Sir Rols Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 At this stage, I'd be happy for either Chicago or SF, and will support either of them if picked to go through. LA? I'm sure I'm not the only one who will think Been There, Done That. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I'm kinda suprprised L.A. made it. It wasn't good enough for 2012, but now it is. Looks like Uberoth pulled a "Samaranch" to pull some strings to let the "been there, done that, old bag" city in. Philadelphia should've taken that third spot. A city in the Eastern Time Zone of the United States, (Prime Time TV viewing), a city with some international appeal, & a city that looked like they would've come up with a very decent bid, but they just get tossed out. Doesn't make too much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 The Pacific time zone though is a benefit to the Eastern time zone for TV viewers because the daytime, early evening events are prime for Prime Time. I think LA wasn't "good enough" for 2012 because the USOC just really wanted NYC. Considering that premier world cities like London and Paris were in the race, it was in their favour to put forward their premier city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I'm kinda suprprised L.A. made it. It wasn't good enough for 2012, but now it is. Looks like Uberoth pulled a "Samaranch" to pull some strings to let the "been there, done that, old bag" city in. Philadelphia should've taken that third spot. A city in the Eastern Time Zone of the United States, (Prime Time TV viewing), a city with some international appeal, & a city that looked like they would've come up with a very decent bid, but they just get tossed out. Doesn't make too much sense. LA is there as a back-up. I guess in their international polling, Philly didn't rate so well. That is my only interpretation of Philly being cut & staying with Chicago & the 2 Calif. cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCD 2012 Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 MSN has a poll , 47 % Chicago 27% San Francsisco 27% La Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I wonder why NEW YORK hasn't announced a bid for 2016 so far?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I've been pre occupied with London and have been out of the loop on 2016. There has to be a reson why New York isn't bidding that i've not heard about? If New York did bid, I think it would win quite easaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I wonder why NEW YORK hasn't announced a bid for 2016 so far?? R u being funny, CAF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Some interesting comments in this article from Peter Ueberroth and others on the shortlisting of the three cities: LA, San Francisco, Chicago in running for 2016 Summer Games By ARNIE STAPLETON, AP Sports Writer Wednesday, July 26, 2006 The backdrop of America's bid for the 2016 Olympic Games might be the Golden Gate Bridge, the Sears Tower or the Los Angeles Coliseum — or none of these at all. The U.S. Olympic Committee eliminated Houston and Philadelphia as candidate cities for the 2016 Olympics on Wednesday, leaving San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago in the running for what many consider to be America's best shot in years at landing a Summer Games. The three finalists, however, will have to make significant enhancements in their plans for the USOC even to bid on the 2016 Games, said Peter Ueberroth, the USOC chairman and the architect of the profit-making 1984 Games in Los Angeles. "Right now, of the three cities that were selected today, there's none that would have an acceptable program that we could take to the International Olympic Committee," Ueberroth said. "It's possible that none can get to where they need to be. It's possible they all get to where they need to be. ... "It may be that one of these cities will drop out as we tighten the regulations, if you will, or the expectations." The three remaining cities will now have to finalize plans, including budgets, and present their bids to the USOC board of directors, which plans to decide by year's end whether to submit a bid for the 2016 Games. If it does, it will pick a city by the end of next March. The IOC will select the winning site in 2009. Other cities that have expressed interest in hosting the 2016 Games include Rome and Milan in Italy; Madrid, Spain; Hamburg, Germany, and the Japanese cities of Tokyo and Fukuoka. Led by Ueberroth, the USOC is taking a larger role in determining whether any U.S. city will bid for the 2016 Games. The failure of New York's bid for the 2012 Games has been blamed in part on poor coordination between the city and the USOC. Many people believe 2016 is the best chance for the United States to land a Summer Olympics in the near future. It is believed the IOC would like to put games in Africa and South America, two continents that have never hosted the games, in 2020 and 2024. The U.S. has not hosted the Summer Games since the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. The 2002 Winter Olympics were held in Salt Lake City. The USOC appointed a four-person committee to evaluate information provided by the cities last month, including ideas for an Olympic stadium, an Olympic village and the amount of local and regional government support they would expect to receive. The committee also reviewed international polling on whether the time is right for an American city to host the Olympics and which city might have the best chance to win the bid. "All five cities that have participated in this process are capable of one day hosting the Olympic Games," Ueberroth said. "From the outset, we have said this process is about identifying the one U.S. city that has the best chance of being competitive in the international race. If we do not believe a U.S. city can be competitive, we will not bid." Among the factors that will weigh into any bid is the amount of revenue the 2016 Olympics can be expected to produce — and how much will go to the host country. A big chunk of that revenue comes from TV rights, and the U.S. Olympic TV rights are sold only through 2012. Houston Mayor Bill White had touted his city's leadership and financial resources, including several Fortune 500 companies. Philadelphia had pointed to its storied past in American history. "We thank the citizens of Philadelphia and the region for standing behind this project and for thinking and dreaming big," Philadelphia Mayor John Street said. "While we are disappointed to hear of the U.S. Olympic Committee's decision, we're honored to have made it to the second round." Of the remaining candidates, Los Angeles is citing its diversity as a strong point and the availability of 38 Olympic-quality venues since it has hosted two Summer Games. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also has suggested the events will be easier to get to than in 1984. "L.A. is the best place in the world to host the Olympic Games," touted Barry Sanders, chairman of the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games. "We can put the Games on in a way that captures the world's imagination — in facilities we already have." Sanders said that when the USOC asked the five cities last month to submit their proposals for hosting the Games, "all the other cities had to basically sit down and start creating architectural plans. Not us." San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said his Olympics would provide a stunning setting for the Games, with marathoners crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, cyclists pedaling through the Presidio and sailors navigating his city's scenic bay. "We strongly believe that San Francisco's international appeal and the strength of our regional bid will be a significant advantage in our effort to host the 2016 Olympic Games," Newsom said. Chicago, meanwhile, promised support from corporations, compact events framed by Lake Michigan's shoreline, mass transit and, like Los Angeles, ethnic diversity. "We are honored to be a part of this process, and Chicago is committed to work with the USOC to develop a plan that can secure the necessary 60 international votes to bring the Olympic Games to the United States and to our great city," said Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. "There is consensus among Chicago's public and private sectors and our cultural, sports and educational communities that proceeding along this path is right for both the Olympic movement and Chicago." All three finalists were embraced in the USOC's worldwide survey that included 58 IOC members, said Bob Ctvrtlik, head of the USOC's international relations department. Ctvrtlik said he was optimistic the USOC will bid for the 2016 games — "We've inched a little further toward going forward" — although Ueberroth said he wasn't so sure just yet. "Bob is optimistic and that's his job, to get a city there," Ueberroth said. "I'm an anchor, and I'm not going to let them waste their money and/or their efforts unless we feel we can have a real good chance of winning this thing." http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n.../s160437D40.DTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 R u being funny, CAF? I would love to see the Olympic Games in NEW YORK - do you don't support NEW YORK, baron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I would love to see the Olympic Games in NEW YORK - do you don't support NEW YORK, baron? I did, CAF. But that is not going to happen for at least the next 16 years, I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I did, CAF. But that is not going to happen for at least the next 16 years, I'd say. I think you are a little bit too pessimistic - I really believe that New York would be a great host for Olympic Games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 yes they would be great hosts...but do they actually want to be hosts and meet all the strict requirements and formalities is another thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 yes they would be great hosts...but do they actually want to be hosts and meet all the strict requirements and formalities is another thing... it does not seem to be the main focus of the people presently running the City; and they don't seem to have another group, say like Southern CA, with that sole agenda in mind. Why does it feel so counter-productive discussing NYC's missed chances? I thought it had been done to death; and we've all moved on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejaycat Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I wonder why NEW YORK hasn't announced a bid for 2016 so far?? This time, for 2016, the USOC had only invited Houston, Philadelphia, LA, SF, and Chicago as potential bid cities for 2016. New York City wasn't even asked to bid, even if they wanted to, and last I had heard, after their loss of 2012, they weren't going to bid for 2016, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 So there are San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles candidates for an US 2016 bid only... I think a third time for the dual host Los Angeles wouldn't be good - I would prefer Chicago or San Francisco. I think if the Olympic Stadium is built close to the bay it would be a huge advantage for a San Francisco bid, because of the athmosphere. I think if Chicago host it would be a kind of reaching "nowheres land" - California has hosted so many times so far: 1932, 1960 and 1984 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I think if Chicago host it would be a kind of reaching "nowheres land" - California has hosted so many times so far: 1932, 1960 and 1984 Shhhhh, CAF. Not too loud, please. We don't want to emphasize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejaycat Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 So there are San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles candidates for an US 2016 bid only...I think a third time for the dual host Los Angeles wouldn't be good - I would prefer Chicago or San Francisco. I think if the Olympic Stadium is built close to the bay it would be a huge advantage for a San Francisco bid, because of the athmosphere. I think if Chicago host it would be a kind of reaching "nowheres land" - California has hosted so many times so far: 1932, 1960 and 1984 That's my feeling too. I personally like SF better as a city overall than Chicago, but I'd rather Chicago be the bid city. I feel somehow that Chicago is "more due" to compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 That's my feeling too. I personally like SF better as a city overall than Chicago, but I'd rather Chicago be the bid city. I feel somehow that Chicago is "more due" to compete. Reading in-between the lines of the USOC's int'l poll, altho SF it seems came out on top, followed not to far behind by Chicago; the clinker might be in the war chest. The USOC has put the sum of waging the int'l campaign at $20 mil, which the 3 cities must figure into their budget. Somehow, I tend to believe that Chicago can easily raise that sum in a week; while San Francisco might struggle to raise that sum. So that, plus the iffy politics of SF might throw it Chicago's way. And Chicago HAS to build a permanent stadium and THEN tear down that Soldier's Field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 Shhhhh, CAF. Not too loud, please. We don't want to emphasize that. well - if I look on the US-bids from the past to today: CHICAGO (Illinois) - 1904 - 1952 - 1956 - 1960 New York (New York) - 1904 - 1960 - 2012 Saint Louis (Missouri) - 1904 Cleveland (Ohio) - 1916 - 1920 Atlanta (Georgia) - 1920 - 1996 Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) - 1920 - 1948 - 1952 - 1956 - 1960 Los Angeles (California) - 1924 - 1928 - 1932 - 1948 - 1952 - 1956 - 1956 - 1960 - 1976 - 1980 - 1984 Bear Mountain (New York) - 1932 Denver (Colorado) - 1932 - 1976 Duluth (Minnesota) - 1932 Lake Placid (New York] - 1932 - 1948 - 1952 - 1956 - 1968 - 1976² - 1980 Lake Tahoe (California/Nevada) - 1932 Minneapolis (Minnesota) - 1932 - 1948 - 1952 - 1956 - 1960 Yosemite Valley (California) - 1932 Detroit (Michigan) - 1944 - 1952 - 1956 - 1960 - 1964 - 1968 - 1972 Baltimore (Maryland) - 1948 Colorado Springs (Colorado) - 1956 San Francisco (California) - 1956 - 1960 Squaw Valley (California) - 1960 Salt Lake City (Utah) - 1972 - 1998 - 2002 Anchorage (Alaska) - 1992 - 1994 - I doubt that Los Angeles has a chance to host right after 1984 - I believe San Francisco is more popular in the world than Chicago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity2016 Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 I believe San Francisco is more popular in the world than Chicago While I am not discounting this statement on its surface...I would be curious to know why some people here feel that San Francisco is more of an international darling than Chicago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolshundle Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 Beats me.... I've always seen the big three culturally significant and influential cities in the US to be New York, LA, and Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 I believe San Francisco is more popular in the world than ChicagoWhile I am not discounting this statement on its surface...I would be curious to know why some people here feel that San Francisco is more of an international darling than Chicago... It's rather simple. Chicago is the big, mighty engine of the Midwest, the heart of America -- whereas San Francisco is this quainter, gateway city to the West. For many years, San Francisco was (and, I guess still is) the Queen City of the West. It is picturesque; it has this unique atmosphere (the fog, the hills, the Cablecars); and is a great melding of cultures (strong Asian presence, a European influence, a very beat, quirky lifestyle). Plus, the UN Charter was actually signed in SF. So that's why SF has a slightly higher "int'l" appeal than, say, Chicago or Kansas City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citius Altius Fortius Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 ... whereas San Francisco is this quainter, gateway city to the West. For many years, San Francisco was (and, I guess still is) the Queen City of the West. It is picturesque; it has this unique atmosphere (the fog, the hills, the Cablecars); and is a great melding of cultures (strong Asian presence, a European influence, a very beat, quirky lifestyle). Very well said - I have no doubt that Chicago is capable to host Olympic Games, but I think that San Francisco has a special flair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bythebay Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 It's rather simple. Chicago is the big, mighty engine of the Midwest, the heart of America -- whereas San Francisco is this quainter, gateway city to the West. For many years, San Francisco was (and, I guess still is) the Queen City of the West. It is picturesque; it has this unique atmosphere (the fog, the hills, the Cablecars); and is a great melding of cultures (strong Asian presence, a European influence, a very beat, quirky lifestyle). Plus, the UN Charter was actually signed in SF. So that's why SF has a slightly higher "int'l" appeal than, say, Chicago or Kansas City. San Francisco might be "small" city, but like Venice, it's a postcard city that never stops drawing people from all over the world. Ofcourse that's not the only reason why it has more international appeal, there's also a lot of history and influence the city has accumulated throughout it's short existence. Which isn't unlike Chicago but I think Chicago's importance is and has been more local than SF. Add to that, Silicon Valley's emergance in the past decade and it's close proximity to SF also helps. That's another thing unique to San Francisco, the city itself might be the main draw but the Bay Area as a region has alot to offer compared to most other metros which usually consist of one major city and lots of random suburbs. Not taking anything away from Chicago because it's a great city in it's own right but I think being one of the big 3 and having fair similarities to NYC probably hurt the city's visibility internationally whereas NY and LA are like Yin and Yang. Chicago is still awesome though! Locally, I think Chicago wins but internationally, I think SF has the edge. Sorry baron, I was meaning to respond to windycity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.