Jump to content

Recommended Posts

>>> FIFA got plenty of bad PR in the lead up and aftermath of both South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014. From venue preparation to mingling in national politics, and of course the post games legacy. The IOC has already experienced similar coverage due to Athens, Beijing, Sochi, and Rio so why would the IOC take the risk of shooting themselves in the foot again?

You'll note that FIFA didn't give a rats ass about bad publicity. Then look at how the IOC acted just after Sochi. Did they act at all like anything went wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for acclaration of Munich 1972, the controversy wasn't related just only the terrorist attack, it was also all the aspects related to that bid. Concerns about over expending budget, the logistic problems related to the event, the concern of some venues and if we talk about of the police and security teams, they lacked of key preparation even without considering the terrorist attack. Leaving the tragic event behind, Munich was also a logistical and economic problems before.

Maybe Atlanta was positive in legacy, but for many members of the press and international audience, Atlanta is still considerated as one of the WORST SOG in history (If not the worst in recent years) mostly for the same reasons FYI pointed before. All the potential dissavantages which people could imagine in Athens happened in Atlanta!

And related to the frontiers of the IOC, the frontiers aren't just the continents, they are also the countries or the societies/cultures. Even if both countries are in Asia, China and Japan are completely different nations. Equal to a democratic Germany comparing the Nazi Germany. The Olympism is also a form for a country to show out the entrance to the international system.

And finally for the North American "thirsty" of SOG. Well, North America isn't exactly a concrete definition considering this region as only USA and Canada for cultural/linguistic/economic reasons. Mexico would have out for that consideration (More in Latin America). Well, let's use the three-countries system. Between 1904-1932 it happened 28 years and next 1932-1968 It happened 36 years. Next 1968-1984 only 16 years and 1984-1996 only 12 years. Considering the patron until the highest limit, for 2028 it would pass 32 years. So for keeping the limit of 36 years, USA will get the SOG in... 2032 (Centenarial in LA!!) So South Africa can get without problem 2028 and we keep the desire for a North American SOG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington DC's Olympic Plan Revealed:

OLYMPICShighlights-2.jpeg

As The DC team looks at how they can implement the overarching goals of the bid and games into a future plan for the city, some gorgeous pictures were shared showing us what DC's games would have looked like.

The game would have been organized into multiple clusters, all located within walking distance or short driving distance from one another. These clusters would have brought the city to life creating a joyous festival atmosphere, and allowing athletes and visitors a chance to explore the worlds most powerful city. Many culsters would have utilized temporary, existing, or planned venues. The bid organizers claimed that this would have ensured a positive post-games legacy.

The Downtown Cluster would have been centered around the Water E. Washington Convention Center and included the Verizon Center. The Convention Center would have hosted Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Judo, Wrestling, and Boxing while the Verizon Center would have held Basketball Competitions. Nearby is the National Mall Cluster. This would have been the largest and most exciting clusters of the games. It would have featured an amazing live site on the National Mall that would have intertwined the passion of the games with that of the American people and their history. West Potomac Park would have played host to a temporary sponsors village and handball/Rugby fields. A temporary beach volleyball facility would have been constructed here as well along with the Volleyball facilities, providing a breath taking backdrop to those competitions.

OLYMPICSeastern-2.jpeg

The Olympic Park Cluster, located 11 minutes from the National Mall would have been home the Olympic Village, a new Reliant Stadium, and the IBC/MPC. A new metro station would also be located here, allowing for direct connection between Long Bridge Park/Ronald Reagan National Airport. The DC Armory would have hosted weightlifting and fencing competitions. Adjacent would have been a new Gymnastic facility. The centerpiece of this cluster would have been RFK Stadium which would have been reconstructed into a new stadium for the Washington Redskins. This stadium would also host the Opening and Closing Ceremonies. Adjacent would have been the Athletes Village, after the games this would become a new residential and commercial area in the heart of the Cities new 'Eastern Entrance'. The IBC/MPC would have been located next to the new Metro Station.

OLYMPICSriver-2.jpeg

The Anacostia Waterfront Cluster would be the most transformative cluster had DC won the games. At its center would be a temporary, 65,000 seat stadium for Athletics on Poplar Point that after the games would be downsized to a community sized stadium. In addition a new permanent Tennis facility would be constructed in Anacostia Park. An additional, velodrome would have been constructed in Anacostia Park Section E. Across the Anacostia River spectators would have found the Nationals Stadium and DC United Stadium. A redeveloped Washington Channel would have seen not only new development, but also Golf. Additional temporary facilities in this cluster would have played host the badminton and hockey. The final piece of the puzzle would have been Long Bridge Park which would have been home to a new permanent Aquatics center that would have hosted water polo, swimming, synchronized swimming, and diving. Rowing, canoe slalom, and canoe sprint would have been in the Potomac River while Sailing Competitions would have been located in Baltimore.

DC wanted to use the games to transform the rundown Anacostia riverfront, change their global brand, and as a catalyst of growth and development in the Washington-Baltimore region. The venues left behind would have provided spaces for the public to gather and celebrate sport all the while encouraging development in the surrounding areas. Well that is another city that could have been...and it would have been more walk-able than Boston at this point.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article talking about Harvard's decreasing role in Boston's bid. The writer states this may be because Harvard announced that they would not help the bid committee with fund raising.

You just have to wonder how the USOC board is feeling about Boston at this point. I think the main selling point of their bid was the walkability/closeness of venues. Now, that is slowly unraveling. Did they have everything worked out in their original plan or was it just speculation? Is the spreading out of venues a way of trying to appease their detractors? What does the USOC want more: a summer Games or a Games in general? If it's the latter, should Boston not succeed, I think they should go for 2026.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/06/12/harvard-once-prominent-role-boston-plans-now-shrinking/ZEJqrKJkh7MpgPsZ8P6aIM/story.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article talking about Harvard's decreasing role in Boston's bid. The writer states this may be because Harvard announced that they would not help the bid committee with fund raising.

You just have to wonder how the USOC board is feeling about Boston at this point. I think the main selling point of their bid was the walkability/closeness of venues. Now, that is slowly unraveling. Did they have everything worked out in their original plan or was it just speculation? Is the spreading out of venues a way of trying to appease their detractors? What does the USOC want more: a summer Games or a Games in general? If it's the latter, should Boston not succeed, I think they should go for 2026.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/06/12/harvard-once-prominent-role-boston-plans-now-shrinking/ZEJqrKJkh7MpgPsZ8P6aIM/story.html

Except that 2026 might be a little tricky as the US, I imagine, will also be going for World Cup 2026 -- and while the USOC might not be too involved in a World Cup bid, nonetheless, the WC will be of even more national scope than a Winter Games; and so...I don't know how great a strain that will place on Federal budgets that will be relied upon to provide security. Also, we don't know what big events are planned for 2026 since that is the 250th anniversary of the USA.

(Also, strangely, going by the G7 Summit rotations, if one is to go by the present G-7 members (if Russia is not readmitted to the fold, or if they do not admit China in the meantime), 2026 will be hosted by Canada; so at least that's one headache off our list -- or not unless the leaders are all invited to DC after a summit in Canada.)

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

Here's an article talking about Harvard's decreasing role in Boston's bid. The writer states this may be because Harvard announced that they would not help the bid committee with fund raising.

You just have to wonder how the USOC board is feeling about Boston at this point. I think the main selling point of their bid was the walkability/closeness of venues. Now, that is slowly unraveling. Did they have everything worked out in their original plan or was it just speculation? Is the spreading out of venues a way of trying to appease their detractors? What does the USOC want more: a summer Games or a Games in general? If it's the latter, should Boston not succeed, I think they should go for 2026.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/06/12/harvard-once-prominent-role-boston-plans-now-shrinking/ZEJqrKJkh7MpgPsZ8P6aIM/story.html

It's amazing how the USOC spent 2 years vetting the candidates and this is the bid they thought had the best chance of winning. Not that they could have foreseen all this (maybe some of it), so I'm not sure who is more at fault for this mess.. the Boston folks for not having their ducks in a row or the USOC for thinking the Boston folks had everything covered.

I don't know where all this bad press will lead to, but I'm increasingly getting the sense that the USOC may pull the plug on this to save some face rather than have it blow up on them a year from now.

As for 2026.. for reasons baron noted, it's probably not the smartest idea. The USOC spent all this time and effort to put together a Summer Olympics bid and considering how much of their energy it's probably taking to keep the whole thing afloat, I doubt they want to reset and try again for 2026. Better to try again for 2028.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how the USOC spent 2 years vetting the candidates and this is the bid they thought had the best chance of winning. Not that they could have foreseen all this (maybe some of it), so I'm not sure who is more at fault for this mess.. the Boston folks for not having their ducks in a row or the USOC for thinking the Boston folks had everything covered.

I'd say both are pretty equally to blame here. However, I'd put more of the emphasis of blame moreso on the USOC. It's not like their amateurs at this. Yet they fell for Boston's overreaching sales pitch. They should've known better, especially when they did spend almost two years trying to figure out "their best chance" & this is what we got.

Other than Los Angeles, the remaining others wouldn't have been any better in any of the areas that Boston is having great trouble in. So if the USOC wasn't convinced by them either, for whatever their reason/s was/were (I'd still say, though, whether some agree or not, a big part of that was the "been there, done that" factor) then they shoulda just sat this one out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington DC's Olympic Plan Revealed:

OLYMPICShighlights-2.jpeg

DC wanted to use the games to transform the rundown Anacostia riverfront, change their global brand, and as a catalyst of growth and development in the Washington-Baltimore region. The venues left behind would have provided spaces for the public to gather and celebrate sport all the while encouraging development in the surrounding areas. Well that is another city that could have been...and it would have been more walk-able than Boston at this point.

Sounds like a big FU to the USOC. "LOOK YA FOOLS! YA COULD'VE HAD ALL A DIS BUT NOOOO! YOU'RE SUFFERIM WIT THE CITY UP NORTH NOW LOLOLOLOLOL!!!1!1!"

(*side note* DC's plans are weirdly similar to my Ottawa one...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say both are pretty equally to blame here. However, I'd put more of the emphasis of blame moreso on the USOC. It's not like their amateurs at this. Yet they fell for Boston's overreaching sales pitch. They should've known better, especially when they did spend almost two years trying to figure out "their best chance" & this is what we got.

Other than Los Angeles, the remaining others wouldn't have been any better in any of the areas that Boston is having great trouble in. So if the USOC wasn't convinced by them either, for whatever their reason/s was/were (I'd still say, though, whether some agree or not, a big part of that was the "been there, done that" factor) then they shoulda just sat this one out.

That's my thing. They put so much time into the vetting process that they were supposed to be able to foresee issues like this. We know that plans tends to change, but rarely to this extent, especially Boston where it's completely changing their overall concept. And it seems like their reasons for choosing Boston (it's in the Northeast, closer to large population centers, a more favorable timezone, etc.) did a poor job of taking into account the technical aspects of the bid, many of which were shaky before and now are being exposed as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a big FU to the USOC. "LOOK YA FOOLS! YA COULD'VE HAD ALL A DIS BUT NOOOO! YOU'RE SUFFERIM WIT THE CITY UP NORTH NOW LOLOLOLOLOL!!!1!1!"

Maybe they thought so. But what does releasing this now prove other than really not much. Yeah, it looks impressive ON PAPER. But didn't Boston's plan also look amazing at first. Now it's disintegrating right before our very eyes. So who's to say that DC wouldn't have suffered the same fate.

It's easy to perhaps show this now & say "hah hah, look what you coulda had". But until the wheels of such plans are put into motion, who really knows what the actual finished product woulda looked like. I don't believe, considering all the other crucial variables, that DC would've faired any better than Boston. As the saying goes; "actions speak louder than words". Or in this case, renderings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A DC bid would and NEVER will work. Anyone who thinks it's viable is a fool and will never be a consultant for the IOC.

#1 - By presenting the capital of the US immediately makes it a lightning rod for the unfriendly votes in the IOC.

#2 - There are so many security installations there (like, what? 195 embassies alone), the city will be in a state of virtual lockdown for 17 days.

#3 - DC in July and August is swamp weather.

There must be reasons why DC has been bypassed in the last 2 or 3 rounds.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they thought so. But what does releasing this now prove other than really not much. Yeah, it looks impressive ON PAPER. But didn't Boston's plan also look amazing at first. Now it's disintegrating right before our very eyes. So who's to say that DC wouldn't have suffered the same fate.

It's easy to perhaps show this now & say "hah hah, look what you coulda had". But until the wheels of such plans are put into motion, who really knows what the actual finished product woulda looked like. I don't believe, considering all the other crucial variables, that DC would've faired any better than Boston. As the saying goes; "actions speak louder than words". Or in this case, renderings.

With DC, you could have the nicest looking plan ever. But would it be all the political red tape that would be required to make it work. Very unlikely, IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With DC, you could have the nicest looking plan ever. But would it be all the political red tape that would be required to make it work. Very unlikely, IMO

Of course. That's why I said 'considering all the other crucial varianles', which would include political will. Other than L.A. (& even in their case, it still would've been a challenge), I didn't see the great potential of such aspect in any of the other three U.S. 2024 candidates (as we're starting to see now with the USOC's ultimate choice).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#3 - DC in July and August is swamp weather.

It really is awful. The temperature is basically the same as Atlanta but the humidity is unbelievable for people from the west of North America or from Europe. The first time I was forced to go there I got heat stroke there in July just walking around. I can't imagine running a marathon there in August.

Houston should never host the Olympics for the same reason.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article talking about Harvard's decreasing role in Boston's bid. The writer states this may be because Harvard announced that they would not help the bid committee with fund raising.

You just have to wonder how the USOC board is feeling about Boston at this point. I think the main selling point of their bid was the walkability/closeness of venues. Now, that is slowly unraveling. Did they have everything worked out in their original plan or was it just speculation? Is the spreading out of venues a way of trying to appease their detractors? What does the USOC want more: a summer Games or a Games in general? If it's the latter, should Boston not succeed, I think they should go for 2026.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/06/12/harvard-once-prominent-role-boston-plans-now-shrinking/ZEJqrKJkh7MpgPsZ8P6aIM/story.html

Moving the tennis from one location 3 miles from downtown to another location 3 miles from downtown that is equally accessible to public transportation is a neutral move. Add to it that the relocated tennis venue will help Boston 2024 bolster its legacy argument within the city can be only be to its advantage. Unlike Harvard, the tennis club where that was chosen is enthusiastic about the prospect of hosting Games events and the Games will provide new tennis facilities and sports fields as a legacy for an inner city neighborhood that can benefit from it. Harvard would not benefit as much, nor would the community abutting Harvard's campus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving the tennis from one location 3 miles from downtown to another location 3 miles from downtown that is equally accessible to public transportation is a neutral move.

Actually, the new location is 1.2 miles closer to Widett Circle than Harvard's land in Allston (4 vs 5.2 miles). If the Fairmount Line gets its promised rapid transit dmu service and becomes the indigo line, then the public transportation access will be much better than Allston as well. This is a real A+ move by Boston 2024. Even more so if Boston 2024 can clearly link the dmu indigo transit line with the games' legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with congratulating the bid committee on the (few) good choices they make.

And in fairness the plan for tennis seems very reasonable. The USA already has too many top level tennis facilities for the number of tournaments available (and we are probably going to lose the rights to another top level tournament to China) and tennis is one of the sports where a partially temporary venue is technically feasible.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...