Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

If Chicago is holding back on Bidding for 2024 because they lost 2016, then they should think and reconsider. They were up against 3 other strong Bids, in Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Who's to say, though, that they wouldn't be up against another set of "strong" bids for 2024, like Paris, Rome & South Africa. It'd be the same type of circumstances there, too. Chicago has wisely decided to not get involved this time around. Let them perhaps reconsider when the timing might be better. But 2024 doesn't seem like it. Let L.A. be the sucker here, since they're so eager to anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Who's to say, though, that they wouldn't be up against another set of "strong" bids for 2024, like Paris, Rome & South Africa. It'd be the same type of circumstances there, too. Chicago has wisely decided to not get involved this time around. Let them perhaps reconsider when the timing might be better. But 2024 doesn't seem like it. Let L.A. be the sucker here, since they're so eager to anyway.

True and a fair point but ...... Chicago would be more experienced and stronger this time around IMO. They will learn from why they were eliminated in the first round. Like come on, 2016 was going to go to Rio, with the first South America Games backing them and the IOC wanting to visit new Continents. Saying that, like I've said before, America won't get the 2024 Olympics in my opinion anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to say now that 2016 was "going to South America" (just like in China's case for 2008). But at the early stages of the 2016 race, it wasn't as clear-cut. Just how some are still arguing now the "negatives" of a South African bid, is exactly how some were arguing against Beijing & Rio, respectively.

Not to mention, that Brazil had just won the FIFA 2014 World Cup & many were questioning the ability of a developing nation being able to stage two, mega-sporting events within two years time. It was still widely viewed that Brazil couldn't do it. With that said, if the South Aficans do indeed join the 2024 fray, it won't matter what former losing candidates have "learned" from their prior experience if the IOC already has it's "new" sights for somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True and a fair point but ...... Chicago would be more experienced and stronger this time around IMO. They will learn from why they were eliminated in the first round. Like come on, 2016 was going to go to Rio, with the first South America Games backing them and the IOC wanting to visit new Continents. Saying that, like I've said before, America won't get the 2024 Olympics in my opinion anyway.

Let's say for argument's sake that hypothetically speaking, Chicago was interested in 2024. What would they have learned from 2016? The reason why they lost probably had a lot more to do with the geopolitics of the bid than anything to do with their venue plan. This isn't like Pyeongchang which was able to take its experience from 2010 and then 2014 to better their bid for 2018. I don't know how much stronger Chicago would necessarily be the 2nd time around, especially if they didn't significantly alter their venue plan (I know it's been debated ad nauseum here, but I was never a huge fan of their stadium concept).

And yea, someone who follows Olympic bidding as much as you do would remember that Rio was far from the automatic pick. It seems that way now. Not so much at the time. Love that you started that sentence with "Like come on" though. I guess it's not just American teenage girls who use that expression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say for argument's sake that hypothetically speaking, Chicago was interested in 2024. What would they have learned from 2016? The reason why they lost probably had a lot more to do with the geopolitics of the bid than anything to do with their venue plan. This isn't like Pyeongchang which was able to take its experience from 2010 and then 2014 to better their bid for 2018. I don't know how much stronger Chicago would necessarily be the 2nd time around, especially if they didn't significantly alter their venue plan (I know it's been debated ad nauseum here, but I was never a huge fan of their stadium concept).

And yea, someone who follows Olympic bidding as much as you do would remember that Rio was far from the automatic pick. It seems that way now. Not so much at the time. Love that you started that sentence with "Like come on" though. I guess it's not just American teenage girls who use that expression.

Lol, I don't use that as a start of a sentence often. Anyway, I agree, from an Architectural point of view, I didn't like Chicago's Stadium plan. To be fair, they Rio could of done better with Maracana IMO. Anyway, I've said Rio got the games because of the new continents the IOC wants. To be fair, Rio wasn't even picked as a Candidate City for 2012, then 4 years later they won? If Buenos Aires would of been in Rio's position, Buenos Aires would of probably won because of the 'First South American Olympics' I believe. Chicago has a lot to learn. Even some critics said that Obama only turned up in Copenhagen on the same day, whereas the likes of Pele etc were there for a few days. Also, America has hosted a lot, Rio not much, 1 Pan American Games, 1 World Cup. America has hosted 8 Olympics (4 Summer (St. Louis 1904, Los Angeles 1932, Los Angeles 1984 and Atlanta 1996) and 4 Winter (Lake Placid 1932, Squaw Valley 1960, Lake Placid 1980 and Salt Lake City 2002)) where as Brazil will host their first Olympic Games (Summer 2016) and 2 Pan American Games (Sao Paulo 1963 and Rio de Janeiro 2007). So with that, you kind of knew Rio were going to win, with New Continent and not hosting as much as America. Also, if Chicago had won, I'm sure that wouldn't of been the final design of their Olympic Stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Quaker said, where could Chicago improve? Their venue plan was great, the brand was beautiful, they had strong local support, I would say they could improve by getting all of America on board.

I agree. The only thing I would change with Chicago is 1 what you said with getting America on board and 2 renovate soldier field to 80,000 seats. You could always have those extra seas be temporary just for the games.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I don't use that as a start of a sentence often. Anyway, I agree, from an Architectural point of view, I didn't like Chicago's Stadium plan. To be fair, they Rio could HAVE done better with Maracana IMO. Anyway, I've said Rio got the games because of the new continents the IOC wants. To be fair, Rio wasn't even picked as a Candidate City for 2012, then 4 years later they won? If Buenos Aires would HAVE been in Rio's position, Buenos Aires would HAVE probably won because of the 'First South American Olympics' I believe. Chicago has a lot to learn. Even some critics said that Obama only turned up in Copenhagen on the same day, whereas the likes of Pele etc were there for a few days. Also, America has hosted a lot, Rio not much, 1 Pan American Games, 1 World Cup. America has hosted 8 Olympics (4 Summer (St. Louis 1904, Los Angeles 1932, Los Angeles 1984 and Atlanta 1996) and 4 Winter (Lake Placid 1932, Squaw Valley 1960, Lake Placid 1980 and Salt Lake City 2002)) where as Brazil will host their first Olympic Games (Summer 2016) and 2 Pan American Games (Sao Paulo 1963 and Rio de Janeiro 2007). So with that, you kind of knew Rio were going to win, with New Continent and not hosting as much as America. Also, if Chicago had won, I'm sure that wouldn't HAVE been the final design of their Olympic Stadium.

Again.. no, we didn't know Rio was going to win. It was far from a foregone conclusion. Yes, they won because it was "their time" and all that, but that didn't become apparent until after the voting, or at least until after the first 2 rounds when it was Rio against perhaps the least likely of the 4 to win. You can't just say whatever South American city might have been in there would have won. Rio still had to have a good enough bid to pull it off. Like you said, 4 years earlier they didn't even make the shortlist, although look at the competition they were up against. They come back having hosted a very successful Pan Ams, and that's what helped put them over the top.

I agree. The only thing I would change with Chicago is 1 what you said with getting America on board and 2 renovate soldier field to 80,000 seats. You could always have those extra seas be temporary just for the games.

The extra seating wouldn't mean Soldier Field could be your centerpiece stadium. Not that they could go back and change history, but I think if Chicago could have used the Soldier Field renovations to make it the centerpiece for an Olympic bid, they've had something really special. Would could be more Olympic than a stadium designed in the Greco-Roman tradition with columns!! But it wasn't meant to be, and with the stadium having undergone a gut renovation, it's not likely they'll be doing anything with it in the near future and at best, it remains no more than a football venue for an Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lmfao :-D I see I'm not the only to constantly see "of" where HAVE should be lol.

But yeah, it didn't become clear that Rio was gaining momentum until AFTER the Sportsaccord in Denver. Again, when the 2016 race first got underway, Rio was almost an afterthought. Especially when they had just won the FIFA 2014 World Cup & it remained to be seen if the IOC really wanted to be second fiddle to the all-important World Cup to a soccer-mad nation like Brazil.

The 2007 Pan Ams also helped them in the perception that the IOC gained confidence with them, something that the Brazilians didn't have four years earlier with their 2012 attempt. Again, hindsight is always 20/20 & it's always easy to say stuff after the fact. Obama being there only for a day had nothing to do with it either. Had he not shown up then people would've blamed him for that. So it was one of those damn if you, or damn if you don't scenarios for the U.S.

*Obama being in Copenhagen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extra seating wouldn't mean Soldier Field could be your centerpiece stadium. Not that they could go back and change history, but I think if Chicago could have used the Soldier Field renovations to make it the centerpiece for an Olympic bid, they've had something really special. Would could be more Olympic than a stadium designed in the Greco-Roman tradition with columns!! But it wasn't meant to be, and with the stadium having undergone a gut renovation, it's not likely they'll be doing anything with it in the near future and at best, it remains no more than a football venue for an Olympics.

Only if there was a time machine..... Anyway you could have built a olympic park around it with a aquatics center and the other venues that chicago 2016 proposed. IMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79521248/

The mayor if Chicago is looking for a 5,000 seat expansion if soldier field so it is possible that it could be used as a olympic stadium in the future (even though it will only be expanded to 68,500 seats you might be able to push for more) IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79521248/

The mayor if Chicago is looking for a 5,000 seat expansion if soldier field so it is possible that it could be used as a olympic stadium in the future (even though it will only be expanded to 68,500 seats you might be able to push for more) IMO

Still not going to be the Olympic Stadium. That expansion is all about Chicago trying to land a Super Bowl, not an Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I know if it ever gets to at least 75,000 then it probably could be a olympic stadium maybe even 70,000

You would still need a stadium of about 60k for track and field, so an expansion of soldier field to get hopefully bolster an olympic bid is really not that big a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Track and field would be nj soldier field.

Look at the footprint of soldierfield. How do you plan to put a 400m track and still have atleast 60k seats? Not to mention that would absolutely ruin the sightlines for football even if it was like the stade france

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the footprint of soldierfield. How do you plan to put a 400m track and still have atleast 60k seats? Not to mention that would absolutely ruin the sightlines for football even if it was like the stade france

I was saying that you could expand the stadium to 80K ish and then downside it to 70K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying that you could expand the stadium to 80K ish and then downside it to 70K

First of all that doesnt solve the problem of the track as well as it just being so much more expensive to expand and develop the stadium rather than just increasing it a few thousand seats which serves the legacy of the stadium and city far more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all that doesnt solve the problem of the track as well as it just being so much more expensive to expand and develop the stadium rather than just increasing it a few thousand seats which serves the legacy of the stadium and city far more.

First of all, there is that much of a problem with the track, it will just be temporary only for the games. It will take out some seats but that's why you just expand seats on the top. And also to increase the seating you have to expand the stadium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there is that much of a problem with the track, it will just be temporary only for the games. It will take out some seats but that's why you just expand seats on the top. And also to increase the seating you have to expand the stadium.

Look at this overhead of soldier field. Like I said before the footprint of soldier field is too small to incorporate a track without gutting the stadium.File:Soldier_Field_aerial.jpg

Also how do you plan expanding this stadium 20k seats? Its not just that easy to add more seats at the top which is why the expansion is only about 5000 seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there is that much of a problem with the track, it will just be temporary only for the games. It will take out some seats but that's why you just expand seats on the top. And also to increase the seating you have to expand the stadium.

The problem is that the physical space remains. As pointed out above, the dimensions of a football stadium (either American or association) are much smaller than a 400 meter track. Putting in a track puts a great distance between the first row of the stands and the field, and no NFL team is going to be OK with that.

Basically you have to completely reconstruct a stadium to change it from a track stadium to an NFL-suitable stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there is that much of a problem with the track, it will just be temporary only for the games. It will take out some seats but that's why you just expand seats on the top. And also to increase the seating you have to expand the stadium.

Look Soldier field will NOT be an Olympic Stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there is that much of a problem with the track, it will just be temporary only for the games. It will take out some seats but that's why you just expand seats on the top. And also to increase the seating you have to expand the stadium.

Do you understand what a massive undertaking that would be? The last renovation of Soldier Field cost over $600 million (about as much as a brand new stadium would have cost) and displaced the Bears for a full season. Granted, 20-25 years later might be time for another renovation, but installing a track and then removing it from an existing stadium is probably more trouble than it's worth, especially to maintain the integrity of the stadium. Not going to happen. Not after the spaceship has landed.

And to binary's point, take a look at the original Soldier Field, pre-renovation..

30324_ori_soldier_field.gif

They could have re-built the stadium with enough room for a track. Don't know how happy that would have made the Bears, but there might have been room. Not anymore. Too late for that now if they wanted to make this a suitable Olympic Stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...