Hamburg 2024

[Anthony]

dysan1 brings up a good point that RSA is focusing on the Commonwealth Games. If they succeed, then they would probably be an even bigger threat, because of their test run they had with the CWG. If they came in now, it would be a bit shaky. Yes, it sounds nice and appealing to have a new frontier join the race, but they lack experience. So that brings up Paris. If Paris comes in, they could easily be the frontrunner. They have experience, and probably the most potential. Boston and Hamburg, while they stand a chance, they aren't really international cities. I would say they are more on a beta or gamma level in their respective countries.

[FYI]

The United States has hosted more Olympic Games in the past fifty years than Germany and France combined. Surely, that would be an argument against having the Olympic Games return to American shores after just 28 years (summer) and 22 years (winter) of absence, respectively. And Europe ain't exactly a small or disadvantageous market, either...especially in terms of time zones.

If your argument is "Europe" versus the U.S., then it ain't like the IOC has ignored the European market either. Since the last time the U.S. hosted, Europe has hosted four times. In that sense, Europe has already had it's good share of the Olympic pie.

If you wanna make a case for Germany as a country, then that might be an argument that could hold some water. But when you say; Europe, then that argument doesn't really hold that much water anymore.

I don't really see Durban making much of an impact beyond the African bloc, especially as its international recognition is lower than that of Cape Town - despite them hosting the Commonwealth Games in 2022. Rome will not be a factor due to Italy's abysmal economic and financial situation.

The only thing I believe standing in South Africa's way is the South Africans themselves. It's starting to look that they're likely going to shy away from 2024 as well, since it seems like they're biding their time & taking baby steps with other events first. But I wouldn't simply dismiss their chances that they wouldn't make much of an impact beyond the African bloc. The last continents that's yet to host is surely a huge narrative that simply won't go unnoticed, And especially when it's no secret within the hierarchy at the IOC (& others in the sport world) that an African Olympics should be in the cards sooner rather than later.

It's also not like Durban is that obscure to the IOC anyway, they did afterall have their 2011 session there where PyeongChang 2018 was elected. It's also been pointed out that on a technical standpoint, Durban makes the most sense for the South Africans than Cape Town does, ie the weather (during the IOC's preferred July-Aug timeframe), the infrastructure, etc. Some of you are making the argument about Agenda 2020 for smaller cities in other instances, then this could only benefit a Durban candidacy as well if that's the case.

I've always said that the first African Games would be more about the bigger picture versus it being about some beauty contest ie "glamor" city" It's not the African continent is riddled with many of those like the Western World is anyway). It's going to be about who's going to be the most feasible so we can finally make our presence there.

One things for sure though, once the South Africans finally do decide to come out & play, they are going to be a formidable opponent to reckon with & should not be seriously underestimated, cuz that would be a serious mistake by the competition.

As for Rome, while I agree it's going to be a very rough road ahead of them, saying they won't be a factor OTOH, is a bit much. Especially if both Paris & South Africa do refrain from 2024 in the end. Then their rough path would have been cleared from two huge obstacles.

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

If your argument is "Europe" versus the U.S., then it ain't like the IOC has ignored the European market either. Since the last time the U.S. hosted, Europe has hosted four times. In that sense, Europe has already had it's good share of the Olympic pie.

If you wanna make a case for Germany as a country, then that might be an argument that could hold some water. But when you say; Europe, then that argument doesn't really hold that much water anymore.

The only thing I believe standing in South Africa's way is the South Africans themselves. It's starting to look that they're likely going to shy away from 2024 as well, since it seems like they're biding their time & taking baby steps with other events first. But I wouldn't simply dismiss their chances that they wouldn't make much of an impact beyond the African bloc. The last continents that's yet to host is surely a huge narrative that simply won't go unnoticed, And especially when it's no secret within the hierarchy at the IOC (& others in the sport world) that an African Olympics should be in the cards sooner rather than later.

It's also not like Durban is that obscure to the IOC anyway, they did afterall have their 2011 session there where PyeongChang 2018 was elected. It's also been pointed out that on a technical standpoint, Durban makes the most sense for the South Africans than Cape Town does, ie the weather (during the IOC's preferred July-Aug timeframe), the infrastructure, etc. Some of you are making the argument about Agenda 2020 for smaller cities in other instances, then this could only benefit a Durban candidacy as well if that's the case.

I've always said that the first African Games would be more about the bigger picture versus it being about some beauty contest ie "glamor" city" It's not the African continent is riddled with many of those like the Western World is anyway). It's going to be about who's going to be the most feasible so we can finally make our presence there.

One things for sure though, once the South Africans finally do decide to come out & play, they are going to be a formidable opponent to reckon with & should not be seriously underestimated, cuz that would be a serious mistake by the competition.

As for Rome, while I agree it's going to be a very rough road ahead of them, saying they won't be a factor OTOH, is a bit much. Especially if both Paris & South Africa do refrain from 2024 in the end. Then their rough path would have been cleared from two huge obstacles.

You make a number of valid points, however I do feel the need to offer a different perspective on a few points you made:

Of course, the South Africans can play the "Rio card" and ask "What's wrong with this map?"; in fact, that will be a very effective strategy if the circumstances are right. But they aren't: South Africa despite being touted as a rising power is essentially two countries: a first-world nation in white neighbourhoods and a third-world nation in many black neighbourhoods. Brazil had seen widespread economic uplift across all classes by the time it re-applied for the World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. Racial tensions in South Africa still exist, far from the "rainbow nation" vision rightly propagated by Nelson Mandela - people like Julius Malema (the less said about him, the better really...a carbon-copy of Robert Mugabe, essentially) are gaining ground. The trade unions wage one strike after another, economic growth is declining and, quite frankly, Africa as a continent is not exactly well-developed in terms of consumer power - nor would an Olympic Games suddenly change that dynamic. Unlike in China, Brazil or even India, there is no huge middle class in South Africa (or even the wider region around it, i.e. Zimbabwe and Zambia, to name two examples) waiting in the wings. What's the point for the IOC, besides peddling itself once more as the paragon of sentimentality? I'm not saying it's utterly impossible, but I think if Durban is smart about this, they will sit it out until 2028 or 2032 when South Africa as a whole will hopefully be better developed. All of that said, Africa's time is coming - but as you correctly said, South Africans themselves have been doing a pretty good job at torpedoing their own credibility. Therefore, I don't share your optimism about a South African bid from Durban being virtually unbeatable. At the end of the day, the Olympic Games isn't just about a powerful narrative (though it's essential), it's about economic rationale and structural feasibility as well. Finally, hosting an IOC Session is one thing, hosting the Olympic Games quite another: on that count, we should be seeing an application from Copenhagen any moment now...

Next, my argument about "Europe" essentially meant Germany: We too can point at a timeline and point out: "What's wrong with this?". Germany is regularly in the top 3 of the medals table, has a history of real contribution to the Olympic Movement, excellent infrastructure, Europe's most powerful economy, proven experience in hosting international multi-sports events and is one of the more popular tourist destinations in the world. Our last Summer Games were in 1972 (marred by the incompetence of the local police and the lack of real federal security forces) and the last Winter Games occurred when a certain not-so-gentleman with a pencil moustache ran the country...now, not all is perfect in my home country: We Germans do have a talent for screwing up a good thing (yes, I'm looking at you, Berlin 2000 and Munich 2022) through lousy bidding and putting politicians in charge of what should be a process run by tough-as-nails corporate businessmen and former athletes. A future successful Olympics bid from Hamburg would do well to learn from Germany's 2006 World Cup bid: It was run by one of the world's most popular footballers: Franz Beckenbauer. So, I hope Hamburgers will be wise to understand this lesson. All that said, no, Hamburg has only taken the very first hurdle, with the referendum being the point where the public can screw this up for Germany (and sadly, NIMBYism has become a time-honoured tradition since the rise of the Green Party in our country, if not even earlier). So, judgment reserved.

I know it may be tiresome to some, but there is something inherently laughable about Rome being seriously considered (despite its crumbling infrastructure, de facto fiscal bankruptcy, a notoriously stagnant economy and heavy public debt exceeding Italy's capacities) despite Turin just having staged the Winter Games in 2006. The Italians, with all due respect, had their turn at the till. Unless they magically make their financial woes disappear, Rome will indeed not be a tangible factor - it may gather a few sympathy votes, but the IOC would quite simply be insane and mighty desperate to give Rome any credence at this stage. Especially after the legacy of an Olympic Games in the Mediterranean in 2004...No, thank you: one Athens legacy with white elephants was enough.

We'll just have to see how the next few months shape up, especially in Paris and Boston.

dysan1 brings up a good point that RSA is focusing on the Commonwealth Games. If they succeed, then they would probably be an even bigger threat, because of their test run they had with the CWG. If they came in now, it would be a bit shaky. Yes, it sounds nice and appealing to have a new frontier join the race, but they lack experience. So that brings up Paris. If Paris comes in, they could easily be the frontrunner. They have experience, and probably the most potential. Boston and Hamburg, while they stand a chance, they aren't really international cities. I would say they are more on a beta or gamma level in their respective countries.

I can't really speak for Americans and their relationship to Boston...However, no one in Germany would consider Hamburg a "beta", and even less a "gamma" city. It's the second-largest city in Germany, after Berlin...Who knew Barcelona prior to 1992? So, whilst Hamburg (maybe because of the fact that it was administered by the British armed forces after the war) may not be widely known in North America doesn't make it obscure. Just my two cents, really...

While I agree that it is very doubtful Le Pen will being moving into the Elysee Palace when the IOC votes it is still a possibility. Even the French Prime Minister is saying it's possible. Personally I hope Sarkozy can pull enough votes to win and keep Le Pen out of power.

Valls is just using the "Le Pen might get in" line to whip up Socialist votes and have them coalesce around him as a presidential candidate to succeed Hollande in 2017. Well, Sarkozy II depends on him not getting embroiled in yet another corruption scandal - the French forgive infidelity...but corruption? Not so much.

[BR2028]

I can't really speak for Americans and their relationship to Boston...However, no one in Germany would consider Hamburg a "beta", and even less a "gamma" city. It's the second-largest city in Germany, after Berlin...Who knew Barcelona prior to 1992? So, whilst Hamburg (maybe because of the fact that it was administered by the British armed forces after the war) may not be widely known in North America doesn't make it obscure. Just my two cents, really...

Um...Hamburg is very well known to the general American populace and I'm sure the same can be said for other North American's. As you say, Hamburg is the second largest city in the worlds 5th largest country.

[FYI]

1) Therefore, I don't share your optimism about a South African bid from Durban being virtually unbeatable.

2) At the end of the day, the Olympic Games isn't just about a powerful narrative (though it's essential), it's about economic rationale and structural feasibility as well.

3) Finally, hosting an IOC Session is one thing, hosting the Olympic Games quite another: on that count, we should be seeing an application from Copenhagen any moment now...

1) I didn't say that a bid from Durban would be virtually unbeatable. What I was countering was where I don't share your pessimistic assertion that a bid from them wouldn't get get passed the African bloc. As you mentioned with Rio, the map game would go well beyond that.

2) Precisely why Durban makes the most sense than Cape Town does, by the points I illustrated in my last post. By "economic rationale & structural feasibility" (among some other things), Durban is the obvious choice for South Africa.

3) You've taken that outta context. I didn't mention the session as a reason for why Durban could host an Olympics. I mentioned it cuz your argument is that Durban as a city is not that well-known as Cape Town is.

In the sense I intended it to be, the 2011 session served as a catalyst for IOC members (who are the ones who actually votes on the Games, btw) who have now gotten themselves familiarized with this relatively unknown city, where otherwise they wouldn't have without the session.

Next, my argument about "Europe" essentially meant Germany: We too can point at a timeline and point out: "What's wrong with this?". Germany is regularly in the top 3 of the medals table, has a history of real contribution to the Olympic Movement, excellent infrastructure, Europe's most powerful economy, proven experience in hosting international multi-sports and is one of the more popular tourist destinations in the world.

While I agree with most of your points there (which any of those could just as also be easily made for the U.S. as well, & especially in the contribution dept. with the recent sweet revenue deal the IOC got at the expense of the USOC), I don't believe a "timeline" narrative would pose that well for a German bid, however. These things aren't exactly linear, & if they were, then Paris woulda hosted 2012 instead of London.

1) I can't really speak for Americans and their relationship to Boston...However, no one in Germany would consider Hamburg a "beta", and even less a "gamma" city. It's the second-largest city in Germany, after Berlin...

2) Who knew Barcelona prior to 1992?

3) So, whilst Hamburg (maybe because of the fact that it was administered by the British armed forces after the war) may not be widely known in North America doesn't make it obscure. Just my two cents, really....

1) Well, but that is speaking from a German perspective, though. On an international level, however, Hamburg would be considered as a Beta city.

2) Juan Antonio Samaranch.

3) Same could be said of Boston, though. Just bcuz you Europeans aren't that familiar with it doesn't make it obscure. It's still one of our countries most historical cities & also truly is a beautiful waterfront harbor city, even if it's not one of our Alpha cities. It's also a big business city & th main hub for all of New England. So relatively speaking, both Boston & Hamburg are on par with one another, IMHO.

[baron-pierreIV]

I wanna see the mascot, torch and medal designs by tomorrow!!

[StefanMUC]

I wanna see the mascot, torch and medal designs by tomorrow!!

Mascot is here:

http://www.spox.com/de/sport/fussball/1309/Bilder/uwe-seeler-514.jpg

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

1) I didn't say that a bid from Durban would be virtually unbeatable. What I was countering was where I don't share your pessimistic assertion that a bid from them wouldn't get get passed the African bloc. As you mentioned with Rio, the map game would go well beyond that.

2) Precisely why Durban makes the most sense than Cape Town does, by the points I illustrated in my last post. By "economic rationale & structural feasibility" (among some other things), Durban is the obvious choice for South Africa.

3) You've taken that outta context. I didn't mention the session as a reason for why Durban could host an Olympics. I mentioned it cuz your argument is that Durban as a city is not that well-known as Cape Town is.

In the sense I intended it to be, the 2011 session served as a catalyst for IOC members (who are the ones who actually votes on the Games, btw) who have now gotten themselves familiarized with this relatively unknown city, where otherwise they wouldn't have without the session.

While I agree with most of your points there (which any of those could just as also be easily made for the U.S. as well, & especially in the contribution dept. with the recent sweet revenue deal the IOC got at the expense of the USOC), I don't believe a "timeline" narrative would pose that well for a German bid, however. These things aren't exactly linear, & if they were, then Paris woulda hosted 2012 instead of London.

1) Well, but that is speaking from a German perspective, though. On an international level, however, Hamburg would be considered as a Beta city.

2) Juan Antonio Samaranch.

3) Same could be said of Boston, though. Just bcuz you Europeans aren't that familiar with it doesn't make it obscure. It's still one of our countries most historical cities & also truly is a beautiful waterfront harbor city, even if it's not one of our Alpha cities. It's also a big business city & th main hub for all of New England. So relatively speaking, both Boston & Hamburg are on par with one another, IMHO.

I'm sure we could continue this exchange of ideas for a while. For instance, I could equally rebut

1) Yes, I could say the exact same thing about Boston. It's a pretty city, it has some colonial history and is (alongside Philadelphia) arguably the cradle of the modern United States. All very impressive - but still largely not having as much of a cachet as, say, New York. And before you attempt to make the same point about Hamburg (fairly renowned port city, second-largest city in Germany, one of the largest metropolitan areas in Europe) - I readily concede that it is quite simply not as well-known as Berlin or even Frankfurt.

2) The same can go for Hamburg and a certain Mr Thomas Bach - who, sadly (from my German perspective) is no Juan Antonio Samaranch. But I didn't pose the question from an IOC insider's perspective, but in terms of international name recognition. I'm fairly certain that not a lot of people (besides avid travellers to the Iberian Peninsula) had Barcelona on their list of cities to travel to.

3) Well, I can't speak for all of, as you phrased it so eloquently, "us Europeans", but I'm fairly well-acquainted with Boston, New England, Paul Revere, the works. Yes, Hamburg and Boston are on par - I never attempted to claim anything else.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree - we're evidently approaching this from different legitimate perspectives and that's quite alright. Cheers!

[p85]

Mascot is here:

http://www.spox.com/de/sport/fussball/1309/Bilder/uwe-seeler-514.jpg

They could use Elphi as a very modern mascot

[StefanMUC]

They could use Elphi as a very modern mascot

But it would be an incomplete mascot! Barcelona didn't use Sagrada Familia either ;-)

[FYI]

The same can go for Hamburg and a certain Mr Thomas Bach - who, sadly (from my German perspective) is no Juan Antonio Samaranch. But I didn't pose the question from an IOC insider's perspective, but in terms of international name recognition. I'm fairly certain that not a lot of people (besides avid travellers to the Iberian Peninsula) had Barcelona on their list of cities to travel to.

Yes, I knew what you meant, but my mention of JAS is precisely why Barcelona got as far as it did. Him finaging things to position his Hometown with a huge advantage. And unless Bach is willing to pull such similar extreme strings for Hamburg, I don't see the two circumstances nearly as being equal. Where Barcelona ranked is tourism before 1992 is irrelevant in this instance.

Besides, it's been noted already, that Bach isn't even from Hamburg & if he didn't lobby that much for Munich 2018 (which would be the closet a bid from Germany has come from his hometown of Wurzburg) then much less for Hamburg 2024 is likely.

Yes, Hamburg and Boston are on par - I never attempted to claim anything else.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree - we're evidently approaching this from different legitimate perspectives and that's quite alright. Cheers!

I don't know if that's necessarily the case, though, TBH. What I'm hearing (& including from you) from the Hamburg camp is that in essence Boston isn't up to snuff due to "it's not New York, etc". While I also readily concede that to be true, it's not looking like Boston will have to face Germany's premier city of Berlin, either. So it's an even playing field in that instance.

Like I've mentioned before, if Paris & South Africa both refrain, & all we have are Rome, Boston & Hamburg as the only serious 2024 contenders, then it's really an open bid race, IMHO, & anyone of the three (& yes, that even includes Rome) can take this is all I'm saying.

Sorry if "I don't share the same optimism" for Hamburg as some of you are trying to prop it. I think that's mainly where are disagreement & 'exchange of ideas from legitimate different perspectives' comes in.

[Quaker2001]

2) The same can go for Hamburg and a certain Mr Thomas Bach - who, sadly (from my German perspective) is no Juan Antonio Samaranch. But I didn't pose the question from an IOC insider's perspective, but in terms of international name recognition. I'm fairly certain that not a lot of people (besides avid travellers to the Iberian Peninsula) had Barcelona on their list of cities to travel to.

To echo FYI's sentiments.. what Samaranch did with Barcelona in 1992 is not something that is likely to be repeated here with Bach. Aside from the fact that Barcelona was JAS's home CITY and not just his home country, he manipulated elements of that vote to help get Barcelona elected and to try and cover up how much he was in favor of it even though he's supposed to be neutral. That's not going to happen here with Bach because he has little control over who else is bidding. Part of the story with that vote in `86 is that Samaranch wanted additional cities to enter the race to give the illusion that it was a real competition even though - especially once they put the Winter vote first and that hurt Paris's case - it wasn't much in doubt who would win. And you see by the voting results that as cities dropped out, Barcelona was the only other city that made significant gains.

Beyond that though, since I know you're talking as much about name recognition as anything, remember that Barcelona had previously bid for an Olympics and had a lot in place before their `92 bid came to be. The same cannot be said of Hamburg. So to compare them against each other with regard to the circumstances of an Olympic bid, that heavily tips the scales towards Barcelona.

1 other thing I want to throw out there, and chalk this up to me being a dumb American (or an arrogant New Yorker) if you're like..

To me, the 3 most recognizable cities in Germany are Berlin, Munich, and Frankfurt. Hamburg is a distant 4th. I know population-wise they're #2, but I look at the 2006 World Cup where Munich had the opening game and Berlin had the final. Hamburg's biggest game was a Quarterfinal. I understand the arguments for putting them forth as Germany's Olympic bid and there are definitely some parallels with Boston there. And to me, neither is necessarily the best of what either country has to offer.

[Tulsa]

Hambourg isn't the best choice for Germany. Berlin or Munich could be better, less expensive. Moreover isn't the sexiest german city.

Will there a referendum like for Munich 2022 before the bid process ?

[Faster]

I wouldn't classify any German city as sexy.

[Olympian2004]

Beyond that though, since I know you're talking as much about name recognition as anything, remember that Barcelona had previously bid for an Olympics and had a lot in place before their `92 bid came to be. The same cannot be said of Hamburg. So to compare them against each other with regard to the circumstances of an Olympic bid, that heavily tips the scales towards Barcelona.

If you mean by "had a lot in place" that Barcelona had built up the structures and the know how of an Olympic bid before the 1992 bid: No, not really. Its last Olympic bid before the 1992 bid was for the 1940 Games, a wholly different period in modern Olympic history. So Barcelona had actually no previous experience in a modern, complex Olympic bid race by the time the 1992 bidding process came about.

Hamburg, on the other hand, does actually have quite a bit of experience in a modern Olympic bid race: It was a candidate on the national level for the 2012 Games, losing to Leipzig's bid.

[Quaker2001]

If you mean by "had a lot in place" that Barcelona had built up the structures and the know how of an Olympic bid before the 1992 bid: No, not really. Its last Olympic bid before the 1992 bid was for the 1940 Games, a wholly different period in modern Olympic history. So Barcelona had actually no previous experience in a modern, complex Olympic bid race by the time the 1992 bidding process came about.

Hamburg, on the other hand, does actually have quite a bit of experience in a modern Olympic bid race: It was a candidate on the national level for the 2012 Games, losing to Leipzig's bid.

That's a domestic competition, so I don't know if that qualifies as "quite a bit of experience" particularly when that hasn't brought them into the international arena.

You're right that Barcelona's previous Olympic experience was well in the past (and that's significant for them given the political history of the city). However, think about how many of the venues were already in place. The Olympic Stadium was already in place. Not 1 but 2 aquatics venues already built. And many other venues in place. So it's not like they put things together from scratch. Not to mention it was the perfect and time place for urban redevelopment having just emerged out of the Franco era.

I don't know much about Hamburg and what they have to offer. But again, to compare them to Barcelona in that time and place (which isn't even to account for the Samaranch factor) isn't being fair to the 2 cities.

[LatinXTC]

I wouldn't classify any German city as sexy.

I disagree. Looking at Hamburg pics it's quite an attractive city. Although I think Koln/Cologne is much sexier.

And what exactly would you consider a sexy city? NYC? LA? I hope not. As entertaining as those cities are, looking at pics they look like the token semen-dumpster at their local rundown bathhouses.

[Citius Altius Fortius]

Elphi will be opened in January 2017...

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

Elphi will be opened in January 2017...

Elphi?

[Citius Altius Fortius]

Elbphilharmonie = Elphi

Somebody wrote that it would be an unfinished landmark for the Olympics, but it will be opened in 2017

The Elbphilharmonie is right on the other side of the river Elbe - next to the proposed Olympic Park

[baron-pierreIV]

Who can forget Leipzig?? LEIPZIG!! LEIPZIG!!!

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

Who can forget Leipzig?? LEIPZIG!! LEIPZIG!!!

Horrific Leipzig - let that disgrace be forgotten asap...

[dysan1]

I personally think Hamburg is an apt choice. Munich would be a nightmare logistically. Berlin might have an image globally, but as city if you rub off its hipster elements I personally find it lacking to Hamburg, Munich and Cologne. And look at that central island plan for Hamburg. It has long term usage and integration written all over it.

As Paris. Gosh I don't know why people go on and on about the place so much, as a city it is a catastrophe to get anywhere as it is and probably the most filthy city in western Europe.

Boston I was totally surprised by. It is a nice city, but it almost seems the US is not serious about this bid.

And Rome... ahhh... the next Greece?

You guys say 2024 seems exciting. Seems a bit of a snore. I say we need to phone them middle eastern to bid and cause some scandals

[JO2024]

As Paris. Gosh I don't know why people go on and on about the place so much, as a city it is a catastrophe to get anywhere as it is and probably the most filthy city in western Europe.

Ahaha! Errr...Are you for real?

[StefanMUC]

I personally think Hamburg is an apt choice. Munich would be a nightmare logistically.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think Munich is a logistic nightmare?