Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

LA is already sick to death of traffic and construction. although i'd be in favor of anything that might help us get our subway extension before 2040 (actual date), i don't think the city could stand the hassle of an olympic bid.

i live here. i should be the bid's biggest fan. instead all i can think is, gee i hope they don't build any venues near my house.

Well, the 2016 bid from LA was genuinely low cost, very well planned and had some strong solutions to transport. In fact, the decision between Chicago and LA was very, very close. On the international scene, though, I just don't know what another LA bid offers. Sure, it will be a low-cost, efficient, well-run games. But, that isn't enough, in my opinion, to win. (for the record, I feel the same about London, and they did win, so not saying it is impossible...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although, while London did have more time between it's 2nd N 3rd Games, their bid was very ambitious, regenerating a blighted part of the city. I think with a similar approach, a 3rd Los Angeles bid could be successful as well. I think that everyone here can come to agreement that L.A. just can't rehash a "low cost, self-suffient Games". Like everyone else, they R going to need an X-factor. Just like London's 2012 did. N I think that there's still great potential for the city & region of Los Angeles to be able to come up with such a compelling project.

Considering who the contenders might be, if Toronto but in a major effort .....

I really wouldn't put too much weight into that. Y should a country, 1/10th the size of the U.S., get yet a 4th Olympics in only 48 years time? What makes them so special to host so many Games in such a short span. No other smallish nation, other than early 20th century France, home of then Baron Pierre de Courtebin, has been able to accomplish such a feat. You talk about the U.S. not being so interesting anymore bcuz of the multiple number of it's hosting, but yet you tout a country that perspectively, has hosted just as much. The double standards R amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although, while London did have more time between it's 2nd N 3rd Games, their bid was very ambitious, regenerating a blighted part of the city. I think with a similar approach, a 3rd Los Angeles bid could be successful as well. I think that everyone here can come to agreement that L.A. just can't rehash a "low cost, self-suffient Games". Like everyone else, they R going to need an X-factor. Just like London's 2012 did. N I think that there's still great potential for the city & region of Los Angeles to be able to come up with such a compelling project.

But with California like 16 billion $ in the hole, even for a 'privately financed' Games, that's still a dark cloud one can't paint over. Altho to LA's credit, they have added a subway and a few significant venues since 1984. However, the subway doesn't exactly stop by any of the major venues. and with the new venues that make up Staples Center, it looks like they've removed the old LA Convention Center(? I haven't figured that out yet.)

As for the Village situation, I don't think LA can present a brand new mini-city of like 17,000. LA will have to be content with its UCLA-USC combo for the village situation again. And I don't know how much upgrading can be done with the 80-year old Memorial Coliseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA is already sick to death of traffic and construction. although i'd be in favor of anything that might help us get our subway extension before 2040 (actual date), i don't think the city could stand the hassle of an olympic bid.

i live here. i should be the bid's biggest fan. instead all i can think is, gee i hope they don't build any venues near my house.

People said the exact same things before LA84 and it worked out well.....

If the USOC can't come up with a credible, competitive bid there's no point in bidding. That goes for summer or winter.

I think that right now there's a whole lot of guesswork going on regarding who will or won't bid, what those bids might be like, etc. Maybe some guesses are right and maybe some aren't. The USOC is going to have to shake the tree and see what, and more importantly who (in terms of bid leaders) falls out.

At this point I think it's wise to remember that we have very limited information to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have to say that after Chicago's ugly dismissal from 2016, I believe they would be by far the most competitive American bid internationally.

It's almost a dare. We dare you to say no again, IOC. Say no to the city you slapped in the face so unceremoniously. Say no to the country that pumps more money into the Games than any other. Say no to a sports powerhouse. Say no to an outstanding technical bid. Say no to the country that let you take them to the cleaners with this new revenue deal. Say no to the only country that's paying your administrative bills. We dare you.....

Of course that would be a lousy strategy that would just turn people off. (I'm venting at the moment. Can you tell how I feel on this subject?) The thing is that the USOC doesn't have to make any of those points. They don't have to say a single word. It's all self-evident.

That's why I don't think American Summer Games haveto be as far off as some others have suggested.

The ONLY stumbling block a Chicago bid would have right now, IMHO, is the stadium plan. Right now, I'd give my right arm to have another go at the Soldier Field remodel because that would be an amazing location. IF we're back to doing a stadium near Hyde Park, I'd really look into doing something a bit more permanent. Would give the Legacy fans something more to crow about.

That and we gotta get the city excited again and explain to them that the only reason they got smacked down so hard was because the IOC and the USOC were in a pissing match, pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY stumbling block a Chicago bid would have right now, IMHO, is the stadium plan. Right now, I'd give my right arm to have another go at the Soldier Field remodel because that would be an amazing location. IF we're back to doing a stadium near Hyde Park, I'd really look into doing something a bit more permanent. Would give the Legacy fans something more to crow about.

That and we gotta get the city excited again and explain to them that the only reason they got smacked down so hard was because the IOC and the USOC were in a pissing match, pure and simple.

I agree with you. I firmly believe that a Chicago bid would have a better chance of winning than any other Summer or Winter candidate.

The question is whether they are ready to try again. If they're not, then the whole conversation is pointless. There would have to be a great deal of will to get another bid off the ground and multiple powerful people would have to convince Rahm Emanuel that the venture would be worthwhile.

I don't think that's impossible, but I wouldn't expect it right now either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY stumbling block a Chicago bid would have right now, IMHO, is the stadium plan. Right now, I'd give my right arm to have another go at the Soldier Field remodel because that would be an amazing location. IF we're back to doing a stadium near Hyde Park, I'd really look into doing something a bit more permanent. Would give the Legacy fans something more to crow about.

That and we gotta get the city excited again and explain to them that the only reason they got smacked down so hard was because the IOC and the USOC were in a pissing match, pure and simple.

The only stumbling block for a Chicago bid is that the city has "been there, done that". Chicagoan support for 2016 was the one weak point in the bid. It is far worse now. 3 years ago the IOC told Chicagoans to get lost. Chicago got the message. They're not going to spend another USD75m.

As to the stadium:

1) Any use of Soldier Field as the athletics stadium is a non-starter. It would need to be completely demolished and rebuild from scratch. You then end up with an athletics facility that the city won't use, and an inferior configuration for a football stadium. Not going to happen

2) The need of some massive, legacy stadium is a red herring. I know the folks on this board love cool renders of massive new projects. At the end of the day, the Washington Park stadium concept was very well received and praised by the IOC. It was one of the strongest features of the Chicago bid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only stumbling block for a Chicago bid is that the city has "been there, done that". Chicagoan support for 2016 was the one weak point in the bid. It is far worse now. 3 years ago the IOC told Chicagoans to get lost. Chicago got the message. They're not going to spend another USD75m.

As to the stadium:

1) Any use of Soldier Field as the athletics stadium is a non-starter. It would need to be completely demolished and rebuild from scratch. You then end up with an athletics facility that the city won't use, and an inferior configuration for a football stadium. Not going to happen

2) The need of some massive, legacy stadium is a red herring. I know the folks on this board love cool renders of massive new projects. At the end of the day, the Washington Park stadium concept was very well received and praised by the IOC. It was one of the strongest features of the Chicago bid.

1) The Soldier Field design was a nonsense and gave Chicago a pitifully small capacity for a NFL Team. Whilst extremely unlikely, the original architecture of Soldier Field suggests a redesign could hold a track whilst undoing the cultural vandalism that occured.

I also wish that people stop going on about this nonsense of track and field and football being incompatible. I have had the pleasure of watching Rugby three times at the Stade de France and its sliding stands design. Having seen Rugby at all of the Six Nations stadiums bar Rome and the new Aviva stadium in Dublin, the Stade de France had excellent viewing lines from the 3 parts of the stadium I saw games in, on a par with Murrayfield, Twickenham and the Millenium Stadium, and nobody complains about them as stadium to watch a Rugby/Football type sport.

I do wonder if Chicago could tap 1) naming rights for normal usage 2) the NFL fund for new and updating stadiums, 3) local casino taxes etc, to fund such a renovation.

2) I do wonder how much the IOC liked the Washington Park idea, or how much they were being polite? Taking the centre piece of an Olympic games and totally gutting it seems ......Is there a major University with an aging stadium who might be happy to occupy a new stadium as an anchor tenant? Northwestern have the smallest stadium in the Big10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only stumbling block for a Chicago bid is that the city has "been there, done that". Chicagoan support for 2016 was the one weak point in the bid. It is far worse now. 3 years ago the IOC told Chicagoans to get lost. Chicago got the message. They're not going to spend another USD75m.

As to the stadium:

1) Any use of Soldier Field as the athletics stadium is a non-starter. It would need to be completely demolished and rebuild from scratch. You then end up with an athletics facility that the city won't use, and an inferior configuration for a football stadium. Not going to happen

2) The need of some massive, legacy stadium is a red herring. I know the folks on this board love cool renders of massive new projects. At the end of the day, the Washington Park stadium concept was very well received and praised by the IOC. It was one of the strongest features of the Chicago bid.

Totally agree about your stadium points. I think we were hearing about a wistful desire for a do-over with Soldiers. We all know it can't work. The temporary concept seemed responsible and totally viable.

As for the public support, it has certainly looked the way you describe. However, I wonder if the right PR campaign, the glitter of London, etc. might make a difference. At some point everybody has to move on. If Chicago would pick themselves up and dust themselves off they would be the best possible American bid. Hands down.

That's a big if though. The entire question is whether the will is there or not. So far it really hasn't looked good. I'm not ready to write it off just yet though. I'm not holding my breath, but nor am I calling "Game Over."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blacksheep, have you ever been to an NFL game? American football is totally different from rugby or football in Europe. It's an mammoth American cultural institution and EXTREMELY commercial. The owners and the sponsors want a particular atmosphere in the stadium that they can only get by putting the spectators as close to the field as possible. This kills the possibility of an athletics track. Your ideas of constructing a floating track are expensive and untenable because such a plan would drastically reduce seating capacity. Soldiers Field is not the Stade de France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Chicago's brutal winter weather off the lake, smaller stadium, and history of having bad field conditions, it is extremely unlikely that Chicago would host a Super Bowl anytime soon, but it is encouraging to see a bit of ambition from Mayor Emanuel. Maybe he might come around to the idea of bidding sooner, rather than later. I agree that public support would be low right now.

Emanuel makes pitch for Super Bowl at Soldier Field

By John Byrne Tribune reporter

May 31, 2012

Mayor Rahm Emanuel put the arm on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell today, making a case for a Super Bowl to be held at Soldier Field.

Don’t start making plans to buy tickets yet, however. Chicago's lakefront is often arctic in February, and the stadium might not be big enough to host a Super Bowl.

Goodell was on hand to applaud the Bears and the Chicago Park District for making Soldier Field the first NFL stadium to receive LEED certification for its environmentally sustainable attributes.

But Emanuel said he had the Super Bowl on his mind when the two met privately before the news conference. "I found out a secret, and that is the commissioner's in-laws live in the area, and I'm holding them hostage until that happens," Emanuel said.

"We talked about 'Why Chicago?' " the mayor added. "Two weeks ago, had a bunch of world leaders here, NATO summit, and if we can do that, it would be an appropriate place to have a Super Bowl.”

The NFL will hold its first open-air Super Bowl in a cold weather city in the Meadowlands in New Jersey in 2014. Goodell said the league's position on repeating the experiment will depend a lot on how things go then.

Goodell also acknowledged Soldier Field's relatively small capacity could be an issue.

But with increased seating and changes in code allowing for more people in its suites, the stadium's capacity has grown since its 2001-2003 renovation from 61,500 to about 63,500.

The home of the Indianapolis Colts, Lucas Oil Stadium, has a usual capacity of about 63,000 for football games, which would make it the smallest capacity stadium behind Soldier Field, but that was increased to about 68,000 for this year’s Super Bowl, according to the NFL. Lucas Oil Stadium also has a retractable roof, however.

Also important, Goodell said, is the need to be able to host the many people who come into the city just to be a part of the event without attending the game.

http://www.chicagotr...0,4062206.story

If Chicago were to bid again, using Soldier Field for T&F is a no-go. It was constructed in a way to give fans a better viewing experience than other NFL stadiums, and it is not that old, so no one is going to support massive renovations, especially with the Park District in charge.

I think if Chicago were to bid again, doing a temporary stadium, but with a stronger legacy pitch would be just fine. It may even be possible to get the Chicago Fire as future tenants of a 20,000-25,000 seater post Games. They moved to a stadium in the Chicago suburbs six years ago, so they may be open to the idea of a new home in 2026 or beyond. I was not impressed at all with the Washington Park stadium (although I liked the layout, and it's proximity to the University of Chicago facilities). It also was very weak on legacy. A 5,000 seat amphitheater? Give me a break. That is not going to inspire any IOC members.

Edited by Soaring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legacy is a tough one though. The best legacy is a functional, fruitful one. Whatever solution Chicago comes up with, they don't need a giant structure that never gets used. However, a measly amphitheater isn't going to work on the IOC either. It's tricky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I propose to at least think about getting the MLS involved with a future stadium plan --- if Chicago were to bid again. Scaling down to 20,000-25,000 seater can still leave a good legacy. An interesting location to propose a stadium would be in a dilapidated park on the river just southwest of the city center. You can see how big the space is, by comparing it to the area around Soldier Field just directly to the east of it. You can even fit an aquatics center in there, and have it converted to a community youth center post Games.

chicago-olympic-stadium-proposal.jpg

It can certainly leave more of a legacy than the Washington Park idea, especially since the residents in the area enjoy their quiet historical park, and made a bit of a fuss about congestion, gentrification, and loss of their recreational space in the years leading up to the Games.

The primary issues with this location is the rail yard across the river might be seen as a security risk, there is not much space for a warm up track nearby, and access to roads and public transport would have to be well thought out, and developed.

Edited by Soaring
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I propose to at least think about getting the MLS involved with a future stadium plan --- if Chicago were to bid again. Scaling down to 20,000-25,000 seater can still leave a good legacy. An interesting location to propose a stadium would be in a dilapidated park on the river just southwest of the city center. You can see how big the space is, by comparing it to the area around Soldier Field just directly to the east of it. You can even fit an aquatics center in there, and have it converted to a community youth center post Games.

chicago-olympic-stadium-proposal.jpg

It can certainly leave more of a legacy than the Washington Park idea, especially since the residents in the area enjoy their quiet historical park, and made a bit of a fuss about congestion, gentrification, and loss of their recreational space in the years leading up to the Games.

The primary issues with this location is the rail yard across the river might be seen as a security risk, there is not much space for a warm up track nearby, and access to roads and public transport would have to be well thought out, and developed.

No way, not with the railyard right next door. Not just for security, but it's unseemly. Just not a good idea.

I'm really torn on Washington Park. The University of Illinois-Chicago is prime location for both the stadium and the aquatics park, it raises the profile of the university and chances are the university is probably where Obama's presidential library will end up as well, which could tie in very well in a long term modernization of the university campus. The problem is looking at the headaches London is having with getting a permanent tenant for a downsized Olympic stadium makes me worry that similar problems will develop with Chicago.

We'll all just have to wait and see. I think after the success of the NATO summit in Chicago, Rahm's appetite for a big event to raise the city's profile is whetted. Plus, to try again and this time get the brass ring is emblematic of the city. After all, not only have they been denied the Games twice by politics, but it hosts a ball club that keeps trying to win a championship despite not having won one since 1906. We die hard in Chicago and we never give up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wish that people stop going on about this nonsense of track and field and football being incompatible. I have had the pleasure of watching Rugby three times at the Stade de France and its sliding stands design. Having seen Rugby at all of the Six Nations stadiums bar Rome and the new Aviva stadium in Dublin, the Stade de France had excellent viewing lines from the 3 parts of the stadium I saw games in, on a par with Murrayfield, Twickenham and the Millenium Stadium, and nobody complains about them as stadium to watch a Rugby/Football type sport.

Likewise, I wish you would stop trying to convince us that track and field and football are that easy to work into the same stadium, let alone that Stade de France shouldn't necessarily be your best example (more on that in a bit). It would be 1 thing to build a stadium for athletics and then permanently convert it into an NFL stadium. That would make some sense. Ask the folks in Sydney But why on Earth would you expect an NFL stadium to make considerations for a running track that will almost never be used. There's a reason a large number of MLS teams have left NFL-sized stadiums and instead opted for more appropriately-sized venues. So where's the sense in adding a track (which is much bigger than a football field/soccer pitch) into a stadium big enough to hold an NFL team (and Soldier Field isn't a great example of anything.. it's small and did a poor job of retaining the original architecture). And if you're going to talk about sightlines, 1 more time let's compare Stade de France and MetLife Stadium in the NYC area..

25461.gifmetlife2011main.jpg

The owners of the Giants and Jets have priced those seats closest to the field a lot higher than sections further away from the 50-yard-line. What's the point in leaving all that extra space around the field for the rare occasion you might need to host a track meet? It's not worth the expense or the logistics of building it into the design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likewise, I wish you would stop trying to convince us that track and field and football are that easy to work into the same stadium, let alone that Stade de France shouldn't necessarily be your best example (more on that in a bit). It would be 1 thing to build a stadium for athletics and then permanently convert it into an NFL stadium. That would make some sense. Ask the folks in Sydney But why on Earth would you expect an NFL stadium to make considerations for a running track that will almost never be used. There's a reason a large number of MLS teams have left NFL-sized stadiums and instead opted for more appropriately-sized venues. So where's the sense in adding a track (which is much bigger than a football field/soccer pitch) into a stadium big enough to hold an NFL team (and Soldier Field isn't a great example of anything.. it's small and did a poor job of retaining the original architecture). And if you're going to talk about sightlines, 1 more time let's compare Stade de France and MetLife Stadium in the NYC area..

25461.gifmetlife2011main.jpg

The owners of the Giants and Jets have priced those seats closest to the field a lot higher than sections further away from the 50-yard-line. What's the point in leaving all that extra space around the field for the rare occasion you might need to host a track meet? It's not worth the expense or the logistics of building it into the design.

I have not had a chance to go to the MetLife, but I have been to Wembley, Twickenham, The Millenium Stadium and Murrayfield, all of which are purpose built stadiums for Rugby or Football, with similar viewing angles to the MetLife if not superior.

As a fan who has watched Rugby at the Stade de France, the difference is so minimal as to be irrelevant, and since the stadium was built 14 years ago, there has been further development in the the technology which are going to be implemented in the currently being constructed Singapore Sports Hub and close the gap even further. I believe with this design by Arup, the gap around the end of the field will be reduced further.

Why a running track then? Well as they discovered with the City of Manchester stadium (Etihad Stadium) used by Manchester City, it is extremely difficult to convert a stadium built for athletics into a football only stadium .... a friend of mine who has been to both and was with me at the Stade de France, said in his opinion, the sightlines in Paris were superior especially in the end zones.

Why go to the expense of a stadium that will hold a max of 12 games a year (2x pre-season, 8x regular season, 2x post season) when a more functional stadium with sliding stands opens up the possibility of other sports including athletics to be held properly in the USA.

For example, last nights annual Diamond League athletics meeting in Rome had an attendance in excess of 55,000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way, not with the railyard right next door. Not just for security, but it's unseemly. Just not a good idea.

I'm really torn on Washington Park. The University of Illinois-Chicago is prime location for both the stadium and the aquatics park, it raises the profile of the university and chances are the university is probably where Obama's presidential library will end up as well, which could tie in very well in a long term modernization of the university campus. The problem is looking at the headaches London is having with getting a permanent tenant for a downsized Olympic stadium makes me worry that similar problems will develop with Chicago.

We'll all just have to wait and see. I think after the success of the NATO summit in Chicago, Rahm's appetite for a big event to raise the city's profile is whetted. Plus, to try again and this time get the brass ring is emblematic of the city. After all, not only have they been denied the Games twice by politics, but it hosts a ball club that keeps trying to win a championship despite not having won one since 1906. We die hard in Chicago and we never give up.

Well, it is the best plot of land that is not being used downtown. Lining up a tenant for locations such as Washington Park become much more difficult, because they are public recreational spaces, and it would create public back lash, since space for large public parks are in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again for highly built up Western cities (like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, Berlin, Toronto) space is the biggest is sue. Even for expansive cities like Sydney they still went well outside of the CBD to construct their park.

I am not trying to boast, but in reality the only Olympic calibre city with a large, unused area close to the CBD is Toronto and that is only because of the small-time thinking indicative of Canadian politicians since the 70's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not had a chance to go to the MetLife, but I have been to Wembley, Twickenham, The Millenium Stadium and Murrayfield, all of which are purpose built stadiums for Rugby or Football, with similar viewing angles to the MetLife if not superior.

As a fan who has watched Rugby at the Stade de France, the difference is so minimal as to be irrelevant, and since the stadium was built 14 years ago, there has been further development in the the technology which are going to be implemented in the currently being constructed Singapore Sports Hub and close the gap even further. I believe with this design by Arup, the gap around the end of the field will be reduced further.

And do those stadiums have provisions for a running track? I thought that was the whole point of this discussion. Because you keep suggesting that a stadium purpose built for NFL football should have a provision for a track. Do Wembley, Twickenham, Millenium, or Murrayfield have that?

You keep talking about the difference being minimal.. that may be true in the upper deck, but what about those seats closest to the field that are further away from the action than they otherwise could be? Those being the more expensive seats are going to be more important than the nosebleed seats up top.

Why a running track then? Well as they discovered with the City of Manchester stadium (Etihad Stadium) used by Manchester City, it is extremely difficult to convert a stadium built for athletics into a football only stadium .... a friend of mine who has been to both and was with me at the Stade de France, said in his opinion, the sightlines in Paris were superior especially in the end zones.

Why go to the expense of a stadium that will hold a max of 12 games a year (2x pre-season, 8x regular season, 2x post season) when a more functional stadium with sliding stands opens up the possibility of other sports including athletics to be held properly in the USA.

Why go to the ADDITIONAL expense (it's going to cost a lot more to propose something like you're suggesting than to make a football-only stadium, let alone the maintenance and upkeep it would probably require) simply for the 'possibility' of having a track meet? And case in point a venue like Cowboys Stadium.. in addition to NFL games, you can have college football, soccer matches, concerts. It's not like you're just limited to 1 sport. But wait, let's redesign the whole darn thing for a lot of extra money because maybe we'll want to try and attract a sport with very little major following in the United States. Good luck getting class 1 certification on that one!

And as I brought up before.. there's a reason MLS teams are moving away from NFL stadiums. It's because they want to play in more sensibly-sized venues. Only for an event as large as the World Championships are you going to want an NFL-sized venue for an athletics competition. The rest of the time, all those extra seats are going to be a waste. Good for Rome that they drew 55,000 last night. What are the odds of that happening here? I've been to meets at Ichan Stadium (including in 2008 when Usain Bolt set his first world record.. very proud to say I witnessed that in person). Sure, they could probably expand that stadium a bit, but again, there is not a major demand for track facilities in large stadiums in this country and creating 1 just in case track & field gets popular in this country again probably isn't worth the time or expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And do those stadiums have provisions for a running track? I thought that was the whole point of this discussion. Because you keep suggesting that a stadium purpose built for NFL football should have a provision for a track. Do Wembley, Twickenham, Millenium, or Murrayfield have that?

You keep talking about the difference being minimal.. that may be true in the upper deck, but what about those seats closest to the field that are further away from the action than they otherwise could be? Those being the more expensive seats are going to be more important than the nosebleed seats up top.

If Athletics has such a marginal following in the US, but is a major element of the Olympics, why award the games to the USA?

I've actually sat on the lower tier at Twickenham and on the sliding section of the Stade de France .... and the difference from a viewing perspective is minimal. In fact it seemed that the viewing angle at the Stade was slightly steeper. Murrayfield has a 100m track down the front of the main stand, and it does make the pitch much further away.

Apparently the cost of adding a sliding stand element is about $50m-$100m, so 10% of the cost of the stadium.

and a sliding stand stadium can equally host concerts, college football, soccer, rugby etc as the Stade de France does. The only sport it wouldn't host is the basketball, but that's because an Olympic stadium is unlikely to have a retractable roof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Athletics has such a marginal following in the US, but is a major element of the Olympics, why award the games to the USA?

I could probably give you about 70 reasons for that, but instead I'll remind you of this one.. Remember when the `94 World Cup was awarded to the United States and some were worried that a lack of interest in soccer in the United States would produce a poor tournament? And what World Cup still holds the record for attendance despite the tournament being expanded in 1998? That's right, USA 1994. I wouldn't expect large enthusiastic crowds for a regular run-of-the-mill track meet, but bring an Olympics here and they will have no trouble filling the venue.

Apparently the cost of adding a sliding stand element is about $50m-$100m, so 10% of the cost of the stadium.

So you want a stadium to be built and for them to spend an extra $100 million in the event there's an Olympic bid? Still not buying that one. Again, if a stadium can be built specifically for the Olympics and then retrofitted for football (if it's built into the design plans, with today's technology, that's not a bad route to go.. as opposed to Olympic Stadium in Montreal which wasn't really complete for the Olympics and then was less than ideal venue for baseball), that's the way to go. Not to do it in reverse and hope the IOC will be impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could probably give you about 70 reasons for that, but instead I'll remind you of this one.. Remember when the `94 World Cup was awarded to the United States and some were worried that a lack of interest in soccer in the United States would produce a poor tournament? And what World Cup still holds the record for attendance despite the tournament being expanded in 1998? That's right, USA 1994. I wouldn't expect large enthusiastic crowds for a regular run-of-the-mill track meet, but bring an Olympics here and they will have no trouble filling the venue.

So you want a stadium to be built and for them to spend an extra $100 million in the event there's an Olympic bid? Still not buying that one. Again, if a stadium can be built specifically for the Olympics and then retrofitted for football (if it's built into the design plans, with today's technology, that's not a bad route to go.. as opposed to Olympic Stadium in Montreal which wasn't really complete for the Olympics and then was less than ideal venue for baseball), that's the way to go. Not to do it in reverse and hope the IOC will be impressed.

Yes I am aware of the record attendance - the USA only went with 9 stadiums of very large capacity. As a comparison the biggest capacity in the MLS is 35,000 seats. Spain held the World Cup in 1982 - they decided to spread the games around 17 stadiums often of smaller capacity to ensure the entire country was involved.

As for the cost of the sliding track, how much do you think it costs to convert an athletics stadium into a football only stadium?

1) With the Etihad in Manchester ... 60% of the capacity of a USOC mandated stadium, it cost tens and tens of millions and involved lowering the pitch and adding an extra tier ... but this would mean Chicago having a football stadium of over 100,000 seats - the only way this would work would be to a) remove the track, B) drop the level of the pitch, c)add an extra lower tier, and then d) remove the top tier of the stadium which would be used when the athletics track was in place, lowering the overall height of the stadium - all to get a football specific stadium with no better sightlines than a sliding stand stadium and costing way beyond $100m - maybe 3x that amount. This is what they did with the Etihad and it was not a perfect outcome.

2) Build a temporary stadium reduced in capacity by 8x after the games and used subsequently by the community. Who would pay for this? Possibly the community. And this stadium is deceptively expensive. Look at London. It has cost $600m to build and then if you were going to drop it to 25,000 seats would cost an extra $75m to convert. Now to drop it to 10,000 seats means a more sophisticated design so you might end up the world's most expensive stadium per seat cost - $900m spent and after all the building and then stadium reduction costs, you'd end up with only 10,000 seats. Sorry but that sounds more than a little mad to be me.

3) And what they've now decided to do in London, as they did with Sydney is retrofit the sliding stand idea into the stadium to maximise its usage .... and guess what? It is costing them 4x more to do this than if they'd incorporated it into the original design.

For me, it seems mad to build an 80,000 seats only to tear it down, when you can build a comprehensive multi-function stadium retaining all of the original functionality - personally Chicago could have the greatest stadium in the world with this approach and I'm sure the Bears would not turn their noses up, nor would US athletics, the NCAA, Rugby USA, Soccer USA etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the revenue issue has been sorted out, the ball is in the USOC's court whether or not they aim for a 2024 Summer Olympics bid or try for a 2022 Winter Olympics bid. I still maintain that if there is even a halfway competent bid from South Africa that the IOC will jump at the chance to give them the Games. The IOC practically said that if South Africa entered the 2020 race that it was all but their's to lose. As much as I'd like to see a Summer Olympics return, the way things stack up I just don't see a 2024 bid as being viable for the U.S. A Tokyo win for 2020 and I think 2024 goes to Africa or Europe. If 2024 goes to Africa, then you can practically lock up 2028 for Asia or Europe so 2032 is the earliest chance I see for a U.S. bid to have a shot which is why I think the USOC will go for the 2022 Winter Olympics.

On the stadium issue, let's face it, there's no perfect plan because of the all-bothersome athletics track. I still maintain the best solution is to build a new stadium with the track and then convert it post-Olympics into a stadium for either an NCAA football team, NFL team, or MLB team. It's not the cheapest route but it is the most viable in terms of getting useage out of the stadium. It's worked well for Atlanta. The second best option would be to construct an Olympic Stadium with the temporary seating and then scaling it down. As far as tenants for a scaled down Olympic Stadium, I can think of two options. First, scale it down to 20,000 and turn ownership over to a local school district who can use the stadium for high school football. Keeping the athletics track would not be a problem since most high school football stadiums have an athletics track anyway. Second, if the stadium is built on a college campus that plays FCS or Division II football, then the campus would have a nice suitable sized stadium for it's football team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Athletics has such a marginal following in the US, but is a major element of the Olympics, why award the games to the USA?

Sheep, this is ridiculous. You still say you have no anti-Anerican chip on your shoulder? Sheesh.

Americans are happy to tune in to track and field, but it can't hold a candle to the multi-billion per year NFL. It's just the way it is. Money talks.

The US has a vibrant track and field history that has always ranked among the top-medal winning nations even in off-years.

I might add that when it comes to athletics the US has FAR outperformed the UK (your native country and the 2012 host), Australia (2000), Greece (2004), China (2008), Brazil (2016) as well as Spain, Turkey and Japan (2020 candidates).

If you don't think the US' presence in track and field is worthy of the Games then what country is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheep, this is ridiculous. You still say you have no anti-Anerican chip on your shoulder? Sheesh.

Americans are happy to tune in to track and field, but it can't hold a candle to the multi-billion per year NFL. It's just the way it is. Money talks.

The US has a vibrant track and field history that has always ranked among the top-medal winning nations even in off-years.

I might add that when it comes to athletics the US has FAR outperformed the UK (your native country and the 2012 host), Australia (2000), Greece (2004), China (2008), Brazil (2016) as well as Spain, Turkey and Japan (2020 candidates).

If you don't think the US' presence in track and field is worthy of the Games then what country is?

As usual in your normal prattish manner you take a comment, refer to it completely out of context and then in some sort of moronic manner try to make some pathetic mileage out it. Here are the comments I was responding to that you pathetically just to ignore made by Quaker

Why go to the ADDITIONAL expense (it's going to cost a lot more to propose something like you're suggesting than to make a football-only stadium, let alone the maintenance and upkeep it would probably require) simply for the 'possibility' of having a track meet?...........Only for an event as large as the World Championships are you going to want an NFL-sized venue for an athletics competition. The rest of the time, all those extra seats are going to be a waste. Good for Rome that they drew 55,000 last night. What are the odds of that happening here? I've been to meets at Ichan Stadium (including in 2008 when Usain Bolt set his first world record.. very proud to say I witnessed that in person). Sure, they could probably expand that stadium a bit, but again, there is not a major demand for track facilities in large stadiums in this country and creating 1 just in case track & field gets popular in this country again probably isn't worth the time or expense.

I had actually been implying that if you built a large stadium that can be easily used for Diamond League meetings whose to say you won't get 50,000+ ... what I guarantee is if you don't have a large capacity stadium you will never know.

Yet you choose to turn it into a mentally deluded rant about my supposed anti-Americanism. Where is the anti-Americanism?

Talk about the behaviour of an idiot.

I'm going to block you because you are just a clown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...