USA 2024

[baron-pierreIV]

I was just wondering I couldn't find anything online about a budget

If not, then it's something the USOC and the chosen city will work on together when they get to the IOC-submission stage.

[zekekelso]

At this point LA is the best bid, we have not seen anything from the other three cities. LA on the other hand has given us an idea of what they have in mind and that idea is genius.

Genius? Really?

Also, keep in mind that LA hasn't "given" us anything. They screwed up. It's only by mistake that we have seen their plan, and not Boston's.

[zekekelso]

Right now, LA has shown they have some semblance of a plan. Boston doesn't have that yet.

We have no idea what Boston does or doesn't have. Boston is in the exact same postion LA should be, if LA hadn't screwed up.

I think we all can agree that LA has many natural advantages over Boston - size, history, etc. But we shouldn't give them a "plus" for beign too dumb to keep their plan out of the public space until it's time to release it.

hey did la ever give a budget estimate

IOC Grand Poobah Bach has said that all summer games cost $3 billion. No more, no less.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

At this point LA is the best bid, we have not seen anything from the other three cities. LA on the other hand has given us an idea of what they have in mind and that idea is genius.

Until Boston shows us something the best we can do is guess, and from the guessing LA still seems to be the stronger bid. From renovating a treasured Olympic Stadium (hosted two of the most important games in history) to revitalizing a lost river. LA not only offers something to the Olympic movement BUT to the city itself.

Well I hoped...then I realized that it was unrealistic. DC is like SF, sounds nice in theory but can not be executed.

Yeah, but You changed Your mind quickly. I'm not criticising this as that's Your choice, but it seems that most People would gradually change their mind with new information given. It's a similar situation of when You quickly changed from supporting Almaty 2022 to the point that You got offended sometimes when people criticised Almaty 2022, now You support Oslo 2022. Your choice in changing to Oslo 2022 is correct, I just still wonder why it was so sudden. Could You explain why You suddenly changed from supporting Almaty 2022 to Oslo 2022 and from DC to Los Angeles?

[Nacre]

i have noticed that the people that say LA is going to be the us bid havent looked at the things massachusetts is doing and planning to do regardless of the Olympics coming to boston

1 green line extension

2 a long needed replacement of MBTA subway vehicles IE orange line and half of red line

3 south coast rail which would commuter extend service from the Boston area to the southeastern coast

4 expansions of south station

5 expansion of BCEC which is the Boston Convention

and there's more stuff

the state is spending 13 billion over 5 years on transit and infrastructure project that are long over due

None of these things address the fundamental problem with a Boston Olympics: what do they do about the Olympic Park? Boston could bid without one, but I don't think the IOC has ever chosen a bid without a park over a bid with one.

[Quaker2001]

We have no idea what Boston does or doesn't have. Boston is in the exact same postion LA should be, if LA hadn't screwed up.

I think we all can agree that LA has many natural advantages over Boston - size, history, etc. But we shouldn't give them a "plus" for beign too dumb to keep their plan out of the public space until it's time to release it.

Love the rhetoric from you that says we're seeing 1 thing, but we should look at it different and contradict ourselves. LA has natural advantages, but no, let's not actually give them an edge over Boston. Boston is in the exact same position LA should be.. except they're not. Boston can only win if LA doesn't have the good, but let's ignore what we've seen from LA as if it doesn't count for anything.

LA has a plan. This is a fact. Whether or not they should have put it up on their website is irrelevant. That they took it down does not change the fact that there is a plan. It's not some grave mistake they made by putting it online. This is not going to be played out in the public space, so what happens there is only fodder for people like us, not for the USOC.

Like you said, LA has many natural advantages over Boston. We didn't need to see their plan to know that to be the case. But that we have seen a plan from LA re-enforces that they have their act together and make them the front-runner (as I need to point out the obvious on this forum.. being the front-runner does not mean they're going to emerge as the winner in the end). That we haven't seen or heard anything remotely concrete from Boston.. maybe that says something about their chances. I'm not dismissing them. But I'm going to remain skeptical until they show me otherwise. I don't see why that continues to come as a surprise to you.

[Athensfan]

Genius? Really?

Also, keep in mind that LA hasn't "given" us anything. They screwed up. It's only by mistake that we have seen their plan, and not Boston's.

No. They didn't screw up. They posted it on their homepage very intentionally. It clearly wasn't an accident. Someone decided it ought to be removed and it was. That's not quite the same thing.

[Quaker2001]

None of these things address the fundamental problem with a Boston Olympics: what do they do about the Olympic Park? Boston could bid without one, but I don't think the IOC has ever chosen a bid without a park over a bid with one.

Three words (really more like 2 1/2).. LEG - A - CY

The Olympics requires a lot of infrastructure that may or may not be able to be put to good use after the games. So the fundamental questions are where you do put all these sports venues? Where do you house all the athletes, officials, media members, and visitors coming to your town? And how do you make use of all this after the Olympics are over? And then beyond all that is the issue of funding. That last part is an issue for all of the prospective US bid cities. The first 3 though are a bigger issue for Boston IMO than they are for Los Angeles (and who knows what's doing with DC and SF)

No. They didn't screw up. They posted it on their homepage very intentionally. It clearly wasn't an accident. Someone decided it ought to be removed and it was. That's not quite the same thing.

Exactly. To say they screwed up almost makes it sound like it's something that will be held against them. I can't imagine that's going to be the case. In the past when it was a more open bidding process, it was more incumbent on these bid teams to puff their chests and make a fairly public spectacle in order to curry favor. Now that everything is a lot more contained, what a bid team like LA puts on a website means very little. All that matters is the internal discussions they have with the USOC. That we, the public, got a glimpse of what they have does not make them dumb. A little over-eager maybe, but not dumb.

[Athensfan]

Regardless of the circumstances under which the plans were revealed, we've seen LA's preliminary proposal. It was compelling, extremely well thought out, responsibly civic-minded and boasted impressive support. Bernham in his immature enthusiasm obviously went way too far in calling the plan "genius." However, it was exciting to see something fresh and engaging come from a city that some had written off as "been there done that." If nothing else, we can be sure LA will propose a feasible, energetic bid that certainly will not be the "same old, same old."

Because we have no standard of comparison, I think it is incorrect to say "LA is the best bid." I agree with Quaker that it is unlikely Boston (much less SF or DC) will be able to meet or surpass what LA is offering. That said, the IOC has given them an opportunity to try. We'll have to wait and see.

[FYI]

Love the rhetoric from you that says we're seeing 1 thing, but we should look at it different and contradict ourselves. LA has natural advantages, but no, let's not actually give them an edge over Boston. Boston is in the exact same position LA should be.. except they're not. Boston can only win if LA doesn't have the goods, but let's ignore what we've seen from LA as if it doesn't count for anything.

LA has a plan. This is a fact. Whether or not they should have put it up on their website is irrelevant. That they took it down does not change the fact that there is a plan. It's not some grave mistake they made by putting it online.

I don't see why that continues to come as a surprise to you.

Well, for starters, you're trying to have a logical conversion with an individual which notoriously likes to go against the general consensus. Challenge the IOC's criteria on many elements, as if they don't know what they're doing. Even though they've been doing it for well over a hundred years. So why should this here be any different. I'm not surprised whatsoever by their usual rhetoric.

[zekekelso]

Love the rhetoric from you that says we're seeing 1 thing, but we should look at it different and contradict ourselves. LA has natural advantages, but no, let's not actually give them an edge over Boston.

If you go back and read my post, I think you'll be surprised to see it doesn't say what you think it says.

[khouseman1986]

None of these things address the fundamental problem with a Boston Olympics: what do they do about the Olympic Park? Boston could bid without one, but I don't think the IOC has ever chosen a bid without a park over a bid with one.

Its a well known fact the Bob Kraft the owner the new england patriots and revolution has wanted to build a soccer stadium in Boston closer to his target audience. I think Boston will give kraft the landand give tax to cover some of the cost and kraft will build it

[Rob2012]

Which gets us back to the interesting question of how you build an athletics stadium for 70k+ and downsize it to a MLS football stadium. I hope we see some real plans for this; I'm fascinated to see what they come up with.

[Nacre]

Its a well known fact the Bob Kraft the owner the new england patriots and revolution has wanted to build a soccer stadium in Boston closer to his target audience. I think Boston will give kraft the landand give tax to cover some of the cost and kraft will build it

This has been discussed many times before.

1. Kraft has no financial incentive to move the Patriots to Boston since he has developed the land around the stadium in Foxboro.
2. It's not feasible to convert a 80,000 capacity track and field stadium to a 20,000 capacity association football stadium. The footprint of the grandstands are not compatible between the two. It makes more sense to build a temporary stadium (like Chicago was planning to do), raze it after the games and build a new stadium for soccer/football.

It's certainly possible Boston will come up with solutions to its problems. But it has several hurdles that the other potential host cities don't have, and doesn't appear to have as much incentive to solve those issues as the other cities do.

Los Angeles is in the position of potentially adding an NFL team with a new stadium, Oakland will likely lose the Raiders to Los Angeles if they can't a replacement for their own obsolete stadium and needs to refurbish their waterfront property, and Washington DC needs to do something with RFK Stadium and could redevelop the land around the DC Armory arena, RFK Stadium and Anacostia park into an Olympic Park. Meanwhile if Boston doesn't build a new stadium life goes on as normal.

[Quaker2001]

Which gets us back to the interesting question of how you build an athletics stadium for 70k+ and downsize it to a MLS football stadium. I hope we see some real plans for this; I'm fascinated to see what they come up with.

Thus being what Boston is up against.. not only do they need a plan, they need to be able to execute it. The first part of that seem simple by comparison. It's the latter half where I don't know Boston will have the goods. We all know an Olympics is an expensive endeavor, but I have to imagine the USOC is looking for a well-thought out legacy plan. Even if Boston had all the money in the world to build these Olympic facilities, is it going to be beneficial to the citizens of Boston once the Games are over. Certainly Los Angeles faces a lot of the same questions, but there's the advantage of having a lot more facilities in place (and I'm not just talking the Coliseum, there's a lot more beyond that).

I still question how well an Olympics can fit into the fabric of Boston. Like you, I would love to see what the Boston folks can come up with. But again, I still wonder how they can make it work for both the Olympics and for the city.

Its a well known fact the Bob Kraft the owner the new england patriots and revolution has wanted to build a soccer stadium in Boston closer to his target audience. I think Boston will give kraft the landand give tax to cover some of the cost and kraft will build it

I bring up this a lot, but since you're relatively new here.. the issue with that is one of ownership. If Kraft builds the stadium, then it's his stadium, not the city's. So would he want to spend his money to build a stadium that has to accommodate the Olympics? (which, like Nacre said, is much easier said than done.. and if I see someone mention sliding stands, you're already a dumbass).

Bob Kraft owns and operates Gillette Stadium. It's his. I think he would definitely be interested in bring the Revs closer to Boston. But is it his stadium or the city's? Is he paying for it or are they? And can all of this work around an Olympic timetable. Which is to say.. if Kraft wants to make plans for the Revs in Boston, are those plans tied to an event that Boston may or may not win the rights to host.

[zekekelso]

Three words (really more like 2 1/2).. LEG - A - CY

The Olympics requires a lot of infrastructure that may or may not be able to be put to good use after the games. So the fundamental questions are where you do put all these sports venues? Where do you house all the athletes, officials, media members, and visitors coming to your town? And how do you make use of all this after the Olympics are over?

From what I can tell, Boston's pitch will be aimed squarely at legacy. They can argue that the whole concept of an Olympic Park is flawed. Putting much of the facilities off in an isolated park is a recipe for white elphants. Much better to integrate all the facilities throughout the city.

Not sure if I buy it, really not sure if the IOC will buy it, but that's a good arguement they can make.

[khouseman1986]

I also think that Boston also depend on what agenda 2020 comes up with

[Quaker2001]

From what I can tell, Boston's pitch will be aimed squarely at legacy. They can argue that the whole concept of an Olympic Park is flawed. Putting much of the facilities off in an isolated park is a recipe for white elphants. Much better to integrate all the facilities throughout the city.

Not sure if I buy it, really not sure if the IOC will buy it, but that's a good arguement they can make.

That's the issue though.. can they make a plan that offers a good legacy. Certainly doesn't have to be an Olympic park concept, but you still need to figure out places in the city to put all of these venues and make it work. And that's not just the main stadium but all the other necessary arenas as well (and Boston has some arenas, but many of them are on the smaller side, particularly in comparison with Los Angeles). Hence why Los Angeles has an edge where they can say they already have a lot in place, moreso than the pitch from San Diego where it almost doesn't seem like they really know what they need.

[FYI]

I can't wait 'til new definitive information comes out on this front, instead of rehashing the same old arguments time & again.

[woohooitsme83]

Yeah, but You changed Your mind quickly. I'm not criticising this as that's Your choice, but it seems that most People would gradually change their mind with new information given. It's a similar situation of when You quickly changed from supporting Almaty 2022 to the point that You got offended sometimes when people criticised Almaty 2022, now You support Oslo 2022. Your choice in changing to Oslo 2022 is correct, I just still wonder why it was so sudden. Could You explain why You suddenly changed from supporting Almaty 2022 to Oslo 2022 and from DC to Los Angeles?

*facepalm*

Think of it like this: Your in math class doing some practice questions and the teacher is going over the work/answer of the question you just finished. Then, you realize you made a mistake that changed your answer entirely and you quickly redo the section/answer. Is that wrong? Is that gradual? If a there was suddenly news about how bad a certain bid was, would everyone remain firm and support, or would some sway away? If your favorite team is out of the tournament, do you keep on rooting for them (even though you won't see them) or do you quickly change sides. An example would be the World Cup. After the US was out, I switched to Brazil, after Brazil, I switched to Germany. Is that wrong? Is that gradual? I'm certain you didn't root for team England for the entirety of the WC. You say that you are not criticizing, but it certainly sounds like it.

P.S. he already said why he switched out DC

[FYI]

What I find most interesting, is why do you care so much, when his post wasn't even directed at you.

[woohooitsme83]

idk

[baron-pierreIV]

Exactly. To say they screwed up almost makes it sound like it's something that will be held against them. I can't imagine that's going to be the case. In the past when it was a more open bidding process, it was more incumbent on these bid teams to puff their chests and make a fairly public spectacle in order to curry favor. Now that everything is a lot more contained, what a bid team like LA puts on a website means very little. All that matters is the internal discussions they have with the USOC. That we, the public, got a glimpse of what they have does not make them dumb. A little over-eager maybe, but not dumb.

Or it might even have been a deliberate, tactical move...to intimidate the opposition. And then maybe, the USOC told them to take it down? But no harm, no foul.

[mr.bernham]

*facepalm*

Think of it like this: Your in math class doing some practice questions and the teacher is going over the work/answer of the question you just finished. Then, you realize you made a mistake that changed your answer entirely and you quickly redo the section/answer. Is that wrong? Is that gradual? If a there was suddenly news about how bad a certain bid was, would everyone remain firm and support, or would some sway away? If your favorite team is out of the tournament, do you keep on rooting for them (even though you won't see them) or do you quickly change sides. An example would be the World Cup. After the US was out, I switched to Brazil, after Brazil, I switched to Germany. Is that wrong? Is that gradual? I'm certain you didn't root for team England for the entirety of the WC. You say that you are not criticizing, but it certainly sounds like it.

P.S. he already said why he switched out DC

What I find most interesting, is why do you care so much, when his post wasn't even directed at you.

Thanks guys.

@Tony

I backed Oslo from day one, but disagreed that Almaty could not get shortlisted or had a chance if Oslo dropped out. After reading the IOC report it is obvious that the IOC will avoid Almaty at all costs.

Secondly, I have been very open about my opinions on the US bid race and they have only changed recently. I had hope that DC would have a good plan, but also noted that the LA plan was nice and that Boston had some type of hope. Over recent months that faith in DC has been lost. I still do not support any of the bids and hold a neutral view point on the race. This however does not stop me from giving credit to a bid when credit is due.

[Athensfan]

I had hope that DC would have a good plan, but also noted that the LA plan was nice and that Boston had some type of hope. Over recent months that faith in DC has been lost. I still do not support any of the bids and hold a neutral view point on the race. This however does not stop me from giving credit to a bid when credit is due.

If LA is merely "nice" and you do not "support any of the bids" then why did you just call LA's bid "genius?"

Oh goody! Looks like Boston is thinking hard about this bid and I wish them the best of luck!

The above statement looks quite a bit like support to me.

Then again, you say this.

At this point LA is the best bid, we have not seen anything from the other three cities. LA on the other hand has given us an idea of what they have in mind and that idea is genius.

Bernham, the reality is that you try desperately to sound smart and elevate yourself above the other newbies, but you are just as confused and immature as any of them.