Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athensfan

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

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

Things change. Styles and preference shift back and forth. I expect the overwhelming success of London 2012 is going to nudge IOC member attitudes - maybe a little, maybe a lot - away from "let's go someplace brand new" and towards, "let's go someplace amazing that we know will have great games."

Before London, maybe those memories of LA 1984 got people thinking, "Didn't we just have games in LA." Now there might be a bit more, "Yeah, LA was great, let's do that again."

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.??

Forgive me for not completely spelling out my point... let me try again for you. My small town just added 2,500 housing units with no problems. If a small town can do it, I'm sure a larger city can as well.

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.

Honestly, Sydney has long been experiencing a lack of needed housing. 2500 units would go down a treat, be snapped up quickly, and still hardly dent demand for housing here.

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.

The challenge isn't to come up with a short catchy slogan. It's to believe in the slogan and incorporate it everywhere through your plans. One of things I saw in London was much all the Olympic people believed in this stuff. It wasn't just a generic slogan. The were passionate about it... it permeated everything they did and how they want to be judged.

Keep in mind that London 2012 wasn't just about Inspiring a Generation. It was about fundamentally transforming East London. Again, the more you talk to Olympic people, you see they really care and believe in this stuff. It's not just lip service.

Same with the Rio 2016 people. They aren't just using hook of being the first games in South America. It's about cementing Rio and Brazil's role in the world. You talk to the Sochi people, and the games aren't just about bringing a WOG to a traditional powerhouse that deserves them. It's about creating a brand-new winter sports region where it didn't exist before.

This isn't 5th-rate marketing. It's something that is critically important to the IOC. We are cynics in the US... we are going to have to put that aside if we want a SOG. People don't give Billy Payne enough credit. Atlanta didn't just happen. One guy had a vision, and he managed to sell it. London didn't just have marketing slogans. It had Seb Coe, who believed in and sold them.

We build stadiums all the time in the US. We build housing. Whatever city we pick will do fine on those fronts. What's the vision, and who is going to sell it?

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.

It's not just the US. Smaller cities all over the world have Olympic dreams. At least in the US, we've actually pulled it off :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for not completely spelling out my point... let me try again for you. My small town just added 2,500 housing units with no problems. If a small town can do it, I'm sure a larger city can as well.

A college town offers different dynamics from a large, major metopolitan area. Heard of burst real estate bubbles in Vegas, Miami and around the country? The depressed US housing market which ALMOST sank the world economy with its derivative swaps? Even prestigous projects like the Spire and Trump Tower in Chicago were abandoned. I have a 2nd cousin married to a carpenter outside Riverside, CA, and he's been out of a job the last 3 years because there are no NEW housing projects being built in the Riverside/San Bernardino areas. Here in the SF Bay Area, the various city gov'ts regulate/limit the number of new permits for condos and new housing units per year purposely to forestall a glut in the market which would depress real estate values, if outside forces hadn't already done that.

Honestly, Sydney has long been experiencing a lack of needed housing. 2500 units would go down a treat, be snapped up quickly, and still hardly dent demand for housing here.

Rols, was talking about US cities. Not outside. Be thankful Oz has a healthy economy.

Think of Spain and Ireland, too.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be thankful Oz has a healthy economy.

Be thankful the Chinese still like buying our rocks!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be thankful the Chinese still like buying our rocks!

B)

Same here in Calif (for some high-end housing). But if the Chinese economy slows down, those overseas buyers are going to dry up, too.

Going back to the Chicago 2016 bid, they had to offer, from what I heard and read, almost bribe, the R.E. developers with so many unusual incentives just to put together some sort of viable Village plan for that Michael Reese Hospital plot. (And of course, among those incentives are reduced or almost gratis real-estate taxes for a few years...which then adds to shortfalls in the city and county treasuries and budgets. So it in effect, becomes a long-range negative multiplier effect. )

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The challenge isn't to come up with a short catchy slogan. It's to believe in the slogan and incorporate it everywhere through your plans. One of things I saw in London was much all the Olympic people believed in this stuff. It wasn't just a generic slogan. The were passionate about it... it permeated everything they did and how they want to be judged.

Keep in mind that London 2012 wasn't just about Inspiring a Generation. It was about fundamentally transforming East London. Again, the more you talk to Olympic people, you see they really care and believe in this stuff. It's not just lip service.

Same with the Rio 2016 people. They aren't just using hook of being the first games in South America. It's about cementing Rio and Brazil's role in the world. You talk to the Sochi people, and the games aren't just about bringing a WOG to a traditional powerhouse that deserves them. It's about creating a brand-new winter sports region where it didn't exist before.

This isn't 5th-rate marketing. It's something that is critically important to the IOC. We are cynics in the US... we are going to have to put that aside if we want a SOG. People don't give Billy Payne enough credit. Atlanta didn't just happen. One guy had a vision, and he managed to sell it. London didn't just have marketing slogans. It had Seb Coe, who believed in and sold them.

We build stadiums all the time in the US. We build housing. Whatever city we pick will do fine on those fronts. What's the vision, and who is going to sell it?

It's not just the US. Smaller cities all over the world have Olympic dreams. At least in the US, we've actually pulled it off :)

i wasn't talking about the execution of these legacies, i was making the point that london had a particularly uninspired, uncompelling one. it worked, obviously, but it could have worked exactly the same for any one of a million cities i could list. you couldn't say that for beijing or rio's, which were unique and sold themselves.

Edited by krow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what seriously tipped it for London was the new Olympic Park being built in run-down East London that made some IOC members drool, moreso than the so-called "to inspire a generation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I agree with you on this statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things change. Styles and preference shift back and forth. I expect the overwhelming success of London 2012 is going to nudge IOC member attitudes - maybe a little, maybe a lot - away from "let's go someplace brand new" and towards, "let's go someplace amazing that we know will have great games."

There is not enough evidence to support that view just yet. Wait until Rio comes, and if successful, it will stir up all those "exotic" feelings with some in the IOC. I think we will begin to see more of a balance, but there are still plenty of new cities the IOC can choose from, Istanbul, Durban, Madrid, Shanghai, NYC, Toronto, and then the old folks... Tokyo, Paris, Berlin, LA, Melbourne, Rome. My guess is there will be at least a 2/3 favoritism of new cities, and the IOC will be more selective on the repeat hosts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So u honestly can't say that it "has to be a new city" that the U.S has to go with in order to be successful. Since they're so many other intangibles, as many of us know already, that can influence the votes when it comes time for the IOC members to cast their ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the Chicago 2016 bid, they had to offer, from what I heard and read, almost bribe, the R.E. developers with so many unusual incentives just to put together some sort of viable Village plan for that Michael Reese Hospital plot. (And of course, among those incentives are reduced or almost gratis real-estate taxes for a few years...which of course, then adds to shortfalls in the city and county treasuries and budgets. So it in effect, becomes a long-range negative multiplier effect. )

Yes, the city certainly dangled some carrots in front of the developer, but keep in mind that the city was not making money off the Michael Reese hospital site to begin with.

So u honestly can't say that it "has to be a new city" that the U.S has to go with in order to be successful. Since they're so many other intangibles, as many of us know already, that can influence the votes when it comes time for the IOC members to cast their ballots.

I never said that it "has" to be a new city. I just said that I "prefer" it to be a new city if an Alpha city can put together a compelling enough bid. I also said that the USOC should engage other alpha cities to see how they can work together to put forward a compelling bid without feeling that they need to rely on a repeat host like LA so soon after '84. LA will always be on the sidelines and ready to bid. So there shouldn't be a rush to go back there without looking into other options.

That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not enough evidence to support that view just yet. Wait until Rio comes, and if successful, it will stir up all those "exotic" feelings with some in the IOC. I think we will begin to see more of a balance, but there are still plenty of new cities the IOC can choose from, Istanbul, Durban, Madrid, Shanghai, NYC, Toronto, and then the old folks... Tokyo, Paris, Berlin, LA, Melbourne, Rome. My guess is there will be at least a 2/3 favoritism of new cities, and the IOC will be more selective on the repeat hosts.

Don't forget the old reliables...Doha and Dubai...where they share the same slogan: It's Gonna be a Hot time in the old Souk Tonite!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the old reliables...Doha and Dubai...where they share the same slogan: It's Gonna be a Hot time in the old Souk Tonite!! :lol:

I was just trying to be realistic... :lol:

I hope Doha has gotten the point now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the city certainly dangled some carrots in front of the developer, but keep in mind that the city was not making money off the Michael Reese hospital site to begin with.

Was just using that as an example on how difficult it is to include a private developer in a 21st century big-city US Olympic bid so that it does not become another Montreal 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that it "has" to be a new city. I just said that I "prefer" it to be a new city if an Alpha city can put together a compelling enough bid. I also said that the USOC should engage other alpha cities to see how they can work together to put forward a compelling bid without feeling that they need to rely on a repeat host like LA so soon after '84. LA will always be on the sidelines and ready to bid. So there shouldn't be a rush to go back there without looking into other options.

That's all.

What confuses me though, is that you said "In the end, Atlanta won bcuz it was a 'new' city. too". When that element merely was moreso a coincidence than a foregone conclusion. Atlanta just got lucky, really.

I think that we all can come to agreement that the biggest Achilles Heel to any U.S. bid is that fricken mega Olympic stadium. N I think that no matter how much engaging that the USOC does with any of the other Alpha cities, it's not going to easily solve this predicament. So that's where I agree with AF, that if L.A. is the only one that can overcome the main ingredient hurdles with no major issues, then what they would need to do is attach a compelling selling point to go along with it. Again, worked for London.

By 2024, it will have been 40 years since 1984. N I also agree with AF, that as more time passes, the better the chances for a 3rd L.A. run. Not to mention, that we've given the IOC two "new" cities recently & they said 'no thanks'. So it's now like that element is as crucial as it might appear, at least when it comes to the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the experience of London's temporary, inredible shrinkable stadium, and Rio's two-for-the-price-of-one stadium set, it dos seem the IOC is more flexible in what they accept for the Game's showpiece venue now. Surely the USA can come up with some solution that can please both the IOC and the future sporting needs of a city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the experience of London's temporary, inredible shrinkable stadium, and Rio's two-for-the-price-of-one stadium set, it dos seem the IOC is more flexible in what they accept for the Game's showpiece venue now. Surely the USA can come up with some solution that can please both the IOC and the future sporting needs of a city.

How about a 'virtual-reality' stadium?? :lol: I am sure Sega and LucasFilm can build a 100,000-seater that for $200,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both the instances for London 2012 N Rio 2016, I think the IOC was more "flexible" in their stadium-deals bcuz there was more incentive elsewhere for them. Like with London, that was the entire new Olympic Park erected from wasteland. N they're still going to end up with a decent-size 25,000 seater. Whereas the Chicago 2016 bid, for example, called for a total dismantling of the stadium post-Games. Not really anything left to call a legacy.

N of course with Rio, despite the seperation of ceremonies N athletics, the IOC is embarking on a whole new adventure in a new part of the globe, reaching new youth N new markets. Something that in neither case doesn't bode well for any future U.S. bid. Since I doubt the IOC will as easlly overlook these same issues with a U.S. city like they did with London N Rio. N how I believe they will also make concessions when it's time for them to lauch to South Africa. I don't C the IOC making such concessions any U.S. bid unless it's worth their wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't C the IOC making such concessions any U.S. bid unless it's worth their wild.

Well, you could argue that Atlanta's stadium was another compromise. Whatever, it IS showing that the IOC is showing flexibility on the main stadium. It knows what works and is achieveable for individual hosts, and what won't. And it's becoming clear a huge permanent dedicated athletics stadium is not something that works in the USA - or many places elsewhere in the world, if anywhere, for that matter. The IOC seem to care more about having covered stands than insisting on an ongoing athletics track legacy in a huge showpiece stadium these days.

Edited by Sir Rols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, it comes down to a variety of factors when choosing a bid city. It is not just a stadium issue, or a recent host issue, it is a variety of factors that usually have more to do with what other bid cities you face, than with what city you end up choosing as your own bid.

There are always pluses and minuses with any bid city. One thing that LA cannot change is its recent Olympic history which contains a double edge sword. I could see a scenario where LA wins against a weak field for the 2032 Games, but I have a hard time believing they are strong contenders for getting 2024, or even 2028 for that matter. What further complicates things IMO is if repeaters Tokyo get 2020 and Paris gets 2024. The IOC likes going to new places. THAT IS A FACT. So throwing LA in with those other possibilities might not be the smartest move. That's all I am saying

I think it is nice to have LA as an option, but it should not be the only option or the most desired option IMO. I will wait and see if other U.S. cities step up to express interest, but for the moment I will remain skeptical that it is still too soon for LA to step in and host after '84.

Edited by Soaring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, if LA does enter a bid again, they must do it differently than their 2016 domestic bid. Here is an article I came across about their 2016 bid:

Why L.A. lost the 2016 Olympic bid

David Davis •

My first clue that L.A.'s bid for the 2016 Olympics was doomed came in February, when I interviewed Barry Sanders, the bow-tie-wearing attorney who served as the head of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games, for LAObserved. My first question was the obligatory softball: "What was your favorite memory from the 1984 Los Angeles Games?" After stammering for a sentence or two about the Opening Ceremonies, Sanders proceeded to wax eloquent about the mega-dollar sponsorship deal he helped put together with Coca-Cola. I'm not sure what surprised me most: that an attorney of Sanders' reputation seemed flummoxed by such a basic question or that he wasn't able to summon the wherewithal to mention something about, say, Mary Lou Retton or Carl Lewis or Michael Jordan or Greg Louganis or Joan Benoit.

Sanders and SCCOG treated the bid as a business deal to cinch. And, that's where they went astray. They marshaled the better arguments �- unlike Chicago, L.A. wouldn't have to spend much money to build new facilities; unlike Chicago, L.A. has a proven track record -� but their bid completely ignored the emotional, creative soul that defines the Olympic Games. Let's face it: any time you bring in "Hollywood" to add pizzazz and capture the youth demographic, you're in trouble. Not to mention the stiflingly boring "re-imagining" of the Coliseum.

As the Times' Helene Elliott so accurately wrote: "[L.A.'s bid] wasn't lacking in numbers. It was lacking in spirit, devoid of the innovation, enthusiasm and imagination for which Los Angeles was famous."

http://www.laobserved.com/sports/2007/04/why_la_lost_the_2016_olympic_b.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, that L.A. might be the only viable option. It may not be the most desirable or the 'smartest move', but that scenario could very well be a possibility. So therefore, I'm still with AF on this one, so we shouldn't so easily dismiss L.A. simply bcuz some may deem it 'too soon' after 1984.

It's no secret nor suprise that many that many factors come into play when the IOC chooses a host city. So that is Y I think it's a mistake to simply overlook L.A. with a "been here, done that" mentality. If all the winning ingredients can be implemented to an L.A., then I C no reason Y it can't be just as competitive with the likes of Rome, Paris & Tokyo, that's all I'm trying to say as well. I've even said that another L.A. bid can't sell themselves on the "we have everything in place" approach. So of course they'll need to do it differently than their 2012 N 2016 tries, & I hope it's something that the USOC realizes as well if they're thinking about L.A. Otherwise, it would be a no-go.

N yeah, if Tokyo were to win 2020 & Paris 2024 (which still is a big question mark in itself if the French will even bid), then it could be argued that the IOC could get fatigued with repeat hosters. But some argue the opposite that the IOC may be concerned about going to too many new places so fast N may want some "tired N true" places in between for a cycle or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ OK, I can agree with that... :lol:

I never said to completely discount LA. I hope it is not the only option given to the USOC, and that other alpha cities express interest, but yeah it might happen where LA is the only viable U.S. city, and the USOC might just have to bid with what hand it is dealt. LA certainly would be better than Minneapolis, Dallas, or even Philly in many ways.

I guess if I were in the USOC, I may just as well sit out 2024 if Tokyo gets 2020 and Paris and Durban enter the race for 2024. But in the end, you can't just solely look at who the other cities bidding are, and you need to go forward with confidence in your own choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ OK, I can agree with that... :lol:

I never said to completely discount LA. I hope it is not the only option given to the USOC, and that other alpha cities express interest, but yeah it might happen where LA is the only viable U.S. city, and the USOC might just have to bid with what hand it is dealt. LA certainly would be better than Minneapolis, Dallas, or even Philly in many ways.

I guess if I were in the USOC, I may just as well sit out 2024 if Tokyo gets 2020 and Paris and Durban enter the race for 2024. But in the end, you can't just solely look at who the other cities bidding are, and you need to go forward with confidence in your own choice.

You forgot SanFran and NYC. LA's biggest competition.

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...