Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GBModerator

San Diego Submits 2024 Summer Games Bid Proposal

Recommended Posts

This debate is irrelevant, seeing as though San Diego won't win if chosen.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension. No one is arguing San Diego will win.

Figuring out which city will win is only one question to explore on these boards, and frankly one of the less interesting ones. There are many interesting issues that swirl around the world of Olympic bids that are worth discussing.

As someone who posts with such ridiculous frequency, I would think you would grasp that concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that brings up a very interesting idea.

It probably is in San Diego's best interests to stay in the conversation as long as possible. Although we on these boards tend to think solely in terms of who can win, benefits can be derived solely from bidding or even talking about bidding. Tourism is an important part of San Diego's economy. They just got a lot of national attention. If by some miracle they became the US candidate, they'd get international attention. An unsuccessful bid is still a good way to boost their profile and increase interest. Of course the viability of the investment largely depends on how much they spend in the process.

I can imagine San Diego benefitting from a failed bid in ways that NYC and Chicago cannot. Perhaps San Diego's organizers recognize this too.

I'm sure San Diego would like to be thought of as "The city that might get the Olympics" rather than as the city that "inevitably will lose the Chargers to LA"

Or perhaps they can be the city who used an exploratory committee for the Olympics to spur on urban development that resulted in them managing to somehow keeping the Chargers in town. I think there's some truth to Athens' comment. Is San Diego likely to land an Olympics by sticking it out in bidding for the Olympics? Very doubtful. I don't know if they're looking at a boost in tourism for this, but it is an exploratory committee. Perhaps the conclusions they'll get from all this is that the Olympics are out of their reach but there are other smaller projects, perhaps some suggested from the Olympic bid, that are worthwhile endeavors. That's what happened with NYC with their unsuccessful 2012 bid. A lot of projects got spurred on from the bid. With San Diego, perhaps this is a little door-in-the-face psychology here. Vincent Mudd and his team suggest San Diego should bid for an Olympics, then he or someone else suggests a more reasonable project and by comparison, it seems more manageable.

At some point, there's a pretty good chance that the USOC is going to make their decision and tell San Diego thanks but no thanks. Maybe they decide to stick with it for 2028 and beyond. Or maybe someone says "you know what, the Olympics are a pipe dream, but that gave me an idea for another project that I think we should look into." I could see something like that happening in San Diego moreso than a city like a Boston or a Dallas.

This debate is irrelevant, seeing as though San Diego won't win if chosen.

If you don't think this debate is relevant, then you don't need to participate. For the rest of us, if we want to discuss San Diego because they're in the news lately, nothing wrong with that. Besides, how much of what is discussed on Internet forums like this actually falls under the category of 'relevant'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is irrelevant, seeing as though San Diego won't win if chosen.

Why are you participating in an irrelevant debate? That's kinda weird of you, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think cities choose to put this stuff in public before they have gone through a serious internal evaluation process? Is it publicity for politicians? To try and get the public in support of the bid?

I'm curious, because it is the opposite of the way the government usually likes to operate. Politicians normally don't like to jump aboard expensive projects before they know how public opinion will swing and civil servants like to have their ducks in a row before they have to get in front of a microphone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think cities choose to put this stuff in public before they have gone through a serious internal evaluation process? Is it publicity for politicians? To try and get the public in support of the bid?

I'm curious, because it is the opposite of the way the government usually likes to operate. Politicians normally don't like to jump aboard expensive projects before they know how public opinion will swing and civil servants like to have their ducks in a row before they have to get in front of a microphone.

You're assuming the bid is driven primarily by the government. American bids are always driven primarily by the private sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how an unsuccessful attempt at the Olympics would increase San Diego's tourism industry, or anything else for that matter. They're already one of the top destinations in the country as it is. Other than these forums, & the local news over in San Diego, I seriously doubt that the rest of the country, & much less overseas, even knows that San Diego wants to bid for the Olympics.

These theories have been talked about before, but have the likes of Baku, Leipzig, Seville, Venice, etc improved their urban profile due to failed Olympic bids. I can maybe see the bids that make it to short-list phase, but even then it's a stretch. Heck, it's not even a guarantee for the cities that go on to eventually host. Even if may be to "jump start" other projects in other ways, it still a wasteful way to go about it when these "exploratory committees" still cost time, money & effort to spend in such a frivolous way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's besides the point, though. There's other more efficient ways to go about that besides a futile Olympic attempt, if that was to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's besides the point, though. There's other more efficient ways to go about that besides a futile Olympic attempt, if that was to be the case.

So you're arguing the ONLY reason to explore an Olympic bid is to win the right to host?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're arguing the ONLY reason to explore an Olympic bid is to win the right to host?

What other reason would there be? To generate publicity for the city? Boosts in tourism and infrastructure improvements come with the privilege of winning the Games, not the bidding.

Edited by olympicsfan97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other reason would there be? To generate publicity for the city? Boosts in tourism and infrastructure improvements come with the privilege of winning the Games, not the bidding.

That's just not true.

An Olympic bid can act as a catalyst for a variety of infrastructure projects. It can also help jumpstart youth sport programs. It can foster esprit d'corps by bringing private and public sectors together. It can help crystallize plans for future development and civic priorities. And yes, it can put the second-tier city in a little bit more limelight. Winning the bid is not necessary for any of those benefits. Plus, winning the bid requires an enormous outlay of capital that may offset any benefits that would otherwise be derived from hosting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think cities choose to put this stuff in public before they have gone through a serious internal evaluation process? Is it publicity for politicians? To try and get the public in support of the bid?

I'm curious, because it is the opposite of the way the government usually likes to operate. Politicians normally don't like to jump aboard expensive projects before they know how public opinion will swing and civil servants like to have their ducks in a row before they have to get in front of a microphone.

As Athens noted, these aren't necessarily politicians who are heading up these bids. Dan Doctoroff in NYC was an investment banker. It was later on that he connected with Rudy Giuliani and later worked in the Bloomberg administration. That's why we have these exploratory committees. There's only so much that can be done internally before their planning efforts become visible and open to the public. And it's their job to sell themselves to the local politicians. In that regard, yes it is a little bit about publicity. Your last comment is right on the money that most local politicians and large city mayors won't want to back an expensive project unless there's been some sort of groundwork. In Boston, the mayor was somewhat critical of some of the head honchos with the exploratory committee there because they acted like they were speaking for the city before the mayor got a chance to address the situation. But still, you can't offer it up to the citizens of the city and ask for their opinion, even when it's tax dollars and civic improvements that are a part of the equation. Again, like Athens said, many of these Olympic bids are born out of the private sector, not the public sector. Look at most of the people heading up these committees and you'll see that they're generally not local politicians but rather businessmen and other non-government entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how an unsuccessful attempt at the Olympics would increase San Diego's tourism industry, or anything else for that matter. They're already one of the top destinations in the country as it is. Other than these forums, & the local news over in San Diego, I seriously doubt that the rest of the country, & much less overseas, even knows that San Diego wants to bid for the Olympics.

These theories have been talked about before, but have the likes of Baku, Leipzig, Seville, Venice, etc improved their urban profile due to failed Olympic bids. I can maybe see the bids that make it to short-list phase, but even then it's a stretch. Heck, it's not even a guarantee for the cities that go on to eventually host. Even if may be to "jump start" other projects in other ways, it still a wasteful way to go about it when these "exploratory committees" still cost time, money & effort to spend in such a frivolous way.

Can't really compare a US city forming an exploratory committee to the efforts of a Baku or a Leipzig where the NOC and the national government are heavily involved in the process. Maybe it isn't the most efficient way for a city like San Diego to go about things, but let's remember.. the USOC sent out their letter to 35 cities. San Diego was one of them. Them they trimmed the list of cites to around 10. San Diego was still one of them. It's easier for us to say that San Diego has no shot at getting elected to host the Olympics. But you can't entirely fault a Vincent Mudd type for pursuing this when the USOC hasn't told him to stop. It's not impossible that his efforts, while time-consuming and expensive, might wind up being beneficial somehow for the city. At least the USOC has tried to prevent a city like San Diego from spending tens of millions of dollars in their efforts to win an open bidding process. And again, as noted earlier, it's not like this is public funds that's being used. Most of the time, money, and effort is coming from the private sector, so on that basis, is it really at issue how they choose to use their resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What other reason would there be? To generate publicity for the city? Boosts in tourism and infrastructure improvements come with the privilege of winning the Games, not the bidding.

I've posted this on GB before, but since you bring it up.. HOW NEW YORK CITY WON THE OLYMPICS

Basically talks about how a lot of elements from the 2012 Olympic plan went ahead anyway even though NYC lost the bid. Cities don't stop building things if they don't land the Olympics. And there's more than a few things that have been built in cities that did host the Olympics where it probably would have been better for the city had they lost.

Remember, we're not talking about an Olympic bid here. It's an exploratory committee. You would think (and we're far from experts here even though we devote a lot of time and energy talking about these things) that the conclusion from the SD committee will be that no, it's not a worthwhile endeavor to pursue an Olympics. But even still, it's possible there could be some good coming out of it. That's what happened with NYC. Obviously a candidate stage bid is many steps ahead of where San Diego is right now, but the point still stands.

And with New York, you could argue that a lot of those civic improvements might have happened anyway even without the Olympic bid. But it's not like there weren't a few ideas that came out of it...

nyc2012_olymp_stad.jpglarge_Mets%20Citi%20Field%20Baseball.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but New York went in with the full intention to win the 2012 Olympics, not what are they going to do next in the event that they didn't. Hence, why we haven't seen another bid from them since then. And I'd say that's pretty much San Diego's (delusional) vision, too.

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...