Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athensfan

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

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

Just now -- to show you the range of the hot & humid summer US cities.

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.

Well, if I had a choice as a summer olympian, and there were other choices besides DC and Philly, I would pick a Zurich or even a Madrid (hotter though that might be) over DC and Philly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Philadelphia, much is made of the stadium issue, but Philadelphia is one city that actually could use a new stadium. Temple University's football team currently shares Lincoln Financial Field with the Philadelphia Eagles. In the ultra-competitive world that is college football recruiting, an on-campus stadium, or at least one adjacent to the campus is essential. An 80,000 seat Olympic Stadium could be downsized to 50-60,000 after the Olympics and the Temple Owls would have an on-campus facility.

As far as venues, Id say it really doesn't matter too much whether a city has the majority in place or has to build from scratch. As the last few bidding cycles have shown, I would say it's all about selling your city. What does a city have to offer the Olympic Movement that the other candidates do not? The IOC is for all intents and purposes a business. London offered the ispire a generation theme along with the regeneration of an industrial wasteland that became the Olympic Park. That is the key question any U.S. candidate city whether it's New York, Philadelphia, Dallas, or Los Angeles must be able to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Philadelphia, much is made of the stadium issue, but Philadelphia is one city that actually could use a new stadium. Temple University's football team currently shares Lincoln Financial Field with the Philadelphia Eagles. In the ultra-competitive world that is college football recruiting, an on-campus stadium, or at least one adjacent to the campus is essential. An 80,000 seat Olympic Stadium could be downsized to 50-60,000 after the Olympics and the Temple Owls would have an on-campus facility.

That's the logic that Blacksheep tried to push, but it's not going to work. There's no room in or around Temple's campus to put that large of a stadium, so that's a complete non-starter. Even if they were to build a new stadium down by the sports complex or Navy Yard, then what good is that to Temple when they're responsible for the upkeep of the stadium as opposed to using the Linc the few times a year they need it. Philadelphia does not need a new football stadium and probably won't for a while. They have one that's less than a decade old right now. They just built the soccer stadium in Northeast. And they knocked down the Spectrum to create space for a retail complex (which, to note, is similar to what's being planned around Citi Field in New York). These projects aren't going to wait for the Olympics to come to town and maybe get built.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any future U.S. bid should try to emulate London's 2012 bid.

If Chicago were ever to bid again, I think they should focus their vision on redeveloping areas on the south side and west side (two areas that have the highest crime rates and poverty in the city). They should convert the velodrome and aquatics center into community centers post Games, and they should also promote significant upgrades to the city's public transport. Not sure where they would get all of the money for that, but those are tangible talking points for the bid. They can intertwine this with the message of cultural diversity, educational and athletic opportunities "for all people".

In their 2016 bid, they relied too heavily on temporary venues without much of a legacy plan. They also said that they would not need to make significant upgrades to public transport.

They should enter discussions with the Chicago Fire (soccer team) to try to get them to move back into the city limits, and use a scaled down Olympic stadium post Games.

In saying this, do I think Chicago will bid anytime soon? Not really. They just finalized plans to convert Northerly Island and the former Michael Reese hospital site in to parks. These locations would have been venues for beach volleyball, slalom, sailing and the Olympic Village. As time passes, more and more land is going to be used up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2024 is the 400th anniversary of the founding of New York when in 1624 (?) it was founded as a Dutch Trading Post.

That might be something a bid could be built around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know certain poster(s) might have overstated their case, but do you really think Atlanta has no bearing whatsoever on a future US Games? Isn't that taking the opposite extreme? As time passes, the "Atlanta effect" (whatever that may be) will get less and less, but it was still an American Games, warts and all, and I'm sure it will probably still be on the minds of some voting members. I can't say to what extent, I'm not in-the-know, but isn't it just as naive to say Atlanta will have no bearing as it is over-the-top to say it'd really hamper the US' chances?

Probably time to move on nonetheless! You're right that we've discussed it to death for now.

Ugh. You should follow your own advice.

Was Calgary on the minds of voters when they picked Vancouver. Maybe a little. There's no way Olympics 28 years later in a totally different American city will get m

Aargh.

...will get more than a brief comparison to Atlanta.

Atlanta isn't going to influence the USOC's decision to bid, it won't impact their choice of host city and it's not going to win or lose the Games for the next American bidder.

Sure there will be a passing thought of Atlanta here or there, but it's very unlikely to change the outcome of anything.

Share this post


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).

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.

Soaring, I appreciate your stats, but I think your conclusions are erroneous.

The IOC cares about moving the Games around the globe. In most cases, new cities were chosen because they were in new countries -- or geopolitically convenient countries.

As long as there is a good gap between Games I see no problem with LA. What counts is the quality of the bid. If Chicago, NYC and San Francisco offer up sub-standard concepts and LA presents a good one -- LA should be the candidate.

If another city equals or exceeds LA's concept they should be the candidate. It's pretty much that simple.

LA is n

LA is not the "consolation prize" option. It's a fascinating world-class city capable of staging fantastic Games. I think 2024 is the earliest LA can contemplate a bid. I do thi k their chances are better as more time passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athens, I agree with you in one respect.

LA and Chicago were the best bids in the 2016 domestic race, and I agree that the best bid should be the one put forward to the international competition. But sometimes subjectivity and intangibles come into play in choosing the "best" bid city, and if I were in the USOC, I would be willing to take a couple of risks choosing SF, Chicago or NYC in the expectation that it would at least be somewhat more appealing to the current IOC membership, in whom most (if not all) would still have vivid memories of the LA '84 Games.

There are reasons (among others) why Japan put forward Nagano, and not Sapporo for 1998, and Canada put forward Vancouver and not Calgary for 2010, and France put forward Albertville over Grenoble for 1992. Same goes for Sydney and Melbourne, and also why Spain keeps bidding with Madrid, and why Canada has put forward Toronto over Montreal (not that anyone thinks Montreal has a good perception).

In the end, Atlanta won because it was a "new" city too. So, one cannot discount that it does bear some importance by having a new city. A city's perception in the IOC is as important as the country bidding, probably even more so than the country when it comes to the U.S.

Now if no other Alpha city in the U.S. rises to the occasion over the next few cycles, and LA is the best shot at snagging a games in 2028 or 2032, than I say.... why not try? I don't find it the most appealing scenario, but it could happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athens, I agree with you in one respect.

LA and Chicago were the best bids in the 2016 domestic race, and I agree that the best bid should be the one put forward to the international competition. But sometimes subjectivity and intangibles come into play in choosing the "best" bid city, and if I were in the USOC, I would be willing to take a couple of risks choosing SF, Chicago or NYC in the expectation that it would at least be somewhat more appealing to the current IOC membership, in whom most (if not all) would still have vivid memories of the LA '84 Games.

There are reasons (among others) why Japan put forward Nagano, and not Sapporo for 1998, and Canada put forward Vancouver and not Calgary for 2010, and France put forward Albertville over Grenoble for 1992. Same goes for Sydney and Melbourne, and also why Spain keeps bidding with Madrid, and why Canada has put forward Toronto over Montreal (not that anyone thinks Montreal has a good perception).

In the end, Atlanta won because it was a "new" city too. So, one cannot discount that it does bear some importance by having a new city. A city's perception in the IOC is as important as the country bidding, probably even more so than the country when it comes to the U.S.

Now if no other Alpha city in the U.S. rises to the occasion over the next few cycles, and LA is the best shot at snagging a games in 2028 or 2032, than I say.... why not try? I don't find it the most appealing scenario, but it could happen.

Exactly. That's the appeal of a "new city." And in the IOC's askew frame-of-mind, they are "actually doing an under-developed city" a favor by picking it to host (even though it means going several billion dollars in the hole) because the city will then have new venues in which to host successive (lesser) world championships and the like. I am sure this sort of upside-down thinking goes through the minds of the old guard IOC. :wacko:

LA's just got to move those Long Beach venues up to Santa Monica and Malibu, and I think they will have a rather attractive 'new' bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing about L.A. The United States is a country that can offer up so many different cities, so does it send a bad message to the IOC if they put up Los Angeles, because the subtext behind that is "we can't find some place new, so we're going with our old standby." And as always, it begs the question of how a future L.A. games would differ from the 1984 version that many people will still have memories of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Athens, I agree with you in one respect.

There are reasons (among others) why Japan put forward Nagano, and not Sapporo for 1998, and Canada put forward Vancouver and not Calgary for 2010, and France put forward Albertville over Grenoble for 1992. Same goes for Sydney and Melbourne, and also why Spain keeps bidding with Madrid, and why Canada has put forward Toronto over Montreal (not that anyone thinks Montreal has a good perception).

In the end, Atlanta won because it was a "new" city too. So, one cannot discount that it does bear some importance by having a new city. A city's perception in the IOC is as important as the country bidding, probably even more so than the country when it comes to the U.S.

N I agree with you in another aspect. However, I also agree with Athens, that if L.A. happens to be the most "compelling" option, & by that I think that we can all agree not the "we have all the venues ready" approach, then that's the bid that the USOC should go with. It worked for London.

N yeah, Japan went with Nagano instead of Sapporo, etc, etc. But right now for 2020, Japan is going with Tokyo instead of Osaka or Nagoya. They also went with the Japanese capital for 2016, too. N CONI went with Rome again for 2020 before they dropped out. N when Auslralia tries again, it could be with Melbourne again.

So while bidding with a new city could help, I think repeat hosters also could be beneficial. Look at Detroit, Ostersund, Madrid N Istanbul. All new cities in their respective countries but constantly struggle/d in their quest to land an Olympics. While London N Paris, two 2-time past hosts, where the favorites for 2012. N while Tokyo right now looks to be the favorite for the 2020 Games.

That's the thing about L.A. The United States is a country that can offer up so many different cities, so does it send a bad message to the IOC if they put up Los Angeles, because the subtext behind that is "we can't find some place new, so we're going with our old standby." And as always, it begs the question of how a future L.A. games would differ from the 1984 version that many people will still have memories of.

I've said this before N I'll say it again; but isn't saying this disingenuous when we all know that other U.S. cities have the big stadium question mark, while L.A. already has this very important piece in place. They just need a very compelling story/concept to attach to it. Cuz of course the "we have everything ready" approach is not going to work.

San Francisco might have a stadium issue!?

Yes, N it always has. N now that the 49'ers have agreed to build their new stadium all the down in Santa Clara (near San Jose), then they're a bg question mark as well. Which is the crux of most U.S. bids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

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

I always find this to be so erroneous. Since Rio is NOT the first "Latin" American country to host the Olympics. That honor goes to Mexico City 1968. N something that the Rio 2016 bid team obviously couldn't use cuz that wouldn't have been true. So they went with the; it would be the first SOUTH American country to host the Games. I even find this mistake in some news media which is kinda annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

London: Inspire a generation

this is the kind of bs, generic legacy that can be dreamed up by any 5th tier marketing agency for just about anywhere.

they literally require no thought, but are plenty useful for cities without a whole lot of exotic fireworks (rio, sydney) or historical significance (athens) or political paydays (beijing) going for them.

giving this about 45 seconds of thought, here are some more to be thrown around to any vanilla first- or second-world city:

  • the games of peace (any city that in a country that a) has seen wartime action B) has been historically neutral c) has a simmering feud that can be patched up briefly for the vote d) doesn't see a lot of gun violence annually
  • prosperity to [host country] and the world (any city that's capitalist, capitalist leaning, or with a mcdonalds in it)
  • global sport, right at home (any city in a host country that boasts some kind of sporting tradition around something, somewhere)
  • we await the world (any city that, you know, doesn't jump out at you as 'oh i'd LOVE to go there if i could afford it,' meaning you've probably heard of it, but you don't talk about it a whole lot)
  • voice of tomorrow (this is a city in a country that maybe has struggled a bit about something at one point in the not-too-distant past that wants a rebrand; or just a city with too many fat kids who need to play more sports before they grow into fat adults)
  • the games of tomorrow (any city that is spending way too much money on their bid and, left no other choice, needs to tie their theme to their massive costs to make it all look intentional like they're thinking of the future, instead of two weeks eight years from now)
  • playground of the world (any city that has ever seen an international tourist at any point, ever)

let's try not to act so surprised at the lazy, incompetent bid heads who read this forum who are jotting down notes with unrestrained alacrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the kind of bs, generic legacy that can be dreamed up by any 5th tier marketing agency for just about anywhere.

they literally require no thought, but are plenty useful for cities without a whole lot of exotic fireworks (rio, sydney) or historical significance (athens) or political paydays (beijing) going for them.

giving this about 45 seconds of thought, here are some more to be thrown around to any vanilla first- or second-world city:

  • the games of peace (any city that in a country that a) has seen wartime action B) has been historically neutral c) has a simmering feud that can be patched up briefly for the vote d) doesn't see a lot of gun violence annually
  • prosperity to [host country] and the world (any city that's capitalist, capitalist leaning, or with a mcdonalds in it)
  • global sport, right at home (any city in a host country that boasts some kind of sporting tradition around something, somewhere)
  • we await the world (any city that, you know, doesn't jump out at you as 'oh i'd LOVE to go there if i could afford it,' meaning you've probably heard of it, but you don't talk about it a whole lot)
  • voice of tomorrow (this is a city in a country that maybe has struggled a bit about something at one point in the not-too-distant past that wants a rebrand; or just a city with too many fat kids who need to play more sports before they grow into fat adults)
  • the games of tomorrow (any city that is spending way too much money on their bid and, left no other choice, needs to tie their theme to their massive costs to make it all look intentional like they're thinking of the future, instead of two weeks eight years from now)
  • playground of the world (any city that has ever seen an international tourist at any point, ever)

let's try not to act so surprised at the lazy, incompetent bid heads who read this forum who are jotting down notes with unrestrained alacrity.

I think you'll find that in the UK, it has begun to inspire a generation, with events deliberately organised in the immediate aftermath of the games to introduce kids to new sports etc. There was a major campaign called 'Join in Local Sport' with 6,000 events across the UK, local clubs getting involved, local people being asked to volunteer their time etc.

And organisations planned this all in advance of the London 2012 games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some more because i have no life and plenty of time to devote to this:

  • we are ready/the time is now (this is a city that's bid before and failed. people on this forum, and i guess people with real jobs and careers in the field probably speculated that they just weren't up to snuff. well, this is a great way to remind the IOC that, yes we failed, but we're prepared to fail all over again for you; or a very entitled, snooty city that feels it deserves the games because it has condescended to the IOC's level and submitted a bid with the plebs even though, really, it should just be asked every four years as a courtesy because, hello, people walk around in t-shirts with our city's name on it, and i'm not just talking about the hard rock cafe, here. )
  • the games of friendship (this is a lot like the games of peace, but for a city that most people would consider friendly)
  • uniting the world starting at home (minority populations are annoying in any city. these olympics will solve those forever, thank you)
  • a legacy of dreams (this is a city that wishes it was a lot higher up on the alpha/beta rankings than it is. this will make them feel important for 2 weeks for the bargain price of $500 billion)
  • sharing our beauty with the world (this is a city that can remind you that travel photographers love it. it's pretty, it's got the scenery and those blimp shots of the city will kill it with the networks. you can advertise these games)
  • the fighting spirit (this city has a bit of gumption, but not too much. they're scrappy and they want it so bad they can taste it, and it tastes like hot teen surfer blood to a hungry shark)
  • inspire a generation (this is a city that has hosted before and takes a bit of a looksee around and notices a stacked competitor field. they also spot the fat kids and so drum a way to tie the last host generation to the fat kids and meeting them somewhere in the middle. this is a city who think this is a nice counterweight legacy to an event sponsored chiefly by coca-cola and mcdonalds. oh, your city hasn't hosted before? cut off the last two words. every city has fat kids who spend too much time on the internet writing snarky posts making fun of london's bland olympic legacy.)
  • discover our treasures (this is a city with a bit of culture and history that it plays to death. or maybe it's just a city with a decent museum with stuff mostly plundered from cultures who are too poor to ever host their own games. maybe it's just a city with a flipping fantastic thai restaurant.)
  • east meets west (this is the most insufferable legacy on either list. basically, it's that city that has a tenuous tie to another part of the world - eg: colonialism, immigration. absolutely the last resort of last resorts. the worst cliche)
  • open happiness (the legacy of this city is the pre-negotiated advertising tie-in package that will be remembered from august to just before the christmas rush)

Edited by krow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

The idea is to build an MLS stadium in Queens. Walking distance from the National Tennis Center and Citi Field.

2024 is the 400th anniversary of the founding of New York when in 1624 (?) it was founded as a Dutch Trading Post.

That might be something a bid could be built around.

Wow I just realized that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, Atlanta won because it was a "new" city too. So, one cannot discount that it does bear some importance by having a new city. A city's perception in the IOC is as important as the country bidding, probably even more so than the country when it comes to the U.S.

Let's be fair about that bid, and this is in no way an indictment against Atlanta.. they didn't win because they were new. They won because the competition was not appealing. Like I've said before.. take the NYC 2012 bid or Chicago 2016 and drop them into that race instead. Do they win? Probably they do. But take Atlanta 1996 and put them into the 2012 race and would they have had a shot? Not likely. It's all a matter of circumstance. Los Angeles could be put into a weak field and come out the winner. Or they could be up against newer more appealing candidates and suddenly their prior hosting experience could be a negative rather than a positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to sound like an asshole, but I find it really funny that minor cities in America think that they have a chance of hosting. There great dreams but if they want to be realistic, they need to look at the big picture. Cities like Tulsa or Cincinnati who have shown interest in hosting have no chance in getting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to sound like an asshole, but I find it really funny that minor cities in America think that they have a chance of hosting. There great dreams but if they want to be realistic, they need to look at the big picture. Cities like Tulsa or Cincinnati who have shown interest in hosting have no chance in getting them.

You don't sound like an asshole because most of us find that funny too. I personally find it saddening that we continue to waste our time talking about Tulsa. Cincinnati, since you mentioned it, is a larger city, but not really big enough to really think they will be in the discussion in a legitimate race. Most here will continue to say there are at most 6-8 cities that have any shot. Maybe 10-15 could make a case and not be laughed out of the room. Anything smaller than that need not bother trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other lynchpin is also the Village. What market can accommodate a sudden influx of some 2,500 units (whether as sales units condos, rentals) in one shot? Possibly only New York; even Chicago is a maybe. It would not be feasible in San Francisco, not unless half were set aside for the homeless and low-income housing...which NO sane developer in his right mind, would agree to. (Have they sold all the units in Vancouver?) Much less cities like Cincinnati, Vegas and the "T" word. And LA will definitely use USC and/or UCLA dorms again.

So that, the cost of the main Stadium, and which states are fiscally healthy, would be all but impossible to align.

CONCLUSION: a Winter Games is easier and simpler to achieve.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other lynchpin is also the Village. What market can accommodate a sudden influx of some 2,500 units (whether as sales units condos, rentals) in one shot? Possibly only New York; even Chicago is a maybe. It would not be feasible in San Francisco, not unless half were set aside for the homeless and low-income housing...which NO sane developer in his right mind, would agree to. (Have they sold all the units in Vancouver?) Much less cities like Cincinnati, Vegas and the "T" word. And LA will definitely use USC and/or UCLA dorms again.

So that, the cost of the main Stadium, and which states are fiscally healthy, would be all but impossible to align.

CONCLUSION: a Winter Games is easier and simpler to achieve.

Summer games are much more prestige to host. Summer games are usually held in major cities around the world while winter games are held in winter resorts. Vancouver and Calgary are probably the only major cities that have held winter games. Bottom line is even though winter games are easier to host, summer games are much more competitive and popular, that's why America should go after them instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other lynchpin is also the Village. What market can accommodate a sudden influx of some 2,500 units (whether as sales units condos, rentals) in one shot?

I live in a small college town. We are adding 2,500 units. Happens all the time in cities across the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summer games are much more prestige to host. Summer games are usually held in major cities around the world while winter games are held in winter resorts. Vancouver and Calgary are probably the only major cities that have held winter games. Bottom line is even though winter games are easier to host, summer games are much more competitive and popular, that's why America should go after them instead.

I know all that. What good is ambition if you CAN'T put those building blocks together?? The way the IOC structures their hosting requirments, the way the USOC and the US gov't DON'T operate, it is much easier, less expensive and MORE viable for US private forces to cobble a Winter bid together than a Summer which virtually requires putting the US gov't in hock. Please get real.

Remember, the IOC wants the host gov't to be responsible for the financial shortfalls. It is the USOC's philosophy NOT to ask for US gov't subsidies because it then becomes beholden to the politics of the US gov't. The Chicago 2016 bid barely got the Illinois Legislature to fill in for this IOC requirement, which the IOC kinda winked-winked at...but it didn't matter in the end because...well, ya know the history.

I live in a small college town. We are adding 2,500 units. Happens all the time in cities across the US.

Yes, but will your small college town also have an Olympic stadium, 20 other venues, training grounds, another 20,000 rooms for the IOC family, the press, etc.?? Not even the University of Chicago or Northwestern came up with an offer like that in the Chicago 2016 bid. NYU, Fordham or Columbia didn't come up with that either for New York 2012. The Univ of San Francisco didn't front up either for the ill-fated SF 2012 and 2016 plans.

And that is why in the last NYC, Chicago and failed SF bids, they had to get private developers to draw up plans for the Villages, but of course, with the expectation that they would get their investment (i.e.,high-interest billion-dollar loans) back and then some. It is NOT like that for the recent winning Summer O bids. Those bids got their federal gov't to foot the Village bills...w/o overriding concern for the bottom line. (And the U.S. real estate developers can't get the loans to build the Village if the plans aren't realistic or viable enough for the banks to get their $$ back in the stipulated times.)

All these things HAVE TO line up in order to form a viable bid. In good times, it's easy. In bad times, all but impossible.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...