USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid

[Athensfan 1081]

I don't see Chicago reversing their position on 2024.

Some people are saying that NYC is looking hesitant. Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen anything positive or negative from either NYC or LA since this letter from Blackmun went out.

The more I think about it, the more I feel this letter was an odd choice. Why so many cities that will NEVER host the Games? It's just peculiar.

I'm really starting to lose enthusiasm for an American bid in 2024. Chicago's definitive "no" is uber-discouraging. I've never been particularly excited or optimistic about NYC. I doubt SF will get their act together. I am pro-LA, but I think their case will be stronger in 2028 or 2032. I doubt Philly, Boston, Dallas can cut it internationally and I think everybody else on the list is either pipe-dreaming or an inclusion out of left field.

I think it's looking increasingly possible that the US won't bid for 2024 or they'll bid with a weak candidate.

If they sit out 2024, I'm afraid they'll go for 2026 (which I still believe would be a mistake). If they bid for 2024 and lose, I doubt they'll try again with 2026.

The bid that could have won 2024 was Chicago. With Chicago out, I'm just not feeling it.

[Quaker2001 1263]

Some people are saying that NYC is looking hesitant. Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen anything positive or negative from either NYC or LA since this letter from Blackmun went out.

The more I think about it, the more I feel this letter was an odd choice. Why so many cities that will NEVER host the Games? It's just peculiar.

Maybe that should tell you something about NYC that we haven't heard anything from them at all through this whole process.

As for the letter, I think they're just casting a really wide net. It was noted earlier, this is probably just the USOC being diplomatic. To FYI's point, yes there are only a handful of the 35 cities who could legitimately offer a bid. But to include a city like Tulsa on the list, you're acknowledging they're out there. So when they call you back, the USOC can respond with "well, can you satisfy all of these technical requirements?" When the Tulsa folks say no, that's the end of it and you can tell them you're not interested and that's the end of it. If they didn't include them on the list, then they're still probably going to bug the USOC instead of politely telling them to piss off.

We've said all along that it would be nice to see the USOC bid for 2024 but they may not have the city with which to do so. If a city like Chicago isn't interested, what can ya do. The Olympics have become an increasingly risky and expense endeavor, so it's just the reality of the situation that these big cities have lost interest in a long-term planning project like an Olympics.

[intoronto 650]

Not saying its credible but:

San Diego mayor says he wants to bid on 2024 Olympic Games with Tijuana

SAN DIEGO - San Diego Mayor Bob Filner wants to join with Tijuana, Mexico, to bid on the 2024 Olympic Games.

Filner announced his intentions Friday at a ceremony in Tijuana. Tijuana Mayor Carlos Bustamante, who leaves office in December, says he likes the idea.

The cross-border area of more than 4 million people seems like a long shot for the summer games. The NFL's San Diego Chargers have considered leaving Qualcomm Stadium. It often takes more than two hours to enter the U.S. from Mexico by car.

But San Diego's new mayor says the two cities can bid competitively. Filner says the bid would force the cities to work more closely together to address infrastructure needs.

Edited February 23, 2013 by intoronto

[Quaker2001 1263]

Good find, int. But no, there's no way that's going to fly for so very many reasons. I do wonder though.. will the folks in LA take notice of that and be swayed in a particular direction? Probably not, mostly because they won't think this is totally serious.

[Athensfan 1081]

This San Diego-Tijuana idea has been around for years, but it's not going to happen. The IOC has already said no bi-national bids. Period. Even if they reversed that decision, the security issues and extreme imbalances between the US and Mexico make the idea untenable.

I do love San Diego, but it's difficult to imagine them pulling off the Games.

[FYI 1193]

It's so funny how these mayors in these 3rd-tier cities think that they have a shot at this. Austin's mayor is another one that said earlier this week that they'll take a "serious" look at this. But even then, they acknowledge that they can't do it alone, citing that they would need to do it with Dallas, Houston & San Antonio. This total lack of not addressing the basic requirements is what makes me laugh. It's like they didn't even bother to read that part of the USOC letter. They got as far as "we're considering exploring a bid for the 2024 Olympic Games" & that's as far as they read before they started getting all giddy.

[Barcelona_'92 45]

Okay, so outta the 35 cities the USOC sent their letters to, only about 10 really have the capacity to be looked at seriously. I'll split those 10 into three categories.

Group A - (the Top-their) New York, Chicago, San Francisco & Los Angeles,

Group B - (the Mid-tier) Dallas, Houston & Philadelphia.

Group C - (the Lower-tier) Boston, Miami & DC.

I'd add one more city to your list--Seattle. And I'd put Seattle at least on par with Dallas and Houston. Seattle has experience hosting a major sports event (1990 Goodwill Games, and it regularly hosts Olympic sports events with great enthusiasm from the locals. It has a strong infrastructure in place, many corporate headquarters, and is known more internationally than Dallas and Houston. It would also be viewed as far more sophisticated and scenic than the Texas cities. In short, I think it could offer a lot of what the IOC seems to be looking for in an American bid city if the top-tier cities aren't interested.

[Athensfan 1081]

I know Seattle pretty well and I don't see any possible way they could pull it off. The geography and the ecological politics make an Olympic bid just about impossible. Great town, but not an Olympic host.

[PotatoChips 11]

I know Seattle pretty well and I don't see any possible way they could pull it off. The geography and the ecological politics make an Olympic bid just about impossible. Great town, but not an Olympic host.

I agree. That's also how I feel about Boston and SanFran. I just can't see either of them pulling of an olympic bid that could win in the next few years.

[zekekelso 794]

>> The IOC has already said no bi-national bids. Period. E

When did the IOC say that?

[FYI 1193]

While Seattle is very picturesque, I find it that it still falls within the same league as the likes of Minneapolis, Phoenix & also picturesque San Diego (which I would then put them all in a Group D).

While all of those are very nice U.S. cities, they still lack that x-factor. Not to mention that their respective regions are all around the 3.5 million cuff mark. So therefore, the question of infrastructure comes into play, venues, hotel space, transportation, etc. The Goodwill games were over 20 years. Plus, those aren't the Olympics.

I can't see Seattle having bigger infrastructure in place than the like of Dallas & Houston. The latter two are just huge in comparison (even if some may think that they lack in "sophistication", which is a subjective statement, tbw). And that would be one of the key-criteria. Maybe in another 20 years or so if/when Seattle grows some more, but not now. I sometimes think of Seattle as our Brisbane. Maybe suited for the Olympics in the distant future.

[Quaker2001 1263]

I'd add one more city to your list--Seattle. And I'd put Seattle at least on par with Dallas and Houston. Seattle has experience hosting a major sports event (1990 Goodwill Games, and it regularly hosts Olympic sports events with great enthusiasm from the locals. It has a strong infrastructure in place, many corporate headquarters, and is known more internationally than Dallas and Houston. It would also be viewed as far more sophisticated and scenic than the Texas cities. In short, I think it could offer a lot of what the IOC seems to be looking for in an American bid city if the top-tier cities aren't interested.

The irony with Seattle is that they have a fairly large-scale stadium that had a running track which is in the process of being removed. So they're back to the drawing board as far as a main stadium plan is concerned. It's a nice city, but I don't think they're right for the Olympics. Not to mention have we heard anything from them in terms of interest?

[runningrings 678]

Not to nitpick about the comparison of Seattle and Brisbane - but metro Brisbane is around 2 million, whereas Seattle is some 3.5 (according to wiki). That was about the population of Sydney in 1993 when it won the Olympics. But I take your word that there can be other reasons that make the city ill prepared.

Edited February 23, 2013 by runningrings

[Athensfan 1081]

Not to nitpick about the comparison of Seattle and Brisbane - but metro Brisbane is around 2 million, whereas Seattle is some 3.5 (according to wiki). That was about the population of Sydney in 1993 when it won the Olympics. But I take your word that there can be other reasons that make the city ill prepared.

Seattle's problem isn't population, it's A) geography environmentalists. The geography of Seattle creates notorious traffic snarls. Because of the various inlets along the coast, there are only so many places to run roads and they are usually heavily clogged. There is no simple solution here. It's not a matter of more light rail, added lanes etc. The physical space just creates severe limitations. Also, because of Seattle's vocal and organized environmental activists, it is almost certain that new construction on an Olympic scale would meet with considerable opposition.

Absolutely no clue how that emoticon sneaked in there. It was supposed to be "B) environmentalists."

[Quaker2001 1263]

Absolutely no clue how that emoticon sneaked in there. It was supposed to be "B) environmentalists."

When you type B followed by a parentheses, the board interprets it as an emoticon. Has happened to me plenty of times before

[intoronto 650]

Wouldn't any hypothetical bid face issues with environmentalists?

[Rob. 2040]

When you type B followed by a parentheses, the board interprets it as an emoticon. Has happened to me plenty of times before

Yep, it's a pain in the arse

a) because it shouldn't happen in the first place and

because you have to go back and edit your posts afterwards.

Lucky us long time posters know better.

Edited February 24, 2013 by RobH

[runningrings 678]

Emoticons can be the devil; I once sent a love heart to a university lecturer.

[intoronto 650]

Emoticons can be the devil; I once sent a love heart to a university lecturer.

LOL

[Athensfan 1081]

Wouldn't any hypothetical bid face issues with environmentalists?

Maybe, but Seattle is famous for them. It's a foundational part of the culture and the community there -- much moreso than elsewhere.

[zekekelso 794]

Maybe, but Seattle is famous for them. It's a foundational part of the culture and the community there -- much moreso than elsewhere.

SF is at least as crunchy, and has the same logisticial narrow hill/bay problems as Seattle, but people seem to think it viable.

[Quaker2001 1263]

Always amuses me when people throw a blanket over the issue of "environmentalists" and assume it's going to be a problem because environmentalists are such a powerful force. No. Much like how PETA folks don't raise a stink until you harm an animal, you won't hear from environmentalists until you threaten to harm the environment. Now, needless to say, that's going to happen a lot if you bring an Olympics to a city. Probably moreso with a Winter bid than a Summer bid. But even still.. it's all a function of how an Olympics will affect a city that will draw the ire of environmentalist types. Which is to say, whether it's Seattle or San Francisco or wherever else, let's not dismiss a city based on the mere presence of people who might care about the environment.

[ChrisValentine 15]

Always amuses me when people throw a blanket over the issue of "environmentalists" and assume it's going to be a problem because environmentalists are such a powerful force. No. Much like how PETA folks don't raise a stink until you harm an animal, you won't hear from environmentalists until you threaten to harm the environment. Now, needless to say, that's going to happen a lot if you bring an Olympics to a city. Probably moreso with a Winter bid than a Summer bid. But even still.. it's all a function of how an Olympics will affect a city that will draw the ire of environmentalist types. Which is to say, whether it's Seattle or San Francisco or wherever else, let's not dismiss a city based on the mere presence of people who might care about the environment.

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.

[Lord David 225]

This San Diego-Tijuana idea has been around for years, but it's not going to happen. The IOC has already said no bi-national bids. Period. Even if they reversed that decision, the security issues and extreme imbalances between the US and Mexico make the idea untenable.

I do love San Diego, but it's difficult to imagine them pulling off the Games.

It'll have to be San Diego on it's own. Where Tijuana only serves for the expected influx of spectators, in terms of hotel capacity and it's airport. It wouldn't be hosting any venues, even if that's what the joint bid would be aiming for.

[FYI 1193]

Seriously, Seattle & San Diego are nice cities, but they're on the smaller side. They're both nothing more than just a 'scenic' Minneapolis. They'd all be perfect candidates for the Winter Games (if it was plausible in some cases), but not really for the Summer Olympics.

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.