Rome 2024

[ofan]

Tony you've improved a lot. But i feel like every second word from you is now Agenda2020 or Geopolitics.

[Quaker2001]

Tony you've improved a lot. But i feel like every second word from you is now Agenda2020 or Geopolitics.

In fairness to Tony, he's not the only person using Agenda 2020 to explain anything and everything. We have more bidders (potentially) for 2024?.. must be because of Agenda 2020. Boston got picked over San Francisco? Probably has something to do with Agenda 2020.

But yes, Agenda 2020 and 'geopolitics' are 2 very broad concepts that require specific applications. They're not these general concepts that we are worth throwing out there without context. Someone offering up that context is likely making a smart argument. Those who do it without context tend to look less than smart.

[runningrings]

No Tony, you kept saying Rome will be the "favourite". With the US at least now confirmed to bid and give them tough competition, you're wrong in that.

Plus the difference between Rome and Paris is that the latter of those two will make it hard for the IOC to pick the US.

I think Boston could easily triumph over Rome.

Flip side is that the IOC would have a hellish decision choosing between Paris and Boston. I'd pick Paris, and hope that the U.S. bids again on 2028.

[intoronto]

Agenda 2020 is just a set of fiction. 10,500 athletes is the limit (there was more than that in London), yet they want to add more sports for example.

[Nacre]

Flip side is that the IOC would have a hellish decision choosing between Paris and Boston. I'd pick Paris, and hope that the U.S. bids again on 2028.

I think the US will. The key difference is that if Boston is rejected the USA still has half a dozen other cities ready and willing to take the plunge, while if Paris is rejected France probably won't bid again for another couple of decades.

Another issue is that the USOC has to show it got something in exchange for "giving back" a big cut of the IOC's revenue. At the time it was suggested to the public that they agreed to that in order to woo the IOC back to the US. They can't justify making that deal and then failing to even bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

Another issue is that the USOC has to show it got something in exchange for "giving back" a big cut of the IOC's revenue. At the time it was suggested to the public that they agreed to that in order to woo the IOC back to the US. They can't justify making that deal and then failing to even bid.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt? Whakinda logic is that??

[woohooitsme83]

I think the US will. The key difference is that if Boston is rejected the USA still has half a dozen other cities ready and willing to take the plunge, while if Paris is rejected France probably won't bid again for another couple of decades.

Yes of course. That's why the USOC said no to 2020/2022. They had tons of cities willing to offer up didn't they? Why the decision (rhetorical question)?

Yes, of course, that's why cities consistently bid year after year; that's why its fairly rare to have first time entries winning. Why would France simply give up? It makes our sound like countries with one major powerhouse should be given priority.the cities with multiple large cities? Screw them!

[woohooitsme83]

*it

[FYI]

It all relative. Others would say, with the non-American viewpoint, why should the U.S. be given priority simply bcuz they're in a certain bid race.

Why would France simply give up? The French know when to call it quits. It's not like they came back again & again, like Madrid did (& to no avail anyway) when they lost to London.

If Paris bids & for some reason loses 2024, I doubt that we'll see them bid again anytime soon after that, especially if they lose to another European city (which would only make sense anyway). And if they wound up losing to the U.S., they'd probably take it as a slight like then they lost to the U.K. Unlike Spain (although it appears that they perhaps finally got the message), France isn't glutton for punishment.

[Nacre]

"Should" has nothing to do with it. You can argue that Chicago and New York should have attempted to win the right to bid instead of LA, Boston, SF and DC. But they didn't want to. And if Paris is rejected yet again I doubt the French will want to bid again for a few cycles. The IOC can't force them to bid.

I think if Boston is rejected the people there will also be upset and not want to bid again. The difference is that the USOC still has a lot of other cities willing to line up and take their punishment, so it doesn't hurt the USOC as much if Boston loses.

I'm not sure about Rome, though. Italy has bigger issues than the Olympics right now. (Such as housing and jobs for its younger workers.) The Italians might feel that they would be better off waiting until later anyway.

[Quaker2001]

I think the US will. The key difference is that if Boston is rejected the USA still has half a dozen other cities ready and willing to take the plunge, while if Paris is rejected France probably won't bid again for another couple of decades.

Another issue is that the USOC has to show it got something in exchange for "giving back" a big cut of the IOC's revenue. At the time it was suggested to the public that they agreed to that in order to woo the IOC back to the US. They can't justify making that deal and then failing to even bid.

Until the public has a stake in the Olympic bidding process, their opinion means little. That's spin to say the public was to expect the USOC would get something in return for the revenue deal. It's not what compels them to bid, simply to make good on that. They did it in part to facilitate bidding again. That has happened. What happens next is no longer an effect of the revenue deal.

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

It all relative. Others would say, with the non-American viewpoint, why should the U.S. be given priority simply bcuz they're in a certain bid race.

Why would France simply give up? The French know when to call it quits. It's not like they came back again & again, like Madrid did (& to no avail anyway) when they lost to London.

If Paris bids & for some reason loses 2024, I doubt that we'll see them bid again anytime soon after that, especially if they lose to another European city (which would only make sense anyway). And if they wound up losing to the U.S., they'd probably take it as a slight like then they lost to the U.K. Unlike Spain (although it appears that they perhaps finally got the message), France isn't glutton for punishment.

In your last paragraph, what do you mean?

Anyway, I think Paris won't bid again either if they don't host in 2024. We all know Istanbul and Doha stand no chance of hosting. Baku won't host in 2024, so it's Rome, Paris, a bid from Germany, Durban and Boston looking like the favourites, with Rome and Boston looking serious with their bid. Germany will probably have a very strong bid aswell.

[baron-pierreIV]

The Rome 2024 page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rome-2024-Olympic-Bid-Roma-2024-Candidatura-Olimpica/340944446001218

[zekekelso]

I'm not sure about Rome, though. Italy has bigger issues than the Olympics right now. (Such as housing and jobs for its younger workers.) The Italians might feel that they would be better off waiting until later anyway.

Things hosting the Olympics provide:

1) jobs

2) housing

[Quaker2001]

Things hosting the Olympics provide:

1) jobs

2) housing

That's true, but only if you are the winning bidder. To say nothing of the fact that this is an Olympics nearly a decade away. So even if Rome were to win, will they feel the effects of this much before them? And what happens if they lose? That's the catch-22 in bidding for the Olympics.. you're hopeful of winning to spur on urban development, but then if you don't win, does that happen anyway? New York is the prime example of that.. the legacy to many here is of a bid whose stadium plan fell apart at the 11th hour and finished 4th out of 5 cities in the voting. In other words, a failure. But the history tells us that NYC's bid did in fact lead to some new developments that had been tied to or at least suggested by the Olympics. That's why NYC didn't come back to bid again. Not so much because of the loss or the stadium, but because they moved on with other plans.

[Rob2012]

That's true, but only if you are the winning bidder. To say nothing of the fact that this is an Olympics nearly a decade away. So even if Rome were to win, will they feel the effects of this much before them? And what happens if they lose? That's the catch-22 in bidding for the Olympics.. you're hopeful of winning to spur on urban development, but then if you don't win, does that happen anyway? New York is the prime example of that.. the legacy to many here is of a bid whose stadium plan fell apart at the 11th hour and finished 4th out of 5 cities in the voting. In other words, a failure. But the history tells us that NYC's bid did in fact lead to some new developments that had been tied to or at least suggested by the Olympics. That's why NYC didn't come back to bid again. Not so much because of the loss or the stadium, but because they moved on with other plans.

On the other hand, in the teeth of the recession, there''s zero chance London would've done much with the area where the Olympic Park is located had we not won the bid. Olympics often super-accelerate regeneration, so I think NYC's experience is likely to exception rather than the rule.

What needs to happen is that the bidding process needs to be made inexpensive enough that cities without the resources of a NYC or a London see the gamble as worth it. Spunking £50m on a lost bid doesn't look like good economics, so it should be in the IOC and cities' interests to reduce this as far as possible without diminishing the quality of what they're offering.

And when it comes to Rome, they need to make sure they get their message straight which was what Madrid failed to do with a similarly anaemic economy. They can't sell an Olympics with hardly any construction then claim tens of thousands of jobs will be created as people will see through that. If you're using the Olympics to stimulate, for example, the construction sector or young people in employment, make damn sure they're going to do that.

[FYI]

We all know Istanbul and Doha stand no chance of hosting.

I wouldn't categorize these two as being one in the same. Istanbul has made the IOC shortlist twice (which therefore doesn't qualify as "no chance), while Doha (even though supposedly technically capable) has been given the old heave-ho by the IOC twice now. One is an exotic, intriguing giant locale right on the Bosphorus. The other, is a dried-up wannabe global city-state in the middle of the desert. The two aren't comparable whatsoever.

[StefanMUC]

I know I'm leaning far out of the window here, but I really sincerely doubt Rome will stand a realistic chance.

The economic and political climate in Italy is very very volatile still, and if they really want to spread venues (apart from football) to Florence, Naples etc, I don't think this will appeal to the IOC, at least not in comparison with a (potential so far) Paris bid that may have similar economic and political concerns, but with their bid experience over the past three decades should be smart enough to know by now what the IOC really wants from them.

If Paris doesn't bid and Germany is shooting itself in the foot with Euro 2024, this may seem easier for Rome, but at the same time, I could easily imagine the IOC skipping a (slightly?) questionable European bid in favour of a solid Boston bid.

[LatinXTC]

I wouldn't categorize these two as being one in the same. Istanbul has made the IOC shortlist twice (which therefore doesn't qualify as "no chance), while Doha (even though supposedly technically capable) has been given the old heave-ho by the IOC twice now. One is an exotic, intriguing giant locale right on the Bosphorus. The other, is a dried-up wannabe global city-state in the middle of the desert. The two aren't comparable whatsoever.

lol I don't know how on earth anyone can be so dense as bundling those cities as the same. And the IOC would be wise to totally give Doha the cold shoulder after seeing how they've been screwing up the 2022 World Cup. You better believe that if for some ungodly reason they give Doha a chance, Doha will demand the Summer Olympics be held in January.

If Paris doesn't bid and Germany is shooting itself in the foot with Euro 2024, this may seem easier for Rome, but at the same time, I could easily imagine the IOC skipping a (slightly?) questionable European bid in favour of a solid Boston bid.

With a scenario like that, it's almost like another Athens/Atlanta situation.

And does Euro 2024 really affect Germany's chances of an Olympic games? It's not exactly a worldwide event, and there are ways around it like not having Berlin or Hamburg be a host to any of the games. I think the rules state that the city itself can't hold 2 large sporting events in the same year, and that can be circumvented by having other cities host games rather than either of those two.

[Nacre]

Things hosting the Olympics provide:

1) jobs

2) housing

The construction jobs typically go to huge multi-national corporations, and for the billions of Euros Italy would have to spend the athletes village won't provide good value for money if the goal is simply to build housing.

My biggest concern with all of these bids is that we haven't seen an explanation for what they will do for the host. London had a very simple yet very effective plan to redevelop the East End and get its citizenry to be more involved in participating in sport. How does Boston benefit from hosting if they aren't going to upgrade the mass transit system and build almost entirely temporary venues? How is Paris going to benefit when it already has more prestige than any other city in the world? How is Italy going to benefit when it clearly has bigger priorities economically?

That's the one thing I think Germany has going for it: Hamburg has the potential for greater legacy. Germany can afford new stadiums and high speed rail lines and Hamburg could make use of them. They could build a stadium and convert it for Hamburger SV just like London did with West Ham United. The Olympics would also probably spur Hamburg to build its planned metro and high speed rail extensions. It's not as sexy as Rome or Paris, but Hamburg would probably end up following the London model and being a very smart choice for the IOC.

And does Euro 2024 really affect Germany's chances of an Olympic games? It's not exactly a worldwide event, and there are ways around it like not having Berlin or Hamburg be a host to any of the games. I think the rules state that the city itself can't hold 2 large sporting events in the same year, and that can be circumvented by having other cities host games rather than either of those two.

Also Germany wouldn't have to build any new stadiums to host a football tournament, as opposed to the current situation in Brazil. It doesn't seem like a problem to me.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Nacre

[StefanMUC]

And does Euro 2024 really affect Germany's chances of an Olympic games? It's not exactly a worldwide event, and there are ways around it like not having Berlin or Hamburg be a host to any of the games. I think the rules state that the city itself can't hold 2 large sporting events in the same year, and that can be circumvented by having other cities host games rather than either of those two.

A big football tournament in Germany without one of the two biggest cities (possibly the capital)? No way. Football is far too popular here to make this sacrifice for the Olympics. It's not about building new stadia, it's about getting too much of the cake in 2024, and while it's not a worldwide event in terms of participation, it certainly triggers worldwide audiences and interest.

[Rob2012]

If any country is capable of doing that, it's Germany, but I still think it's too much and that sponsors will not want to share focus, nor will UEFA or the IOC really. Let's just say I'd be very, very surprised if Germany lands both. And since it seems like they're likely to host the Euros, well...

[reindeer]

In your last paragraph, what do you mean?

I think there's no city that somehow deserves the Games more than someone else. Each bid race is unique with its dynamics and the hosting is awarded to the city that the IOC feels is the most suitable one on those circumstances. Although no one is due the games, it would be foolish for the IOC to give cold shoulder again and again to a city that would most certainly be a great host, in a traditional Western European nation when it's precisely the interest of that type of cities that the IOC is worried about losing and now trying to attract. Paris is not entitled to hosting the Olympics but if they bid and lose, the French would probably be much less likely to come back than certain other cities/countries. It's up to the IOC but would they be willing to take that risk?

[Tony E Loves Architecture]

I wouldn't categorize these two as being one in the same. Istanbul has made the IOC shortlist twice (which therefore doesn't qualify as "no chance), while Doha (even though supposedly technically capable) has been given the old heave-ho by the IOC twice now. One is an exotic, intriguing giant locale right on the Bosphorus. The other, is a dried-up wannabe global city-state in the middle of the desert. The two aren't comparable whatsoever.

Istanbul has more chance of hosting the Summer Olympics then Doha, but Istanbul still won't host a Summer Olympics anytime soon.

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

Istanbul has more chance of hosting the Summer Olympics then Doha, but Istanbul still won't host a Summer Olympics anytime soon.

With this particular President, I doubt we will see any Olympic Games in Turkey for the foreseeable future...though it's a shame, as Turkish history and architecture is worth the discovery.