Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mr.bernham

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

Which is why In a scenario like this I wouldn't liken the U.S.' chances no matter what city it was.

I agree. But the USOC leadership has chosen to make another go at it.

I dunno; I hope they know something Madrid didn't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're concerned that the stadium could implode on San Francsico and that makes them a liability? And that they didn't learn any lessons? Does it make a difference to you then that this stadium is completely different than the last one? That deal imploded because they tried to partner up with the 49ers and they pulled the plug because they decided they weren't interested. So it's not like history is likely to repeat itself in that regard and that it's some sort of major liability.

No, that's taken outta context, since that's not what I meant at all. But since you focused on the stadium, no it's not the "exact" same situation as in their 2016 attempt (nor did I say it was), but it's not exactly that they have 'A' plan already in place for a stadium to begin with.

I also went on to say 'unknownS' (plural) since it's more than just the stadium situation that San Francisco would have to contend with. The city's tumultuous politics, other venue questions & the large number of other Bay Area municipilaties that likely would need to get invloved are all major challenges. Not to mention the strong local opposition that is likely to arise in a city well known for NIMBY's. Certainly less than 'ideal' circumstances for any "winnable" bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's taken outta context, since that's not what I meant at all. But since you focused on the stadium, no it's not the "exact" same situation as in their 2016 attempt (nor did I say it was), but it's not exactly that they have 'A' plan already in place for a stadium to begin with.

I also went on to say 'unknownS' (plural) since it's more than just the stadium situation that San Francisco would have to contend with. The city's tumultuous politics, other venue questions & the large number of other Bay Area municipilaties that likely would need to get invloved are all major challenges. Not to mention the strong local opposition that is likely to arise in a city well known for NIMBY's. Certainly less than 'ideal' circumstances for any "winnable" bid.

As I said before, if the NIMBYs want to take a Bay Area vote (to include San Jose, Berkeley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, etc.), I think they will lose. Just on FB alone in these early stages, the "NO" had only 58 likes this AM; the Official SF 2024 page had 1,158 Likes. Of course, it's very early but I think an Olympic bid will have more than 55% of the Bay Area's population support. Even Chris Daly's letter to the USOC was just a clarification on not using public monies and leave the cities holding the bag -- which has always been the USOC's credo from the get-go. Selling the costly venture I think is the bigger challenge.

Sooo.. you don't want to jinx SF's chances and you're rooting them on? Or is that your way of hoping their bid will fall apart and the USOC will look into a Winter bid and potentially start pursuing Reno?

Where is this coming from? U're reading too much into this. If 2024 fails, then I hope they can realize the folly of their error and maybe still make a run for what I've said all along are the better US chances -- for a Winter Games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

if only New York or Chicago were bidding......... :(

I'm a long-time lurker who has the perspective of being born in SF, raised in the Bay Area, and having lived in that area long enough to understand the politics and lay of the land (in fact, just visited over the holidays) that has been discussed here at length. But I've also lived in Chicago the last 8 years and adopted it as my home, so I understand the politics here in this currently frigid place just as well. Given my background, I couldn't resist chiming in here. I can relate to the ambivalence in many of the comments above.

While a part of me wishes that the USOC fails here in their 2024 Summer Olympic quest so that Chicago (or perhaps New York) can bid sometime in the far-off future, I think it's understood here that it's a huge pipe dream, especially for Chicago, which flatly said no a long time ago and frankly has other priorities right now. I'd certainly prefer Chicago or NYC (especially Chicago) for the next USA Summer Olympics, whenever that may be--or even a Winter Olympics first, in the right US city--over any of the four US cities the USOC currently has to choose from for 2024. However, one obviously has to deal with the reality of the decision to bid for 2024 and the bids that are on the table now, as opposed to some pie-in-the-sky hopes that won't even have a chance to materialize until the distant future, if ever.

That being said, to me, I'd have to say SF and LA are the two most ideal choices out of the four cities from which the USOC is deciding for 2024. SF obviously has its worldwide cachet, as vouched for by the many international posters on this forum who are intrigued by its allure, as the American city with arguably the most "European" and "Asian" flavor. The Bay Area overall certainly has its great cultural melting pot, climate, and a deep reservoir of corporate support to potentially tap, with decent-enough transport infrastructure. And as many have stated, right now the Bay Area also has enough established venues and plans in the works. While the venues would be spread out, and the political obstacles for which SF is notorious persist and are significant, I could see an SF bid as a solid contender against European cities like Berlin or even Paris. If the USOC chooses SF as its nominee, and it loses out in the end, SF probably wouldn't take it quite as hard as Chicago did--but it would be hurt and likely not be as willing to give it another go as LA would. Of course a lot would depend on how the particulars of the race would shake out. And if in 2017, the IOC does choose SF for 2024--well at least I'd have lots of friends and family to potentially stay with!

I think LA's proposal will likely be seen as more solid overall than SF's, but as stated before, it'll certainly have to work to shake the "been-there, done-that" feeling. It'll be interesting to see how the USOC proceeds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And really, if you throw in Rome, Paris, Berlin, with LA -- the contrast and similarities are so obvious. Two are already 2x hosts. Rome and Berlin aren't. And anyone of those educated IOC members can do the math:

Rome, 1xer (1960 to 2024) - 64 years gap

Berlin, 1xer (1936 to 2024) - 88 years gap

Paris, 2xer (1924 - 2024) - ONE century

LA, 2xer (1984 - 2024) - only 40 years... Duh!

In an international organization, where do you think the sentiment would lie? The only way LA would win in that scenario is if the 3 decide it's them or LA. But with Durban lurking in the bkgd for 2028, then it will definitely be Europe for 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chew, a US cooking TV show on ABC, had a quick discussion amongst the hosts which potential 2024 US city would be the best pick based on its cuisine. Host Mario Batali picked San Fran based on its diverse cultural options. Pretty interesting. I guess you could say that its diverse options would be a good selling point, because people from all around the world would be coming and everyone has to eat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And really, if you throw in Rome, Paris, Berlin, with LA -- the contrast and similarities are so obvious. Two are already 2x hosts. Rome and Berlin aren't. And anyone of those educated IOC members can do the math:

Rome, 1xer (1960 to 2024) - 64 years gap

Berlin, 1xer (1936 to 2024) - 88 years gap

Paris, 2xer (1924 - 2024) - ONE century

LA, 2xer (1984 - 2024) - only 40 years... Duh!

In an international organization, where do you think the sentiment would lie? The only way LA would win in that scenario is if the 3 decide it's them or LA. But with Durban lurking in the bkgd for 2028, then it will definitely be Europe for 2024.

Not to speak for IOC members, but I doubt they're sitting there doing math. And if we look back 10 years, you could have done similar math with London and Paris. How'd that work out? Or how about a year and a half ago where there was 1 former host up against 2 cities that had never hosted.

All things being equal, yes that probably works against Los Angeles. And yes, I'm sure there will be some sentiment (or more like smart sense for the good of their organization) to pick a European city for 2024. But I'm willing to bet the peanut gallery here is a lot more fixated on the math than those actually entrusted to make these decisions. We know it goes without saying that geopolitics help decide these things, but to make a list like this as if it holds any real relevance.. what's the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^not only that, but if we really wanna play the "math" game, it can also be played another way:

Italy 1960-2024 - 64 years

Germany 1972-2024 - 52 years

France 1924-2024 - 100 years

South (Africa) 0-2024 - first time!

United States 1996-2024 - "only" 28 years.. DUH!

So no matter what the city, any U.S. bid would have to face those kind of geopolitics in a field like that. And if the bid is half-a$sed, then just kiss it goodbye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math didn't seem to work in Paris's favor against London for 2012. That's 88 years gap versus 64. I don't think this whole geopolitics thing is strongly in play for the moment. The IOC is undergoing damage control right now and I don't think they have the luxury of playing "catch me if you can". FOUR European cities just dropped out of the 2022 race which got the IOC on their heels and in a panic. Despite their natural allegiance to Europe, I don't think they're as gung ho about going back to Europe this time around as everyone would think after what happened. Ever since the LA games in '84, the IOC has never had to lure cities to host the games until now, it was always the other way around. I'm sure they're leaning more towards a safe bet than a risky one. Which also makes me believe that the IOC isn't all that enthusiastic to go to a new territory so soon either. Selecting Rio hasn't been the breath of fresh air the IOC was hoping for with all the construction delays, pollution, protests and cost overruns so far adding to the negative press. With the revenue deal between the USOC and IOC, I think the USOC has done what it can to get their relationship back on track so the US is in a very strong position to win 2024 with the right city.



I don't think either Boston or DC have much momentum going for their bids right now. Boston doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the capacity of an Olympics and the local opposition is a definite negative and a reminder of 2022. DC will always have a lot of liabilities I'm sure everyone's aware of. I used to be a strong supporter of an SF bid, I grew up there so I know the city well, but the recent times I've visited the city made me realize that an Olympics in SF and the Bay Area would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the changing demographic in the city being more interested in computers than sports. I went to see The America's Cup a few times last year and the locals didn't seem that excited about it. The winning team, which happened to be Larry Ellison of Oracle Bay Area, gets to choose the venue for the next race in 2017 and instead of going back to SF, chose to move the competition to Bermuda, so that's a little telling. The people in LA on the other hand have always embraced sports and fitness as an important aspect of life as well as any city in the world. Everyone talks about how 40 years is too soon, but guess what? Beijing has a 50/50 chance of hosting 2 Olympics within 14 years! Albeit different seasons but still. Both England and Japan went with previous bids from other cities but only won with London and Tokyo. The US is fortunate to have many great cities capable of hosting the Olympics but LA just happens to be the one city that fits the mold extremely well. I would've preferred Chicago or New York as first time hosts but that's not an option now and I think LA is the best city in this bunch of 4.



LA also has a strong case going for it against other cities, since a good back story is always needed. It's a city currently undergoing a major transformation regardless, and we all know the IOC likes to put their stamp on revitalizing communities as their legacy. From the rebirth of downtown, to brand new parks popping up everywhere, revitilizing the LA River, brand new bridges being built or replaced and the ongoing expansion of new rail lines, most notably one that will link to LAX projected to complete by 2024 (coincidence?), the Olympics would fit in seamlessly with all the construction already happening. There have been so many new stadiums and arenas built the past couple decades as well, and recently an NFL owner (The Rams) hinting at building a new stadium in Inglewood and returning to LA in the near future, so the games will definitely have a "new" feel to it with mostly new venues while staying within a decent budget as the IOC now expresses as priority. Most importantly, people in LA strongly support the Olympics from all levels of government to the local population, it's a city the IOC and visitors will feel welcome in as they have before. A few years ago I didn't think it would happen but the stars could align for LA again. This is quite frankly a no brainer, which is probably why the USOC was so quick to choose a city, but I could be wrong. We'll see in a couple days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this whole geopolitics thing is strongly in play for the moment. The IOC is undergoing damage control right now and I don't think they have the luxury of playing "catch me if you can". FOUR European cities just dropped out of the 2022 race which got the IOC on their heels and in a panic. Despite their natural allegiance to Europe, I don't think they're as gung ho about going back to Europe this time around as everyone would think after what happened. Ever since the LA games in '84, the IOC has never had to lure cities to host the games until now, it was always the other way around.

On the contrary, if the IOC was fortunate to get a solid European bid or two (or three) for 2024 (which seems to be starting to shape up that way, with France, Germany exploring it & now Italy confirming a bid) the IOC would be running their way so fast precisely bcuz 2022 was such a farce as far as European bids go. I don't think anyone can so easily dismiss the IOC's Eurocentric ways. This is still the IOC we're talking about.

Although, I do agree that Los Angeles is the USOC's strongest option outta the four finalists. There's so much going on there as far as new construction despite the Olympic bid, the weather, etc & L.A. is still a great place to visit for international tourists. The skyline alone of Los Angeles today is very different than what it was back in 1984. It would be a "new" Los Angeles in many ways for another Olympics there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. what's the point?

Just because I beat you to that point. BUt if you had put that out, you would probably have declared it the biggest deal-breaker in history. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Everyone talks about how 40 years is too soon, but guess what? Beijing has a 50/50 chance of hosting 2 Olympics within 14 years! Albeit different seasons but still.

2. Both England and Japan went with previous bids from other cities but only won with London and Tokyo. The US is fortunate to have many great cities capable of hosting the Olympics but LA just happens to be the one city that fits the mold extremely well. I would've preferred Chicago or New York as first time hosts but that's not an option now and I think LA is the best city in this bunch of 4.

1. Well, that's becuz the others bailed out.

2. Well, it's just the opposite. The US offered 2 of its 3 best cities in 2005 and 2009; and they ditched them; and they actually bypassed Tokyo also in 2009. So it's really a meshuggana organization but there are certain trends one can predict. And yes, "geo-politics" will always play apart because the IOC is a geo-political organization at its very heart.

BTW, you lost me at the end of your 2nd paragraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long-time san francisco resident and close observer of the politics, I'm going to take the liberty here of speaking for what I think is the dominant sentiment that will prevail if SF gets the bid. Not the anti-Olympics people who exist in every city and are just a vocal minority ("What a bother! The traffic, the crowds! Yuck!"), but rather the vast majority who show up on parade day when the Giants win the World Series, and so on. Here goes:

We are a city of very fit, outdoorsy people who like sports (especially when our team wins) and we love a good party. We are great fans for the SF Giants and 49ers (even though the latter sort-of left us), and the Warriors will be welcomed back enthusiastically into their new arena. Our stadiums and arenas get built well and usually sell out. We are happy to have a ballpark/arena/regatta/(and yes) Olympics in our city, as long as we don't have to pay for it. We know that the bay area is swimming in private money, which can easily cover the costs of these things. That's what we insist on, and if private money builds it, we will come, we will cheer, and we will have a great time. OTOH, try to dip your hands into our treasury and we get very cranky. We are needy, with lots of transit projects in the pipeline, homeless and disabled people, underfunded schools, a health program that is supposed to cover every resident who doesn't have their own insurance, and a housing shortage. Unlike New York City, we are barred by our state's laws from having our own income tax, and we live with a state and federal government that often appear hostile to us. So just realize that we have a lot on our plates and we need our public money for our own needs. But the truth is that we would love to have the Olympics if it can be done without hurting our finances, and we will be good volunteers and do a great job with it if we get it. Thanks. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a rather compact area of only est 7 million people, the SF Bay Area has SEVEN professional sports teams in 3 of its cities. That averages to about 1 mil per team. I'd say those are pretty good sports fan bases for an anchor city of only 890,000 people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math didn't seem to work in Paris's favor against London for 2012. That's 88 years gap versus 64. I don't think this whole geopolitics thing is strongly in play for the moment. The IOC is undergoing damage control right now and I don't think they have the luxury of playing "catch me if you can". FOUR European cities just dropped out of the 2022 race which got the IOC on their heels and in a panic. Despite their natural allegiance to Europe, I don't think they're as gung ho about going back to Europe this time around as everyone would think after what happened. Ever since the LA games in '84, the IOC has never had to lure cities to host the games until now, it was always the other way around. I'm sure they're leaning more towards a safe bet than a risky one. Which also makes me believe that the IOC isn't all that enthusiastic to go to a new territory so soon either. Selecting Rio hasn't been the breath of fresh air the IOC was hoping for with all the construction delays, pollution, protests and cost overruns so far adding to the negative press. With the revenue deal between the USOC and IOC, I think the USOC has done what it can to get their relationship back on track so the US is in a very strong position to win 2024 with the right city.

Here's the question I'd wonder of the IOC with regards to Europe.. are they angry with the continent for how the 2022 Olympic bids have turned out and maybe shy away from them in 2024? Or are they so desperate to restore faith in the continent that they want to go back there for 2024? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. It's understandable they passed over Madrid for 2016 and 2020. Munich's loss in 2018 was understandable. But if they get a city from Europe in the running for 2024, particularly a Paris or a Berlin, I think they'll be extremely gung ho about going there. I've never a big fan of saying "it's city X's time," particularly when people make that argument in hindsight, but all things being equal, I imagine the IOC will be looking strong at Europe. That's the sentiment they have going for them moreso than how long it's been since a particular country has hosted. Doesn't mean the United States can't win this one, but if Europe puts up a strong front, it will be hard to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a city of very fit, outdoorsy people who like sports (especially when our team wins) and we love a good party. We are great fans for the SF Giants and 49ers (even though the latter sort-of left us), and the Warriors will be welcomed back enthusiastically into their new arena. Our stadiums and arenas get built well and usually sell out. We are happy to have a ballpark/arena/regatta/(and yes) Olympics in our city, as long as we don't have to pay for it. We know that the bay area is swimming in private money, which can easily cover the costs of these things. That's what we insist on, and if private money builds it, we will come, we will cheer, and we will have a great time. OTOH, try to dip your hands into our treasury and we get very cranky. We are needy, with lots of transit projects in the pipeline, homeless and disabled people, underfunded schools, a health program that is supposed to cover every resident who doesn't have their own insurance, and a housing shortage. Unlike New York City, we are barred by our state's laws from having our own income tax, and we live with a state and federal government that often appear hostile to us. So just realize that we have a lot on our plates and we need our public money for our own needs. But the truth is that we would love to have the Olympics if it can be done without hurting our finances, and we will be good volunteers and do a great job with it if we get it. Thanks. :)

Those are the keys right there. How much is it going to really cost to host an Olympics in the United States? Can 1 of these cities pull off a cost-effective Olympics, and that's if they even get chosen in the first place. A lot of the detractors are concerned that won't be the case, and that's understandable. They're concerned that things won't go according to plan. It's easy to say "we will come and cheer and have a great time because we love a good party" (what city doesn't love a good party). The question has to be though is that party worth it and can a plan be devised that makes it worth for the city. And yes, like you said, if it's going to cost public money and/or detract from other urban initiatives, that's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are the keys right there. How much is it going to really cost to host an Olympics in the United States? Can 1 of these cities pull off a cost-effective Olympics, and that's if they even get chosen in the first place. A lot of the detractors are concerned that won't be the case, and that's understandable. They're concerned that things won't go according to plan. It's easy to say "we will come and cheer and have a great time because we love a good party" (what city doesn't love a good party). The question has to be though is that party worth it and can a plan be devised that makes it worth for the city. And yes, like you said, if it's going to cost public money and/or detract from other urban initiatives, that's a problem.

One thing in San Francisco s favor is that we have found ways to build state-of-the-art pro sports venues with all private money: AT&T Park and now (it appears) the new Warriors arena. We were the first city to build a Major League ballpark that way. It's the combination of abundant private funding and citizens' insistence on not using public money for these projects that has made this possible. I think these projects are a good model for the Olympics, because they have come with transit improvements and grew out of extensive review that generated eventual public buy-in. Our teams are doing pretty well on the field/court too, which obviously helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing in San Francisco s favor is that we have found ways to build state-of-the-art pro sports venues with all private money: AT&T Park and now (it appears) the new Warriors arena. We were the first city to build a Major League ballpark that way. It's the combination of abundant private funding and citizens' insistence on not using public money for these projects that has made this possible. I think these projects are a good model for the Olympics, because they have come with transit improvements and grew out of extensive review that generated eventual public buy-in. Our teams are doing pretty well on the field/court too, which obviously helps.

Well, only in SF. Oakland is having a hard time nailing down the so-called financiers for its 'Coliseum City' plans. Santa Clara had to give a lot of tax breaks to get Levi Stadium. BTW, isn't the Transbay Terminal in severe financial straits??

But Oly Stadium will be in Brisbane anyway. ;)

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing in San Francisco s favor is that we have found ways to build state-of-the-art pro sports venues with all private money: AT&T Park and now (it appears) the new Warriors arena. We were the first city to build a Major League ballpark that way. It's the combination of abundant private funding and citizens' insistence on not using public money for these projects that has made this possible. I think these projects are a good model for the Olympics, because they have come with transit improvements and grew out of extensive review that generated eventual public buy-in. Our teams are doing pretty well on the field/court too, which obviously helps.

This is true, but.. this is the same city that thought it had an Olympic bid based around a 49ers stadium that fell apart and killed the bid. That's not necessarily a knock against the city, but the point is that if you're talking about private funding, it needs to be justified. AT&T Park is a great note on San Francisco's resume, but it gets used 81 times a year. If the SF organizers can sell that the Olympics will benefit the city and that the infrastructure improvements that accompany it will be good for the future, that's what will garner them public support. But when they're talking about a pop-up stadium and you're talking about it in the context of "we love a good party," that's where they could get in trouble. You're talking about an even that's going to cost tens of billions of dollars when all is said and done. That's a tough sell for any city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, only in SF. Oakland is having a hard time nailing down the so-called financiers for its 'Coliseum City' plans. Santa Clara had to give a lot of tax breaks to get Levi Stadium. BTW, isn't the Transbay Terminal in severe financial straits??

But Oly Stadium will be in Brisbane anyway. ;)

The Transbay Transit Center is short about $300M the last I read. Not chump change, but it will get covered. That is the kind of project that requires public funds. Fortunately (or not) we have a well connected member of congress and a governor who has made High Speed Rail his #1 pet project. I am not a big fan of the HSR project, BTW. 65 billion dollars spread across California cities could build several amazing local transit systems, and instead what we will get is a little competition for the airlines who fly the SFO-LA corridor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Transbay Transit Center is short about $300M the last I read. Not chump change, but it will get covered. That is the kind of project that requires public funds. Fortunately (or not) we have a well connected member of congress and a governor who has made High Speed Rail his #1 pet project. I am not a big fan of the HSR project, BTW. 65 billion dollars spread across California cities could build several amazing local transit systems, and instead what we will get is a little competition for the airlines who fly the SFO-LA corridor.

Well the central valley certainly needs a connection to the major cities that they are sandwiched by (whether it's for business or entertainment or even just shopping). I don't think a local transit system would really benefit as much as a regional or statewide one in terms of Fresno and such. All of California does not revolve around just LA, SF, etc thus local transit improvements would not create the same effect for others. That is not to say that local connections should be neglected. The California's cap and trade funds for transit has reserved well over $200m for transit alone.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...