FYI Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 -the IOC has strongly favored compact bids in recent years Not really. The most "compact" bids in recent summer edition elections have not won. And for 2016, the most spread-out venue concept won out over the rest. There's too many variables involved to pinpoint winning bids on that one aspect alone. If L.A. is not deemed worthwhile for 2024 by the USOC or IOC, it won't be bcuz it'd be a bit more spread out than other cities. Although, at least with this attempt, it looks like they're finally learning & consolidating their plans moreso than in previous attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 After the transportation disaster that was Atlanta . Atlanta's transportation wasn't a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted April 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 No matter how things turn out, I would think both the USOC and IOC would be thrilled with LA's bid. It's clearly an energetic and workable concept in a world class city. The risks are very low and the probability of success high. The USOC or IOC may vote for another city instead of LA (probably for geopolitical reasons), but they have to be extremely pleased that there's such a good looking option out there. Personally, I think Dallas would be a non-starter with the IOC. It just doesn't have the cultural cachet -- and for good reason. Plus, it's too hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Dallas could give them a run for their money, especially with the more centrally focused venue plan. LA is amazing, but still has to cope with the spread between venues. The thing that Dallas had going for them IMO was that they had some semblance of a plan where no one else did. Now that's no longer the case. I'm curious to see what Dallas has to offer, but again, LA has now raised the bar and unless their plan is better than what we've just seen from LA (if it's even, LA wins that contest, hands down), they don't stand a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted April 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I have to say that I think minimizing distance between venues is going to be less and less of a priority going forward. It's important that the athletes be able to get to their venues in reasonable time. As long as that happens, I think the IOC will relax their more unrealistic expectations in this regard. They have to let go if they want the Games to be affordable. Let's be good stewards and use what's there. Honestly, what's another 10 or 20 minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 The thing that Dallas had going for them IMO was that they had some semblance of a plan where no one else did. Now that's no longer the case. I'm curious to see what Dallas has to offer, but again, LA has now raised the bar and unless their plan is better than what we've just seen from LA (if it's even, LA wins that contest, hands down), they don't stand a chance.[/quote And where does this leave little brother San Diego now, lol! :-D The thing that Dallas had going for them IMO was that they had some semblance of a plan where no one else did. Now that's no longer the case. I'm curious to see what Dallas has to offer, but again, LA has now raised the bar and unless their plan is better than what we've just seen from LA (if it's even, LA wins that contest, hands down), they don't stand a chance. And where does this leave little brother San Diego now, lol! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 And where does this leave little brother San Diego now, lol! :-D Hopefully they're wise enough to pack it in. If not, I hope they're not too insulted when the USOC don't pick them to go forward 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Personally, I think Dallas would be a non-starter with the IOC. It just doesn't have the cultural cachet -- and for good reason. Plus, it's too hot. From an outsiders perspective, I think the biggest issue Dallas faces, right or wrong, is Atlanta. I know they are very different cities, but they are still iconic hubs of the South and its just not hard to imagine it having been Dallas in 1996. This is why I have a hunch an East Coast option like Boston has potential - if the Olympics goes back to the States, it might as well be in a new region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 I have to say that I think minimizing distance between venues is going to be less and less of a priority going forward. It's important that the athletes be able to get to their venues in reasonable time. As long as that happens, I think the IOC will relax their more unrealistic expectations in this regard. They have to let go if they want the Games to be affordable. Let's be good stewards and use what's there. Honestly, what's another 10 or 20 minutes? I see your point, if anything (and LA accomplishes this) is that the city should have a strong transportation network. The more I look into this and see LA's vision the more I fall in love! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 27, 2014 Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 From an outsiders perspective, I think the biggest issue Dallas faces, right or wrong, is Atlanta. I know they are very different cities, but they are still iconic hubs of the South and its just not hard to imagine it having been Dallas in 1996. This is why I have a hunch an East Coast option like Boston has potential - if the Olympics goes back to the States, it might as well be in a new region. Far be it from me to talk about an outsider's perspective of the Untied States, but Dallas is in a vastly different region of the country than Atlanta. You can can it the "South" and assume they're similar on that basis, but that's like saying Los Angeles and San Francisco are similar simply because they're both in California. I don't know if you're been in both Dallas and/or Atlanta, but you definitely wouldn't confuse 1 for the other, except maybe if you don't leave the airport. And yea, it would be nice if a city in the Northeast or the Midwest added themselves to the Olympic map, but especially with a city like Boston and others in the Northeast, many of them are simply too dense to offer up a solid plan for the Olympics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I just wanna see USA host an OSGs one more time in my life. And somewhere different, as much as I totally enjoyed LA84 as a kid. Dallas would've been a cool host, and probably one of the most popular Olympics if it were to have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I just wanna see USA host an OSGs one more time in my life. And somewhere different, as much as I totally enjoyed LA84 as a kid. Dallas would've been a cool host, and probably one of the most popular Olympics if it were to have happened. IDK, Houston would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromit Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 how about Seattle? They have a number of facilities in place, major infrastructure investment is occurring in the transportation system irrespective of any bid, they have a number of 500 HQs in the region, a major international airport undergoing redevelopment, the right climate, and don't appear to have officially ruled themselves out. The iconic imagery of Seattle means it punches above its weight in terms of global awareness, and it might even be able to sell a story to the IOC members Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 how about Seattle? They have a number of facilities in place, major infrastructure investment is occurring in the transportation system irrespective of any bid, they have a number of 500 HQs in the region, a major international airport undergoing redevelopment, the right climate, and don't appear to have officially ruled themselves out. The iconic imagery of Seattle means it punches above its weight in terms of global awareness, and it might even be able to sell a story to the IOC members What about Seattle? They showed a tiny bit of interest in an Olympics, but is the USOC still talking to them? Because it seems like the USOC may have already ruled themselves out. In which case this discussion is moot. Seattle is a beautiful city and they do have some sports facilities (although keep in mind, they just made a point to REMOVE the athletics track from a large scale stadium they may have been able to use), but I don't think they're on the USOC's radar right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 how about Seattle? I think the best we can hope for Seattle is a WOG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 how about Seattle? They have a number of facilities in place, major infrastructure investment is occurring in the transportation system irrespective of any bid, they have a number of 500 HQs in the region, a major international airport undergoing redevelopment, the right climate, and don't appear to have officially ruled themselves out. The iconic imagery of Seattle means it punches above its weight in terms of global awareness, and it might even be able to sell a story to the IOC members Seattle is really weird for a mid sized in that it already has two huge modern football stadiums (67k and 70k) in the city proper, with one of them actually downtown, and third football stadium near downtown in a sports and entertainment complex with two arenas and multiple theaters. That's the plus side of hosting two world's fairs, I guess. The problem is that the remaining issues are basically insoluble. The city just embarked on its own version of Boston's famed Big Dig, and there is no prospect of a subway system for the next several decades. Nor is there any purpose for the Olympic Stadium. Beyond that, though, Seattle just doesn't have the space or population for the summer games. It stinks, but you can put Seattle in the category of cities like Amsterdam that have half of what they need to be fantastic hosts but have no shot of finding the other half of what they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 how about Seattle? They have a number of facilities in place, major infrastructure investment is occurring in the transportation system irrespective of any bid, they have a number of 500 HQs in the region, a major international airport undergoing redevelopment, the right climate, and don't appear to have officially ruled themselves out. The iconic imagery of Seattle means it punches above its weight in terms of global awareness, and it might even be able to sell a story to the IOC members Seattle is really weird for a mid sized in that it already has two huge modern football stadiums (67k and 70k) in the city proper, with one of them actually downtown, and third football stadium near downtown in a sports and entertainment complex with two arenas and multiple theaters. That's the plus side of hosting two world's fairs, I guess. The problem is that the remaining issues are basically insoluble. The city just embarked on its own version of Boston's famed Big Dig, and there is no prospect of a subway system for the next several decades. Nor is there any purpose for the Olympic Stadium. Beyond that, though, Seattle just doesn't have the space or population for the summer games. It stinks, but you can put Seattle in the category of cities like Amsterdam that have half of what they need to be fantastic hosts but have no shot of finding the other half of what they need. For the US in general, while population is important. I don't think it's as important as it would be for a smaller nation. The games will still bring thousands of Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 For the US in general, while population is important. I don't think it's as important as it would be for a smaller nation. The games will still bring thousands of Americans. Yes, but after the games you need enough people to support the stadiums and arenas. Consider tennis. Seattle doesn't have a major tennis tournament and isn't big enough to sell enough tickets for a start up tournament. So a new tennis complex would probably be unused. Meanwhile New York has the US Open, Los Angeles has an ATP tournament and there are a couple of ATP Challenger Tour events in Illinois that could be moved to Chicago if they built a big tennis complex. There are a ton of cities that could host the games if they had enough money to spend. It's the legacy afterwards that becomes problematic. Even if I had 100 billion to spend to create a subway system and a floating Olympic stadium in Seattle, there would be too many white elephant venues left over afterwards. And that goes for Minnesota, San Diego, etc. as well. I think Boston, San Francisco and Atlanta are the smallest cities that can realistically host. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromit Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Seattle is really weird for a mid sized in that it already has two huge modern football stadiums (67k and 70k) in the city proper, with one of them actually downtown, and third football stadium near downtown in a sports and entertainment complex with two arenas and multiple theaters. That's the plus side of hosting two world's fairs, I guess. The problem is that the remaining issues are basically insoluble. The city just embarked on its own version of Boston's famed Big Dig, and there is no prospect of a subway system for the next several decades. Nor is there any purpose for the Olympic Stadium. Beyond that, though, Seattle just doesn't have the space or population for the summer games. It stinks, but you can put Seattle in the category of cities like Amsterdam that have half of what they need to be fantastic hosts but have no shot of finding the other half of what they need. There is no requirement for a subway just a MRT Facilities such as tennis facilities need not be large and permanent. They merely need to be scaleable after the games or half a future use after the games. They can be clay, grass, or even hard court. As for the main stadium, a solution to Madrid's solution or what Glasgow 2014 are doing. Put a deck in the Husky and lose 12,000 seats. Add 20,000 temp seats and you are at 80,000. After the games use some of these seats and put them round the warm up track and you have an athletics legacy to satisfy the IAAF. Not too dissimilar to what Dallas is proposing but with more tolerable weather and far more compact than this bid. The presence of two large stadium plus Sadeco field means existing needs of teams can be met whilst one is temporarily converted into the main stadium. This tends to be the biggest White elephant of any games - indoor areas, velodrome's, acquatics centres are always much easier to find use for post games - the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome may form a future blueprint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 As for the main stadium, a solution to Madrid's solution or what Glasgow 2014 are doing. Put a deck in the Husky and lose 12,000 seats. Add 20,000 temp seats and you are at 80,000. After the games use some of these seats and put them round the warm up track and you have an athletics legacy to satisfy the IAAF. Not too dissimilar to what Dallas is proposing but with more tolerable weather and far more compact than this bid. The presence of two large stadium plus Sadeco field means existing needs of teams can be met whilst one is temporarily converted into the main stadium. This tends to be the biggest White elephant of any games - indoor areas, velodrome's, acquatics centres are always much easier to find use for post games - the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome may form a future blueprint Oh good grief, Charlie Brown. Let's try this one more time, although it's probably a waste of time to be talking about this since Seattle isn't in any actual discussions.. The University of Washington recently spent $261 million renovating Husky Stadium. Largest capital project in the history of the University who owns and operates the stadium, NOT the city of Seattle who owns both Safeco and CenturyLink Field. This one does not belong to them. It amazes me the number of people on here that completely fail to understand this concept. The main purpose of the renovation was to replace the stands which had gotten worn down by age. Here's the before and after (sorry for the large image, it's the best one I could find).. The renovation took OUT the track. Capacity is still around 70,000, only a couple hundred seats less than the predecessor. They made a point to keep the roof on both sides as they believe that will make the stadium louder. So here's my question for you, gromit. Why the f**k would the University of Washington renovation THEIR stadium again they just spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to take the track out. I would love for you to explain that to me. It gets so sick and tiring of hearing people try to argue "well, city X could do this to their stadium because city Y did it and blah blah blah legacy blah blah blah." It would be so refreshing if someone, for once, could actually work this extremely important concept of ownership into their arguments because when you don't, you look like a fool. Even if Seattle were still in the running for the 2024 Olympics (which, for all intents and purposes, they are not), this is not an option. Not until you want to convince some folks at the University of Washington the $261 million they just spent might need to be undone in less than a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Oh good grief, Charlie Brown. Let's try this one more time, although it's probably a waste of time to be talking about this since Seattle isn't in any actual discussions.. The University of Washington recently spent $261 million renovating Husky Stadium. Largest capital project in the history of the University who owns and operates the stadium, NOT the city of Seattle who owns both Safeco and CenturyLink Field. This one does not belong to them. It amazes me the number of people on here that completely fail to understand this concept. The main purpose of the renovation was to replace the stands which had gotten worn down by age. Here's the before and after (sorry for the large image, it's the best one I could find).. The renovation took OUT the track. Capacity is still around 70,000, only a couple hundred seats less than the predecessor. They made a point to keep the roof on both sides as they believe that will make the stadium louder. So here's my question for you, gromit. Why the f**k would the University of Washington renovation THEIR stadium again they just spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to take the track out. I would love for you to explain that to me. It gets so sick and tiring of hearing people try to argue "well, city X could do this to their stadium because city Y did it and blah blah blah legacy blah blah blah." It would be so refreshing if someone, for once, could actually work this extremely important concept of ownership into their arguments because when you don't, you look like a fool. Even if Seattle were still in the running for the 2024 Olympics (which, for all intents and purposes, they are not), this is not an option. Not until you want to convince some folks at the University of Washington the $261 million they just spent might need to be undone in less than a decade. It still is really ugly stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 There is no requirement for a subway just a MRT Traffic in Seattle is almost as bad as Los Angeles. There may be no bid requirement for a subway system, but I don't see how the logistics of the games would work without one. Facilities such as tennis facilities need not be large and permanent. They merely need to be scaleable after the games or half a future use after the games. They can be clay, grass, or even hard court. Yes, but temporary venues are similar to white elephants in requiring you to spend lots of money on something with no long term benefit. It is just less money. Also, you still need the land. The same geography (water all around it) that makes Seattle beautiful means there is no room for sprawl. As for the main stadium, a solution to Madrid's solution or what Glasgow 2014 are doing. Put a deck in the Husky and lose 12,000 seats. Add 20,000 temp seats and you are at 80,000. After the games use some of these seats and put them round the warm up track and you have an athletics legacy to satisfy the IAAF. This isn't going to work. You would have to completely rebuild the stadium for the track and then tear it down and rebuild it back to what it was before. That's going to cost around half a billion dollars. A floating stadium would be crazy, but it could be towed to Oakland after the games and moved on rollers a short distance to the site of the current O.Co stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted May 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Traffic in Seattle is worse than LA, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Traffic in Seattle is worse than LA, IMO. I would purposely avoid the city because of it. My family and I went last summer, it we he!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromit Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 A temporary stadium costing half a billion. What rubbish. It is more like $100m and elements can then be recycled for other smaller stadium. A floating stadium is a fantasy suggestion. According to INRIX seven major cities have worst congestion including LA, and Seattle can make use of water transport options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts