Boston may drop its US Olympic bid, and LA may get a Round III (size, NYC)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know I was called delusional for mocking the choice of Boston, but this was predictable back when I said it and stated that this was all just fake gestures, because Boston isn't going to host.
Lets be rational here, look at it from the USOC's perspective. They like money and attention, so their prospects were:
The obvious favorite was San Francisco.
The most practical choice was Los Angeles.
The most financially secure choice was Washington D.C.
Boston had an active anti-Olympics campaign, basically the only one, SF's was minimal and unnoticeable at best and DC's and LA's were non-existent. USOC knew full-well that Boston wasn't going to work, but they had to bring something to the IOC's attention, and they didn't want to waste a bid on a city they legitimately wanted to host. Whether Boston was capable or not, the opposition made it the least likely choice. But it was chosen because the USOC suspects that the U.S. is not going to be nominated (not over the first African country and some European ones). They choose Boston, knowing that when it fails, they'll still have the real choices: SF or DC (LA as backup). Because if they chose SF (for example), and then the U.S. didn't get the pick by the IOC, it would be really awkward and predictable to re-nominate SF next time around, therefore not getting the IOC's attention. They chose the disposable city. Not because Boston sucks, but because Boston's political opposition sunk the nomination before people even started speculating. This made Boston cannon fodder.
This is also why NYC and Chicago weren't jumping around for the bid after their defeat.
Yeah the 84 Olympics actually was the first (and has been one of the only) to show that the games can be profitable for the host location.
However, that is because L.A. didn't (and still doesn't) need to build virtually anything from a venue perspective. The 2024 bid centered on already constructed facilities, with the exception of the river for kayaking. The initial bid also included Farmers Field, but while that is dead, there will likely be 1 (or 2) new NFL stadiums up within the next couple of years.
But we all know the IOC will choose some place where they need to build a ton of new stuff. How else will all those palms get greased?
Um...Atlanta was also profitable both in dollars and for the host location. It followed the LA model from 1984.
LA looks to be the most ready US cities given its past experience. While LA is great and has much to offer but it is sort of "been there done that" as for as the Olympics is concern. Not sure if LA can win out over the European cities like Paris and Rome that might be in contention. The USOC might want to consider other US cities like San Francisco or DC (if they're prepared to make the commitment) as they would bring fresher venues to the table.
I know I was called delusional for mocking the choice of Boston, but this was predictable back when I said it and stated that this was all just fake gestures, because Boston isn't going to host.
Lets be rational here, look at it from the USOC's perspective. They like money and attention, so their prospects were:
The obvious favorite was San Francisco.
The most practical choice was Los Angeles.
The most financially secure choice was Washington D.C.
Boston had an active anti-Olympics campaign, basically the only one, SF's was minimal and unnoticeable at best and DC's and LA's were non-existent. USOC knew full-well that Boston wasn't going to work, but they had to bring something to the IOC's attention, and they didn't want to waste a bid on a city they legitimately wanted to host. Whether Boston was capable or not, the opposition made it the least likely choice. But it was chosen because the USOC suspects that the U.S. is not going to be nominated (not over the first African country and some European ones). They choose Boston, knowing that when it fails, they'll still have the real choices: SF or DC (LA as backup). Because if they chose SF (for example), and then the U.S. didn't get the pick by the IOC, it would be really awkward and predictable to re-nominate SF next time around, therefore not getting the IOC's attention. They chose the disposable city. Not because Boston sucks, but because Boston's political opposition sunk the nomination before people even started speculating. This made Boston cannon fodder.
This is also why NYC and Chicago weren't jumping around for the bid after their defeat.
There's two things one could assume about your post. First, if that you were not happy Boston was the initial choice by the USOC and now you're taken a shot at them.
Second, you're saying the USOC has little confidence a bid of SF, LA, or DC will be good enough to beat out bids from an African nation and European nations.
If SF was the obvious favorite, the USOC would have little issues choosing them and feeling confident it would beat out the other bids to get the 2024 games.
Unless an African nation comes fourth with a solid bid, the US has a very good shot of getting the 2024 Olympics considering they will have been hosted by Asia twice, Europe twice, South America once and Australia once since the last time the US hosted the summer Olympics.
I think the opposition in SF was pretty intense. There were going to be ballot measures preventing any taxpayer money from being used and all sorts of political h*ll to pay for bringing the Olympics to the Bay Area. I think I speak for most area residents when I say I really don't care to have the Olympics, at most, and would quite honestly prefer not to host them. The Bay Area is already a prestigious, growing community. It faces a severe housing shortage and affordability crisis, as well as shortfalls in public transportation in light of increasing congestion. The use of time and resources to focus on a very corrupt IOC sanctioned event rather than on local issues would likely be a net negative for the area, which doesn't *need* world attention, but it does need to fix its growing list of serious concerns/problems.
I believe, hope, and have faith that politics will get in the way of a Bay Area Olympics very much the same way it did for Boston (if SF/Bay Area is ever up for bid again). I actually think if it were truly up to DC residents, they wouldn't stand for it either. I do see LA lapping it right up, and LA would probably be the only choice that could make money anyway. Having it in LA would still be very convenient for Bay Area residents without Bay Area residents having to deal with the politics or footing the bill.
1) LA 1984 did not have sign the taxpayer promise that Boston did
2) LA was the only bidder in 1984 so it got to dictate the terms to the IOC
As a result all the risks were on the private investors, in Boston the 2024 committee would reap the profits if they succeeded but Boston (and Massachusettts) taxpayers would pay for a failed bid, privatize the profits, socialize the loss doesn't fly.
Also the T imploded, there is a huge Opiate Crisis, DCF is a mess , Massachusetts and Boston have more important things to worry about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
