Jump to content

Recommended Posts

HEY! A chunck of my tax dollars when to Salt Lake 2002. I want credit for that.

"Without question, we simply could not host Games in Salt Lake if it were not for the enormous spending and services of the federal government,"
Mitt Romeny, 2001 Congressional Testimony

Roughly $342 in direct federal spending on Salt Lake, with another $1.1b in indirect. Not to mention all the state and local spending.

Only $342? Migod, that's cheap!! :blink:

Security costs are taken up by the Feds; but because it is 'security,' no one is supposed to know that or the exact amounts.

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....

I'm just going to get back on the original topic:

Some people are saying LA wants to host for a third time......what do you think? Do they deserve a to be put in a group with London and soon to be Paris?

Los Angeles and New York City would be my favourites, if only for their individual statuses as well-known cities and the imagery. I'm honestly not sure, though, whether the United States will necessarily win in 2024. I believe that Paris will have to screw up big-time (as the 2012 bid showed, that's not beyond them) to hand the Games to the States or, for that case, anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly not sure, though, whether the United States will necessarily win in 2024. I believe that Paris will have to screw up big-time

Well, those 2 might NOT win because they may not even enter. 2024 will be decided by whomever wins 2020 and if RSA/Durban decides to go for 2024.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a post I made in the news section, but it is relevant to repost it here:

Since London 1948, the IOC has awarded the Summer Games to 14 new cities.

Rio 2016

Beijing 2008

Sydney 2000

Atlanta 1996

Barcelona 1992

Seoul 1988

Moscow 1980

Montreal 1976

Munich 1972

Mexico City 1968

Tokyo 1964

Rome 1960

Melbourne 1956

Helsinki 1952

In that same time, they only have awarded the games to repeat cities three times, but you can't really consider Athens 2004 under the same circumstances as London or LA.

London 2012 (66 years since hosting in 1948)

Athens 2004 (108 years since hosting in 1896)

Los Angeles 1984 (52 years since hosting in 1932)

Any future bid from LA has one of the biggest flaws in my mind, and that it is a relatively recent host city. I think the USOC has to think long and hard about how to engage cities like New York, Chicago or San Francisco, so that it can put together a more compelling package, especially if repeaters like Tokyo and Paris snag the Games in 2020 and 2024 (which I know is not certain).

Surely, a scenario might arise where LA comes out to be the only compelling US city interested in bidding, but I hope we can put forward a new city, because I think it would certainly help our chances at landing a Games should we bid in the next few cycles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a post I made in the news section, but it is relevant to repost it here:

Since London 1948, the IOC has awarded the Summer Games to 14 new cities.

Rio 2016

Beijing 2008

Sydney 2000

Atlanta 1996

Barcelona 1992

Seoul 1988

Moscow 1980

Montreal 1976

Munich 1972

Mexico City 1968

Tokyo 1964

Rome 1960

Melbourne 1956

Helsinki 1952

In that same time, they only have awarded the games to repeat cities three times, but you can't really consider Athens 2004 under the same circumstances as London or LA.

London 2012 (66 years since hosting in 1948)

Athens 2004 (108 years since hosting in 1896)

Los Angeles 1984 (52 years since hosting in 1932)

Any future bid from LA has one of the biggest flaws in my mind, and that it is a relatively recent host city. I think the USOC has to think long and hard about how to engage cities like New York, Chicago or San Francisco, so that it can put together a more compelling package, especially if repeaters like Tokyo and Paris snag the Games in 2020 and 2024 (which I know is not certain).

Surely, a scenario might arise where LA comes out to be the only compelling US city interested in bidding, but I hope we can put forward a new city, because I think it would certainly help our chances at landing a Games should we bid in the next few cycles.

What happens August 5th 2016?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any future bid from LA has one of the biggest flaws in my mind, and that it is a relatively recent host city. I think the USOC has to think long and hard about how to engage cities like New York, Chicago or San Francisco, so that it can put together a more compelling package, especially if repeaters like Tokyo and Paris snag the Games in 2020 and 2024 (which I know is not certain).

did san francisco have a decent bid proposal in 2012/6?

Edited by krow
Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens August 5th 2016?

Rio has their opening ceremony.

did san francisco have a decent bid proposal in 2012/6?

I am biased, but I think most would say Chicago had a better bid plan. They also had a stadium issue, and then pulled their bid before the USOC voted on finalists - LA, SF and Chicago.

Houston and Philly were not made finalists, but they did put together a proposal for the USOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 2012, the "San Francisco" bid was a joke. It was a pseudo San Francisco bid with the main Olympic stadium proposed in Palo Alto at Stamford. That's Y initially it was called "Bay Area" 2012, before the USOC told them that they had to change it. Really. I'm surprised with such a wacky proposal, that the USOC entertained it as long as they did, with having it as one of the final two along with NYC.

For 2016, they were proposing the stadium in the actual City of San Francisco. That was suppose to be the new 49'ners stadium. But then when that deal blew up, so did the San Francisco 2016 Olympic bid. Hence, Y they withdrew.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Philly when NYC or LA have more venues and more to offer?

I don't think this is an accurate representation of Philadelphia. Doing a quick Wikipedia search, Philadelphia has

1) Teams in the 4 major North American sports and therefore associated venues

2) A MLS team which has its own stadium

3) The Big 5 group of College Teams most of which have their own venues of differing capacities.

Reading the "sports section", there also appears to be a number of athletic events and sailing regattas so the city appears to have a large sporting culture in a variety of sports. So quite a lot of venues, maybe more than other cities its size.

As for more to offer, my two nieces recently travelled to New Jersey, flying into Philadelphia as it was easier to use than Newark airport, and said it was easy to travel to their aunts home. My eldest niece wants to study history and totally loved Philadelphia and all the history associated with the city.

It sounds to me like it could hold its own in any comparison with Los Angeles. It was, after all, the American location for Live Aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crusader, Philly's been dissected already before. U just gotta look it up. The thing is, as with all the other possible American bids - where will they place, fund (1) the Olympic stadium; and (2) where does the Olympic Village go (if they aren't using one of the universities)? R these strategically located?

One thing Philly (and I like Philly) has going for against it, and just like Dallas and DC - is the fetid, humid summer weather. It's debilitating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crusader, Philly's been dissected already before. U just gotta look it up. The thing is, as with all the other possible American bids - where will they place, fund (1) the Olympic stadium; and (2) where does the Olympic Village go (if they aren't using one of the universities)? R these strategically located?

One thing Philly (and I like Philly) has going for against it, and just like Dallas and DC - is the fetid, humid summer weather. It's debilitating.

I have seen that article. The Philadelphia Navy Yards were mentioned as a possible location due to its proximity to an existing major sports complex, and also the possibility of the Olympic Village being placed there as well or close by - convertible and sold as waterfront housing.

I guess the weather is always a problem for many American cities. Being close to a large body of water potentially off sets this.

I can't imagine Rio is that cool in the middle of summer, or nor was Atlanta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crusader, Philly's been dissected already before. U just gotta look it up. The thing is, as with all the other possible American bids - where will they place, fund (1) the Olympic stadium; and (2) where does the Olympic Village go (if they aren't using one of the universities)? R these strategically located?

I believe that every major American city can solve for the stadium and village issue. Some better than others.. but in the end, everyone can come through. We spend way to much time speculating on veneus and ignore all the touchy-feely stuff that the IOC members live for. It's not "Can this city host?" Lots of cities can host. It's "Why should this city host?" What will this city do for the Olympics, and what will the Olympics do for the city?

And when we do talk about venues, I think we have it backwards. Advantage doesn't go to the city with all the venues in place. Advantage goes to the city without venues that needs them. If we look at cities below NY/Chicago/LA, I think Boston is in great shape venue-wise specifically because they don't have a big stadium any where near the city. Just talking venues here... not saying Boston would be a good host or even wants to host. But if you want to host, I think it better to *need* a stadium than that *have* a stadium.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is an accurate representation of Philadelphia. Doing a quick Wikipedia search, Philadelphia has

1) Teams in the 4 major North American sports and therefore associated venues

2) A MLS team which has its own stadium

3) The Big 5 group of College Teams most of which have their own venues of differing capacities.

Reading the "sports section", there also appears to be a number of athletic events and sailing regattas so the city appears to have a large sporting culture in a variety of sports. So quite a lot of venues, maybe more than other cities its size.

As for more to offer, my two nieces recently travelled to New Jersey, flying into Philadelphia as it was easier to use than Newark airport, and said it was easy to travel to their aunts home. My eldest niece wants to study history and totally loved Philadelphia and all the history associated with the city.

It sounds to me like it could hold its own in any comparison with Los Angeles. It was, after all, the American location for Live Aid.

Still. LA has hosted the games twice and still has some existing venues from 1984 which could save the city lots of money. NYC Has over 5 major league sports venues, not including college teams. There are also plans to build another MLS stadium in the area which could be converted into the olympic stadium. Why would the IOC and the USOC go through all that trouble in Philly when they could use those 2 bigger cities. Not to mention NYC is only 90 minutes away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that every major American city can solve for the stadium and village issue. Some better than others.. but in the end, everyone can come through. We spend way to much time speculating on veneus and ignore all the touchy-feely stuff that the IOC members live for. It's not "Can this city host?" Lots of cities can host. It's "Why should this city host?" What will this city do for the Olympics, and what will the Olympics do for the city?

Alright, it's perfectly reasonable to say that most American cities would be able to host (I'm sorry I can't see the Summer Olympics in a city like Minneapolis or Detroit, for a variety of reasons).

However, the key question is this: What narrative would a bid from, say, Boston or Philadelphia pursue?

Sydney: Love of sport, technical excellence, the passion of a free and multicultural Australia (as opposed to communist PRC)

Athens: Bringing it back to the historical cradle of the Olympic Games

Beijing: The first Games in the most populous country on Earth

London: Inspire a generation

Rio: Ground-breaking Olympics in the first Lusophone and Latin American country

I can easily see the message New York City would have: "Everyone's Games in Everyone's City". Ditto for Los Angeles: "Where the Pacific meets the Future". But what about Philadelphia? Or Boston? Or Dallas? Surely, we can all agree that it has to amount to much more than "We're the cradle of freedom and democracy in the Western world"! What would these cities give to the Olympic Movement that a) New York City or Los Angeles (as a third-time host) and B) cities like Paris, Durban/Cape Town, Hamburg, Toronto or Singapore couldn't?

Answers on a postcard, please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

II can't imagine Rio is that cool in the middle of summer, or nor was Atlanta.

Well, remember, it will actually be "winter" in Rio. And somehow, Atlanta was surprisingly 'bearable.' There is only a small river that runs on one side of Atlanta, so maybe that's why it was actually rather pleasant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still. LA has hosted the games twice and still has some existing venues from 1984 which could save the city lots of money. NYC Has over 5 major league sports venues, not including college teams. There are also plans to build another MLS stadium in the area which could be converted into the olympic stadium. Why would the IOC and the USOC go through all that trouble in Philly when they could use those 2 bigger cities. Not to mention NYC is only 90 minutes away.

The things with older stadiums is that sometimes they are even more expensive to upgrade than built from scratch. I had not heard of any plans to build a second MLS stadium in LA. As for NY, there is always city politics involved.

Answers on a postcard, please!

First East Coast games + birthplace of a nation + I suppose for Philadelphia a play on the 'City of Brotherly Love' motto.

Well, remember, it will actually be "winter" in Rio. And somehow, Atlanta was surprisingly 'bearable.' There is only a small river that runs on one side of Atlanta, so maybe that's why it was actually rather pleasant.

Which suggests it can't be guaranteed that it would be nasty and humid in Washington or Philadelphia or even Dallas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And when we do talk about venues, I think we have it backwards. Advantage doesn't go to the city with all the venues in place. Advantage goes to the city without venues that needs them. If we look at cities below NY/Chicago/LA, I think Boston is in great shape venue-wise specifically because they don't have a big stadium any where near the city. Just talking venues here... not saying Boston would be a good host or even wants to host. But if you want to host, I think it better to *need* a stadium than that *have* a stadium.

Well, that angle didn't work for Chicago, did it? And Atlanta from the start said "...this thing ain't staying a track past the Paralympics." It's still...(#1) how do we make a $600 million investment (whether temporary or permanent) pay off? And (#2) how can our local real estate market absorb some 2,500 two-3 bedroom units at once after the Games (which is why university dorms work better for American bids. The last new village built became the 'minimum-security' prison in Lake Placid.)?

Which suggests it can't be guaranteed that it would be nasty and humid in Washington or Philadelphia or even Dallas.

Au contraire. Have you actually visited those 3 places in July-August? Add Houston and New Orleans to that list!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that angle didn't work for Chicago, did it? And Atlanta from the start said "...this thing ain't staying a track past the Paralympics." It's still...(#1) how do we make a $600 million investment (whether temporary or permanent) pay off? And (#2) how can our local real estate market absorb some 2,500 two-3 bedroom units at once after the Games (which is why university dorms work better for American bids. The last new village built became the 'minimum-security' prison in Lake Placid.)?

Au contraire. Have you actually visited those 3 places in July-August? Add Houston and New Orleans to that list!

No. When did Houston and New Orleans get added to the discussion?

You'd assume it would be hot and humid in Atlanta but as you said it was surprisingly pleasant. You'd think it would rain in London but it only happened on one day.

Looking it up Atlanta has the same 'Koppen classification' as Washington and Philadelphia as does Chicago - humid continental ... you would rule out most of the cities in the USA if this type of climate is going to be the deciding factor.

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

×
×
  • Create New...