Jump to content

Salt Lake City 2034


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Would we, though?  Tough to tell what this all would look like if Sapporo was on more solid footing, but I don't think it's a safe assumption that this would have been done already.  Especially where SLC still has questions on 2030 vs. 2034.  Yes, on the surface it makes sense, but it's not like the IOC doesn't know who is out there.  And who knows if they'd have moved both cities to targeted dialogue and wanted to lock them in sooner rather than later.

Well, as you like to say in these hypothetical cases, "it's easy for us here to say", & we'll just "never know" then. 

Maybe it wouldn't have been settled by now. But then again, maybe it would have. Or at the very least, both Sapporo & SLC would've been in 'targeted dialog' at this juncture.

Yeah, SLC still has questions about 2034, but that's only because the IOC hasn't made any determination about 2030, since they're still waiting on Sapporo to give them some better news so they know how to move forward. Had Sapporo been on better footing all along, particularly on the public support element (which is what is basically stalling Sapporo), the IOC would've moved along quicker with all of this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, as you like to say in these hypothetical cases, "it's easy for us here to say", & we'll just "never know" then. 

Maybe it wouldn't have been settled by now. But then again, maybe it would have. Or at the very least, both Sapporo & SLC would've been in 'targeted dialog' at this juncture.

Yeah, SLC still has questions about 2034, but that's only because the IOC hasn't made any determination about 2030, since they're still waiting on Sapporo to give them some better news so they know how to move forward. Had Sapporo been on better footing all along, particularly on the public support element (which is what is basically stalling Sapporo), the IOC would've moved along quicker with all of this.

I think Salt Lake City might be good enough for 2034.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Karenina said:

Well, I don't think that hurt, but it didn't give the Sapporo 2030 effort as big of a boost as they were probably hoping to get.  As it is, I suspect that we're going to see the IOC let this ride out until December.  If the Sapporo No Olympics group gains some momentum, then SLC will get 2030 and the IOC will go back to the drawing board for 2034.

Agreed. The IOC is going to hold out as long as possible to name the 2030 host, until they can't delay it any longer. I can even see when we get to the 'targeted diglog' stage, still not knowing exactly what if Sapporo's numbers don't improve more (or even Vancouver's for that matter). Ironically enough, 2030 are the Olympics that SLC wants, but the one that the IOC, & particularly the USOC (& also L.A. for that matter), don't want them to get.

I think everyone involved, other than SLC, wants them to get 2034 instead. That would also give the IOC more stability with the winter Games, as far as finding reliable hosts for them when the good pickens are hard to come by these days. But Sapporo, in the end, is the one which will dictate who gets what. And everyone else, is just waiting with anticipation with what will come out of Sapporo next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 3:31 PM, FYI said:

Ironically enough, 2030 are the Olympics that SLC wants, but the one that the IOC, & particularly the USOC (& also L.A. for that matter), don't want them to get.

 

The IOC, USOC and 2028 OOC should worry about other things.

If two Olympics are held back-to-back in the US, that won't be any worse than other aspects of the Olympics going back decades.

The entire Olympic community should be way more concerned about busted budgets, corruption in things like doping, committees doing goofy, flaky things, and creating too large of a carbon footprint. Making cities build new facilities for a summer and winter games generates C02, doesn't it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Olympics2028 said:

The IOC, USOC and 2028 OOC should worry about other things.

If two Olympics are held back-to-back in the US, that won't be any worse than other aspects of the Olympics going back decades.

The entire Olympic community should be way more concerned about busted budgets, corruption in things like doping, committees doing goofy, flaky things, and creating too large of a carbon footprint. Making cities build new facilities for a summer and winter games generates C02, doesn't it?

Obviously it's a big deal for the USOPC they seem to be pushing SLC towards a 2034 Olympics even though the SLC folks would rather set their sights on 2030.  There's a ton of money involved here, so it would absolutely put the USOPC in a tough spot trying to sell sponsorships for an SLC 2030 Olympics just 18 months after LA.  Logistically for the 2 cities, it's not a problem.  But these events need funding, so that aspect is a big part of the equation moreso now than it has been in decades past.

And yes, Olympic folks certainly need to be wary of their presence.  But building things gets a bad rep.  If a city has a well thought out plan for how to make use out of something that's been newly constructed, then that's not a bad thing.  The important question though is who does it benefit?  Is it done for tourists and for corporations?  Or is it for the citizens that live there?  That's the cautionary tale from Barcelona.  As much as we look back at this Olympics as a model for urban development, the vibe has also been that it's better for visitors than for long-time residents.  Which is why selling the Olympics these days is always going to be tough, even in the best of circumstances (i.e. Los Angeles or Salt Lake).  And also why there are still NOlympics activists who want to expose the dark side of the effects of an Olympics on a city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 1:45 PM, Quaker2001 said:

Which is why selling the Olympics these days is always going to be tough, even in the best of circumstances (i.e. Los Angeles or Salt Lake).  And also why there are still NOlympics activists who want to expose the dark side of the effects of an Olympics on a city.

 

Maybe why I'm interested in the increasingly goofy or hokey trappings of the Olympics as symbolized by their opening/closing ceremonies is because I believe that has subtly lowered the brand image of "Olympics."

Yea, for most people - as compared with issues of budget, taxes, corruption - "ceremony" is way down the pecking order. But I still think the oddball openings/closings over the past decades are analogous to handing a person a birthday gift wrapped in toilet paper. Or wrapped in a wrinkled newspaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Olympics2028 said:

Maybe why I'm interested in the increasingly goofy or hokey trappings of the Olympics as symbolized by their opening/closing ceremonies is because I believe that has subtly lowered the brand image of "Olympics."

Yea, for most people - as compared with issues of budget, taxes, corruption - "ceremony" is way down the pecking order. But I still think the oddball openings/closings over the past decades are analogous to handing a person a birthday gift wrapped in toilet paper. Or wrapped in a wrinkled newspaper.

Maybe if you weren't so narrowly focused on the ceremonies, you'd have a broader perspective on the Olympics and didn't just look at them from your own personal viewpoints.  Perhaps modern Olympic ceremonies think you're the oddball.

You're right that the brand image of the Olympics is nowhere near what it used to be.  On the list of reasons that is the case, the ceremonies are extremely inconsequential and insignificant as to why that has happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I think that would mean Sapporo might be awarded for 2030 if Sale Lake gets 2034.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SportLightning said:

I think that would mean Sapporo might be awarded for 2030 if Sale Lake gets 2034.

Like FYI said, there's not much in the article that's news to us.  It's just more out in the open now than maybe it was a month ago.  Whatever happens, the IOC needs to figure out what they're doing with 2030 first.  Then they can decide what to do with 2034, whether they're figuring that out now or later on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 2:03 AM, Olympics2028 said:

 

The IOC, USOC and 2028 OOC should worry about other things.

If two Olympics are held back-to-back in the US, that won't be any worse than other aspects of the Olympics going back decades.

The entire Olympic community should be way more concerned about busted budgets, corruption in things like doping, committees doing goofy, flaky things, and creating too large of a carbon footprint. Making cities build new facilities for a summer and winter games generates C02, doesn't it?

 

What a load of nonsense.  Seriously, you just randomly pluck complete nonsense out of thin air.   

Making cities build new facilities?  Incorrect.  It’s the  complete opposite.

The IOC actively discourages building new venues.

The IOC actively encourages use of existing or temporary venues.

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of history repeating with the next decade of potential Olympic hosts. Previously I've mentioned that the potential 2028-2034 hosts will repeat the host nations of 1996-2002... Atlanta 1996/LA28, Nagano 1998/Sapporo 2030, Sydney 2000/Brisbane 2032, and Salt Lake City 2002/2034. 

Additionally, Salt Lake City seems to have a tendency to come off second best again Japanese cities - this is not the first time its met Sapporo - SLC lost to it for 1972. Then decades later it would narrowly lose the 1998 Winter Games to Nagano... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

“As part of the ongoing Utah Olympic Park ‘Phase Two’ Mountain Expansion project, the future, steep GS run provides flexibility and options concerning Salt Lake City’s Olympic bid and potential future sport program. Additionally, it is another upgrade to Utah’s busy and well-utilized 2002 Olympic legacy venues.“

“We think we will be able to host everything from alpine skiing here, ski and snowboarder cross, freestyle moguls and aerials, or snowboard parallel GS.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

“Our bid has always looked at the possibility of 2030 or 2034,” said USOPC chair Susanne Lyons at a press briefing following the latest meeting of the USOPC board.”

“We will find a way to make it happen,” said Lyons about the earlier date which once might have been a shoe-in for Sapporo, Japan. But the Japanese bid for 2030 could be affected by the controversy over bribery allegations involving sponsorship deals for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.“

 

Link to comment
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...