Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Athensfan

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

As you can see I have superimposed the practice track from London over the football field. The north upper deck obviously could not be used as you wouldn't see the turn closest to it at all. Also, the superimposing doesn't take into account the jumping pits which are normally outside the track not inside (expect for Atlanta). And there needs to be more room for the track cameras and the photographers pits. That will easily take up another 50 feet. And if you're in the upper deck, there is no way you'd be able to see the straight aways.

Thanks for that work. I was actually thinking about doing exactly what you did in Photoshop, but you beat me to it.

I'm going to be one of the first people here to back Philadelphia, but the Linc is not the answer. Unlike you Crusader, I have been to the Linc. I've sat in a couple of different locations there, and USA Gold is 100% right about the sightlines that you're going to have issues in the upper deck in certain parts of the stadium, assuming reconfiguring for a track would even be possible in the first place (and you do need a lot more space than just for the track, especially for the Opening and Closing Ceremony if you want to do it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story LA (and any other American city for that matter) is going to have to tell shouldn't be focused on what the Games will do the city.

IOC members will be much more moved by what the city can bring to the Olympic Movement. What's going to be LA's "inspire a generation?" What's going to be their "finally bring the Games to the world's most populated country" or "touch one continent that has yet to be touched by the Games"...?

New and improved mass transportation and green initiatives will only get so many pants wet.

the IOC already knows what the US can do for the olympic movement. there's no need to sell that like other cities have to.

1. world class, medal-winning athletes in a class of their own (maybe with china)

2. NBC

it's more about selling a sexy, fun city that will leave a cute little legacy, either as a great games or one that made a lot of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the USOC have Philly bid with NYC so close. NYC has more appeal to people around the world which would make the games more interesting globally. I'n not trying to bash Philly, I'm just asking, why Philly instead of NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bcuz NYC officials aren't showing any shred of interest, while Philadelphia is making some noises. Simple as that, N that's what the whole crux of the matter is anyway. Who's actually interested, not just who would make a "great" choice.

I'd suggest that u read this very thread right from page one, N ur very question will be answered thoroughly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the USOC have Philly bid with NYC so close. NYC has more appeal to people around the world which would make the games more interesting globally. I'n not trying to bash Philly, I'm just asking, why Philly instead of NYC.

To me, that's part of what is driving them. Philadelphia suffers from something of an inferiority complex because it's right between big world class New York, and the capital of the country in Washington, D.C. The attitude from New York, especially in the wake of the 2012 loss, is that this is a world class city in every sense of the word, but they gave it their shot and came up short, so now they no longer need the Olympics to just their status. Whereas a city like Philadelphia might step up and say "hey, we're not New York, but we're a pretty grand city in our own right and we want to prove it." And in that regard, it could be seen as a plus for IOC members making the trip to the United States that you have New York, Washington, and Baltimore all within striking distance.

As FYI alluded to, this is an argument that has been going on here for awhile.. if the USOC had a choice between New York and Philadelphia, chances are they're going with New York. But that may not be their options. We could debate (and have, and will likely continue to do so for the next few years) over the merits of a city like Philadelphia and whether or not they can hold their own against the best the rest of the world has to offer. Again though, it's all about who steps forward and offers a bid. They may not always get a New York or a Chicago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the IOC already knows what the US can do for the olympic movement. there's no need to sell that like other cities have to.

I think in this day and age, they probably should. Those IOC members like to think they aren't completely motivated by their pockets even if they are.

So we should sell our bid with, "get rich and feel like you're serving the Greater Olympic Good." The latter can just be an eye wink of a "story" that may not actually be anything substantial seven years later, but it should be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that work. I was actually thinking about doing exactly what you did in Photoshop, but you beat me to it.

I'm going to be one of the first people here to back Philadelphia, but the Linc is not the answer. Unlike you Crusader, I have been to the Linc. I've sat in a couple of different locations there, and USA Gold is 100% right about the sightlines that you're going to have issues in the upper deck in certain parts of the stadium, assuming reconfiguring for a track would even be possible in the first place (and you do need a lot more space than just for the track, especially for the Opening and Closing Ceremony if you want to do it right.

The question then becomes like all the American cities bar Los Angeles: the Main Stadium.

People can discuss the idea of temporary stadiums all they like including those proposed for 2012 and 2016 and even Incheon 2014 but already we've seen with London, these cities are reluctant to then remove the temporary element afterwards.

If up against other international cities which don't have this issue, how might the USA triumph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the US should bid, but the problem is that they MUST do that preliminary national bid race, as they can't simply be sneaky and wait until the last minute, which is the most ideal move since you see if the playing field is weak enough for the US to put in a city and have good chances of wining.

That being said, that would be a move that say Toronto, Canada might make, as they're clearly the only Canadian bid that would be nominated for a Summer Olympics bid, no need for a domestic bid race there, they can just wait and see if the US will bid before putting their hand up in the last minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, that would be a move that say Toronto, Canada might make, as they're clearly the only Canadian bid that would be nominated for a Summer Olympics bid, no need for a domestic bid race there, they can just wait and see if the US will bid before putting their hand up in the last minute.

Is it a given that a Canadian bid would never win against one from the United States, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a given that a Canadian bid would never win against one from the United States, though?

Umm... Montreal beat Los Angeles and Moscow for the 1976 games, but that was probably due to Cold War tensions.

If Toronto had proposed it's 2008 bid in 1996, then it would have surely won. You can't get more compact than that.

http://www.skyscrape...2&postcount=310

This:

Chicago 2016:

Chicago2016.jpg

VS

This:

Toronto 2008:

Toronto2008.png

You decide! A future Toronto bid must be as compact as this, whilst being flexible in the use of the wealth of minor arenas in the region. It can't be like the 2015 Pan American Games nor should it be. A majority of venues will either match or exceed well above IOC requirements.

Any US bid no matter how grand, couldn't possibly match this. Of course this could all be just a bunch of baloney and we see another compromise, Toronto or a US city don't get it and it goes back to Europe or Asia.

Edited by Lord David
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm... Montreal beat Los Angeles and Moscow for the 1976 games, but that was probably due to Cold War tensions.

If Toronto had proposed it's 2008 bid in 1996, then it would have surely won. You can't get more compact than that.

http://www.skyscrape...2&postcount=310

This:

Chicago 2016:

Chicago2016.jpg

VS

This:

Toronto 2008:

Toronto2008.png

You decide! A future Toronto bid must be as compact as this, whilst being flexible in the use of the wealth of minor arenas in the region. It can't be like the 2015 Pan American Games nor should it be. A majority of venues will either match or exceed well above IOC requirements.

Any US bid no matter how grand, couldn't possibly match this. Of course this could all be just a bunch of baloney and we see another compromise, Toronto or a US city don't get it and it goes back to Europe or Asia.

I like the Toronto plan it's compact and I really like the idea of the waterfront being used to scenic effect. Besides a Summer Olympics in Germany, this would probably be my preferred option for the near future.

I hope the Pan-Ams will be a good launching pad for a future bid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm... Montreal beat Los Angeles and Moscow for the 1976 games, but that was probably due to Cold War tensions.

If Toronto had proposed it's 2008 bid in 1996, then it would have surely won. You can't get more compact than that.

http://www.skyscrape...2&postcount=310

This:

Chicago 2016:

Chicago2016.jpg

VS

This:

Toronto 2008:

Toronto2008.png

You decide! A future Toronto bid must be as compact as this, whilst being flexible in the use of the wealth of minor arenas in the region. It can't be like the 2015 Pan American Games nor should it be. A majority of venues will either match or exceed well above IOC requirements.

Any US bid no matter how grand, couldn't possibly match this. Of course this could all be just a bunch of baloney and we see another compromise, Toronto or a US city don't get it and it goes back to Europe or Asia.

Not only this but the Toronto bid encompassed a major redevelopment of the Port Lands region so they have oodles of legacy to promote in the Olympics being a catalyst for the regeneration of a major area within touching distance of downtown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question then becomes like all the American cities bar Los Angeles: the Main Stadium.

Dallas had the Cotton Bowl, which would be prefect.

Is it a given that a Canadian bid would never win against one from the United States, though?

If i had to guess, not only could a Canadian bid beat a US one, it would beat a US one, all others things being equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dallas had the Cotton Bowl, which would be prefect.

If i had to guess, not only could a Canadian bid beat a US one, it would beat a US one, all others things being equal.

Unfortunately (of fortunately depending how you look at it), a Dallas bid would be the opposite of compact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we've seen all too many times, a "compact" Games plan is not a make-or-break deal at getting you the Olympics. As we've seen with Beijing, & Rio's spread-out, 4-cluster concept, you need the all-important 'x-factor'. If you don't have that, then you're gonna struggle very hard from the very begining. N right now, I can't C any North American bid having that all too important element.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we've seen all too many times, a "compact" Games plan is not a make-or-break deal at getting you the Olympics. As we've seen with Beijing, & Rio's spread-out, 4-cluster concept, you need the all-important 'x-factor'. If you don't have that, then you're gonna struggle very hard from the very begining. N right now, I can't C any North American bid having that all too important element.

I can only think that the 400th anniversary of the foundation of New York City could interest the IOC.

The problem with an X-factor is countries who have previously staged struggle to find it, unless it is linked to the huge regeneration of a particular area.

I do think Toronto does have the lead over US cities, with the Port Lands but also being in the same timezone for the US networks and their sponsors. With the sponsors being global companies, is the actual host country that important to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just find it difficult to see that many IOC members would so willingly want to go again to a country with a mere 35 million, that's not a sporting prowess at the Summer Games, that's already hosted 3 times within 34 years, regardless of their plan. Didn't matter for 2008, & that was before Vancouver was on their national Olympic resume.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question then becomes like all the American cities bar Los Angeles: the Main Stadium.

People can discuss the idea of temporary stadiums all they like including those proposed for 2012 and 2016 and even Incheon 2014 but already we've seen with London, these cities are reluctant to then remove the temporary element afterwards.

If up against other international cities which don't have this issue, how might the USA triumph?

Thus being the big problem any U.S. bid city needs to solve and rarely have we seen a sensible solution. NYC 2012 was on the right track, but as we know, the West Side Stadium was never meant to be.

Is it a given that a Canadian bid would never win against one from the United States, though?

It's not a given at all. All things being equal, I'll probably bet on the U.S. bid there. Doesn't mean Toronto can't pull off the win, but I think they've got a much better shot if they don't have competition from their neighbors to the south.

Umm... Montreal beat Los Angeles and Moscow for the 1976 games, but that was probably due to Cold War tensions.

If Toronto had proposed it's 2008 bid in 1996, then it would have surely won. You can't get more compact than that.

Surely you can't be serious? (Of course I'm serious.. and stop calling me Shirley!)

My understanding is that Canada thought they could play off the success of Calgary 1988 and parlay it into a Summer Olympics (only 20 years after Montreal.. I know LA had 1984, so let's not get into the whole United States vs. Canada argument here). I doubt it was the quality of the bid that made them finish where they did, so I'm guessing that a better bid wouldn't necessarily have made them the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus being the big problem any U.S. bid city needs to solve and rarely have we seen a sensible solution. NYC 2012 was on the right track, but as we know, the West Side Stadium was never meant to be.

Yet, the last bid from the US - Chicago - had a very sensible solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^a lacked in legacy though (whether you think so or not), by being dismantled after the Games. Surely the IOC took notice of that plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you can't be serious? (Of course I'm serious.. and stop calling me Shirley!)

My understanding is that Canada thought they could play off the success of Calgary 1988 and parlay it into a Summer Olympics (only 20 years after Montreal.. I know LA had 1984, so let's not get into the whole United States vs. Canada argument here). I doubt it was the quality of the bid that made them finish where they did, so I'm guessing that a better bid wouldn't necessarily have made them the winner.

Shirley! ;) Yes I am serious. I suppose the success of Calgary was a factor in Toronto (and Canada in general) wanting to bid for the Summer Olympics (though I'm sure the glory of the Centennial had it's merits too), but what I'm trying to argue is that if their bid had been as compact as the 2008 bid in 1996, they would have been unmatched by any of the other bids. You can't argue that the protests (bread and circuses) or the recent hosting of Calgary (besides Winter is different to Summer) had a factor. Especially if Toronto had done their 2008 bid in 1996.

In simple, it could have been the most compact, untouchable bid, but of course in 1996 Toronto used it's strengths of venues throughout the region and those it was willing to build at an Olympic Park. So although I don't think that they lost due to the quality of the bid, but would have certainly been close to unstoppable if they did their 2008 plan in 1996.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada might not be a power at the Summer Olympics but with increased funding and a top 8 in overall medals being the goal for 2020 it is a reasonable target for a country the size of Canada. Look at GB they won one gold in 1996 and a mere 12 years later 29 gold. Not saying Canada can/will replicate that by hosting the 2024 Games (if given the chance) but hosting the WOG in 2010 did bring the country increased investment and allowed it to win the most gold medals ever at a Winter Olympics. The city needs investment! There is no proper pool in Toronto. Hosting the Olympics = Legacy like pools in the city.

Moreover, as I have said in the past a country shouldn't be handicapped for hosting the WOG. The last summer games in Canada in 2024 would have been 48 years prior a whole generation before that + a third Summer Olympics in North America in the USA? That is over kill in my opinion. Even if 2024 might be too "soon" for Toronto it doesn't hurt to bid.

As for the Toronto legacy, the Portlands were supposed to be developed in the 1970's! But still they haven't been touched. Using that the proposed Toronto bid can propose a 40+ year wait can be over with the Olympics.

======================================

(^) That is in response to points made by posts above.

Now back on topic, what does everyone think will be the timeline into choosing a bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In simple, it could have been the most compact, untouchable bid, but of course in 1996 Toronto used it's strengths of venues throughout the region and those it was willing to build at an Olympic Park. So although I don't think that they lost due to the quality of the bid, but would have certainly been close to unstoppable if they did their 2008 plan in 1996.

But again, that's saying that a "compact" bid is the most important factor, where I think it doesn't really matter much at all. It's a nice paragraph or two to put in a bid document, but it's well down the order of considerations that I'd expect the IOC to consider vital when making their choice. By the time a city makes a short list, it doesn't matter how compact they are, emotional, political and subjective factors take the fore over venue plans.

It wasn't Atlanta's bid plan that won 1996 for them, it was the great lobbying of Charlie Battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, 'overkill' is constantly citing how a mere 48-year is "too long", when important countries like France, Germany N Japan R still waiting their turns after nearly TWO generations, especially France. Not to mention the new compelling countries like Turkey N South Africa that have NEVER hosted. When push comes to shove, those countries would be in a much better position than a smallish country that has hosted quite a bit.

N some may say that winter Games shouldn't count against Summer bids, but Salt Lake is always used against the U.S. & who knows really how individual IOC members may look at it. N as always, comparing a country 1/10 th the size of the U.S. that once again finished at the top of the medal podium in London, is not an accurate comparison in the least.

  • Like 2

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...