San Francisco 2024

[LatinXTC]

Altho this stadium essentially uses the same blueprint for the one that was going to go up in Candlestick Park; and for which the San Francisco 2016 plan was to install a platform; and then add more seats in those open areas. So it is doable in this stadium but it is really too far away from the anchor city. Coliseum City in Oakland is more viable + there's a BART stop right there with the airport connector being unveiled in 2 weeks.

Just googled Coliseum City and found a drawing of what that would look like. Pretty nice. Oakland should have put in a serious bid for the Olympics because with this it has more going for it than the San Francisco bid. And these facilities would actually be IN Oakland.

[Team USA]

They Called my house asking if you support the 2024 bid

[woohooitsme83]

Maybe the calls can be somewhat linked to the Coliseum City? Drum up enough support, public convinces the Raiders to stay and the plan moves forward?

[baron-pierreIV]

I think the financing for Coliseum City is still sketchy and shaky. I believe both the A's and the Raiders are somehow still expecting public funds to pay for part of their new stadia -- which is why NOTHING solid has come out yet. But the new mayor-elect of Oakland, Libby Schaaf, has just said that NO public monies will be used to put up those teams' new stadia -- and especially if the Giants, the 49ers and the Warriors, and the Sacramento Kings (OK, I think they used a bond there) have found private financing for their new arenas, then good luck to the Raiders and the "A's if they expect Oakland to cough up public funds for their new homes. Oakland is already throwing in the land but the money for CC was supposedly coming from an Emirates or a Saudi prince.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

I know that the Levi's Stadium wouldn't be able to have a Running Track, but I thought they could use it for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and Build a Temporary Athletics Stadium?

[baron-pierreIV]

I know that the Levi's Stadium wouldn't be able to have a Running Track, but I thought they could use it for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and Build a Temporary Athletics Stadium?

Tony, READ previous posts. If they are going to build a temp T&F stadium CLOSE to SF, that will fill in for Ceremonies...NOT the distant Levi's stadium. Building that stupid Levi's stadium in Santa Clara was the cause of the SF 2016 collapse. Die-hards like me remember that and we DO NOT FORGET nor FORGIVE!!!

[zekekelso]

Baron.... a die-hard NFL fan? Really?

[Quaker2001]

Just googled Coliseum City and found a drawing of what that would look like. Pretty nice. Oakland should have put in a serious bid for the Olympics because with this it has more going for it than the San Francisco bid. And these facilities would actually be IN Oakland.

Except it doesn't work that way. Remember that the USOC began the process by sending out a letter to 35 cities that they were interested in courting. Oakland, as a separate entity from San Francisco, was not one of them (although worth noting that San Jose was on the list).

For all intents and purposes, Oakland is part of the San Francisco metro area. It would be foolish and pointless of them to launch their own separate effort rather than to join forces with the SF 2024 folks. I know some folks are getting wrapped up in the whole 'the main stadium must be in the host city' concept, but the flip side of that is that it would be foolish of the SF 2024 folks not to include Oakland and their resources as a part of this effort. Even if the 'Bay Area 2024' idea doesn't seem like it'll sell, that's probably their best option of making this work. To get everyone involved together and see if they can make it work, particularly when there are plans in the works to build a new stadium complex. Whether or not that meshes with Olympic planning is a different story altogether, but similar to the NYC 2012 bid (and I know that collapsed badly at the crucial moment) where the timing was there, maybe this is an opportunity here.

I think the financing for Coliseum City is still sketchy and shaky. I believe both the A's and the Raiders are somehow still expecting public funds to pay for part of their new stadia -- which is why NOTHING solid has come out yet. But the new mayor-elect of Oakland, Libby Schaaf, has just said that NO public monies will be used to put up those teams' new stadia -- and especially if the Giants, the 49ers and the Warriors, and the Sacramento Kings (OK, I think they used a bond there) have found private financing for their new arenas, then good luck to the Raiders and the "A's if they expect Oakland to cough up public funds for their new homes. Oakland is already throwing in the land but the money for CC was supposedly coming from an Emirates or a Saudi prince.

It's a weird situation because you get the sense the Raiders don't necessarily want to be there (and they'll use Los Angeles and/or San Antonio as some sort of leverage, not that I think that will get them anywhere) and the A's are just trying to keep their heads above water (or in this case, the sewage that keeps flowing through the Coliseum). Not sure what the solution is there. Like you, I'm hesitant to give any credence to where the teams' interests and Olympic bid interests come together, but maybe there's something there. But they need to come together sooner rather than later or else it's an opportunity missed.

Building that stupid Levi's stadium in Santa Clara was the cause of the SF 2016 collapse. Die-hards like me remember that and we DO NOT FORGET nor FORGIVE!!!

Baron.... a die-hard NFL fan? Really?

baron, once again I feel compelled to ask.. you're still taking that one really personally as if you had a stake in it. Do you/did you? And yea, to zeke's point, what exactly are you a die-hard of, because I'm pretty sure it's not of the 49ers or American football.

[baron-pierreIV]

baron, once again I feel compelled to ask.. you're still taking that one really personally as if you had a stake in it. Do you/did you?

Of course I did. The bid could've gotten farther if they chose to stay in town and build their stadium. Death and losses to them!!!

[Quaker2001]

Of course I did. The bid could've gotten farther if they chose to stay in town and build their stadium. Death and losses to them!!!

I get all that, but again, why is this so personal for you? I know you would like to see another Olympics somewhere relatively close to your backyard, but are you that invested in it that you hold a grudge like this? As if you would see the York family in the street somewhere at start giving them a piece of your mind? Because I could totally picture you doing that

[baron-pierreIV]

I get all that, but again, why is this so personal for you? I know you would like to see another Olympics somewhere relatively close to your backyard, but are you that invested in it that you hold a grudge like this? As if you would see the York family in the street somewhere at start giving them a piece of your mind? Because I could totally picture you doing that

more than a piece of my mind. More like a swift piece of my backhand!!

[LatinXTC]

Except it doesn't work that way. Remember that the USOC began the process by sending out a letter to 35 cities that they were interested in courting. Oakland, as a separate entity from San Francisco, was not one of them (although worth noting that San Jose was on the list).

For all intents and purposes, Oakland is part of the San Francisco metro area. It would be foolish and pointless of them to launch their own separate effort rather than to join forces with the SF 2024 folks. I know some folks are getting wrapped up in the whole 'the main stadium must be in the host city' concept, but the flip side of that is that it would be foolish of the SF 2024 folks not to include Oakland and their resources as a part of this effort. Even if the 'Bay Area 2024' idea doesn't seem like it'll sell, that's probably their best option of making this work. To get everyone involved together and see if they can make it work, particularly when there are plans in the works to build a new stadium complex. Whether or not that meshes with Olympic planning is a different story altogether, but similar to the NYC 2012 bid (and I know that collapsed badly at the crucial moment) where the timing was there, maybe this is an opportunity here.

I am well aware about the invitations sent out to potential host cities, and if you saw the list of cities that were sent invitations you would know the USOC was not genuinely thinking all 35 cities actually had the potential to host the games. As stated in this article, invitations were sent out to the top 25 most populated cities, and 10 others who were previously interested in hosting, or have hosted. So Oakland wasn't overlooked because it wasn't worthy, it was overlooked because it wasn't as populated or they have never previously shown interest to host.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/02/19/usoc-olympic-host-city-bid-process/1930475/?sf9722106=1

And here is a list of the cities that USAToday comically ranked.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/19/35-american-cities-host-olympics/1931177/

To save you the trouble of looking, Oakland ranks 45th in the US with a population of about 406,000. And if I was sending invitations to cities that had an actual chance of ever hosting the Summer Olympics, I wouldn't send one to Las Vegas or Phoenix. Both cities reach average high temps of 100F the months of June, July and August, with the potential of seeing record heat of 100 and above all the way through October.

[mr.bernham]

I am well aware about the invitations sent out to potential host cities, and if you saw the list of cities that were sent invitations you would know the USOC was not genuinely thinking all 35 cities actually had the potential to host the games. As stated in this article, invitations were sent out to the top 25 most populated cities, and 10 others who were previously interested in hosting, or have hosted. So Oakland wasn't overlooked because it wasn't worthy, it was overlooked because it wasn't as populated or they have never previously shown interest to host.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/02/19/usoc-olympic-host-city-bid-process/1930475/?sf9722106=1

And here is a list of the cities that USAToday comically ranked.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/19/35-american-cities-host-olympics/1931177/

To save you the trouble of looking, Oakland ranks 45th in the US with a population of about 406,000. And if I was sending invitations to cities that had an actual chance of ever hosting the Summer Olympics, I wouldn't send one to Las Vegas or Phoenix. Both cities reach average high temps of 100F the months of June, July and August, with the potential of seeing record heat of 100 and above all the way through October.

Allow me to put this is Texan terms...

Would you ask the Woodlands to host the Olympics over being a part of a larger Houston bid? No, you would not because The Woodlands are a part of the Great Houston Metropolitan Area. The same relationship exists between Oakland and San Francisco, Oakland is a smaller city within San Francisco's metro area. Even though it has more international importance and name recognition then other cities in large metro areas you still would call the games the San Francisco games and group the Oakland venues in with an SF bid.

[LatinXTC]

Allow me to put this is Texan terms...

Would you ask the Woodlands to host the Olympics over being a part of a larger Houston bid? No, you would not because The Woodlands are a part of the Great Houston Metropolitan Area. The same relationship exists between Oakland and San Francisco, Oakland is a smaller city within San Francisco's metro area. Even though it has more international importance and name recognition then other cities in large metro areas you still would call the games the San Francisco games and group the Oakland venues in with an SF bid.

The major difference is The Woodlands is NOT a city in government terms. It doesn't have its own mayor and instead is run by a board of directors. So it could never put in its own bid and successfully work.

Oakland IS by definition a city, and with the possible plan of Coliseum City, I think had Oakland put some interest in being in the running to host with that plan it would have looked more interesting than what San Francisco will have to offer if it decides to repeat its plan of previous bids.

San Francisco currently has not announced any plans to build something along the lines of an Olympic Park and again will probably rely on Oakland, Santa Clara, and surrounding areas to host events as well. Again, Oakland and Santa Clara are its own cities with its own government, and this will be looked as an identity crisis to the IOC. The IOC has not approved, and may never approve, an option of a joint city bid, and if San Francisco decides to rely too much on neighboring cities, their bid will look more like a joint bid than a single-city bid.

[FYI]

As stated in this article, invitations were sent out to the top 25 most populated cities, and 10 others who were previously interested in hosting, or have hosted. So Oakland wasn't overlooked because it wasn't worthy, it was overlooked because it wasn't as populated or they have never previously shown interest to host.

Rochester, NY & Memphis, Tennesee, for example, have never expressed interest in hosting the Olympics, yet they're much smaller than Oakland & they received invites.

Some of those smallish cities on that initial list were absolutely caught off-guard why they were even sent the "invitation" by the USOC in the first place. Yet cities like Tampa & Cincinnati, which have expressed interests in the past, weren't sent anything.

Oakland wasn't sent an invite not bcuz it's the 45th largest city in the U.S. but bcuz it's part of a greater entity, the San Francisco Bay Area. I think what that article meant to say is that the USOC wanted to target the top 25 "metropolitan" market areas in the country & not just the "cities" themselves.

[baron-pierreIV]

Rochester, NY & Memphis, Tennesee, for example, have never expressed interest in hosting the Olympics, yet they're much smaller than Oakland & they received invites.

Some of those smallish cities on that initial list were absolutely caught off-guard why they were even sent the "invitation" by the USOC in the first place. Yet cities like Tampa & Cincinnati, which have expressed interests in the past, weren't sent anything.

Oakland wasn't sent an invite not bcuz it's the 45th largest city in the U.S. but bcuz it's part of a greater entity, the San Francisco Bay Area. I think what that article meant to say is that the USOC wanted to target the top 25 "metropolitan" market areas in the country & not just the "cities" themselves.

Exactly. The USOC knows that Oakland CANNOT handle an Olympics by itself. I mean who's kidding whom? The lead city in northern CA is San Francisco and SF is always a favorite of the USOC if SF can ever get its act together. The concentration of hotels and convention space downtown is exactly the sort of core that the USOC is looking for, i.e., it'll compare to the core of the more compact Euro cities.

[LatinXTC]

Rochester, NY & Memphis, Tennesee, for example, have never expressed interest in hosting the Olympics, yet they're much smaller than Oakland & they received invites.

Some of those smallish cities on that initial list were absolutely caught off-guard why they were even sent the "invitation" by the USOC in the first place. Yet cities like Tampa & Cincinnati, which have expressed interests in the past, weren't sent anything.

Oakland wasn't sent an invite not bcuz it's the 45th largest city in the U.S. but bcuz it's part of a greater entity, the San Francisco Bay Area. I think what that article meant to say is that the USOC wanted to target the top 25 "metropolitan" market areas in the country & not just the "cities" themselves.

Yea I was going to include a list of a few of them that were less populated than Oakland, but I thought it was going to be a bit much lol. The Rochester one really made no sense, but perhaps they took that into consideration because of its proximity to Lake Ontario and Niagra Falls?

And according to Wiki, Memphis is the 20th most populated city in the US, so that's why it received an invite.

[FYI]

The IOC has not approved, and may never approve, an option of a joint city bid, and if San Francisco decides to rely too much on neighboring cities, their bid will look more like a joint bid than a single-city bid.

These two cities are right across the bay from one another, not across the state. It all would depend where the "core" venue plan would be located & how the transport links would work between the remainder of the venues.

[FYI]

And according to Wiki, Memphis is the 20th most populated city in the US, so that's why it received an invite.

Okay, then let's just replace Memphis with Pittsburgh.

[LatinXTC]

Exactly. The USOC knows that Oakland CANNOT handle an Olympics by itself. I mean who's kidding whom? The lead city in northern CA is San Francisco and SF is always a favorite of the USOC if SF can ever get its act together. The concentration of hotels and convention space downtown is exactly the sort of core that the USOC is looking for, i.e., it'll compare to the core of the more compact Euro cities.

Oh I am definitely not rooting for Oakland over San Francisco to be a host city let's get that cleared up right now lol. My whole point is that San Francisco's Olympic bid will rely too heavily on Oakland and I believe it's something that the IOC, and the USOC, will take into account.

[baron-pierreIV]

Oh I am definitely not rooting for Oakland over San Francisco to be a host city let's get that cleared up right now lol. My whole point is that San Francisco's Olympic bid will rely too heavily on Oakland and I believe it's something that the IOC, and the USOC, will take into account.

Oakland actually has nicer weather than SF. It also IMHO has a better Farmers Market than SF. It's not Oakland's fault that they lay just across the Bay from SF. I DON'T see Oakland being an adjunct city as hurting a SF bid. The USOC would not be so hot on SF if they thought that Oakland would be a big liability. The president of the USOC and IOC member, Larry Probst, has his offices in Redwood City. SF is that star, and Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Palo Alto, etc., are the supporting cast. It can't be any other way. If you think SF is small, Boston and Seattle are EVEN smaller than SF. But at least SF has that incomparable beauty and the whole region makes it a destination place....not just one to head for an arena, watch some sports and then go back to your hotel. There's Napa, Sonoma, Carmel, the Redwood forests, Yosemite, Tahoe, etc.,etc. Oakland is part of that beautiful package.

Besides, if Coliseum City comes about, that's about it that you'll see in Oakland; maybe the Kaiser Convention Center by Lake Merritt. So, it's not like 'heavy reliance' on Oakland. And depending on what happens in Agenda 2020, if Track & Field is cut, then there's NO NEED for Coliseum City.

[FYI]

My whole point is that San Francisco's Olympic bid will rely too heavily on Oakland and I believe it's something that the IOC, and the USOC, will take into account.

Again, it all would depend where they draw up the plans for the "core" of the action & how they would plan to link everything up. If the USOC still took the farce of a bid that was "San Francisco" 2012 (which had everything centered around Palo Alto, a world away from Oakland & San Fran) to the final round against New York for the 2012 nomination, then anything else better than that is still worth a look, at the very least.

[Quaker2001]

I am well aware about the invitations sent out to potential host cities, and if you saw the list of cities that were sent invitations you would know the USOC was not genuinely thinking all 35 cities actually had the potential to host the games. As stated in this article, invitations were sent out to the top 25 most populated cities, and 10 others who were previously interested in hosting, or have hosted. So Oakland wasn't overlooked because it wasn't worthy, it was overlooked because it wasn't as populated or they have never previously shown interest to host.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/02/19/usoc-olympic-host-city-bid-process/1930475/?sf9722106=1

And here is a list of the cities that USAToday comically ranked.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/19/35-american-cities-host-olympics/1931177/

To save you the trouble of looking, Oakland ranks 45th in the US with a population of about 406,000. And if I was sending invitations to cities that had an actual chance of ever hosting the Summer Olympics, I wouldn't send one to Las Vegas or Phoenix. Both cities reach average high temps of 100F the months of June, July and August, with the potential of seeing record heat of 100 and above all the way through October.

I believe the word some of us were using around here that some media types referred to was that the USOC was "trolling" for candidates. Obviously they didn't think all 35 cities would be interested, but for them, they wanted to cast a wide net and perhaps be somewhat inclusionary since this wasn't an open bid process like it was in the past. Yes, there were some cities that had no business being on there (I would point to ones like Rochester and the T-word before I would bring up the likes of Las Vegas and Phoenix, not that Las Vegas thinks they need an invitation to bid.. Las Vegas Submits Rogue Bid To Host The 2020 Olympics).

So yea, Oakland didn't make the cut. You can cite the population or the lack of previous interest (more on that in a sec), but if the USOC thought there was anything there they could work with, they could have included them. But since previous San Francisco efforts have included the entire Bay Area, Oakland hasn't unilaterally shown interest in a bid (why should they when San Francisco is right next door), so it's a moot point. I've made the same argument before about San Diego (who did get an invitation and did express an interest in their own bid) that they're too close to Los Angeles to make a serious push for an Olympics. As much as SD and LA are distinct entities, try selling that to an international organization such as the IOC. So it is with San Fran and Oakland and they are very much a part of the same metro area. It would be foolish for Oakland to try and take the lead when San Francisco has the much better brand. Likewise, any effort by San Francisco is going to utilize Oakland because of its proximity, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Oh I am definitely not rooting for Oakland over San Francisco to be a host city let's get that cleared up right now lol. My whole point is that San Francisco's Olympic bid will rely too heavily on Oakland and I believe it's something that the IOC, and the USOC, will take into account.

Is that necessarily a negative though? The transportation links are there between the 2, so that could still be a positive. I don't think the IOC would get that caught up in labels in that regard. It's not like Sydney or London (I'm sure there are other examples) had their centers of attention necessarily in the city center. Like baron said, you can still center the bid around San Francisco and all that is attractive about it while still using place like Oakland to make the whole thing a little more sensible for the area.

[woohooitsme83]

To be honest, whenever I think of San Francisco, I tend to think of the entire Bay Area rather than the actual city limits (It's like the same with LA and LA County). BART Connects the Bay Area, LA Metro connects the county.

[StefanMUC]

To be honest, whenever I think of San Francisco, I tend to think of the entire Bay Area rather than the actual city limits (It's like the same with LA and LA County). BART Connects the Bay Area, LA Metro connects the county.

I guess that's how most IOC members see it too. There are very diverging definitions of administrative boundaries in each country, so I doubt the IOC would care too much, as long as they get their compact bid/transportation requirements etc.