USA 2024

[Sir Rols]

Never mind London. What about Beijing, where being loud N rowdy is not what the Chinese government likes to see.

But as our Prime Minister said during the 2000 bid campaign - they're crowd control is second to none!

[Athensfan]

I'm still not ready to dismiss LA as "been there, done that", but there's no doubt that the onus is on them to prove they've got something fresh and exciting to offer.

[runningrings]

While my heart says that I'd like to see somewhere new in the US for 2024, my brain tells me that the US pays close attention to the bottom line, and that could see Los Angeles presented for 2024. I have a strong feeling about the US and 2024 (I think it will be successful), unlike 2012 and 2016; so the USOC knows that whoever it selects is in some way selecting the actual host city.

Los Angeles is the practical option. It is slightly sentimental from 1932 and 1984 (and London 2012 has broken down those barriers), but it is very practical. My only major concern is public transport. There is a far higher emphasis on it now than there was in 1984. LA is ruled by the car. PT in LA is improving, but I was last there in 2009, and I still thought it lacked behind even other American cities (SF, NY, DC and Chicago come to mind here).

[PyroKinesis]

It's always fun hearing foreigners talk so nicely about our cities.

[Sir Rols]

It's always fun hearing foreigners talk so nicely about our cities.

As much fun as hearing Americans talk so nicely about "foreign" cities!

[Crusader]

I know a lot of members place a significant emphasis on international recognition, as did the USOC when rejecting Philadelphia and Houston for the 2016 bid, but I wonder if this emphasis overtakes more important issues:

1) as a privately funded games, the most people local business strength with the pockets to help fund the games, even though there will also be a wide range of national backers.

2) the physical ability to hold a central city games (or centrally) which also creates a legacy of redevelopment downtown as well as comparative compactness

3) in a country based on successful immigration, it seems bizarre to me, that since 1904 all we've seen are games in one city, despite numerous attempts by the likes of Detroit, Philadelphia, MSP etc in the early days. Of course it is the IOC decide where but a bidder really should be the Midwest or the East Coast.

Personally I would focus on the 'technical' aspect of the bid and post games effective usage of facilities and legacy. Wherever the games are held in the US, coming up with a new inspiring message will be a challenge so I would think any bid needs to play to its strengths.

I wonder if this guy's one of us GamesBidders?

http://minneapolis2024.weebly.com/

[Crusader]

Using Facebook to gauge interest

Philadelphia - 14,163 likes

LA - 97 likes

Boston - 203 likes

Twin Cities - 5,736 likes

MSP (a 2nd Minneapolis site) - 94 likes

[CanisMinor]

3) in a country based on successful immigration, it seems bizarre to me, that since 1904 all we've seen are games in one city, despite numerous attempts by the likes of Detroit, Philadelphia, MSP etc in the

Really? what about Atlanta 1996?

I strongly disagree with this. Chicago lost because of the revenue deal, unreliable USOC leadership, frequent American hosting in the recent past and an international desire to keep the US at arm's length in the wake of war in Iraq.

Agree. Tired of folks repeating the old mantras of "we have no idea...blah...blah". The knowledge of why Chicago lost is so clear.

1) Geopolitics favored Rio - they were the one to beat

2) Chicago bid was weak on citizen support and transport

The revenue deal was why the bid lost BADLY. However, even without the revenue issues, the bid would still not have won because of the above two points.

I know many of the Americans here quite like the LA24 idea, but I gotta confess, the prospect doesn't really excite me or fire my enthusiasm.

Yea, well, many of the non-Brits were left quite cold by the idea of yet another rehash of London. That turned out pretty well, didn't it? In addition, other posters are practically frothing with pleasure at the thought of a third shot for Paris or Berlin. So why shouldn't LA, which is already credited with saving the Olympic Movement, not be more appropriate than any other city for a third shot?

[Crusader]

Really? what about Atlanta 1996?

Damn

Just reinforces how memorable Atlanta was.

[runningrings]

Yea, well, many of the non-Brits were left quite cold by the idea of yet another rehash of London. That turned out pretty well, didn't it? In addition, other posters are practically frothing with pleasure at the thought of a third shot for Paris or Berlin. So why shouldn't LA, which is already credited with saving the Olympic Movement, not be more appropriate than any other city for a third shot?

As much as I support the US for 2024, I feel the biggest differences between the aforementioned European cities (Berlin has only hosted once, not twice) of London and Paris to Los Angeles is that the amount of time that has passed since their previous hosting... 1924 for Paris and 1948 for London... Los Angeles is still very recent at 1984. Furthermore, these countries (UK, and especially France) can only realistically host the Olympic Games with their respective capital cities, they are not like the US, Australia, Germany, China, Canada or Spain with multiple capable and significant potential host cities, they just have one. A direct result of this is the fact that the US was able to host the 1996 Olympics only 12 years later. I can't see Liverpool hosting 2024. New York City, and to a lesser extent, Chicago, are the big "elephants in the room" for a future Los Angeles bid for a third Olympics.

Also as I have mentioned previously, the demands of an Olympic City since 1984 have changed immensely. There is a huge emphasis on sustainability and compact bids. While Los Angeles has the facilities, its not exactly the most sustainable model, nor is it the most compact either. As I mentioned, its PT, for example, is improving dramatically, but its still far behind what is really expected of a 21st century Olympic host. Atlanta struggled with its MARTA system in 1996, which is still more exensive than the LA "Metro" of today.

[Quaker2001]

Yea, well, many of the non-Brits were left quite cold by the idea of yet another rehash of London. That turned out pretty well, didn't it? In addition, other posters are practically frothing with pleasure at the thought of a third shot for Paris or Berlin. So why shouldn't LA, which is already credited with saving the Olympic Movement, not be more appropriate than any other city for a third shot?

How many people were viewing 2012 as a re-hash though? You'd have to be at least 70 years old to really have any memory of the past London Olympics. Also, remember the circumstances of their first 2 hostings. The 1908 Olympics were originally awarded to Rome and only shifted to London 2 years prior. And the 1948 Olympics were held in the aftermath of WWII and nearly were handed to the United States as a result. So this was really the first time London really had a shot to do it right. And by all accounts, right they did.

Either way, I don't consider it precedent for Los Angeles to say that they deserve a 3rd shot. Not when competition is coming from countries like Japan who haven't hosted since 1964, Germany not since 1972, France not since 1924, and South Africa having never hosted. That's why folks are excited over the prospect of a Paris or a Berlin, because it's been much longer since they hosted. Why should Los Angeles get a 3rd shot ahead of all of them, especially if a 2024 Olympics would be similar to 1984. THAT would be a re-hash, especially if it centers around the L.A. Coliseum. That's definitely a been there, done that. If LA can come up with a plan that's going to wow and inspire the IOC, then that's a different story. But IMO that's what they need to do in order to have any shot to win. Without it, I can't imagine the IOC is going to have that much desire to such a recent host city, even if it's the one that helped save their reputation once upon a time.

[CanisMinor]

Berlin has only hosted once, not twice

Berlin has been awarded the Games twice. The first time they screwed it up by starting a war before the Games began. The second time they were a bit smarter and at least waited till after the Games to start a war. So, I count it as two Games - the fact they only hosted once is their own fault.

the amount of time that has passed since their previous hosting... 1924 for Paris and 1948 for London...

Might agree with you if LA was hosting 2024, but my base hypothesis is that the US won't see a hosting before the '40s (my rationale is much earlier on this thread). Thus, '84 won't be particularly fresh in anyone's memory. Besides, the "recent" hosting is never a negative when Moscow is discussed, e.g., 2012 bid, so why is it such a much bigger deal for the US? The big issue for the US is that it is still perceived as having hosted too many times, as opposed to a particular city being too recent.

Furthermore, these countries (UK, and especially France) can only realistically host the Olympic Games with their respective capital cities,... I can't see Liverpool hosting 2024.

Three points on this:

1) Birmingham can, Liverpool can't.

2) 2024 is only 12 years away for a country of 60,000. The US is more than 5x that size.

3) A lot of posters argue that Europe "deserves a Games" every second or third cycle, because it has so many countries. So then, why bother bringing the Games back to the same country, when so many European countries have yet to host?

How many people were viewing 2012 as a re-hash though?

London made it big deal of getting the Games a third time. They practically guaranteed that everyone knew it was awarded multiple times.

Also, remember the circumstances of their first 2 hostings. The 1908 Olympics were originally awarded to Rome and only shifted to London 2 years prior. And the 1948 Olympics were held in the aftermath of WWII and nearly were handed to the United States as a result. So this was really the first time London really had a shot to do it right. And by all accounts, right they did.

Also, remember the circumstances of LA's first 2 hostings. The 1932 Olympics were awarded to Los Angeles in the midst of the Great Depression. No other city stepped up - Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1932. And the 1984 Olympics were held in the aftermath of a number of financial disasters, including Montreal 1976. Again, Los Angeles was a "default choice", and again Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1984.

Instead of disparaging Los Angeles, I think it deserves some credit for saving the Olympic Movement, and being prepared to risk everything - twice - for the IOC.

Without it, I can't imagine the IOC is going to have that much desire to such a recent host city, even if it's the one that helped save their reputation once upon a time.

...and that is the crux of it. The ONLY time the IOC considers any US bid seriously, is when they need money.

[Athensfan]

Greenandblue, I really like many of your comments. Here are my thoughts:

Much as I'd love to see the USOC host in 2024, I think it's far from a done deal. I'm hopeful, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the USOC will be selecting the next host city. A lot can happen.

I totally agree that LA's biggest issue is transportation and that must be a key focus of their bid. It absolutely lags behind other large cities in this area.

I think LA's model is quite sustainable. Unlike other hosts, we already need and use these venues. It's not a matter of trying to find someone post-Games who can prevent a venue from becoming a white elephant. Everything is in use and will continue to be because LA is a sports crazy town. To me, that's the height of sustainability.

LA would be far more compact than it was in 84. I can imagine a scenario where LA's venues are all short distances from the OV and are competitive with other bids in that way. The big difference is that LA venues will be more scattered within that radius, rather than being grouped in clusters or parks.

The other thing I would say is that the role of California state government should not be underestimated. California is currently running a monumental deficit and the tax-and-spend lawmakers show absolutely no intention of righting the ship. California is an EXTREMELY unfriendly climate for business as a result. In 84 there were many major corporations headquartered in LA. Now almost all of them have moved to friendlier states and mainly smaller entities are left. This not only affects the financial picture, it affects the leadership pool. The most capable movers and shakers have left. This absolutely will create problems for an LA bid or any California bid.

[Athensfan]

Also, remember the circumstances of LA's first 2 hostings. The 1932 Olympics were awarded to Los Angeles in the midst of the Great Depression. No other city stepped up - Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1932. And the 1984 Olympics were held in the aftermath of a number of financial disasters, including Montreal 1976. Again, Los Angeles was a "default choice", and again Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1984.

Instead of disparaging Los Angeles, I think it deserves some credit for saving the Olympic Movement, and being prepared to risk everything - twice - for the IOC.

There is no disputing the above. Without question, LA deserves a place of honor.

I also think its fair to say that money is the primary draw for US Games -- particularly Summer ones. And at the moment the IOC is flush with cash.

I am not at all convinced the IOC will favor the US for 2024, but I do think the chances are far better than they were for 2012 or 2016.

I think diplomacy will factor in heavily with the awarding of the next American Games -- more than it did with any previous American Olympics. The question is how and when the IOC will choose to do this dance...

The only way I see the US waiting until the 40s is if they land Winter Games first. It's just too important a partner to ignore for that long.

[Quaker2001]

London made it big deal of getting the Games a third time. They practically guaranteed that everyone knew it was awarded multiple times.

That doesn't really address the question though.. how many people viewed it as a re-hash? No one would hold it against Los Angeles that they've held the Olympics twice before just like that wasn't a negative with London. But there is a "been there, done that" element with LA that wasn't an issue with London. Now if we're talking 2040s instead of 2024, that's a different story. And like you said, compound that with Atlanta 1996 and it's an even bigger issue.

Also, remember the circumstances of LA's first 2 hostings. The 1932 Olympics were awarded to Los Angeles in the midst of the Great Depression. No other city stepped up - Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1932. And the 1984 Olympics were held in the aftermath of a number of financial disasters, including Montreal 1976. Again, Los Angeles was a "default choice", and again Los Angeles saved the Olympic Movement in 1984.

Instead of disparaging Los Angeles, I think it deserves some credit for saving the Olympic Movement, and being prepared to risk everything - twice - for the IOC.

That you brought up Berlin earlier, let's remember then that the first LA Olympics were awarded in 1923, 6 years before the stock market crash in the United States. No one is arguing that Los Angeles hasn't been a wonderful partner for the IOC. But also realize you're talking about hosting twice where they didn't have to beat out any competition. Now what happens if they're up against other world class cities making their case as well? It becomes hard then for LA to rest on their laurels and say "we were great for you before, so come back here instead of trying someplace new." That's not a compelling reason for the IOC to award them another games simply because they've been a reliable pick before.

...and that is the crux of it. The ONLY time the IOC considers any US bid seriously, is when they need money.

So that's why they went to Atlanta in 1996? I think that was more about the lack of competition there. They weren't thrilled with Athens. They didn't want to go back to Canada. So there was Atlanta who scored the unlikely win. It's not going to be that easy for Los Angeles. Maybe down the line moreso, but especially if we're talking about 2024, do we think the IOC will really feel the desire to come back here again if it's a city they've been to and the others either are first-timers or go back a lot further than 1984. That's what LA is always going to be up against.

The other thing I would say is that the role of California state government should not be underestimated. California is currently running a monumental deficit and the tax-and-spend lawmakers show absolutely no intention of righting the ship. California is an EXTREMELY unfriendly climate for business as a result. In 84 there were many major corporations headquartered in LA. Now almost all of them have moved to friendlier states and mainly smaller entities are left. This not only affects the financial picture, it affects the leadership pool. The most capable movers and shakers have left. This absolutely will create problems for an LA bid or any California bid.

More than anything, I think that's the big issue they have to deal with. Before the financial crisis in 2008, it was easier to justify the expense of bidding for the Olympics. Now that's going to be a tougher sell unless the region can get something out of it. And seeing what's transpired over the past 15 years trying to get the NFL back there, I think that's going to be their number 1 priority and anything involving an Olympics bid will likely have to work around that.

[CanisMinor]

That you brought up Berlin earlier, let's remember then that the first LA Olympics were awarded in 1923, 6 years before the stock market crash in the United States. No one is arguing that Los Angeles hasn't been a wonderful partner for the IOC. But also realize you're talking about hosting twice where they didn't have to beat out any competition. Now what happens if they're up against other world class cities making their case as well? It becomes hard then for LA to rest on their laurels and say "we were great for you before, so come back here instead of trying someplace new." That's not a compelling reason for the IOC to award them another games simply because they've been a reliable pick before.

Yet, this is the exact argument you made why London is a great choice. You said: "The 1908 Olympics were originally awarded to Rome and only shifted to London 2 years prior. And the 1948 Olympics were held in the aftermath of WWII and nearly were handed to the United States as a result. So this was really the first time London really had a shot to do it right." Well, same for LA - both their bids were given to them because they were the default choice - without them the IOC would have been no more. And they did a great job - both times. I don't see why that should count against LA - it should count far more in favor of LA. No other cities in the world have done as much for the Olympic movement as London and LA have. Why is London then patted on the back by you, and LA is derided?

So that's why they went to Atlanta in 1996? I think that was more about the lack of competition there. They weren't thrilled with Athens. They didn't want to go back to Canada. So there was Atlanta who scored the unlikely win.

And you think the major commercial incentive of CocaCola and a US games, at a time when the IOC was still barely scraping by financially had zero impact? Atlanta was chosen for two reasons:

1) As you say, Athens wasn't ready

2) Because the dollar signs shone brightly in the eyes of the IOC.

In 1904, the IOC chose the US because of the money potential. In 1932, they were forced to choose the US, because no one else would pay for their party. In 1984, they were forced to choose the US, because no one else would pay for their party. In 1996, the alternative wasn't viable, and the CocaCola dollars became compelling.

As I say - not ONCE has a US city been awarded a SOG based on the merits of the bid - every time it has been about the money for the IOC.

[FYI]

I know a lot of members place a significant emphasis on international recognition, as did the USOC when rejecting Philadelphia and Houston for the 2016 bid, but I wonder if this emphasis overtakes more important issues:

None of those other 'more important issues' would've made any bit of difference. Philadelphia or Houston would've faced a similar dismal fate in the 2016 ballot. I'd even dare to say that had one of those been the U.S. 2016 candidate instead, that they most likely wouldve gotten less than the 18 votes that Chicago got.

N it's not just members here & the USOC that place that 'significant emphasis on international recognition'. It's the IOC that places that great emphasis in that particular category, & therefore, that's where everyone else gets it from. They're the ones that have 'rejected' cities of smaller stature, like Seville, Lille, Leipzig, Birmingham, Brisbane N Machester, etc & how most of here have come those conclusions. When the IOC is presented with spectacular options, that's what they opt for. Unless competition is particularly weak, like was the case for 1996, then I can't see the IOC going with less than stellar when more grandiose options R on their Olympic table.

[FYI]

Personally I would focus on the 'technical' aspect of the bid and post games effective usage of facilities and legacy. Wherever the games are held in the US, coming up with a new inspiring message will be a challenge so I would think any bid needs to play to its strengths.

It's been said, that once applicants have reached the candidate phase, that the 'technical aspects' of the bids go out the window, Since by that time, all the candidates have been deemed "technically" worthy of staging successful Games. Once at this level, it's all about the international campainging, the lobbying & the story that you want to sell that's going to get you to the winners circle. Not how technically capable your bid happens to be. That doesn't get too many voters all that excited.

[Quaker2001]

Yet, this is the exact argument you made why London is a great choice. You said: "The 1908 Olympics were originally awarded to Rome and only shifted to London 2 years prior. And the 1948 Olympics were held in the aftermath of WWII and nearly were handed to the United States as a result. So this was really the first time London really had a shot to do it right." Well, same for LA - both their bids were given to them because they were the default choice - without them the IOC would have been no more. And they did a great job - both times. I don't see why that should count against LA - it should count far more in favor of LA. No other cities in the world have done as much for the Olympic movement as London and LA have. Why is London then patted on the back by you, and LA is derided?

64 years versus 40 years, that's why (not to mention Atlanta in that equation as well). A country with 1 potential host city, maybe 2, versus a country that has many cities capable of hosting the Olympics. I just don't see the "London hosted 3 times" argument working in LA's favor. It's nothing against them at all. I'm sure they could host an excellent Olympics as they've done twice before. But will they choose Los Angeles when they have to compete for the title? The 2012 London Olympics bear little resemblance to the 1948 edition. A 2024 Los Angeles Olympics (and again, further down the line, it's less of an issue) can't be a re-hash, to use your word, of the 1984 Games. There needs to be something there to inspire the IOC to pick them that makes their next Olympics unique. If they can come up with that, they've got a better shot. If not, I don't see voters choosing Los Angeles simply because of their past hosting efforts.

[baron-pierreIV]

As I mentioned, its PT, for example, is improving dramatically, but its still far behind what is really expected of a 21st century Olympic host. Atlanta struggled with its MARTA system in 1996, which is still more exensive than the LA "Metro" of today.

Not so. The MARTA system still wasn't complete in 1996 and they worked overtime to open whatever stations would've been close to Olympic venues. But otherwise, it worked wonderfully in July and August 1996, handling the capacity it could. Well, LA's metro system is certainly a "lot more" than it was in 1984 when it was non-existent then.

[Athensfan]

I don't think anyone here is saying Los Angeles would be selected "simply for their past hosting efforts." However that extremely important contribution to the Olympic movement is not meaningless either. It does earn some positive points.

[Sir Rols]

Yea, well, many of the non-Brits were left quite cold by the idea of yet another rehash of London. That turned out pretty well, didn't it? In addition, other posters are practically frothing with pleasure at the thought of a third shot for Paris or Berlin. So why shouldn't LA, which is already credited with saving the Olympic Movement, not be more appropriate than any other city for a third shot?

Yeah, and that's understandable - I can definitely relate to that.

I was far more gung-ho myself for New York in the 2012 race, and only got converted by London when it was clear the NYC bid was critically damaged by the stadium backflip and the Brits' enthusiasm won me over. Until then, the notion of a "new" city for the games, and the idea of that new city being the Big Apple itself doing it, was more than enough to make me an enthusiastic supporter of NYC, even if the US was going for its fifth games since 1980. Similarly, for the 2016 race, I quite liked the idea of Chicago as a new host. Not as much as I liked the idea of Rio or would have NYC, but I would not have been unhappy for the Windy City to win.

LA 84 though is still a vivid personal memory for me. I'd find it hard to get enthused for it in any race for a while. I still believe that variety is a huge part of the Games' appeal, and that it should be a once-in-a-lifetime event for any city, to make it "special". And I confess it's also very personal for me when it comes to LA too - I've been to LA often enough over the past quarter century, for both work and pleasure (it IS the major gateway to the US for us Aussies), but I've never really liked the city - it's about my least favourite US city to visit. I've found it very unappealing. I've got no problem saying that my subjectivity comes into it. Then again, I LOVE San Francisco - one of my favourite cities of the world, and a place I never get tired of visiting. I'd like to see it host a games, but even then I'd probably prefer it to go somewhere else in the US than California yet again. In both cases, it would depend a lot on who is bidding against them whether I'd be a supporter of them or not.

I understand all too well the US is different from just about anywhere else - and that the idea of committing any public funding for a games is anathema. In which case, yes, LA probably has a strong case for being more acceptable than others to the US public. But you can't bury your heads and disregard "foreigners'" opinions of it. At the end of the day, it's about 100 or so of those foreigners, with their perceptions and misconceptions, likes and dislikes, preferences and prejudices who are the ones who are going to choose if they like what the US has pitched to them.

[PotatoChips]

LA may be a great city, but I just wouldn't be that interested in the games as much. The third time hosting the games but it wouldn't be as special as London. London is a historic city with hundreds of years of culture when LA was discovered less then 300 years ago. I say the USOC should look into the other side of America and focus on Eastern coast cities like Boston, Philly, DC, and NYC.

[runningrings]

I do not think the age of a city really has any bearing on this. New York City, Montreal, Rio, Buenos Aeries and Sydney are still very young by global standards. LA has culture - it single handedly defined western culture in the latter half of the 20th century through the entertainment industry.

I think a third LA Olympics would be very special, but for me personally, I think somewhere like DC, NY, Chicago, SF, Philly, etc... would be more exciting and offer are new, fresh perspective on the American Olympics.

If London had hosted as recently as 1972 and not 1948, and if Manchester or Edinburgh were at least Alpha world cities of a larger size, I'd fully support them over another London Olympics for (as example) a 2024 British bid.

[PotatoChips]

I do not think the age of a city really has any bearing on this. New York City, Montreal, Rio, Buenos Aeries and Sydney are still very young by global standards. LA has culture - it single handedly defined western culture in the latter half of the 20th century through the entertainment industry.

I think a third LA Olympics would be very special, but for me personally, I think somewhere like DC, NY, Chicago, SF, Philly, etc... would be more exciting and offer are new, fresh perspective on the American Olympics.

If London had hosted as recently as 1972 and not 1948, and if Manchester or Edinburgh were at least Alpha world cities of a larger size, I'd fully support them over another London Olympics for (as example) a 2024 British bid.

I'm not saying that the age should affect the bid, I'm saying personally having Paris host for a third times instead of LA would make me much happier. But I still think the IOC should be giving new cities a chance to host the games before past host cities get another chance.