter Games, that's even more obvious.

LA already has a lot of goodwill within the IOC, LA has a lot of legacy projects that could be expedited with an Olympics, and LA is that rare city that is both developed but still developing. From rail lines being expanded, airports getting renovated, bridges getting rebuilt or replaced, downtown cores getting revived, freeways being capped with parks, and a river that's in thirst of being rejuvenated, there are so many things an Olympics can and will put it's stamp on. The recent revenue deal between the IOC and USOC cleared the path for an American city to have a fair chance and the field of cities interested in 2024 doesn't seem to be that strong so this is the biggest window of opportunity the US has had in recent years. Most importantly, LA has always had strong support from the city for their bids regardless of its chances.

Most venues are already in place, a lot of them newer ones built since '84. LA always has the memorial coliseum as backup for T&F and ceremonies but efforts to bring the NFL back to LA has picked up steam in recent years, those proposals came up short but the Olympics could be the catalyst for that happening. The NFL has expressed their interest in Chavez Ravine alongside Dodger stadium as their preferred site as opposed to the downtown stadium AEG proposed next to Staples. A temporary T&F stadium could be built that would be converted to football. Chavez Ravine is near what would be a great site for an Olympic Village right next to Union Station above the railyards along the LA river. That area is already being proposed for future development and there's a lot of potential for green space in that area which is exactly what LA needs. Another great location for an Olympic Village and/or a satellite cluster of venues would be in Inglewood where Hollywood Park racetrack just closed last year. That's a huge amount of land that just became available in an area not too far from the center of the region. Besides The Forum recently being renovated next door, it's the perfect location for equestrian, BMX and other outdoor events.

There's a lot more that makes LA the appealing and logical choice for the Olympics. Traffic won't be a concern, LA already had 2 carmageddons and those went extremely well. NY, Chicago and SF would've all been ideal but the timing never seemed to be right with those cities. LA just happens to end up as America's Summer Olympic City, it always has been.

also narrative wise, LA has a better chance than other US cities.a lot has change in the city since 1984. besides the third time hosting the Olympic story, hollywood and silicon valley might play into the bid. i see this as a bid not of LA but the state of California. full of beautiful contradictions and rich diversity.

SD can have the sailing competition

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...