Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

I didn't forget SF or NYC. Those cities haven't expressed interest recently, and anyway I consider them on the same level as LA, so that is why I didn't say LA was better...

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....

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.

I disagree. You have to gauge your possible competition.

Also, I disagree with that assessment of LA's lost 2016 bid. I actually liked their logo more than Chicago's first one. Obviously, the USOC wanted to present a 'new' city which the IOC had never gotten to know (except for the dead inner circle of de Coubertin in 1900). It was that over the still fresh memories of LA-1984.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I view L.A. and the 2016 bid perhaps underscores this.. with them it's not just about convincing the IOC to go there a 3rd time but also about reinforcing that's the best the United States can possibly offer. When cities like London and Paris and Tokyo are repeat bidders, it's because they're largely the only viable cities their countries have to offer that can win it (as opposed to Manchester or Osaka, how did they fare). As opposed to the United States.. let's say it's Los Angeles put up for bid. Are folks in the IOC going to ask "the United States has so much to offer.. why would we want to go to Los Angeles again, we've been there already, I'd rather go someplace new." Again, that's not an issue with Paris because what other city in France is going to be at the forefront? So that's the flipside of the L.A. coin. Now if they're the best chance the USOC has in a given cycle, that's fine. But IMO there's always going to be that lingering question in the back of voters' minds wondering why a country that has so many large cities can't find a new city to offer up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, N how did that exactly work out when we DID offer a different city/cities to go to. The IOC said; thanks, but see later, suckers!

I don't know Y you keep saying that the IOC will say to themselves "the U.S. has so much more to offer", when even you yourself, say that a New York bid, for example, doesn't seem to be on the viable table in the very near future. Same could be said for Chicago & San Francisco. So what does that leave us with then; Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, Minneapolis, etc, etc? Will those suffice the fastideous IOC's glamor tastebuds?

If we're talking about maybe a decade or two down the road, then I can see your point. Otherwise, it just seems like you're consistently, to be blunt, contradicting yourself here if we're talking about the next available couple of cycles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, LA's bidding chances are a bit analogous to Melbourne's. In Melb's case, it's one of the highest profiled cities of our country, it superbly, even ridiculously equipped to host with a reputation as one of the world's sports capitals, has the ongoing desire and passion to host and could be counted upon to put up their hands whenever the AOC said they were willing to support an Australian bid to the IOC. As happened for 1996. To the wider world and IOC membership, however, it's a repeat host and ended up handicapped against such “glamour” hosts as Atlanta and Toronto, and even against an ill-prepared Athens.

Now LA might be very well credentialled and keen, and as said, it all depends on the dynamics of that bidding round and the competition, but if I was an IOC member and had to choose between LA and a fresh face, or even an older but still significant face like Paris or Berlin or Rome or Tokyo, I'd probably go for the alternatives myself. A New York or a Chicago or an SF or even a Dallas, all with a temporary stadium plan and lots of temporary structures, would still to me be an easier sell than a third-time LA with an existing, if impressive and historic, stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, LA's bidding chances are a bit analogous to Melbourne's. In Melb's case, it's one of the highest profiled cities of our country, it superbly, even ridiculously equipped to host with a reputation as one of the world's sports capitals, has the ongoing desire and passion to host and could be counted upon to put up their hands whenever the AOC said they were willing to support an Australian bid to the IOC. As happened for 1996. To the wider world and IOC membership, however, it's a repeat host and ended up handicapped against such “glamour” hosts as Atlanta and Toronto, and even against an ill-prepared Athens.

Now LA might be very well credentialled and keen, and as said, it all depends on the dynamics of that bidding round and the competition, but if I was an IOC member and had to choose between LA and a fresh face, or even an older but still significant face like Paris or Berlin or Rome or Tokyo, I'd probably go for the alternatives myself. A New York or a Chicago or an SF or even a Dallas, all with a temporary stadium plan and lots of temporary structures, would still to me be an easier sell than a third-time LA with an existing, if impressive and historic, stadium.

I'm of the same mind. Plus, I think it's also WHO leads the bid. Atlanta had former US ambassador to the UN/ and ex-Atlanta mayor Andrew Young who was able to marshal the African and 3rd world votes. I think he is one of the oft-forgotten heroes of Atlanta's 1990 win. I dunno, maybe Michael Phelps would already have a degree in Sports Management at the time? Someone of his stature to lead, even a #3 LA bid would certainly give it more cache than just a regular suit.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but even a lot of you Aussies claim that Australia's next hosting is likely to be Melbourne over Brisbane. N the only thing in the way of a Melbourne bid is the time-frame of the Games that the IOC prefers nowadays.

Just like other U.S. cities could come up with temporary solutions, an L.A. bid could come up with more solid, & tangible benifits just like London did. Bcuz that;s what I think it would take for L.A. to be taken seriously again.

It's almost like the London/Paris 2012 scenario. The IOC preferred the most legacy driven bid, London, over Paris' mostly ready & some temporary solutions one. It'd be interesting to see whether hypothetical, temporary solution bids from Chicago, New York or San Francisco would fair against a more legacy driven L.A. bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost like the London/Paris 2012 scenario. The IOC preferred the most legacy driven bid, London, over Paris' mostly ready & some temporary solutions one. It'd be interesting to see whether hypothetical, temporary solution bids from Chicago, New York or San Francisco would fair against a more legacy driven L.A. bid.

Just out of interest: What would the intended legacy of a future L.A. Games be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the same mind. Plus, I think it's also WHO leads the bid. Atlanta had former US ambassador to the UN/ and ex-Atlanta mayor Andrew Young who was able to marshal the African and 3rd world votes. I think he is one of the oft-forgotten heroes of Atlanta's 1990 win. I dunno, maybe Michael Phelps would already have a degree in Sports Management at the time? Someone of his stature to lead, even a #3 LA bid would certainly give it more cache than just a regular suit.

Nah, Michael Phelps wouldn't make a particularly good bid leader - he's a character, but doesn't strike me as leadership material. Contrast this with someone like Usain Bolt, who in his interviews appears poised, confident and authoritative (even though he puts up a showman persona in front of the crowds).

I think L.A. should stick to what worked best for it back in 1984 and what worked quite nicely for Salt Lake City as well in 2002. Get someone of the calibre of Peter Ueberroth and (this is relates strictly to the context of Salt Lake 2002) Mitt Romney - an accomplished businessman, with the commercial acumen and (as a bonus) some interest in sport to carry the project through to a successful conclusion.

Such a person would also know to balance the legitimate business concerns of sponsors and the need to avoid excessive commercialism during the Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but even a lot of you Aussies claim that Australia's next hosting is likely to be Melbourne over Brisbane. N the only thing in the way of a Melbourne bid is the time-frame of the Games that the IOC prefers nowadays.

Just like other U.S. cities could come up with temporary solutions, an L.A. bid could come up with more solid, & tangible benifits just like London did. Bcuz that;s what I think it would take for L.A. to be taken seriously again.

It's almost like the London/Paris 2012 scenario. The IOC preferred the most legacy driven bid, London, over Paris' mostly ready & some temporary solutions one. It'd be interesting to see whether hypothetical, temporary solution bids from Chicago, New York or San Francisco would fair against a more legacy driven L.A. bid.

Yeah, but any realistic Aussie (which I think I am) would concede that our chances of hosting again this half of the 21st century is almost nil, whichever city we threw out there. If we were going to launch a bid for 2024, Melbourne would be the obvious credentialled choice - but it wouldn't win, even if it did get a "pass" on scheduling. Brisbane wouldn't either - but it's main problem is profile. The only reason I don't dismiss Brisbane in the long term is that by the time we are in a favourable time to bid, say in 50 years, the city may well have changed totally and finally lifted its profile to be electable. Or maybe not.

The USA will, however, host again much earlier than that. But even then, like it or not, fair or not, a lot of people are going to go with the same old "not the USA AGAIN!" refrain. Throw in a third time in southern California, and that handicap just multiplies exponentially. LA may well host again as a "default" choice, but I think its just naturally handicapped if it was thrown into a competitive bid race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest: What would the intended legacy of a future L.A. Games be?

I don't have the answer to that, nor I am I claiming to have it, That is something the City of Los Angeles, & whatever Bid Team that they would assemble to figure out. But the potential could be there, just like it was for London.

Like rejuvenating an entire run-down section of the city. And/or expanding on their transportation network, like an expansive light-rail system that would benefit the citizens for decades to come. There could be any number of possibilities that could be available, as long as an innovative team can be put together, like Americans a lot of times R capable of doing.

I just think that it's easy to say that L.A. is the "has been" beauty queen like many seem to paint it as.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

There was zero wrong with the Chicago stadium proposal. It was one of the strongest points of the bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legacy wise, there wasn't much to it. Downsizing an 80,000 seat stadium to a mere 5.000 seat ampitheater, doesn't leave much to be desired in that dept.

I don't think that hurt the bid as much as the temporary aquatic facility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legacy wise, there wasn't much to it. Downsizing an 80,000 seat stadium to a mere 5.000 seat ampitheater, doesn't leave much to be desired in that dept.

1) Legacy wise, it would have transformed the South Side by giving low income inhabitants access to a superior sporting facility.

2) It had a positive impact on the bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
someone like Usain Bolt, who in his interviews appears poised, confident and authoritative

Kingston 2032 anyone?

But IMO there's always going to be that lingering question in the back of voters' minds wondering why a country that has so many large cities can't find a new city to offer up.

You are overthinking this. Of top 20-30 factor that IOC voters will weigh, this won't make the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, Chicago 2016 was weak on legacy. That includes the Olympic Stadium and the Aquatics Center, but that is not the primary reason why they lost. It was Rio's time, plain and simple. Then sprinkle in tense relations with the USOC, and the bid was dead in the water.

It wasn't until just a couple of months before the vote, that Chicago 2016 began to explore the possibility of taking over the Jones Armory near Washington Park to use for warm-up facilities, and then convert to a community center post games. They needed a whole lot more of that in their bid, and hopefully any future U.S. bids include legacy at the forefront.

The "We're Ready" argument is not appealing. Even USA's 2022 World Cup bid was focused on continuing the momentum of building the sport in the U.S., and not focused squarely on what venues are in place. They at least were somewhat competitive in that race.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "We're Ready" argument is not appealing. Even USA's 2022 World Cup bid was focused on continuing the momentum of building the sport in the U.S., and not focused squarely on what venues are in place. They at least were somewhat competitive in that race.

Placing 2nd, I'd say they were "somewhat competitive", lol. But FIFA races are entirely different beasts as we've seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Rio's time, plain and simple. Then sprinkle in tense relations with the USOC, and the bid was dead in the water.

1) "It was Rio's time..." is why Chicago didn't win

2) "...tense relations with the USOC..." is why Chicago came dead last

It had nothing to do with legacy. Chicago never had a campaign built on "we're ready...".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, N how did that exactly work out when we DID offer a different city/cities to go to. The IOC said; thanks, but see later, suckers!

I don't know Y you keep saying that the IOC will say to themselves "the U.S. has so much more to offer", when even you yourself, say that a New York bid, for example, doesn't seem to be on the viable table in the very near future. Same could be said for Chicago & San Francisco. So what does that leave us with then; Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, Minneapolis, etc, etc? Will those suffice the fastideous IOC's glamor tastebuds?

If we're talking about maybe a decade or two down the road, then I can see your point. Otherwise, it just seems like you're consistently, to be blunt, contradicting yourself here if we're talking about the next available couple of cycles.

Well, when you look at those bids, 1 was a technically lacking bid going up against 2 of the heaviest of heavyweights and 1 walked into a geopolitical nightmare that even if it had been the strongest bid, it probably would have lost. Again, these things are all a matter of circumstance.

It's not contradictory how I view L.A. because it goes back to the same point I keep bringing up (that many others here do).. what's the story behind their future bid? What can they offer that makes it distinct from 1984? As time goes on, that becomes less and less of an issue, but especially if we're talking 2024, I think it's going to come up. Geopolitics is a different story altogether, but as we saw with 2016, all an IOC voter needs is any reason to shy away from the United States and a bid could be looked at less than favorably. And I totally agree with Sir Rols' assessment that an L.A. bid could be looked at as "same old United States, we've done that, we'd rather get something new."

Now the catch-22 is that yes, L.A. might be the only viable bid city out there in the United States if the likes of NYC and Chicago and San Francisco aren't in the mix. But that's not the IOC's problem. And I've been on the record as saying that if L.A. is the best option out there for 2024, but they don't have an X-factor for that race, then maybe the USOC shouldn't bid, especially if they think the competition will be strong. That's the reality of the game these days, and I know 2024 is a while off, but right now these aren't the best of economic times, particularly in the state of California. That just compounds the issue as well. We know (at least for now), the IOC is looking for big and grand, not safe and reliable. If it were the latter, L.A. would be in a great position. But the sum total of all this is that the USOC couldn't come up with anything for 2020 (I know that was more about the revenue deal than anything) and maybe 2024 isn't in the cards either if the best they have to go with is Los Angeles. I don't think that's any different than what I've been saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest: What would the intended legacy of a future L.A. Games be?

  • stars of tomorrow (movie stars, pop stars, sport stars, even the fat kids are stars. there's some mileage to be wrung out of that)
  • moving the world (everyone knows LA has the worst transport of any alpha city in the world. this bid would build some light rail and add a few more carpool lanes to the highways. crippling traffic during construction, but a slightly perceptible decrease in congestion is something the IOC can feel good about. maybe that damn subway to the sea will get finished before 2040)
  • building tomorrow's future, today (stand in beverly hills and skip a stone any direction but west and you're bound to hit an area that could use some revitalization. build a velodrome there and claim it's creating jobs)
  • america the beautiful (yes, we're back to the fat kids. but also it's america's time. remind them how much money they stand to make if they get a jump now on the rock bottom real estate market)
  • a cultural facelift (plastic surgery jokes are self-referential and always a hit. also, SCENE: two hispanic kids (one fat) and their asian friend watching the olympics on the tablet computers. then FLASH WIPE suddenly the two hispanic kids and their asian friend are on the ATHLETIC TRACK. what? oh my god, could it be true? they're IN THE OLYMPICS! and they got there because of LA. ethnic minorities + sports + flash wipes = probably a really bad promo, but you get the idea)
  • everyone dropped out except istanbul (self explanatory)

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) "It was Rio's time..." is why Chicago didn't win

2) "...tense relations with the USOC..." is why Chicago came dead last

It had nothing to do with legacy. Chicago never had a campaign built on "we're ready...".

Did I say Chicago lost because of legacy? No.

But they did make one of their primary arguments as "we're ready" and "Rio is risky". Just rewatch the speeches from their final presentation before the IOC in Copenhagen.

I remain convinced it is the primary reason why the IOC went to Rio, and it is why London and Beijing both won (among other reasons). London had a good template that I think the U.S. would be wise to follow in future bids. Beijing obviously had the new horizon factor, and the IOC wanted the legacy of building those bridges in the world's most populated region.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my beef with this preoccupation with new cities.

1. It's wasteful. Why not make use of existing resources?

2. The modern Olympics have now been going long enough that we are GUARANTEED to see the percentage of repeat hosts rise. The world only has so many Olympic worthy cities.

3. After 40 or 50 years, the character of a city changes significantly. It becomes a new place with new strengths and new needs.

Of course intangibles should be considered with future Olympic bids. If bids are ostensibly equal, I can see choosing the "new" one over the "old" one.

But....

This idea that LA should not be the candidate because it sends the message that the US "can't find anyone else" needs to be retired. Permanently.

LA has staged fantastic Games before, has a stadium and great venues ready to go, not to mention sky high public support. If it turns out to be the best option, it's the best option -- and that should be an end of it.

Here's an analogy: imagine someone saying "In a country the size of the US, you would think they'd be able to find more highly competitive swimmers. Look how heavily they've relied on Michael Phelps in the last few Olympics. It's a bit pathetic really that they can't give him more competition."

If LA is the best, it's the best. That should not be viewed as any sort of shortcoming. It should be celebrated and submitted to the IOC with confidence.

I am not necessarily saying LA is the best. We don't know who else is in the running or what they're offering. However in any case, we must abandon completely the idea that LA is a consolation prize and cannot be a compelling, competitive candidate.

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

×
×
  • Create New...