Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

Neither are Boston and San Francisco, though. All of those three seem like extreme long shots. What's perplexing to me is the fact that the USOC could theoretically choose a bidder without getting approval from the local government. There's a part of me that would love to see them choose Boston and then have the city and state vote no on funding and whatever land use plan they choose for the stadium.

You mean pretty much what happened with the West Side Stadium for the NYC 2012 bid? Like Athens said, I don't think the USOC is likely to go that route. When they're evaluating the candidates, they're going to do their best to foresee which city is the least likely to have political and economic issues like what you're talking about. I don't see them taking a chance on a candidate that may not be able to deliver. If they're worried Boston might vote down funding or a land use plan, then Boston isn't going to get elected in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support DC not only because of its setting, but because I think that they have a very positive legacy plan potential. While Los Angles legacy as outlined in the applicant file is fantastic, I believe that DC can develop a strong one as well.

Looking at where the bulk of venues would be located the area seems in dire need of redevelopment. RFK would obviously be the main stadium and I do not think that it would be hard to create a positive use of that stadium. Surrounding the stadium would be a series of venues near the cities heart and residential heart. This will allow for the venues to be used by the greater public in the future. Georgetown's growing popularity provides the opportunity to construct the Athletes Village near the main venue cluster while ensuring a positive legacy.

In my opinion the DC team looks like they are thinking long and hard about the best plan to create.

The only downside I see is the legal/political mess that is the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MassLive.com

SearchSearchAccountSign In

US Olympic Committee 2024 meeting concludes, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh in attendance

By Garrett Quinn | gquinn@masslive.com

Follow on Twitter

on July 26, 2014 at 11:04 AM, updated July 26, 2014 at 11:09 AM

View/Post Comments

Boston 2024 logo from the Organizing Committe

Boston 2024

BOSTON The meeting in Denver between United States Olympics Committee officials and the four remaining cities interested in hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics concluded on an optimistic note, according to USOC officials.

Boston, Washington D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles are the four cities the USOC is soliciting bids from for a possible 2024 host.

"Our discussions this week have created a foundation for something that could be truly unique. There is a great deal of work left to do before we can make a decision, but Im more optimistic than ever that a U.S. bid for the 2024 Games can be successful," said USOC Chairman Larry Probst in statement.

The Boston delegation included Mayor Martin J. Walsh, his Chief of Staff Daniel Arrigg Koh, Suffolk Construction CEO John Fish, CEO of the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership Daniel O'Connell and Putnam Investments CEO Robert Reynolds.

Walsh has shown publicly an openness to the idea of hosting the games but has expressed a desire to study the issue more closely. Sources close to the mayor have said the same while expressing both excitement and cost concerns about hosting the massive international sporting event.

Walsh was unavailable for comment before he departed for Denver, but a statement from his press secretary Kate Norton on Thursday said, "The Walsh administration is committed to gaining a full understanding of the impacts hosting the Summer Olympics would have on the City of Boston."

Boston made the final cut of potential host cities in June when the USOC whittled the list of 35 cities down to 4 during their meeting quarterly meeting at MIT in Cambridge.

"Each city has necessarily evaluated how hosting a Games in its community fits into the long-term plans for that city, but equally exciting to me is the universal commitment to making a positive contribution to worldwide sport and the Olympic and Paralympic movements. Thats something I truly believe a Games hosted in the U.S. can do and Im excited about the potential," said USOC CEO Scott Blackmun in a statement.

The USOC is expected to make a decision on bidding the 2024 games in early 2015.

The United States has hosted the Summer Olympics four times: in St. Louis in 1904, twice in Los Angeles, in 1932 and 1984, and in Atlanta in 1996. The Winter Olympics have been held stateside four times, too: Twice in Lake Placid in 1932 and 1980, in Squaw Valley in 1960 and in Salt Lake City in 2002.

The International Olympic Committee's deadline for 2024 bid submissions has not been set, but it will likely be in 2015, while the selection of a host city will likely be made in 2017, according to USOC officials.

A report on hosting the 2024 games released in February said Boston could host the games, but it did not provide details on the costs or security issues facing the city.

http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2014/07/us_olympic_committee_2024_meet.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'd prefer an LA games at this point, seems like the most likely to deliver BIG games that can make money.

However if one dime of local taxes was needed I'd just as soon skip it.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it was San Diego, of course.

The Games, however, have become so gargantuan, that it's not that conceivable to think that not one dime of local tax money won't be used. It's all intertwined, even with the projects that some argue the city "needs" anyway. Games, or no Games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'd prefer an LA games at this point, seems like the most likely to deliver BIG games that can make money.

However if one dime of local taxes was needed I'd just as soon skip it.

They won't need one dime. More like millions of dimes. SImply no way to do this without lots of local government money (and state, and federal money.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'd prefer an LA games at this point, seems like the most likely to deliver BIG games that can make money.

However if one dime of local taxes was needed I'd just as soon skip it.

Define local taxes? Do you care if city or county taxes are involved? Or do you just not want the state to pay for this since it's not in San Diego?

In an ideal world, an Olympics is supposed to leave a legacy for the host city that goes beyond a 2 1/2 week party. That legacy doesn't just have to be about stadiums being built. It could also be infrastructure like housing, transportation, etc. Even in the United States where a lot of those efforts to be publicly funding, you can't except to a city like Los Angeles to receive all these things solely from private funding without having to dip into their own pockets. Yes, the flipside is being forced to rely too much on public funding to get these things that may or may not benefit the people paying for them. So there has to be a balance.

It's been brought up before.. it's difficult to assess the economic impact of an event like the Olympics, because there's the immediate return and the long term effects. It's next to impossible to put a value on the latter. But that's where taxpayer money is going to come in. You say it would be great for an Olympics to make money. I think it would be greater for an Olympics to leave a lasting legacy on a city that goes well beyond the 2 1/2 weeks the Games are in town.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't need one dime. More like millions of dimes. SImply no way to do this without lots of local government money (and state, and federal money.)

But which part of the expenses are you talking about? Tax dollars should fund infrastructure improvements. It's not like citizens should get free metro expansions off the Olympics to use for decades to come.

They'll never resort to public funds for Olympic-specific projects. That's unworkable in the US.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the USOC shoot themselves in the foot like that? It doesn't make any sense. I really don't know why you would want to see it happen either. Based on everything the USOC has done so far, it seems like there are way too smart to do something so supremely stupid.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but it has happened before. Obviously Denver even won the the right to host before the voters voted against hosting the games at all, much less paying taxes for them.

As for why I want that to happen, it would provide further fuel for reform in the IOC. If North America and Western Europe both tell the IOC they don't want to host the Olympics anymore there will have to be real changes.

as much as like sf and dc as new hosts, there are to much negative intangibles surrounding the cities in regards for the development of an olympics (ditto for boston).

Personally it's the tangibles that make those bids problematic for me. The only city in North America that has the existing infrastructure to host in an affordable manner is Los Angeles. I don't find the prospect of yet another Los Angeles bid exciting, but at least it would make economic sense.

RFK would obviously be the main stadium and I do not think that it would be hard to create a positive use of that stadium.

The RFK Stadium site could be the location of the main stadium, but the stadium itself is not useable. It's also hard to see what possible post games use the stadium would have. Most likely a DC Olympics would have a temporary main stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If North America and Western Europe both tell the IOC they don't want to host the Olympics anymore there will have to be real changes.

Maybe. But remember, you still have the likes of Doha, Baku and China who'll build the grand monuments that the IOC secretly craves. If those places don't bid; and it's just NA and western Europe, then that might twist the IOC's arm a little. Otherwise, probably still same old, same old. The IOC's not going to let FIFA have the more extravagant party any time soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RFK Stadium site could be the location of the main stadium, but the stadium itself is not useable. It's also hard to see what possible post games use the stadium would have. Most likely a DC Olympics would have a temporary main stadium.

Not necessarily, the redskins lease on fed ex field comes to an end in 2026 so within the two years that it's empty, the stadium could go through changes like taking out the track (if they want to).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's likely to happen, but it has happened before. Obviously Denver even won the the right to host before the voters voted against hosting the games at all, much less paying taxes for them.

As for why I want that to happen, it would provide further fuel for reform in the IOC. If North America and Western Europe both tell the IOC they don't want to host the Olympics anymore there will have to be real changes.

Different time and place. The odds of the USOC (let alone the IOC) picking a host site like that and having a repeat of that are far lower now than they were 40 years ago. In the age of instant status updates and social media, more and more people are aware of the issues surrounding the Olympics and, perhaps in part because of a site like this, more people are aware of the lead-up to an Olympic vote.

I don't think it would be good for anyone involved for an incident like that to happen again. It wouldn't lead to reform. It would be an embarrassment that the IOC would have a lot of trouble recovering from. And if it scared off other prospective bidders like we're seeing now, that's not good. Considering we have yet to see meaningful reform from the current set of circumstances (although it seems like we're moving in that direction), I wouldn't want to assume it would go down that way in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But which part of the expenses are you talking about? Tax dollars should fund infrastructure improvements. It's not like citizens should get free metro expansions off the Olympics to use for decades to come.

They'll never resort to public funds for Olympic-specific projects. That's unworkable in the US.

There's good infrastructure, and bad infrastructure. Are you upgrading an airport that needs it? Or are you building a $multi-billion airport that the cities can't possibly use (Sochi). Are you taking care of deferred maintenance on your entire metro system (London) or building a $multi-billion train that the area has no need of (Sochi again.)

The metro expansion... is it something that will benefit many people (Vancouver's airport extension) or something that benefits few (the many cities that have build metro expansion to the Olympic park).

In the US, government funded infrastructure is often something like a new highway off ramp that allow suburbanites to attend a stadium without ever setting foot in the city. I.E. very bad infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, all those thing you've noted are already going to happen. LAX is enduring heavy renovations. 4 new rail lines/extensions are being built. at least 3 new are being planned. The Olympics would act like a boost. The research on the most beneficial path has already been done. The Olympics can just serve as making the Metro more seamless or act as a reason to reach farther (e.g. the APM to LAX)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's good infrastructure, and bad infrastructure. Are you upgrading an airport that needs it? Or are you building a $multi-billion airport that the cities can't possibly use (Sochi). Are you taking care of deferred maintenance on your entire metro system (London) or building a $multi-billion train that the area has no need of (Sochi again.)

The metro expansion... is it something that will benefit many people (Vancouver's airport extension) or something that benefits few (the many cities that have build metro expansion to the Olympic park).

In the US, government funded infrastructure is often something like a new highway off ramp that allow suburbanites to attend a stadium without ever setting foot in the city. I.E. very bad infrastructure.

The city already has LAX and it's Tom Bradley International Terminal has undergone extensive renovations. The city's metro system does need to be expanded, so there's no call to worry about "a billion dollar train that nobody needs." The Coliseum is already well served by off-ramps, but I'm sure any additional projects to alleviate congestion would be welcomed by downtown business, local residents and USC.

The thing that most impressed me about LA's plans was the way the major spending was narrowly targeted at the city's greatest needs. This is clearly a top priority for the bid team. For now, your fears seem unfounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add that pretty much all terminals at LAX is or will be receiving major (or some sort of renovation) before being accused if neglectance of terminals other than the TBIT. There are even plans to build a new terminal (T0) and an IMF and Car Rental Facility that connects with the APM in the grand master plan. The Olympics would definitely accelerate these projects. With a brand new functioning terminal already built for the TBIT, I can't possibly think one of the most busiest airports in the world could lose for than receive from this.

*of [not 'if']

*more than [not 'for than']

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across this link the other day regarding a San Francisco bid. Not official but it's a college student's thesis in which an Olympics in San Francisco is outlined. Venue plan has some holes (War Memorial Gymnasium for boxing is too small, AT&T Park for hockey, and two stand alone venues for volleyball) but it's looks mostly plausible.

lda.ucdavis.edu/people/2013/MChaginot.pdf

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...