AARoads Forum

http://fox40.com/2014/12/17/san-francisco-bidding-for-2024-summer-olympics/

Umm I want the Bay Area to win no surprise here.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Pyongyang is my preferred location...LOL!

Rick

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I couldn't resist to post this vintage promotionnal movie, now in the public domain, of Detroit bid for the 1968 games, lost to Mexico City.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9uWSNbHEps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc_vbDbC0to

And now there some group who want to see MotorCity bid for 2024
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Detroit-2024-Summer-Olympic-Games-Support/122716601133606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vzv-o9AQwc

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.

There was talk of Lake Placid and Montreal doing a joint bid if the IOC were to allow such, which of course is unlikely to happen. It'd certainly resolve the issue of the hockey arena in Lake Placid being way too small in terms of seating capacity, though it'd also require playing on NHL-sized ice as they did (controversially) in Vancouver in 2010.

Boston is the selected city to bid for the Olympics: http://www.boston.com/business/news/2015/01/08/yes-olympic-committee-chooses-boston-for-bid/1Q7DhrfxwggYa246LBeizH/story.html

Oy.  What a mess.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 08, 2015, 08:00:32 PM
Oy.  What a mess.

You can have it.  Far, far away from where I live now, or any place I'm likely to move to by 2024. 

Quote from: oscar on January 08, 2015, 08:05:31 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 08, 2015, 08:00:32 PM
Oy.  What a mess.

You can have it.  Far, far away from where I live now, or any place I'm likely to move to by 2024. 

Well, it gives me a goal.  Either own a rentable unit by then or be far away.

So Boston is our tribute for these 'hunger games'?  Haven't they suffered enough?  :spin:

The IOC should chose McMurdo Station for the next host city.  All the construction and tourism will boost the economy and raise the profile of this small, Antarctic port.  The 24 hour daylight means you can have events going non-stop and get them all done faster, thus returning people to regularly scheduled programming sooner.  Its remoteness makes it safe from possible threats from radical douchebags with an ax to grind.  Sure there will be no use for their facilities when they're done, so some things won't change.  But who cares?  Think of the tradition and the spirit of competition and all that junk (brought to you by McDonald's and Coca-Cola!).

This sucks.

I am moving to Boston soon

You'll be tired of it in nine years anyway.

Boston 2024? This should get interesting!

Of course, nothing is finalized, because there are still other cities around the globe that still want the Games, so we shouldn't be celebrating just yet.

Quote from: Henry on January 09, 2015, 12:18:43 PM
Boston 2024? This should get interesting!

Of course, nothing is finalized, because there are still other cities around the globe that still want the Games, so we shouldn't be celebrating just yet.

All these cities are doing are competing to be the choice of the USA at this point.  Once we decide who we want, then that city will compete against the other cities throughout the world that want to host the Olympics.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 12:22:07 PM

Quote from: Henry on January 09, 2015, 12:18:43 PM
Boston 2024? This should get interesting!

Of course, nothing is finalized, because there are still other cities around the globe that still want the Games, so we shouldn't be celebrating just yet.

All these cities are doing are competing to be the choice of the USA at this point.  Once we decide who we want, then that city will compete against the other cities throughout the world that want to host the Olympics.

That was his point: The USOC decided Boston will be the US bid city for 2024. Boston will now compete against other cities around the world, the identities of which have yet to be determined except the Italians have said Rome will bid.

Someone should change the thread title to reflect the USOC's selection.

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 09, 2015, 01:48:38 PM
Someone should change the thread title to reflect the USOC's selection.

With the words "Oh crap!" appended, please.

Judging by the Internet blogs, and comments in the popular press, the majority of people in Boston don't want the games.  And, despite his comments about "not forcing this down the people's throats", Boston's Mayor Walsh, who is trying to sue the state to extort get mitigation money out of the proposed casino being built in an adjoining city, has indicated he would not support a ballot referendum on the issue.  In one word, hypocrite.

Quote from: roadman on January 09, 2015, 06:00:45 PM
Judging by the Internet blogs, and comments in the popular press, the majority of people in Boston don't want the games.

Probably correct, but you can't go by that. Judging by news comments, the majority of people think Obama is a secret muslim marxist.

Point taken.  But at least nobody has blamed the USOC selection of Boston's Olympic bid on Obama yet.

I've talked to a lot of people about it here in idle conversation, and nobody I have talked to likes the idea.

Quote from: NE2 on January 09, 2015, 06:02:33 PM

Quote from: roadman on January 09, 2015, 06:00:45 PM
Judging by the Internet blogs, and comments in the popular press, the majority of people in Boston don't want the games.

Probably correct, but you can't go by that. Judging by news comments, the majority of people think Obama is a secret muslim marxist.

I didn't think most of them would include the word "secret" in that opinion.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 02:27:25 PM

Quote from: on_wisconsin on January 09, 2015, 01:48:38 PM
Someone should change the thread title to reflect the USOC's selection.

With the words "Oh crap!" appended, please.

Sure.

Since the Olympics were started in Athens, Greece, why not let them be the permanent host for the summer games? Another city, like Moscow, Chicago or Toronto, can host the winter games.

Quote from: golden eagle on January 13, 2015, 07:54:59 PMSince the Olympics were started in Athens, Greece, why not let them be the permanent host for the summer games?

Because Athens '04 was a pretty naff Games? The city only got it due to being Athens, rather than merit (though the bids weren't great that year - it didn't work on the centenary, after all).

Plus the ancient Olympics were started at Olympia - a long way from Athens.
The modern Olympics were started in Western Europe (a Frenchman visiting Shropshire being the thing that really got the ball rolling), even if the first Games were held in Athens.

And finally, and most obviously: what would the IOC do if the games were simply held in one place? No fancy cocktail parties, no bidders competing for your attention. They'd clearly never allow it!

Quote from: english si on January 13, 2015, 08:47:36 PM

Quote from: golden eagle on January 13, 2015, 07:54:59 PMSince the Olympics were started in Athens, Greece, why not let them be the permanent host for the summer games?

Because Athens '04 was a pretty naff Games? The city only got it due to being Athens, rather than merit (though the bids weren't great that year - it didn't work on the centenary, after all).

Plus the ancient Olympics were started at Olympia - a long way from Athens.
The modern Olympics were started in Western Europe (a Frenchman visiting Shropshire being the thing that really got the ball rolling), even if the first Games were held in Athens.

And finally, and most obviously: what would the IOC do if the games were simply held in one place? No fancy cocktail parties, no bidders competing for your attention. They'd clearly never allow it!

Someone would eventually come up with something else to shop around to gullible cities.  NBC would not stand for a routine event in a country even Europe doesn't want. 

Quote from: Big John on January 08, 2015, 07:33:55 PM
Boston is the selected city to bid for the Olympics: http://www.boston.com/business/news/2015/01/08/yes-olympic-committee-chooses-boston-for-bid/1Q7DhrfxwggYa246LBeizH/story.html

Quote from: Henry on January 09, 2015, 12:18:43 PM
Boston 2024? This should get interesting!

Of course, nothing is finalized, because there are still other cities around the globe that still want the Games, so we shouldn't be celebrating just yet.

Agreed, it's not a done deal yet; the final decision still has to be made by the IOC.

QuoteThe IOC will decide on a 2024 host city in 2017. Other potential host cities for 2024 include Rome, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, and Istanbul. Melbourne, Australia, and other cities have also been said to be interested.

Quote from: roadman on January 09, 2015, 06:31:49 PMBut at least nobody has blamed the USOC selection of Boston's Olympic bid on Obama yet.

IIRC, he (Obama) didn't exactly do Chicago any favors by promoting it for the 2016 games a few years back only to see the IOC award the games to Rio.

Tulsa, OK actually send a letter to the IOC they were interested in hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics, but they didn't have a real planning board or committee. I guess it's now only Boston competing to host the 2024 Summer Olympics in the USA, and from my knowledge Munich, Bavaria, Germany wants the 2022 Winter Olympics: the same city hosted the 1972 Summer Olympics 50 years earlier. All I know is the next Summer Olympics (2016) is in Rio...Rio de Janiero, Brazil and 2018 in South Korea, although it would be interesting if it was held in Santiago, Chile...also in South America, would been the first winter Olympics in the southern hemisphere where the seasons are reverse.

Thread bump:

Boston's officially out of hosting the 2024 games.

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Boston-Mayor-Walsh-to-Discuss-Olympics-318639381.html (http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Boston-Mayor-Walsh-to-Discuss-Olympics-318639381.html)

QuoteBoston's bid to host the 2024 Olympics is over.

The city and the U.S. Olympic Committee severed ties after a board teleconference Monday, USOC spokesman Patrick Sandusky told The Associated Press.

The Bay State taxpayers can breate a little bit easier now.

Yes! Los Angeles leads the US city list for hosting the 2024 summer Olympics. I'm for a 3rd Olympiad event in L.A.'s history (London had 3 summer Olympics: 1908, 1948 and 2012). I believe L.A. and San Francisco should merge to represent all of Cal. known for great climate and weather to host a Summer olympiad, while Washington DC (the nation's capital) doesn't have enough to land such an event, nor did Boston, and the failed NYC-2012 or Chicago-2016 in the past. The 1984 L.A. and 1996 Atlanta summer Olympics were successful.

Today, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) granted Beijing, China the 2022 Winter Olympics, the first city to host both summer and winter Olympics, the 3rd straight Asian olympics planned (2018 winter in South Korea and 2020 summer in Tokyo, Japan) and the largest city ever to host a winter Olympics event. Congrats Beijing! Just clean up your air quality in 7 years, because in the 2008 Summer Olympics, the world noticed the bad air the athletes and tourists, as well the residents had issues with trying to breathe in heavy August smog. 

Quote from: Mike D boy on July 31, 2015, 11:20:52 PMToday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) granted Beijing, China the 2022 Winter Olympics, the first city to host both summer and winter Olympics, the 3rd straight Asian olympics planned (2018 winter in South Korea and 2020 summer in Tokyo, Japan) and the largest city ever to host a winter Olympics event. Congrats Beijing! Just clean up your air quality in 7 years, because in the 2008 Summer Olympics, the world noticed the bad air the athletes and tourists, as well the residents had issues with trying to breathe in heavy August smog.

You'd almost think FIFA levels of corruption, but the only other bid was Almaty, Kazakhstan (which would at least have had snow).

Quote from: english si on August 01, 2015, 05:05:54 AM

Quote from: Mike D boy on July 31, 2015, 11:20:52 PMToday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) granted Beijing, China the 2022 Winter Olympics, the first city to host both summer and winter Olympics, the 3rd straight Asian olympics planned (2018 winter in South Korea and 2020 summer in Tokyo, Japan) and the largest city ever to host a winter Olympics event. Congrats Beijing! Just clean up your air quality in 7 years, because in the 2008 Summer Olympics, the world noticed the bad air the athletes and tourists, as well the residents had issues with trying to breathe in heavy August smog.

You'd almost think FIFA levels of corruption, but the only other bid was Almaty, Kazakhstan (which would at least have had snow).

If Almaty won the bid to host in 2022, it would've also been a compact games, as they were touting that all events would be within a 30km radius of the Olympic village. For Beijing, many of the events will be held quite a bit further away from Beijing, plus there's that snow issue. At least Beijing can reuse some of the venues built for the 2008 games.

I wouldn't be surprised if L.A. won again.

Would be cool if Toronto host the 2024 games. They hosted the 2015 Pan-Am games with not too much trouble.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 03, 2015, 12:52:07 PM
Would be cool if Toronto host the 2024 games. They hosted the 2015 Pan-Am games with not too much trouble.

I'd like to see Toronto host them too. I still remember when Montreal had them back in 1976, when I was six. In retrospect, I thought Philadelphia would've been a more deserving host, seeing that it was the 200th anniversary of the nation's founding, but that might've been too much to put on their plate at the time.

Quote from: Henry on August 04, 2015, 11:26:19 AMIn retrospect, I thought Philadelphia would've been a more deserving host, seeing that it was the 200th anniversary of the nation's founding, but that might've been too much to put on their plate at the time.

Philadelphia can't even effectively plan for a weekend visit from the Pope (this September) without practically barricading much of Center City and shutting off most of its transit system (creating a big-time inconvenience towards those that need to work on weekends and use transit).  How would the city be able to handle the crush of people for Olympic events?

Quote from: PHLBOS on August 04, 2015, 04:46:18 PM

Quote from: Henry on August 04, 2015, 11:26:19 AMIn retrospect, I thought Philadelphia would've been a more deserving host, seeing that it was the 200th anniversary of the nation's founding, but that might've been too much to put on their plate at the time.

Philadelphia can't even effectively plan for a weekend visit from the Pope (this September) without practically barricading much of Center City and shutting off most of its transit system (creating a big-time inconvenience towards those that need to work on weekends and use transit).  How would the city be able to handle the crush of people for Olympic events?

and multiple heads of state.

I will only ever support a US city hosting the Olympics again if they don't have to build any bullshit new stadiums.  A city like LA has absolutely tons of venues to hold events in right now.  They should not have to build shit.  Between all the pro and college sports venues in the area, including a likely new NFL facility by then, the IOC can suck it if they want some new-fangled waste of money just for two weeks of sports no one gives a shit about.

You can convert stadiums to other purposes, you know?

West Ham will use the Olympic Stadium in Stratford (paying through the nose for the privilege as unlike the US, the UK doesn't spend money to build stadiums for profit making businesses - other than the IOC and their ilk, where then the money is recouped by moving a sports team there). But there's already been a ton of stuff there anyway - various athletic meets and so on.

Quote from: english si on August 07, 2015, 03:32:54 AM
You can convert stadiums to other purposes, you know?

West Ham will use the Olympic Stadium in Stratford (paying through the nose for the privilege as unlike the US, the UK doesn't spend money to build stadiums for profit making businesses - other than the IOC and their ilk, where then the money is recouped by moving a sports team there). But there's already been a ton of stuff there anyway - various athletic meets and so on.

Reminds me of the Egg in Albany, NY.  Spent tens of millions on it and it has never been that great of a performance venue.  I doubt it's made its money back.

So, it's nice when they get repurposed, but even with that, the level that the facility is used may still raise eyebrows.

I spotted this article from the Detroit Free Press from August 17 about olympics in Detroit on budget.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2015/08/17/detroit-budget-olympics-bid-technically-possible/31462493/

Meanwhile Toronto retires its bid for 2024.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/09/15/its-official-toronto-wont-bid-for-2024-olympics.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/olympics/toronto-mayors-decision-not-to-bid-for-2024-olympics-a-victory-for-common-sense
http://www.sportsnet.ca/more/tory-toronto-not-bidding-on-2024-olympic-games/

http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/01/25/57035/los-angeles-proposes-athlete-media-village-sites-f/


Update Los Angeles reveals plans for Olympic village at UCLA in 2024 for the games.

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on September 19, 2015, 09:21:04 PM
I spotted this article from the Detroit Free Press from August 17 about olympics in Detroit on budget.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2015/08/17/detroit-budget-olympics-bid-technically-possible/31462493/

"Since Boston withdrew, there has been growing interest in proposals that emphasize cost efficiency and 'fiscal responsibility' in contrast to the extravagance of recent games such as the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, said to cost $51 billion."

Not by the International Olympic Committee, unless they've changed their ways in the past couple years.  They want all new, high-priced stuff (paid for entirely by the host) and they don't give a damn whether it can be reused later.  And they don't want to be the ones reusing it.

Read Dan Wetzel's 10/01/2014 column, "Why No One Wants To Host the 2022 Olympics."  Obviously a little outdated now, but he makes the point that the only candidates who didn't withdraw from bidding for the 2022 Olympics "are countries where actual citizens aren't allowed a real say in things."  He ended the column with a real zinger:  "So China or Kazakhstan it is, the last two suckers on earth willing to step up to this carnival barker.  One lucky nation will win.  The other will host the 2022 Winter Olympics."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-no-one-wants-to-host-the-2022-olympics-225450509.html

Quote from: english si on August 07, 2015, 03:32:54 AM
You can convert stadiums to other purposes, you know?

You can convert and repurpose all you want.  The question is:  Will there be enough demand and use to sustain the facilities?

Quote from: english si on August 07, 2015, 03:32:54 AM
You can convert stadiums to other purposes, you know?

West Ham will use the Olympic Stadium in Stratford (paying through the nose for the privilege as unlike the US, the UK doesn't spend money to build stadiums for profit making businesses - other than the IOC and their ilk, where then the money is recouped by moving a sports team there). But there's already been a ton of stuff there anyway - various athletic meets and so on.

Yes Los Angeles is one case where the Olympic stadium the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum has been converted into the home football stadium for the L.A. Rams, USC Football and the L.A. Raiders. And yes the Los Angeles Rams Will use the L.A. Coliseum until the Inglewood Stadium is open.

http://abc7.com/sports/la-coliseum-prepares-to-host-nfl-games-in-2016/1158491/ (http://abc7.com/sports/la-coliseum-prepares-to-host-nfl-games-in-2016/1158491/)
https://news.usc.edu/88002/usc-reveals-preliminary-plan-to-renovate-la-coliseum/ (https://news.usc.edu/88002/usc-reveals-preliminary-plan-to-renovate-la-coliseum/)





http://www.ibtimes.com/la-2024-olympics-los-angeles-proposes-ucla-dorms-athlete-housing-save-costs-2280468


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-olympic-village-los-angeles-20160125-story.html


http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-ucla-2024-olympics-20160125-story.html

If it's so easy to convert stadiums to other uses, why doesn't the IOC demonstrate that by allowing host cities to convert existing stadiums for use in Olympic games?

Quote from: kkt on January 26, 2016, 03:35:58 PM
If it's so easy to convert stadiums to other uses, why doesn't the IOC demonstrate that by allowing host cities to convert existing stadiums for use in Olympic games?

Because the IOC wants everything as new as possible, and is little more than a bunch of corrupt pigs that somehow makes Illinois politics look good.

Quote from: kkt on January 26, 2016, 03:35:58 PM
If it's so easy to convert stadiums to other uses, why doesn't the IOC demonstrate that by allowing host cities to convert existing stadiums for use in Olympic games?

http://www.connectsports.com/feature/what-happens-to-olympic-venues-after-the-games/


According to this article Atlanta the site of the 1996 Olympics have been reused for the Atlanta Braves and Georgia Tech Swimming teams

Quote from: Brandon on January 26, 2016, 03:41:17 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 26, 2016, 03:35:58 PM
If it's so easy to convert stadiums to other uses, why doesn't the IOC demonstrate that by allowing host cities to convert existing stadiums for use in Olympic games?

Because the IOC wants everything as new as possible, and is little more than a bunch of corrupt pigs that somehow makes Illinois politics look good.

This just brings in mind the colossal waste that is the collection of venues built for the Athens summer Olympics in 2004:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/2004-athens-olympics-venues-today-2015-7#the-beach-volleyball-center-where-weeds-are-growing-through-the-sand-1

Quote from: kkt on January 26, 2016, 03:35:58 PMIf it's so easy to convert stadiums to other uses, why doesn't the IOC demonstrate that by allowing host cities to convert existing stadiums for use in Olympic games?

Like Lords in 2012? ExCeL and the O2 (I mean 'North Greenwich Arena' for sponsorship reasons) had different main functions before and after the Olympics  - an exhibition centre and a concert venue respectively - though both have held sporting events on a regular basis before and after the games themselves (though the O2 only started as a warm up, IIRC).

Paris' almost successful bid for 2012 (it was very close in the final vote and they came first in all the previous rounds of the run-off voting) was only going to use existing stadia, though the main one was built for the '98 World Cup so met the standards that FIFA/IOC want for corporate sponsorship, etc (a key reason why England can't get major soccer championships) that might not be the case for LA.

The City of Manchester stadium (Commonwealth Games main stadium, now Man City's soccer stadium) was easily converted and the main reason why the stadium for the 2012 games isn't easily converted was because they hadn't worked out the 'legacy' usage until last year and so couldn't prepare for it (the saga is a big cock up)! What's odd is that they let London get away with not having a concrete exit plan for the main stadium - the IOC have learnt from Atlanta's venues and don't want to see it happen again (though, of course, the issue London had was too many options for its continued use). Munich '78's stadium is used for soccer, London '48's stadium was used for soccer first and foremost for 77 years ('23 to '00 when it was rebuilt)

London made a profit when you factor in tourism, regeneraton and legacy benefits. Sochi cost way more but mostly as the Russians saw hosting as a chance to show off first and foremost, whereas London saw it as having a really good sporting event first and foremost.

Quote from: Brandon on January 26, 2016, 03:41:17 PMBecause the IOC wants everything as new as possible

Which is why they ended the 2004 marathon at the 108 year-old stadium in Athens? Or used a 199 year-old stadium in London for the archery?

Quoteand is little more than a bunch of corrupt pigs that somehow makes Illinois politics look good.

They aren't quite as bad as FIFA, but they aren't great. Their policy on tax is just wrong, as is their aggressive branding rules.

Quote from: bing101 on January 26, 2016, 07:19:06 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 26, 2016, 03:35:58 PM
If it's so easy to convert stadiums to other uses, why doesn't the IOC demonstrate that by allowing host cities to convert existing stadiums for use in Olympic games?

http://www.connectsports.com/feature/what-happens-to-olympic-venues-after-the-games/


According to this article Atlanta the site of the 1996 Olympics have been reused for the Atlanta Braves and Georgia Tech Swimming teams

The Braves are moving out after the upcoming season.  20 years, while short for baseball, is not an unheard-of lifespan for a professional sports facility these days.   

Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 26, 2016, 08:29:23 AMRead Dan Wetzel's 10/01/2014 column, "Why No One Wants To Host the 2022 Olympics."  Obviously a little outdated now, but he makes the point that the only candidates who didn't withdraw from bidding for the 2022 Olympics "are countries where actual citizens aren't allowed a real say in things."  He ended the column with a real zinger:  "So China or Kazakhstan it is, the last two suckers on earth willing to step up to this carnival barker.  One lucky nation will win.  The other will host the 2022 Winter Olympics."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-no-one-wants-to-host-the-2022-olympics-225450509.html

Had Oslo not withdrew its bid, it surely would have gotten the 2022 Olympics because of a non-written rule of continental rotation. Since they withdrew, they f*cked up that.

Quote from: english si on January 26, 2016, 08:00:53 PMLike Lords in 2012? ExCeL and the O2 (I mean 'North Greenwich Arena' for sponsorship reasons) had different main functions before and after the Olympics  - an exhibition centre and a concert venue respectively - though both have held sporting events on a regular basis before and after the games themselves (though the O2 only started as a warm up, IIRC).

It will be always the North Greenwich Arena for me. If they don't pay me, I don't have to name them.

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on January 27, 2016, 12:25:24 PM

Quote from: wanderer2575 on January 26, 2016, 08:29:23 AMRead Dan Wetzel's 10/01/2014 column, "Why No One Wants To Host the 2022 Olympics."  Obviously a little outdated now, but he makes the point that the only candidates who didn't withdraw from bidding for the 2022 Olympics "are countries where actual citizens aren't allowed a real say in things."  He ended the column with a real zinger:  "So China or Kazakhstan it is, the last two suckers on earth willing to step up to this carnival barker.  One lucky nation will win.  The other will host the 2022 Winter Olympics."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-no-one-wants-to-host-the-2022-olympics-225450509.html

Had Oslo not withdrew its bid, it surely would have gotten the 2022 Olympics because of a non-written rule of continental rotation. Since they withdrew, they f*cked up that.

Did you even read the column?  You totally miss the point.  Oslo doesn't care whether it may have been the front-runner.  They ended up rejecting it because the majority of its citizens opposed the notion of spending 11 figures to build all-new everything, needed or not, sustainable in the future or not, just to satisfy the IOC's whims.  The difference between Oslo, vs. China and Kazakhstan, is that the government of Oslo gives its citizens a say and followed their wishes.

Didn't Atlanta benefit greatly from the Summer Olympics?

In the US, it's only worth the investment if you're an up and coming metro area that could use a boost in international profile. Boston, SF, LA and DC certainly didn't need the Olympics. Atlanta in 1996 was an example of the right place at the right time.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 26, 2016, 08:02:24 PM

Quote from: bing101 on January 26, 2016, 07:19:06 PM

Quote from: kkt on January 26, 2016, 03:35:58 PM
If it's so easy to convert stadiums to other uses, why doesn't the IOC demonstrate that by allowing host cities to convert existing stadiums for use in Olympic games?

http://www.connectsports.com/feature/what-happens-to-olympic-venues-after-the-games/


According to this article Atlanta the site of the 1996 Olympics have been reused for the Atlanta Braves and Georgia Tech Swimming teams

The Braves are moving out after the upcoming season.  20 years, while short for baseball, is not an unheard-of lifespan for a professional sports facility these days.

The city recently sold the stadium to Georgia State University in order for them to build an athletic complex (currently the football team plays in the Georgia Dome), so the area is still going to be used (although a few of the plans that I've seen involve tearing all or part of Turner Field down). The Braves decided to leave Turner because the city had largely reneged on a promise to develop the surrounding area, making it a relatively unappealing area to do anything other than watch a ball game.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 27, 2016, 11:23:47 PM
Didn't Atlanta benefit greatly from the Summer Olympics?

In the US, it's only worth the investment if you're an up and coming metro area that could use a boost in international profile. Boston, SF, LA and DC certainly didn't need the Olympics. Atlanta in 1996 was an example of the right place at the right time.

I thought the '94 games were considered one of the worst ever. Between the bombing and redneck aspect, I think most people hope to sorta forget about it.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 27, 2016, 11:46:44 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 27, 2016, 11:23:47 PM
Didn't Atlanta benefit greatly from the Summer Olympics?

In the US, it's only worth the investment if you're an up and coming metro area that could use a boost in international profile. Boston, SF, LA and DC certainly didn't need the Olympics. Atlanta in 1996 was an example of the right place at the right time.

I thought the '94 games were considered one of the worst ever. Between the bombing and redneck aspect, I think most people hope to sorta forget about it.

I don't know about "worst ever" -- 1936, anyone? -- but I don't think they improved Atlanta's reputation a whole lot either.  They came, they competed for a couple of weeks, no huge disasters occurred, they went home.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 27, 2016, 11:46:44 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 27, 2016, 11:23:47 PM
Didn't Atlanta benefit greatly from the Summer Olympics?

In the US, it's only worth the investment if you're an up and coming metro area that could use a boost in international profile. Boston, SF, LA and DC certainly didn't need the Olympics. Atlanta in 1996 was an example of the right place at the right time.

I thought the '94 games were considered one of the worst ever. Between the bombing and redneck aspect, I think most people hope to sorta forget about it.

Redneck aspect?

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on January 27, 2016, 12:25:24 PMIt will be always the North Greenwich Arena for me. If they don't pay me, I don't have to name them.

It's never the North Greenwich Arena for Londoners. If they don't call it the O2 (and like Ashburton Grove The Emirates, the sponsor's name has stuck), it's the Millennium Dome (or just Dome). But the sponsor's name has stuck and it's the O2 to most Londoners (of course the other O2 concert venues in London make it confusing, but the Dome is the O2).

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 27, 2016, 11:23:47 PMIn the US, it's only worth the investment if you're an up and coming metro area that could use a boost in international profile. Boston, SF, LA and DC certainly didn't need the Olympics.

The 'soft' benefits are more than that. It's not just the city that gets a boost, but the part of the city.

Only Londoners (and people from Essex/East Anglia who'd stop there on the trains) knew where Stratford was. On 6/7/05 it was put on the map and is now a satellite CBD for London, all due to the Olympics (OK, it was a reasonable-sized suburban centre before, but it's soon to overtake Croydon as the forth most important business district in London behind the West End, City and Docklands).

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 28, 2016, 01:45:09 AM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 27, 2016, 11:46:44 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 27, 2016, 11:23:47 PM
Didn't Atlanta benefit greatly from the Summer Olympics?

In the US, it's only worth the investment if you're an up and coming metro area that could use a boost in international profile. Boston, SF, LA and DC certainly didn't need the Olympics. Atlanta in 1996 was an example of the right place at the right time.

I thought the '94 games were considered one of the worst ever. Between the bombing and redneck aspect, I think most people hope to sorta forget about it.

Redneck aspect?

That threw me for a loop as well. Every city south of DC isn't some backwoods podunk hillbilly town.

The opening ceremonies proudly featured pickup trucks, in the manner of a truck rally or something, along with some cheerleaders. Throw in the bombing by the arch-conservative lunatic, and you coudln't be more hick.

from wiki:

"A report prepared by European Olympic officials after the Games was critical of Atlanta's performance in several key issues, including the level of crowding in the Olympic Village, the quality of available food, the accessibility and convenience of transportation, and the Games' general atmosphere of commercialism"

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 28, 2016, 11:38:55 AM
The opening ceremonies proudly featured pickup trucks, in the manner of a truck rally or something, along with some cheerleaders. Throw in the bombing by the arch-conservative lunatic, and you coudln't be more hick.

from wiki:

"A report prepared by European Olympic officials after the Games was critical of Atlanta's performance in several key issues, including the level of crowding in the Olympic Village, the quality of available food, the accessibility and convenience of transportation, and the Games' general atmosphere of commercialism"

I still don't see where that paragraph bears out your opinion of a "redneck aspect," but whatever. 

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 28, 2016, 11:38:55 AM
The opening ceremonies proudly featured pickup trucks, in the manner of a truck rally or something, along with some cheerleaders. Throw in the bombing by the arch-conservative lunatic, and you coudln't be more hick.

from wiki:

"A report prepared by European Olympic officials after the Games was critical of Atlanta's performance in several key issues, including the level of crowding in the Olympic Village, the quality of available food, the accessibility and convenience of transportation, and the Games' general atmosphere of commercialism"

Drive about 100 miles south on I-95 and you'll see the "redneck aspect." If you think that you couldn't be more "hick" than that, then you clearly need to see the rest of Virginia.

I don't see how pickup trucks and cheerleaders are the "redneck aspect." But even if the Olympics in Atlanta somehow exhibited Southern culture, how is that a bad thing? Do we hate other host cities who show an aspect of local culture? Why is Southern culture somehow seen as lesser? You live in a Southern state, you know.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 28, 2016, 12:23:38 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 28, 2016, 11:38:55 AM
The opening ceremonies proudly featured pickup trucks, in the manner of a truck rally or something, along with some cheerleaders. Throw in the bombing by the arch-conservative lunatic, and you coudln't be more hick.

from wiki:

"A report prepared by European Olympic officials after the Games was critical of Atlanta's performance in several key issues, including the level of crowding in the Olympic Village, the quality of available food, the accessibility and convenience of transportation, and the Games' general atmosphere of commercialism"

Drive about 100 miles south on I-95 and you'll see the "redneck aspect." If you think that you couldn't be more "hick" than that, then you clearly need to see the rest of Virginia.

I don't see how pickup trucks and cheerleaders are the "redneck aspect." But even if the Olympics in Atlanta somehow exhibited Southern culture, how is that a bad thing? Do we hate other host cities who show an aspect of local culture? Why is Southern culture somehow seen as lesser? You live in a Southern state, you know.

Yeah you really hear Dixie around Northern Virginia alot... :rolleyes:

I'll put it this way...I've been to NY a lot more in my life than I've been to Richmond.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 28, 2016, 12:50:46 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 28, 2016, 12:23:38 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 28, 2016, 11:38:55 AM
The opening ceremonies proudly featured pickup trucks, in the manner of a truck rally or something, along with some cheerleaders. Throw in the bombing by the arch-conservative lunatic, and you coudln't be more hick.

from wiki:

"A report prepared by European Olympic officials after the Games was critical of Atlanta's performance in several key issues, including the level of crowding in the Olympic Village, the quality of available food, the accessibility and convenience of transportation, and the Games' general atmosphere of commercialism"

Drive about 100 miles south on I-95 and you'll see the "redneck aspect." If you think that you couldn't be more "hick" than that, then you clearly need to see the rest of Virginia.

I don't see how pickup trucks and cheerleaders are the "redneck aspect." But even if the Olympics in Atlanta somehow exhibited Southern culture, how is that a bad thing? Do we hate other host cities who show an aspect of local culture? Why is Southern culture somehow seen as lesser? You live in a Southern state, you know.

Yeah you really hear Dixie around Northern Virginia alot... :rolleyes:

I'll put it this way...I've been to NY a lot more in my life than I've been to Richmond.

It might be time to broaden your horizons.  There are a lot of lovely people down south who not only showed the world a warm welcome in Atlanta but also just have a rich and proud culture just like us refined, stick-up-the-butt northerners do.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 28, 2016, 12:23:38 PM
Why is Southern culture somehow seen as lesser? You live in a Southern state, you know.

NoVa and the rest of Virginia don't really have much in common.

I would have thought 1980/1984 would have been considered as contenders for worst with the silly U.S./U.S.S.R. boycotts.

Pretty much everything from Fredericksburg north has been annexed.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 28, 2016, 12:50:46 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 28, 2016, 12:23:38 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 28, 2016, 11:38:55 AM
The opening ceremonies proudly featured pickup trucks, in the manner of a truck rally or something, along with some cheerleaders. Throw in the bombing by the arch-conservative lunatic, and you coudln't be more hick.

from wiki:

"A report prepared by European Olympic officials after the Games was critical of Atlanta's performance in several key issues, including the level of crowding in the Olympic Village, the quality of available food, the accessibility and convenience of transportation, and the Games' general atmosphere of commercialism"

Drive about 100 miles south on I-95 and you'll see the "redneck aspect." If you think that you couldn't be more "hick" than that, then you clearly need to see the rest of Virginia.

I don't see how pickup trucks and cheerleaders are the "redneck aspect." But even if the Olympics in Atlanta somehow exhibited Southern culture, how is that a bad thing? Do we hate other host cities who show an aspect of local culture? Why is Southern culture somehow seen as lesser? You live in a Southern state, you know.

Yeah you really hear Dixie around Northern Virginia alot... :rolleyes:

I'll put it this way...I've been to NY a lot more in my life than I've been to Richmond.

As much as you might be able to insulate yourself from Southern culture in Alexandria, you can't escape its effects. Your state legislature still has sizable representation from people in the rest of the state and the laws that they make certainly affect you. Your life is influenced more by Southerners than someone across the Potomac.

I've lived on both sides of the Mason-Dixon (including in the DC area) and I find that Southerners are more likely to appreciate the cultural contributions of Northerners than vice versa. It's sad really.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 27, 2016, 11:23:47 PM
Didn't Atlanta benefit greatly from the Summer Olympics?

In the US, it's only worth the investment if you're an up and coming metro area that could use a boost in international profile. Boston, SF, LA and DC certainly didn't need the Olympics. Atlanta in 1996 was an example of the right place at the right time.

The '96 Olympics were the Coca-Cola games, no more, no less. That it happened to be in Atlanta was more of a historical accident than anything.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 27, 2016, 11:46:44 PM
I thought the '94 games were considered one of the worst ever. Between the bombing and redneck aspect, I think most people hope to sorta forget about it.

Redneck aspect of the 1994 games?

I guess these guys must have been there:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgfx.dagbladet.no%2Fpub%2Fartikkel%2F5%2F52%2F525%2F525969%2Flangeflate_1202208797.jpg&hash=bf90e732de8a20a4f22b40fb3270c2ab6ea09c6e)

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 31, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
I've lived on both sides of the Mason-Dixon (including in the DC area) and I find that Southerners are more likely to appreciate the cultural contributions of Northerners than vice versa. It's sad really.

My experience is too anecdotal to have a clear understanding of that, but there is no shortage of seemingly educated, worldly, and tolerant people in the Northeast that still, "among friends," will still snidely put down the, you know, "redneck aspect" of the whole interior and south of the country. 

There's something to be said for being unsophisticated rather than being a jerk.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on January 31, 2016, 09:29:59 AM
I've lived on both sides of the Mason-Dixon (including in the DC area) and I find that Southerners are more likely to appreciate the cultural contributions of Northerners than vice versa. It's sad really.

I'll second this. I lived in Wisconsin for about 18 months. My first child's mother is from Ohio. My first wife was originally from Michigan but now lives in Texas. I worked for a while with a creative firm in Los Angeles.

One huge benefit of the Olympics is increased infrastructure investments from the federal government.

Quote from: Bruce on February 26, 2016, 05:27:52 PM
One huge benefit of the Olympics is increased infrastructure investments from the federal government.

Our federal government?  Really?

Quote from: kkt on February 26, 2016, 05:37:07 PM

Quote from: Bruce on February 26, 2016, 05:27:52 PM
One huge benefit of the Olympics is increased infrastructure investments from the federal government.

Our federal government?  Really?

Yes, the same federal government that added $9 trillion to its debt over the last 7 years and yet still lectures us about crumbling infrastructure?

Quote from: jbnv on February 26, 2016, 08:09:33 PM

Quote from: kkt on February 26, 2016, 05:37:07 PM

Quote from: Bruce on February 26, 2016, 05:27:52 PM
One huge benefit of the Olympics is increased infrastructure investments from the federal government.

Our federal government?  Really?

Yes, the same federal government that added $9 trillion to its debt over the last 7 years and yet still lectures us about crumbling infrastructure?

Are you saying that our infrastructure isn't crumbling because the federal government is so much in debt, so they had to spend the money on it?  Kind of a warped way of thinking given the variety of areas the federal budget is split into and how the gas tax has stayed put as costs have risen over the years.

Quote from: english si on August 07, 2015, 03:32:54 AM
You can convert stadiums to other purposes, you know?

West Ham will use the Olympic Stadium in Stratford (paying through the nose for the privilege as unlike the US, the UK doesn't spend money to build stadiums for profit making businesses - other than the IOC and their ilk, where then the money is recouped by moving a sports team there). But there's already been a ton of stuff there anyway - various athletic meets and so on.

http://abc7.com/news/garcetti-trump-presidency-could-hurt-las-2024-olympic-bid/1460115/

In fact the Los Angeles Coliseum is being converted to hold Home games for the Los Angeles Rams

Also this new story came out about Los Angeles bid for the Olympics in 2024.

"I think for some of the IOC members they would say, 'Wait a second, can we go to a country like that, where we've heard things that we take offense to?'" Garcetti said.

Thankfully we tailor neither our speech nor our votes with the aim of not offending the IOC.

Quote from: jbnv on August 08, 2016, 05:57:04 PM
"I think for some of the IOC members they would say, 'Wait a second, can we go to a country like that, where we've heard things that we take offense to?'" Garcetti said.

Thankfully we tailor neither our speech nor our votes with the aim of not offending the IOC.

Have they been listening to the other countries they let hold the Olympics, like Russia?

If I were an IOC official, I mostly like vote for L.A. to host the 2024-XXXIII summer olympics. Here's my list of future summer olympics from my "crystal ball" (what if they were held every 2 years in even-number years instead?)

2032-XXXV Cape Town (South Africa), 2034-XXXVI Toronto (Canada), 2036-XXXVII Istanbul (Turkey), 2038-XXXVIII Detroit, MI (USA), 2040-XXXIX Rome (Italy), 2042-XXXL St. Petersburg (Russia), 2044-XLI Berlin (Germany), 2046-XLII New Delhi (India), 2048-XLIII New York City (USA), and 2050-XLIV-pan-global, opening and closing in Athens (Greece).

And for the winter olympics sites (and going by every 2 years in my version).

2026-XXV Denver, CO (USA), 2030-XXVI Santiago (Chile), 2032-XXVII Annecy (France), 2034-XXVIII Almaty (Kazakhstan), 2036-XXIX Wellington (New Zealand), 2038-XXX Munich (Germany), 2040-XXXI Quebec City (Canada), 2042-XXXII Ostersund (Sweden), 2044-XXXIII Baku (Azerbaijan), 2046-XXXIV San Bernardino/Big Bear, CA (US), 2048-XXXV Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina) and 2050-XXXVI pan-global, opening and closing in Lausanne, Switzerland or Lake Placid, NY (USA).

I'm saying olympic bid cities and applicants are getting very desperate to ever host one, despite less cities are considering hosting a summer or winter olympic games, and the higher number of countries participate, as well more olympian athletes taking part in the many sports events.

In olympic records, the IOC doesn't recognize the 1906 Intercalculated Games in Athens, Greece, marking the decade anniversary of the very first modern summer olympics held there earlier. And the non-IOC 1986(?) Friendship games held ceremonies each in Moscow and Paris, and all the events in 6 out of 8 eastern bloc countries, when the US and Soviet olympic teams agreed to compete after their previous boycotts: the US and France didn't participate in 1980-XXII Moscow and the USSR and East Germans did the same in 1984-XXXIII Los Angeles.

Quote from: Desert Man on August 20, 2016, 09:02:22 AM
If I were an IOC official, I mostly like vote for L.A. to host the 2024-XXXIII summer olympics. Here's my list of future summer olympics from my "crystal ball" (what if they were held every 2 years in even-number years instead?)

... 2048-XLIII New York City (USA) ...

My "crystal ball" says this games will officially take place in Hammond, Louisiana.

Following major hurricanes and floods in 2005, 2016, 2022, and 2034, most residents and businesses in New Orleans and suburban Baton Rouge have relocated to the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain. During the recovery of the 2030s, the state of Louisiana submits the first state-wide bid to host a Summer Olympic Games. Under the leadership of Louisiana 2048 chairman Bobby Jindal, the state wins the bid, hosting games in venues throughout south Louisiana. Commentators question the viability of water events in bayous and lakes, but quickly note those those venues are no worse than the water venues in Rio in 2016.

(Hey, it's every bit as plausible as the every-two-years plan.)

Quote from: jbnv on August 20, 2016, 10:57:13 AM

Quote from: Desert Man on August 20, 2016, 09:02:22 AM
If I were an IOC official, I mostly like vote for L.A. to host the 2024-XXXIII summer olympics. Here's my list of future summer olympics from my "crystal ball" (what if they were held every 2 years in even-number years instead?)

... 2048-XLIII New York City (USA) ...

My "crystal ball" says this games will officially take place in Hammond, Louisiana.

Following major hurricanes and floods in 2005, 2016, 2022, and 2034, most residents and businesses in New Orleans and suburban Baton Rouge have relocated to the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain. During the recovery of the 2030s, the state of Louisiana submits the first state-wide bid to host a Summer Olympic Games. Under the leadership of Louisiana 2048 chairman Bobby Jindal, the state wins the bid, hosting games in venues throughout south Louisiana. Commentators question the viability of water events in bayous and lakes, but quickly note those those venues are no worse than the water venues in Rio in 2016.

(Hey, it's every bit as plausible as the every-two-years plan.)

That's good, jbnv...the resurrection of New Orleans after the sea level rise is an inspiration to the world. The southern US had Atlanta 1996, the western US had L.A. 1932 and 1984, and St. Louis 1904 with some olympic sports events in Chicago. There never has been a summer olympics in the eastern seaboard like NYC. The 2024 summer olympic events should spread out in CA, have a few of them in San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento.

I seriously doubt the IOC will ever grant the summer olympics to Tehran, Iran or Qatar/Bahrain, due to the regimes' human rights records and the possible treatment of female olympian athletes not experienced in most of the world. The summer heat in these desert countries will be another issue, the summer games in places like Iran or Qatar must be held in later months (Nov or Dec) when temps are comfortable.

And Iceland and Anchorage, Alaska (US) are thought to be "too small" or not as much populated regions to host a winter olympics. There never has been a winter olympics south of the equator, where the seasons will be reversed. Chile/Argentina and New Zealand have or can develop modern winter sports facilities and ski resorts.   

Going back to the land of reality: LA needs some realistic expectations and note that this should be seen as a test run for 2028. There's almost no way Paris isn't going to get 2024 - its long overdue a second games (40 years for LA is the edge of 'still too recent' whereas Paris' last games would have been 100 years before), it was a good bid for 2012 and they have improved on that as well as learning the ropes on how to turn that into a winning bid.

Quote from: Desert Man on August 20, 2016, 03:07:16 PM
I seriously doubt the IOC will ever grant the summer olympics to Tehran, Iran or Qatar/Bahrain, due to the regimes' human rights records and the possible treatment of female olympian athletes not experienced in most of the world.

I don't think the IOC gives a damn about human rights records.  Germany, 1936.  Italy, planned for 1944.  USSR, 1980.  China, 2008.  Russia, 2014.

Los Angeles saved the Olympics in 1984, looks like they may just do it again many years later.....I think you guys know how I feel about the Olympics and I will write a lengthy post about them (if you want to listen) as it is a topic of interest of mine.

Let's just say that I was a member of a NoTO2024.

Quote from: english si on August 20, 2016, 06:57:48 PM
Going back to the land of reality: LA needs some realistic expectations and note that this should be seen as a test run for 2028. There's almost no way Paris isn't going to get 2024 - its long overdue a second games (40 years for LA is the edge of 'still too recent' whereas Paris' last games would have been 100 years before), it was a good bid for 2012 and they have improved on that as well as learning the ropes on how to turn that into a winning bid.

If the IOC gives Paris the nod for 2024, partly due to global condolences in Paris and France's recent terror attacks, I'm still for it, Paris is much a global city like London, Tokyo and L.A. (why not NYC still?) Tokyo was awarded the 2020 summer olympics from the country's increased attention after Sendai, Japan's massive 2011 earthquake, tsunami and related nuclear accident in Fukushima-Daiichi.

Quote from: kkt on August 20, 2016, 09:10:57 PM

Quote from: Desert Man on August 20, 2016, 03:07:16 PM
I seriously doubt the IOC will ever grant the summer olympics to Tehran, Iran or Qatar/Bahrain, due to the regimes' human rights records and the possible treatment of female olympian athletes not experienced in most of the world.

I don't think the IOC gives a damn about human rights records.  Germany, 1936.  Italy, planned for 1944.  USSR, 1980.  China, 2008.  Russia, 2014.

Tokyo, Japan originally awarded the 1940 summer olympics, but the Japanese Imperial military regime didn't like the olympics' themes of peace, world unity and "western" values, so the IOC relocated them to Helsinki, Finland, then was cancelled due to the outbreak of WW2. Which means London, Athens and Tokyo had "3" summer olympics in their cities history, but the IOC recognizes only London's events.

In the history of the Pan-American games (the Americas' regional olympics), Canada hosted 3 of them (1967 and 1999 in Winnipeg, and Toronto in 2015), 3 in Mexico (Guadalajara in 2011), 2 in the US (Chicago and Indianapolis), one in Puerto Rico, despite being US territory in 1979, Havana, Cuba in 1991 (the US team went there?) and the first ever in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1951. The next Pan-American games is in Lima, Peru (2019), while Buenos Aires is bidding, Los Angeles (2024 IOC summer bidder) seeks the 2023 bid and so does Rio de Janiero (held it in 2007 and 2016 IOC summer olympics host). Note the 1963 Pan-American games were in held in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

And something about Santiago, Chile in the history of intl sports events: The 1975 Pan-American games were relocated to Mexico City (where they held it in 1955) due to political turmoil from a military coup by Augusto Pinochet ousted Salvador Allende made Chile appear incapable of hosting a regional sports event. The 1993 Pan-American winter games were cancelled, which was the second one, only the 1990 events held in nearby Argentina. But, the 1962 FIFA world cup went out to shown the world Chile was able to rebuild from their M9.5 earthquake (the largest magnitude ever recorded in world history).

Quote from: Desert Man on August 25, 2016, 10:37:35 PMIf the IOC gives Paris the nod for 2024, due entirely to being the best bid in several cycles, Paris is much a global city like London, Tokyo and L.A. (why not NYC still?) Tokyo was awarded the 2020 summer olympics from the country's far superior bid than the alternative.

Fixed it for you.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/expert-panel-warns-tokyo-olympics-cost-top-30-42438548

Update the expenses for the stadium construction for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics increase to $30 Billion

I suppose they wouldn't have bid on the Olympics if they thought they couldn't make up the money.

Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2016, 10:35:52 AM
I suppose they wouldn't have bid on the Olympics if they thought they couldn't make up the money.

Why?  The local officials who bid on it aren't putting up their own money.

Now that LA has bid for the Olympics, I'm wondering where some of the regional events (e.g. soccer) would be played. I'm hoping that a few games get played in Seattle, though it might be too far (Atlanta 96 only went as far as Washington DC for it).

I'm about 70 miles northeast of Washington, DC in Harford County, Maryland, but I live in what is considered the Baltimore-Washington region, and anyway I'm a fan of DC sports teams, so I would love to see them get 2024.

Quote from: epzik8 on December 25, 2016, 03:40:13 PM
I'm about 70 miles northeast of Washington, DC in Harford County, Maryland, but I live in what is considered the Baltimore-Washington region, and anyway I'm a fan of DC sports teams, so I would love to see them get 2024.

The thread title hasn't been updated, but DC is no longer in the running for the Olympics. Only LA, Budapest, and Paris remain.

Why would any major city want to bid on the Olympics? You could argue that 1996 helped boost Atlanta's profile but none of the cities on the 2024 list really needed that boost.

It seems like a huge investment for almost no return.

Quote from: Bruce on December 25, 2016, 07:59:59 PM
Only LA, Budapest, and Paris remain.

I've seen that surfing will be an Olympic sport in 2020. Not sure whether it will be continued into 2024, but if it is....it would be interesting to see how they would handle that if Budapest won the games.

Quote from: Buck87 on January 01, 2017, 10:00:56 AM

Quote from: Bruce on December 25, 2016, 07:59:59 PM
Only LA, Budapest, and Paris remain.

I've seen that surfing will be an Olympic sport in 2020. Not sure whether it will be continued into 2024, but if it is....it would be interesting to see how they would handle that if Budapest won the games.

Probably at the same location where sailing events will be held. Budapest has Lake Balaton (about 50 miles from the city center) and Paris has the River Seine. Los Angeles will obviously use one of its many beaches, and Santa Monica seems like the most logical choice (good and direct public transport access from the Olympic Village).

Budapest has the mighty Danube, if you think the Seine is surfable...

Of course, none of the sea near Budapest would be any good, whereas Paris can go to the Vendee. Massive wave machine in the lake?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-ioc-evaluation-20170510-story.html

Update Los Angeles and Paris bid for the final round of the 2024 Olympics.

Yes, because L.A. just doesn't have enough traffic.

IT'S OFFICIAL: the IOC made a deal to bring the 2028 summer olympics to Los Angeles, the 3rd time in the western US city's history (just like in 1984 and 1932), and the 2024 summer olympics goes to Paris, the 3rd time in France's capital (alike 1900 and 1924).

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-2028-olympics-deal-20170731-story.html

So 32 years will have passed since the Olympics were held on American soil; I can get onboard with that.

Quote from: Henry on August 01, 2017, 10:20:45 AM
So 32 years will have passed since the Olympics were held on American soil; I can get onboard with that.

Don't forget technically its a 26 year gap since the USA had hosted the Olympics. See 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah.

Boooooooo!  Waste of money!  Booooooo....

:ded: :ded: :ded: :banghead: :banghead:

QuoteIn the history of the Pan-American games (the Americas' regional olympics), Canada hosted 3 of them (1967 and 1999 in Winnipeg, and Toronto in 2015), 3 in Mexico (Guadalajara in 2011), 2 in the US (Chicago and Indianapolis), one in Puerto Rico, despite being US territory in 1979, Havana, Cuba in 1991 (the US team went there?) and the first ever in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1951. The next Pan-American games is in Lima, Peru (2019), while Buenos Aires is bidding, Los Angeles (2024 IOC summer bidder) seeks the 2023 bid and so does Rio de Janiero (held it in 2007 and 2016 IOC summer olympics host). Note the 1963 Pan-American games were in held in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Also, Canada hosted 4 times the Commonwealth games (formely known as British Empire games) in 1930 (Hamilton), 1954(Vancouver), 1978(Edmonton) and 1994(Victoria, BC) and Kingston, Jamaica hosted the 1966 Commonwealth games. Australia has hosted four Commonwealth Games (1938, 1962, 1982, 2006) and will host for the fifth time in 2018.