Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to walkscore.com...

LOS ANGELES: http://www.walkscore.com/CA/Los_Angeles

A better Los Angeles is emerging from a city that was built for cars. Investments in light rail, express bus lines, and redeveloped neighborhoods are paying off. The LA Metro is a mix of transit with express lines serving downtown and LAX. And there’s gorgeous art deco Union Station, a hub for rail travel.

Downtown is the center for most of the city’s transit, but Westwood, Hollywood, and Koreatown have the urban density that make for walkable living. It’s still LA, so your best bet is to live close to work, but even if you commute, your home can be in a walking friendly neighborhood.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walk Score: 64 Los Angeles is somewhat walkable

Some errands can be accomplished on foot

Los Angeles is the 13th most walkable city in the US

Transit Score: 50 Los Angeles has good transit

130 bus lines

7 rail lines

2 subway lines

4 light rail lines

Bike Score: 54 Los Angeles is somewhat bikeable

Some bike infrastructure

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEATTLE: http://www.walkscore.com/WA/Seattle

Seattle is rapidly becoming a world-class walkable city. SoundTransit’s new light rail line connects the city and to the airport. People are relocating to Seattle for jobs at companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Starbucks.

Seattle is ringed by the Olympic and Cascade mountains and surrounded by Lake Washington and Puget Sound. Seattle neighborhood architecture ranges from single family homes in Wallingford to high-rise downtown apartments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walk Score: 71 Seattle is very walkable

Most errands can be accomplished on foot

Seattle is the 8th most walkable city in the US

Transit Score: 57 Seattle has good transit

150 bus lines

2 rail lines

10 ferry lines

Bike Score: 64 Seattle is somewhat bikeable

Some bike infrastructure

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A temporary stadium costing half a billion. What rubbish. It is more like $100m and elements can then be recycled for other smaller stadium.

You seem to believe that the cost of the construction is equal to the amount of use you get out of it. That isn't true. You have to pay for labor and materials. They would have to tear out the existing lower structure, then rebuild it and put a track in, then tear out the new structure, and then rebuild it back to what it is now. That's a ton of time and labor to arrive back where they started. It cost them $280 million for the latest rebuild, so I don't see how it could cost less than that to do the process over again twice.

According to INRIX seven major cities have worst congestion including LA, and Seattle can make use of water transport options

Seattle could use water taxis and ferries (and does now.) But there are practical limitations to the number of people you can transport this way because of the safety issue. You can't convoy boats together like a train, or even as close together as cars on a freeway. That's why cities like Amsterdam still went with a metro system despite having water transport via canals.

This is the same as suggesting that Anchorage could host the Winter Olympics with cruise ships instead of hotels. While it's partially true, it could only cover a minority of the total capacity required.

SEATTLE: http://www.walkscore.com/WA/Seattle

Seattle is rapidly becoming a world-class walkable city. SoundTransit’s new light rail line connects the city and to the airport. People are relocating to Seattle for jobs at companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Starbucks.

Seattle is ringed by the Olympic and Cascade mountains and surrounded by Lake Washington and Puget Sound. Seattle neighborhood architecture ranges from single family homes in Wallingford to high-rise downtown apartments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walk Score: 71 Seattle is very walkable

Most errands can be accomplished on foot

Seattle is the 8th most walkable city in the US

Transit Score: 57 Seattle has good transit

150 bus lines

2 rail lines

10 ferry lines

Bike Score: 64 Seattle is somewhat bikeable

Some bike infrastructure

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walkability for errands has nothing to do with the requirements of moving tens of thousands of people to and back from stadiums. Nobody is walking from Everett or Renton to Husky Stadium.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walkability for errands has nothing to do with the requirements of moving tens of thousands of people to and back from stadiums. Nobody is walking from Everett or Renton to Husky Stadium.

The Walk Score doesn't necessarily apply to just errands. quoting from the Walk Score Methodology Page: (http://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml)

Walk Score measures the walkability of any address using a patent-pending system. For each address, Walk Score analyzes hundreds of walking routes to nearby amenities. Points are awarded based on the distance to amenities in each category. Amenities within a 5 minute walk (.25 miles) are given maximum points. A decay function is used to give points to more distant amenities, with no points given after a 30 minute walk.

Walk Score also measures pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. Data sources include Google, Education.com, Open Street Map, the U.S. Census, Localeze, and places added by the Walk Score user community.

Walk Score® Description 90–100 Walker's Paradise

Daily errands do not require a car. 70–89 Very Walkable

Most errands can be accomplished on foot. 50–69 Somewhat Walkable

Some errands can be accomplished on foot. 25–49 Car-Dependent

Most errands require a car. 0–24 Car-Dependent

Almost all errands require a car.

Errands are only mere examples, and the Walk Score is just the overall pedestrian-friendliness of the city

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y r we even discussing Seattle? They're not going to cut it. It's too small.

Consider who brought it up in the first place, & you'll see why. I seriously doubt Seattle is even part of the discussion over at the USOC anymore. I'm sure they realized real quick that it's too huge of a burden for their city to bother with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't water taxis previously shot down by the IOC? I know New York and Toronto both proposed using them.

Well, we know that. Not everybody does. Altho in the NYC case, it was a shuttle exclusively for the athletes...to ferry them from the proposed Village site in Queens to the West Side of Manhattan. I don't know about regular citizens. I mean they are in operation everyday in Venice, Amsterdam, the Staten Island ferry, etc. -- so I guess if it's just for commuter use, then the IOC has no say on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y r we even discussing Seattle? They're not going to cut it. It's too small.

Welcome to GamesBids, the troll capital of the Internet! Someone mentions Seattle (who hasn't posted a thing in a while) and we somehow can't help ourselves from engaging in that discussion. 1 of these days we're all going to learn to leave these things alone and maybe they'll go away on their own. ... Yea, that's probably just wishful thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Seattle is being discussed is because the following US cities

San Francisco

San Diego

Boston

Los Angeles

Washington

Dallas

Philadelphia

Seattle

.. have all had senior people within local government up to and including Mayoral level state an interest in potentially bidding and have formed official/unofficial committees to discuss these possibilities and until such time as they officially withdraw their candidature are as worthy of discussion as any other.

It should be 'Welcome to Gamesbids - closed minded censorship of the internet where personal arrogance dominates by people who cannot possibly be privy to confidential discussions but would rather strangle any fun of posters willing to at least look at what each city might offer'.

The world moves - what might have been ruled out last year, may actually be in the running the next so hence discussions go and return. Surely anyone with a minute amount of intelligence would understand that? Until Mayor McGinn, or Mayor Nutter, or Bob Sweeney or Matt Wood rule out their city's candidature then they remain in the running as no-one since Nostradamus can predict the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to your clearly narrow minded assessment as to why UW would agree?

And I find it amazing that you don't understand the concept

1) Because it is a temporary alternation .... where is the f***ing renovation? Are they renovating Hampden Park for the 2014 Commonwealth Games? No. They are adding a temporary solution. Were Madrid proposing a further renovation of the Estadio La Peineta having spent €270m converting it to a football stadium only 4 years earlier for 2020? No they proposed a temporary adjustment which would have been even more contentious as the new tenants Athletico would have had to have vacated the stadium for a year.

The technology exists for this change - it is not rocket science - and this year this technology will have been proven

Clearly YOU ARE THE FOOL who arrogantly thinks the rest of us are stupid by trying to claim a Temporary change is somehow a permanent alteration ..... what is being undone? Nothing !!

2) Think of what UW would gain from agreeing .... no cost to them for allowing the use of the stadia, a replacement stadia potentially rent free from which they'd gain all the match receipts, new Acquatic, Cycling and other sporting facilities that undoubtedly would be passed on to the UW and other educational facilities. And what of an Olympic Village? A post Games conversion into student accommodation would be clearly be to the detriment of the UW or is this what you are trying to suggest?

3) UW is a public university funded and operated by state entities and is the flagship university in the Washington Uni system. The key word you missed here is STATE. And undoubtedly any successful bid would be state supported. So lets work out the economics - can we borrow your stadium and make about $100m of TEMPORARY ALTERATIONS which will benefit the city and state and by definition the UW whilst also giving you free of charge several hundred million of dollars worth of facilities all free of charge or would you rather say no. And don't try to start talking about the research budget which is privately funded as this goes to research and not the operation of the Uni. Any state will want to have a major drain on budget showed publicly in the best possible light globally as well as domestically

4) I must immediately email Mayor Mike McGinn and tell him that now that the God of Gamesbids, Quaker 2001 has spoken he must desist this instant any study into hosting the games knowing that the worlds greatest Olympian expert has offered his unquestionable statement

Get off your high horse, killjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason Seattle is being discussed is because the following US cities

San Francisco

San Diego

Boston

Los Angeles

Washington

Dallas

Philadelphia

Seattle

.. have all had senior people within local government up to and including Mayoral level state an interest in potentially bidding and have formed official/unofficial committees to discuss these possibilities and until such time as they officially withdraw their candidature are as worthy of discussion as any other.

It should be 'Welcome to Gamesbids - closed minded censorship of the internet where personal arrogance dominates by people who cannot possibly be privy to confidential discussions but would rather strangle any fun of posters willing to at least look at what each city might offer'.

The world moves - what might have been ruled out last year, may actually be in the running the next so hence discussions go and return. Surely anyone with a minute amount of intelligence would understand that? Until Mayor McGinn, or Mayor Nutter, or Bob Sweeney or Matt Wood rule out their city's candidature then they remain in the running as no-one since Nostradamus can predict the future.

You had made exactly 1 post in the preceding 2 months, and you come back with "how about Seattle?" It would be refreshing if you could have offered some bit of news or any sort of revelation about what's going on there rather than your own personal interpretation of what they could do and then your idea is to offer a plan for Husky Stadium that is completely and totally oblivious to the reality of the solution. So yea, forgive me for pointing out the fallacy in that suggestion and informing you of what actually has gone on there and why it's unlikely that anyone is going to pick up on your idea. You can't just throw a "solution" out there and except us to discuss it here because you like the concept.

That all aside.. you're forgetting how this process works now. This is not an open bid process like it has been in the pass. It's not a matter of a city or their mayor withdrawing their candidacy. The USOC at any given moment can very unilaterally cut a city from their considerations without warning and before that city has a chance to present themselves. We haven't heard a word from Seattle in about a year regarding their Olympic hopes for 2024. While it's true we don't know for sure if they're still considering it (or if the USOC is still considering them), that's probably a pretty good indication they're no longer in the running. Again, Mayor McGinn and Mayor Nutter and Matt Wood and all those guys don't get to determine whether or not their city's candidature remain in the running. They can withdraw themselves, but you know who has some control over the future?.. the USOC. They are running the show here, not the candidate cities. You tell us we shouldn't assume Seattle is out? How about something that offers that Seattle is actually in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to GamesBids, the troll capital of the Internet! Someone mentions Seattle (who hasn't posted a thing in a while) and we somehow can't help ourselves from engaging in that discussion. 1 of these days we're all going to learn to leave these things alone and maybe they'll go away on their own. ... Yea, that's probably just wishful thinking

Peopel choose to discuss something. They discuss it.

Those who don't want to discuss it can skip.

Great concept, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to your clearly narrow minded assessment as to why UW would agree?

And I find it amazing that you don't understand the concept

1) Because it is a temporary alternation .... where is the f***ing renovation? Are they renovating Hampden Park for the 2014 Commonwealth Games? No. They are adding a temporary solution. Were Madrid proposing a further renovation of the Estadio La Peineta having spent €270m converting it to a football stadium only 4 years earlier for 2020? No they proposed a temporary adjustment which would have been even more contentious as the new tenants Athletico would have had to have vacated the stadium for a year.

The technology exists for this change - it is not rocket science - and this year this technology will have been proven

Clearly YOU ARE THE FOOL who arrogantly thinks the rest of us are stupid by trying to claim a Temporary change is somehow a permanent alteration ..... what is being undone? Nothing !!

2) Think of what UW would gain from agreeing .... no cost to them for allowing the use of the stadia, a replacement stadia potentially rent free from which they'd gain all the match receipts, new Acquatic, Cycling and other sporting facilities that undoubtedly would be passed on to the UW and other educational facilities. And what of an Olympic Village? A post Games conversion into student accommodation would be clearly be to the detriment of the UW or is this what you are trying to suggest?

3) UW is a public university funded and operated by state entities and is the flagship university in the Washington Uni system. The key word you missed here is STATE. And undoubtedly any successful bid would be state supported. So lets work out the economics - can we borrow your stadium and make about $100m of TEMPORARY ALTERATIONS which will benefit the city and state and by definition the UW whilst also giving you free of charge several hundred million of dollars worth of facilities all free of charge or would you rather say no. And don't try to start talking about the research budget which is privately funded as this goes to research and not the operation of the Uni. Any state will want to have a major drain on budget showed publicly in the best possible light globally as well as domestically

4) I must immediately email Mayor Mike McGinn and tell him that now that the God of Gamesbids, Quaker 2001 has spoken he must desist this instant any study into hosting the games knowing that the worlds greatest Olympian expert has offered his unquestionable statement

Get off your high horse, killjoy

When you e-mail Mayor McGinn, please inquire as to whether or not the USOC is still considering Seattle as a candidate city for their 2024 Olympic bid? If you want to assume they still are, be my guest. But be prepared for the reality that the USOC has already told them they're not interested. They can do that without informing the world, and considering all the mis-information about who is still in the running, I'd say it's a pretty damning sign that Seattle hasn't been mentioned anywhere, nor has Seattle made any note of potential Olympic plans in the past year. If you can prove me wrong, I will happily eat my crow and offer and apology to you and the rest of the forum.

I understand the concept of temporary alterations, as you like to promote to us on many an occasion. But you can't directly apply that to any situation you want here and say "well, this worked for Glasgow and Madrid, so why wouldn't it work for Seattle?" I don't think you're stupid for your suggesting such a thing is possible.. I think you're stupid because you you're making a very poor attempt to apply that logic to this specific situation and failing to understand all the elements involved (either that or you just don't care and think that everyone involving is going to cater to the whims of an Olympic bid.. doesn't work that way).

The University of Washington just spent $261 million to REMOVE an athletics track from a stadium THEY OWN. The project was PRIVATELY FINANCED. The University is a public entity, but no public funding was used for this renovation. I'm sure they'd be happy to get behind any Seattle Olympic bid effort since it would involve them, but this is still their stadium that they paid to renovate. You keep talking about this technology for a temporary solution.. are you really going to go to the UW folks and say "you know that track you just removed from your stadium at your own expense?.. what if we threw $100 million at you (and that's wishful thinking if you believe it would cost that little) to take over your stadium, revert back to what was there before, displace you and your programs for at least a year (probably more), and then if we're nice we'll return your stadium to it's post-renovation state." Yea, that makes a lot of sense.. spend $261 million on a renovation, then throw $100 million at a temporary solution. Real smart economics there. Maybe the University will reap the benefits of Olympic-inspired infrastructure, but you can't skirt the tiny little issue that it is still their stadium and their money and unless the long-term benefits outweigh the costs incurred (not to mention that you're suggesting a major renovation, the largest capital project in the University's history) may be for nothing, that's not a good sell.

Peopel choose to discuss something. They discuss it.

Those who don't want to discuss it can skip.

Great concept, no?

I know, I know. I shouldn't be feeding the trolls. I'm going against what I just suggested, but gosh darnit, I just can't help myself sometimes. Still, not all discussions are created equal. When someone comes along and wants to discuss Baton Rouge, we should all know better than to take the bait. Yet, we've been conditioned otherwise here. Would be a refreshing change to draw a line between fantasy and reality that gets blurred far too often by far too many posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh. I do understand the concepts. What do La Peineta and Husky Stadium have in common? They previously had Athletics tracks removed by lowering the field. However architecturally they basically still could temporarily accommodate a platform/track approach,

As for your claim that the USOC have said No to Seattle, please site your evidence ... you claim that this has occurred yet in the same instance making the claim that Seattle aren't still pursuing their consideration because you can't find any evidence of it.

I'll take your lack of evidence and complete against it with my lack of evidence.

As for the financing of the stadium - here are the facts

The stadium cost $261m but this includes a sports medicine clinic

$250m for this was raised by the university

ONLY $50m has come from private funding

$200m has come from a financial process called SECURITISATION - receiving a loan based upon future revenue generated by the stadium. And in most financial securitisation processes, there is often a guarantor as to a minimum payback towards the loan in case there a changes that could impact the level of payback of loan over the period the loan has been taken out for which has been approximated at $14.3m per year over 30years

Please get your facts correct. As 80% of the funding is through a loan then there will be agreement that in subsequent years that loan could be adjusted in anticipation of other changes.

Additionally the state has provided funding to improve the infrastructure around the new facility which includes ballpark, track and field stadium etc include a new station for the light railway and a replacement of a nearby floating bridge.

So the claim it is privately financed is a claim designed to deliberately paint a false picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your claim that the USOC have said No to Seattle, please site your evidence ... you claim that this has occurred yet in the same instance making the claim that Seattle aren't still pursuing their consideration because you can't find any evidence of it.

Seattle did a study on its capability to host the games and then declined to present a bid. Until somebody does present a bid it seems very unlikely because the city and state are already spending billions on transportation infrastructure. Specifically the Alaskan Way Tunnel (using the largest tunnel boring machine ever built) and the floating bridges (the three largest floating bridges in the world are in the state, and all need to be replaced.)

And that's it. I'm not going to bother arguing over Seattle any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh. I do understand the concepts. What do La Peineta and Husky Stadium have in common? They previously had Athletics tracks removed by lowering the field. However architecturally they basically still could temporarily accommodate a platform/track approach,

As for your claim that the USOC have said No to Seattle, please site your evidence ... you claim that this has occurred yet in the same instance making the claim that Seattle aren't still pursuing their consideration because you can't find any evidence of it.

I'll take your lack of evidence and complete against it with my lack of evidence.

As for the financing of the stadium - here are the facts

The stadium cost $261m but this includes a sports medicine clinic

$250m for this was raised by the university

ONLY $50m has come from private funding

$200m has come from a financial process called SECURITISATION - receiving a loan based upon future revenue generated by the stadium. And in most financial securitisation processes, there is often a guarantor as to a minimum payback towards the loan in case there a changes that could impact the level of payback of loan over the period the loan has been taken out for which has been approximated at $14.3m per year over 30years

Please get your facts correct. As 80% of the funding is through a loan then there will be agreement that in subsequent years that loan could be adjusted in anticipation of other changes.

Additionally the state has provided funding to improve the infrastructure around the new facility which includes ballpark, track and field stadium etc include a new station for the light railway and a replacement of a nearby floating bridge.

So the claim it is privately financed is a claim designed to deliberately paint a false picture

See, you're still talking in hypotheticals here. I don't know about La Peineta other than a little bit of research I've done on online. But you're still making an argument in "could." Is there an example of a stadium out there that made a major renovation, and then a few years later made a temporary change (that essentially un-did the purpose of the renovation) and then reverted back to its post-renovation state? If there is one, I would love to know about it. But unless there's a precedent for that, what you're suggesting could happen in Seattle has never been done before. And this isn't like a Stade de France or some other stadium with sliding stands or a temporary pitch or some other solution that's already been implemented. That ship has sailed for Seattle, and with good reason.

And you're right.. I have no "evidence" that the USOC has said no to Seattle. But do you have anything to back up that Seattle is still actively working towards a 2024 Olympic bid? The USOC has made it clear that they're only working with a select handful of cities. Reports on who those cities are remain sketchy, but this sounds an awful lot like the case for New York.. some assumed they were still on the radar because it hadn't been proven otherwise. Then one day, it was revealed they have never been in the picture all along. Either way, the USOC has made it clear they are trimming their list to 3 cities within the next couple of months (or so they say). Even if Seattle was still working on an Olympic bid, I'd say the odds of them being on that shortlist are pretty slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seattle had its moment of glory in 1962. Even for the Goodwill Games of 1990 (only selected nations & athletes), they had to share those Games with Tacoma and Spokane. (I went to the women's volleyball matches in Spokane and rode back with the Soviet women's team on the same plane back to Seattle). So, now all of a sudden Seattle has a possibility to stage a Games of the 21st century?? :blink:

For that matter, the USOC also hasn't said "No" to Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, DC, San Anton, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Minneapolis, NYC, San Francisco, St. Louis, Tulsa, etc., etc. So Gromit, you think the USOC is still crunching the numbers for all 35 cities just becuz they haven't said so??? :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh. I do understand the concepts. What do La Peineta and Husky Stadium have in common? They previously had Athletics tracks removed by lowering the field. However architecturally they basically still could temporarily accommodate a platform/track approach,

As for your claim that the USOC have said No to Seattle, please site your evidence ... you claim that this has occurred yet in the same instance making the claim that Seattle aren't still pursuing their consideration because you can't find any evidence of it.

I'll take your lack of evidence and complete against it with my lack of evidence.

As for the financing of the stadium - here are the facts

The stadium cost $261m but this includes a sports medicine clinic

$250m for this was raised by the university

ONLY $50m has come from private funding

$200m has come from a financial process called SECURITISATION - receiving a loan based upon future revenue generated by the stadium. And in most financial securitisation processes, there is often a guarantor as to a minimum payback towards the loan in case there a changes that could impact the level of payback of loan over the period the loan has been taken out for which has been approximated at $14.3m per year over 30years

Please get your facts correct. As 80% of the funding is through a loan then there will be agreement that in subsequent years that loan could be adjusted in anticipation of other changes.

Additionally the state has provided funding to improve the infrastructure around the new facility which includes ballpark, track and field stadium etc include a new station for the light railway and a replacement of a nearby floating bridge.

So the claim it is privately financed is a claim designed to deliberately paint a false picture

With LA's recent file there is no way in hell, even if you type your fingers blue that Seattle will host the games OR be taken by the USOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With LA's recent file there is no way in hell, even if you type your fingers blue that Seattle will host the games OR be taken by the USOC.

Back on topic for a second.... given LA's submission, are we done? Is it LA or nobody for the USOC in 2024? I think NYC/Chicago are out (were never in), and anything smaller has to know they have almost no shot. Maybe the folks in Dallas are too far along to give up. But my guess, at most we'll see one other submission

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic for a second.... given LA's submission, are we done? Is it LA or nobody for the USOC in 2024? I think NYC/Chicago are out (were never in), and anything smaller has to know they have almost no shot. Maybe the folks in Dallas are too far along to give up. But my guess, at most we'll see one other submission

I think we'll still see 2 or 3 cities in the running. I don't think the USOC will hand the reigns over to LA just yet even though they've got a very solid proposal. Certain cities are still in the "exploratory" process, so those probably will be told their efforts are too little, too late. Others, like Dallas, probably have enough substance to advance further in the proceedings. The odds are that LA probably has this thing won, but the USOC will do at least some due diligence and make sure LA has the goods by giving themselves something else to compare it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a formal bid process, so I'm not sure that "submission" is the correct terminology.

The USOC is having casual conversations, probably asking for some concrete ideas in writing. I suspect LA's reveal was something of an anomaly. It's rapid disappearance suggests that the USOC is trying to keep the whole process quiet.

For all we know, the USOC already has equally compelling plans from San Francisco and Boston, they just haven't been publicly released. I think that's unlikely, but it's possible.

Really, we're all in the dark until the USOC comes out with a statement about their two or three top contenders. I have to believe that LA will be one of them based on the strength of that plan. It seems probable that LA could wind up being the candidate, but again we're not playing with a full deck here, so there's really no way to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of Los Angeles & Dallas, the only other options that could be that third contender is Boston &/or maybe Philadelphia. Or it could just very well be Los Angeles & Dallas. We may not completely know what the 'full deck' is (who ever does anyway when it comes to these things), but what we do at least know is that the USOC has given a number of "two or three" cities to short-list by June. So what that says to me, is that of the cities that they're talking to right now, the majority of them are not being all that convincing with their case.

In the end, I wouldn't be surprised that Los Angeles winds up being the candidate (& that's IF the USOC still decides to submit a 2024 bid). Especially now that Los Angeles has uped the ante (& that was always a lingering question, & now they answered it), it seems virtually like a done deal. I can't see anyone else, of the remaining cities, topping what they're offering without too much bureaucratic red-tape on their end to muddle through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...