FYI Posted October 6, 2014 Report Share Posted October 6, 2014 That's a great counter-point.. bring up a completely unrelated post of mine and give the old "how is that any different." As if 1 has anything to do with the other. This place really does have the mentality of a high school locker room! Do you actually have your own opinion on that one or do you just not like the manner in which I gave my opinion. Because that would be very much like a certain other poster here (who I won't name since, again, I'm playing your game and offering a backhanded slap to another poster without actually mentioning their name ). It's totally related in CONTEXT. You're offering YOUR opinion as fact based on something you "think" is likely going to be fact next year. Which I'm not saying that it isn't, only that it isn't concrete as you're saying it is. So I don't see how that's "completely unrelated", other than you just saying it is. Yeah, that type of argument is totally similar to whom you're trying to refer to without naming them. :-P Interesting how we've now upgraded the competition though. Before it was "the likes of Munich, St. moritz, Stockholm, Oslo, Krakow (& whoever else) like initially anticipated." Now is a strong repeat Munich bid and a strong Swiss bid and two strong Scandinavian bids and a good darkhorse in Krakow. You know what.. any bid would have trouble competing in that field, Denver or otherwise. So what's you're problem then?! Are you saying that all those cities wouldn't be stellar competition in such a race. Adding a couple of words to the point doesn't make it upgrading but rather taking it a step further to try & illustrate why it would be tough for a bid like Denver. And add another bad equation to their mix, & that could make it a serious uphill climb for them. So you're just grasping at straws & playing semantics, since I haven't "upgraded" anything. I don't want to have this same argument over again, particularly if we're going to try and create situations where Denver would or wouldn't have a better chance to win. Because I agree with you that in a strong field where the geopolitics of the bid probably point towards Europe (and they would for 2026) that Denver would have a tough go of it. I just get tired of hearing how matter-of-factly some people talk about how the IOC is going to react to Denver's history. Well, but this is what we all do around here on gamesbids, talk about so many Olympic hypotheticals, cuz it's what we do best. So if you "get tired" of hearing about such repetative things, then don't comment on them & make it yet another round of like debate since you brought it up with zeke in the first place here. It's that simple. And then it doesn't become another "high school locker room". :-P Since I know I have to spell this out very clearly less you mis-represent my position.. I'm in no way saying it won't be a factor. It's part of the equation. But we don't know for sure that it's this automatic negative, as if the IOC has already passed judgment on a bid that hasn't been put in front of them based on that very specific element. And since you referenced my comment on Shanghai, I'm going to play your game here.. yes, I stand by that conviction, just like you stand by your conviction about Durban that based on the right combination of circumstances, they'll win. Not much of a conviction really. As opposed to my saying Shanghai won't get 2028 or 2032 if Beijing gets 2022. That's a much more simple equation (and based on exactly 1 variable that we'll know the answer to in less than a year) and I didn't talk about strong competition. I said no chance in a field that includes any legitimate competition. Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot. Since I'm not saying (& never have) that it "won't" be a factor, either. Just like Beijing getting 2022 could or could not be a factor in China getting another Olympics within ten years or so. And that's why I brought them up. Simply bcuz it's more than likely to be a fact in less than a year, doesn't mean that automatically makes a hypothetical Shanghai 2028/2032 bid as a "no chance", like you say, "much more simple equation" or not. "Strong competition or legitimate competition" is not really a difference other than another line of semantics. To use another one of your lines "we don't know for sure that it's an automatic negative, as if the IOC has already passed judgement on a bid that hasn't been put in front of them based on that very specific element". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 So what's you're problem then?! Are you saying that all those cities wouldn't be stellar competition in such a race. Adding a couple of words to the point doesn't make it upgrading but rather taking it a step further to try & illustrate why it would be tough for a bid like Denver. And add another bad equation to their mix, & that could make it a serious uphill climb for them. So you're just grasping at straws & playing semantics, since I haven't "upgraded" anything. Well, but this is what we all do around here on gamesbids, talk about so many Olympic hypotheticals, cuz it's what we do best. So if you "get tired" of hearing about such repetative things, then don't comment on them & make it yet another round of like debate since you brought it up with zeke in the first place here. It's that simple. And then it doesn't become another "high school locker room". :-P Well first off, Denver got brought up because someone earlier mentioned the R word, which is pretty much the ultimate troll bait here as we all know. Yea, shame on me for playing into the conversation, but if I'm going to be the guy who jokes about topic drift here, I might as well participate, right? So yea, I said my bit on Denver. Then zeke digs up the conversation several days and several pages later. After which, you feel the need to jump in. What pisses me off about the Denver rhetoric around here is that some people still stick to their absolutes (as if that's atypical of GB) and when I offer up the idea that maybe that's not the case in reality as opposed to here on these boards, someone else has to counter with "well, you know there's history there, right?" I know there's history. You know I know there's history. Yet every time this topic comes up, and this is far from the first time you and I have discussed it, you feel the need to remind me there's history to be taken into account. As if I'm not aware of that. You (and others) and I obviously disagree on what that history means. Let's agree to leave it because we've strayed so far from the original point I brought up, we're barely having the same debate anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 7, 2014 Report Share Posted October 7, 2014 And Molly Brown can't do a damn thing about it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 After which, you feel the need to jump in. What pisses me off about the Denver rhetoric around here is that some people still stick to their absolutes (as if that's atypical of GB) and when I offer up the idea that maybe that's not the case in reality as opposed to here on these boards, someone else has to counter with "well, you know there's history there, right?" I know there's history. You know I know there's history. Yet every time this topic comes up, and this is far from the first time you and I have discussed it, you feel the need to remind me there's history to be taken into account. As if I'm not aware of that. You (and others) and I obviously disagree on what that history means. Geez, Quaker. Can you be anymore patronizing & hypocritical. I don't "feel the need" to "jump in" anywhere anymore than you do on these topics. Or the need to remind you of Denver's history anymore than you feeling the need to remind the rest of us that we don't know any better. I certainly don't have an "absolute" on the matter, as I've stated earlier (& even the others times that this has been brought up). Maybe others do, but don't lump me in with them simply bcuz I don't necessarily agree with you, either. There's also no need to get "pissed off" about these things, either. Gamesbids isn't life or death here. Let's agree to leave it because we've strayed so far from the original point I brought up, we're barely having the same debate anymore. Couldn't agree more. Which is why we coulda done without this reply that you 'felt the need' to do over 24hours later, even though you've been posting elsewhere since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 AFAIK, the entire head-of-state-must-go-to-the-IOC thing is a new phenomenon. If I recall correctly, it was Tony Blair who did it first when he popped in just before the voting for the 2012 Games. I don't have any recollection of Chirac (or would it have been Sarkozy by then?) ever being mentioned as present at the voting. Bill Clinton didn't go when SLC was selected, Bush wasn't there when Atlanta was voted on. My memory is that Blair's visit was a surprise to the IOC and was cited as a factor in London's prevailing over Paris for 2012. So much so that every candidate city's delegation as included its head of state since. Sydney had Paul Keating come (Blanco introduced him) and I know John Major enthusiastically supported Manchester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Sydney had Paul Keating come (Blanco introduced him) and I know John Major enthusiastically supported Manchester. Likewise Bob Hawke drummed up support for Melbourne 1996 in Tokyo in 1990. National leader at the IOC session likely started around this time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binary Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 This article on the sf front just popped up: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-upping-the-ante-to-win-bid-for-2024-Olympics-5815859.php basically it outlines that they're looking for a more compact bid + infrastructure improvements. Also interesting it seems that they're sticking with candlestick as the main stadium site, and there is no mention of a new raiders stadium serving as the main stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 This article on the sf front just popped up: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-upping-the-ante-to-win-bid-for-2024-Olympics-5815859.php basically it outlines that they're looking for a more compact bid + infrastructure improvements. Also interesting it seems that they're sticking with candlestick as the main stadium site, and there is no mention of a new raiders stadium serving as the main stadium. Thanks for that. Hah. So they're gonna go with a temp stadium but actually just south of the SF border; in Brisbane. Mmmmm. It's "across from Candlestick...and across Fwy 101. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7060883,-122.4075031,16z So beside the Brisbane CalTrain station (upper right); and down the street from the 75-year old Cow Palace. There is a lot of open land there...but not much else. I wonder where the Village will be?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binary Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 deferring to your local expertise baron. Is hunter's point and the area on candlestick viable. Why or why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Rumors that the Raiders are planning to move have been surfacing. Maybe that's why there's no mention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 As foolish as it sounds to throw away $500 million on a temporary stadium, it's probably the least stupid way of building an Olympic stadium in the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 deferring to your local expertise baron. Is hunter's point and the area on candlestick viable. Why or why not? This is all I know about what's planned for Hunter's Point and Candlestick after it goes down... http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/10/mega_development_and_housing_approved_for_candlestick_site.php (So I don't know if they can switch those HP - Candlestick plans at the last minute to become the O. Village?) I also think there's a deeper reason for placing the temp stadium in Brisbane, just south of the SF City/County border. Brisbane's labor costs are NOT as high as SF; so they might save a couple of millions with less expensive labor. But still, the cheapest a temp, state-of-the-art stadium will be at least $350 million. Here was something from NBC News, July 24, 2014 - http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/San-Francisco-Bids-for-the-2024-Olympic-Games-268480402.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I think if Oakland's Coliseum City's plans solidify, that would be a more sensible and economical alternative than a brand new temp/pop-up stadium out in that field in Brisbane. Yes, B is geographically closer to SF proper but not much there in terms of support. At least, the Oakland Coliseum City will have 2 other stadia beside it; an existing stadium that can be configured for Olympic use; and a more versatile BART/Oakland Airport connector than the CalTrain station at Brisbane. What? Maybe $60-70 million to adapt and deconstruct the new Warriors Stadium, if it happens, rather than $350 million for a structure seeing 1 month's use and then poof, gone like a wisp of smoke?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Looks like Brisbane could get their Olympics afterall! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I think if Oakland's Coliseum City's plans solidify, that would be a more sensible and economical alternative than a brand new temp/pop-up stadium out in that field in Brisbane. Yes, B is geographically closer to SF proper but not much there in terms of support. At least, the Oakland Coliseum City will have 2 other stadia beside it; an existing stadium that can be configured for Olympic use; and a more versatile BART/Oakland Airport connector than the CalTrain station at Brisbane. What? Maybe $60-70 million to adapt and deconstruct the new Warriors Stadium, if it happens, rather than $350 million for a structure seeing 1 month's use and then poof, gone like a wisp of smoke?!?! That's the problem though, it's still an if. Maybe the organizers know some information that we don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 That's the problem though, it's still an if. Maybe the organizers know some information that we don't? Obviously, they're NOT sharing too many things yet. I tried contacting Anne Cribbs (who usually answers my queries quite quickly); but as I said before, when I get no response, you can read that as "can't talk about it." But SF should have a plan B; and if Coliseum City comes thru, I'd go with that -- if it were up to me. I'm sure they're talking somehow because in whatever state Oracle Arena and the "As"/Raiders Stadium are at, those 2 venues will figure into the overall SF plan. Only problem is, Oakland and the State are going thru elections next month, so the Northern California Olympic Bid planning is taking a back seat for now. And the financing for the fabled TransBay Terminal has fallen through, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted October 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Obama Presidential Library to be on sight of proposed Athletes Village for Chicago 2016: The irony of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Obama Presidential Library to be on sight of proposed Athletes Village for Chicago 2016: The irony of this... Why ironic? It's not like Obama tried to scuttle Chicago 2016 or was against the Olympics the way Carter tried to sabotage Moscow 1980 and then the Centennial Olympic Games instead came to his doorstep in Atlanta. That's ironic. I see nothing ironic about the Michael Reed lot ending up with Obama's Library. They had to put something in there and the Library too had to find a site; so that's actually a most auspicious location. Nothing ironic about it since the site might still have been designated the Library site EVEN after Chicago had played host and the Village did end up rising there. After all, Obama's term ends in 2017 and a Presidential Library usually rises 2 years after a president's departure from office at the earliest. Actually, I think what you mean is how 'coincidental' or 'serendipitous' for this development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Why ironic? It's not like Obama tried to scuttle Chicago 2016 or was against the Olympics the way Carter tried to sabotage Moscow 1980 and then the Centennial Olympic Games instead came to his doorstep in Atlanta. That's ironic. I see nothing ironic about the Michael Reed lot ending up with Obama's Library. They had to put something in there and the Library too had to find a site; so that's actually a most auspicious location. Nothing ironic about it since the site might still have been designated the Library site EVEN after Chicago had played host and the Village did end up rising there. After all, Obama's term ends in 2015 and a Presidential Library usually rises 2 years after a president's departure from office at the earliest. Actually, I think what you mean is how 'coincidental' or 'serendipitous' for this development. Obama's term ends in 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Obama's term ends in 2017. Maybe Baron knows something we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Obama's term ends in 2017. It was a typo. Am so busy these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 This doesn't have to do with or even mention the Olympics, but given who the author is, figure I'd share it with the crowd here.. New York’s Next Big Thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 This doesn't have to do with or even mention the Olympics, but given who the author is, figure I'd share it with the crowd here.. New York’s Next Big Thing Omits any connection to any Olympic plan. And there goes the idea of the Village. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 It was a typo. Am so busy these days. Typo or not, you're not completely wrong. A presidential term doesn't end until the middle of January after the end of the most recent election if he has met his term limit or he loses the race. So his term does end in 2017, technically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Typo or not, you're not completely wrong. A presidential term doesn't end until the middle of January after the end of the most recent election if he has met his term limit or he loses the race. So his term does end in 2017, technically speaking. Exactly. Sometimes the outgoing Chief Executive even rushes some appts and little bits of legislation that s/he can, of course dated in the new year. And actually, Chicago landed two plum institutions this year: the Obama Presidential Library and the George Lucas Film Museum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.