Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

I love that idea of San Diego having the Sailing Competition :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That's a false equivalency. The issue with Los Angeles isn't just that it's not a new frontier, but it's a city that's only 30 years removed from its last hosting (40 years come 2024). Tokyo's previous hosting will have come 56 years prior and London's was 64. Not to mention that London's previous hosting came on the heels of World War II. So their 2012 Olympics had little to no resemblance to their previous hosting.

That's the issue that Los Angeles faces. How to present their bid for a 2024 Olympics and make it different from 1984. I know there's been a lot of new venues built in LA since then along with numerous infrastructure improvements, but you're trying to make the sell to an international organization where many of the members were in attendance last time. You may be right about the IOC looking for a different approach (and Oslo might be a signal of that), but Los Angeles may be taking that concept to an extreme. It's easy to view them as the best choice on the domestic front given what the other options are likely to be (or not to be), especially for 2024. But then you're throwing them on an international stage with a Paris or a Rome or a Berlin, not to mention of course South Africa, and suddenly you're going up against countries that are also not new frontiers but can offer a less expensive games and have hosted less recently than the United States.

It's the question that's been asked here many times before that the LA organizers will eventually have to answer for.. what is their narrative? What is the story they're telling that will make them the place the IOC wants to come to in 2024. And most important, what is their plan for the big ticket elements of their bid (the main stadium, the Olympic village, etc). If they're looking at using the Coliseum and college dorms once again, that sounds an awful lot like what the world experienced 30 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is about as far from San Francisco as Munich from Augsberg.

Well, that's still closer to SF than to LA, no? Given that some people count Augsburg as part of a greater Munich Metro Area, I don't see how Silicon Valley should count for an LA narrative.

As for San Diego holding sailing events - given that sailing quite often is held away from the host city, why should it be in this case, with LA having opportunities right at the door step? Just to make it "all-Californian" Games? That'll be a tough sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Silicon Valley is actually Santa Clara / Campbell / Mountain View / Palo Alto, geographically closer to San Jose but a lot of the venture capitalists, the attorneys who incorporate the companies, the money that makes Silicon Valley, the couples who made it rich with their high tech firms, live in and emanate from San Francisco. Apple, Facebook, Oracle, etc. have their huge, annual shindigs in SF. Twitter is fully hqrted in San Francisco. FB used to be & I don't know if they still have a presence there. Most of the high-tech companies' international connections & clients fly in and out of SFO.

So Silicon Valley, figuratively speaking, is like an extension/suburb of San Francisco, more so than San Jose.

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

Yes. Silicon Valley is actually Santa Clara / Campbell / Mountain View / Palo Alto, geographically closer to San Jose but a lot of the venture capitalists, the attorneys who incorporate the companies, the money that makes Silicon Valley, the couples who made it rich with their high tech firms, live in and emanate from San Francisco. Apple, Facebook, Oracle, etc. have their huge, annual shindigs in SF. Twitter is fully hqrted in San Francisco. FB used to be & I don't know if they still have a presence there. Most of the high-tech companies' international connections & clients fly in and out of SFO.

So Silicon Valley, figuratively speaking, is like an extension/suburb of San Francisco, more so than San Jose.

I am from and still live in San Francisco Yes many people live in San Francisco that work with tech and they take shuttles to get there a big controversy here as they use Public Bus Stops. Sillcon Valley and San Jose are2 both located in Santa Clara County and is NOT a suburb of San Francisco

Then I look back on this Thread and realize your also from here but that's my opinion on this matter

I also will say much to much my dismay I don't think we Could Do it. Too many people we call Nimby's that would oppose it and cry and scream :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that that probelem with a LA 2024 bid is that they have to convince the U

(Sorry about my post before). The problem with a la 2024 bid is that they have to convince the ioc to come back to la fr a third time( Paris is a different story). Cause their venue plan will probably be good considering if they build the village along the la river and maybe other venues. If farmers field is built it could host ceremonies and t&f. Or you could renovate memorial collisium. Finally even build a olympic park on top of the race track. They have a lot to play with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys. New to the forum, but I have been reading this site since Vancouver.

Of the cities that are potential bidders, I personally think the USOC should look into San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, and D.C. I know LA has the existing infrastructure, but I feel like LA will have lost some of its Olympic luster since 1984. Then again, it was one of the few games that actually generated a profit, so that is always a plus in terms of legacy.

My personal pick would be DC. Aside from the word of mouth about opposition, I think DC could make a slam dunk bid. RFK, FedEx, M&T, Camden, Nationals park, DCU stadium (proposed), Verizon Arena, Baltimore arena, Navy Memorial (maybe not bc of the institution), the Armory, and a host of college facilities in the area all provide great venues in place with needs for renovations. RFK would be the biggest undertaking since it'll probably need to be demolished and rebuilt entirely. BWI, Dulles, and Reagan can handle the influx of air traffic, with Dulles being able to sustain higher capacities than it currently hosts today.

That's just my dream bid. I think it would be awesome to have any city in the US host, but the US's problem is that it has too many cities capable of hosting. The bidding process is generally an attempt to woo the USOC based on externalities (i.e.--appeal to the international community). The other issue is going to be who else bids globally. I'm sure the USOC had the intention of having an easy time with the bids, but with the opening up of other continents that have yet to host (South America and eventually Africa) and the centennial of a two-timer (Paris) it is going to be harder. But a lot of potential competitors have dropped out like Toronto. The USOC is going to have to make this as strong as possible to even make it to the shortlist. My concern is what happens should a US city not be selected.

Many people bemoan the fact that the US has such a high frequency of hosting the games, both Summer and Winter. The reality is because so many cities are capable of hosting the games in this country. Now after a period of not hosting there are going ot be some people who are gung-ho about getting the games that if they lose again they may never bid again. Is this a bad thing for the games? I don't know. Judging from the attention paid to the games since Beijing (which I think took the games and the media attention to a new level) I think the US is ok without hosting the games for a while. Would I want that to happen? No. But if it were to happen I wouldn't be too upset.

That being said, the USOC shouldn't half-ass this bid and rest on its laurels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys. New to the forum, but I have been reading this site since Vancouver.

Of the cities that are potential bidders, I personally think the USOC should look into San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, and D.C. I know LA has the existing infrastructure, but I feel like LA will have lost some of its Olympic luster since 1984. Then again, it was one of the few games that actually generated a profit, so that is always a plus in terms of legacy.

My personal pick would be DC. Aside from the word of mouth about opposition, I think DC could make a slam dunk bid. RFK, FedEx, M&T, Camden, Nationals park, DCU stadium (proposed), Verizon Arena, Baltimore arena, Navy Memorial (maybe not bc of the institution), the Armory, and a host of college facilities in the area all provide great venues in place with needs for renovations. RFK would be the biggest undertaking since it'll probably need to be demolished and rebuilt entirely. BWI, Dulles, and Reagan can handle the influx of air traffic, with Dulles being able to sustain higher capacities than it currently hosts today.

That's just my dream bid. I think it would be awesome to have any city in the US host, but the US's problem is that it has too many cities capable of hosting. The bidding process is generally an attempt to woo the USOC based on externalities (i.e.--appeal to the international community). The other issue is going to be who else bids globally. I'm sure the USOC had the intention of having an easy time with the bids, but with the opening up of other continents that have yet to host (South America and eventually Africa) and the centennial of a two-timer (Paris) it is going to be harder. But a lot of potential competitors have dropped out like Toronto. The USOC is going to have to make this as strong as possible to even make it to the shortlist. My concern is what happens should a US city not be selected.

Many people bemoan the fact that the US has such a high frequency of hosting the games, both Summer and Winter. The reality is because so many cities are capable of hosting the games in this country. Now after a period of not hosting there are going ot be some people who are gung-ho about getting the games that if they lose again they may never bid again. Is this a bad thing for the games? I don't know. Judging from the attention paid to the games since Beijing (which I think took the games and the media attention to a new level) I think the US is ok without hosting the games for a while. Would I want that to happen? No. But if it were to happen I wouldn't be too upset.

That being said, the USOC shouldn't half-ass this bid and rest on its laurels.

Look, North America will certainly host in 2032, which city no one knows. Hopefully Chicago will be willing to bid or maybe a new American super city could rise and host. Than again Toronto is probably the best North American city shaped up to host so they could be a shoe in for 2032 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, North America will certainly host in 2032, which city no one knows. Hopefully Chicago will be willing to bid or maybe a new American super city could rise and host. Than again Toronto is probably the best North American city shaped up to host so they could be a shoe in for 2032 as well.

Did a magic 8 ball give you that prediction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was *by* 2032, I'm sure we could all agree it is a fairly safe prediction; 36 years since the last Summer Olympics, 22 since the last Winter...

I don't know how safe a prediction it is. I think there's a decent chance it happens, but I'd hardly call it a safe bet though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did a magic 8 ball give you that prediction?

I got it from Tony :D

I don't know how safe a prediction it is. I think there's a decent chance it happens, but I'd hardly call it a safe bet though.

Our only competition then could be Oceania or if Turkey got it's act together then they could rush in and take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does LA's annoucement preempt all other bids. Any sense of Boston/Dallas/Philly/DC etc. bidding at this point? Will any of them?

What announcement.. that they plan on bidding? Did the other cities think they weren't bidding? Those other cities knew LA was out there when they began their planning efforts. Can't see them backing down now that LA is just reminding everyone they're still out there. In an ideal world, it would be up to the USOC to tell those other cities whether or not they're still interested or not. But to answer your question.. no, IMO this does not pre-empt any of those other cities from attempting to woo the USOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does LA's annoucement preempt all other bids. Any sense of Boston/Dallas/Philly/DC etc. bidding at this point? Will any of them?

Boston's committee just released its first real report over the weekend. Its pretty bare bones, and the point of it is to recommend further study (not in the 'we're not sure we should do this' sense but in the 'this report is very bare bones, but its worth devoting the time to study it further' sense) regarding costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the first article that I've read on the subject that has a distinctive number of cities that the USOC is talking to, since they're always so cryptic with the number. And looking at the list, that seems about right. Then two or three will be moved forward within the next several weeks. But the article seems to be working on the assumption that the USOC will bid, which is far from a given at this point.

And yeah, talk about a video shamelessly extolling. San Diego is including Baja California in a lot of those "figures". And if San Francisco is indeed considering Sacramento for some indoor venues, depending on how many & what events exactly, they might as well throw in the towel. Reminds me of a certain other winter bid, in NV, that wants to use Sacramento, too. San Framento 2024 lmfao.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the first article that I've read on the subject that has a distinctive number of cities that the USOC is talking to, since they're always so cryptic with the number. And looking at the list, that seems about right. Then two or three will be moved forward within the next several weeks. But the article seems to be working on the assumption that the USOC will bid, which is far from a given at this point.

That definitive number is just a link to the wikipedia page on the 2024 potential bids... (though it is fairly well cited)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That definitive number is just a link to the wikipedia page on the 2024 potential bids... (though it is fairly well cited)

Normally I don't go buy Wikipedia when it comes to these kinds of things and that list still seems extremely unofficial, but it seems like it's probably pretty accurate. Obviously certain cities on those list have a much better chance than others, but I'd say that any city NOT on that list is probably out of the running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...