USOC reaching out to US cities for potential 2024 bid
By Pure facts,
February 19, 2013 in Future Bids Discussion
Athensfan 1081
Athensfan
I haven't heard any messages of any kind from NYC since Blackmun sent his letter. I'm inclined to think that means they're contemplating a bid.
Quaker2001 45 posts
Athensfan 40 posts
FYI 35 posts
baron-pierreIV 27 posts
I don't see why a hypothetical "back up" scenario should rule out LA hosting! Olympic hosts don't fail these days; the closest we got recently was Athens and that turned out to be a great Games despit
Quaker2001
When you type B followed by a parentheses, the board interprets it as an emoticon. Has happened to me plenty of times before
baron, it's fruitless to argue with him. Unless you can prove him wrong, he must be right! Even though I disagree with this statement.. if the USOC loved the 2026 candidates and saw slim pickings fo
Quaker2001 1251
Loving all the discussion about New York here. Having missed a day's worth of posts, some thoughts from this life-long NYC resident..
Those other cities have to be interested, for starters, to be "made available". Apart from Chicago & New York (that aren't or seemingly not interested) what else is there so we can display are many different regions.
Many of our international members here are constantly saying that we need to bid with a "mega-city". So these people aren't really interested in ALL of our minor differences, which most would find rather trivial anyway.
To Joe's point, I kinda get what he's saying. Yes, the IOC can only work with what's presented to them, but I could theoretically see a scenario where some voters would like to see a U.S. Summer Olympics, and even with a good bid, they'd pass it over in hopes of seeing a different city offered the next time around. That's generally not an issue you're going to see with other countries who won't have as many cities to bid with and you're more likely to see the same city presented cycle after cycle (see Istanbul, Madrid, Rio, Paris, Tokyo, etc.)
And yea, I could see where a foreigner wants the next American Olympics to be in a mega-city. Now we all know that may not be possible, but again, with other options out there like Paris or Durban and others, there is an element where they might be able to wait for that ideal American bid to come along rather than to give an American city that won't offer that ideal experience (like Atlanta.. yes, we all know that was a matter of circumstance) and potentially miss out on something better. Maybe they never get their New York or Chicago, but we think more long-term about these things than I believe most voters within the IOC probably do.
New York 2012 was hindered much moreso by all the Europeans that were also bidding than Vancouver did. Sure, Vancouver 2010 didn't help, but that wasn't the real issue. New York 2012 still had a 'workable' plan but the Europeans in the picture had more of an arsenal to compete with. Hence, which is why if there is another New York bid in the future, it needs to be something more than 'feasible', bcuz we still have the likes of Paris, Rome, Berlin, Istanbul, Moscow or St. Petersburg & South Africa still lurking in the background. Saying "but it's New York" is no more different that someone on here not too long ago saying that "it just has to be a U.S. city". These type of sentiments can be construed as arrogant, which also doesn't get one far in this process.
That was exactly my take from the Doctoroff presentation. Obviously he had some technical issues to deal with that a month's worth of planning probably weren't enough to overcome, not to mention the competition, but New York needs something more than that to land an Olympics. To that end..
I think it would be incredible. As much as I love the idea of Chicago, SF Philly or DC, you can't deny that an NYC Olympics, logistical issues or not, would be truly iconic.
Other American cities would give you more of a sense of being an American Olympics - I think the exciting thing about a city like NY is that its internationalism is at such a high degree that it would be an event I think anyone, of any nationality, could make a mental claim to. I think it would be more a New York Olympics, than an American Olympics.
New York is an iconic city, no doubt. But what does that do for the Olympic movement? And what does the Olympic movement do for them? I'm more than happy to be the arrogant New Yorker who calls this the greatest city in the world. That's part of the attitude here though, especially in the aftermath of the 2012 vote. We don't need the Olympics to justify our place in the world. The multi-national nature of this city is certainly a part of the sell, but even that can't stand on its own. Where a NYC bid needs to use that is to say we have people from so many countries living here (or willing to visit) that our venues would be full; that this city would embrace the Olympics and that they'd prosper here.
Just to clarify, I didn't say NYC should go into the race without thinking up compelling arguments. But there's no doubt it would have to work less-hard on this aspect than many cities. I maintain that a perfect-storm of mitigating circumstances harmed it in 2012 more than its "style over substance" presentation. It had two cities who can hold a candle to it in terms of international cache competing against it, it had a recent American Summer Games (not wholly loved) not long before, its plan was rejigged at the last minute, America wasn't the most loved country in the World by the end of the Bush years either. Against a field like we're seeing for 2020, NYC could conceivably win without having to push their case as hard as other cities would have to if it came to the IOC with a watertight plan. Of course, if it's up against Paris and a strong African city I think it'd have to work somewhat harder. But NYC is NYC. In normal cirucmstances I don't think the IOC would reject them lightly, and that gives them an advantage other cities don't have from the outset.
See, I still think that's the wrong attitude to view New York. To make it seem like we have to put in less effort to land an Olympics is what gives off the perception of arrogance. Let's be fair.. 2012 was not destined to happen for all sorts of reasons. I've said plenty of times that if you drop the NYC 2012 plan into the 1996 race, they'd probably have won in a landslide. Of course there's an element of this competition that says New York stands a better chance of winning simply because it's New York. Would the IOC voters have thought twice about rejecting them in a less competitive race like what we have for 2020? Who knows. But I still think it's a very slippery slope to imply that New York could win with a lesser bid than a better bid from a bigger city. There's truth to that, but to take that concept too far is where the argument for NYC starts to get a little hazy.
That's because most of the country doesn't identify with New York. NYC is a world unto itself. That's fine for the Big Apple, I suppose, but it's less appealing to me personally.
I mean that more as a reference to the fact that New York City itself is one of the last great frontiers of the Olympics, despite its respective nation having hosted many times before. Obviously, it would be an American Olympics, with itself being an American icon, but my point is more that NYC hosting for the first time itself would be a significant milestone, much like China's first Games in 2008 or a third Paris/London Olympics.
As we can all agree, NYC's internationalism one of its defining characteristics, and is one of the most familiar cities in the world, even to people who have never been there. This is why I think it could have that extra global appeal.
Also, unlike many European, Asian and African options, the USA has a plethora of potential candidate cities. If NYC, Durban and Paris were the final three cities in 2024 - I think it would be quite obvious that the latter two could potentially bid again and again to the IOC as they are possibly the only realistic options for their respective countries and even continents. New York, despite its profile, could easily be replaced by other cities in North America. This might make the opportunity harder for the IOC to pass up - knowing that seizing NYC for 2024 potentially blocks Dallas 2028 - and leaves these following editions for Africa and a European capital. *all very hypothetical*.
If most of the country doesn't identify with NYC, what do they identify with? Because NYC is a world unto itself, that makes it less relateable? Don't see how that's a knock against them and perhaps in favor of another city.
The nature of Olympic bidding from the United States does seem to make it more about the city/region than it does the country. I'm not really old enough to remember 1984, but I know the history that those Olympics were almost too American (so said the foreign media watching the TV coverage). Then we had the Atlanta Games whichdidn't necessarily feel like they belonged to the country. They belonged to the American south, if even that. Similarly, the 2002 Olympics belonged to Utah, although I think the post 9/11-sentiment helped draw people in.
Maybe it's just me as someone who has lived here his whole life, but I think the pulse of the nation emanates from here. After 9/11, the entire country rallied around New York like never before. More recently you have Hurricane Sandy and the Newtown shootings. Those became national stories. If there's any city in this country that could host an Olympics that would belong to the entire nation, it would be New York. IMO, you wouldn't get that from Chicago or San Francisco.
Pretty sure you're still blocking me, but if not, I would love to hear your logic on that one. So you think because we haven't heard anything, that leads you to deduce that there's a bid in the works? I don't get that at all. 2 things here..
1) I really dislike this concept of "they." Who is "they"? If there's a "they" out there from an interested party, why haven't we heard anything from them? We heard from the mayor of San Diego, ridiculous as that idea is to team with Tiujuana. We've heard news out of Dallas that there does seem to be a "they" involved there and we know who they are. I don't want to get into the whole absence of information argument again here, but for all the cities that have chimed in with pretty definitive no's, I don't think there's much to read into the cities we haven't heard from other than that there's probably a reason we haven't heard anything from them.
2) If you're thinking there's a bid because Mayor Bloomberg hasn't come out and said there isn't, I wouldn't get your hopes up. This is almost certain to be Bloomberg's final year as mayor. So Hizzoner probably doesn't need to go on the record on behalf of New York for something he won't be around for. That's something for the next mayor to concern himself with. And whereas Rahm Emanuel came out on behalf of Chicago and said no, I'm guessing Bloomberg (and whoever his predecessor may be) wouldn't be against an Olympic bid. But someone still would need to step up and offer to lead that charge. That we haven't heard any sort of shred of evidence that has happened yet or is currently happening now that this letter has gone out, IMO the likelihood of a New York bid grows more unlikely with every passing day. I just don't see where it would come from.
Rob. 2039
Torch Bearer 10000 Club
Location:London
It isn't! This whole argument stemmed from an opinion of Athensfan, an opinion - to be fair - he never claimed as a determining factor in the IOC's decision. You know what, I sometimes hear people say London isn't an English city, that it's like another country. Yeah, I suppose I can understand that point of view in some ways. But will an International body like the IOC care about that kind of parochial mumbling? Well, we already know the answer to that don't we?! And an even more obvious example: I'm sure there are hundreds of millions of Chinese who couldn't even hope to visit Beijing, let alone "identify" with it.
This is a non-argument against NYC if ever I've seen one.
Thanks, Rob. That's exactly it.
In my original post, I wrote that I can easily see how NYC would appeal to the international community (and by extension the IOC). But someone (runningrings, maybe?) said he thought the Games would feel more like "New York's Games" than "America's Games" -- at least to Americans -- and I agree. That says absolutely nothing about whether the IOC would vote for NYC Olympics. It just addresses the flavor of the Games, one of several reasons why I personally am not particularly excited about the idea of Olympics in the Big Apple.
Of course at this point we don't even know if they are bidding, but the fact that they've stayed quiet instead of making a public statement of refusal (like so many others) would suggest that a bid could conceivably be forthcoming.
I have mixed feelings. Obviously I'd love to see the next American Summer Games. NYC probably would be the most appealing candidate to the IOC. I'm just not in love with the idea. Perhaps New York will favorably surprise me. Or perhaps there will be no bid for 2024 at all.
Well that makes more sense then. And yea, that sounds like a poor argument. I haven't been to England since I was about 5 or 6 years old, but I can't think of anything I could consider more English/British than London. I know that's somewhat discounting the rest of the country, but if we're talking about an Olympics (as opposed to a World Cup held in multiple cities) and have 1 city to represent the country, where else does that belong other than London!
To my point earlier.. the way the USOC does business (and the simple nature of a spread out and diverse country like the United States) means that an Olympics will often relate better to the city than to the country. So would a New York Olympics be more about New York than the United States? Very possibly. But that logic could and probably would apply to any prospective host city in the US. They would even present their own version of the Olympics. For me (and I'm totally biased here, of course), no city is more capable and more likely to present this country to the world than New York. It's in the Northeast where the beginnings of American history occurred. It's the most multi-cultural city in the country so it can speak to the United States' diversity. And yes, being an iconic US city works in their favor in terms of presenting the country, not just the city. So yea, whatever folks here are saying and thinking I don't believe reflects what the "international community" (meaning the IOC) would be interested in.
Again, and since you're blocking me, you probably aren't seeing this, but I'll say it anyway for the benefit of those who are reading my posts.. how do those 2 things follow logically. Because that sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking rather than anything that actually suggests a bid is going to come out of nowhere. Which is exactly what it would be if there was a New York bid out there.
I don't think that anyone is trying to make an argument against New York here. This whole debate actually stems from runningrings comment that a New York Olympics would be more a "New York Olympics than an American one", which I find issue with. I think many Americans, including myself, identify New York where all those immigrants came in when our country was being founded. And to this day, is still a great American city. When Americans think red, white & blue, they also think of the Statue of Liberty, it's a given.
I think the people that say that many Americans don't identify themselves with New York, are the very same people that wouldn't be able to identify themselves with ANY major American city. I'm sure those same people would say the same about Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Miami, Dallas, etc. I've also heard people saying that "California & Texas are worlds of their own", but to me that perception, doesn't make California or Texas any less American, either. On the contrary, they're just really different types of Americana, which is essentially what America really is. "A melting pot".
And if finally bringing the Olympics to China wasn't also about finally bringing the Olympics to "1.3 Billion Chinese", then the Beijing 2008 bid team pulled the wool over the IOC's eyes, since that was one of the main arguments of all the Beijing supporters & the Chinese bid team..
Agreed. This just stems back to the many debates on this particular topic from nearly 2 years ago. If that is the case, then why still keep everything all quiet, especially now that the USOC has actaully taken the initiative. Now is precislely when they would like to listen & learn about any prospective prospects, not still be kept in the dark over all of this.
Soaring 182
Think big. Aim higher.
Location:Formerly Chicago, Currently Tulsa
At this stage, I just want the USOC to put forth whichever city is going to be the strongest bid in the eyes of the IOC. It is too early to say how strong of a bid NYC can put together for 2024 or even 2028 for that matter. We don't even know whether they are interested or not, but they seem to at least be giving it a little thought, which is encouraging. The idea of NYC bidding is certainly the most appealing (at least for the IOC), and that is why I support the idea more than an LA bid.
It is worth noting that there are a number of hurdles that NYC would have to overcome, namely Mayor Bloomberg leaving office, lack of a suitable stadium within city limits, massive congestion, lack of land for new venues and the "legacy" factor, etc.
It would be interesting though if Bloomberg became the leader of the bid, even though he would no longer be mayor. It could be a little "pet project" to keep him busy after he leaves office, and would allow him to still have some of the city spotlight. The new mayor (whoever that is) would probably be unsettled by that, and maybe wouldn't want him lurking over city politics. Bloomberg likely has other things that he would rather do instead (like national politics). So it is probably unlikely he would accept such a position anyway, but it would be interesting, and would strengthen the bid.
There is also some sentiment in its favor since it lost 2012, and Chicago lost so badly for 2016, but if Tokyo wins 2020, and Paris and Durban bid for 2024, I still think NYC (or any U.S. city for that matter) should sit out. Geopolitical forces have reigned so strongly theses last several cycles, and I just can't see the IOC passing up Paris and to a lesser extent, Durban if they put together a strong bid for 2024.
Edited March 5, 2013 by Soaring
Like I said upthread and you seem to be of the same opinion.. the USOC needs to put forth the most electable bid, not necessarily the best bid. It's just like in politics.. you put up the candidate you think is best equipped to beat the other candidate. That may be 1 in the same here, but that's the job of the USOC to determine which city has the best chance of competing for the big prize.
That said.. where exactly do we see that New York is giving it any thought? Are you taking the Athensfan tact here that because they haven't gone on the record and said anything that you think they're contemplating a bid? You're right that there's a possibility of that, but until we see something, ANYTHING from anyone connected with the city of New York that someone is working on a bid, I feel very comfortable in the assumption that it's not going to happen and for all the reasons you stated.
1 more thing about Bloomberg.. he's 71 years old. Which means he'd be in his 80s by the time 2024 comes around. I'm guessing he's going to sail off into the sunset when his term as mayor expires. He's got enough money (and still businesses to oversee) that he probably doesn't need a pet project to keep him occupied. If New York does consummate an Olympic bid, I could see the powers that be trying to get him involved, if nothing else for the name recognition (although if they were going to do that, Bloomberg wouldn't be the ex-mayor I'd think they would get involved, and it's worth noting that Giuliani is more than 2 years YOUNGER than Bloomberg).
I agree, Q01. I just don't get how some people get the conclusion that New York "must be considering" a bid simply bcuz they haven't said one way or another. Several other cities in that USOC letter also haven't said anything. Does that automatically mean that they're working on a bid, too. Not really.
Maybe they just all don't see the need to respond to such a blanket letter. And I could certainly understand why New York hasn't said anything either. Bcuz more than likely, they moved on & aren't really interested in looking back at the moment. And if this New York Times article is anything to gauge, which the headline makes it seem like such a scowling matter, then there doesn't seem to be much there.
www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/sports/olympics/olympic-board-asks-35-us-cities-about-bidding-for-2024-games.html
Because Baron has been talking about how the prospects for Summer Games are grim in other threads, I thought I'd add a tempering perspective.
Just to recap, the only really tragic news regarding 2024 is Chicago. It seemed unlikely that they would bid again, but not guaranteed. Now it's guaranteed and that is extremely disappointing.
However....
What other big losses have we seen? So far, none.
NYC, LA, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas. Not one has refused Blackmun's invitation. Rejection from the likes of Minneapolis and Rochester is not surprising or disappointing. It just shows that those cities have the good sense to know that they aren't Olympic material.
So unless Chicago was the United States' only hope (and yes, I love Chicago, but "only hope" is putting it too strongly), there's no reason to be trying to wedge 2024 into a coffin just yet.
That said, I have always believed that 2024 was the earliest the US could hope to land Summer Games. I think that 2028 and 2032 offer better chances no matter who the candidate city is. And yes, I still think it's worth postponing Winter Games until the next Summer edition is secured -- unless some drop-dead awesome Winter candidate emerges.
Actually, Minneapolis had to get some sense knocked into them, bcuz their mayor was all gung-ho about a bid before they received the USOC letter. Rochester obviously knew better.
A far as those other cities, New York & San Francisco seem to stick out that they'd have a hard time coming up with a feasible plan, considering that that these two cities have gone forward with other venue plans that wouldn't exactly fit with an Olympic bid. Especially in the case of San Francisco, where the 49ners are already bulding their brand-new stadium near far-flung San Jose. So which then, logic would seem to dictate that a bid is the furthest thing on their agenda.
Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas & L.A. are other issues. But judging from most of our international members here, those options don't seem to be very relished.
. Especially in the case of San Francisco, where the 49ners are already bulding their brand-new stadium near far-flung San Jose. So which then, logic would seem to dictate that a bid is the furthest thing on their agenda.
Plus, San Francisco might be left holding the bag for a less than-stellar America's Cup (supposedly down to just 3 boats now) to the tune of some $15 million, unless Mr. Ellison plugs the hole with his own money since the City bent over backwards to accommodate him. Obviously, a bad America's Cup dooms another Olympics dream.
Several thoughts.
The US only needs one competitive candidate. Not several. The list is still plenty long enough even if more drop out.
The opinions of international posters on GB are not necessarily the opinions of the IOC.
2024 may not ultimately work out for the US, but it's too soon to say.
Of course the opinions of international posters here are not necessarily those of the IOC. But the IOC is also made up of international people that may have similar feelings. Let's not forget that informal poll that the USOC conducted for the 2016 domestic race, & therefore dumping Philadelphia & Houston from further consideration as a result.
Interesting headline. Surprised I missed that even though I don't generally read the NY Times.
I don't think it's even a matter of "must." This feels like the lead-up to 2020 where some don't want to rule out a bid until someone (the mayor of the city or whomever) goes on record and says it's definitely not happening. But again, I don't get the logic which says that because we haven't heard anything from New York, let's treat that as a reason to believe they might be considering a bid. For my money, you know when I'll believe New York is considering a bid? When someone says that New York is considering a bid. It's the old "abscence of proof is not proof" argument. It's not like we haven't heard interest coming from some cities including Dallas and a Boston bid that's starting to gain a little traction (which we now have a name to attach with it according to the link Chris posted in the Boston thread).
No one here is signing a death certificate on the prospects of a USA 2024 bid, not even baron. We're just trying to be realistic. You're listed all the cities that haven't said an emphatic no to the USOC. I'm more interested in a list of cities where there is something brewing. Again, Dallas is on there. Boston probably belongs there. Everyone else is in that gray area where we know little to nothing. And yes, I will still extrapolate from that lack of news and information that those cities are highly unlikely to be interested in the bid process.
It's not about cities dropping out. The USOC needs a city to drop IN. They may not get 35 "no" responses, but they still need a "yes" at some point and they need it from a city they believe they can work with
dave199 57
Location:Toronto
No surprise here. Detroit says no.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/detroit-turns-down-invitation-bid-2024-olympics-211001369--spt.html
Pure facts 65
Pure facts
Inside the Games announces that Los Angeles has officially declared its interest for bidding for 2024.
Antonio Villaraigosa says Los Angeles wants to host 2024 Olympics
And they're not just interested.. according to Villaraigosa, it's "enthusiastic interest." So the USOC has their first official bid candidate. Too soon to tell at this point, but I have a feeling that if this is the only interested bidder the USOC has, then they WILL put them forth to the IOC as their official bid. Interested to see what they have in mind though. As I've said before, I don't know that a redux of the Coliseum is what the IOC is looking for.
I've always said that of all the U.S. Alpha's to have the most interested, based on what we knew (or didn't, however you wanna look at it) the last couple of years, that Los Angeles would be the most likely to excitedly raise their hand, & here it is. Although, the current mayor isn't going to be mayor much longer. So I wonder if the next mayor is going to be just as 'enthusiastic'.
THere are just so many variables -- and this could all be moot if Durban raises the flag soon enough.
I agree, I don't think this announcement comes as a surprise to anymore.
Love it how you and Athens couldn't be more polar opposites on this one. You sure that's not just wishful thinking on your part to try and push the needle towards a Winter bid? No one here is doubting that Durban is formidable competition. But they're not a sure thing. So even if it came out tomorrow that they're confirmed to bid for 2024, I don't think that would mean the USOC would then throw in the towel. Remember, this is Los Angeles we're talking about here. They know how this game is played as well as any city in the United States. They know what they're getting into and what the stakes are. I think they would want to be in the game (if it's what the USOC wants), even against stiff competition. Because unlike New York or Chicago, I don't think they'd get so easily scared off by a loss.
Let's state the obvious here.. Los Angeles' interest in no way guarantees a bid. A lot can and will happen before the day of decision gets here. But for me, I don't subscribe to the theory that says if Durban (or whomever in South Africa) is in the race that the USOC needs to cede 2024 to them.
Only to the ones that always liked to argue that 'we didn't know enough info'.
Okay so, so far we have 6 definite 'no's'. 2 that are talking, 2 maybes, 2 whack-jobs, & one yes. And out of all of those, one of the no's is from an Alpha city & the one yes is from an Alpha city. The two maybes & the two that are talking are all still in the top 10 of cities.
I wonder if this news about Los Angeles will affect any other prospective cities. Not sure if that would sway Dallas, but I could see it being a deterrent for Boston. Their mayor is already not sure it's worthwhile and now he sees he'd be going up against Los Angeles. Could be all the reason he needs to say no.