2028 US City Options

[LDM]

If unsuccessful for the 2024 bid I would imagine it would be fait accompli that they decided to double-down and pursue a 2028 bid, for which I would say is completely warranted. Given that the US has multiple cities that would offer compelling or interesting SOGs, I am keen to hear from people who are probably a bit more learned in the bid game and/or US citizens from these areas as to why they may not be a feasible option. The cities I am curious about:

San Diego
San Francisco/San Jose
Phoenix
Chicago
New York
Philadelphia
Washington, DC

[Quaker2001]

If the US were to lose 2024 and decides to return for 2028 (which I believe is a likely scenario), the first question to ask is will the USOC start courting cities and vet out candidates like they did this time or does LA get it by default?  I would guess the former over the latter, but remember they started the process for 2024 before the vote for 2020 occurred, so this would have to work on a shorter timetable.  Obviously there's a little more of a baseline for information..

The Bay Area and DC were in the final 4 on the USOC's list this past cycle, so perhaps they're still interested.  Forget San Diego.  I know they talked about a bid separate from LA, but if LA is in the mix, San Diego has no shot.  Phoenix doesn't have the weather to make it work.  Who knows about Chicago, NYC, or Philadelphia.  Would they show interest?

As the story goes, there are more than a couple of cities that would be interested in hosting an Olympics.  But only 1 can be the USOC's candidate.  And IMO, as long as Los Angeles is still in the discussion (despite having been originally passed over for Boston), they're still going to be the preferred choice of the USOC, particularly with the experience of having already gone through 1 bid and a plan that is not so time-sensitive that it wouldn't work for 2028.

[zekekelso]

The US choices for 2028 are Los Angeles, and.... nope, just Los Angeles. I just don't see the logic of "Well, Los Angeles couldn't win.... let's go with Philadelphia" 

The only non-LA scenario I can image is that we elect a madman as POTUS, he decides he really wants to host the Olympics and convinces Congress to 100% back a really, really amazing Olympics, the best anyone has ever seen, the YUGEST games ever, in DC. (Meanwhile, I'll be living in Canada rooting for Toronto)

[intoronto]

You need to commit to a city. You cannot expect to put up a city for the first time and expect to win. I would say LA or Chicago, with the former being my pick.

 

 

[mr.bernham]

I agree with @intoronto we should pick a city we have bid with in the past again. So that limits us to NYC, Chicago, and LA. Odds are, Los Angeles will be chosen simply because of a general lack of interest from Chicago or New York.

After the USOC's debacle with Boston, I doubt they will be willing to go through that again.

[FYI]

6 hours ago, zekekelso said:

The US choices for 2028 are Los Angeles, and.... nope, just Los Angeles. I just don't see the logic of "Well, Los Angeles couldn't win.... let's go with Philadelphia".

Exactly - the reasons why we ended up with Los Angeles for a 2024 bid in the first place, were pretty much by default. And I don't see those circumstances changing too much in the other cities for a U.S. 2028 bid, either (if need be). For example, it's not like Boston is gonna be joyously raising their hand up in anticipation.

[Quaker2001]

 

12 hours ago, zekekelso said:

The US choices for 2028 are Los Angeles, and.... nope, just Los Angeles. I just don't see the logic of "Well, Los Angeles couldn't win.... let's go with Philadelphia" 

The only non-LA scenario I can image is that we elect a madman as POTUS, he decides he really wants to host the Olympics and convinces Congress to 100% back a really, really amazing Olympics, the best anyone has ever seen, the YUGEST games ever, in DC. (Meanwhile, I'll be living in Canada rooting for Toronto)

5 hours ago, FYI said:

Exactly - the reasons why we ended up with Los Angeles for a 2024 bid in the first place, were pretty much by default. And I don't see those circumstances changing too much in the other cities for a U.S. 2028 bid, either (if need be). For example, it's not like Boston is gonna be joyously raising their hand up in anticipation.

Probably not Boston.  But what about DC and the Bay Area who were in the mix for 2024?  What if NYC or Chicago decides they want to take another shot?

The question is whether or not the USOC will want to re-run the process of picking a candidate city.  They may very decide to make the same promise they originally made to Anchorage in the mid-80s and say they'll stick with them until they win and save the trouble of courting bids from various cities.  It's still a legitimate question to ask whether LA would give the USOC its best chance to win 2028 after giving other cities a chance to make their case.  It's not a matter of "LA didn't win, we need to pick someone else."  More like going back to the drawing board and making sure they have the right city.  Even if they do that, LA is probably going to emerge as the top city, although let's not forget.. they didn't the last time the USOC did this.

[FYI]

54 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:Probably not Boston.  But what about DC and the Bay Area who were in the mix for 2024?  What if NYC or Chicago decides they want to take another shot?

As much as I know that you enjoy to play devils advocate, that still doesn't change certain things. Like I said earlier, I don't see any of the circumstances that kept those other cities from getting the nomination this time around, to change that significantly the next time around, particularly for 2028 (perhaps much later now on, but not now), & that includes DC & San Fran. The political & citizenry will is just not there, especially in the case of San Fran (land of the NIMBY's)

Chicago would also be a very tough sell again, particularly if you still have Emanuel as mayor. The people of Chicago were also, lukewarm at best, the last time the city tried for the Olympics. I also don't see this changing anytime soon, either. If anything, it'd be worse I say, as far as the people going for it again. It'd be Boston 2.0 IMHO. The city has other pressing matters ATM to be thinking Olympic bid again anytime soon.

As far as New York, you probably have a better feel as to what's going on there, but can you honestly say that New York wants another shot at the Olympics if L.A. fails at 2024? You often cite that New York 2012 was a "one in done" shot, & that the city has "moved on". Maybe at another point in time, but again, I'd still say that 2028 would be too soon for any of these other major U.S. cities to have changed their minds. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

 The question is whether or not the USOC will want to re-run the process of picking a candidate city. Even if they do that, LA is probably going to emerge as the top city, although let's not forget.. they didn't the last time the USOC did this.

Yeah, & look what that got them - L.A. as their 2024 candidate anyway. If the USOC really got what they wanted, it wouldn't be L.A., bcuz It doesn't matter what the USOC "wants". What matters here is what do the CITIES want. The USOC can do the whole song & dance routine all they want, so that cities can "make their case" (insert Dallas & San Diego here), but if no one the USOC really, really "wants" is biting, then there's absolutely nothing that that they can do about that. 

My position on this was pretty much the same before the USOC even started the 2024 process (for many of the same reasons citied above), But of course you still had certain people (especially one in particular, that now only makes just cameo appearances around here) saying "well, but there's still the other Alpha cities & 'we just don't know' ". Well, but we kinda do know these things after a while. But with that, again, I'm not saying that these cities won't ever be interested again, but in the near picture, I still find it very unlikely. 

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Probably not Boston.  But what about DC and the Bay Area who were in the mix for 2024?  What if NYC or Chicago decides they want to take another shot?

^*Didn't link up properly. 

[Lord David]

Philadelphia would offer a great symbolic choice if they proposed to remove the Philadelphia Navy Yard and use that as part of their Olympic Park.

Of course I may have mentioned this already.

But do they want the Games?

[FYI]

Philadelphia was initially interested in bidding for 2024, but then mayor nutter (lmfao still can't get over that name) backed out. It's usually a common theme among major U.S.ciites when it comes to the Olympics, except for of course L.A. (& maybe Dallas & San Diego lol).

[thatsnotmypuppy]

I'm pretty certain that the LA bid team already know they have the 2028 nomination if needed. 

They've helped the USOC (and the IOC) by stepping in after the Boston clusterfuck.  With the 2022 fiasco fresh in everyone's memories - having the US drop out of 2024 would have been disastrous.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

As much as I know that you enjoy to play devils advocate, that still doesn't change certain things. Like I said earlier, I don't see any of the circumstances that kept those other cities from getting the nomination this time around, to change that significantly the next time around, particularly for 2028 (perhaps much later now on, but not now), & that includes DC & San Fran. The political & citizenry will is just not there, especially in the case of San Fran (land of the NIMBY's)

Chicago would also be a very tough sell again, particularly if you still have Emanuel as mayor. The people of Chicago were also, lukewarm at best, the last time the city tried for the Olympics. I also don't see this changing anytime soon, either. If anything, it'd be worse I say, as far as the people going for it again. It'd be Boston 2.0 IMHO. The city has other pressing matters ATM to be thinking Olympic bid again anytime soon.

As far as New York, you probably have a better feel as to what's going on there, but can you honestly say that New York wants another shot at the Olympics if L.A. fails at 2024? You often cite that New York 2012 was a "one in done" shot, & that the city has "moved on". Maybe at another point in time, but again, I'd still say that 2028 would be too soon for any of these other major U.S. cities to have changed their minds. 

Yeah, & look what that got them - L.A. as their 2024 candidate anyway. If the USOC really got what they wanted, it wouldn't be L.A., bcuz It doesn't matter what the USOC "wants". What matters here is what do the CITIES want. The USOC can do the whole song & dance routine all they want, so that cities can "make their case" (insert Dallas & San Diego here), but if no one the USOC really, really "wants" is biting, then there's absolutely nothing that that they can do about that. 

My position on this was pretty much the same before the USOC even started the 2024 process (for many of the same reasons citied above), But of course you still had certain people (especially one in particular, that now only makes just cameo appearances around here) saying "well, but there's still the other Alpha cities & 'we just don't know' ". Well, but we kinda do know these things after a while. But with that, again, I'm not saying that these cities won't ever be interested again, but in the near picture, I still find it very unlikely. 

I am somewhat playing devil's advocate here, but you're looking at it from a different perspective than I'm offering.  You're looking at end results.  I'm looking at process.  It's easy for us here to come to the conclusion that Chicago probably isn't viable (let's not put the 2.0 on them.. they made it to a vote, unlike Boston which probably all but permanently sealed their fate against a bid) and New York likely isn't interested and that Dallas and San Diego aren't worth a 2nd look.  But will the USOC see it that way?  This is the organization that sent a letter to 35 different cities a few years ago (described by many reports as "trolling" for a candidate) and through a 2-year process, wound up selecting Boston.  They should count their blessings that they selected Boston early enough so that bid could implode in time for LA to come in as the replacement.  If Boston held on a couple of months longer and bowed out after the deadline, the USOC probably wouldn't have a 2024 bid on the table and all they could do is lick their wounds and hope to regroup for 2028.

So again, the $75 million question is does the USOC have enough information to know what city they would want to put forth in 2028 (and obviously the circumstances of an LA loss next summer could play a part in that, although I don't see it happening) or do they want to run through the whole process again to see what has changed since those initial letters went out in 2013?  We've said here that the USOC's best course of action is to probably pick a city and stick with them for the long-haul, and what city fits the bill better there than Los Angeles.  But will the USOC jump to that conclusion?

I agree with you that LA is likely to be the candidate for a 2028 bid no matter how the USOC goes at this.  We know that.  But does the USOC know that?  That's all that matters in this.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, Lord David said:

Philadelphia would offer a great symbolic choice if they proposed to remove the Philadelphia Navy Yard and use that as part of their Olympic Park.

Of course I may have mentioned this already.

But do they want the Games?

It's not just a matter of want.  Boston wanted, but then the presented the plan and everyone realized how ridiculous it was and it fell apart in pretty dramatic fashion.  There's been some interest in an Olympics in Philadelphia, but no one has come up with a workable plan that makes sense for the city.  Easy for you and I to propose the Navy Yard as an Olympic park.  But could they make that work?  Not so sure.

[FYI]

But, but, Quaker! In the world according to Troll, I mean Truff, L.A. is the be-all & end-all of the Olympic movement's prayers! So how can the USOC not see that either & just chose them again! 

But anyway, I didn't mean that Chicago's 2016 attempt was a Boston 2.0 - but if Chicago, in the unlikely event, were to try again, especially for 2028, THAT could resemble Boston's effort. I just don't see the people there getting all wrapped up again in something as huge as an Olympic bid when the city has other dire matters to deal with, moreso now than they did back when the 2016 campaign was going on. 

If the USOC wants to "troll" for candidates again for 2028 if 2024 fails, bcuz they want to see "what's changed" (which would be moreso wishful thinking on their part), then that's their business, I suppose. But then again, it's not like the USOC's choices as of late, have been anything but smart.

But it's really semantics, cuz what you call a "process", I would just call an *invitation*. Sending letters to 35 cities, that most on the list were/are laughable anyway, is merely just to confirm who is & who's not interested, & to avoid any - "well, we weren't ever given a chance" by any of the cities out there (*cough* the Tulsa's of the country). Then after that, is when the real process starts. But yeah, in the end, either way, the end results likely take us right back to L.A. for 2028 (if need be), if the USOC wants to dance around again.

[zekekelso]

By almost every measure, LA is the strongest city the US can put forward. The city itself is attractive to the IOC elite, full of amazing hotels, shopping, restaurants, etc. An international airport with direct flights to six continents... secondary airports, a good and expanding transportation network, tons of existing venues, a huge sports culture. Support from locals. Oh, and prefect weather. 

[mr.bernham]

Part of me still loves the idea of Chicago, New York, DC, or Philadelphia.

Unfortunately for my dream, odds are, LA will be the candidate. 

[Quaker2001]

49 minutes ago, FYI said:

But it's really semantics, cuz what you call a "process", I would just call an *invitation*. Sending letters to 35 cities, that most on the list were/are laughable anyway, is merely just to confirm who is & who's not interested, & to avoid any - "well, we weren't ever given a chance" by any of the cities out there (*cough* the Tulsa's of the country). Then after that, is when the real process starts. But yeah, in the end, either way, the end results likely take us right back to L.A. for 2028 (if need be), if the USOC wants to dance around again.

I agree with all this.  When we heard what the USOC was doing to find a 2024 bid candidate, most of us here praised them for making it an invitation-only process rather than having an open bid process where the likes of Tulsa could walk through the door.  The USOC could have selected cities without that letter, but there still needs to be some measure to gauge interest, and yes, to avoid the pitfall of not giving someone a chance.  So that's the question for 2028?  Give those cities a chance or cut them off and give it to LA.  The USOC may well set that as the standard and say something like "we really like LA.. if anyone thinks they can match them, make a proposal to us, but be prepared to be shut down if you don't measure up.  To that end, though..

51 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

By almost every measure, LA is the strongest city the US can put forward. The city itself is attractive to the IOC elite, full of amazing hotels, shopping, restaurants, etc. An international airport with direct flights to six continents... secondary airports, a good and expanding transportation network, tons of existing venues, a huge sports culture. Support from locals. Oh, and prefect weather. 

B-but, who's going to pay for it!  Again, let it be said for as obvious of a choice LA is, it wasn't so obvious to the USOC a little over a year ago.  Maybe the Boston debacle brought them to their senses and made them realize LA is the best option out there.  But this is still the USOC we're talking about.  They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[zekekelso]

11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

B-but, who's going to pay for it! 

Damn good question

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

Damn good question

It goes to the same point we keep making.. It's easy to say that LA is the obvious choice.  But how does the USOC really know that's true unless they have something else to compare it against.

[FYI]

You keep saying that it's easy for us to say that L.A. is the obvious choice, but it's just as easy to say, "well, but we also don't know for sure, unless there's something else to compare it to". That sounds too wishy-washy & again also sounds very much like (former) you-know-who-ish. 

Unless the USOC is going give the Rochester's, Jacksonville's & the Tulsa's the time of day, & if they really would like to listen about plausible possibilities like Dallas or Houston (& to a lesser extent, San Diego), then we already have some information of comparison to make a hypothetical conclusion on.

Realistically, though, there's only three other top U.S. cities after L.A. - New York, Chicago & San Fran (& perhaps maybe Philly), & all of course still with baggage of their own (& DC, aside its issues, would also be too polarizing to put it up as a candidate) that could put up a compelling enough package that could potentially fight in the international arena. 

But here too, we already have enough info to make a comparison that considering the great logistics, mega expense & public support (or lack thereof in many cases), that L.A. in the short-term, still comes out on top in many categories. L.A.'s only Achilles heel (although, some cite it as their strength) is that they've hosted twice, & the last time very recent in Olympic years.

Another reason why the USOC has started the "process" all over again after the 2012 & 2016 losses, is bcuz those previous bid cities weren't interested anymore. But I seriously doubt that they'd have that problem with L.A. if the USOC needs to bid again for 2028, since they always are so eager to step up as a bid city anyway. I wouldn't be surprised that part of the deal after the entire Boston fiasco, was that if 2024 is unsuccessful, that L.A. automatically gets the first crack at 2028. Something the USOC didn't have as a luxury before.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, FYI said:

You keep saying that it's easy for us to say that L.A. is the obvious choice, but it's just as easy to say, "well, but we also don't know for sure, unless there's something else to compare it to". That sounds too wishy-washy & again also sounds very much like (former) you-know-who-ish. 

It's wishy-washy to look at the what the USOC might actually do as opposed to us declaring LA the nominee because it's obvious to us?  Yea, okay, whatever.

6 hours ago, FYI said:

Unless the USOC is going give the Rochester's, Jacksonville's & the Tulsa's the time of day, & if they really would like to listen about plausible possibilities like Dallas or Houston (& to a lesser extent, San Diego), then we already have some information of comparison to make a hypothetical conclusion on.

Realistically, though, there's only three other top U.S. cities after L.A. - New York, Chicago & San Fran (& perhaps maybe Philly), & all of course still with baggage of their own (& DC, aside its issues, would also be too polarizing to put it up as a candidate) that could put up a compelling enough package that could potentially fight in the international arena. 

I don't think they'd cast the net that wide, but absolutely they might check in on the 5 cities you mentioned.  It may be simple enough that none of them could compete with LA, so the USOC wouldn't even bother with them.  Again, easy for us to declare that one an "obvious" decision.  Not so automatic for the USOC to come to that conclusion.

[mr.bernham]

The only realistic cities the USOC could look into would be LA, NYC, Chicago, Philly, Houston, or Dallas, maybe Miami too, but this is about it.

 

[FYI]

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I don't think they'd cast the net that wide, but absolutely they might check in on the 5 cities you mentioned.  It may be simple enough that none of them could compete with LA, so the USOC wouldn't even bother with them.  

Well, this certainly sounds a lot more reasonable than starting the "process" all over again (bcuz that really would be senseless to repeat). But even then, it shouldn't be made into a big spectacle, bcuz they should already have a feel from those other four cities as to which direction the USOC should go next.

And actually, in the event New York, Chicago, San Fran (& maybe Philly) were interested again, they should be the ones to contact the USOC the next time out, & not the other way around. Since at that point, it wouldn't be a "secret" then that the 2024 attempt wasn't successful.

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

It's wishy-washy to look at the what the USOC might actually do as opposed to us declaring LA the nominee because it's obvious to us?  Yea, okay, whatever.

Again, easy for us to declare that one an "obvious" decision.  Not so automatic for the USOC to come to that conclusion.

Yeah, sure, cuz we all know already how the USOC just loves to make things complicated for themselves.

But if L.A. losses 2024, it would make much more sense to run with them again, & start working on the 2028 campaign right from the get-go, instead of farting around, wasting resources & time, trying to "compare" to see if someone else can compete with L.A. Especially in a race where it would be virtually North America's for the taking, anyway. 

But alas, "again, let's just agree to disagree on this one, & if (less than) four years from now that's proven wrong, you can remind me of this discussion then". 

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, this certainly sounds a lot more reasonable than starting the "process" all over again (bcuz that really would be senseless to repeat). But even then, it shouldn't be made into a big spectacle, bcuz they should already have a feel from those other four cities as to which direction the USOC should go next.

And actually, in the event New York, Chicago, San Fran (& maybe Philly) were interested again, they should be the ones to contact the USOC the next time out, & not the other way around. Since at that point, it wouldn't be a "secret" then that the 2024 attempt wasn't successful.

It doesn't have to be a big spectacle.  First thing that probably happens if LA loses 2024 is that they and the USOC will get together and decide if they want to take another shot for 2028.  To which the answer will probably be a big fat yes.  At that point, the USOC has a baseline for what anyone else might need to beat.  So yes, you're right that they have a feel from the other cities, but things can change in 4 years and unless there is a deal in place that says LA is automatically the 2028 candidate (which there very well might be), other cities probably should get at least a brief look.  But the USOC still needs to initiate the conversation, IMO.  They need to set the standards of what they're looking for and when rather than expecting random solicitations from potentially interested cities.  The USOC has made it clear they can and will shoot anyone down without reason or explanation.

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Yeah, sure, cuz we all know already how the USOC just loves to make things complicated for themselves.

But if L.A. losses 2024, it would make much more sense to run with them again, & start working on the 2028 campaign right from the get-go, instead of farting around, wasting resources & time, trying to "compare" to see if someone else can compete with L.A. Especially in a race where it would be virtually North America's for the taking, anyway. 

But alas, "again, let's just agree to disagree on this one, & if (less than) four years from now that's proven wrong, you can remind me of this discussion then". 

The USOC sent a letter to 35 cities, full well knowing that most of them wouldn't be up to snuff.  And that "process" gave them a total dumpster fire with Boston.

I'm not trying to make a prediction for the future here.  I know you're going to tell me I'm being wishy-washy in offering something that could have rather than placing my bets saying what I think is definitely going to happen.  You trust the USOC to do the smart thing?  They're lucky they have LA right now.  That was hardly smart planning on their part.  LA was plan B and only fell into their lap when plan A fell apart.  If it is indeed North America's for the taking, then yes they should make sure they have the best possible candidate.  Don't presume I'm expecting them to turn this into some long drawn out "process" (wait, why are we still putting quotes around that ) because it's the opposite of your position.  As we both like to point out, I don't think we're too far apart on this one.  You're just a little more sure of how you see this playing out.  To which I say..