Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

I've coxed on the Charles in the past. I know for a fact it would never work for what the IOC and FISA demands of it. The basin may be long enough for the 2000m course, but you're dealing with a river that narrows on either end of the basin. The amount of boats that need to get in and out would be mayhem if they tried to manage that in the Charles. Besides, the spectators would have to watch from the road basically, so using that course you wouldn't be able to build temporary spectator stands without blocking the roads on both sides of the river. Even though it's in the middle of Boston, the bad harshly outweighs the good in this case. If they do get chosen and go though to the end, not using the Charles is probably for the best.

2tYt6V9.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, Bostons plan completely relies on crumbling college stadia built almost a hundred years ago...oh and temporary venues.

It's not even so much that they're old and crumbling that they're on the smallish side. Look what San Francisco is offering.. there's 2 professional sized arenas in the Bay Area (3 once the new Warriors arena gets built). Then you add in the college facilities. Should be adequate for the needs wants of the various sports federations.

Boston? They have their 1 main arena, but after that, I think the next largest indoor arena in the area is Conte Forum and their capacity is in the 8,000 range. San Francisco can offer a lot more than that, even though their plan is more spread out. So if we were making a head to head comparison of Boston and San Francisco (to say nothing of where LA comes into the picture), that's the choices.. venues that are a little more spread out but with larger capacities or venues that are perhaps a little more accessible, but on the smaller side.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If LA does come into the picture, you are looking at four professional sized arenas in LA, five if you count whatever they are calling The Pond these days. One of which is right next to the Coliseum. As is a smaller 10,000 seat arena.

In terms of existing venues, LA really is head and sholders above the other three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If LA does come into the picture, you are looking at four professional sized arenas in LA, five if you count whatever they are calling The Pond these days. One of which is right next to the Coliseum. As is a smaller 10,000 seat arena.

In terms of existing venues, LA really is head and sholders above the other three.

Not doubting that for a second. That's going to be a big part of LA's narrative I'm sure.. look at how the city has changed since 1984, most notably everything that has been built up in downtown. That's always been the concern from some folks here, myself included, that they would be able to differentiate their 2024 efforts from 1984. If Boston and San Francisco are going to play up their existing infrastructure, LA can play that game as well and can probably do it even better since they have 2 large scale stadiums in the area, possibly a 3rd if Farmers Field gets built (and moreso than what happened in San Fran, this could be an even more agreeable situation in that there's no existing ownership in LA with a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but how do LA's 4 or 5 arenas really make it more appetizing than SF or Boston for the IOC voters vs. (whatever) Paris and/or Berlin have? In the end, it's the overall score card of the bid -- NOT just a few items on there.

Venues tend to be a pretty big item. Let's say you're an IOC voter with allegiance to the FIVB or FIBA. If 1 bid is offering a 15,000 seat arena and the other is offering an 8,000 seat arena, you're telling me that voter won't be swayed? We all know (well, we know, but the message sometimes gets muddled) that there are about a thousand things that will determine who wins these things, including dozens of intangibles we can't possibly account for. No one is trying to isolate venue size as the make-or-break factor, least of all me and I know I probably bring it up more than anyone. But if you're talking about what may make a bid more appetizing, particularly in a climate where it seems like existing infrastructure counts for something (depending on who the bidders all), then yes, LA having all the venues they do is a big positive for them. It will certainly contribute to that overall scorecard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Venues tend to be a pretty big item. Let's say you're an IOC voter with allegiance to the FIVB or FIBA. If 1 bid is offering a 15,000 seat arena and the other is offering an 8,000 seat arena, you're telling me that voter won't be swayed? We all know (well, we know, but the message sometimes gets muddled) that there are about a thousand things that will determine who wins these things, including dozens of intangibles we can't possibly account for. No one is trying to isolate venue size as the make-or-break factor, least of all me and I know I probably bring it up more than anyone. But if you're talking about what may make a bid more appetizing, particularly in a climate where it seems like existing infrastructure counts for something (depending on who the bidders all), then yes, LA having all the venues they do is a big positive for them. It will certainly contribute to that overall scorecard

U're contradicting youself. You said a few posts back that you would pick SF because of their greater, "new" international appeal (i.e., not another previous host as LA is), yet now you flip-flop and rate the existence of venues higher? What gives? BTW, my previous comment wasn't really in response to you but to another poster (who shall remain Nameless).

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA has the HUGE card............can be as big as anybody wants an Olympics to be. Maybe that's a negative in the current climate.

This post actually raises a great point. What's the best option after the sparse fields for 2020 and 2022? Will the IOC want a safe-bet Games which stabilses the ship and will guarantee a good return and a great spectacle, or will they want a Games which demonstrates best their Agenda 2020 reforms? Because one seems to say the US would be silly to go with anywhere but LA, whilst the other could give a city like Boston a chance.

In fact, taking it further, in this USOC race we have a microcosm of the kind of choice the IOC might face. Safe bet (LA) vs Agenda 2020 Choice (Boston) vs New Frontier (SF). Washington seems to have gone quiet, but it seems the least appealing of the four anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post actually raises a great point. What's the best option after the sparse fields for 2020 and 2022? Will the IOC want a safe-bet Games which stabilses the ship and will guarantee a good return and a great spectacle, or will they want a Games which demonstrates best their Agenda 2020 reforms? Because one seems to say the US would be silly to go with anywhere but LA, whilst the other could give a city like Boston a chance.

In fact, taking it further, in this USOC race we have a microcosm of the kind of choice the IOC might face. Safe bet (LA) vs Agenda 2020 Choice (Boston) vs New Frontier (SF). Washington seems to have gone quiet, but it seems the least appealing of the four anyway.

Or probably somewhere in between. I think it may take 2 or 3 cycles before Agenda 2020 is in full effect and the Olympic slate of sports approaches the CWGs where a number are host's choices.

In a way I'm glad if no US city gets big public support and the USOC's 2024 efforts go for naught. Goes to show how stupid and ill-advised their desire for a Summer Games over a Winter Games is. Ha!!

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

U're contradicting youself. You said a few posts back that you would pick SF because of their greater, "new" international appeal (i.e., not another previous host as LA is), yet now you flip-flop and rate the existence of venues higher? What gives? BTW, my previous comment wasn't really in response to you but to another poster (who shall remain Nameless).

(sigh) And I'm reminded of why I hate this site sometimes..

I'm not contradicting anything. I'd still give a good long look at SF (who I pick is irrelevant.. I don't have a say in the matter). And venues are still important. That doesn't automatically vault LA to the front of the pack. Like you said, it's a combination of things including a lot of intangibles that we probably can't account for. When you're talking about contradictions and flip-flops, you make me sound like some sort of political pawn who is heavily invested in this. Don't take my pointing out the positives or negatives of these bids as an endorsement for or against a particular city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post actually raises a great point. What's the best option after the sparse fields for 2020 and 2022? Will the IOC want a safe-bet Games which stabilses the ship and will guarantee a good return and a great spectacle, or will they want a Games which demonstrates best their Agenda 2020 reforms? Because one seems to say the US would be silly to go with anywhere but LA, whilst the other could give a city like Boston a chance.

In fact, taking it further, in this USOC race we have a microcosm of the kind of choice the IOC might face. Safe bet (LA) vs Agenda 2020 Choice (Boston) vs New Frontier (SF). Washington seems to have gone quiet, but it seems the least appealing of the four anyway.

I think if they've got a good European candidate in the running, that's going to be hard to pass up. Not that the USOC should back down from this simply because of the threat of who the competition might be. Right now, clearly it's Europe that's feeling the effects of the past couple of bids. So to pass up the continent yet again could do further damage to the brand. Better to give a Paris or a Rome or a Berlin (if those are options) and work on restoring the faith there that the Olympics haven't become some over-grown money pit that everyone needs to shy away from.

In terms of the USOC, it's an interesting way to look at things and I agree there's some validity to that type of thinking. My guess is that the IOC is looking for a combination of the 2. I think they'll want a city that can show the rest of the world how to stage an Olympics. At the same time, do they really get that from a recent host like Los Angeles or is that a cop out since they had it so recently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timeline question as I've lost track a bit: Is there a definite date when USOC will announce its choice?

No. Indications from their announcement a couple of weeks ago was that it would be "in 30-60 days" which means sometime in late January or early February, but who knows if they'll hold to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or probably somewhere in between. I think it may take 2 or 3 cycles before Agenda 2020 is in full effect and the Olympic slate of sports approaches the CWGs where a number are host's choices.

In a way I'm glad if no US city gets big public support and the USOC's 2024 efforts go for naught. Goes to show how stupid and ill-advised their desire for a Summer Games over a Winter Games is. Ha!!

.....i also love winter over summer games.....we are in the minority. SF would be a magical host but at this point the USA has continuing PR issues (warranted or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, March?!

Are you antsy because you think the USOC needs to make a decision sooner rather than later? Or is this just that this is all a long, drawn out process and you're just impatient? I know we're sitting here saying to ourselves "why can't they make a decision already" and yes, maybe they don't need all 4 cities still to be in the running. But it's not like they're intentionally fucking with us by making us wait for a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather them make the US city decision days before they officially enter a bid for the race. That way they can get a better idea to see who they are going up against and choose accordingly.

But this is assuming that all four U.S. cities are logistically on equal footing, which I don't believe for a second that they are. At the very least one, or two of them, have to be far ahead than the rest of the pack. So it really doesn't matter what the international competition might be if a couple of the U.S. 2024 cities are not up to snuff in te first place. All one has to do is look at New York 2012 for precedence.

Doesn't matter if the competition is Paris, Berlin, Rome, or Baku & Doha, but if a San Francisco bid for example, is very weak logistically in several categories, then it won't matter in the least in the end anyway. Yet a very strong Los Angeles bid could go far in either 2024 bid race scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is assuming that all four U.S. cities are logistically on equal footing, which I don't believe for a second that they are. At the very least one, or two of them, have to be far ahead than the rest of the pack. So it really doesn't matter what the international competition might be if a couple of the U.S. 2024 cities are not up to snuff in te first place. All one has to do is look at New York 2012 for precedence.

Doesn't matter if the competition is Paris, Berlin, Rome, or Baku & Doha, but if a San Francisco bid for example, is very weak logistically in several categories, then it won't matter in the least in the end anyway. Yet a very strong Los Angeles bid could go far in either 2024 bid race scenario.

No; but the USOC is doing the local vetting for weaknesses and is presumed to present the strongest candidate that can withstand the strongest competition that might arise. If the USOC knows its marbles and feels that none is up to snuff, then they skip this round.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
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...