Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dallas won't work, because the Dallas City Council is known all over the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex for bickering like school children. They couldn't even agree to a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys, which would have revived Fair Park. The result was that the Cowboys went to Arlington, in neighboring Tarrant County. They can't even agree on what to do with the Trinity River area, so what would make people think that they would even agree on a Dallas Olympic bid? They will kill it before it goes past them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

Capacities are far too low for a US Olympics, well below IOC guidelines.

Sailing at Breezy Point was a perfect location, open sea, no obstructions.

Meadow Lake is possibly far to small for rowing/canoeing. Either revitalize your 2012 concept, or if the downtown Olympic Plan happens, why not use that? You got more than 2km of frontage right there, just build temporary bridges and stands on the opposite side.

There's plenty of indoor venues of high capacity you are forgetting. I'd use the Louis Brown Athletic Center (upgraded to 12,000) for Basketball Preliminaries.

You're also forgetting quite a number of sports.

Basketball Finals and Gymnastics could be grouped together, assuming you don't want to follow the 2012 plan of having Boxing Finals at MSG.

I'm sure there's plenty of other flaws in your plan, perhaps I'll let others point it out.

The main problem with the NYC2012 bid was that the olympic stadium WAS downtown. I have no problem with New York doing what London did by putting the stadium in a new redeveloped part of the city. It would actually be pretty cool if they put the stadium on Staten Island.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of my ideas as a local

Manhattan

Times Square - Beach Volleyball

Central Park - Triathlon

Madison Square Garden - Gymnastics, Boxing Medal Rounds

Javits Convention Center - Judo, Taekwondo, Weightlifting, Wrestling, Table Tennis

Roseland Ballroom - Boxing

Baker Athletics Complex - Field Hockey

Hammerstein Ballroom - Badminton

Fort Washington Armory - Water Polo

NYC Marathon Route with Alteration to the Start and End locations

Queens

Flushing Meadows Park Olympic Stadium (Former Fountain of Industry Site repurposed for later use as MLS Arena)

USTA - Tennis

Meadows Lake - Flatwater Races

New York State Pavilion - Archery

Iron Triangle across from CitiField - Athlete's Village

Site of Terrace on the Park - Aquatics

Breezy Point - Sailing

Brooklyn

Barclay's Center - Basketball

Coney Island - BMX

MCU Park - Softball (if it returns)

Park Slope Armory - Fencing

Road Cycling

Bronx

Yankee Stadium - Baseball (if it returns)

Van Courtland Park - Golf

Former Jerome Reservoir - Velodrome, Whitewater Course

Pelham Bay Park - Shooting

Staten Island

Modern Pentathlon

Equestrian

Mountain Biking

New Jersey

Prudential Center - VolleyBall

Izod Center - Handball

Red Bull Arena - Rugby 7's

Football Venues

MetLife Stadium - 82,566

Citifield - 41,922 (baseball configuration Football unknown but possibly greater with temp stands)

Lincoln Financial Field - 68,532

Rutgers Stadium - 52,454

Yale Bowl - 64,246

Edited by Astoriaguy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with the NYC2012 bid was that the olympic stadium WAS downtown. I have no problem with New York doing what London did by putting the stadium in a new redeveloped part of the city. It would actually be pretty cool if they put the stadium on Staten Island.

Actually, I do believe a the main problem was not necessarily what you said, but more-so the idea that it would have a retractable roof and in a permanent 80,000 capacity for NFL. Therefore being a direct competitor to Madison Square Garden, only a few blocks away.

By using my land reclamation approach, you have more legacy green area to roam around in, not to mention that the stadium is designed as such for downsizing to 25,000-30,000. New York has 2 rival teams for every major sporting league in it's metropolitan area except for Major League Soccer. A perfect legacy would be for this new stadium to serve such a team.

Alternatively, it could serve either the Jets or Giants, should either want to move out of New Meadowlands Stadium and have their own.

Edited by Lord David
Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect location with 3km+ of frontage.

up to or even more than 1 million square meters of usable space.

More then enough space for the main stadium and athlete's village at a minimum, with a warm up track, multipurpose gym, athletes' green space and public green space.

The athletes' village will probably be high rise apartments at this point, similar to the height of those at Battery Park. A legacy 20,000+ residential complex post Paralympics.

The potential for rowing/canoeing to be directly in the waterfront.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a case of a few editorials - it is a matter of public record that the IOC demanded meetings throughout the games due to ongoing and continuing issues with transportation, and the IT system ... some athletes barely made it to their event start times.

And yet, I still see no evidence of this, that the IOC demanded meetings at Atlanta which weren't demanded of any other games. If it's public record, then you shouldn't have a problem pointing to that clear public record of meetings demanded by the IOC at Atlanta, and how those same meetings weren't demanded for any other games.

Let me be clear, to you and others such as Rob, et al. I'm not claiming Atlanta was "the greatest". It was a highly successful games. There was nothing disastrous or embarrassing about it. To continue trying to paint it as such, simply shows your willingness to believe random wikipedia articles and op eds, as opposed to doing a bit of research.

Go rent some DVDs and watch Atlanta's ceremonies, it's main events. Go into the newspaper archives and read the daily articles relating to the games written during the two weeks. Then come back with your "public record evidence", and let's see of your sweeping statements hold.

The perenial problem any US bid has outside of LA, is what to do with the stadium afterwards

You're right. London managed to solve this with both their previous games - they demolished the stadium.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. London managed to solve this with both their previous games - they demolished the stadium.

A rather inaccurate comment.

Wembley in its 1948 form was already 25years old. By 2000, it was 75years old. At a certain point it is physically impossible to keep updating a stadium and rebuild it. The Olympic Stadium of 1948 is still at its exact same location.

As for the 1908 stadium, it was only demolished after being in existence for 75years, and having all the streets around it developed to the point which hamstrung what the owners could do. Ironically it would have been a great site for the proposed QPR stadium.

If the USA winning city plan to build an Olympic Stadium and operate it for 75years before demolishing it, then you've got a valid comparison

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, I still see no evidence of this, that the IOC demanded meetings at Atlanta which weren't demanded of any other games. If it's public record, then you shouldn't have a problem pointing to that clear public record of meetings demanded by the IOC at Atlanta, and how those same meetings weren't demanded for any other games.

Let me be clear, to you and others such as Rob, et al. I'm not claiming Atlanta was "the greatest". It was a highly successful games. There was nothing disastrous or embarrassing about it. To continue trying to paint it as such, simply shows your willingness to believe random wikipedia articles and op eds, as opposed to doing a bit of research.

Go rent some DVDs and watch Atlanta's ceremonies, it's main events. Go into the newspaper archives and read the daily articles relating to the games written during the two weeks. Then come back with your "public record evidence", and let's see of your sweeping statements hold.

That the fact that the spectators enjoyed it is not disputed .... or that the ceremonies or events looked good.

What the International Olympic Committee had to do behind the scenes to represent a respectable games is what they measure - the budget shortfalls, the tacky commercialisation, the appalling transportation of athletes and officials, the chaotic IT system - and this has been recorded by American journalists in details.

I once organised a conference at a venue, where despite written agreements, the venue failed to deliver in IT support, catering, sound etc ... if anything could have gone wrong it did. My colleagues and I scurried around behind the scenes, and thankfully the delegates weren't aware what was going wrong behind the scenes. After the event, we had to send a report to the CEO, who was so horrified that the venue had failed to deliver to even a minimum standard that my company received a full refund on everything -£15,000+ - as well as a personal apology from the venues managing director. But none of this was known by the delegates or those filming the conference.

Based on what has been said about Atlanta, whilst superficially it looked great, things happened behind the scenes which left the IOC deeply disappointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Atlanta biggest flaw was the IOC had to sweat then GREAT! They may have been the "best games ever" after all.

The event itself was a huge success with NO white elephants, green before "green" was overhyped BS and Atlanta is a Magnificent city that has become even more so since the Olympics. That's legacy worth discussing vs some street peddlers and lost bus drivers. I try to understand why people here complain about Atlanta's successful games when we see pictures of deserted and crumbling venues from past hosts like Bejing, Athans. Even Sydney's park sound underused and often deserted and we all know they are never criticized.

It's probably more about the US hosting so often that makes it a target, and certainly Atlanta is the easiest target, probably because people know the least about it.

Edited by paul
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Atlanta biggest flaw was the IOC had to sweat then GREAT! They may have been the "best games ever" after all.

The event itself was a huge success with NO white elephants, green before "green" was overhyped BS and Atlanta is a Magnificent city that has become even more so since the Olympics.

One slight problem -

If the IOC weren't impressed, they are the one group you must impress if you want the Summer Olympics awarded again

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Atlanta biggest flaw was the IOC had to sweat then GREAT! They may have been the "best games ever" after all.

The event itself was a huge success with NO white elephants, green before "green" was overhyped BS and Atlanta is a Magnificent city that has become even more so since the Olympics.

Good post. A few of us Brits probably don't have particularly great memories of the Atlanta Olympics because of our humiliating showing in the medals table (just one gold etc.) but that was our problem, nobody else's. Otherwise, it seems to have been a great spectacle and a credit to the city of Atlanta.

For Team GB, Atlanta 1996 was the ashes from which the phoenix of London 2012 eventually arose! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One slight problem -

If the IOC weren't impressed, they are the one group you must impress if you want the Summer Olympics awarded again

I'm thinking the US will host again....and probably again after that. It's just a matter of time and bid. .

Edited by paul
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post. A few of us Brits probably don't have particularly great memories of the Atlanta Olympics because of our humiliating showing in the medals table (just one gold etc.) but that was our problem, nobody else's. Otherwise, it seems to have been a great spectacle and a credit to the city of Atlanta.

For Team GB, Atlanta 1996 was the ashes from which the phoenix of London 2012 eventually arose! ;)

If you're British, what American city do you think should host next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is way to much like the 2012 bid.

That's the idea. You already have the wealth of preliminary planning and venue designs from the 2012 bid. So you simply reuse or modify those to save on bid expenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USA winning city plan to build an Olympic Stadium and operate it for 75years before demolishing it, then you've got a valid comparison

Why certainly. The LA Coliseum has now been around since 1920 - going onto 92 years. In that time, sure the field has been raised and lowered, facilities updated and seating renovated or replaced. But the basic structure is intact - right down to the original 1932 games logo.

Many other cities have their Olympic stadiums intact. Just a couple that are older than 75 year:

- 1936 - Garmisch Partenkirchen

- 1928 - Amsterdam

In other sports, Chicago has been able to keep the historic Wrigley Field around since 1914.

London could have retained historic parts of Wembley or the White City Stadium, but responded by demolishing the legacy. If you want to see true architecture of the 1908 or 1948 Games in London, where do you go? In Berlin, Munich, Garmisch, Ingoldstadt, LA, Atlanta, Amsterdam and most Olympic hosts, the stadiums are well-used and tourist drawcards. In London? Nothing.

and this has been recorded by American journalists in details.

And still, other than an allegation, you haven't posted a single fact in support of reports of the day indicated Atlanta was a shambles compared to any other Games. It's clear you have an anti-Atlanta bias with zero facts, other than what you read on Wikipedia and blogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why certainly. The LA Coliseum has now been around since 1920 - going onto 92 years. In that time, sure the field has been raised and lowered, facilities updated and seating renovated or replaced. But the basic structure is intact - right down to the original 1932 games logo.

Many other cities have their Olympic stadiums intact. Just a couple that are older than 75 year:

- 1936 - Garmisch Partenkirchen

- 1928 - Amsterdam

In other sports, Chicago has been able to keep the historic Wrigley Field around since 1914.

London could have retained historic parts of Wembley or the White City Stadium, but responded by demolishing the legacy. If you want to see true architecture of the 1908 or 1948 Games in London, where do you go? In Berlin, Munich, Garmisch, Ingoldstadt, LA, Atlanta, Amsterdam and most Olympic hosts, the stadiums are well-used and tourist drawcards. In London? Nothing.

THIS IS WRONG - it was discovered that it was architecturally impossible to update Wembley into a modern stadium and retain original features. British posters will confirm that there was a campaign to retain things like the Two Towers but on architectural investigation, it was discovered that the way they were built made it impossible to do so. And it was never built as an Olympic stadium unlike some of the other venues you mention.

As for White City ... I used to live near there - about half a mile away in Ladbroke Grove. Due to building being built around there, it was impossible to use White City as a stadium because of Health and Safety reasons. You could not safely move people into the stadium. So it was demolished.

Clearly you are extremely unfamiliar with the parts of London you are talking about.

And still, other than an allegation, you haven't posted a single fact in support of reports of the day indicated Atlanta was a shambles compared to any other Games. It's clear you have an anti-Atlanta bias with zero facts, other than what you read on Wikipedia and blogs.

Samaranch said he did not proclaim the Atlanta Games with the usual post- Olympic superlative because of the multitude of problems ranging from transport bottlenecks to technology failures. "I was right by not talking of the `best Games ever'," Samaranch claimed.

The fact that the IOC actually changed some of the funding rules after the games, the fact the even ACOG admitted there were a number of IT and transport problems that were ongoing from the 1st day to the last ..... exactly how many FACTS do you need. These FACTS are a matter of public record.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me be clear, to you and others such as Rob, et al. I'm not claiming Atlanta was "the greatest". It was a highly successful games. There was nothing disastrous or embarrassing about it. To continue trying to paint it as such, simply shows your willingness to believe random wikipedia articles and op eds, as opposed to doing a bit of research.

I'm not sure why you mentioned me. I know you didn't claim Atlanta to be the greatest Games, I never said otherwise.

I think if I'm being honest, I'm going to place myself in the middle in this debate. A lot of Blacksheep's facts about Atlanta's organisation and subsequent changes for Sydney are indisputible - and indeed the IOC's problems with Atlanta are well documented. However, I would definitely side with you overall because I'd disagree that these problems were large enough to call these Games a "car crash". I agree with Blacksheep's observations, but not his extreme conclusion.

I hope that's sort of cleared up where I stand on Atlanta anyway. It was a Games I enjoyed on a small TV screen while on holiday in Devon as a 12 year old kid. It's the first Games I really remember and as such will always be a good Games for me. However, in the context of this forum and this thread, I have to acknowledge the IOC's perception too. I don't think that's unfair.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're British, what American city do you think should host next?

I refer you to my reply in the 'Which American city do you think should next host the Games?' thread:

I've always liked the idea of them in New York. It's such an iconic city. Failing that, San Francisco for the beauty of its location a la Sydney and Rio.

Edited by Mainad
Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I agree that Atlanta fell a bit short, but it wasn't a disaster and Salt Lake turned around and immediately staged outstanding Winter Games.

Atlanta was the product of one particular organizing committee in one particular city at one particular point in history. The US is a huge country and American Games held in 2024 (28 years later) in a different city, would bear virtually no similarity to Atlanta. The IOC will understand this.

If posters feel the need to continue arguing about Atlanta, I suggest starting a new thread. It really has very little bearing on an American bid for 2024. None of the potential bidders is even remotely similar to Atlanta. The USOC is clearly doing their homework in terms of currying favor with the IOC and they will only offer a top quality bid from one of the country's greatest cities.

Atlanta is basically a moot point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you mentioned me. I know you didn't claim Atlanta to be the greatest Games, I never said otherwise.

I think if I'm being honest, I'm going to place myself in the middle in this debate. A lot of Blacksheep's facts about Atlanta's organisation and subsequent changes for Sydney are indisputible - and indeed the IOC's problems with Atlanta are well documented. However, I would definitely side with you overall because I'd disagree that these problems were large enough to call these Games a "car crash". I agree with Blacksheep's observations, but not his extreme conclusion.

I hope that's sort of cleared up where I stand on Atlanta anyway. It was a Games I enjoyed on a small TV screen while on holiday in Devon as a 12 year old kid. It's the first Games I really remember and as such will always be a good Games for me. However, in the context of this forum and this thread, I have to acknowledge the IOC's perception too. I don't think that's unfair.

What extreme conclusion? I've not said that I personally thought it was a bad games as a spectator. I remember watching Steve Redgrave, and Ben Ainslie and Donovan Bailey as well as the superb Michael Johnson and is 19.32 run in the 200m.

What I've said is that Atlanta disappointed the IOC not delivering to maybe a too high an expectation and there were a number of problems which they IOC insisted were addressed in future bids. Funding and rigid commercialisation controls were implemented post Atlanta to the benefit of the Olympic movement

Stick in your head in the sand and pretending this did not occur is not going to help. Most games to the spectator are brilliant, it is the impression that the IOC form which becomes important,

And I think a future New York, Chicago, LA bid etc, will pay very close attention to make sure the same problems don't occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Football Venues

MetLife Stadium - 82,566

Citifield - 41,922 (baseball configuration Football unknown but possibly greater with temp stands)

Lincoln Financial Field - 68,532

Rutgers Stadium - 52,454

Yale Bowl - 64,246

One problem...what will become of the three American football teams from NYC and Philadelphia that play preseason games in August? Where will they have to play their games if the Olympics conflict with their preseason schedule?

In my opinion, the football venues are a little too close to each other. I think they should be a little more spread out (think of this year's Olympics and how far some of the venues were to each other, such as Hampden Park in Glasgow to Wembley Stadium in London, which are about 6.5 hours apart).

Link to post
Share on other sites
One problem...what will become of the three American football teams from NYC and Philadelphia that play preseason games in August? Where will they have to play their games if the Olympics conflict with their preseason schedule?

Is that really that big an issue?

I know for a fact all London teams have had to do their pre-seasons away from home because of the Olympics despite none of their grounds being used for the football (because of issues surrounding policing and congestion). I think that's obviously also true of the teams whose stadiums were used for the football tournament like Manchester Utd, Newcastle, Coventry etc.

It's just one of those things.

Do Handegg teams do preseason tours abroad or in other parts of the States?

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, hence my wondering whether it's really that big an issue (I don't know) and/or whether pre-season tours would be an option.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...