Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

And we mustn't forget that LA ranks #6 as a "global city". So if you expand the margins to "top 10", LA would be included.

But none of that is terribly relevant when it comes to Olympic bids.

What matters is good geopolitical timing, technical competence, financial profitability, trustworthy leadership and an emotional "X factor." Being in or outside of the top 4 or 10 or whatever is really neither here nor there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always a "top ten" of anything. But if you were to ask any person, on any given country in the world to name the top three cities of the world, the far majority of the time you'd hear New York, London & Paris.

Once you start to expand from there, though, most of the responses then will start to differ based on subjectivity. That's not to say that L.A. is not a "global city", because it most certainly is. But no matter how one tries to sell it, it's still not a New York, London or Paris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows how they're ranking the cities in that list. Especially when it lists Mumbai, Singapore & Dubai ahead of Los Angeles. So I'd take it with a grain of salt.

Yeah AthensFan's list is probably more accurate. On the list I posted I question Frankfurt being that high too, and whether London should be ahead of New York City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That data is 2 years old and does not give numerical rankings so I'm still not sure how you came up with LA being 18th. To me that doesn't pass the common sense test.

Different studies use different data. None is authoritative, further underscoring the fact that such rankings should not be taken too seriously.

And again, none of this means anything for an Olympic bid campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I stand corrected and apologize to woohooitsme for making such a matter of fact and stuck up post.


That data is 2 years old and does not give numerical rankings so I'm still not sure how you came up with LA being 18th. To me that doesn't pass the common sense test.

Different studies use different data. None is authoritative, further underscoring the fact that such rankings should not be taken too seriously.

And again, none of this means anything for an Olympic bid campaign.

Yeah, yeah, we get it, you're right again. All the power to you almighty AthensFan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even going by that "barometer", LA still falls shy, which is exactly what he said, of the other three. There's really only one U.S. city that could be ranked alongside London, Paris (& Tokyo), & it ain't Los Angeles.

S6vMuXQ.png

Anyways, I'd like to think that the "Global City" Index is something that the professionals do with their fancy mumbo-jumbo calculations, and the Global City Brand Barometer is what the average man ranks cities (it was based on a survey). After all, it is the average man that's putting the money in the IOC's pocket, putting money in the host city's pocket, supporting (or destroying) the bid, welcoming the other average men, funding the event, and representing. In short it's actually more of the average man's games, so professional analysis is important, but the real people that need to be considered are the opinions of the average man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread derail... no one believes the IOc is only going o pick among the top handful of cities. There's quite a benefit in reaching outside the inner circle of NYC-Paris-London-whomever. The two most spectacular Games in my lifetime were Barcelona and Sydney, neither of which is in that inner circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread derail... no one believes the IOc is only going o pick among the top handful of cities. There's quite a benefit in reaching outside the inner circle of NYC-Paris-London-whomever. The two most spectacular Games in my lifetime were Barcelona and Sydney, neither of which is in that inner circle.

Right. My point exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by "beat Paris at its own game" either.

I think everyone agrees that in order to earn votes from the IOC many different things must come together:

1. The city must present a technically feasible plan

2. The city must be geopolitically favored (is the city "fresh")

3. The city must have a strong sporting tradition/culture

4. The city must have a compelling narrative or story that wraps the above three together

Also, it probably said that we are looking at marginal cases. That is cases where American city LA might beat Paris, but Boston would lose (or vice-versa). I think in such scenarios it can be assumed that Paris has a decent plan from a technical standpoint as well as a decent narrative to wrap together the relevant geopolitics/culture/sporting tradition issues. In this scenario, in order for an American city to beat Paris it has two options:

1. It can best Paris on the merits where it is strong (AKA "beating Paris at its own game")

or

2. It can persuade the IOC to focus on aspects of Paris' narritave on the merits where it is weak.

I assume that if Paris bids they are going to rely heavily on their "big four global city" membership card. I don't think LA can outplay Paris here. Paris is a tier above LA in this matter. As I said before, only New York can go toe-to-toe with Paris here. LA needs something else to persuade the IOC voter to support LA over Paris. That 'something else' could be a technically superior bid, but I really doubt LA could craft a compelling narrative surrounding its culture/traditions. This is especially true in light of the fact that it hosted within a half-century (within the lifetimes of many IOC members).

Now replace LA with Boston. While Boston probably won't be able to match Paris on the 'global influence' metric either, they do have cards to play that LA lacks, namely:

1. First Olympic Games north of the Mason-Dixon Line and also first games in the BosWash corridor which is probably the most populous (and wealthiest) region of the developed world to have never hosted a summer olympics.

2. Strong sporting tradition that goes beyond the four largest American Professional sports leagues (Head of the Charles & Boston Marathon).

3. Massachusetts is the birthplace of at least two olympic events (Basketball and Volleyball)

4. The dense nature of Boston will likely lead to a more intimate games (this card could backfire if the).

Maybe these cards aren't as strong as LA's single card (also there is no guarantee Paris won't present a technically superior bid). However my inexperienced gut tells me that the USOC would be better off with Boston's 4 cards instead of LA's 1 card if Paris ends up being the USOC's principal opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above is so hypothetical that I'm not sure how to comment. Each city has to play to its strengths. No one can "out Paris" Paris. The USOC will pick whichever city they believe presents the most compelling total package. Personally, I think LA will fare best internationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread derail... no one believes the IOc is only going o pick among the top handful of cities. There's quite a benefit in reaching outside the inner circle of NYC-Paris-London-whomever. The two most spectacular Games in my lifetime were Barcelona and Sydney, neither of which is in that inner circle.

I'm not denying that there are other paths to winning the IOC vote than simply being the most influencial global city. Both Sydney and Barcelona are testament to that, namely because each brought new and fresh perspectives to the Olympic movement. Does LA have what it takes to do the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that there are other paths to winning the IOC vote than simply being the most influencial global city. Both Sydney and Barcelona are testament to that, namely because each brought new and fresh perspectives to the Olympic movement. Does LA have what it takes to do the same?

Did you see LA's preliminary bid document?

Each edition of the Games is unique. Did Tokyo win by billing itself as the next Barcelona?

Be careful about getting too attached to this whole "fresh" idea. "Cultural variety" and "global diversity" are useful handles, but "fresh" isn't too far removed from "new." There are only so many places on the planet that are capable of organizing Olympic Games. "New" is getting tougher to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above is so hypothetical that I'm not sure how to comment. Each city has to play to its strengths. No one can "out Paris" Paris. The USOC will pick whichever city they believe presents the most compelling total package. Personally, I think LA will fare best internationally.

Fair enough. That definitely was a bit more verbose than it should have. Bascially, I have a feeling that LA is the best USOC candidate if the principal candidate is Durban. LA's strengths are its reliability which makes it the "safe pick". On the flip side, if Paris is the opponent, then Paris will become the "safe pick" and the only way to run around that is to be bold and branch off in new direction (something that Boston may be able to pull off...we'll see if they get their act together in time). Or am I shooting the breeze here? Can you imagine a scenario where LA seizes the "safe pick" narrative and Paris somehow claims to be the daring experiment?

Sorry for the double post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see LA's preliminary bid document?

Each edition of the Games is unique. Did Tokyo win by billing itself as the next Barcelona?

Be careful about getting too attached to this whole "fresh" idea. "Cultural variety" and "global diversity" are useful handles, but "fresh" isn't too far removed from "new." There are only so many places on the planet that are capable of organizing Olympic Games. "New" is getting tougher to come by.

I admit that I did not see the leaked document, which probably explains why I'm being so stubborn. From what I've heard, the '24 bid will differentiate itself from the '84 games by putting many events in different venues than before. If that is enough to convince the IOC that an LA bid isn't stale than so be it.

Tokyo won by being the "safe choice" and by being the most influencial global city. If Paris makes a strong bid, then it will be difficult for LA to steal the "safe choice" moniker.

Maybe here is the flaw in my thinking: When I look at the cities that have won competiitive bids over the last few decades, I generally put them into two groups: Some cities were bold/fresh/new (Barcelona, Sydney, Beijing, Rio) and some cities that were reliable/traditional/safe (Los Angeles '84, Atlanta, Athens, London, Tokyo '20). Also, it seems that when it actually comes time for the IOC to vote that these elections are usually framed as safe pick vs. new frontier. Is this binary view flawed?

Looks like I am still a comment behind...

I see LA as MUCH more than "safe." I see it as having potential for reinventing the Games in a highly successful and sustainable way that will feel innovative and exciting. It's that energy and out-of-the-box thinking that I believe is LA's biggest asset.

Because I missed the leaked document, could you tell me why the document leads you to believe that LA would bring so many innovative and out-of-the box ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone agrees that in order to earn votes from the IOC many different things must come together:

1. The city must present a technically feasible plan

2. The city must be geopolitically favored (is the city "fresh")

3. The city must have a strong sporting tradition/culture

4. The city must have a compelling narrative or story that wraps the above three together

I assume that if Paris bids they are going to rely heavily on their "big four global city" membership card.

Paris is a tier above LA in this matter.

A needs something else to persuade the IOC voter to support LA over Paris. That 'something else' could be a technically superior bid, but I really doubt LA could craft a compelling narrative surrounding its culture/traditions. This is especially true in light of the fact that it hosted within a half-century (within the lifetimes of many IOC members).

2. Strong sporting tradition that goes beyond the four largest American Professional sports leagues (Head of the Charles & Boston Marathon).

3. Massachusetts is the birthplace of at least two olympic events (Basketball and Volleyball)

Maybe these cards aren't as strong as LA's single card (also there is no guarantee Paris won't present a technically superior bid). However my inexperienced gut tells me that the USOC would be better off with Boston's 4 cards instead of LA's 1 card if Paris ends up being the USOC's principal opponent.

Do not judge another (or something in this case) when you do not have all the relevant facts.Seek the truth and get all the facts. A Japanese proverb says to "search seven times before you judge." How do you know that LA's plan does not have all 1-4 cards? How do you know if the IOC cares about the "big four global cities"? Each city is unique (as AthensFan said) and relying on the statistic is useless as other IOC members may beg to differ. How do you know that LA has no "strong" sporting tradition? California is the birthplace of beach volleyball, is it not? Paris isn't exactly "fresh" and you should really really see the document before making comments such as this. Do you need me to send it to you?

Plus your name is WarpedReality, so if the reality is warped, then it would make sense for you to favor Boston over LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warped Reality, it's amazing to me that you would dismiss a bid without having even seen what they're proposing, but I guess that's par for the course lately on GB.

The document speaks best for itself, but here's a rough summary.

LA placed a strong emphasis on technological innovation, ecological restoration (the LA river) and creative venue locations including the likes of fencing on Hollywood Blvd. and Taekwondo in Disney Concert Hall. The plan involved major projects that exclusively targeted existing needs rather than Olympic-specific builds (river, village later to become housing, expanded metro rail service). These major investments in the long-term well-being of the city were paired with an intelligent use of existing venues, very few of which were even in existence in '84, much less used for those Games. The venues were grouped in four surprisingly compact clusters. There was a clear sense that LA would host an ethnically diverse, multi-cultural urban sports festival in fun and unique ways that would engage a whole new generation in the Olympic Movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S6vMuXQ.png

Anyways, I'd like to think that the "Global City" Index is something that the professionals do with their fancy mumbo-jumbo calculations, and the Global City Brand Barometer is what the average man ranks cities (it was based on a survey)

And where was this global city "brand barometer survey" done. Los Angeles? You said before that LA ranks in the "top ten". Now you're saying it's in the top four with this "diagram". So which is it. But that simply isn't the case. If anything, Tokyo ranks fourth. But beyond that, the rest of the rankings are merely subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where was this global city "brand barometer survey" done. Los Angeles? You said before that LA ranks in the "top ten". Now you're saying it's in the top four with this "diagram". So which is it. But that simply isn't the case. If anything, Tokyo ranks fourth. But beyond that, the rest of the rankings are merely subjective.

On the Index LA ranks #6

On the Survey LA ranks #1

The survey was done by the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/cities/datablog/2014/may/06/world-cities-most-powerful-brands-get-the-data)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread derail... no one believes the IOc is only going o pick among the top handful of cities. There's quite a benefit in reaching outside the inner circle of NYC-Paris-London-whomever. The two most spectacular Games in my lifetime were Barcelona and Sydney, neither of which is in that inner circle.

Of course not. But the topic of conversation drifted (which thread drift happens quite often on Gamesbids. So get use to it) because someone mentioned how Paris (which is one of the top Alpha cities of the world) hasn't hosted in over a century, while L.A. which hosted just as recent as 1984, (& is not on the same level as Paris) could have bit of a disadvantage in that segment if competing against one another. So essentially, the thread wasn't that "derailed".

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...