Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

I'm polarizing? You're not even extending the debate. You're just trying to suppress the debate (as usual) because it doesn't meet your lofty standard in regards to the amount of information or "evidence." This place isn't a court room, Nor is it "journalism, business or academia." If you think the line of discussion is pointless, then don't participate. If the rest of us do want to discuss a topic, even based on speculation, guesswork, and limited information.. stop telling us we shouldn't be talking about it. I do find it funny though that where the rest of us offer up reasons why Dallas might have been eliminated from the list, your response is that you "threw a couple random ideas out there as a way of demonstrating how much we don't know and the range of possible explanations." So in other words, you did exactly what the rest of us were doing and then telling us it's pointless. [sarcasm]Yea, that makes a lot of sense. And not condescending at all.[/sarcasm]

On many an occasion, this forum is about speculation and conjecture and guesswork. You need to not be so taken aback every time that happens. Not to speak for FYI but since he and I seem to agree on this point (you can save the Bobbsey Twins comment), we don't get off on arguing with you. This is our response to you attitude here when you start bitching and moaning about what people are talking about because you seem oblivious to how people perceive you here and how annoying it is for the rest of us. Put us all on ignore if that makes it easier. Either way, get over it.

I'm not suppressing anything. I couldn't even if I wanted to. I'm just not participating. You can argue without facts to your hearts' content.

And last I checked, I'm entitled to my opinion just like anyone else -- even if you don't care for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'd like to try and reason with everyone about ditching- or resolving- the arguments about debating, maybe I need to end this by addressing the elephant in the room.

On one hand, I simply disagree with Athens; the numbers game is important because this isn't normal times for either the IOC or the USOC. If anything, it's important for any country to show the maximum possible support for the Olympics. (It doesn't mean I have to win the argument. Of course, out of principle, maybe I should misspell something. :D )

OTOH... I stayed with my parents in a small town outside Atlanta (really, outside Athens) during the 1996 Olympics. We walk into the local Dairy Queen for a quick bite. There's six employees... separated by race. There was no way to spin that this was a comfortable feeling. Where Dallas is similar to Atlanta is the Old South problem. Since you're happening to host the world for a couple weeks, better projection might be required. Dallas might be a little better than that (my last visit there, it was obvious there that it's still inner city vs white suburbs)... but social readiness is more required than even we're probably comfortable addressing.

California has its issues, but it scores better. Heck, Boston has known issues, but it tries. I know Washington is south of the Mason-Dixon Line, and I know staying in rural Maryland a couple nights reminded me of that... but it also has to represent a fair number of interests in its day-to-day work. My wife would have certainly had a problem with Dallas that she won't for the other cities... except there's a reason she left Fresno, and the Washington climate is a bit too similar.

That doesn't mean Atlanta was a complete mistake... sometimes you have to try, take a stand (I think of what Sydney tried to do, for instance)... but this may not be the time to go on one of those adventures. I still think the numbers are important, however.

The IOC has a PR problem. These domestic bid preparations have almost no bearing on it, for the most part, the public isn't even aware of what's happening so a longer shortlist isn't going to help the Olympic Movement in any way.

Every other country considering a bid has already narrowed down the options to a single city, except perhaps Germany who is weighing two. All that matters is the quality of the final bid city and the number of quality bids received by the IOC.

The USOC can only submit one bid. Who cares about a longer shortlist? It doesn't improve the public image of the Olympics and it has no bearing on American chances of winning. The USOC started by talking to 35 cities. If that doesn't satisfy a desire for "numbers," I don't know what will.

The ONLY reason to keep cities on a shortlist would be because the USOC believes any one of those cities is capable of creating a compelling bid that is capable of winning where Chicago and NYC failed. I don't think DC will ever be in that camp and I suspect SF won't be either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY reason to keep cities on a shortlist would be because the USOC believes any one of those cities is capable of creating a compelling bid that is capable of winning where Chicago and NYC failed. I don't think DC will ever be in that camp and I suspect SF won't be either.

Or because they want bribes cities to continue sucking up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houston is prone to hurricanes, such as Ike in 2008.

So is the entire Southern half of the US not to mention the East Coast *cough* Sandy *cough*. Just because a place is prone to natural disasters that may or may not happen should not exclude them from consideration.

It's like LA/SF with earthquakes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think discussion of hypothetical natural disasters has any place in a conversation about Olympic bids. It's one thing to be ask about excessive rain in London or oppressive heat in Doha. Those are ongoing conditions. But there is no point in debating what freak catastrophe might strike. The entire globe is subject to surprise phenomena.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think discussion of hypothetical natural disasters has any place in a conversation about Olympic bids. It's one thing to be ask about excessive rain in London or oppressive heat in Doha. Those are ongoing conditions. But there is no point in debating what freak catastrophe might strike. The entire globe is subject to surprise phenomena.

I do. But you have to make a distinction between someplace where a natural disaster is "possible" vs one where it is "reasonablly likely." I'm not sure where the line gets draw. A 5% chance? 10%.

The risk of hurricane is enough to keep Miami (or Havanna) from every hosting (IMO); while the rish of an earthquake in LA isn't took great. The line is somewhere in between.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do. But you have to make a distinction between someplace where a natural disaster is "possible" vs one where it is "reasonablly likely." I'm not sure where the line gets draw. A 5% chance? 10%.

The risk of hurricane is enough to keep Miami (or Havanna) from every hosting (IMO); while the rish of an earthquake in LA isn't took great. The line is somewhere in between.

Hurricane season is usually later in the year. I don't see a July Olympics being a problem for Miami or Havana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suppressing anything. I couldn't even if I wanted to. I'm just not participating. You can argue without facts to your hearts' content.

And last I checked, I'm entitled to my opinion just like anyone else -- even if you don't care for it.

Except that you are participating. You're offering your opinion. And yes, you're entitled to that opinion. If you don't want to speculate or extrapolate about certain things and your opinion is "I don't see enough information to form an opinion," that's fine. And I may counter that and say I do see enough information to form an opinion. What would be the fun if we had the same opinion. There wouldn't be much to discuss.

Here's my thing.. I know that I'm forming opinions based on limited information and offering speculation and conjecture. You and everyone else know that as well. All I'm saying is please don't belittle our posts (mine and others) by saying it's pointless to argue without facts and we're wasting our lives talking about it. If you think that way about a topic, no one is going to take umbrage with it. But if others want to extend the discussion beyond the point you're interested in and/or the amount of information that is out there, there's little reason not to just let it happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that you are participating. You're offering your opinion. And yes, you're entitled to that opinion. If you don't want to speculate or extrapolate about certain things and your opinion is "I don't see enough information to form an opinion," that's fine. And I may counter that and say I do see enough information to form an opinion. What would be the fun if we had the same opinion. There wouldn't be much to discuss.

Here's my thing.. I know that I'm forming opinions based on limited information and offering speculation and conjecture. You and everyone else know that as well. All I'm saying is please don't belittle our posts (mine and others) by saying it's pointless to argue without facts and we're wasting our lives talking about it. If you think that way about a topic, no one is going to take umbrage with it. But if others want to extend the discussion beyond the point you're interested in and/or the amount of information that is out there, there's little reason not to just let it happen.

I'm participating in these boards, but I have not weighed in on that issue since I said I was done with it.

The only way for me to enjoy this forum is to engage only on those topics that seem interesting and fruitful. Weakly supported extrapolation and presumption doesn't fit the bill.

To each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm participating in these boards, but I have not weighed in on that issue since I said I was done with it.

The only way for me to enjoy this forum is to engage only on those topics that seem interesting and fruitful. Weakly supported extrapolation and presumption doesn't fit the bill.

To each their own.

I'd say what I think about that, but best to keep such thoughts to oneself.

You're right about the last point.. to each their own. That one I agree with you on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurricane season is usually later in the year. I don't see a July Olympics being a problem for Miami or Havana.

Hurricane season starts primarily in June, the higher risks involve the end of July- August.

So yes any Southern city vying to host the games runs that risk with the most dangerous point of the season falling during the games. However, for more Northern cities in the Gulf Coast region the odds are lower. Any Hurricane that works it's way into the Gulf is going to hit or at least touch by Miami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what work against a city like Miami or Houston, more than the potential for extreme weather, is the expected weather. They are simply too hot and oppressive and would require far too many of the events to be staged at night. I remember hearing stories that the IOC felt hoodwinked by the Atlanta organizers when they presented Atlanta as having a mean summer temperature in the mid-80's (F). Atlanta averaged their mean daytime temp (95F) with their mean night time temp (75F) in order to appear more temperate. The IOC loves seeing world records set, which is much more difficult when athletes are on the sidelines suffering from heat stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what work against a city like Miami or Houston, more than the potential for extreme weather, is the expected weather. They are simply too hot and oppressive and would require far too many of the events to be staged at night. I remember hearing stories that the IOC felt hoodwinked by the Atlanta organizers when they presented Atlanta as having a mean summer temperature in the mid-80's (F). Atlanta averaged their mean daytime temp (95F) with their mean night time temp (75F) in order to appear more temperate. The IOC loves seeing world records set, which is much more difficult when athletes are on the sidelines suffering from heat stroke.

The best way to prevent that is to construct stadiums that take heat and typical weather circumstances into account. If a city takes that into account when planning the event they are more likely to escape the heat problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way to prevent that is to construct stadiums that take heat and typical weather circumstances into account. If a city takes that into account when planning the event they are more likely to escape the heat problems.

Providing air conditioning to a domed 90,000 capacity athletics stadium would be MUCH more expensive than a similarly sized open air stadium. It would also be very difficult to downsize a domed stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 'summer' atmosphere also changes w/ an artificial environment like A/C plus you have to be careful that the athletes do NOT chill if the temp in the infield drops to a chilly degree. It would be risking the health of the stars of the show unnecessarily.

The IAAF standard is for events to be held in the open air. It has a separate series of track events held in the artificial indoor environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 'summer' atmosphere also changes w/ an artificial environment like A/C plus you have to be careful that the athletes do NOT chill if the temp in the infield drops to a chilly degree. It would be risking the health of the stars of the show unnecessarily.

I was at Bank One Ballpark, the baseball stadium in Arizona the first year it opened in 1998. It was the first retractable roof stadium in the United States and 1 of the first closed roof stadiums built in a warm city and therefore 1 of the first to rely so heavily on air conditioning (the Astrodome in Houston did the same)

If such a stadium is built in a hot and humid city, no amount of air conditioning is going to be able to drop the temperature inside the stadium so low that it'll be an issue for the athletes. Not something that anyone needs to worry about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's impossible to build a retractable roof?

No, but they are expensive, which was my point. A domed Olympic stadium in Houston would be a white elephant on the level of the Olympic Stadium of Montreal since it would be outrageously expensive and you likely couldn't downsize it after the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but they are expensive, which was my point. A domed Olympic stadium in Houston would be a white elephant on the level of the Olympic Stadium of Montreal since it would be outrageously expensive and you likely couldn't downsize it after the games.

Not disagreeing with you, but I remember reading that a renovated Astrodome was apart of Houston's 2012 bid and planned to be their main stadium. I also think it

Then again a city could always do something like what Sydney's doing with Stadium Australia...granted it would be expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an old article of the USOC 2012 domestic race. And Houston came very short in the end, despite it's seemingly technical merit. I think the same could apply here in the 2024 domestic race. But this time, replace Houston with Dallas.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Better-luck-next-time-Houston-Olympics-bid-had-2802481.php

Better luck next time, Houston / Olympics bid had it all -- except a sellable city Ken Garcia Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, September 3, 2002

There's no denying that San Francisco's politics are a joke. The city's streets are a mess, its real estate prices are laughable, it's congested, and it's hardly commuter-friendly.

But even with all its bureaucratic bungling and aging blemishes, San Francisco is still one of the most beautiful cities in the world. And more important, it's not Houston.

This undeniable fact was not lost on the U.S. Olympic Committee task force that selected San Francisco and New York as the finalists to be the U.S. candidate for hosting the 2012 Summer Olympics. And it underscores what so many cities over time have learned in trying to chip at the stature of San Francisco and belittle its standing as a world-class tourist destination: better luck, next town.

For years, cities from Toronto to Tampa Bay have tried to convince big city officials and big league teams that San Francisco was somehow becoming second- rate, pretty as a postcard, to be sure, but definitely on the decline. While longtime residents here might agree with that assessment, ask visitors which other city they'd rather spend time in and somehow Dallas, St. Petersburg and Pittsburgh don't make the list.

A certain civic sneer emerges on the countenance of other city officials when San Francisco is mentioned in any capacity, an uncontrollable impulse based on the town's reputation for wackiness, openness and outrageousness. But often lost on them is the city's elegance, sophistication and hard-earned ability to cater to the most cosmopolitan tastes and attitudes.

They are qualities that towns like Oakland, San Jose and Sacramento have learned to accept about San Francisco over time -- reluctantly, and with envy- induced hostility at times, but still without question.

So it's rather amusing that second-tier towns like Houston continue to huff and puff when they get left at the threshold when competing against the San Franciscos of the world -- which is to say, the likes of London and Paris and New York. Houston is big, admittedly super-sized in a Texas-Astrodome-LBJ kind of way. And according to those involved in the Olympic hosting competition, it had the most technically and financially sound bid among the municipal hopefuls.

It only had one problem. It's Houston.

"They can crunch the numbers, spin the truth and do more recounting of the votes than the state of Florida, and it always comes back to one point," wrote crushed Houston Chronicle columnist Fran Blinebury, echoing the sentiment of her town's official delegation. "Image is everything. In the end, the 10 deciding members of the USOC task force voted with their hearts and their digital cameras instead of their heads."

Blinebury's commentary came on the heels of another Houston sports scribe, John P. Lopez. Without all of its pizzazz and sexiness and popularity and allure, he opined, San Francisco wouldn't even stand a chance.

And he's right. For without all of those traits, San Francisco would be Houston. With better weather.

This last point should not be ignored because in the minds of Houston officials, their town's hell-like summertime heat was a major reason for elimination. They tried to dodge that perceived problem by offering up a plan showcasing an "air-conditioned Games" theme. Which is to say, "We hope you like your marathons indoors."

Yet reality suggests that weather played but a small role in the U.S. Olympic Committee's determination. After all, Atlanta was a sticky, furnace- like host to the 1996 Olympics. Maybe the committee really did want an internationally renowned city and a perennial top draw for tourists worldwide.

Maybe the committee did see San Francisco, with its hills and bridges and cable cars, as the perfect accent to a colorful, dynamic region that happens to include beautiful sports arenas from San Francisco to San Jose to Sacramento.

Perhaps Houston was so desperate to put itself on the global events map that it forgot where it is located.

"I guess my idea of an international city and the USOC's just isn't the same," said Houston 2012 Foundation Chairman George DeMontrond III after the setback. Houston is the home of NASA, so we'll forgive DeMontrond for getting lost in space.

For all those civic wannabes in Houston who like to think their stock is now on par with the likes of New York and San Francisco, it helps to remember the small things. The 110-degrees-in-the-shade concept is a sure brochure bouncer. And oil refineries may be a great boost to the local economy, but petrochemical plants don't exactly send Europeans racing to their travel agents.

The good people of Houston will accept this over time, just like all the other cities have when they try to pass themselves off as Paris. That would be the one in Europe, not Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a WHOLE stupid process...becuz they'll only end up with LA anyway. I don't know who the USOC Board was fooling. It must make them feel good to do the same dance every few years.

agreed. let's just award it to LA. and build a strong narrative and organization. with all the fiasco of rio and the world cup, i think the IOC would consider an

'old familiar city'

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...