Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GBModerator

San Diego Submits 2024 Summer Games Bid Proposal

Recommended Posts

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.

You're right about not being able to use population alone, which is why I've suggested in previous comments that US cities might be able to break the apparent S.O.G. 5 million barrier.

As for drawing the borders of metropolitan areas- because they are purely statistical concepts, their bounds can be set by internationally agreed criteria, as done in Eurostat for the EU (which lists London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, the Ruhr conurbation and Berlin as having metro populations over 5 million- and intriguingly leaves the population of Milan blank for most years, assigning it a much lower population than I would have expected for 2011-12).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Sorry, but you don't have anywhere near enough data to support the idea that San Diego would produce a plethora of white elephants. According to their bid committee 80% of venues are in place (don't forget about the various university facilities).

The problem is the remaining 20% of venues which includes big ticket items like a stadium, aquatics center, indoor arena, etc. I'd like to find out what they're thinking before dismissing the bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s@ Athens, I respect you greatly and generally view as a member here who creates very smart and well thought out comments. Your comments concerning this bid has changed my opinion. The one thing I would like to talk about is what you said about culture. San Diego may have "culture", but it does not have "CULTURE!", I am a citizen of the states and could not think of something identifiable as San Diego (...okay...fine, the zoo). Although there are definitely cultural identities that come to mind when thinking of LA, Dallas, Boston, DC, or even New Orleans (mounting a bid for the Pan American Games). So while it may have a culture it could not even compete with many American Cities. So San Diego would primarily have to rely on California's culture which then brings up the question of, "Why should San Diego host, a city with no major experience and lacks in essential requirements of an Olympic City when LA could host?" So Athens answer that question for me please, I really do want to know what you think.

Now in full disclosure I do think they have a fantastic venue plan that's much more concentrated than LA's. So I will give SD that (tips imaginary hat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, San Diego is obviously not on a par with New York, Chicago, LA, London, Paris, etc. However, people go to the Olympics for sport, not for museums and theater (SD has its fair share of both, btw). That said, a host must be an appealing travel destination that can offer its own unique charms. San Diego definitely has that, much more than, say, Houston.

To clarify, I'm talking about culture in the broader sense. San Diego has very rich Hispanic heritage that gives the area great character. The military presence also adds another layer of texture, as does the beach culture.

In terms of arts, there is a wide array of museums, art galleries and botanical gardens. San Diego also has the San Diego Symphony, the San Diego Opera, The Old Globe theater, the La Jolla Playhouse (birthplace of many Broadway hits), and the San Diego Rep. There's also an increasingly vibrant music scene.

For tourist attractions, there's Sea World, the Zoo, the Wild Animal Park (which is extraordinary), Legoland, the mission, historic Old Town (very charming), and Balboa Park.

There are also tons of great restaurants and shopping. Being an affluent area, San Diego is totally able to entertain the IOC and the Olympic family in the manner to which they are accustomed.

So, Bernham, I'm not suggesting SD is an international capital of culture. The point is that SD has plenty of unique cultural appeal to make a very memorable Olympic host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the remaining 20% of venues which includes big ticket items like a stadium, aquatics center, indoor arena, etc. I'd like to find out what they're thinking before dismissing the bid.

The Chargers desperately want a new stadium... I assume that would be the centerpiece venue (assuming they are willing to wait.. they have been on one year leases since 2007). Aquatics and velodrome are a problem... but they will be problems just about anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you don't have anywhere near enough data to support the idea that San Diego would produce a plethora of white elephants. According to their bid committee 80% of venues are in place (don't forget about the various university facilities).

If we are talking about venues that could house the event and give out medals, then sure. SDSU venues are adequate. But let's be honest. San Diego doesn't have a chance in hades of winning over the IOC will small and old venues. For a city like San Diego to win it is going to have to build world class arenas and stadiums and then rebuild its transportation system.

I don't know why people take this so personally about their hometowns. San Diego is a (mostly) great city with a ton of great stuff for tourists. But if the city is serious about improving itself then spend the money upgrading the awful customs situation at the cruise ship docks, build a new airport, etc. And build a new stadium specifically for the Chargers rather than forcing them to take an athletics stadium that won't really suit their needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Athens; not really, if anything people would remember America. I'm starting to think that you are from San Diego, because we all realize how this bid is practically dead, but you keep supporting it. Why? And you still did not answer my question. I'm not denying that San Diego is a great city with a unique hispanic culture, I'm denying the illusion that San Diego's culture is so different from other US cities (that can claim the same thing) that it's games would leave a mark on the movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking about venues that could house the event and give out medals, then sure. SDSU venues are adequate. But let's be honest. San Diego doesn't have a chance in hades of winning over the IOC will small and old venues. For a city like San Diego to win it is going to have to build world class arenas and stadiums and then rebuild its transportation system.

I don't know why people take this so personally about their hometowns. San Diego is a (mostly) great city with a ton of great stuff for tourists. But if the city is serious about improving itself then spend the money upgrading the awful customs situation at the cruise ship docks, build a new airport, etc. And build a new stadium specifically for the Chargers rather than forcing them to take an athletics stadium that won't really suit their needs.

First, San Diego is not my hometown and I've never lived there. Second, I'm not taking anything personally, I just think your argument is wrong and unsupportable. Third, I've said in almost every post that I question whether SD is electable.

You said that SD was guaranteed to produce a multitude of white elephants. There's no evidence of this as they claim 80% of venues are existing. You say the existing venues are of such poor quality that the IOC will never vote for them. I've got two problems with that:

1.) do you even know what SD's preliminary venue plan is? Which venues specifically are you so sure the IOC will reject?

2.) your original complaint was that there would be too many white elephants. Now you are saying the IOC will refuse to vote for existing venues -- which is a totally different point. We can debate it if you like, but we need more facts about SD's plan and we have to acknowledge this is a completely different point from the one you originally raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Athens; not really, if anything people would remember America. I'm starting to think that you are from San Diego, because we all realize how this bid is practically dead, but you keep supporting it. Why? And you still did not answer my question. I'm not denying that San Diego is a great city with a unique hispanic culture, I'm denying the illusion that San Diego's culture is so different from other US cities (that can claim the same thing) that it's games would leave a mark on the movement.

I'm not supporting any bid. If you had spent any time reading these forums you would know that

A.) I don't think the US should bid for any Games (Summer or Winter) until 2032.

B.) I question whether SD is electable.

That said, SD does have some real merit which some people here seem intent on glossing over. I answered your culture question very reasonably and thoroughly, yet you dismissed the response. I suspect you've never been to SD and really know nothing about it. I've visited San Diego a grand total of four times in my entire life and never for more than two days at a time. I've got no personal interest whatsoever, I just think you are mistaken in your appraisal.

Work on your reading comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood your preliminary response, I think you are sugar-coating some things. I have been to San Diego many times as well (I have grandparents who live there during the summer months). I'm not dying the cities beauty or even the fantastic venue plan they have now. i just do not see the city as one with a uniquely identifiable culture that would leave a mark on the games. So I guess me and you are in the same level in the thought that it will struggle in electability, but disagree in the idea that San Diego has a very unique culture that is different from many American cities (Spanish terms of the A word). Simply put I believe that a host city should have a unique, identifiable culture and the ability to connect and inspire the host nation.

@TNMP no, but this is their website which has info on their really awesome venue plan: http://www.sd2024ec.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that SD was guaranteed to produce a multitude of white elephants. There's no evidence of this as they claim 80% of venues are existing. You say the existing venues are of such poor quality that the IOC will never vote for them. I've got two problems with that:

1.) do you even know what SD's preliminary venue plan is? Which venues specifically are you so sure the IOC will reject?

2.) your original complaint was that there would be too many white elephants. Now you are saying the IOC will refuse to vote for existing venues -- which is a totally different point. We can debate it if you like, but we need more facts about SD's plan and we have to acknowledge this is a completely different point from the one you originally raised.

I did not say "guaranteed." I said "almost certain."

You can make a list of venues for almost any city. The fact of the matter is that San Diego's venues are by and large old or small. I don't know which venues they are proposing for which sports, but take a look at the complete list of arenas and stadiums they have (useable venues bolded):

Petco Park: Baseball stadium used by the Padres. Since MLB doesn't break for the Olympics, they can't plan on using it.

Tony Gwynn Stadium: 3,000 seat stadium built in the 90's. I suppose it would work for softball.

Qualcomm Stadium: Combined baseball and football stadium from the 60's. If the Chargers hate it so will whatever sports federation SD tries to foist it on.

Torero Stadium: 6,000 capacity football stadium. Too small even for field hockey.

Balboa Stadium: 3,000 capacity track and field stadium. Would work as a training field, I guess.

Viejas Arena: 12,000 seat arena built in the 90's. A good venue: both large and modern.

Jenny Craig Pavilion: New 5,00 capacity arena. I very much doubt the IOC wants an arena smaller than the Copper Box for 2024.

RIMAC Arena: 5,000 seat arena. Ditto.

Peterson Gym: Small arena built in the 60's.

Aztec Aquaplex: Not suitable to be the aquatics center.

If you assume that the IOC really wants to come to San Diego and will accept small arenas to get it done, then you can go ahead and make a list where they would have 80% of the venues (minus all the big, expensive ones.) But you can do the same thing for Minnesota, Seattle, etc.

2.) your original complaint was that there would be too many white elephants. Now you are saying the IOC will refuse to vote for existing venues -- which is a totally different point. We can debate it if you like, but we need more facts about SD's plan and we have to acknowledge this is a completely different point from the one you originally raised.

They aren't different points. San Diego can either opt for expensive new arenas, or go with small and outdated existing arenas and pay $100 million to go through a bidding process it doesn't have a practical chance of winning. If you look at the cities that have won over the past third of a century, there's no precedent for a city the size of San Diego winning without building lots of new venues.

Sure, it's theoretically possible that they could bribe their way to victory or all the other palatable bids might drop out. But unless they build shiny new venues I don't see how it's realistically possible they could beat out a city like Paris, Rome, Berlin, Shanghai, Seoul, Jakarta, Buenos Aires, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why San Diego is making a temporary stadium when the new chargers stadium should have a track in it instead.

Why should a new Chargers stadium have a track in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a new Chargers stadium have a track in it?

It makes more sense to build one stadium with a track in it, you can always take the track out after the olympics rather than building two new stadiums one temporary and one pernement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes more sense to build one stadium with a track in it, you can always take the track out after the olympics rather than building two new stadiums one temporary and one pernement.

Why does it make sense to build a stadium with a track in it and then take it out? Doesn't really serve the Chargers' purposes, now does it. And I doubt the Chargers are going to base their decisions and their ambitions over replacing Qualcomm with a new stadium based on the extraordinarily slim chance they might land an Olympics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it make sense to build a stadium with a track in it and then take it out? Doesn't really serve the Chargers' purposes, now does it. And I doubt the Chargers are going to base their decisions and their ambitions over replacing Qualcomm with a new stadium based on the extraordinarily slim chance they might land an Olympics

So you think it makes more sense to build two stadiums that will be the same size and tare one down after the games when you can build one and have it last a legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernham, I just disagree with you about San Diego. I don't know that they're host material, but they're not bland or cookie-cutter or predictably, generically American (whatever that may be). They've got it in spades over the likes of Houston.

Nacre, I think your view is excessively polarized, i.e. waste a truckload of money on frivolous expenditures or give up on the Games. I don't think SD's venues are as rundown as you think. I also don't think anyone is going to be pitching Beijing or Sochi style build campaigns. Right now there's a debate going on in the Paris 2024 thread about how outdated they're venues are. The paradigm is going to have to change and I think the IOC is going to have to accept that "adequate" is not a bad solution. Everything need not be brand spanking new, state of the art.

I still can't imagine a world where the IOC picks SD over Paris, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes more sense to build one stadium with a track in it, you can always take the track out after the olympics rather than building two new stadiums one temporary and one pernement.

Given that an American Football field is smaller than an Association Football field, to fit a full 400 metre running track in the stadium you'd get a worse version of the problem they have at London- football spectators being unusually far from the action- unless all the seating was mobile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it makes more sense to build two stadiums that will be the same size and tare one down after the games when you can build one and have it last a legacy.

No.. I think it makes the most sense for the Chargers and/or the city of San Diego to build 1 stadium that is the most well-suited for the Chargers' needs because the chances of them actually landing an Olympics are so incredibly small. You can't jump ahead in the process to where San Diego has already been awarded the Olympics and think about it that way.

Qualcomm Stadium is nearly half a century old. It's the 4th oldest stadium in the NFL, the other 3 being Soldier Field and Lambeau Field (both of which have been extensively renovated) and the Oakland Coliseum, which is both figuratively and literally a giant toilet. The Chargers desperately need a new home or it's possible they might move to L.A. There have been proposals involving the team and the city, but nothing has come to fruition. If the Chargers are to stay in San Diego, they are going to do what's in their best interests and not be concerned about what the city is trying to do with the Olympics, particularly since if we're talking about the 2024 Olympics, that's a decade away. If it's 2028 or 2032, that's even further off. The Chargers can't sit around and wait to see what happens with that to make a decision on their future. That's not how things when when you're talking about large urban planning initiatives. When NYC bid for the 2012 Olympics, there was a convenient matter of timing that the Olympic bid somewhat coincided with the Giants and Jets' need for a new stadium (similar to Atlanta in 1996). Most of the time though, that's not the case, as we saw with Chicago 2016.

That's the reality of these situations. San Diego isn't going to build 2 large scale stadiums. Considering they're having trouble getting 1 built, they need to focus on keeping the Chargers happy, and that's a situation that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nacre, I think your view is excessively polarized, i.e. waste a truckload of money on frivolous expenditures or give up on the Games. I don't think SD's venues are as rundown as you think. I also don't think anyone is going to be pitching Beijing or Sochi style build campaigns. Right now there's a debate going on in the Paris 2024 thread about how outdated they're venues are. The paradigm is going to have to change and I think the IOC is going to have to accept that "adequate" is not a bad solution. Everything need not be brand spanking new, state of the art.

The reality is that this is a competitive process, and if San Diego and Paris go head to head with equal venues then Paris will almost certainly (not "guaranteed", but something like 95% chance) win. You have to go back to Montreal in 1976 to find a small city as small as San Diego that hosted, and look at what they had to build. And that was BEFORE the current era of Olympic expansion.

It's easy to say that the Olympics need to downsize or start a system of cost controls, but people have been saying that since those same games of 76. As long as the IOC has some sucker willing to provide both their required guarantees and shiny new venues I can't see medium-sized cities operating on austerity budgets winning the summer games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the reality of these situations. San Diego isn't going to build 2 large scale stadiums. Considering they're having trouble getting 1 built, they need to focus on keeping the Chargers happy, and that's a situation that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

But San Diego is v

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...