Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
baron-pierreIV

San Francisco 2024

Recommended Posts

OK,let me ask you a question: who were the 2 prominent families who donated to Lake Placid 1980 and Salt Lake 2002?

If you can't answer that within the next ten minutes after you read this question; then that answers my question as to why giving to the Opera/Ballet/Symphony/PBS/Museums is different from giving to an ephemeral "sports" thing like the Olympics where you don't attend the Opening Ceremony in a Carolina Herrera gown; where you don't see your image splattered on the society pages the next day...and where you won't HAVE a permanent Donors Wall since nearly everything will be temporary and be torn down the minute the circus leaves town. In an Olympics, the athletes and the IOC are the stars of the show -- not the Donors.

So unless SFOCOG has found a new way to attract that kind of money, I really don't see that business model working. I could be wrong though.

BTW, I am going to the Ballet opening in 3 weeks...but I am only doing so because I am treating myself to that event and crossing it off my bucket list. For no other reason.

Spencer Eccles gave about $18M to the Salt Lake Games, though his wealth was not in the same league as that of silicon valley billionaires. I don't know about Lake Placid. Their sponsors list was virtually all corporations, and doesn't differentiate by amounts. Both events were a long time ago given the way Olympic politics has changed. The IOC's reputation was not nearly as bad as it is now. I just found all this from Internet research, BTW.

We don't disagree on the history, though, and I think we agree that the key issue for SF 2024 is whether they can attract unprecedented private money, in whatever form. Rich people give to all kinds of things - research, PBS, their own personal yachting teams. There can certainly be a memorial at the legacy park that lists their names, and there will of course be lots of exclusive champaigne parties with fancy cars and dresses, for years in the leadup. The key thing is not the specific form of the event, but whether (a) rich people value having it in their city, and (B) the money can be raised without private donations. The answer has to be yes to a and no to b, and at that point, we will see the charity machine rev up. Not before. Of course they are not going to give money if they think the government and event revenues will cover the bill. In that case they are more likely to be recipients than givers.

The Daly-led opposition campaign is useful for at least a couple of reasons:

(1) The opposition is laying its cards on the table now, rather than waiting, so that the USOC and everyone can see what they won't accept and what they plan to do about it. That's better for SF 2024 than background uncertainty how what those activists might do. And,

(2) They are providing the backing that the committee needs in seeking private money. "Look here: we can't get this from the government, so if you would like to see this happen, we need to raise it privately."

But right, if they can't make that work, the Games won't happen in SF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got 50% right on that...but you had to do a little research. ;) It was Sonny and Marylou Whitney (as in Whitney Museum of NYC) who gave like $5.5 mil to Lake Placid because it was being held in their part of the woods. But that was never highly publicized.

Rich donors usually give for the seed and development $$ but nowhere will they give $30 - $40 million plus that they would ordinarily donate to universities, hospitals and research. Those causes last generations and have real life-altering effects. What does contributing to an Olympics bring? Maybe a wall plaque? A torch or 2? Some corridor named after them? Big deal. But not much else in terms of lasting value. And remember, they can't use their names when it comes to Olympic facilities until AFTER the Games have been played. So unless they want to stay anonymous (which very few do), they will want some sort of immediate credit -- and direct donations to an Organizing Committee isn't the way to go about it. As I said, previously, in the OGs, the athletes and the IOC are the stars...not the rich donors behind the scenes. So other than initial seed money, a SFOCOG would be very naive to expect private parties to fill in a deficit of a billion or 2.

@Todd, SF2024 has declared itself a Non-Profit Organization. See here: https://www.facebook.com/SF2024

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to see how many venues need to be built and renovated and what those projected costs are.

They're all "temporary" structures.

Start with T&F/Oly stadium - $350 mil...supposedly. I don't think they can have test events there a year before. So probably only the US finals a month before would be the only test events for this venue. Everything else is much cheaper (figures are MY estimates in 2024 $$).

- Aquatic Center (3 sports; est $2.5 mil)

- Beach volleyball venue (est. $750,000.)

- Sailing and tennis center on Treasure Island (both temporary) - est. $1 mil

- "velodrome" at O stadium (I think just the track; outdoor, plywood.) - $650,000.

- upgrades to Equestrian in Woodside (est $400,000)

(Rowing and archery stands - another $600,000)

Whitewater rafting in Vallejo could be cut due to Agenda 2020; I'd like them to cut T&F as well.

(Unclear where Shooting will be.)

Upgrading other venues (Cow Palace, Moscone; San Jose Convention Center; adjustments before & after Paralympic use - $15 mil.)

I'd say the construction (including design fees, /upgrades/teardown for ALL venues) budget for SF2024 would be $430 million with Oly Stadium taking up a good 75% of that. (O Village adjustments could run another $15 million.)

-

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're all "temporary" structures.

Start with T&F/Oly stadium - $350 mil...supposedly. I don't think they can have test events there a year before. So probably only the US finals a month before would be the only test events for this venue. Everything else is much cheaper (figures are MY estimates in 2024 $$).

- Aquatic Center (3 sports; est $2.5 mil)

- Beach volleyball venue (est. $750,000.)

- Sailing and tennis center on Treasure Island (both temporary) - est. $1 mil

- "velodrome" at O stadium (I think just the track; outdoor, plywood.) - $650,000.

- upgrades to Equestrian in Woodside (est $400,000)

(Rowing and archery stands - another $600,000)

Whitewater rafting in Vallejo could be cut due to Agenda 2020; I'd like them to cut T&F as well.

(Unclear where Shooting will be.)

Upgrading other venues (Cow Palace, Moscone; San Jose Convention Center; adjustments before & after Paralympic use - $15 mil.)

I'd say the construction (including design fees, /upgrades/teardown for ALL venues) budget for SF2024 would be $430 million with Oly Stadium taking up a good 75% of that. (O Village adjustments could run another $15 million.)

-

If the Olympic Stadium stands to cost $350 million, pretty sure you're gong to need more than $750 thousand for beach volleyball. I saw 1 article that puts the price for London's venue at Horse Guards Parade at $11.2 million. That seems more in line with what it would cost.

I don't know what the totals would be, but I would say almost any venue, either temporary or requiring significant upgrades, is going to cost at least $10 million per.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only figures I have seen coming from SF 2024 are $4.5B total and $350M for the stadium. Apparently all four cities gave the same budget total at the December meeting ($4.5B), which indicates that is an input to further calculations rather than an output, for at least three of the cities. It's possible one city added up costs and the other three just copied the total, but I I'm guessing the 4.5 figure came from the USOC or a common revenue assumption.

Baron, do you know if these budgets include security? I would think so, but that's a huge component (over a billion I think, and it could easily be 2B). That part seems like it would have to come from the Feds.

BTW the Exploratory Committee includes socialites with close ties to philanthropy (Goldman, the Shultzes, Wendt, Wilsey). Certainly not a naive bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Olympic Stadium stands to cost $350 million, pretty sure you're gong to need more than $750 thousand for beach volleyball. I saw 1 article that puts the price for London's venue at Horse Guards Parade at $11.2 million. That seems more in line with what it would cost.

I don't know what the totals would be, but I would say almost any venue, either temporary or requiring significant upgrades, is going to cost at least $10 million per.

Oh really, was it that much? Then wow, my estimates were so conservative. So the construction budget for an SF 2024 then is going to be closer to the $600 - 700 million range.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Baron, do you know if these budgets include security? I would think so, but that's a huge component (over a billion I think, and it could easily be 2B). That part seems like it would have to come from the Feds.

2. BTW the Exploratory Committee includes socialites with close ties to philanthropy (Goldman, the Shultzes, Wendt, Wilsey). Certainly not a naive bunch.

1. Those projections probably do NOT include security which will be provided by the Feds. The FBI and Secret Service previously did NOT want sums publicized because those are confidential and come out of discretionary funds. I imagine Homeland Security will take over...but again, they will NOT release security budgets. People can guess them at most.

2. Oh yeah, as I said, seed money & early stages includes socialities and philantrophic names -- as it did in Chicago, the Pritzkers, etc. They'll throw in a a million or 2; maybe 5 (as the Yahoo or Google guys did for the SF 2016 run; and that was quickly returned to them when the bid folded prematurely). Bloomberg supposedly spent $15 mil of his own money for NYC 2012; his lieutenant, Doctoroff, threw in another $5 mil of his own money for the bid.

Of course they'll help in the fund-raising but I doubt that they would throw in more than that. I mean Dede Wilsey raised what? $250 mil for the new de Young. But see, their names are forever emblazoned on there for the next hundred years or so; their heirs can bask in the glow of their antecedents' efforts...and no win or lose.

But after one Olympics, what happens to the rich donors? If anything, the Pritzkers of Chicago probably feel a little foolish contributing so much to a first-dismissed Chicago effort. (Not that they would want for $$$; but these people want something in return for giving some of their wealth away -- like some lasting prestige at least.)

If I didn't ask you about the Rice-Eccles and the Whitneys, their names would probably never have come up in any connection with the Olympics.

Let's agree to disagree; we don't see eye-to-eye on the subject.

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw 1 article that puts the price for London's venue at Horse Guards Parade at $11.2 million. That seems more in line with what it would cost.

That article re the Horse Guards Beach Volleyball venue is interesting, however, it omits one of the subcontractors, StageOne who claims to have played a pivotal part in that venue and claims a 15,000 capactiy vs. the "inside-the-games" article which quotes an 18,000-seat capacity. (Which is the factual one?). StageOne has done MANY Olympic ceremonial projects including the Athens Head and the London 2012-Heatherwick cauldron. And I guess the $11.2 million quote is a one-time thing (i.e., does not include the 2011 set-up when it hosted a test event) which would make the cost on that venue actually double...or unless the 2011 set-up was a cheap one. If 2011 was as elaborate as the actual 2012 set-up, then at $22.4 million, that is pretty high cost even for a temp venue. And would the ticket sales for that sport even have covered that cost?? .

http://www.stageone.co.uk/projects/london-2012-beach-volleyball

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More new details for San Francisco's winning bid, in accordance with the new Agenda 2020 rules:

- Field hockey will be offered to Paris, France

- Athletics to Los Angeles

- Equestrian to Rome

- Rowing to Berlin

- modern pentathlon to Durban

Everything else will be in the SF Bay Area. :lol:B)

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More new details for San Francisco's winning bid, in accordance with the new Agenda 2020 rules:

- Field hockey will be offered to Paris, France

- Athletics to Los Angeles

- Equestrian to Rome

- Rowing to Berlin

- modern pentathlon to Durban

Everything else will be in the SF Bay Area. :lol:B)

Give Sydney beach volleyball and I'll arrange to lock up the Oz votes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Sydney beach volleyball and I'll arrange to lock up the Oz votes.

Done deal!!

(NOTE: Wednesday, Jan 7 is actually co-leader Anne Warner Cribbs' birthday, so Thursday could turn out to be a timely B-day present for Anne.)

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Bach, president of the IOC, has published an op-ed about Agenda 2020.

Embedded in it is this quote:

"Each of the four cities being considered — San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washinton, D.C., and Boston — will no doubt present a strong bid."

I find the order of cities there interesting. It's not alphabetical. And the timing of the op-ed, three days before the vote. Hmmm. Could this be Bach's signal to the USOC about his preference ordering over the four U.S. cities? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Bach, president of the IOC, has published an op-ed about Agenda 2020.

Embedded in it is this quote:

"Each of the four cities being considered — San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washinton, D.C., and Boston — will no doubt present a strong bid."

I find the order of cities there interesting. It's not alphabetical. And the timing of the op-ed, three days before the vote. Hmmm. Could this be Bach's signal to the USOC about his preference ordering over the four U.S. cities? :unsure:

Or it could just be West to East as he was looking off a map. I wouldn't read much into the order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Bach, president of the IOC, has published an op-ed about Agenda 2020.

Embedded in it is this quote:

"Each of the four cities being considered — San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washinton, D.C., and Boston — will no doubt present a strong bid."

I find the order of cities there interesting. It's not alphabetical. And the timing of the op-ed, three days before the vote. Hmmm. Could this be Bach's signal to the USOC about his preference ordering over the four U.S. cities? :unsure:

What would Bach know at this point? The question more is: with the exception of Atlanta, will the tradition of picking two-named cities as US Olympic hosts continue if SF is picked? (St. Louis, LA (2x), Lake Placid, Squaw Valley, Salt Lake).

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question more is: with the exception of Atlanta, will the tradition of picking two-named cities as US Olympic hosts continue if SF is picked? (St. Louis, LA (2x), Lake Placid, Squaw Valley, Salt Lake).

San Francisco

Los Angeles

District Columbia

Effing Boston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard on the 6:00 news. SF is throwing its main Oly stadium site to Coliseum City. With the new Oakland mayor on the call, it now appears...."appears" being the operative word... that the Raiders will stay and that a new home for them will be built...and SF2024 will pretty much use the same "platform" scheme that was planned for the 2016 stadium in Candlestick Park. The USOC was called this afternoon and they were supposed to be pleased.

I think that definitely strengthens the Bay Area's bid. I've always thought that that was the weakest link in SF's plan. (Still can't find a link to that news story.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard on the 6:00 news. SF is throwing its main Oly stadium site to Coliseum City. With the new Oakland mayor on the call, it now appears...."appears" being the operative word... that the Raiders will stay and that a new home for them will be built...and SF2024 will pretty much use the same "platform" scheme that was planned for the 2016 stadium in Candlestick Park. The USOC was called this afternoon and they were supposed to be pleased.

I think that definitely strengthens the Bay Area's bid. I've always thought that that was the weakest link in SF's plan. (Still can't find a link to that news story.)

Agreed. Wasn't a fan of the pop-up stadium idea. The concern I'd have.. SF has gotten burned before by trying to partner up with an NFL team. I know there are some different circumstances here, but I'd still be concerned if that's how they're pushing forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Wasn't a fan of the pop-up stadium idea. The concern I'd have.. SF has gotten burned before by trying to partner up with an NFL team. I know there are some different circumstances here, but I'd still be concerned if that's how they're pushing forward.

Yup. I guess maybe the Raiders' hand too has been forced. I'd like to know the real story too someday, if this comes to fruition. I guess new Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf must've read the Raiders the riot act or something like that. Let's see if that's what SF needed to clinch this thing. We'll know sometime tomorrow.

Or maybe the $350 mil that SF 2024 was willing to allocate to the Brisbane scheme might be the ORg Committee's contribution to the Raiders' new stadium, or part of that?!?!?

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that still be tentative, though?

I thought so. But it's crunchtime, so throw-everything-in-including-the-kitchen-sink and let tomorrow deal with itself, I guess. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but tentative still doesn't sound very convincing. More like a "let's wait & see" deal. Can the USOC really afford that when all this time they've only talked about having a 'solid' partner that they feel will deliver & bring it home for them. Sounds very risky at this current state.

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...