LA, Boston, San Francisco, DC are finalists in the United States Olympic Committee's "potential" bid to host the 2024 Olympic Summer Games

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 13, 2014 9:50 PM GMT
    L.A. Is a Finalist in America's Bid to Host the 2024 Olympics

    http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/06/13/la-is-a-finalist-in-americas-bid-to-host-the-2024-olympics
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 2:28 PM GMT
    I think DC would be pretty awesome, with all the monuments and all. But lord help the people who would have to take the beltway to work while it's going on.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Jun 14, 2014 2:44 PM GMT
    LA has hosted the summer Olympics in the past. I say lets give either Boston or Washington DC the Olympic torch in 2024. I think Boston is the best city out of the four US cities competing for a bid.
  • jlly_rnchr

    Posts: 1759

    Jun 14, 2014 3:12 PM GMT
    I vote Boston. Then DC. Not LA though, they've had them before.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 3:20 PM GMT
    Truly a waste of money. But let Boston win it. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 3:32 PM GMT
    This really have hit the cost ceiling. After Sochi, look at the trouble they have trying to find a new candidate for a winter games. I'm starting to be glad the US (Chicago) lost out on 2016. Better Brasil has the headaches, than the US.
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 14, 2014 3:42 PM GMT
    LA already has the facilities. It would not cost that much to do there. icon_smile.gif

    The last time they did it here, a lot of people left LA. Our traffic was actually better during the Olympics than normal LA traffic.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Jun 14, 2014 3:48 PM GMT
    metta8 saidLA already has the facilities. It would not cost that much to do there. icon_smile.gif

    The last time they did it here, a lot of people left LA. Our traffic was actually better during the Olympics than normal LA traffic.
    LA has hosted the summer Olympics twice so therefore it should be ineligible for an Olympic bid in 2024. I still say Boston is the best American city for the 2024 summer games. It is a compact, walkable city with a vibrant downtown core and outstanding public transportation and it is home to several top colleges and universities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 3:54 PM GMT
    Lol is San Francisco going to use Candlesticks park again or Stanford stadium for opening ceremony? They withdrew last time. Lol, Boston seems kinda smaller and a colder city to host. I think its between LA Vs DC. LA is an ideal summer host city, we already have the infrastructure in place. However, The USOC may pick someone else because LA hosted twice. Look at London, it hosts 3 times. If LA doesn't get it, I want DC to get it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 4:00 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    metta8 saidLA already has the facilities. It would not cost that much to do there. icon_smile.gif

    The last time they did it here, a lot of people left LA. Our traffic was actually better during the Olympics than normal LA traffic.
    LA has hosted the summer Olympics twice so therefore it should be ineligible for an Olympic bid in 2024. I still say Boston is the best American city for the 2024 summer games. It is a compact, walkable city with a vibrant downtown core and outstanding public transportation and it is home to several top colleges and universities.


    No, London got it the 3rd time in 2012 bc of the international prestige over Paris. The English originally wanted Manchester for some reason. The goal is to present a best US bid city to the world, IOC. Look at NYC and Chicago last time, embarrassing lol they were out like the 1st 2nd round voting. I honestly don't think Boston or San Francisco have that global international appeal or prestige. They're both smaller pretty cities but thats it. LA is very well known and DC is US capital. The international competition will be tough. Istanbul or Cape Town S Africa might get it because the games never held there before.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 4:10 PM GMT
    4Will saidThis really have hit the cost ceiling. After Sochi, look at the trouble they have trying to find a new candidate for a winter games. I'm starting to be glad the US (Chicago) lost out on 2016. Better Brasil has the headaches, than the US.


    Lol I remembered that. Chicago lost because of a weak bid. The games go to S America for the 1st time in 2016. Yay Brasil.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Jun 14, 2014 4:10 PM GMT
    LAXWill10 said
    roadbikeRob said
    metta8 saidLA already has the facilities. It would not cost that much to do there. icon_smile.gif

    The last time they did it here, a lot of people left LA. Our traffic was actually better during the Olympics than normal LA traffic.
    LA has hosted the summer Olympics twice so therefore it should be ineligible for an Olympic bid in 2024. I still say Boston is the best American city for the 2024 summer games. It is a compact, walkable city with a vibrant downtown core and outstanding public transportation and it is home to several top colleges and universities.


    No, London got it the 3rd time bc of the international prestige over Paris. The English originally wanted Manchester for some reason. The goal is to present a best US bid city to the world, IOC. Look at NYC and Chicago last time, embarrassing lol they were out like the 1st 2nd round voting. I honestly don't think Boston or San Francisco have that global international appeal or prestige. They're both smaller pretty cities but thats it. LA is very well known and DC is US capital. The international competition will be tough. Istanbul or Cape Town S Africa might get it because the games never held there before.
    Granted the city of Boston itself is only 45 square miles in physical area. But it is still a big major city with a metropolitan region of over 5 million people. It is clearly large enough to host a summer Olympics and its climate is mild during the summer though the humidity can be a bit oppressive at times. So enough of these negative perceptions about New England weather. If London can successfully host a summer games than so can Boston. As for city size, don't let the city's relatively small land area fool you, Boston is a big place with a lot to offer and you don't need a car to enjoy it. It has some of the best and most far reaching public transportation in the US. Boston is the best US candidate for the 2024 summer games hands down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 4:41 PM GMT
    I agreed with some of the things you mentioned about Boston. I visited Boston twice back in 2010 for about 4 weeks, my ex family is from there. However, London is on a different class than Boston, no comparison. I think of Cambridge, Harvard University, seafood and scenic water front in the city of Boston, not Summer Games. The USOC should select the strongest candidate with Experiences for the win. (LA fits the bill). If they're just going for look or a pretty city alone, Select Boston or SF. Right now, some say that San Francisco is a front-runner. Their stage games might spill over to Berkeley-Oakland area. Lol that's ridiculous because it's not SF.

    roadbikeRob said
    LAXWill10 said
    roadbikeRob said
    metta8 said
    Granted the city of Boston itself is only 45 square miles in physical area. But it is still a big major city with a metropolitan region of over 5 million people. It is clearly large enough to host a summer Olympics and its climate is mild during the summer though the humidity can be a bit oppressive at times. So enough of these negative perceptions about New England weather. If London can successfully host a summer games than so can Boston. As for city size, don't let the city's relatively small land area fool you, Boston is a big place with a lot to offer and you don't need a car to enjoy it. It has some of the best and most far reaching public transportation in the US. Boston is the best US candidate for the 2024 summer games hands down.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Jun 14, 2014 4:51 PM GMT
    LAXWill10 saidI agreed with some of the things you mentioned about Boston. I visited Boston twice back in 2010 for about 4 weeks, my ex family is from there. However, London is on a different class than Boston, no comparison. I think of Cambridge, Harvard University, seafood and scenic water front in the city of Boston, not Summer Games. The USOC should select the strongest candidate with Experiences for the win. (LA fits the bill). If they're just going for look or a pretty city alone, Select Boston or SF. Right now, some say that San Francisco is a front-runner. Their stage games might spill over to Berkeley-Oakland area. Lol that's ridiculous because it's not SF.

    roadbikeRob said
    LAXWill10 said
    roadbikeRob said
    metta8 said
    Granted the city of Boston itself is only 45 square miles in physical area. But it is still a big major city with a metropolitan region of over 5 million people. It is clearly large enough to host a summer Olympics and its climate is mild during the summer though the humidity can be a bit oppressive at times. So enough of these negative perceptions about New England weather. If London can successfully host a summer games than so can Boston. As for city size, don't let the city's relatively small land area fool you, Boston is a big place with a lot to offer and you don't need a car to enjoy it. It has some of the best and most far reaching public transportation in the US. Boston is the best US candidate for the 2024 summer games hands down.
    As a rule, London has a more difficult climate in terms of summer weather than Boston. There is no legitimate need for prior experience. Lets let a different US city host the summer games. I say Boston or as a runner up, Washington DC. Since Athens, London and Los Angeles have previously hosted the summer games, they should be disqualified from fielding a future bid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 5:07 PM GMT
    As a rule, London has a more difficult climate in terms of summer weather than Boston. There is no legitimate need for prior experience. Lets let a different US city host the summer games. I say Boston or as a runner up, Washington DC. Since Athens, London and Los Angeles have previously hosted the summer games, they should be disqualified from fielding a future bid.[/quote]


    You're missing the point. London is a hot city in the summer. London is a huge major city in the West/Europe and the world. As for being disqualified for being a host before, Lol, that's stupid. Lol history shows that numerous cities/countries hosted the Games Twice or even 3 times (Athens, Paris, LA, London, Tokyo)...etc... because they can deliver and their international appeal look awesome on a global level. In fact, I think the IOC should award the games to previous host cities if other candidate cities can't come close to delivering a great game or have no ready-infrastructure or even any $$$ support in that area. (think of it like getting a job, as an employer, would you rather hire a guy with no experience or someone who already proven himself and had experiences in the given field ). The IOC's selection is no different. It's just like a Job Interview on a Global international level. Tell me why should I award the games to your city.
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 14, 2014 5:48 PM GMT
    LA is on the list, so it is not ineligible. The only ineligible cities are the ones that are not on the list.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 6:12 PM GMT
    Boston would be a great host city!
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14348

    Jun 14, 2014 8:10 PM GMT
    LAXWill10 saidAs a rule, London has a more difficult climate in terms of summer weather than Boston. There is no legitimate need for prior experience. Lets let a different US city host the summer games. I say Boston or as a runner up, Washington DC. Since Athens, London and Los Angeles have previously hosted the summer games, they should be disqualified from fielding a future bid.



    You're missing the point. London is a hot city in the summer. London is a huge major city in the West/Europe and the world. As for being disqualified for being a host before, Lol, that's stupid. Lol history shows that numerous cities/countries hosted the Games Twice or even 3 times (Athens, Paris, LA, London, Tokyo)...etc... because they can deliver and their international appeal look awesome on a global level. In fact, I think the IOC should award the games to previous host cities if other candidate cities can't come close to delivering a great game or have no ready-infrastructure or even any $$$ support in that area. (think of it like getting a job, as an employer, would you rather hire a guy with no experience or someone who already proven himself and had experiences in the given field ). The IOC's selection is no different. It's just like a Job Interview on a Global international level. Tell me why should I award the games to your city. [/quote]During the 2012 Olympics, the weather was overcast and rather cool and it was mid summer. London doesn't get that hot in the summer months. The British Isles are usually misty and cool. Just because a city is huge and had previous experience doesn't mean that it should get to host the summer games again. The summer Olympics are moved around to give other cities and countries the opportunity to host a major, international event. The same for the winter games. To hell with the so called international appeal, lets give other cities and countries the opportunity to host an Olympics. The cities that have hosted Olympics two or three times should be made ineligible to submit a bid. The biggest, wealthiest cities should not be allowed to hog every major opportunity that comes along. It is time to give someone else an opportunity to host an Olympics. Originally the idea of moving the Olympics around was to give everyone an opportunity to host the games. It was not meant just to be dominated by the wealthiest, and most popular cities on the globe. The IOC has become way too political and just like our government, big money has contaminated the bidding process. I guess it is true that money is the root of all evil.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 8:29 PM GMT
    Ok, good points, however, I agreed and disagreed with some of it. Fist of all, I mentioned London as an Example for getting the game 3 times, you shouldn't trash London at all. Second, While I agreed with your observation it's about politics and money and the games should rotate around but think about it. The Games were invented by the Greeks/Europeans/Caucasians. It eventually spreads over to N. America and Asia. Europe still hold the most record cities hosts. I'd like to see Africa, New Zealand or South East Asia to host the games but the reality is, they simply do not have money or the infrastructure to do it. Look at the Montreal Canada 1976 games, They lost like $250 million. Then Los Angeles took the lead in 1984 and gained like $300 million in the economy. Beside, the global prestige has to do with it. Say, if they stage the game in say Ethiopia, Namibia, Croatia or Thailand? Would there be a lot of interested-athletes or people to go? But anyway, I'm not trashing on Boston, I just think Boston or San Francisco will be a Weak bid versus the other International cities like Istanbul, Durban, Rome...etc. Then the US will lose for the 3rd time, big waste. The USOC should pick me to make a PITCH for the IOC for the US Win. icon_lol.gif

    ((**by the way, we're not arguing, just some healthy facts/discussion). icon_lol.gif


    roadbikeRob said
    said

    During the 2012 Olympics, the weather was overcast and rather cool and it was mid summer. London doesn't get that hot in the summer months. The British Isles are usually misty and cool. Just because a city is huge and had previous experience doesn't mean that it should get to host the summer games again. The summer Olympics are moved around to give other cities and countries the opportunity to host a major, international event. The same for the winter games. To hell with the so called international appeal, lets give other cities and countries the opportunity to host an Olympics. The cities that have hosted Olympics two or three times should be made ineligible to submit a bid. The biggest, wealthiest cities should not be allowed to hog every major opportunity that comes along. It is time to give someone else an opportunity to host an Olympics. Originally the idea of moving the Olympics around was to give everyone an opportunity to host the games. It was not meant just to be dominated by the wealthiest, and most popular cities on the globe. The IOC has become way too political and just like our government, big money has contaminated the bidding process. I guess it is true that money is the root of all evil.[/quote]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 8:31 PM GMT
    metta8 saidLA is on the list, so it is not ineligible. The only ineligible cities are the ones that are not on the list.


    Yeah I saw that They Cut San Diego and Dallas in the article. icon_neutral.gif LA is a perfect host bc:

    1/ Ideal summer weather
    2/ Global appeal
    3/ Has the Infrastructure, experiences
    4/ Strong economy/support behind it
    5/ The city of angels/dream - LA 2024 slogan should be **Capture your Dream**.

    6a00d8341c630a53ef0177442ffab6970d-pi
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2014 10:37 PM GMT
    LAXWill10 said

    Lol I remembered that. Chicago lost because of a weak bid. The games go to S America for the 1st time in 2016. Yay Brasil.



    Good. Let them have it and pay for it. US can use its money for ... God knows what.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 15, 2014 12:24 AM GMT
    4Will said
    LAXWill10 said

    Lol I remembered that. Chicago lost because of a weak bid. The games go to S America for the 1st time in 2016. Yay Brasil.



    Good. Let them have it and pay for it. US can use its money for ... God knows what.


    More bail out to big corporate banks or the war in Iraq/Afghanistan? icon_lol.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • WhoDey

    Posts: 561

    Jun 15, 2014 12:04 PM GMT
    I'm almost 100% sure the US will get the 2024 or 2028 Olympics. Chicago lost in 2016, and they did not bid for 2020 because of dispute between the USOC and the IOC. Now that has been resolved. Also the fact that NBC just extended their contract for huge money makes me think that they got some kind of assurance that it will come to the US.
  • WhoDey

    Posts: 561

    Jun 15, 2014 12:07 PM GMT
    metta8 saidLA already has the facilities. It would not cost that much to do there. icon_smile.gif

    The last time they did it here, a lot of people left LA. Our traffic was actually better during the Olympics than normal LA traffic.


    I don't think the IOC wants a cost feasible Olympics. They want a blow-out-the-budget Olympics with great new facilities. That is why places like Madrid lost the bid.
  • WhoDey

    Posts: 561

    Jun 15, 2014 12:11 PM GMT
    You know that not all the events happen within the city limits, right? When LA host the games in 1984, they had events as far as Harvard Stadium, and Annapolis, Maryland.

    LAXWill10 saidI agreed with some of the things you mentioned about Boston. I visited Boston twice back in 2010 for about 4 weeks, my ex family is from there. However, London is on a different class than Boston, no comparison. I think of Cambridge, Harvard University, seafood and scenic water front in the city of Boston, not Summer Games. The USOC should select the strongest candidate with Experiences for the win. (LA fits the bill). If they're just going for look or a pretty city alone, Select Boston or SF. Right now, some say that San Francisco is a front-runner. Their stage games might spill over to Berkeley-Oakland area. Lol that's ridiculous because it's not SF.

    roadbikeRob said
    LAXWill10 said
    roadbikeRob said
    metta8 said
    Granted the city of Boston itself is only 45 square miles in physical area. But it is still a big major city with a metropolitan region of over 5 million people. It is clearly large enough to host a summer Olympics and its climate is mild during the summer though the humidity can be a bit oppressive at times. So enough of these negative perceptions about New England weather. If London can successfully host a summer games than so can Boston. As for city size, don't let the city's relatively small land area fool you, Boston is a big place with a lot to offer and you don't need a car to enjoy it. It has some of the best and most far reaching public transportation in the US. Boston is the best US candidate for the 2024 summer games hands down.