Jump to content

Chicago Versus La


Sir Rols

Recommended Posts

Okay, it's down to two.

Is Chicago all but already annointed? Or does LA have what it takes to join London in the "Three-peats" club?

Personally, I think the USOC not picking Chicago would be virtually handing the games to Tokyo ... hold it, I just realised AZerbaijan is still in the race.

Go Baku!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Okay, it's down to two.

Is Chicago all but already annointed? Or does LA have what it takes to join London in the "Three-peats" club?

Personally, I think the USOC not picking Chicago would be virtually handing the games to Tokyo ... hold it, I just realised AZerbaijan is still in the race.

Go Baku!

Honestly, I feel that if the USOC isn't going to bid Chicago, they wont bid at all. I highly doubt that LA will be bid again... i just cant see it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think that it has now become Chicago's to lose!

But I am wondering what the effect of San Francisco's withdrawal will now have on the USOC? Will they delay their decision so as to fine-check the details of the remaining two bids and avoid any further embarrassments or will it persuade them to bring their decision forward? And does it make them more or less likely to decide whether to commit to a bid for 2016 at all??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think that it has now become Chicago's to lose!

But I am wondering what the effect of San Francisco's withdrawal will now have on the USOC? Will they delay their decision so as to fine-check the details of the remaining two bids and avoid any further embarrassments or will it persuade them to bring their decision forward? And does it make them more or less likely to decide whether to commit to a bid for 2016 at all??

#1 - there is the int'l timetable. You can't change that.

#2 - they were prepared for something like this -- which is why they kept the final list to 3 cities -- just for surety's sake.

#3 - This is a domestic setback. Should not impact the int'l picture much.

Chicago has to meet the deadlines -- and try to build a little pizazz into their bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe roltel, you're funny, starting this thread. ;)

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

I think Chicago has to get its funding secured for its bid. If it does not, then Chicago is definitely NOT a sure thing.

And if Chicago does get its ducks all in a row, then we'll just have to wait and see how LA and Chicago will "battle" it out. I would think weather would also be a factor, but then hot and sticky Atlanta was a host. For outdoor sports, I would think LA's weather would be better for the athletes. Chicago in July/August is AWFUL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe roltel, you're funny, starting this thread. ;)

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

I think Chicago has to get its funding secured for its bid. If it does not, then Chicago is definitely NOT a sure thing.

And if Chicago does get its ducks all in a row, then we'll just have to wait and see how LA and Chicago will "battle" it out. I would think weather would also be a factor, but then hot and sticky Atlanta was a host. For outdoor sports, I would think LA's weather would be better for the athletes. Chicago in July/August is AWFUL.

Meteorological conditions are always 2nd in choosing a Summer host:

1. Rome '60 - deadly summer (1 athlete died in the marathon; or was that in 1908?)

2. Seoul - hot and muggy

3. Barcelona - Ha!! I was there. It was muggy and clammy! Some sea breezes kinda cooled it. But the seminary where we stayed had NO A/C.

4. Atlanta - was actually quite mild during the Games days. Really muggy though on the days it rained.

5. Sydney -- did u see those people in parkas at the Opening?

6. Athens -- U cud've fried an egg on the sidewalks

7. Beijing -- well, Samaranch wanted this one.

So, LA having nicer summer weather will be the least decisive factor. It's the SETTING. The SOGs are a premium prize that the IOC wants to rotate to the most high-profile cities. It's the overall experience that'll claim it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what if chicago and LA drop out :)

If they both drop out, then there'll be no 2016 American bid. :) That'd be nice. :)

Chicago weather averages (scroll halfway down) - http://www.chicagotraveler.com/weather.htm

Los Angeles weather averages - http://golosangeles.about.com/library/BLPa...landWeather.htm

Not too much difference!

Like the east coast and the rest of the Midwest, Chicago is way more humid in the summertime than Los Angeles. I've experienced it myself. It's nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this opinion article last night, from the Washington Post/AP. What do you guys think?

USOC Needs a Winning City

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Still stinging from the debacle of New York City's failed bid for the 2012 Olympics, those in charge of the U.S. effort to land the 2016 Games have made one point abundantly clear: This time they need a winner.

If the U.S. Olympic Committee nominates a city for this race, it won't be based on sentiment or neat artist renderings of stadiums that don't yet exist. It won't be about offering up one city simply because the Olympics have never been there before, or avoiding another simply because they have.

It's all about coming up with a sure thing.

And so, with five months left until the American city is determined, Los Angeles has to be considered the favorite.

When San Francisco dropped out Monday as the result of the unexpected loss of its potential stadium, it left only Los Angeles and Chicago in the running.

The San Francisco surprise was a jarring reminder of the New York experience _ an unexpected slip-up that crippled a city's chance at hosting the games. It must have made USOC brass happy that it occurred while the process is still strictly an American encounter, and not yet on the world stage.

"I think our process has proven itself to be a good one," USOC international vice president Bob Ctvrtlik said Monday. "The fact that a great city like San Francisco didn't make it speaks quite a bit to the strengths of the two remaining cities."

Indeed, the remaining candidates have spectacular credentials.

But realistically, only one can currently show real proof that it has the stuff to garner the 60-or-so votes needed to get the games when the International Olympic Committee awards them in 2009.

"They can't have an infrastructure they don't believe in, and they have to have the ability to deliver against their promises," USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth said last week in his address to the candidates. "Those are all key, key matters."

Los Angeles has a stadium, the LA Coliseum, that could host an Olympic event next month if it had to. It has arenas and venues from one end of Interstate 405 to the other, along with housing complexes on the campuses of Southern California and UCLA that could be transformed into Olympic villages.

Besides the ubiquitous traffic and sprawl issues that complicate any Los Angeles encounter, the city's biggest drawbacks are that it has hosted the Olympics twice already, and that venues might not sparkle and shine as they did in Sydney and Athens, and certainly will in Beijing.

"But this is not a celebration of the construction of a building," said Peter Vidmar, a gold-medal gymnast at the 1984 Olympics and a member of the Los Angeles organizing committee. "We've got places that are built and are going to be hosting events and world championships for the next 10 years. Athletes love that. They don't want to drive by some piece of land and have someone say, `This is where you'll be competing.'"

That was the awkward situation New York dealt with last year, only six months before the 2012 vote. City officials were reduced to bringing people to a building on the west side of Manhattan, pointing out the window toward a rail yard and saying that was where the Olympic stadium would be some day.

When funding plans for the stadium collapsed a month before the final IOC vote, the Big Apple was all but done.

There are, meanwhile, plenty of good things going for Chicago. There's a plan to hold the Olympics in the center of the city, not in the outlying areas, as some recent hosts have done. Also, it's not Los Angeles.

Making Chicago an underdog, however, is the city's less-than-concrete plans for the $300 million stadium it hopes to build in the Washington Park area.

"We'll demonstrate to the USOC that we'll be able to fund the stadium," Chicago 2016 chairman Pat Ryan said. "It's a process. We're being very aggressive and diligent to give a measure of certainty."

Ctvrtlik insists that not having an existing structure isn't a deal-breaker; not having concrete financial plans in place come decision time is.

"It's entirely possible at the end of this process that we could feel confident with Chicago," he said. "It's a level of confidence that the plan will go forward as proposed."

In the end, the American city can expect to have competition from six or seven other cities _ meaning a myriad of political interests and conflicts will come into play when the selection process starts.

Ueberroth, an LA-area resident who was born near Chicago, said recently that "our esteem in this country is at one of its lowest points in history."

"So, we're going to have to work hard on repairing that. ... The Olympics are the one clear road to international relations."

And that is why nothing short of a perfect bid will do.

"To go forward without a high level of confidence, I think would not be prudent," Ctvrtlik said.

USOC Needs a Winning City

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the USOC must not lose its focus. And so far, even with my home city falling by the wayside, the USOC process of weeding out the weak bids at an early stage, is working.

It has to go with Chicago to win. LA is, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, a been there-done that experience. Plus, it will always be a reminder in the face of proud IOC members that it took an only bidder, upstart American city -- after being rejected 2x -- to show them the way to do these things. A few of those holdouts don't like to be reminded of that. And a few of the rivals will probably play on that fact.

The ultimate strategy here is to convince 58-60 voting members of the IOC that a new American city can do new things for their precious Olympics; and that onus falls on Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ultimate strategy here is to convince 58-60 voting members of the IOC that a new American city can do new things for their precious Olympics; and that onus falls on Chicago.

Why do they keep talking about needing to gain 60 votes? At the moment there are 113 voting members in the IOC.Since those members associated with competing cities cannot vote and let's say there are two finalists in 2009 as in 2005,that would mean about 107 or 108 eligible to vote in the final round.Given that these would all be present to vote in the final round,a minimum of 55 or 54 would probably suffice,much like London's winning score in the Singapore election.

In fact the last 4 winning cities all won with less than 60 votes:

London 2012 - 54.

Vancouver 2010 - 56.

Beijing 2008 - 56.

Turin 2006 - 53.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do they keep talking about needing to gain 60 votes? At the moment there are 113 voting members in the IOC.Since those members associated with competing cities cannot vote and let's say there are two finalists in 2009 as in 2005,that would mean about 107 or 108 eligible to vote in the final round.Given that these would all be present to vote in the final round,a minimum of 55 or 54 would probably suffice,much like London's winning score in the Singapore election.

In fact the last 4 winning cities all won with less than 60 votes:

London 2012 - 54.

Vancouver 2010 - 56.

Beijing 2008 - 56.

Turin 2006 - 53.

Stop being nit-picky!! I am just quoting what Ueberroth & Cvrtlik have said in the past. Of course, you can win with 54 or 56 -- well, depending on the mix by 2009, but using "60" is just a round number with the comfort zone of a few more votes. It's merely symbolic -- not exact. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop being nit-picky!! I am just quoting what Ueberroth & Cvrtlik have said in the past. Of course, you can win with 54 or 56 -- well, depending on the mix by 2009, but using "60" is just a round number with the comfort zone of a few more votes. It's merely symbolic -- not exact. :rolleyes:

Need I remind you that we are members of the Gamesbids Forums.It's our duty to be nit-picky! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are all 113 members known now, and will they be the same people voting in 09'?

The membership hovers around that number -- but there will changes between then and now. I believe their retirement age is -- what 65? (Or maybe it should be lower.) And then those athlete-members like Cvrtlik who were elected in 2000, have to retire in 2008. Another six or so athletes will be elected in 2008; some will die. So, there might be a change of 20-25% from today's present membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did. I agree with most of your thoughts; even the possibility that SF2016 might regroup and that the USOC might let them back in. However, again, like NYC's case, the USOC did not want to have to deal seriously with NYC for 2016; or it was probably a bilateral decision.

Anyway, I really don't think there's a good alternative to the loss of the 49ers stadium at Candlestick. Just this morning, over at Berkeley, Memorial Stadium, which actually would be the largest capacity stadium in the Bay Area at a present seating of 73,000+, is also going to be the subject of litigation. UC it seems is ready to refurbish and renovate the Stadium at its present spot. The City of Berkeley is adamantly against this; and they said they would go to Court to force the University to move the facility out of the Hayward faultline.

So this could have been another possiblity for SF2016 -- a lot closer geographically than Stanford or Santa Clara -- and maybe could have figured in SF2016's back-up plans, especially if they are going to do a major redo. But as we speak, it looks like even this venue will become the subject of legal wrangling and delays, etc. So even that might not fit within a USOC timeline if SF2016 shifted to this venue for its T&F/Ceremonies stadium. (Of course, I always thought an "earthquake" simulation at Opening would be a great thrill and a distinctly Bay Area touch to the festivities. :) BUt then again, that's just one of my wild-and-crazy ideas!!)

Actually, maybe after a few strong earthquakes, Santa Clara, Stanford or Berkeley might shift a lot closer to San Francisco for SF to come up with an even stronger bid!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the blog, unlike the mod, I really don't think SF 2016 will somehow make a comeback. There's nothing more annoying than someone who flip-flops or is indecisive. Kinda like the woman driver on her cellphone driving her huge SUV who makes a last-minute maneuver and then realizes she didn't want to make that lane change and cuts you off getting back into the lane she originally was in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meteorological conditions are always 2nd in choosing a Summer host:

1. Rome '60 - deadly summer (1 athlete died in the marathon; or was that in 1908?)

2. Seoul - hot and muggy

3. Barcelona - Ha!! I was there. It was muggy and clammy! Some sea breezes kinda cooled it. But the seminary where we stayed had NO A/C.

4. Atlanta - was actually quite mild during the Games days. Really muggy though on the days it rained.

5. Sydney -- did u see those people in parkas at the Opening?

6. Athens -- U cud've fried an egg on the sidewalks

7. Beijing -- well, Samaranch wanted this one.

So, LA having nicer summer weather will be the least decisive factor. It's the SETTING. The SOGs are a premium prize that the IOC wants to rotate to the most high-profile cities. It's the overall experience that'll claim it.

Well if you look at it like that, then every city has something wrong with it. can't we just look at the good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you look at it like that, then every city has something wrong with it. can't we just look at the good?

Well, notice -- I skipped Tokyo, Mexico City, Munich and Montreal. There were far worse things than the weather that happened in Mexico and Munich. I think Tokyo and Montreal had decent weather.

BTW, I was only responding to a comment about the weather for the chosen host cities. So, it's you who's extrapolating more than the original answer. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re all these stories about LA being ahead...OK, just supposing...merely for argument's sake - that the USOC puts LA forward again. So, they have 95% of the venues...at such far-flung places like Long Beach, Carson, San Diego, now, even Palo Alto. So what? :blink:

That's what I mean. It'll be a harder sell for the USOC. And what do you think Tokyo and Rome would say:

Rome: We last-a had it in 1960, 49 years ago! Los Angeles just had it again 25 years ago. Why can't we get a second chance?

Tokyo: We last had it in 1964, 45 years ago! Los Angeles just had it again 25 years ago (this is being said in 2009). Give us a second chance -- after all, we will be offering a brand new Athletics stadium.

What do you say to that if you were an unbiased IOC member?

That would put LA 3rd on my list if I were an IOC voting member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...