Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

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'

That's a role Tokyo 2020 will fill. 2024 will be about going somewhere trustworthy but fresh (i.e., Paris).

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.

They are probably worried that if Los Angeles is rejected they will turn against hosting like Chicago and New York have. So they want Boston, San Francisco, etc to start thinking about how they would host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are probably worried that if Los Angeles is rejected they will turn against hosting like Chicago and New York have. So they want Boston, San Francisco, etc to start thinking about how they would host.

Yeah, but the USOC can only select one city. No backup cities. Once you're you, you're out.

That's a role Tokyo 2020 will fill. 2024 will be about going somewhere trustworthy but fresh (i.e., Paris).

What is your definition of "fresh" in terms of Paris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are probably worried that if Los Angeles is rejected they will turn against hosting like Chicago and New York have. So they want Boston, San Francisco, etc to start thinking about how they would host.

I really don't think thats the case whatsoever. San Francisco has had PLENTY of time to think how they would host. Unlike Boston, San Francisco is not exactly new at this. They were also involved in the 2012 & 2016 USOC bid processes. So if San Francisco hasn't gotten their act together by now (& especially with the new 49ners stadium already being built all the way down near San Jose), then there's little to no hope of them all of the sudden coming along with something so enticing that the USOC (& IOC) could vote on.

I also don't think that if Los Angeles were to become the 2024 bid candidate & lose, that all of the sudden they'd just lose interest, either. For as many times that Los Angeles has raised their hand in the past, throughout the 70's & recently, I seriously doubt they'd take a loss as personal as New York & especially as Chicago did. I just think that the USOC, while they might be comfortable with Los Angeles, deep down I think that they know that the IOC might have reservations about a third LA Games so soon after 1984. Los Angeles has always been the eager kid in the classroom. And I don't see that changing anytime soon, even with another loss. They're total veterans at this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your definition of "fresh" in terms of Paris?

I'm not saying Paris is unknown to the world - it's perhaps the most iconic city in the world (or at least among the top 3). But I mean fresh in terms of not having hosted in a century. Fresh as in superior TV visuals. Fresh as in there hasn't been a Summer Games in the French-speaking world since Montreal in 1976.

They are probably worried that if Los Angeles is rejected they will turn against hosting like Chicago and New York have. So they want Boston, San Francisco, etc to start thinking about how they would host.

I don't see it this way. I think the USOC chose four cities it genuinely thinks could host, but am inclined to believe the USOC will ultimately pick LA if it decides to put up a candidate city. I see this sort of like a bidding war over a house - the seller may think a bid from one buyer is stronger the others, but he might want to see what concessions the other buyers are willing to make to land the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying Paris is unknown to the world - it's perhaps the most iconic city in the world (or at least among the top 3). But I mean fresh in terms of not having hosted in a century. Fresh as in superior TV visuals. Fresh as in there hasn't been a Summer Games in the French-speaking world since Montreal in 1976.

*cough* Hollywood *cough* They can make any city or area look beautiful (or awful), even East LA...

I'm not saying Paris is unknown to the world - it's perhaps the most iconic city in the world (or at least among the top 3). But I mean fresh in terms of not having hosted in a century. Fresh as in superior TV visuals. Fresh as in there hasn't been a Summer Games in the French-speaking world since Montreal in 1976.

In that case: Well, there hasn't been any city that is (or has been) part of Mexico that has hosted a summer 'lympics since 1968

100 years can definitely change a city, but 40 years can also. To a human, 40 years could be drastic time of life or death. Paris isn't exactly the only "fresh" city out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*cough* Hollywood *cough* They can make any city or area look beautiful (or awful), even East LA...

In that case: Well, there hasn't been any city that is (or has been) part of Mexico that has hosted a summer 'lympics since 1968

100 years can definitely change a city, but 40 years can also. To a human, 40 years could be drastic time of life or death. Paris isn't exactly the only "fresh" city out there.

I didn't say the Paris was the only fresh city out there. God knows, there are dozens of unique opportunities for the IOC. But among the 2024 contenders from the industrialized world we've been talking about (Paris, Rome, LA, Boston) - I am purposefully excluding Durban - I would contend that Paris and Boston present the freshest faces for the Games. LA's visuals for 2024 will be nearly identical to those from 1984 (Hollywood sign, the Coliseum, Santa Monica, the freeways, etc.). If Mexico City threw it's hat in the ring, it would be an exciting opportunity and yes, *extremely* fresh. Istanbul - fresh. Stockholm - fresh. Buenos Aires - fresh.

As for Durban, of course, this would be an incredibly different location. However, depending on how Rio pulls together and what the media narrative is coming out of Rio, I wouldn't be surprised if the IOC grew reluctant to further tarnish its image by awarding a big budget-busting Games to a relatively poor (vs. USA, France, etc.), developing country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Those are all attributes that could be applied to Boston as well. Yet you always baulk at the mere mention of Boston. And as a matter of fact, I'd say that most of (if not all) those points there, better describe Boston than DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I am purposefully excluding Durban - As for Durban, of course, this would be an incredibly different location. However, depending on how Rio pulls together and what the media narrative is coming out of Rio, I wouldn't be surprised if the IOC grew reluctant to further tarnish its image by awarding a big budget-busting Games to a relatively poor (vs. USA, France, etc.), developing country.

"Big budget-busting Games" is an issue for ANY city/country wanting to host the Games. Not just developing ones. I'm sure Boston would be no different in any opposition that there inevitably would be in spending Billions there on a three-week sports orgy.

I've said it plenty of times here before, but the IOC can't be that naive & clueless that they'd expect the same type of grandiosity from the South Africans as they have gotten with some prior hosts. They'll likely approach it in a more pragmatic manner in order to finally bring the Games to Africa. I also don't see the South Africans wanting to go overboard, either. They seem to be pacing their steps. They skipped 2020 (when many were expecting them to bid), & they could just as well skip 2024, for all we know. But when they're finally ready to bite-the-bullet, & as long as their plan is feasible (they already have several key components in place anyway), they'll likely go the, "this is what we got. We believe its feasible & sustainable & within the needs of our city & country". And if the IOC really wants to finally go to Africa (like they claim they do) then they'll grab that opportunity.

As for Rio, I really believe some people are just blowing this way outta proportion. Especially when it comes to other bids that some people may favor otherwise. At some point or another, during prep times, there's always concerns with delays or what have you. Yes, the IOC has told the Rio organizers to step up their game, but as far as I'm aware, the WC seems to be going off smoothly for the most part, when there was also cause for concern in that area. So with that said, once Rio 2016 comes & goes, & barring a total disaster, which I don't foresee, the IOC will want to push the envelope once again to expand their brand at their next earliest opportunity. They already have Tokyo 2020 as their "cushion". So the next pick could be all about location, location, location, if the opportunity presents itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're all eager for details on Boston's plan, the specifics on this one should be taken with a grain of salt. I got the impression this columnist spoke with some of the movers and shakers off the record and got some tidbits and built her column around that. So, is the exploratory committee looking at Cabot Yard as a possible location? I'd say thats likely one of multiple spots. Is the size settled upon? I'm somewhat skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say the Paris was the only fresh city out there. God knows, there are dozens of unique opportunities for the IOC. But among the 2024 contenders from the industrialized world we've been talking about (Paris, Rome, LA, Boston) - I am purposefully excluding Durban - I would contend that Paris and Boston present the freshest faces for the Games. LA's visuals for 2024 will be nearly identical to those from 1984 (Hollywood sign, the Coliseum, Santa Monica, the freeways, etc.). If Mexico City threw it's hat in the ring, it would be an exciting opportunity and yes, *extremely* fresh. Istanbul - fresh. Stockholm - fresh. Buenos Aires - fresh.

IMO, this is a very weak argument. The landmarks of every major city are well known: the Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe, Big Ben, St. Paul's, Tower Bridge, the Blue Mosque, the Forbidden City, Christ the Redeemer, Copacabana, etc., etc. Saying that people have already seen the Hollywood sign is no argument against LA. And as someone who lives here I can tell you that the "visuals" would not be "identical" to '84. The city has changed considerably and there was very little crossover between '84 and the proposed '24 venue plans. The "been there, done that" argument doesn't hold up if you take the time to look at what LA is actually proposing.

However, I can see how it might be appealing to misrepresent LA if one were attempting to further Boston's efforts. No doubt LA would suffer the same slings and arrows in the international phase. They just have to show how unfounded those concerns are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, this is a very weak argument. The landmarks of every major city are well known: the Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe, Big Ben, St. Paul's, Tower Bridge, the Blue Mosque, the Forbidden City, Christ the Redeemer, Copacabana, etc., etc. Saying that people have already seen the Hollywood sign is no argument against LA. And as someone who lives here I can tell you that the "visuals" would not be "identical" to '84. The city has changed considerably and there was very little crossover between '84 and the proposed '24 venue plans. The "been there, done that" argument doesn't hold up if you take the time to look at what LA is actually proposing.

However, I can see how it might be appealing to misrepresent LA if one were attempting to further Boston's efforts. No doubt LA would suffer the same slings and arrows in the international phase. They just have to show how unfounded those concerns are.

I'm not trying to misrepresent LA. I have said in just about every post that I think it will end up being the USOC's choice. I never said or implied or intimated that LA's familiarity is an argument against it. I was simply saying that other cities offer more fresh visuals - in that they have either never hosted before or haven't hosted in the last century - while providing financially secure territory for the IOC. Regardless of what LA's venue plan is, LA's biggest assets (the mountains, the beaches, Hollywood, the freeways, etc.) will all provide the visuals front and center, and we've seen them before in fairly recent Olympic history. I'm just talking about the packaging, not the product, and I'm not arguing against the city's bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to misrepresent LA. I have said in just about every post that I think it will end up being the USOC's choice. I never said or implied or intimated that LA's familiarity is an argument against it. I was simply saying that other cities offer more fresh visuals - in that they have either never hosted before or haven't hosted in the last century - while providing financially secure territory for the IOC. Regardless of what LA's venue plan is, LA's biggest assets (the mountains, the beaches, Hollywood, the freeways, etc.) will all provide the visuals front and center, and we've seen them before in fairly recent Olympic history. I'm just talking about the packaging, not the product, and I'm not arguing against the city's bid.

I wasn't alive in 1984 so the visuals will not be familiar to me. 1984 is pretty darn long ago. There will be a lot of people who don't remember those Games or weren't born yet. Visuals will not be an issue. I think LA would provide a fantastic setting for the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the IOC voting members were alive back in 1984, though. And I'm sure that quite a few were even at the '84 Summer Games themselves. So they've already seen first-hand, what L.A. is like. And they're the ones who actually vote on the Games.

L.A. 1984, in Olympic terms, wasn't that very long ago. It's going to gauge in there somewhere. How much though, will depend on how the dynamics of the 2024 race will unfold. And it's probably why, despite L.A.'s 2024 seeminly strong proposal, why the USOC has decided to include three other finalists who plans aren't as firm as what L.A's appears to be. If L.A. had never hosted the Games before, I'm willing to bet the USOC would've just wrapped everything up already & picked them as their nominee back on June 10th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it may be relevant that Tokyo 2020 and London 2012 were also repeat hosts. Will the IOC really want 3/4 of the games in a ten-year span to be repeat hosts? Also, I wonder if the key to beating Paris may be to differentiate from it. Maybe I am just spinning my wheels, but I feel that an LA games and a Paris games pose very similar offerings (well-cultured gigacities in large developed countries that have hosted previously). Except Paris will always beat LA on these metrics (Paris has a much longer gap since its previous games and its culture is much more developed than LA's).

Boston definitely offers a greater contrast to Paris. It is a megacity, but not a gigacity and it is probably going to propose a much more intimate/intense games rather than a sprawling one. But who knows? Maybe the IOC won't be able to stomach anything but a gigacity orgy in which case the USOC probably shouldn't be bidding at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris' "culture is much more developed than LA's?" What does that even mean? It's an older city? By that rationale, Rome's "culture is much more developed" than Paris. In any case, it's a bizarre statement and I don't think it has any bearing on this race. LA has a distinct cultural identity that would serve the Games very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to differentiate between Paris which is a member of the "big 4" (London, Paris, Tokyo and New York). LA is a very influential city, but it falls shy of those four. Maybe you are right and this difference has no bearing here, but I feel that only New York could ever beat Paris at its own game. If a different American city is to beat Paris, I feel a different trajectory probably ought to be taken. But the truth is that I'm an ignorant newbie around here, so I'm trying to learn by throwing my ideas around and seeing what the reaction is. It's the only way I'm ever going to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to differentiate between Paris which is a member of the "big 4" (London, Paris, Tokyo and New York). LA is a very influential city, but it falls shy of those four. Maybe you are right and this difference has no bearing here, but I feel that only New York could ever beat Paris at its own game. If a different American city is to beat Paris, I feel a different trajectory probably ought to be taken. But the truth is that I'm an ignorant newbie around here, so I'm trying to learn by throwing my ideas around and seeing what the reaction is. It's the only way I'm ever going to learn.

Would you like me to bring up the global city brand barometer, again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me "big 4" and "more culturally developed" are totally different things. There are quantifiable differentiators for "big 4." Saying something is "more culturally developed" doesn't make any sense.

I'm not at all convinced that being one of the "big 4," as you put it, guarantees victory. History certainly suggests otherwise.

I don't know what you mean by "beat Paris at its own game" either. There is only one game: securing more than 50% of the IOC's votes. Each bid showcases its own strengths and the IOC decides. There is only one Paris, only one LA, only one Rio, only one Tokyo, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You speak of a "different trajectory." Different from what? Paris doesn't even know if they are bidding yet. Who knows what their platform would be? Every city will promise the IOC what they think the IOC wants to hear. The Games have certain base requirements that must be addressed by all bidders.

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...