Jump to content

Chicago Versus La


Sir Rols

Recommended Posts

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 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 weill 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.

Going by who held the summer Games last, I'd give the Games to Tokyo. But if Rio could put on an impressive bid, with the money to back it, I'd give Rio the Games. But that's just me. To me, I think both LA and Chicago have just as equal a chance of getting (or not getting) the 2016 Games.

Looking at past Olympics, the soccer prelims were always in far-flung venues from the host city. I honestly don't know why this is done, if someone knows why, please explain. Didn't the Sydney Games have soccer prelims in Adelaide? What are Chicago's plans for their proposed soccer prelim venues?

And Long Beach and Carson are not far-flung from LA, really; they're closer to downtown LA than Palo Alto is to San Francisco, not even 30 miles. They're just down the 110 freeway, plus that stretch of the 110 has a dedicated lane for express buses and local buses with bus stops on the center median, there's also a dedicated carpool lane. LA's bid for 2016 is more compact than SF's 2016 bid.

I can see why a compact bid would be convenient for athletes and spectators, but spreading it out a little bit, the athletes and spectators would get to see more of and enjoy the breadth of the whole region. It also gives a chance for more of the locals to say they've participated in the Games. Like the attitude of the '84 summer Olympics organizers, they decided early on to not limit the venues to LA city limits, their attitude was, "LA has a population of (at the time) 3 million, the Greater LA region has a population of (at the time) 10 million or so people. If you hold the Games only within the city of LA, you turn off 7 million people."

But again, I don't understand why in past Olympics, soccer prelims have been held really far from the host city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I can see why a compact bid would be convenient for athletes and spectators, but spreading it out a little bit, the athletes and spectators would get to see more of and enjoy the breadth of the whole region.

One of the unseen headaches of organizing an Olympics Games is, in addition hosting to the 10,500 athletes; say, 7,500 IOC and sports federations officials & corporate guests -- you have, by 2016, some 17,000 members of the world's press whom you (as the Org Committee) have to also take to the competition venues in time AND then bring them back to the Press Center(s) where they have to meet their press deadlines. As explained to me by the guy from SF2016 -- one of the beauties of the SF bid was that Moscone Center which was going to be the Media Centre & IBC, was really w/in a 5-10 min walking distance of 20,000 hotel rooms in downtown SF. Brought back to Moscone, they could then take care of walking themselves back to their hotels, after they filed their reports at the Press Center, rather than having to drive them. We made a rough estimate of 250,000 mini-trips saved that way.

As for the soccer prelims, it's rare that even an "A" List city would have four minimum 25-40,000 seating soccer stadia in one city. So the idea was to loosen the body congestion in the lead city by pawning off at least 3 of the soccer prelims to outlying sites. SF of course was the first host attempting to have all soccer atheltes come home to the main OV at the end of the day since 5 soccer sites were identified for the 2016 bid: Spartan (SJ), Stanford, MacAfee Arena in Oakland, AT&T Park, and Olympic Stadium in SF (for the Finals. Of course, there would've been 2 other back-up soccer sites still w/in the 54-minute radius of the SF OV: a refurbished Memorial Stadium in Berkeley AND the future Earthquakes home in Fremont.)

(See Final list of SF venues in "SF Venues Question thread")

But that's not to be. Hey, Pete Ueberroth -- any second thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO L.A. wins the U.S. bid and then the games. While some people look at the city hosting for a third time and traffic or whatever the critics say, fact is the IOC rarely votes for the city that will put on the best games. The IOC iis interested in money and L.A. will makw the most money. The costs are much lower because of existing places and that is huge after the Athens fiasco. Look at the IOC's nomination of Bejing for an example. Bejing got the bid because of the sponsorship money generated by companys hoping to capture the untapped Chinese market. L.A. will make the most money and will win the games for 2016. Whoever the U.S. nominates though will win, again because of money. NBC ponys up a loooot more money if the games are in the U.S. and the USOC and IOC will make sure they get that money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever the U.S. nominates though will win, again because of money. NBC ponys up a loooot more money if the games are in the U.S. and the USOC and IOC will make sure they get that money.

Hmmm....in that case,how come New York didn't manage to win 2012? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm....in that case,how come New York didn't manage to win 2012? :huh:

Because of their scrapped main stadium plans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO L.A. wins the U.S. bid and then the games. While some people look at the city hosting for a third time and traffic or whatever the critics say, fact is the IOC rarely votes for the city that will put on the best games. The IOC iis interested in money and L.A. will makw the most money. The costs are much lower because of existing places and that is huge after the Athens fiasco. Look at the IOC's nomination of Bejing for an example. Bejing got the bid because of the sponsorship money generated by companys hoping to capture the untapped Chinese market. L.A. will make the most money and will win the games for 2016. Whoever the U.S. nominates though will win, again because of money. NBC ponys up a loooot more money if the games are in the U.S. and the USOC and IOC will make sure they get that money.

The IOC get their cut, no matter where the games are held. They skim off their share of broadcasting and sponsorship dollors before handing the rest over to the local OCOG. Whether the local organising committee then manages to make a profit or ends up paying for infrastructure debt for decades doesn't concern them.

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.

What are you smoking?? The Games in Chicago will be held along the the lakefront, which is beautiful in July/August. AND, have you been in LA in July and August? And, let's not forget that Athens, Sidney and Atlanta are all warmer than Chicago that time of year.

Go Chicago!

The IOC get their cut, no matter where the games are held. They skim off their share of broadcasting and sponsorship dollors before handing the rest over to the local OCOG. Whether the local organising committee then manages to make a profit or ends up paying for infrastructure debt for decades doesn't concern them.

The IOC is first and foremost interested in the athletes and promoting the Olympic Ideal. Case in point...NYC which arguably would have run the most profitable games in 2012 won only 16 votes. As well, I am not sure that LA's games would be more profitable than Chicago. Look at the Olympic sponsorship located in Chicago already and the huge population zone with a few hours drive of Chicago that will go crazy for the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you smoking?? The Games in Chicago will be held along the the lakefront, which is beautiful in July/August. AND, have you been in LA in July and August? And, let's not forget that Athens, Sidney and Atlanta are all warmer than Chicago that time of year.

Go Chicago!

The IOC is first and foremost interested in the athletes and promoting the Olympic Ideal. Case in point...NYC which arguably would have run the most profitable games in 2012 won only 16 votes. As well, I am not sure that LA's games would be more profitable than Chicago. Look at the Olympic sponsorship located in Chicago already and the huge population zone with a few hours drive of Chicago that will go crazy for the Games.

I live in South Pasadena, 8 miles or so from downtown Los Angeles. It's FAR drier here in the summer than it is in Chicago during the summer. Yes, I've been in Chicago when it was July. It was hot and sticky, and the only place I felt comfortable outside was when I was standing on Navy Pier.

In regards to profits, Chicago's team needs to spend over a billion dollars for its Olympics; LA's only needs to spend around 150 million... going by that, I guess we can draw or own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC is first and foremost interested in the athletes and promoting the Olympic Ideal. Case in point...NYC which arguably would have run the most profitable games in 2012 won only 16 votes. As well, I am not sure that LA's games would be more profitable than Chicago. Look at the Olympic sponsorship located in Chicago already and the huge population zone with a few hours drive of Chicago that will go crazy for the Games.

More than anything, it's giving a new geographic region a chance to bask in the Olympic spotlight and in the process, inheriting a goodly number of venues, infrastructure improvements, that can all be pinned to the "Olympics of 20XX." One of Atlanta's boasts and bid goalposts was that winning an Olympic Games for them would recognize the achievements of a New American South. Beijing and its allies worked on the theme that bringing the Games to a new country/society would open it up and the population to Olympic sponsors.

If LA had staged really the MOST SUperior Games of ALL TIME in 1984, and it having vanquished say London, Paris, Moscow in its initial bid -- then yes, I agree LA would have a greater chance the 3rd time around. But LA merely put on a penny-pinching show -- which while it didn't hurt the taxpayers of Los Angeles County & California, of course, was also something new for the IOC. They were not chauffered around in limos as they were used to. Staffers would pick them up in their family sedans and drive them around as such.

So, again, LA would be an also-ran, whereas Chicago would host in a region whose last Olympic Games (a terribly disorganized one at that) was over a century ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

Repeating something does not make it true--even if you really believe it. Check out the facts. Chicago and LA summer temps and humidity in August are nearly identical. And, one can argue that near the lakefront, which is where Chicago would host the Games, that these figures would drop. However, the average temp in Chicago in August is 71.7 degrees and LA's is 70.5. The humidity stats are 86% in the AM and 60% in the PM for Chicago and 85% AM and 69% PM for Los Angeles. These are according to Cityrating.com.

I live in South Pasadena, 8 miles or so from downtown Los Angeles. It's FAR drier here in the summer than it is in Chicago during the summer. Yes, I've been in Chicago when it was July. It was hot and sticky, and the only place I felt comfortable outside was when I was standing on Navy Pier.

In regards to profits, Chicago's team needs to spend over a billion dollars for its Olympics; LA's only needs to spend around 150 million... going by that, I guess we can draw or own conclusions.

LA will spend $200 MM alone to prepare the Coliseum for a World-class Track and Field event. How will they spend -$50MM on the rest of the Games??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if weather were really a factor; half of LA's projected 2016 events are going to be in Long Beach -- hello? By the ocean. So that's the same as being beside a lake.

So one should really look at Long Beach's humidity conditions rather than going by downtown LA's temp readings. Downtown LA is what? 18 mi or so from the ocean whereas Long Beach is right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA will spend $200 MM alone to prepare the Coliseum for a World-class Track and Field event. How will they spend -$50MM on the rest of the Games??

Actually, from reports news reports I've read, it would only cost 20 to 50 million dollars to add a track and spruce up the Coliseum for track and field. Of course this doesn't include the price of what the NFL might do to the Coliseum if they decide to put an NFL team there. The rest of the money, obviously, will be spent on renting and preparing the other venues for their respective sports. Only a shooting venue needs to be built from scratch.

Repeating something does not make it true--even if you really believe it. Check out the facts. Chicago and LA summer temps and humidity in August are nearly identical. And, one can argue that near the lakefront, which is where Chicago would host the Games, that these figures would drop. However, the average temp in Chicago in August is 71.7 degrees and LA's is 70.5. The humidity stats are 86% in the AM and 60% in the PM for Chicago and 85% AM and 69% PM for Los Angeles. These are according to Cityrating.com.

You can argue all you want about facts you've pulled from the internet, I have EXPERIENCED Chicago in July a number of times, and obviously LA in July quite a number of times. Chicago always felt far more humid. Chicago even gets thunderstorms/rainstorms in the summer, which LA rarely ever gets in the summer. So even going by that observation, Chicago is more humid than LA in the summer. Even Chicagoans will say that LA has better weather.

And since you'd rather go by facts obtained from the internet, this is from city-data.com:

Los Angeles

hum2167.png

Chicago

hum5242.png

[

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if weather were really a factor; half of LA's projected 2016 events are going to be in Long Beach -- hello? By the ocean. So that's the same as being beside a lake.

So one should really look at Long Beach's humidity conditions rather than going by downtown LA's temp readings. Downtown LA is what? 18 mi or so from the ocean whereas Long Beach is right there.

Though several events would be held in Long Beach, they're mostly the non-marquee events. The only marquee events that would be held in Long Beach are swimming and diving. The other marquee events (the ones I consider to be the big ones, anyway... gymnastics and track and field) will be in Los Angeles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to admit, but ejaycat is right. Chicago and the Midwest can be an utter hell in the summer, while when I visited San Diego (close enough to LA), it was only 75 degrees and beautiful. Now if Chicago was inland it actually might be a problem. But with Chicago and other events along the lakeshore, the cooling effect should help, and keep the temps down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, playing around with the dates can fix any sort of weather problem in Chicago. July is usually the worst month, but if the games are held say late august, the weather can be quite nice.

Like most Summer American Olympics, a Chicago Olympics would have to be held while school vacation is on -- because of the use of a few campuses. And doesn't school now start even before Labor Day weekend on some academic calendars?

So, no, a Chicago Olympics, like LA and Atlanta, would have to be late July into early August.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Philip Hersh

Chicago Tribune

(MCT)

Chicago 2016 bid officials appear fixated on the idea the deck is stacked for Los Angeles because four of the 11 U.S. Olympic Committee directors are from Southern California.

``We're always concerned about that,'' Mayor Richard M. Daley said last week after San Francisco withdrew from the contest to become the U.S. candidate city for the 2016 Olympics, leaving Chicago and Los Angeles as the finalists. ``We know how to count.''

The problem with that logic is it doesn't add up.

The four board members from Southern California have only two votes in decisions taken by the board of directors. That's because three of the four - Bob Ctvrtlik, Anita DeFrantz and Jim Easton - are on the board by virtue of being International Olympic Committee members from the U.S.

When the USOC reorganized under congressional pressure in 2003, it created a dramatically smaller board on which the IOC members still would have places but with reduced voting power. That was done because IOC members are supposed to represent the IOC's interests in their home country as much as their home country's interests in the IOC, so reducing their USOC clout seemed logical.

The only Southern Californian with a full vote is Chairman Peter Ueberroth, who was born and went to elementary school in Chicago's north suburbs. The other seven members with full votes are from Georgia (two), New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., and . . . Chicago.

``There is a perception that having several members of our leadership based in Southern California will affect our decision on choosing a U.S. city, but that perception is inaccurate,'' said Ctvrtlik, the USOC vice president who is overseeing the candidature process.

It also is far from certain that the decision will be made by a board vote to pick Chicago or Los Angeles.

This seems more likely:

Presuming the USOC decides, as expected, to have a U.S. candidate, the USOC bid-evaluation committee would recommend one city and ask the board to ratify that choice at a mid-April meeting.

Why would the USOC have brought in experts to evaluate the bids and spent so much time and effort on the process if it did not want the evaluation to carry significant weight?

COUNT ON UEBERROTH

Another thing not worth counting on: Ueberroth leaving as USOC chairman when his term ends after the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

In an interview with the Tribune last April, Ueberroth, 69, intimated he would be willing to stay at least until the IOC chooses the 2016 host city in October 2009. Some members of the board certainly will ask him to do so.

Ueberroth's continued presence in a post he took three years ago should help the U.S. candidate city by emphasizing USOC stability after more than a decade of revolving-door leadership, with 10 CEOs in 16 years and six presidents in 11 years. That is important in the international sports community, whose leaders have complained about never knowing from day to day with whom they would deal at the USOC.

``We would be crazy not to ask Peter to stay,'' a board member said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Hmmm. At least when SF was still in the race, it could have split the California vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been thru this before. U can't really listen to those stories pre-assigning votes based on where the delegates are from. This isn't the IOC. The seven people who will decide aren't going to be that parochial AND transparent and put their local choice at the expense of a strong candidate that CAN win at the international level. The seven are NOT first-timers.

I mean you can't really even think about it. It is utterly stupid: Ueberroth started life and his youth in the Midwest; he finished college in the Bay Area; began his travel agency career in Hawaii; had his golden moment in Los Angeles; and went on to New York to hold office as Baseball Commissioner; and continues to be a resident of Orange County. He probably won't be USOC president past 2009. So, he's going to back Los Angeles? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is something to the "stacking of the deck" but only if Los Angeles and Chicago have equally great bids. At this point I think it is Chicago's to loose. The city has so many positives going for it that even Los Angeles (and SF for that matter) would have had troubles overcoming, which I am sure the USOC will concentrate on more as opposed to whatever bias they may have for LA.

However, the USOC will want to avoid a NYC and SF situation at all costs. So Chicago better have everything in order in the next few months. And from what I have heard from my peeps in Chicago, outside of the chardonnay swilling Friends of the Park being opposed to it, <_< The Washington Park Stadium plan at this point looks good to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Gymnastics, Indoor Volleyball, Basketball and Boxing; and the box sports: Judo, Wrestling, Taekwondo, Badminton, Boxing, Fencing, Team Handball, Ping Pong - will all be indoors in A/C venues.

So, again,as I say, weather really is very secondary in selecting a Summer Host.

The Baron is right. Weather will not be a factor in selecting or eliminating Chicago or LA for the 2016 Games. I have competed all over the World and I would not find it a hindrance to compete in Chicago or LA in the Summer. And, judging by the number of tourists visiting the lakefront of Chicago and the Ocean of LA in July and August, I doubt that the fans will find it unpleasant either. Both are great cities and both would represent the US well if they were to win the Bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Baron is right. Weather will not be a factor in selecting or eliminating Chicago or LA for the 2016 Games. I have competed all over the World and I would not find it a hindrance to compete in Chicago or LA in the Summer. And, judging by the number of tourists visiting the lakefront of Chicago and the Ocean of LA in July and August, I doubt that the fans will find it unpleasant either. Both are great cities and both would represent the US well if they were to win the Bid.

Which sport do you compete in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts:

How about a temporary whitewater centre at washington park?

What does a 95,000 stadium that can be converted to 10,000 after the games look like? One large atlanta stadium? (the temporary part that is)

Why don't you wait for the renderings. I am sure they will be released maybe in the next 2-3 months. All I know is that they said the base of thepermanent 10,000 seats would use part of a hillside for the bowl; and that the floor of the stadium would be sunken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...