Jump to content

Potential 2026 and 2028 bids


Recommended Posts

Wasn't there a Finnish bid that considered entering a race for the WOG if it managed to heighten its mountain for the downhill? Wonder how they were planning to do it.

The "mountain" of which you speak is actually Tahko Hill, which would have been dramatically artificially heightened if such a plan was ever put in motion. Which of course is far more unlikely (close to impossible) than a mere 30 meter rise for Quebec's Le Massif.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Having a conversation with you is like having a conversation with this donkey

Latin wasn't disagreeing with you about Almaty/Beijing. But your incessant need to gloat about it and rub it in his face is the problem. We'd be more impressed if you had picked Beijing from the sta

Given that OG bids sometimes require a concerted effort to win over a two and even three cycles, if LA was to fail at 2024 and the US probably being a favourite for the 2028 race based off continental rotation, is LA a fait accompli for being the nominated city? Or are cities like SF and Chicago more likely options?

Is LA legitimately the best candidate city for the US? Or are they merely using 2024 bid to keep the US in the conversation for 2024 before launching 2028 with a more appealing bid (new OG city)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is LA legitimately the best candidate city for the US? Or are they merely using 2024 bid to keep the US in the conversation for 2024 before launching 2028 with a more appealing bid (new OG city)?

Los Angeles is the only city with most of the infrastructure already in place. They have an extant stadium for athletics, huge universities they can use as the athletes and media village, etc. They also have very little to gain by hosting the Olympics, though. It is already very well known around the world and would not benefit from the Olympics in either tourists or urban development.

Meanwhile Philadelphia would have a lot to gain if could redevelop the sea of parking stalls in their stadium district into an Olympic Park (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9044409,-75.1676789,1752m/data=!3m1!1e3), add a couple of subway lines, redefine itself as the birthplace of the USA and a powerful city in its own right and not merely a speed bump between New York and Washington DC.

So "best" is a matter of perspective. There's little to no chance that any other city in the USA puts together a bid for 2024, though.

EDIT: I meant 2028, not 2024.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

LA is easily the best candidate that resolves the issue of the track and field stadium, which in my opinion is the largest obstacle in an Olympic bid city. Since Memorial Coliseum was originally built as a track & field stadium, either removing seats or converting the floor like what Glasgow did for the 2014 Commonwealth Games resolves that issue. And since the regular tenant is a college football team and not an NFL one, they could easily be accommodated elsewhere until the stadium can be converted back to to its college football use.

Most major cities are capable of getting created with the remaining venues for an Olympic games, but if there's not a decent plan on how to resolve the issue of the track & field stadium, then LA is so far the best bet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are cities like Chicago & San Francisco genuine contenders? Or do they possess too many flaws in comparison to LA to overlook the fact LA has hosted twice before?

The issue is not that Los Angeles has hosted twice before (that is probably a negative, actually) but rather that it has most of the venues in place. New York, Chicago and San Francisco would have to build a bunch of the venues, and no American cities are interested in spending $750 million in public money on a track and field stadium, $250 million on an aquatics center, another $250 million on a velodrome, etc. No city in North America is going to do what London did for 2012.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is not that Los Angeles has hosted twice before (that is probably a negative, actually) but rather that it has most of the venues in place. New York, Chicago and San Francisco would have to build a bunch of the venues, and no American cities are interested in spending $750 million in public money on a track and field stadium, $250 million on an aquatics center, another $250 million on a velodrome, etc. No city in North America is going to do what London did for 2012.

Understood - thanks! And I got myself muddled when I said LA hosting it twice would be a positive. I meant would SF & Chicago have enough downside that even with LA having already hosted twice that the IOC would view them more favourably still.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is not that Los Angeles has hosted twice before (that is probably a negative, actually) but rather that it has most of the venues in place. New York, Chicago and San Francisco would have to build a bunch of the venues, and no American cities are interested in spending $750 million in public money on a track and field stadium, $250 million on an aquatics center, another $250 million on a velodrome, etc. No city in North America is going to do what London did for 2012.

That PLUS you will not get the local, popular support numbers that LA can produce from socially conscious, ever-PC San Francisco, or already twice-burned Chicago. At best, maybe the next LA Games can share the football prelims with NYC, Chicago and SF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is LA legitimately the best candidate city for the US? Or are they merely using 2024 bid to keep the US in the conversation for 2024 before launching 2028 with a more appealing bid (new OG city)?

Are cities like Chicago & San Francisco genuine contenders? Or do they possess too many flaws in comparison to LA to overlook the fact LA has hosted twice before?

I meant would SF & Chicago have enough downside that even with LA having already hosted twice that the IOC would view them more favourably still.

Of course Chicago & San Francisco would be genuine contenders, but firsts things first. The overall climate in those cities (i.e. the political & citizenry will, etc) would have to be IDEAL in order for these cities to be able to mount Olympic bids in the first place. Something that Los Angeles has right now over any other U.S. city ATM (including New York). And that's a KEY importance when it comes down to these bids, cuz if the opposition is very strong in your city, your Olympic bid isn't going anywhere (which is the case in many other alternative major U.S. cities).

Let's remember that L.A. got the 2024 nomination by default when Boston (the USOC's initial choice) was getting cold feet (the public mainly, since support was never really strong there TBW) & the city (along with the USOC) decided it was best to pull the plug on Boston 2024 before it was too late to come up with a replacement candidate. So then the USOC decided to go with the city that had all that will & support to move forward if they still wanted to bid for 2024, which that meant Los Angeles (which should've been the USOC's pick from the start).

If the 2024 attempt is unsuccessful, & the USOC decides to go again for 2028, L.A. would still be their best bet for all the reasons mentioned above. The USOC isn't using L.A. 2024 to keep it in the "conversation" for 2028. They'll very likely use L.A. again since they'll still very likely have the most "ideal" conditions than any other American city, but not bcuz it's the most preferred choice (see Boston 2024).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 2024 attempt is unsuccessful, & the USOC decides to go again for 2028, L.A. would still be their best bet for all the reasons mentioned above. The USOC isn't using L.A. 2024 to keep it in the "conversation" for 2028. They'll very likely use L.A. again since they'll still very likely have the most "ideal" conditions than any other American city, but not bcuz it's the most preferred choice (see Boston 2024).

This. I have never gotten behind this concept that a city or country will bid (let alone the United States) simply as a warm-up for the following cycle. Cities are in it to win it. We've seen cities like Rio and Pyeongchang and Tokyo bid under less than ideal circumstances only to win it on a following try. But none of those cities bid simply with the purpose of making themselves more attractive for the next go around. Experience helps, of course. But especially in this situation, the USOC is bidding with LA for 1 reason and 1 reason alone.. they want to win. What happens after that for 2028 if they lose is probably the last thing they're concerned about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This. I have never gotten behind this concept that a city or country will bid (let alone the United States) simply as a warm-up for the following cycle. Cities are in it to win it. We've seen cities like Rio and Pyeongchang and Tokyo bid under less than ideal circumstances only to win it on a following try. But none of those cities bid simply with the purpose of making themselves more attractive for the next go around. Experience helps, of course. But especially in this situation, the USOC is bidding with LA for 1 reason and 1 reason alone.. they want to win. What happens after that for 2028 if they lose is probably the last thing they're concerned about.

While I mostly agree... there's something to be said for a country that has never won a games before or has limited experience going through a bid as mostly a learning experience. The first Pyeongchang bid as almost no shot. But without that bid, and what they learned and acted on, they never would have won. (PS - Yeah, I know, Seoul '88... but there's a bid difference between SOG and WOG.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This. I have never gotten behind this concept that a city or country will bid (let alone the United States) simply as a warm-up for the following cycle. Cities are in it to win it. We've seen cities like Rio and Pyeongchang and Tokyo bid under less than ideal circumstances only to win it on a following try. But none of those cities bid simply with the purpose of making themselves more attractive for the next go around. Experience helps, of course. But especially in this situation, the USOC is bidding with LA for 1 reason and 1 reason alone.. they want to win. What happens after that for 2028 if they lose is probably the last thing they're concerned about.

In its purest form, Yes. But knowing LA's experience (how it won it by default twice; and its chances vs. a much-ignored Paris now), one (esp. us 'insiders') has to evaluate any LA bid as a run-through for when it can TRULY win on its own when the field is truly a pale and distant second (i.e., the next round) -- and only because the other possible presumptive-host, Durban, has declared they won't go after the honor until 2032; which logically gives LA the 2028 slot (instead of the Centennial 2032 slot).

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I mostly agree... there's something to be said for a country that has never won a games before or has limited experience going through a bid as mostly a learning experience. The first Pyeongchang bid as almost no shot. But without that bid, and what they learned and acted on, they never would have won. (PS - Yeah, I know, Seoul '88... but there's a bid difference between SOG and WOG.)

Would that be the Pyeongchang 2010 bid that fell only a few votes short of pulling off the upset and lost to Vancouver by only 3 votes? But yea, they had no shot.

I agree with the theory of a country, particularly an inexperienced one, putting in a bid and planning to stick with it until they win. I just think the rhetoric here about it is a little over-done when the idea is that a country is only bidding to gain experience. And obviously, none of this applies to the United States or Los Angeles as was brought up earlier

Link to post
Share on other sites

In its purest form, Yes. But knowing LA's experience (how it won it by default twice; and its chances vs. a much-ignored Paris now), one (esp. us 'insiders') has to evaluate any LA bid as a run-through for when it can TRULY win on its own when the field is truly a pale and distant second (i.e., the next round) -- and only because the other possible presumptive-host, Durban, has declared they won't go after the honor until 2032; which logically gives LA the 2028 slot (instead of the Centennial 2032 slot).

No. I don't buy into that theory at all. If LA loses this time around, then certainly they can use that experience to their benefit if they go at it again for 2028 which presumably is up against a weaker field and gives them a better chance of winning. But I'm fairly confident no one within the LA committee is looking past this bid and thinking in terms of 2028. That's something they'll deal with when they return home from Lima. We here have the advantage of taking the longview and thinking beyond the 2024 vote and trying to decide what seems logical. The actual committee isn't going to view it that way. NYC didn't. Chicago didn't. If that affects LA's ability or desire to try again for 2028, again that's something they'll consider when the time comes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This. I have never gotten behind this concept that a city or country will bid (let alone the United States) simply as a warm-up for the following cycle. Cities are in it to win it. We've seen cities like Rio and Pyeongchang and Tokyo bid under less than ideal circumstances only to win it on a following try. But none of those cities bid simply with the purpose of making themselves more attractive for the next go around. Experience helps, of course. But especially in this situation, the USOC is bidding with LA for 1 reason and 1 reason alone.. they want to win. What happens after that for 2028 if they lose is probably the last thing they're concerned about.

While I mostly agree, I think it's also all relatively speaking. In this case, for instance, no the USOC is not looking at this (2024 bid) as a form to keep them in the 'conversation' to go with "another city" for 2028, as what was how the initial poster framed the question. If L.A. loses 2024, the USOC most undoubtedly would go with them again for 2028, for all the reasons already discussed in this thread.

But let's remember that Atlanta 1996, in the eyes of the USOC at that time at least (cuz of course the Atlanta bid committee thought otherwise), were not expecting to win that one. Back in 1990, the 1996 bid was looked upon by them as somewhat of a "dry run" (& in that instance I can see that they just wanted to be in the "conversation" for 2000 &/or 2004). Los Angeles 1984 being VERY recent back in 1988 when the 1996 bid first first got launched, & Athens claiming "the rights" for the Centennial, & back then Atlanta being the "backwater" town that no one else really ever heard of, especially outside the U.S., no, the USOC didn't think that they were "in it to win" that one, & were very well surprised (as was virtually everyone else) when they did. That's why to this day the anomoly that was Atlanta 1996 was & always will be the red-headed stepchild that defied all the odds to finally get to wear that glass slipper. Or in this case, the gold medal. Maybe the USOC should revised that strategy since it seems they get the results they ultimately want when they do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's remember that Atlanta 1996, in the eyes of the USOC at that time at least (cuz of course the Atlanta bid committee thought otherwise), were not expecting to win that one. Back in 1990, the 1996 bid was looked upon by them as somewhat of a "dry run" (& in that instance I can see that they just wanted to be in the "conversation" for 2000 &/or 2004). Los Angeles 1984 being VERY recent back in 1988 when the 1996 bid first first got launched, & Athens claiming "the rights" for the Centennial, & back then Atlanta being the "backwater" town that no one else really ever heard of, especially outside the U.S., no, the USOC didn't think that they were "in it to win" that one, & were very well surprised (as was virtually everyone else) when they did. That's why to this day the anomoly that was Atlanta 1996 was & always will be the red-headed stepchild that defied all the odds to finally get to wear that glass slipper. Or in this case, the gold medal. Maybe the USOC should revised that strategy since it seems they get the results they ultimately want when they do.

Back then, seems like the strategy was pretty much to bid at every available opportunity. Which almost doesn't seem like a strategy so much as a compulsion. You know as well as I do that the field of cities the USOC had to choose from was anything but the cream of the crop. But for the original thought that they weren't going to win, the outcome speaks for itself. Could have made a good argument for them to skip that cycle, but that seems less about keeping yourself in the conversation so much as throwing crap up against the wall and seeing what sticks. Atlanta stuck. And don't forget, if Atlanta loses `96, that may well have put Salt Lake ahead of Nagano for `98. And as we've discussed, that completely changes the course of Olympic hosting history.

To your point, I think a better example of what you're getting at is another "A" city in the United States. That would be Anchorage. The USOC originally put them forward with the clear purpose of sticking with them until they won (obviously circumstances changed which led to the USOC looking elsewhere). With them, there was clear purpose and it could be more easily argued there was an expectation to build them up and hopefully strengthen their case to where they eventually could win. It's obviously a hypothetical of what the USOC would have done if they lose 1996 (not to mention how 1998 factors in), but presumably Atlanta would not have been the nominee unless the field of domestic candidates was equally as weak. And if it's a different city, then did they benefit at all from the previous bid having been there? Probably not.

If you go at something with purpose, that's a different story. But as you and I have discussed before, this may or may not be a long term plan on the part of the USOC (it certainly wasn't the first time around when they just Bos-ton of crap (hey, might as well give them a fitting nickname!). If I thought it was, I'd give more credence to the idea of a dry run. But I don't get that sense. If LA loses, I think we'll see the USOC repeat the process where they vet out the candidates again. More than likely, they'll choose LA. But only then as a hindsight argument will we look back at this 2024 bid as having set anything up for 2028.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Five Swiss bids in sprint for 2026 Olympics Five projects are in the running to be the Swiss host of the 2026 Winter Olympics, Swiss Olympics has announced. These candidatures were handed in by the May 31 deadline.

The Swiss sporting body is aiming to bring the Winter Games back to the Alpine nation for the first time since 1948.

The five bids in question are the so-called ‘Swiss Made Winter Games’ (a joint effort by western cantons), ‘Olympic Winter Games 2026 Graubünden and partners’, ‘Central Switzerland 2026’, ‘Switzerland 2026’ and ‘2026 - Games for our future’ (both projects reuniting several regions), said Swiss Olympic on Wednesday.

They will take part in a national nomination process to find the best quality bid for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics 2026.

“It’s with great satisfaction that we can see that the process that we have started has attracted projects which are, from the very beginning, of great quality,” said Jörg Schild, Swiss Olympic’s president. “We are now going to work together to refine and strengthen them to build more than just a simple candidacy. We want a real national project for the future of our country.”

These would be the first major Winter Olympics to be held in Switzerland since 1948 in St Moritz. Previous attempts to galvanise local interest all failed over fears about the financial and environmental costs.

A Swiss Olympic task force will now evaluate the candidates before making a final decision by September 2017 on whether to file an official candidacy with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). But the timetable is extremely tight as beforehand the local population must also have its say.

If a Swiss candidate is finally put forward, the IOC will pick the winning bid in 2019.

Swiss Winter Games

St Moritz has hosted the Winter Games twice: in 1928 and in 1948.

A number of Swiss candidacies have collapsed in recent years. The biggest failure was perhaps for Sion, the capital of canton Valais, which lost the battle for the 2006 Winter Games to Turin.

Other projects in Graubünden, Bern, Zurich, Lausanne and Geneva failed because of local opposition or because the Swiss Olympic Committee refused to back them.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/winter-games_five-swiss-bids-in-sprint-for-2026-olympics/42194944

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Switzerland appears to be moving towards a bid, but regardless of which bid proposal the Swiss go with, it almost certainly will have to pass a referendum. While a more spread out bid might be more economically feasible, there's the issue of needing approval from the Swiss in multiple cantons, something that would appear to be extremely difficult. I know there was a poll about a month or so ago showing a slight majority in favor of a bid, but as we've seen from recent bid cycles, when the costs are added up, the Swiss have said no. I would bet the same thing happens to any Swiss bid for 2026.

Right now, I imagine the IOC are working behind the scenes begging Canada to throw its hat into the ring for 2026 in the case of the real possibility that no European bidders come forward and they are left with . . . Almaty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Toronto will be studying a 2028 bid before making any decisions. At this time, it seems that only Los Angeles losing 2024 would bring forward a 2028 Toronto summer bid at this point. The 2015 Pam-Am games actually performed beyond everyone's expectations in this city and would position the city as a strong contender if they were to bid.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...