Jump to content

Sf2016 Meets Usoc


Recommended Posts

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../s164651D48.DTL

Olympics committee visits San Francisco to bolster 2016 bid

A team representing the U.S. Olympic Committee scrutinized San Francisco's proposal for hosting the 2016 Summer Games on Thursday, questioning whether the city has appropriate venues for track and field events and the opening and closing ceremonies, among other issues.

Although the San Francisco 49ers last month unveiled a plan for a new stadium at Candlestick Point that would have enough seats to host a major event such as the Olympics, Mayor Gavin Newsom said the USOC representatives expressed concern whether the facility and other sites in the city's bid would be finished in time, Newsom said.

"Eighty-three percent is not 100 percent of venues already completed," he said, adding that the city would provide alternative options to the still-to-be built 49ers stadium when it submits an updated proposal to the USOC next month. "There is a growing feeling that NFL stadiums are not the best opening and closing venues."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../s164651D48.DTL

Olympics committee visits San Francisco to bolster 2016 bid

Well then, if a brand new stadium taking into account an Olympics, an MLS team, a World Cujp bid, and a SuperBowl isn't good enough -- whadafuck is? That is one of the stupidest statements - probably twisted by the reporter -- to come out of this whole affair so far!! :blink:

I just heard Newsom talking on TV tonite. I guess it was a press conference after the USOC meeting. Either he hasn't sleep in a week or his medication was off; but he started sounding like a benign Tom Cruise -- talking about how bringing the Olympics... "...will enliven the senses..." :rolleyes: He wasn't making too much sense. (And I don't care if the 2016 people see this or not.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't get it. What better kind of stadium can the US offer to the Olympic movement? Let's be honest, a permanent track and field stadium (which could be perfect for a bid) would be useless in the US. Even the temporary approach strikes me as being rather mediocre in the financial/legacy aspects of a bid. The temporary feel might work in London as they will keep the stadium which could host in the future their annual athletic competitions or they could lure a minor soccer league.

A MLB Stadium turned Olympic (a la Atlanta) looks even worse than the NFL Olympic stadium. The only other possibility would be to use one of the ancient stadiums (the Memorial Stadium in LA) put a track on there and then see how the city removes the track ASAP to lure a NFL team to the region.

In any case, the Candlestick II sounds far better than a temporary structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A MLB Stadium turned Olympic (a la Atlanta) looks even worse than the NFL Olympic stadium. The only other possibility would be to use one of the ancient stadiums (the Memorial Stadium in LA) put a track on there and then see how the city removes the track ASAP to lure a NFL team to the region.

In any case, the Candlestick II sounds far better than a temporary structure.

As much as I love teh 49ers and all, I certainly wish they could design a more attractive stadium than the one proposed.

I really loved the old proposed design...

newinterior.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love teh 49ers and all, I certainly wish they could design a more attractive stadium than the one proposed.

I really loved the old proposed design...

newinterior.jpg

Actually, I like the new one better. But you know what? Based on yesterday's meeting, they are still tweaking that stadium concept. And I'm sure the SF team will be doing their darndest so that it'll fit an int'l approved T&F track. A permanent stadium will still be a heckuva lot betta than a temporary one!

Again, SF's ace in the hole is that SF scored higher in the int'l survey than Chicago or LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I like the new one better. But you know what? Based on yesterday's meeting, they are still tweaking that stadium concept. And I'm sure the SF team will be doing their darndest so that it'll fit an int'l approved T&F track. A permanent stadium will still be a heckuva lot betta than a temporary one!

Again, SF's ace in the hole is that SF scored higher in the int'l survey than Chicago or LA.

The new design seems a bit stark.

I certainly hope the SF team can tweak its plan enough to include Candlestick Park.

If only York were an owner worthy of the 49ers. Maybe he can work with the City and SF2016 to get this stadium built by 2010-12. And build it so it's capable of holding the Olympics, the Superbowl, MLS, FIFA World Cup, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think NFL and Olympic Stadium requirements will be very hard to reconcile. Chicago is totally screwed by the New Soldier Field. There only option is a temporary Stadium. I doubt a temp stadium bid would be competitive on the international level. Its the primary focus of the entire games.

SF has a tremendous opportunity. The City needs a new football stadium, and there is no reason why a smart engineer couldn't build a first rate NFL stadium, that could also be expanded for a Track. NFL should be the primary requirment, with the actual conversion to an Olympic Stadium requiering several million more dollars to impliment, only if SF gets the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply becose Athletic requires a 400m circular track and hapens to be the most popular event at the Olympic.

And anyway, a stadium with movable seating is perfectly possible: just look at Telstra Stadium or at the Stade de France: both can be oval or rectangular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply becose Athletic requires a 400m circular track and hapens to be the most popular event at the Olympic.

Uhmmm...that was a rhetorical question -- meaning, it did NOT need an answer. I KNOW the answer, fox. It was merely an expression of frustration in all these stupid stadium travails.

I know if you design it right, ANY configuration can be accommodated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So could a reconfig/remodel of the current Candlestick work? It seems to me that would solve the USOC's timeline and save some money for SF?

That's pretty much what they did in Athens . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So could a reconfig/remodel of the current Candlestick work? It seems to me that would solve the USOC's timeline and save some money for SF?

That's pretty much what they did in Athens . . .

Oh no, the current Candlestick won't work. That's why it was never even considered for the 2012 plan. Besides, that thing had a major crack after the 1989 earthquake. So, really, it is in the best interests of all parties concerned to build a new stadium. I think an Olympic track CAN certainly fit into the new stadium. That new look was just something released by the 49er office; but the speed of the USOC's elimination process has caught the 49er design team by surprise.

I mean I believe the new 49er stadium can/will accommodate an Olympic track if there is more certainty that the other elements are in place, and that the Games will come to SF. Otherwise maybe, the new stadium will just be designed for American football AND soccer.

However, the early press releases from the 49ers, w/o the model, did say that it would be a flexible stadium capable of putting in a track. The SF-49er timetable is construction 2010-2012. I think the USOC still wants the US to win the 2011 IAAF World Championships as a great signal to the IOC that it is committed to a great Games. It looks like that step is not in the 49ers contruction timetable. So I think that is what Newsom is referring to. The USOC knows that a 2011 event is not possible with a Chicago plan; and I believe it was pushing for it in a SF plan. However, unless 2013 has not already been spoken for, I don't see why the US/SF cannot go for the 2013 or the 2015 IAAF Championships instead of the 2011 one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, the current Candlestick won't work. That's why it was never even considered for the 2012 plan. Besides, that thing had a major crack after the 1989 earthquake. So, really, it is in the best interests of all parties concerned to build a new stadium. I think an Olympic track CAN certainly fit into the new stadium. That new look was just something released by the 49er office; but the speed of the USOC's elimination process has caught the 49er design team by surprise.

I mean I believe the new 49er stadium can/will accommodate an Olympic track if there is more certainty that the other elements are in place, and that the Games will come to SF. Otherwise maybe, the new stadium will just be designed for American football AND soccer.

However, the early press releases from the 49ers, w/o the model, did say that it would be a flexible stadium capable of putting in a track. The SF-49er timetable is construction 2010-2012. I think the USOC still wants the US to win the 2011 IAAF World Championships as a great signal to the IOC that it is committed to a great Games. It looks like that step is not in the 49ers contruction timetable. So I think that is what Newsom is referring to. The USOC knows that is not possible with a Chicago plan; and I believe it was pushing for it in a SF plan. However, unless 2013 has not already been spoken for, I don't see why the US/SF cannot go for the 2013 or the 2015 IAAF Championships.

I realize that the 2011 IAAF championships is a consideration. So perhaps reconfigure the current Candlestick to accomodate that but have the new Candlestick under construction?

Just trying to think of ways that Newsome can address the timetable problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think NFL and Olympic Stadium requirements will be very hard to reconcile. Chicago is totally screwed by the New Soldier Field. There only option is a temporary Stadium. I doubt a temp stadium bid would be competitive on the international level. Its the primary focus of the entire games.

SF has a tremendous opportunity. The City needs a new football stadium, and there is no reason why a smart engineer couldn't build a first rate NFL stadium, that could also be expanded for a Track. NFL should be the primary requirment, with the actual conversion to an Olympic Stadium requiering several million more dollars to impliment, only if SF gets the games.

I agree very much with this comment. Someone in the u.s. has to solve this problem or there will never be a games here again. Even the LA Coliseum, which I think is the only Olympic sized stadium with a track in it in the u.s. now that Stanford's is gone (according to the Wikipedia listing of venues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trac..._United_States), will probably be rebuilt as a close-in football stadium to attract an NFL team. SF is in the good position of being ready to build a new stadium, so it's probably better positioned than Chicago to build something that will be both permanent and expandable for T&F.

The hitch is that it will cost more money. SF's stadium plan was for the 49ers to finance the whole thing. They won't want to pay for the extra cost of a track and movable stands. So the City is going to have to find some way, through for example bonds, revenue from the land it owns at candlestick, or a silicon valley angel, to make up the difference and convince the USOC soon enough that it will happen.

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it cost the ARCO Corporation some US$250,000 to install and then relocate the 1984 track in 1984 dollars, to do the same thing 20 years later should cost at least $450,000. So that is the main sticking point of the USOC's desire to get the 2011 Champs. Say SF got it, it would have to lay it for 2011, and then remove it; and then reinstall a new one 5 years later in 2016.

Whereas, say the US went for the 2015 IAAF Games, which would be awarded in 2011, then putting in the track for 2015 would also serve as the US trials and Olympic track for 2016. So, one installation, 3 major uses. So, the USOC should maybe recalibrate that part of their master plan?

I realize that the 2011 IAAF championships is a consideration. So perhaps reconfigure the current Candlestick to accomodate that but have the new Candlestick under construction?

Just trying to think of ways that Newsome can address the timetable problem.

Not viable. Double the money; and where would the 49ers play with 1 being reconstructed and the other one in full construction? The current Candlestick can accommodate baseball as it did for Giants for many years; and a soccer field -- but I'm afraid not a 400m track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it cost the ARCO Corporation some US$250,000 to install and then relocate the 1984 track in 1984 dollars, to do the same thing 20 years later should cost at least $450,000. So that is the main sticking point of the USOC's desire to get the 2011 Champs. Say SF got it, it would have to lay it for 2011, and then remove it; and then reinstall a new one 5 years later in 2016.

Bonjour, Pierre. :) Are those figures missing some zeroes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonjour, Pierre. :) Are those figures missing some zeroes?

Bonjour, Todd. No, I worked with the Games in 1984. Those costs are very much close to the 1984 figures. My projected costs for a similar job in the coming years are on the conservative side. I don't want to frighten people too much. Depending on its disposition (plus remember, there is a practice track), it could conceivably cost $650,000 - $750,000 for 2016 or whenever the contracts would be signed for it.

CORRECTION: I checked my records and LAOOC got the ARCO Corporation to pony up $500,000 for seven (7) tracks all over the City of Los Angeles (including the one at the Coliseum and the warm-up track at USC). The other 5 went to UCLA, various schools belonging to the Unifed School District of Los Angeles, Santa Monica City College (where the marathons started) and CSU, Dominguez Hills which lent its campus for the Cycling events. So, indeed around $250,000 went to the installation of the main one at the COliseum and its removal and re-installation at the City COllege of LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonjour, Todd. No, I worked with the Games in 1984. Those costs are very much close to the 1984 figures. My projected costs for a similar job in the coming years are on the conservative side. I don't want to frighten people too much. Depending on its disposition (plus remember, there is a practice track), it could conceivably cost $650,000 - $750,000 for 2016 or whenever the contracts would be signed for it.

CORRECTION: I checked my records and LAOOC got the ARCO Corporation to pony up $500,000 for seven (7) tracks all over the City of Los Angeles (including the one at the Coliseum and the warm-up track at USC). The other 5 went to UCLA, various schools belonging to the Unifed School District of Los Angeles, Santa Monica City College (where the marathons started) and CSU, Dominguez Hills which lent its campus for the Cycling events. So, indeed around $250,000 went to the installation of the main one at the COliseum and its removal and re-installation at the City COllege of LA.

Okay, I understand now. You are talking about the costs associated with laying and re-laying track and how that affects which IAAF event we might go for. The costs associated with modifying the stadium compared to a fixed NFL park would be on the order of $100M at least, though, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I understand now. You are talking about the costs associated with laying and re-laying track and how that affects which IAAF event we might go for. The costs associated with modifying the stadium compared to a fixed NFL park would be on the order of $100M at least, though, don't you think?

Yeah, the track laying/relaying would be in the five-six digits -- but any major structural renovation to say the existing Candlestick would be, say, on the order of $200-250 mil -- which is why it is preferable to just build one from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...