Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mr.bernham

USA 2024

Recommended Posts

This is beside the point, though, Again, even if it was Los Angeles instead, the USOC's fears of presenting them again this soon was what kept them from picking them. In a strong 2024 field, I seriously doubt that Los Angeles woulda prevailed anyway.

It still would have been a stronger bid (IMO), a more transparent bid, and a bid with larger public backing and I think that alone could have even made them a second or third place looser. And didn't you just say that Paris needs their mayor and NOC to back the bid? Well Paris has it and I'm sure that the recent terrorist attacks will create some type of call for unity and civic pride. Much like Boston after the bombings.

And you think that IOC members read the "full" bid books? Not really.

I was talking about that fact that a spokesperson for Boston 2024 admitted during a debate about the bid that she has not read the whole plan. That's pretty irresponsible if you ask me. There is also a lack of transparency with the Boston group that is off-putting.

I agree. Odds were that it was going to be Los Angeles. But Boston was clearly the second choice. I'm not that surprised by the decision at all like some of you are. Apparently, the USOC felt that the "been there, done that" aspect of L.A. was probably still a bit too much for the IOC to swallow this soon. Considering their "agenda 2020", though, I woulda said, 'well tough. Let's put your own words into action now'.

Boston certainly was the second best and the only reason SF advanced so far is because that city is a sexy best (IMO). However, you bring up an interesting perspective I never thought of...Boston's bid will in some ways be very Agenda 2020 centric. Still I think the USOC should have stuck with LA, they were showing that they wanted to change the cities image and for me their plan excited me more than any of the other cities did. Not to mention we all know that LA could host and do so with beautiful, modern, and historic buildings, and efficient transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still would have been a stronger bid (IMO), a more transparent bid, and a bid with larger public backing and I think that alone could have even made them a second or third place looser.

So how is a "stronger" L.A. bid ending up second or third place looser any better than actually winning it? How does that support your argument?

Boston couldn't place second or even third? Now you're just proving my point that no matter what city the USOC wound up picking, that it wouldn't matter one bit in the end In a strong 2024 field of international competition. Placing second or third doesn't give you the Games.

I was talking about that fact that a spokesperson for Boston 2024 admitted during a debate about the bid that she has not read the whole plan. That's pretty irresponsible if you ask me. There is also a lack of transparency with the Boston group that is off-putting.

Well, for the USOC, they were obviously transparent enough. And they were the ones who had the final say in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the twitter storm of #NoBostonOlympics, their perpetuated argument is that there is no transparency. Wasn't the idea of this bid process to be quiet so they wouldn't go out and spend hundreds of thousands on advertising and whatever else a bid team normally does?

They also argue that there are always cost overruns, so therefore they should not host. I don't really see the reasoning. If they know there are always cost overruns and Boston has said, unlike many bids, that they actually have a "generous cushion" for cost overruns, how does that equate to immediate rejection?

Finally, they complain about traffic and the transportation. All cities are like that, it doesn't just go away like magic. Events like the Olympics give the incentive to try and fix these problems by refurbishing the public transport and the road systems so they will function better. Apparently a lot of those who support #NoBostonOlympics did not really look about how past Olympics had been run except for those that are infamous for cost overruns or failed legacy (coughbeijing andathenscough)

Either way, it's just like my mama always said. Only people who don't like it go online to write a review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well isn't that quite the catch 22. To save money on the bid, they remained silent, but in order to inform people that they are saving money they have to be unsilent, defeating the purpose :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also argue that there are always cost overruns, so therefore they should not host. I don't really see the reasoning. If they know there are always cost overruns and Boston has said, unlike many bids, that they actually have a "generous cushion" for cost overruns, how does that equate to immediate rejection?

We all know that the $5 billion cost estimate is delusional. When that inevitably jumps up to at least $10-15 billion who will get stuck paying the bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, they complain about traffic and the transportation. All cities are like that, it doesn't just go away like magic. Events like the Olympics give the incentive to try and fix these problems by refurbishing the public transport and the road systems so they will function better. Apparently a lot of those who support #NoBostonOlympics did not really look about how past Olympics had been run except for those that are infamous for cost overruns or failed legacy (coughbeijing andathenscough)

Either way, it's just like my mama always said. Only people who don't like it go online to write a review.

I understand that the actual amount of tourists for a city decreases during the olympics, but what can gum up traffic are the olympic vip lanes and road closures for street events/safety concerns/traffic control. That's especially problematic for a city like boston which largely still adheres to its congested 18th century street layout, and its overall compact sprawl.

But I'd like to know. Anyone at london or another olympics know the extent at which ov lanes effect traffic?

Don't think that Boston will have to worry about cost overruns anyway.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, although I was disappointed SF didn't win, I can't feel too bad since the chosen city is Boston. It's like losing a race to your older brother, whom you've always looked up to. SF is kinda like boston west, so if they are successful, maybe we can one day follow in their footsteps. Plus the northeast coriidor has never hosted, and that seems not quite right given its importance in the world. I hope Boston wins the bid and puts on a great, cost effective Games. If they do, it will help other cities in the U.S., like San Francisco, convince everyone that we can do it too. In recent bid years every US city has had to deal with the idea that LA is the only city in the US that can host a successful Olympics. If Boston is successful, that argument will go out the window.

Plus, at the very least, this gives Mitt Romney something to do. :lol:

On the politics in boston: As I've tried to argue on the SF thread, organized opposition, especially early in the bid process, can be productive. That has been our experience with building pro sports venues in sf. It should help bring discipline to the process so Bostonians don't get taken to the cleaners. So many interests see dollar signs in the prospect of an Olympics - you have to have something to counteract that. Thank your activists, and join them when they need it.

Congrats, beantown. Do us proud.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, although I was disappointed SF didn't win, I can't feel too bad since the chosen city is Boston. It's like losing a race to your older brother, whom you've always looked up to. SF is kinda like boston west, so if they are successful, maybe we can one day follow in their footsteps. Plus the northeast coriidor has never hosted, and that seems not quite right given its importance in the world. I hope Boston wins the bid and puts on a great, cost effective Games. If they do, it will help other cities in the U.S., like San Francisco, convince everyone that we can do it too. In recent bid years every US city has had to deal with the idea that LA is the only city in the US that can host a successful Olympics. If Boston is successful, that argument will go out the window.

Of course, that would also mean that you would have to wait a lot longer for the next open opportunity if you sprinkle a little bit of geopolitics in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I must admit I wanted LA to win seeing I live there but I am happy with Boston.

However, I think the competition for 2024 will be the most intense we've seen in years.

After the rev sharing deal was reached and the USOC decided not to bid for 2020, 2024 was supposed to be the US's year but that was dependent on Jacque Rogue trying to convince SA to bid for 2020. I remember they almost begged SA to bid for 2020 and when they decided, instead to focus on 2024 it put them in a direct battle with the US for 2024. That's not good for a US city when the IOC just made all those sweeping changes in the 2020 initiative in order for less established countries to be able to host the festivities. Add in the fact that not only will Africa have the "New Frontier" argument but more so a "Last Frontier" argument, the US hopes for the 2024 games start to dim a bit.

With Europe roaring into 2024 with Rome, a possible Paris bid and a possible German bid the competition again becomes more complex for the US. Among the European cities I think Paris would have the best shot. I think Germany's multiple referendums disbanding their multiple city bids for 2020 and 2022 would not provide too much confidence for voters going into 2024 and the same can be said for Italy, who is still struggling economically. However with one of the strongest and largest voting blocs, it would be hard to ignore the continent in 2024.

Finally with whispers of a Canadian bid for 2024, "Why should North America consistently be represented by the US?" mostly likely will be the call to the IOC by the Canadians who haven't hosted a summer games since 1976, the US has had 2 since then.

Now with arguments against Boston there are also great points for it. The US brings in the most viewers and has the most purchasing power for tkts, merchandise and memorabilia. Boston to me is just known enough as well as unknown enough to provide a unique perspective for an American bid. after the fragility of the last 4 bid cycles both winter and Summer and their eventual winners the IOC needs a dependable country to call on as a safe choice. Boston and the US does that and more

All in all unlike 2020 this one will be a definite race to the end. who didn't see Tokyo winning a mile away. This time I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I'm pretty shocked by the result. I was actually beginning to love the idea of SF (perhaps my 2nd favorite city). I was never enamored with the DC bid. LA would have been solid, but the conditions for hosting were not unique enough to warrant a three-peat within such a short period of time.

But now the hard part comes - the Boston organizers need to start putting their plan, or whatever they showed the USOC to win this, out to the public and start ginning up popular support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to Boston! I guess it kinda makes sense, in order for the USOC to compete against European cities they have to present the most European looking city of the bunch (more so than SF imo). If they wanna win, they gotta play the game. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which other cities are bidding and see how Boston stacks against them but this might either be a genius move on the USOC's part or fall completely flat. On the other hand, it also won't be a complete disappointment if they don't win unlike New York and Chicago's bid, both those cities were dealt a crushing blow after losing especially Chicago.

I'm just not convinced with Boston being the best bid the US can put forward. I think the city is too compact with narrow and confusing street grids, the opposition is too strong, and the big dig has shown how difficult major construction projects can be to accomplish there but Boston is the only city of the 4 I haven't been to, and I've been to Chicago and New York as well so it's the only city I really can't compare. I haven't been able to find Boston's venue plan online so I'm really curious to see what gave Boston the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats to Boston! I guess it kinda makes sense, in order for the USOC to compete against European cities they have to present the most European looking city of the bunch (more so than SF imo). If they wanna win, they gotta play the game. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which other cities are bidding and see how Boston stacks against them but this might either be a genius move on the USOC's part or fall completely flat. On the other hand, it also won't be a complete disappointment if they don't win unlike New York and Chicago's bid, both those cities were dealt a crushing blow after losing especially Chicago.

I'm just not convinced with Boston being the best bid the US can put forward. I think the city is too compact with narrow and confusing street grids, the opposition is too strong, and the big dig has shown how difficult major construction projects can be to accomplish there but Boston is the only city of the 4 I haven't been to, and I've been to Chicago and New York as well so it's the only city I really can't compare. I haven't been able to find Boston's venue plan online so I'm really curious to see what gave Boston the edge.

The USOC made their bed; let them lay on it. I think the USOC is hoping that the Ivy League settings of Harvard, MIT, Boston U, might compensate for the beauty of San Francisco that they bypassed. I hope Boston's ready to throw $30 mil for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I speculate that the IOC will be hurting for a North American host come 2026; therefore the USOC sends in its weakest bid for 2024, since a 2026 run is all but certain.

Any thoughts?

They could always run into a situation where they're in a good position to run both. And so far, the US is one of the few capable of completing such a feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I speculate that the IOC will be hurting for a North American host come 2026; therefore the USOC sends in its weakest bid for 2024, since a 2026 run is all but certain.

Any thoughts?

You really think the USOC would go through the trouble of bidding for 2024 with their weakest candidate only to have them lose so they can turn around and run for 2026? Nope, I don't buy that one, particularly since that run for 2026 would have to begin before the 2024 vote.

Is it really that hard to believe that the USOC believes in Boston that much? I know that seems like a pretty crazy concept to many of us, but there's no sense in searching for ulterior motives on that basis.

And no, a 2026 run is anything but certain. Let Canada take that one and the USOC can certain pursuing the big prize, even if it's destined to take them a couple more tries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the rev sharing deal was reached and the USOC decided not to bid for 2020, 2024 was supposed to be the US's year but that was dependent on Jacque Rogue trying to convince SA to bid for 2020. I remember they almost begged SA to bid for 2020 and when they decided, instead to focus on 2024 it put them in a direct battle with the US for 2024. That's not good for a US city when the IOC just made all those sweeping changes in the 2020 initiative in order for less established countries to be able to host the festivities. Add in the fact that not only will Africa have the "New Frontier" argument but more so a "Last Frontier" argument, the US hopes for the 2024 games start to dim a bit.

Yea but Jaque Rogue is long gone and that line of thinking is hopefully gone too. I don't have any issues with South Africa hosting a Summer Olympics, or any other African country, but they've got more pressing matters to attend to than to focus all their attention on hosting a Summer Olympics. They didn't run in 2020 for economical reasons, and I don't see their economy has improved much in 4 years. Let's not give it to an African country just for the sake of giving it to an African country. Let's make sure they're actually ready to be able to host such an event without screwing up their economy even further. This is the line of thinking the IOC is currently aspiring to, and their choice for 2020 pretty much was that, and I don't see that changing for 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC HAD to choose that line of thinking for 2020, not because they wanted to. They felt that Tokyo was their safest bet for 2020 because they felt they had no other credible choice in the matter. The other two bids had big issues to deal with. One had great economical challenges & the other faced great political challenges. The IOC obviously didn't want to take the risk with either of them. Doesn't necessarily mean that they'll choose that way for 2024, though. Each race has it's own sort of circumstances & dynamics, so who knows how the 2024 field will finally shape up, IOC "reforms" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the line of thinking the IOC is currently aspiring to, and their choice for 2020 pretty much was that,

Well, Japan's economy is really sputtering. Not as bad as the Greek or Spanish economies, but there is very little growth in Japan. Luckily, they are a wealthy country and between them and Korea in 2018, those 2 neighbors can put on the big, lavish well-funded shows that the IOC loves.

And we're already seeing two host cities/nations back out of major regional events: Hanoi pulled out of the 2019 Asiad; and now it seems Brasil has also over-spent itself with Brasilia pulling out of the 2019 Universiade. So it's all up to the ruble-bursting Russia, Doha and China to salvage all these imploding tournaments.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really that hard to believe that the USOC believes in Boston that much? I know that seems like a pretty crazy concept to many of us, but there's no sense in searching for ulterior motives on that basis.

Like I said last night, it's mainly the kiddies here that are having a big problem with Boston's election. The rest of us are just fine with it. That should tell you something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I must admit I wanted LA to win seeing I live there but I am happy with Boston.

However, I think the competition for 2024 will be the most intense we've seen in years.

After the rev sharing deal was reached and the USOC decided not to bid for 2020, 2024 was supposed to be the US's year but that was dependent on Jacque Rogue trying to convince SA to bid for 2020. I remember they almost begged SA to bid for 2020 and when they decided, instead to focus on 2024 it put them in a direct battle with the US for 2024. That's not good for a US city when the IOC just made all those sweeping changes in the 2020 initiative in order for less established countries to be able to host the festivities. Add in the fact that not only will Africa have the "New Frontier" argument but more so a "Last Frontier" argument, the US hopes for the 2024 games start to dim a bit.

2024 was never destined to be the US's year. The revenue sharing deal was there to shore up relations that might have hurt their efforts for 2012 and 2016. If things had played out differently for 2020, then yes, maybe 2024 would be different. But South Africa wasn't out there (they weren't ready, so what could anyone do), and there weren't any European options out there, so Tokyo comes in and grabs it.

The whole point of Agenda 2020 was to get more cities/countries back into the mix. Right now, that probably means European cities. Does that hurt the US's prospects for 2024? Absolutely. This goes back to the old theory of the United States hosting too often though. Don't make it seem like we're entitled to another Summer Olympics 28 years after the last one simply because of the revenue sharing agreement and the NBC deal that make it perhaps only slightly more likely than before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of Agenda 2020 was to get more cities/countries back into the mix. Right now, that probably means European cities. Does that hurt the US's prospects for 2024? Absolutely. This goes back to the old theory of the United States hosting too often though. Don't make it seem like we're entitled to another Summer Olympics 28 years after the last one simply because of the revenue sharing agreement and the NBC deal that make it perhaps only slightly more likely than before

Exactly. Just look at the mix of the current USOC Board...and it's this foolish, near-sighted bunch of amateurs that decided to go for 2024 and now pick Boston. Bet there'll be another whole change of Board members in October 2017. I hope I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't make it seem like we're entitled to another Summer Olympics 28 years after the last one simply because of the revenue sharing agreement and the NBC deal that make it perhaps only slightly more likely than before

And not only that, but the new revenue deal is for Games all the way 'til 2032. So while the IOC could feel compelled to give the U.S. a Games bcuz of it, doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be the 2024 ones. They would still have another two Summer slots after that to make do.

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...