USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid

[Quaker2001]

Except that harming animals is a key part of most people's daily lives (aside from vegans and vegetarians), so PETA does tend to raise a stink pretty often...

Meanwhile, there's going to be people protesting every possible project for every possible reason.

Yes, thank you for furthering my point. How many successful bids have had issues with protestors. I'm pretty sure the answer to that is just about all of them. Some resonate louder than others. Hardly prevents an Olympics from occurring or for aspiring host cities to bid. Virtually every city out there is going to have to deal with some element of this. Probably not going to stop these cities from bidding. And when a city is in the right place at the right time, it's not going to prevent them from winning either.

And while San Francisco itself is a bit on the smaller side, the whole Bay area is more than twice the size than any of these other cities' metro areas.The Bay area has 3 big airports, public transit & a much bigger international reputation than any of those other cities. There's really no comparison.

Yea, I don't quite get that one either. Most of us would probably agree that there's the big 3 of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and then a big drop-off from there. But probably right near the top of that next grouping has to be San Francisco. I don't know how electable they are given some issues they have to deal with, the least of which is the environmentalists (geography is their biggest problem.. if they could spread out across the Bay Area, they'd be in better shape but if most of the action needs to cluster around San Francisco, that's not helping their cause). I know I'm the guy who pushes the idea that size does matter as much as anyone, but seriously.. is it really a wonder why San Francisco is considered more viable than Seattle? Let alone that SF was a bidder for 2012 and 2016 whereas Seattle was nowhere to be found (I know that's not there fault largely because of Vancouver, but still)

[Soaring]

Chicago stating that we aren't interested was barely a mention in the local media here. Chicago is sooooo done with bidding again. It is a shame, because I could see it being a fantastic Games here.

We just were dealt such a bad blow in the voting, and the environment here is not conducive to bidding again. There are so many other important things to focus on right now.

My support goes to NYC first, and then LA as a last resort. I don't see San Fran as really a viable candidate. Any other city is not really that appealing to me.

[Athensfan]

In the current climate of Olympic bidding, "last resorts" can't win and there's no point in offering one up. Either LA would be a fantastic host and stage unforgettable Games or they would not. I believe LA would be brilliant. The only question is how the IOC feels about the timing.

[Soaring]

I don't believe LA can win 2024. It is just too soon for a repeat city having just hosted in the 1980's. I think they would be dead in the water especially if Tokyo wins 2020. London, Tokyo and then LA (all repeaters in such a short span) is just not going to happen. If LA does bid, and becomes the city the USOC chooses, they better hope Istanbul wins 2020 and that Paris, Tokyo and Durban sit out of the 2024 race.

I hope NYC shows interest. The city is not ideal in a lot of ways, and really doesn't need the Games, but it is really the best chance we got to land a summer games. A lot has to line up in order to present a compelling bid, but I hope the stars align.

[Quaker2001]

I don't believe LA can win 2024. It is just too soon for a repeat city having just hosted in the 1980's. I think they would be dead in the water especially if Tokyo wins 2020. London, Tokyo and then LA (all repeaters in such a short span) is just not going to happen. If LA does bid, and becomes the city the USOC chooses, they better hope Istanbul wins 2020 and that Paris, Tokyo and Durban sit out of the 2024 race.

I hope NYC shows interest. The city is not ideal in a lot of ways, and really doesn't need the Games, but it is really the best chance we got to land a summer games. A lot has to line up in order to present a compelling bid, but I hope the stars align.

Agreed on LA. To Athens' point.. even if LA can offer up a fantastic and unforgettable Olympics, there's the issue of whether or not the bid is electable. And that's what the USOC needs to look for, not the best bid but the most electable bid. It's like the line from the movie Miracle on the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team.. "I'm not looking for the best players. I'm looking for the right ones."

My issue with LA remains the same. I could easily see a situation where LA is the USOC's candidate and the IOC passes them over in hopes of waiting for a new bid from the United States to emerge and where the implication is that they want to have another Olympics here in the next 10-20 years, but they're willing to hold out until they see a city and a bid that they like, and that Los Angeles still give them a "been there, done that" vibe.

As for NYC.. seems highly unlikely it'll happen for 2024. I think the way things are shaking out that maybe someone out there will start to think long term and take a look at 2028. But as I've said, I'm still not holding my breath that I'll see an Olympics in my hometown in my lifetime. And I'm only 34 years old, so I'd like to hope that I've got at least 1 and if I'm lucky, 2 more Summer Olympics coming our way before I'm gone.

[FYI]

I don't think that 40 years is "too soon" for another L.A. Olympics, 1984 to 2024 would be 40 years. The thing is (& like any other bid, really), that they would have to come up with a compelling bid in order to become 'electable'. They can't use the old "LA is ready now" argument, it's a given. Even if New York was interested, but if their bid was total crap, they wouldn't be anymore electable just bcuz it's New York. You also need a compelling project with your bid, not just the "name".

[Proposition Joe]

I don't think that 40 years is "too soon" for another L.A. Olympics, 1984 to 2024 would be 40 years. The thing is (& like any other bid, really), that they would have to come up with a compelling bid in order to become 'electable'. They can't use the old "LA is ready now" argument, it's a given. Even if New York was interested, but if their bid was total crap, they wouldn't be anymore electable just bcuz it's New York. You also need a compelling project with your bid, not just the "name".

40 years is too soon when you have other cities to offer. Are Atlanta and Los Angeles to only experiences that the United States can offer the world? No, we have other cities that can be made available and should try to diversify our hosts because we have different regional cultures, urban development patterns, history, etc.

[Soaring]

In this day in age, 40 years is too soon for LA in my opinion. Not when you are up against cities like Madrid, Paris, Rome, Istanbul, Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin, Toronto, etc., in which many of these cities have never hosted or haven't hosted in 56+ years. I don't think it would be impossible for LA to win, but it would have to be a pretty weak field they are up against, and they would need to present an amazing bid.

NYC certainly would have to offer a compelling bid too, and it can't be based solely on "we're ready and able". But I think the IOC would have some nostalgia in finally bringing the Games to the capital city of the world. The U.S. general population would also probably show more enthusiasm for a NYC bid, and I am sure it would get more national press coverage than Chicago received since it is the news media capital. NYC certainly has it's challenges though. So a lot would need to be ironed out before it is officially put forward as an applicant city to the IOC. They also have to first show interest. If NYC or San Fran don't bid, I would support LA, but my expectations for them winning would be low.

[Rob2012]

NYC certainly would have to offer a compelling bid too, and it can't be based solely on "we're ready and able".

You know what, if the field isn't of 2012 caliber, and New York offers a water-tight bid without any last minute hiccups, being willing and ready might be enough for them. A New York Games' narrative writes itself, and if they're interested and able to offer a good plan there's not going to be the perfect-storm of mitigating circumstances that scuppered their 2012 bid again (ridiculously strong field, stadium issues, recent US hosting etc.).

[intoronto]

You know what, if the field isn't of 2012 caliber, and New York offers a water-tight bid without any last minute hiccups, being willing and ready might be enough for them. A New York Games' narrative writes itself, and if they're interested and able to offer a good plan there's not going to be the perfect-storm of mitigating circumstances that scuppered their 2012 bid again (ridiculously strong field, stadium issues, recent US hosting etc.).

Agreed NYC would be the odds on favourite for 2024 if it were to bid with a plan that is feasible.

[Quaker2001]

Agreed with Soaring. 40 years may or may not be too soon, but it certainly would work against them. And in a loaded field, it would be reason enough to not vote for them. Even then, all it takes is 1 compelling candidate to beat you and then you don't win.

NYC certainly would have to offer a compelling bid too, and it can't be based solely on "we're ready and able". But I think the IOC would have some nostalgia in finally bringing the Games to the capital city of the world. The U.S. general population would also probably show more enthusiasm for a NYC bid, and I am sure it would get more national press coverage than Chicago received since it is the news media capital. NYC certainly has it's challenges though. So a lot would need to be ironed out before it is officially put forward as an applicant city to the IOC. They also have to first show interest. If NYC or San Fran don't bid, I would support LA, but my expectations for them winning would be low.

You know what, if the field isn't of 2012 caliber, and New York offers a water-tight bid without any last minute hiccups, being willing and ready might be enough for them. A New York Games' narrative writes itself, and if they're interested and able to offer a good plan there's not going to be the perfect-storm of mitigating circumstances that scuppered their 2012 bid again (ridiculously strong field, stadium issues, recent US hosting etc.).

Agreed NYC would be the odds on favourite for 2024 if it were to bid with a plan that is feasible.

That's the thing though.. their 2012 plan was feasible (even after the West Side Stadium deal fell apart). I don't think it's as simple as New York being in the competition and having a workable plan and the rest of the field not being so strong. To Rob's point.. I don't think "willing and ready" is enough. It sure wasn't for the 2005 vote, competition notwithstanding. The narrative isn't automatic either. London's narrative didn't write itself. They came up with a plan to revitalize part of the city and that was their sell. I remember Dan Doctoroff's presentation back in 2005. It was all style and no substance. It was basically "New York is the greatest city in the world" but didn't play up any of the technical aspects of the bid, probably because they knew they were lacking.

That all said, I do agree that a New York bid would have a better shot next time around, further removed from the last U.S. hosting. But they still need to sell it to the USOC and then the IOC. It needs to be more than "feasible," they still need it to be compelling or else the IOC may still find someone else they'd like to go with. More than that, they still need someone, be it a business entity or a member of the government, to have a vision and the desire to see it through, not to mention make it work both for the IOC and for the city. I know that logic applies to virtually any candidate city, but again, isn't that why the USOC is having so much trouble finding the right city to bid with?

[FYI]

You know what, if the field isn't of 2012 caliber, and New York offers a water-tight bid without any last minute hiccups, being willing and ready might be enough for them. A New York Games' narrative writes itself, and if they're interested and able to offer a good plan there's not going to be the perfect-storm of mitigating circumstances that scuppered their 2012 bid again (ridiculously strong field, stadium issues, recent US hosting etc.).

That's just it, though. The field would have to be weak. Otherwise, even a feasible New York bid wouldn't be enough. They can ask Paris 2012 how that worked out for them.

[FYI]

40 years is too soon when you have other cities to offer. Are Atlanta and Los Angeles to only experiences that the United States can offer the world? No, we have other cities that can be made available and should try to diversify our hosts because we have different regional cultures, urban development patterns, history, etc.

Those other cities have to be interested, for starters, to be "made available". Apart from Chicago & New York (that aren't or seemingly not interested) what else is there so we can display are many different regions.

Many of our international members here are constantly saying that we need to bid with a "mega-city". So these people aren't really interested in ALL of our minor differences, which most would find rather trivial anyway.

I mean, are you very interested in seeing every nook & cranny that countries like China, Russia & Brazil have to offer? Not very likely, if at all. So that's how it would appear in the international bigger picture. While cities like Dallas, Houston for example, are technically capable of staging the Games, they would still struggle with their image in the international arena. At least L.A. could overcome that, but again, only if their PLAN is up to snuff.

[intoronto]

NYC in 2012 was hampered by Vancouver and the knowledge that most IOC members wanted to take the games back to Western Europe.

[deawebo]

^ Agree, NYC was harmed by Vancouver, and Chicago was a huge victim of the then realationship between USOC and IOC... I thibk that in 2017 or whenever in the future USA will have more positive results ONLY if they choose an alpha city.

[FYI]

New York 2012 was hindered much moreso by all the Europeans that were also bidding than Vancouver did. Sure, Vancouver 2010 didn't help, but that wasn't the real issue. New York 2012 still had a 'workable' plan but the Europeans in the picture had more of an arsenal to compete with. Hence, which is why if there is another New York bid in the future, it needs to be something more than 'feasible', bcuz we still have the likes of Paris, Rome, Berlin, Istanbul, Moscow or St. Petersburg & South Africa still lurking in the background. Saying "but it's New York" is no more different that someone on here not too long ago saying that "it just has to be a U.S. city". These type of sentiments can be construed as arrogant, which also doesn't get one far in this process.

[runningrings]

All very valid points, but I'd stop short of calling NY support arrogant. I think NYC's non Olympic status is a glaring gap in Olympic history- I've always felt NYC would have made a great host in 1932 - at it's booming pinnacle. I'd say a NYC Olympics is as compelling and important for the Olympic movement as Africa's first time and a long overdue third Paris Olympics. It would be a truly significant event.

[FYI]

And yet Paris is still waiting for that 3rd Olympics. Bypassed, in bidding comparison, by the new kid on the block, London. But if that really is the general consensus, then it seems that nothing short of a New York City Olympics would suffice as the next U.S. host. And which further reinforces that the trivial differences between our regions, which some here like to point out, mean nothing in the end.

[Athensfan]

I understand the international appeal of the idea of NYC Games. However, I have a hard time imagining Olympics in the Big Apple would turn out better than those staged in other American cities (most notably Chicago, LA, San Francisco). Personally, I would not go out if my way to attend New York Games.

[runningrings]

I think it would be incredible. As much as I love the idea of Chicago, SF Philly or DC, you can't deny that an NYC Olympics, logistical issues or not, would be truly iconic.

Other American cities would give you more of a sense of being an American Olympics - I think the exciting thing about a city like NY is that its internationalism is at such a high degree that it would be an event I think anyone, of any nationality, could make a mental claim to. I think it would be more a New York Olympics, than an American Olympics.

[Rob2012]

Just to clarify, I didn't say NYC should go into the race without thinking up compelling arguments. But there's no doubt it would have to work less-hard on this aspect than many cities. I maintain that a perfect-storm of mitigating circumstances harmed it in 2012 more than its "style over substance" presentation. It had two cities who can hold a candle to it in terms of international cache competing against it, it had a recent American Summer Games (not wholly loved) not long before, its plan was rejigged at the last minute, America wasn't the most loved country in the World by the end of the Bush years either. Against a field like we're seeing for 2020, NYC could conceivably win without having to push their case as hard as other cities would have to if it came to the IOC with a watertight plan. Of course, if it's up against Paris and a strong African city I think it'd have to work somewhat harder. But NYC is NYC. In normal cirucmstances I don't think the IOC would reject them lightly, and that gives them an advantage other cities don't have from the outset.

[FYI]

It kinda irks me when I hear that a New York Olympics would be more of a "New York" Olympics than an "American" one.

Aren't the Olympics suppose to be about the nation that they're hosted in. Were the Beijing Olympics a "Beijing" Olympics or a "Chinese" one. Are the Rio Olympics going to be a Rio Games or a Brazilian Games.

I think it's bit unfair to paint New York as less American than any other major city in the country simply based on it's internationalism. I don't think foreigners view London, Paris or Tokyo as any less British, French or Japanese simply bcuz of their international stature. .

[Athensfan]

I think it would be more a New York Olympics, than an American Olympics.

That's because most of the country doesn't identify with New York. NYC is a world unto itself. That's fine for the Big Apple, I suppose, but it's less appealing to me personally.

[runningrings]

It kinda irks me when I hear that a New York Olympics would be more of a "New York" Olympics than an "American" one.

Aren't the Olympics suppose to be about the nation that they're hosted in. Were the Beijing Olympics a "Beijing" Olympics or a "Chinese" one. Are the Rio Olympics going to be a Rio Games or a Brazilian Games.

I think it's bit unfair to paint New York as less American than any other major city in the country simply based on it's internationalism. I don't think foreigners view London, Paris or Tokyo as any less British, French or Japanese simply bcuz of their international stature. .

I mean that more as a reference to the fact that New York City itself is one of the last great frontiers of the Olympics, despite its respective nation having hosted many times before. Obviously, it would be an American Olympics, with itself being an American icon, but my point is more that NYC hosting for the first time itself would be a significant milestone, much like China's first Games in 2008 or a third Paris/London Olympics.

As we can all agree, NYC's internationalism one of its defining characteristics, and is one of the most familiar cities in the world, even to people who have never been there. This is why I think it could have that extra global appeal.

Also, unlike many European, Asian and African options, the USA has a plethora of potential candidate cities. If NYC, Durban and Paris were the final three cities in 2024 - I think it would be quite obvious that the latter two could potentially bid again and again to the IOC as they are possibly the only realistic options for their respective countries and even continents. New York, despite its profile, could easily be replaced by other cities in North America. This might make the opportunity harder for the IOC to pass up - knowing that seizing NYC for 2024 potentially blocks Dallas 2028 - and leaves these following editions for Africa and a European capital. *all very hypothetical*.

[Sir Rols]

If NYC, Durban and Paris were the final three cities in 2024 - I think it would be quite obvious that the latter two could potentially bid again and again to the IOC as they are possibly the only realistic options for their respective countries and even continents. New York, despite its profile, could easily be replaced by other cities in North America. This might make the opportunity harder for the IOC to pass up - knowing that seizing NYC for 2024 potentially blocks Dallas 2028 - and leaves these following editions for Africa and a European capital. *all very hypothetical*.

The 2012 vote is the obvious rejoinder to that, though. And it's interesting that you cite Paris - IMO in it's another of those cities in a category of its own whose international cachet outshines even its national status. Yet the IOC has managed to pass up that opportunity - which so many see as so obvious and attractive - three times in recent years now. They've also passed up big political heavyweights like Beijing the first times round.

I get where you're coming from though. I was really gung ho for NYC in the earlier stages of the 2012 campaigns - and one of the big reasons I really wished for it was that it was was too big and good an opportunity to pass up while it was there for the offering. I still really hope NYC tries again some day, and I'm sure my sentiment would be right behind it and, yeah, I'd think that it should be locked in while it was interested. And I think NYC - as long as they had the foundations in place - like Paris or a few others, would have to be considered an extremely strong contender in any race they entered. But, as a lot of the Americans here always point out, it's gotta be interested and fit it in its priorities, first, and that doesn't seem to be the messages coming from them.