Cities Cut-official

[ghost1]

USOC will put forward a bid for 2016 - the cities have already done so much and they will have to do twice more and it will be stupid to throw all their work out

[LA84]

Best of luck to the 3 cities listed, specifically Chicago

Thanks! Come join us on the Chicago forums.

[baron-pierreIV]

USOC will put forward a bid for 2016 - the cities have already done so much and they will have to do twice more and it will be stupid to throw all their work out

Well, ghost, that's easier said that done. I think the USOC is also waiting to see who else, aside from Tokyo, might offer really strong competition come that Copenhagen summer in 2009. It's not like the main issue -- the Olympic Stadium and its component Village location -- is easily solved.

(Am curious to know where LA will place its new Village. Will they expand UCLA?)

[arwebb]

Anything but Los Angeles again. We've seen an LA Games before. Give Chicago or San Francisco a go, preferably Chicago.

[LA84]

Anything but Los Angeles again. We've seen an LA Games before. Give Chicago or San Francisco a go, preferably Chicago.

I think that is probably the way it will go. I thought it interesting that they said today that Chicago and San Francisco are offering lasting legacys and a breathtaking waterfront Olympics, and for L.A. the strong point was that everything is already pretty much in place.

Although, in all reality, L.A. probably came out on top in the technical bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

Although, in all reality, L.A. probably came out on top in the technical bid.

I think that LA is in there as a back-up, should either the SF or Chicago plans fall apart at the last minute.

Do you know where the new LA O.V. would be in their 2016 plan?

[mgescuro]

I thought it interesting that they said today that Chicago and San Francisco are offering lasting legacys and a breathtaking waterfront Olympics, and for L.A. the strong point was that everything is already pretty much in place.

I'd take the breathtaking waterfront Olympics. Hmmm... San Francisco Bay... or Lake Michigan...

Give me the Bay... ANY time.

http://http://home.att.net/~mgescuro/Panorama.jpg

[LA84]

I think LA is in there as a back-up, should either the SF or Chicago plans fall apart at the last minute. Do you know where the new LA O.V. would be in their 2016 plan?

That's exactly what I think as well - that L.A. is the backup.

I have seen nothing re: L.A.'s plan. I also wonder if L.A.'s plan is contingent on the Coliseum getting a new NFL team in there so they can finally restore/remodel.

I think we can assume where a lot of stuff will be but the village I am not sure.

Ejay - any ideas?

[baron-pierreIV]

I have seen nothing re: L.A.'s plan. I also wonder if L.A.'s plan is contingent on the Coliseum getting a new NFL team in there so they can finally restore/remodel.

It's gotta be. Whadya think?? With the IOC's known penchant for stadium-envy, would they like a used condom?

Submitting an older, used Stadium didn't get Paris or Moscow any extra points.

[Kenadian]

Wow, its getting closer. Those are pretty much the Big 3 and so no huge surprises.

[baron-pierreIV]

Was just looking at the headline of this thread -- and what I had last posted. And indeed it looks like we just had a bar mitzvah; and the 3 finalists that came through have just been...cut. if you know whatimean.

Altho, LA, of course, true to its nature, is the fake 'boy-virgin' having been at the table 2x before!!

[nykfan845]

No surprises here.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if one of these cities dropped out by March.

[ejaycat]

That's exactly what I think as well - that L.A. is the backup.

I have seen nothing re: L.A.'s plan. I also wonder if L.A.'s plan is contingent on the Coliseum getting a new NFL team in there so they can finally restore/remodel.

I think we can assume where a lot of stuff will be but the village I am not sure.

Ejay - any ideas?

I think the Olympic Village is LA's issue. For LA's failed 2012 bid, though it's not the official reason, I had read on some online news sources that the USOC felt that the IOC would want something new for an Olympic Village, the plan for 2012 being to utilize the dorms at USC and UCLA (as was done in 1984). I know that more student housing is currently in the works for USC, plus UCLA has expanded its student housing greatly in the past decade. Maybe the USOC feels it wants one Olympic Vilage; there's a lot of housing construction going on in downtown LA, maybe the Olympic Village plan might include new housing, particularly around the Staples Center or even closer to USC itself. USC's Galen Center is also nearing completion, scheduled to open this September, I think, so LA will have yet another arena to utilize. As I recall from the 2012 plans, the venues would be a lot more compact than in 1984, using venues in Los Angeles and Orange Counties only. Basically the only venue that would have to be built from scratch would be the shooting venue; the 2012 plans called for it to be at the LA County Fairplex in Pomona; in 1984, the shooting venue was all the way out in Chino.

Not sure if the Coliseum is an issue; I would imagine even if the NFL doesn't choose it for an NFL team (and thus would not be redone) it could still be used for an Olympics. In its present state, it could definitely seat plenty of people, and a track can easily be put in; I'm sure it could also be spiffed up pretty nicely by the organizing committee.

baron:

I think other issues were at hand when Paris wasn't chosen for 2012; I don't think that an old main stadium hurt its chances outright. And I assume Moscow had other infrastructure issues that made it lose out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it's no secret I'd rather the US didn't bid for 2016, but if it does put out a bid, I'm leaning towards Chicago, of these three... if Philadelphia were left in the mix, I'd want it to be the American bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

baron:

I think other issues were at hand when Paris wasn't chosen for 2012; I don't think that an old main stadium hurt its chances outright. And I assume Moscow had other infrastructure issues that made it lose out.

But what I was pointing out is that a 'main stadium' issue seems to be the Achilles' heel of any US bid presently. NY flopped on that one; the 2nd richest city - Chicago will go with a 'temp' one; here today; gone tomorrow. LA offers its 'old lady' -- nothing that the IOC gets excited about. Look who got ahead in 2012 -- the one with the flashiest main stadium design - London. And you could almost hear the air go out of the balloon when NYC's "West Side stadium" fell by the wayside. To many, the main Stadium is the most visible manifestation of a Games. I mean that's where the most images will be generated from.

If LA goes with either of the campuses - ideally, USC would be the stronger one because it is right beside the Coliseum. (UCLA is too far away, but could house some of the press.) However, I don't know that USC dorms total up to 10,500 beds. The split situation that happened in 1984 won't work again. Remember, the IOC had no choice then. So, if it comes down to LA; and LA can't come up with a one-location site of 10,500 beds, then, I think the USOC will pass on 2016.

[Sir Rols]

I think that LA is in there as a back-up, should either the SF or Chicago plans fall apart at the last minute.

Well, no surprises there _ that early leak last week was spot on!

Just suppose LA does get the nod, how do you think it's chances would be against Tokyo and whoever to land what would be the second consecutive English-speaking third-time hosting?

[baron-pierreIV]

Just suppose LA does get the nod, how do you think it's chances would be against Tokyo and whoever to land what would be the second consecutive English-speaking third-time hosting?

I think it'll also depend on (i) how the USOC's relations with the IOC have improved or not; and (ii) the outcome of 2014 to be decided in Guatemala next summer. A victory for PyongChang will lessen Tokyo's chances.

I kinda read LA's plans, somewhat. It seems there's really been a lot of development -- and as ejay has outlined -- since 1984. But LA has to come up with either that redesign of the Coliseum OR a brand-new Village. It can't do a rehash of both because, other than Staples Center, there is nothing new to get excited about. If neither is in the cards, the USOC just might pass.

[ejaycat]

Well, no surprises there _ that early leak last week was spot on!

Just suppose LA does get the nod, how do you think it's chances would be against Tokyo and whoever to land what would be the second consecutive English-speaking third-time hosting?

In my opinion, it's hard to say. I'm trying to look at the whole picture; if it were between Tokyo and LA, hmm... Tokyo hasn't hosted in over 40 years. But how much construction would be needed? The IOC supposedly wants Olympics expenses to not get out of hand and be an economic burden to the host city... plus, I'm sure the IOC would like to profit from an Olympics... so... which city would satisfy these goals?

Hmm...

It's all a guessing game at this point, I suppose. Mix in other cities, and well, it's anyone's guess.

[LA84]

I think the Olympic Village is LA's issue. For LA's failed 2012 bid, though it's not the official reason, I had read on some online news sources that the USOC felt that the IOC would want something new for an Olympic Village, the plan for 2012 being to utilize the dorms at USC and UCLA (as was done in 1984). I know that more student housing is currently in the works for USC, plus UCLA has expanded its student housing greatly in the past decade. Maybe the USOC feels it wants one Olympic Vilage; there's a lot of housing construction going on in downtown LA, maybe the Olympic Village plan might include new housing, particularly around the Staples Center or even closer to USC itself. USC's Galen Center is also nearing completion, scheduled to open this September, I think, so LA will have yet another arena to utilize. As I recall from the 2012 plans, the venues would be a lot more compact than in 1984, using venues in Los Angeles and Orange Counties only. Basically the only venue that would have to be built from scratch would be the shooting venue; the 2012 plans called for it to be at the LA County Fairplex in Pomona; in 1984, the shooting venue was all the way out in Chino.

Not sure if the Coliseum is an issue; I would imagine even if the NFL doesn't choose it for an NFL team (and thus would not be redone) it could still be used for an Olympics. In its present state, it could definitely seat plenty of people, and a track can easily be put in; I'm sure it could also be spiffed up pretty nicely by the organizing committee.

I agree re: The Coliseum. For Chicago and San Francisco they will need to construct something that leaves that all important legacy the IOC wants. I honestly think the Coliseum is the exception to the rule just because of it's historical significance in the Olympics. And I'm not saying that just because I love that stadium - I think if they did an Athens to it and spiffed it up just enough so that it left some sort of legacy, the IOC would buy into it.

Regarding the village - I've heard there is a lot of redevelopment going on along the Figueroa Corridor which would be the perfect spot IMHO. Or is all that land already spoken for?

[baron-pierreIV]

Regarding the village - I've heard there is a lot of redevelopment going on along the Figueroa Corridor which would be the perfect spot IMHO. Or is all that land already spoken for?

Remember though, that this is residential development slated to be available come July-Aug 2016. Not something in 4 or 5 years' time. The land must be empty now; or, like Hunters Point, need a lot of time for clean-up, etc.

[ejaycat]

But what I was pointing out is that a 'main stadium' issue seems to be the Achilles' heel of any US bid presently. NY flopped on that one; the 2nd richest city - Chicago will go with a 'temp' one; here today; gone tomorrow. LA offers its 'old lady' -- nothing that the IOC gets excited about. Look who got ahead in 2012 -- the one with the flashiest main stadium design - London. And you could almost hear the air go out of the balloon when NYC's "West Side stadium" fell by the wayside. To many, the main Stadium is the most visible manifestation of a Games. I mean that's where the most images will be generated from.

If LA goes with either of the campuses - ideally, USC would be the stronger one because it is right beside the Coliseum. (UCLA is too far away, but could house some of the press.) However, I don't know that USC dorms total up to 10,500 beds. The split situation that happened in 1984 won't work again. Remember, the IOC had no choice then. So, if it comes down to LA; and LA can't come up with a one-location site of 10,500 beds, then, I think the USOC will pass on 2016.

All of these are good points. I guess the USOC has to strike that balance among the 3 cities in regards to a main stadium, Olympic Village and transportation for the athletes, among other things (budget, etc.). It's my opinion that transportation for spectators isn't a main concern; I think people will always find ways to get around... the IOC's concern, I would think, would be getting the athletes to their competitions in a timely manner.

[LA84]

Remember though, that this is residential development slated to be available come July-Aug 2016. Not something in 4 or 5 years' time. The land must be empty now; or, like Hunters Point, need a lot of time for clean-up, etc.

I guess that is my question. I haven't been to L.A. in a few years so I don't know how far they have gotton on it or whether it is still in the early stages.

[ejaycat]

I agree re: The Coliseum. For Chicago and San Francisco they will need to construct something that leaves that all important legacy the IOC wants. I honestly think the Coliseum is the exception to the rule just because of it's historical significance in the Olympics. And I'm not saying that just because I love that stadium - I think if they did an Athens to it and spiffed it up just enough so that it left some sort of legacy, the IOC would buy into it.

Regarding the village - I've heard there is a lot of redevelopment going on along the Figueroa Corridor which would be the perfect spot IMHO. Or is all that land already spoken for?

I am also of the same opinion; the historical significance of the Coliseum MIGHT be a draw for the IOC. It could potentially be the 1st stadium to host 3 Olympics.

There is a lot of redevelopment going on along the Figueroa Corridor and the rest of downtown LA as well. Lots of old buildings are being converted to condos and lofts, plus there are brand new highrises being built for housing or are being planned. Downtown LA is not the same place as it was even 5 years ago.

Baron has a point, a new Olympic Village would have to be available for use in 2016. But who knows, maybe LA's real estate market will slump in the next few years, which would keep some parcels vacant just long enough for a brand new Olympic Village to be built in time for 2016.

[Faster]

I would assume that Tokyo would be upwards of 100billion Yen, they need pretty much new everything. It will have the same appeal as London, legacy, brand-new shiny venues, a bit of exotic, an already amazing transportation system and there is the likelihood that cities like Kyoto could be used for competition because of the fast-train system in Japan.

[baron-pierreIV]

I would assume that Tokyo would be upwards of 100billion Yen, they need pretty much new everything. It will have the same appeal as London, legacy, brand-new shiny venues, a bit of exotic, an already amazing transportation system and there is the likelihood that cities like Kyoto could be used for competition because of the fast-train system in Japan.

Kyoto's too far away, faster. Besides, the Kyotoites, I think would prefer to keep their city (the ancient capital) the way it is. Yokohoma, I think would benefit from some of Tokyo's venues, after all, that is where the 2002 World CUp final was played.

Baron has a point, a new Olympic Village would have to be available for use in 2016. But who knows, maybe LA's real estate market will slump in the next few years, which would keep some parcels vacant just long enough for a brand new Olympic Village to be built in time for 2016.

Thank you. The point with a Village, like the Stadium, is that it is such a massive project -- I mean some 2,500-3000 housing units (condos, townhouses) become available on the marketplace all of a sudden after the Games that its composition (including its sale and disposition after the Games) must be put together SOLIDLY, without any leaks, when the bid is submitted 7-8 years out. It cannot depend on...what becomes available a few years' down the line AFTER the bid has been formally submitted. The IOC doesn't mind changes in other venues, etc., but the main stadium AND the Village concepts have to be iron-clad when the bid is submitted and presented to the IOC.

[nykfan845]

Here are my preferences:

1) San Francisco

2) Chicago

3) Los Angeles

How close is the USOC to actually saying they'll submit a bid to the IOC?