Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GBModerator

San Diego Submits 2024 Summer Games Bid Proposal

Recommended Posts

Interestingly, Athens' population is just shy of 800,000. San Francisco's population is around 830,000. San Diego's population is 1.3 million. Those are the numbers for the cities proper and the figures don't include wider metropolitan areas (which all three of them have).

I don't think SD is too small to stage the Olympics. I can imagine them doing a beautiful job. I just have a hard time imagining them getting elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC is not interested, though, on how the Olympics can "make a city better". Their main focus is how the city can make the OLYMPICS better. If a certain city somehow gets a transformation bcuz of the Olympics, it's only bcuz it's a tangible effect, & not bcuz it was a primary one.

Trouble is though, San Diego is right next door to Los Angeles and I'm sure the IOC would much rather prefer a third Olympics in L.A. to a first time Olympics in San Diego. It would be like Japan bidding with Yokohama with Tokyo right next door.

To be fair, though, Yokohama IS part of the Tokyo metropolitan area, whereas San Diego is not part of L.A.'s. I mean many here would consider a Philadelphia Olympics on their own merits, yet Philadephia is closer to much larger NYC than San Diego is to L.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still doesn't mean the USOC would put it forward.

It's possible the USOC feels that way. But if they do, and they aren't telling anyone, they are even more corrupt and weasel-y than I normally think.

How could San Diego put forward a "manageable" bid but L.A. couldn't. That doesn't even make sense. Especially when L.A. always has the drive & mostly all the venues & infrastructure already in place.

LA could put together a managable bid; that doesn't mean they will.

LA has been trying to get an NFL franchise back for 20+ years. So far - for whatever reason - they haven't been able to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L.A. was able to put a manageable bid forward for 2016 to make them a finalist for the USOC candidacy (narrowly being defeated by Chicago) so I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do so again this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LA could put together a managable bid; that doesn't mean they will.

LA has been trying to get an NFL franchise back for 20+ years. So far - for whatever reason - they haven't been able to do so.

False. LA has not been trying to get an NFL franchise back for 20+ years. The NFL has been trying to get LA back for 20+ years and has failed to do so. Although there's 1 theory (which I happen to think might have some truth to it) that says the NFL doesn't want a franchise in LA and that they're keeping it open so teams in other cities can threaten to move there in order to convince their local politicians to publicly fund a new replacement stadium for them and keep them where they are.

Los Angeles has survived just fine the past 20 years without pro football. The NFL has been doing just fine the past 20 years without a franchise in Los Angeles. What's happened in the interim is not a failure on anyone's part, but more a lack of circumstance where a stadium can get built and a team is there to occupy it. And if we're mentioning this in the context of San Diego, let's not forget that the Chargers are playing in a stadium that's nearly half a century old and is more than a decade removed from having hosted its last Super Bowl. Not to mention that the team has been the talk of many rumors to leave San Diego and head up the 5 to Los Angeles.

Scenario: San Diego puts together a managable bid. LA does not.

LA has huge potential, but they don't always come through. See NFL Team comma lack of.

Okay, let's say in the off chance that happens, that San Diego is more interested and more driven to put forth an Olympic bid than Los Angeles (if Los Angeles puts forth a bid, it's going to be better than San Diego's, that's all but a mathematical certainty). Is the USOC going to be confident enough to put that bid up against international competition that could include European heavyweights like Paris and eventually a South African entry? You're right Los Angeles has potential. A lot more potential than San Diego has. Maybe the planets align and the USOC catches a 1996-esque break and they're up against weak competition. But it's the USOC's job to put their best foot forward. Again, I don't see a scenario where that involves a bid from San Diego. Not against the competition they're likely to be facing.

It's possible the USOC feels that way. But if they do, and they aren't telling anyone, they are even more corrupt and weasel-y than I normally think.

But that's the thing here.. San Diego says they're submitting some big proposal. Has the USOC asked for such a proposal? Has the USOC told them they're interested in listening to them? I think they've made it pretty clear, at least from what we've read, that they are the ones reaching out to the cities, not asking the cities to reach out to them. Not their fault if San Diego is pushing ahead on their own and trying to reverse the process here. We all know that the USOC tried to engage with more cities than they know they might have any interest in. Maybe it is incumbent upon them to eliminate more cities sooner rather than later if they know they're not interested. But if the choice is between listening to what a city like San Diego has to say when the USOC is ready and ready or telling San Diego fairly bluntly they don't want to listen, they're not all that corrupt if they choose the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the choice is between listening to what a city like San Diego has to say when the USOC is ready and ready or telling San Diego fairly bluntly they don't want to listen, they're not all that corrupt if they choose the former.

Groups in Boston, Dallas, Boston, etc. are all working towards bring the Olympics to their cities. Spending time, money, personal capital, etc. If the IOC has no intention of putting forth a bid from these cities, then yes, the IOC needs to say so. If they aren't willing to simply say, "no" they are total weasels. And if any of them, and/or their friends are making money off these cities, they are corrupt weasels.

As for LA, forgive me for not being exact. "Forces in LA" have been trying to bring an NFL team to the city for 20+ years. Just as their as forces trying to bring the Olympics to LA. The stars haven't aligned on the NFL thing; I'm just saying they might not align on an Olympic bid either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all just reminds me of how stupid it is for the US to even bid. If we do not have one city that can and wants to host a games that's IOC material the US just needs to sit out. No one wants an Atlanta repeat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all just reminds me of how stupid it is for the US to even bid. If we do not have one city that can and wants to host a games that's IOC material the US just needs to sit out. No one wants an Atlanta repeat...

They have to go through the process and be ready for whatever scenario unfolds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Athens' population is just shy of 800,000. San Francisco's population is around 830,000. San Diego's population is 1.3 million. Those are the numbers for the cities proper and the figures don't include wider metropolitan areas (which all three of them have).

All modern cities have wider metropolitan areas. The City of London has a population of about 7,000, but it's the metro area which matters. So far, in the USA, three of the top ten metro areas by population have hosted Summer OGs, and all the other seven have metro area populations above or close to 5 million (whereas 17th-ranked San Diego's metro population is closer to 3 million). A Summer OG in Miami might require epic air-con, but there's still plenty to choose from if they're willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Groups in Boston, Dallas, Boston, etc. are all working towards bring the Olympics to their cities. Spending time, money, personal capital, etc. If the IOC has no intention of putting forth a bid from these cities, then yes, the IOC needs to say so. If they aren't willing to simply say, "no" they are total weasels. And if any of them, and/or their friends are making money off these cities, they are corrupt weasels.

As for LA, forgive me for not being exact. "Forces in LA" have been trying to bring an NFL team to the city for 20+ years. Just as their as forces trying to bring the Olympics to LA. The stars haven't aligned on the NFL thing; I'm just saying they might not align on an Olympic bid either.

Let's clarify here.. are we talking about the USOC or the IOC? Because that's 2 completely different entities when it comes to organizations that American cities have to deal with. There has to be some sort of process by which the USOC chooses their candidate. I think most of us agree what they're doing now is a better method than in the past where it was open bidding. Insomuch as they cast a wider net than they probably needed to, I understand that. And yes, they probably need to reduce the list of potential hopefuls down sooner rather than later.

There's a difference here thought between "can't" host the Olympics and "won't" host the Olympics. Athensfan said it very well.. there are more cities in the United States that are capable of hosting an Olympics than there are cities that stand a legitimate shot of actually getting elected to host an Olympics. How many times have we had discussions here over where that line is drawn? Is it just the big 4 (NYC, Chicago, LA, SF) that could win an Olympic bid? Is it the next few cities after that (Philly, Dallas, Boston, etc)? Or are there more? That's the issue at hand here. I don't know what the middle ground is between letting San Diego pursue their Olympic aspirations and either the USOC or IOC telling them it can't be done. Either way though, there's only so much that can be done to ease the burden on these cities/countries that are bidding just like the USOC/IOC can only be so diplomatic where they're deciding who should or who shouldn't be involving in Olympic bidding.

This all just reminds me of how stupid it is for the US to even bid. If we do not have one city that can and wants to host a games that's IOC material the US just needs to sit out. No one wants an Atlanta repeat...

If there's a good enough city, it's not stupid to bid. Unfortunately, there might not be a good enough city to bid with. In which case, yes it is stupid to bid and hopefully the USOC acknowledges this and decides not to bid. It's unlikely we'll see another Atlanta anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the wrong San in California to get the job done.

Now a San Francisco bid? With all that history? Beautiful views? They would beat anyone. They are building a new stadium...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "new" stadium are you talking about. Levi stadium all the down in Santa Clarita? Unless San Jose is mounting an Olympic bid & wanting to center the proposal around there, then no, that's not the stadium to be talking about when it comes to a possible SF bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the wrong San in California to get the job done.

Now a San Francisco bid? With all that history? Beautiful views? They would beat anyone. They are building a new stadium...

The new stadium is to far away from downtown and also it doesn't have a track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the wrong San in California to get the job done.

Now a San Francisco bid? With all that history? Beautiful views? They would beat anyone. They are building a new stadium...

What history? Would they really beat anyone? I think most here agree the Bay Area would make a great setting for an Olympics, but that's easy to say in theory. In practice, you need a city that's willing to spend literally billions of dollars and can produce a lot of things that most cities, especially in the United States, don't exactly have ready to go. A stadium of at least 80,000 capacity (I know the IOC minimum is 60,000 but the USOC has set the floor at 80k) that has an athletics track (Levi's Stadium's maximum capacity is 75,000 and obviously that's with no track and probably doesn't account for a large number of media/broadcasting positions they'd need). You need an athlete's village for 10,000 people and accommodations for media/press to cover another 10,000 people. And so forth. Does San Francisco have that? If they don't now, do they have the money and resources to build it? Even if that's the case, is that time and money wisely spent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All modern cities have wider metropolitan areas. The City of London has a population of about 7,000, but it's the metro area which matters. So far, in the USA, three of the top ten metro areas by population have hosted Summer OGs, and all the other seven have metro area populations above or close to 5 million (whereas 17th-ranked San Diego's metro population is closer to 3 million). A Summer OG in Miami might require epic air-con, but there's still plenty to choose from if they're willing.

Even so, that's above Rogge's 2.5 million benchmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I'd love it, a SF SOG ain't gonna happen. Even the new Warriors Arena will be subject to a referendum.

I hear ya there. I would love a San Francisco Olympics just as much as anyone else here. But a San Francisco bid would be much more of a bureaucratic challenge than even New York or Chicago. Unless something drastic happens in the political & logistical landscape of SF, I don't see a winnable Olympic bid coming about anytime soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can just easily boast Tijuana's airport and existing hotel infrastructure as a bonus to whatever they already have.

Although obviously no events will be held in Tijuana, there's no reason they couldn't include a mention of the neighbouring city that can be the "solution" to any air transport and accommodation problems SD currently has.

If Tijuana were in the same country that might make sense, but I highly doubt anybody is going to be happy about flying to Tijuana and then going through the US-Mexico border to get to the Olympics.

A temporary place-holding image, not a final logo.

I actually think San Diego has a lot of appeal. It's a beautiful place. I don't fancy their odds against Paris, but otherwise they probably aren't as weak as some here seem to think. Airport is a consideration.

Beyond weather, beauty and an adequate number of hotel rooms, what do you think San Diego has going for it? Personally I think it has every single thing other than those three stacked against it. IE no plausible post-games use for many of the venues, transportation infrastructure would need to be completely overhauled, etc.

If this is another stupid "mega-region" bid I wish they would try and work with an LA bid instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond weather, beauty and an adequate number of hotel rooms, what do you think San Diego has going for it? Personally I think it has every single thing other than those three stacked against it. IE no plausible post-games use for many of the venues, transportation infrastructure would need to be completely overhauled, etc.

If this is another stupid "mega-region" bid I wish they would try and work with an LA bid instead.

San Diego is a fantastic travel destination with rich history and culture. They have a huge convention center that is in constant use (and I'm sure would play a role in the Games). There are a good number of existing venues, but clearly not enough. I'll be interested to see what they propose in terms of a velodrome, aquatics center, stadium. The area is burgeoning so I suspect they'll have plenty of post-Games use for a village. They've been wanting to improve mass transit for a while and the Olympics would help light a fire to get that done. Both the university and military presence will most likely play into a bid in a positive way. Until we have more specifics, I think it's way too soon to assume that the bid would be too spread out or that it would necessitate extensive construction that would serve no post-Games purpose. Where there's a will there's a way and San Diego seems to be showing a decent amount of desire.

The big question in my mind is whether or not they're electable and I suspect the answer is "no."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a huge convention center that is in constant use (and I'm sure would play a role in the Games). There are a good number of existing venues, but clearly not enough. I'll be interested to see what they propose in terms of a velodrome, aquatics center, stadium.

The problem is that the existing venues wouldn't really work. Qualcomm is an awful relict of the 60's when stadiums were built for baseball and football, none of the San Diego State venues are Olympics capable with the possible exception of their basketball arena, Petco could be used for baseball but is already in use in summer by the Padres, etc. They have golf courses and a big convention center. Well, so does every other major US city.

San Diego would almost certainly be another Athens when it comes to white elephant stadia and arenas.

They've been wanting to improve mass transit for a while and the Olympics would help light a fire to get that done.

HOW, though? They don't have the money. California doesn't have the money. And the federal government isn't going to fund a new subway system and airport for San Diego just so they can host the Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One factor in San Diego's favor and it could be the rowing venue. The USOC has a training center in Chula Vista. But w/o a major airport, SD's whistling Dixie here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even so, that's above Rogge's 2.5 million benchmark.

Rogge's benchmark is not mine, and apparently not the IOC's either, in practice. Since the stakes got raised in 1972, only two Summer host cities have had metro area populations below 5 million: Montreal (which of course had already been chosen by 1972) and Athens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogge's benchmark is not mine, and apparently not the IOC's either, in practice. Since the stakes got raised in 1972, only two Summer host cities have had metro area populations below 5 million: Montreal (which of course had already been chosen by 1972) and Athens.

Barcelona? Sydney? Atlanta? I guess it all depends where you draw the borders of a metro area. This can't just be a mathematical benchmark either, otherwise places like Lagos, Kinshasa or Jakarta would also be high on the IOC's list of potential future hosts.

If there is a less than 5 million metro (Rome, Berlin...) with the right concept, it may well be picked. The Rogge benchmark really only seems to be the absolute minimum for sustainability.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...