The Usoc Vote On April 14

[Sir Rols]

London (twice), Melbourne, Paris. Legacies totally gone. And probably Canada some day since they keep talking about tearing down Olympic Stadium (which would be foolish IMHO but . . . )

Not disputing your main point, but just to point out melbourne is the wrong one out in that list.

The MCG is still a used, vibrant and constantly evolving stadium. It's still the holiest of holy shrines fior Australian sport. It may look different than it did in 1956, but at its heart the "G" is still the "G"!

[memorabilia]

London (twice), Melbourne, Paris. Legacies totally gone. And probably Canada some day since they keep talking about tearing down Olympic Stadium (which would be foolish IMHO but . . . )

Sorry, the Paris 1924 stadium still exists. It was not exactly in Paris but in Colombes.

[dave199]

Thanks for everyone's input here.

Just getting more insight into Paris's Olympic Stadium for 1924. It is still being used and is a decent sized stadium for Colombes. Unlike Chicago's plans, the stadium wasn't severly reduced in size right after the games. I doubt we can find another example of another Summer Olympic host city that has done this.

Stade Olympique Yves-du-Manoir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Stade Olympique Yves-du-Manoir in Colombes, near Paris, France (also known as the Stade Olympique de Colombes, or plain Colombes to the locals) was the main stadium for the 1924 Summer Olympics and had a capacity of 45,000 at the time. It was later expanded to a capacity of over 60,000. Colombes was also the venue for the 1938 World Cup Final between Italy and Hungary.

Colombes hosted a number of French Cup finals and home games of the French national football soccer and rugby teams into the 1970s. It remained France's largest stadium until the renovated Parc des Princes was inaugurated in 1972. By that time, Colombes' capacity had dropped to under 50,000 due to more stringent safety regulations. The French national football team played its last game at Colombes in 1975.

French professional football team RC Paris used Colombes as their home ground until 1985 or so, then moved on to other stadia before coming back in the 2000s.

Racing Metro 92 rugby club have never left and are planning to redevelop Yves-du-Manoir into a 15.000 all seater stadium to be shared with RCP football club.

[Cpierswim]

I had to register just to reply to this stadium talk.

I am a swim coach and here are my views on it. You're are all looking at legacy in a different view than what I would look at it as. The aquatics stadiums are rutinely built and then resized after the Olympics. That's fine because the swimmers want to swim in front of as many people as possible, and while this may be 5,000 for a national championship level meet, it is 25,000+ for the Olympics. There are very few pools that meet our 5,000 seat need for a national championship and would actually be better for us than a swimming stadium bigger than we need. Every Olympics leaves an appropriate legacy after the Olympics for swimming in it's country.

If I was a Track and Field coach, I would likely look at it the same way. The stadium is still there and it goes to my sport instead of something like football and baseball which are not even Olympic sports. (I know this is unknown for baseball by then) This leaves a legacy for my sport that there would be a new high level facility for my sport and I would much rather have this than a 60,000 seat stadium that I can't use. If I were a track and field coach and they changed the stadium to go to a baseball team or something, I would probably be mad. Maybe my only problem would be that the stadium is supposed to hold 2,000 (as I remember it) and not 5,000.

[dave199]

The Stadium will be a tough part to Chicago's bid to sell to the IOC.

Watch the video on this site. It's accompanied with this article.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_105183040.html

[baron-pierreIV]

The Stadium will be a tough part to Chicago's bid to sell to the IOC.

Watch the video on this site. It's accompanied with this article.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_105183040.html

Uhmmm, dave, r u the only one this temporary Chicago stadium thing is getting to? Seems like you can't sh*t without you thinking of or mentioning it. It's good enough for the USOC; I would think it's good enough for everyone else. Besides, what good is your posturing that it should be something permanent? R they really going to listen to you? Will it change things? I don't tink so.

BTW, re Colombes -- well, the real one wasn't good enough for the producers of CHARIOTS OF FIRE (the late Dodie Fayed among them). They said, "..it doesn't look 1924 Olympique enough." So they picked another stadium in the UK to fill in for the movie. That should tell you something about this unexplained paranoia you have about the Chicago 2016 stadium. "Ephemeral" is the word, dude. Here today, gone tomorrow; but it'll always be part of the legend of Chicago 2016. Now, go get some therapy before your features start changing!

[dave199]

Uhmmm, dave, r u the only one this temporary Chicago stadium thing is getting to? Seems like you can't sh*t without you thinking of or mentioning it. It's good enough for the USOC; I would think it's good enough for everyone else. Besides, what good is your posturing that it should be something permanent? R they really going to listen to you? Will it change things? I don't tink so.

BTW, re Colombes -- well, the real one wasn't good enough for the producers of CHARIOTS OF FIRE (the late Dodie Fayed among them). They said, "..it doesn't look 1924 Olympique enough." So they picked another stadium in the UK to fill in for the movie. That should tell you something about this unexplained paranoia you have about the Chicago 2016 stadium. "Ephemeral" is the word, dude. Here today, gone tomorrow; but it'll always be part of the legend of Chicago 2016. Now, go get some therapy before your features start changing!

Guys, this is a one way opinionated thread. I guess no one can have a different stance here. So let's just give in to the general and say that "CHICAGO WILL WIN 2016"

If other Olympic insiders are saying this Stadium will be a problem for their bid then why does me bringing it up bother you? I brought it up because I want this issue to be discussed among members, if you have a problem with that it's too bad for you. Not everyone thinks the same as you Baron, and that's definately for sure.

[Sir Rols]

Oh well, it gives us something to debate for the next two and a half years. It would be far too boring if there weren't any flaws to point out or there was absolutely NO chance for any other bid to win. And there's bound to be other hicoughs on the way (it's gonna get interesting when sceptics start questioning the finances, and then the inevitable "No Games" group springs up).

Sigh! These Olympic hostings are like marathons. the campaigning stage seems to go on forever, and after that there's an even longer wait till you eventually get to the climax.

[dave199]

Oh well, it gives us something to debate for the next two and a half years. It would be far too boring if there weren't any flaws to point out or there was absolutely NO chance for any other bid to win. And there's bound to be other hicoughs on the way.

Sigh! These Olympic hostings are like marathons. the campaigning stage seems to go on forever, and after that there's an even longer wait till you eventually get to the climax.

No wonder these boards have been so BORING and dead for months. I guess most members tend to get afraid to voice their opinions because of other board members, ummm...hmmm...who are those people??? , basically giving no respect towards others and their ideas+opinions. The minute I bring up a good valid point, someone here gets all defensive and tries to throw out anything that was brought up that goes against the Chicago bid. This bid ain't perfect you know. It does have its good points but it sure does have its weak points. How do you believe they will solve such problems? Obviously, they would stress more on the negatives and try to correct those. Hence me bringing up such points on this board.

[Sir Rols]

Personally, I've got nothing against the stadium proposal. Yeah, it was surprising and bold when it was first announced, but at least it is a real point of differentiation between Chicago and the usual run of bid stadium plans. It really raises a definite point of differentiation and will be interesting to see which way the IOC decides.

Anyway, one city's legacy is another city's millstone. Whatever suits a particular city should be right by them.

[dave199]

Personally, I've got nothing against the stadium proposal. Yeah, it was surprising and bold when it was first announced, but at least it is a real point of differentiation between Chicago and the usual run of bid stadium plans. It really raises a definite point of differentiation and will be interesting to see which way the IOC decides.

Anyway, one city's legacy is another city's millstone. Whatever suits a particular city should be right by them.

That what I call a respectable response and good insight based on someone else's opinion. Thanks for those valid points roltel.

[Guardian]

It is a long time coming from me, but congrats to Chicago here. Now, the real fun begins.

[ToddSF]

Yes, congratulations to chicago - one of the world's great cities.

[baron-pierreIV]

Anyway, one city's legacy is another city's millstone. Whatever suits a particular city should be right by them.

Totally agreed. I will already state that Tokyo's projected stadium on reclaimed land by the Bay will be an environmental calamity and add 18% to global warming. I hope Greenpeace and PETA are on their back from Day One.

Rome's will be too PERMANENT, EXTRAVAGANT and TOO PHALLIC! Why don't they just repair the Colosseum and have something really grand? I mean, it would be very "Gladiator!"

Rio's will be too shaky and after all that samba'ing on the stands at PanAms, will definitely be an unsound structure. Besides, if they get World Cup 2014, no way will the IOC give them 2016 as well. That's a fact.

Madrid? Let's not even go there. Madrid in July or August is a joke. Besides, there will be NO Mediterranean SOGs for the next dozen years at least. There have already been 3 in the last 15 years alone: Barcelona, Athens and Torino. Time for other regions of the world.

Yes, I am blind and opinionated AND loyal to my country's bid. That's me. So we'll all have to deal with that.

[LA84]

Sorry, the Paris 1924 stadium still exists. It was not exactly in Paris but in Colombes.

Well, I was referring to the 1900 Paris stadium but I was incorrect about that as well. Oh WELL!

I am bored with this topic now. Roltel put it best - one man's legacy is anothers mill stone. More importantly, Peter U I think knows a bit mroe about this topic than we do and would not have allowed Chicago's plan to go forward if he thought it would be met with any problems on the international level.

[Rob2012]

Chicago really is the big favourite as far as I can see.

South Asia(-ish) hosted in 2000 and 2008. Europe hosted in 2004 and 2012. That leaves Africa and the Americas. Africa doesn't really stand much of a chance imho (especially since SA is concentrating all its efforts on the World Cup), and so the Americas are left.

If Brazil are serious about hosting the World Cup in 2014, I can't really see the government giving serious backing to an Olympic bid as well. I don't know what the PanAm facilities are like, if they're suitable for an Olympics then maybe I've got this wrong. If not, would Rio really go through the rigmarole of rebuilding everything?

If it wasn't for Vancouver, Canada could put a city forward to rival Chicago but they won't now.

Small cities and cities from poor countries whose best hope is to get on the shortlist can be immediately discounted.

All this leaves Chicago in an enviable position.

---------

And before anyone says, well Paris were favourite etc..etc.... None of Paris' rivals had geography or rotation working against them. 2012 was a free-for-all. Any of the five cities could conceivably argue that it was their turn in the rotation.

In 2016, the only cities who can argue the same are Chicago and Rio. Europe has a huge black-mark against it because of London/Athens and Asia because of Beijing/Sydney. In other words, most of Chicago's rivals have a huge obstacle to overcome that Paris' rivals didn't have.

This race will have a completely different dynamic because it really feels like it's the Americas turn. If Chicago puts together a good bid with a good final presentation and the USA's stock rises in the world, I think their rivals would have to come up with something pretty damn special to beat them.

[Filipe_Golias]

I agree. More than any Olympiad before, 2016 screams "America".

[Stu]

Well, I was referring to the 1900 Paris stadium but I was incorrect about that as well. Oh WELL!

I am bored with this topic now. Roltel put it best - one man's legacy is anothers mill stone. More importantly, Peter U I think knows a bit mroe about this topic than we do and would not have allowed Chicago's plan to go forward if he thought it would be met with any problems on the international level.

Chicago will experience problems over the next few years - but they will adapt their plans accordingly. There's still a long way to go. What Chicago are presenting now will be different in Copenhagen 2009.

BTW - your opinions are always interesting

[Stu]

double post

[Koolshundle]

Also, President Bush will be out of office in Januray of 2009. This will make a hell of a difference for the United States on the international scene. Also, with Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH hailing from Chicago, and both having decent shots at the White House, the foreign view of the USA may not be a large of a handicap for Chicago 2016 in Copenhagen.

[ejaycat]

Also, with Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH hailing from Chicago, and both having decent shots at the White House, the foreign view of the USA may not be a large of a handicap for Chicago 2016 in Copenhagen.

You're kind of stretching it with this statement, aren't you? What would they have to do with Olympic bids?

Barack Obama is not an Illinois native; Hillary Clinton is, though, but she now represents New York state.

[Mainad]

In 2016, the only cities who can argue the same are Chicago and Rio. Europe has a huge black-mark against it because of London/Athens and Asia because of Beijing/Sydney. In other words, most of Chicago's rivals have a huge obstacle to overcome that Paris' rivals didn't have.

One possible handicap for Chicago could be that some IOC members might not care to have back-to-back English-speaking cities hosting the Games in 2012 and 2016.I know it has happened twice before (St.Louis 1904 followed by London 1908 and as recently as Atlanta 1996 followed by Sydney 2000) but times change as we know and the prevalent anti-American mood might not have completely dissipated by 2009. There will likely always be some who can never resist slapping down 'the Anglo-Saxons' if they feel they are grabbing too much! Not saying it will happen but just something that might have to be accounted for by those who are tempted to argue that Chicago will have a pretty clear run vis a vis the other contenders.

This race will have a completely different dynamic because it really feels like it's the Americas turn. If Chicago puts together a good bid with a good final presentation and the USA's stock rises in the world, I think their rivals would have to come up with something pretty damn special to beat them.

On the other hand,if Rio manages to get its act together and come up with a convincing bid,then it will be the city to beat in my opinion.Remember that Rio represents the Americas just as much as Chicago and many IOC members are just itching for South America to host its first ever Olympic Games.But it's going to be a big if,I grant you!

[dave199]

Does anyone know which Brazil is leaning more towards, 2016 Olympics or the 2014 World Cup? Do they plan on trying to get both?

[Heike]

Does anyone know which Brazil is leaning more towards, 2016 Olympics or the 2014 World Cup? Do they plan on trying to get both?

With Brazil being the only country in South America interested in hosting the WOrld CUP, and it being scheduled to be held in SA, due to the continental rotation process, if they are going to bid for anything, it should be the World Cup; the 2016 Olympics would be too much, so soon;

They are having trouble at present with the PAN AM GAMES and FIFA is already worried about 2014.

[Heike]

Does anyone know which Brazil is leaning more towards, 2016 Olympics or the 2014 World Cup? Do they plan on trying to get both?

With Brazil being the only country in South America interested in hosting the WOrld CUP, and it being scheduled to be held in SA, due to the continental rotation process, if they are going to bid for anything, it should be the World Cup; the 2016 Olympics would be too much, so soon;

They are having trouble at present with the PAN AM GAMES and FIFA is already worried about 2014.