News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

San Francisco, L.A., Boston and Washington DC will bid for the 2024 Summer Games

Started by bing101, December 17, 2014, 11:32:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bing101



english si

Goodness me, I thought the ridiculous demands of the IOC (but hey, at least their no FIFA) had meant no cities were bidding, but 4 US ones are now?

1995hoo

Quote from: english si on December 18, 2014, 06:44:59 AM
Goodness me, I thought the ridiculous demands of the IOC (but hey, at least their no FIFA) had meant no cities were bidding, but 4 US ones are now?

They're bidding to become the US nominee because the IOC only allows one city per country to bid in a given cycle.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Pete from Boston

Very odd way the bid has developed here–a few civic booster/business types got the idea in their head, and suddenly there's a vague story about it every day in the Globe.  The rest of us are still curious what exactly we're being put on the hook for here.

OCGuy81

I recall hearing that cities interested in hosting the games has been in decline due to the massive pile of debt that comes with the build out.

IIRC, the 2022 winter games haven't had very many bidders.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 18, 2014, 12:41:49 PM
I recall hearing that cities interested in hosting the games has been in decline due to the massive pile of debt that comes with the build out.

IIRC, the 2022 winter games haven't had very many bidders.

The last IOC meeting (last week or so) endorsed guidelines to pare down the costs.  With a $50 billion Sochi and $40 billion Beijing games recently, the discussion has centered on fear that only authoritarian regimes can compete on the level required.

Boston boosters say the games will "only" require $5 billion apiece from the public and private sectors due to heavy reliance on existing facilities.  A temporary (!) main stadium would be built next to I-93 where the Widett Circle food terminal is now. 


english si

London was about $20bn when you include the stuff needed to actually have a successful bid. The game made, for the IOC, about $8bn (tax free as that is one of many bits of legislation they require). London obviously got tourism revenue, etc (and very few people are saying it wasn't worth the money - at least compared to the much cheaper Millennium Dome), but it is longer term recuperation that gets the investment back - the Stadia still mostly there (though decreased in size through the removal of temporary stands) and open for use, etc. The legacy (that took the London bid over the line, beating Paris on 07/06/05 (US format date)) was about building something that would only need slight tweaks and then provide long-term benefit.

London's successful format (Paris '12 was similar though without the legacy as there was almost nothing new) was to build as little as possible that would only be used for the Games. A mix of
- using (sometimes upgraded) pre-existing facilities (most of which was about iconic settings on display while competition occured, though ExCeL was used to avoid building yet another indoor arena large warehouse type thing)
- bringing pre-planned upgrades to infrastructure (Jubilee line and Central line frequency enhancements, DLR Stratford International branch) forward so they could be ready in time for the Games
- building new stuff that would then be used afterwards. Olympic Village turned into housing, Aquatics centre now a public swimming pool, etc

Relying on existing facilities is good, building a temporary main stadium isn't.

golden eagle

I would love for either of the California cities to get it. I plan on moving out there within the next year or two, and love to hang around for the festivities. I missed out on Atlanta's.

Alps

Maybe they could bid as pairs of cities. Opening in one, closing in the other, split up by event.

triplemultiplex

Good lord, no!  The IOC can go fuck itself.  I don't want any of my fellow taxpayers shelling out billions of dollars for useless goddamn stadiums and other stupid crap designed to protect billion dollar sponsorships.  The Olympics are gigantic money pit that all democratic societies should reject until this corporatist enterprise massively reforms the way it functions.

Here's my bid:
No new stadiums.
No new hotels.
No new infrastructure.
We'll put up a banner.

You use what we got or you can fuck off.
They cannot be serious that a huge metropolitan area in the United States of America would need to build one goddamn arena in order to host the Olympics.  It's ridiculous.  We've already pissed away money on elaborate stadiums for our professional sports cartels.  Use those.  They're empty most of the time anyway.  If that's not good enough for the IOC then, once again, fuck them.  It is so not worth it.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Pete from Boston


Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2014, 01:31:47 AM
Good lord, no!  The IOC can go fuck itself.  I don't want any of my fellow taxpayers shelling out billions of dollars for useless goddamn stadiums and other stupid crap designed to protect billion dollar sponsorships.  The Olympics are gigantic money pit that all democratic societies should reject until this corporatist enterprise massively reforms the way it functions.

Here's my bid:
No new stadiums.
No new hotels.
No new infrastructure.
We'll put up a banner.

You use what we got or you can fuck off.
They cannot be serious that a huge metropolitan area in the United States of America would need to build one goddamn arena in order to host the Olympics.  It's ridiculous.  We've already pissed away money on elaborate stadiums for our professional sports cartels.  Use those.  They're empty most of the time anyway.  If that's not good enough for the IOC then, once again, fuck them.  It is so not worth it.

This seemed to be the sentiment of most New Yorkers I talked to during its bid in 2005.

nexus73

US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

formulanone

Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 19, 2014, 09:46:59 AM

Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2014, 01:31:47 AM
Good lord, no!  The IOC can go fuck itself.  I don't want any of my fellow taxpayers shelling out billions of dollars for useless goddamn stadiums and other stupid crap designed to protect billion dollar sponsorships.  The Olympics are gigantic money pit that all democratic societies should reject until this corporatist enterprise massively reforms the way it functions.

Here's my bid:
No new stadiums.
No new hotels.
No new infrastructure.
We'll put up a banner.

You use what we got or you can fuck off.
They cannot be serious that a huge metropolitan area in the United States of America would need to build one goddamn arena in order to host the Olympics.  It's ridiculous.  We've already pissed away money on elaborate stadiums for our professional sports cartels.  Use those.  They're empty most of the time anyway.  If that's not good enough for the IOC then, once again, fuck them.  It is so not worth it.

This seemed to be the sentiment of most New Yorkers I talked to during its bid in 2005.

Agreed, let the sponsors pay for any and all  infrastructure changes.

Pete from Boston

The last big event held in Boston that was important to anyone outside the region was the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Folks living here at the time will remember that it was the easiest week to drive around town that any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes.  Many people who could use that week for their vacation chose to do so because of the predicted gridlock, and the city emptied out.

If the Olympics were to be held here — and I'm fairly confident they won't be — I think we could count on more of the same. 

I am curious how this affects the overall assessment of economic impact.  If tourism businesses and the hospitality industry gain tremendously, does it really matter if all the supermarkets and dry cleaners and all the other unexciting everyday businesses suffer?

admtrap

Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 18, 2014, 12:41:49 PM
I recall hearing that cities interested in hosting the games has been in decline due to the massive pile of debt that comes with the build out.

IIRC, the 2022 winter games haven't had very many bidders.

I recall seeing photos recently of the dilapidated state of the stadia built for Athens 2004.  All that infrastructure simply rotting away a decade later.

I'd say LA should host only because it already has most of the infrastructure existing, from 1932 and 1984, and can cover most anything between the professional stadia and the large university stadia around.  Very few things would actually have to be rebuilt - I think the only significant facility from 1984 which no longer exists (and was also not replaced by something newer) is the Olympic Velodrome. 

Plus, LA can be the first city to be boycotted twice by Moscow, given how things are going in the world at the moment.


tidecat


Quote from: english si on December 18, 2014, 02:43:34 PM
London was about $20bn when you include the stuff needed to actually have a successful bid. The game made, for the IOC, about $8bn (tax free as that is one of many bits of legislation they require). London obviously got tourism revenue, etc (and very few people are saying it wasn't worth the money - at least compared to the much cheaper Millennium Dome), but it is longer term recuperation that gets the investment back - the Stadia still mostly there (though decreased in size through the removal of temporary stands) and open for use, etc. The legacy (that took the London bid over the line, beating Paris on 07/06/05 (US format date)) was about building something that would only need slight tweaks and then provide long-term benefit.

London's successful format (Paris '12 was similar though without the legacy as there was almost nothing new) was to build as little as possible that would only be used for the Games. A mix of
- using (sometimes upgraded) pre-existing facilities (most of which was about iconic settings on display while competition occured, though ExCeL was used to avoid building yet another indoor arena large warehouse type thing)
- bringing pre-planned upgrades to infrastructure (Jubilee line and Central line frequency enhancements, DLR Stratford International branch) forward so they could be ready in time for the Games
- building new stuff that would then be used afterwards. Olympic Village turned into housing, Aquatics centre now a public swimming pool, etc

Relying on existing facilities is good, building a temporary main stadium isn't.
The lack of post-Games use for an Olympic stadium was what hurt Chicago's bid for 2012.
Clinched: I-264 (KY), I-265 (KY), I-359 (AL), I-459 (AL), I-865 (IN)

Henry

Quote from: tidecat on December 20, 2014, 11:06:32 AM

Quote from: english si on December 18, 2014, 02:43:34 PM
London was about $20bn when you include the stuff needed to actually have a successful bid. The game made, for the IOC, about $8bn (tax free as that is one of many bits of legislation they require). London obviously got tourism revenue, etc (and very few people are saying it wasn't worth the money - at least compared to the much cheaper Millennium Dome), but it is longer term recuperation that gets the investment back - the Stadia still mostly there (though decreased in size through the removal of temporary stands) and open for use, etc. The legacy (that took the London bid over the line, beating Paris on 07/06/05 (US format date)) was about building something that would only need slight tweaks and then provide long-term benefit.

London's successful format (Paris '12 was similar though without the legacy as there was almost nothing new) was to build as little as possible that would only be used for the Games. A mix of
- using (sometimes upgraded) pre-existing facilities (most of which was about iconic settings on display while competition occured, though ExCeL was used to avoid building yet another indoor arena large warehouse type thing)
- bringing pre-planned upgrades to infrastructure (Jubilee line and Central line frequency enhancements, DLR Stratford International branch) forward so they could be ready in time for the Games
- building new stuff that would then be used afterwards. Olympic Village turned into housing, Aquatics centre now a public swimming pool, etc

Relying on existing facilities is good, building a temporary main stadium isn't.
The lack of post-Games use for an Olympic stadium was what hurt Chicago's bid for 2012.
And in the same vein, it's coming back to bite Atlanta in the ass too. The Braves will soon abandon Turner Field, which first started out as the main Olympic stadium back in 1996, for a new ballpark in the suburbs, which may very well be the worst mistake they've ever made.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Stephane Dumas

Maybe Toronto should try for 2024, they'll host the 2015 Pan-American games, so most of the infracstructure for the Olympics games will be already built and they can be use again if Toronto bid also for the Commonwealth games in a near future.

And to think then the anime Akira predicted the 2020 games set in Neo-Tokyo. http://comicsalliance.com/akira-2020-tokyo-olympics-prediction/

kkt

Triplemex put it well.  IOC can fuck off.  It's ridiculous to build all-new stadiums that get used for six weeks and then thrown away.

They should build permanent venues and have them at the same place every Olympics.  Say, Olympia, Greece, like the ancient Olympics.

The Nature Boy

Wouldn't New England be a better spot for the WINTER games?

You could have events in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont and really spread things out a bit.

ARMOURERERIC

San Diego really wanted to do a joint bid with TJ, but the IOC would not allow a muti-country bid.

english si

They don't like multi-city bids, though can accept that some places can't hold everything and allow some spread.

A disperse bit across three/four states is really not going to please them, even if it is better for local economies, environments, etc.

Multiple jurisdictions (especially if there's two countries) means more government bodies to work with, more people to get to pass laws exempting them all from tax and stuff.
Quote from: kkt on December 22, 2014, 07:09:56 PMIt's ridiculous to build all-new stadiums that get used for six weeks and then thrown away.
Indeed - it's why the IOC, for all their faults (miles better than FIFA though), really don't like temporary stadia.

Their issue with pre-existing stadia is a lack of positive effects wrt legacy, though Paris did make it to the final two on their build-nothing bid, so it does seem to merely be a tie-breaker.

Pete from Boston

Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 27, 2014, 04:26:24 PM
Wouldn't New England be a better spot for the WINTER games?

You could have events in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont and really spread things out a bit.

It would require quite a lot of travel time (before anyone gets any ideas, I-92 won't even get built for an Olympics), and make a centrally-located Olympic Village fairly important.

I am curious whether even Lake Placid ('32 and '80) would even be viable these days.  i don't see them ever putting in bids.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 29, 2014, 07:48:38 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 27, 2014, 04:26:24 PM
Wouldn't New England be a better spot for the WINTER games?

You could have events in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont and really spread things out a bit.

It would require quite a lot of travel time (before anyone gets any ideas, I-92 won't even get built for an Olympics), and make a centrally-located Olympic Village fairly important.

I am curious whether even Lake Placid ('32 and '80) would even be viable these days.  i don't see them ever putting in bids.

Build an Olympic Village in Manchester and have events along I-93 from the White Mountains down to Boston?

I can see why the IOC hates multi-city/state bids but for New England to ever host an Olympics, it would make sense to utilize the natural environment moreso than cramming everyone into Boston in the middle of the summer.

Stephane Dumas




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.