Jump to content

Can Sf Build Venues On Time,


Recommended Posts

Here's one story on how the USOC visit to San Francisco today went:

My WebpageOlympics committee visits San Francisco to bolster 2016 bid

This is the paragraph that caught my attention:

"Newsom said that if he and the group working on San Francisco's bid decide they can't realistically meet the USOC's expectations in terms of time and infrastructure, he would take the city out of the running before the committee picks a finalist, a decision expected in March."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean the whole thing is 10 years away. Surely the USOC and SF will know by November if it can happen in SF or not.

God, the comments coming out of Chicago and SF so are confusing, and infuriating to say the least. The 2-stadium concept needs work; a brand-new NFL stadium doesn't seem good enough!?!?! Well, as I said in the other post - whadafack??? We all might as well stay home, Mr. Cvrtlik. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean the whole thing is 10 years away. Surely the USOC and SF will know by November if it can happen in SF or not.

God, the comments coming out of Chicago and SF so are confusing, and infuriating to say the least. The 2-stadium concept needs work; a brand-new NFL stadium doesn't seem good enough!?!?! Well, as I said in the other post - whadafack??? We all might as well stay home, Mr. Cvrtlik. :angry:

I agree 100% - an NFL stadium IS too small. If SF is serious, it needs to design the 49ers stadium so it can be expanded to stuff in a 400M track. Intimacy is all the rage in new Football and Baseball stadiums, and putting a track between the stands and fans destroys it. Stanford is spending $100M to take out their track. Even the LA Colesium had its track removed, and more seats added to increase the intensity of the fan experiance. I'm not sure how they could build the new expandable Candelstick, but a plan where one entire side of the stadium could be pushed back 10 meters is probably doable. I think thats how they did it in Sydney.

Outside of resolving the NFL/Olympic stadium requirements gap, I think the venues timeline complaint is bogus. First, the Bay Area already has many world class sports stadiums with good transportation. Second, if they want the games highly concentrated in SF, there are plenty of places they could construct temporary venues. I prefer option 2, with the legacy being:

1) Olympic/NFL stadium

2) Olympic Village on Hunters point.

3) Beautiful scenery and weather. You don't need gorgeous facilities when you have a gorgeous city.

4) Low cost. No white elephant one time use facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm - I wonder if the USOC is reading my posts on here. <_<

Like I have said since the beginning, one of San Franciscos many problems is their and the states inability to complete major projects in a timely manner. While it is nice to suggest building venues here and there, building a new 49ers stadium, throwing up redevelopment at Hunters Point, the reality is that there is a long and drawn out process to get things done in this city and no gurantee that any or all of the venues needed for SF to host will even all get done.

10 years may seem like a long time but in San Francisco, that is often times how long it takes to plan something before building even commences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm - I wonder if the USOC is reading my posts on here. <_<

Like I have said since the beginning, one of San Franciscos many problems is their and the states inability to complete major projects in a timely manner. While it is nice to suggest building venues here and there, building a new 49ers stadium, throwing up redevelopment at Hunters Point, the reality is that there is a long and drawn out process to get things done in this city and no gurantee that any or all of the venues needed for SF to host will even all get done.

10 years may seem like a long time but in San Francisco, that is often times how long it takes to plan something before building even commences.

Frankly speaking, if Athens could get it done, then there should be no problem in San Francisco. We might not be able to throw 100,000 people into a project like teh CHinese, but it'll get done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly speaking, if Athens could get it done, then there should be no problem in San Francisco. We might not be able to throw 100,000 people into a project like teh CHinese, but it'll get done.

True, if Athens and Barcelona can finish their venues in time, I am pretty sure any American city can do the same. The USOC wants the promise following the NYC2012 debacle, although it was pretty obvious that the opposition for that stadium was very strong from the beginning. Building a stadium at Candlestick won't be a joy ride, but at least the zoning is appropiate because there is already a stadium there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, if Athens and Barcelona can finish their venues in time, I am pretty sure any American city can do the same. The USOC wants the promise following the NYC2012 debacle, although it was pretty obvious that the opposition for that stadium was very strong from the beginning. Building a stadium at Candlestick won't be a joy ride, but at least the zoning is appropiate because there is already a stadium there.

The difference is that the Greek and Spanish govts essentially paid to host those games. That isn't how it works in the U.S. - the city and state are in charge.

This isn't about just Candlestick. It is also about giving a guarantee that Hunters Point will be cleaned up and built within the timeframe prescribed: that more venues will be located in San Francisco and not be a Palo Alto Olympics plan as in 2012, etc. etc.

The voters originally approved a new Candlestick in the late 90's. Nothing has happened since. The TransBay project was also approved in the late 90's - Thanks to political squabbling little has happened there. Lorma Prieta happened in '89. The damaged Embarcadero Freeway was finally demolished and new Ferry Plaza finally completed in 2000. The list goes on. No wonder the USOC has questions about SF's ability to ge things done on their schedule.

Compare this to Los Angeles' history of hosting two highly organized Olympics and Chicago announcing in 2000 that it was building Millenium Park over the South Shore railroad tracks and completed it by 2004.

The USOC lost some credibility after 2012 in that New York was in many ways calling the shots. While it is true that NYC really didn't have a shot for 2012 the reputation of the USOC suffered because of that fact. The have to take the drivers seat this time and not have a repeat situation which is why they are running a much tighter ship this time.

Now is the time for Newsome to take charge and figure out how to fight through the leftist pinko's that seem to run this city so he can go to the USOC in a few weeks and say, "O.K. - here's how we will meet your deadlines and do it in the time frame you require."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My observations of SF politics have been that everything happens much differently when there is a hard deadline and an international sporting event. We saw this both with the 2012 Olympic bid, in which the SF Board of Supervisors, who would usually fight endlessly, quickly and (I think) unanimously endorsed. More concretely, the golf tournament last year which required heavy new investment in Harding Park had support even from Chris Daly, and everything came off beautifully. There are other events that show this - the bike and car races, X Games, etc.

The deadline aspect is one reason I support sf hosting the games. I think it would do wonders to push through projects that get stalled when there is no focal date, and that we would see transit and other improvements much quicker as a result.

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My observations of SF politics have been that everything happens much differently when there is a hard deadline and an international sporting event. We saw this both with the 2012 Olympic bid, in which the SF Board of Supervisors, who would usually fight endlessly, quickly and (I think) unanimously endorsed. More concretely, the golf tournament last year which required heavy new investment in Harding Park had support even from Chris Daly, and everything came off beautifully. There are other events that show this - the bike and car races, X Games, etc.

The deadline aspect is one reason I support sf hosting the games. I think it would do wonders to push through projects that get stalled when there is no focal date, and that we would see transit and other improvements much quicker as a result.

B)

Fillmore Street one day ski jump competition.

Need I say more?

Welcome to the boards btw B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fillmore Street one day ski jump competition.

Need I say more?

Welcome to the boards btw B)

Thanks - been reading for a while. Some pretty knowledgeable people here it seems. I'm a bit of an oddball for sf. I generally identify with the left here but want the Olympics with a passion. I was 10 years old when Denver voted to give back the '76 Winter Games, and it was a traumatic experience. What fun it would have been to be in the host city at age 14, but 40 years later wouldn't be bad either.

Development politics in sf has really transformed imo in the last five years. Before the 2001 watershed Supes election, progressives didn't trust the Supervisors and hadn't yet lost some key court battles on rent control. Nowadays huge projects that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago (Trinity Plaza, rincon hill, the train station plan) are getting approved in a reasonable time after some dealmaking that protects existing tenants and adds affordable housing. Modulo the Bay Guardian and few other holdouts, I think there is broad support for this direction, although I'm still wary of whether projects are adding public benefit (public space, streetscape) and I don't want to see the unique character of the neighborhoods destroyed. It was poignant to see Sue Bierman die this week. She was a great champion of the old, "keep it small" attitude. I can see that out in the neighborhoods, like um, the one where I live, but I'd like sf to be a grand city and able to grow to accommodate more of the people who want to move here in areas where it wouldn't require bulldozing victorians or pushing out residents to do it, and to have great public spaces and events like the Olympics that will bring us joy. I don't think it's naive to think this is all possible, but the poor and working class are going to have to be represented and not pushed aside for all this to have my full support.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...