S.F. is "officially bidding" on the '24 Games, and the pitch from local organizers “will focus on the Bay Area’s distinctions, ingenuity and character,” according to a front-page piece by John Coté of the S.F. CHRONICLE. MLB Giants President & CEO Larry Baer is “leading the bid committee,” along with venture capitalist Steve Strandberg and Gold Medal-winning swimmer Anne Warner Cribbs. Baer “acknowledges that their effort is still in ‘the first inning,’ even after a months-long exploratory process” that included a July meeting with the USOC. Coté noted attempts to host the ’08, ’12 and ’16 Games in the Bay Area “fell short.” This time around, S.F. is competing against L.A., Boston and DC for the backing of the USOC, “which is expected to decide early next year” whether to pursue the Games and which city to put forward. The S.F. concept would rely "heavily on existing venues and temporary structures,” similar to the ’12 London Games. S.F. “would be the official host city, but putting on the Games would be a regional undertaking.” Organizers are “looking to use venues” like the expanded Moscone Center convention complex, Levi’s Stadium, Avaya Stadium, Stanford Stadium and Cal Memorial Stadium. Organizers added that Oakland’s Coliseum City proposal, including a new Raiders stadium, “could also play a prominent role” if built. Organizers also “want to build as the centerpiece a temporary stadium on part of a 540-acre parcel” known as the Baylands. It “would hold the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, as well as track and field.” If awarded the Games, the stadium would be “dismantled afterward and replaced with a park.” Funding from international and local sponsors, as well as ticket sales, “would cover operating costs that Baer projected” at about $4.5B (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/20).
BOLD SITES NEEDED: In S.F., C.W. Nevius in a front-page piece wrote the “first question everyone asks as soon as talk of hosting the Games in the Bay Area comes up" regards the location of the Olympic stadium. Levi’s Stadium is “too small for a 400-meter track, and other options ... don’t have enough seating.” So the “default option is available open space.” But the “starting point and symbol of the Games is the Olympic Stadium.” As far as putting that venue in the city of Brisbane, south of S.F., “no knock on the town, but meh.” There is a “perfect spot for an Olympic stadium that would not only be warm and scenic, but would accomplish the kind of civic regeneration the organizers are promoting.” Nevius: “Picture a stadium complex deal with the Raiders, the A’s and developers who could build new stadiums and an Olympic Village that could transition into affordable housing. You’d have warm weather, bay views and a plan the U.S. Olympic Committee could get behind” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/20). In San Jose, Elliott Almond noted that "according to the plan, an athletes' village would be built at Hunter's Point" in S.F., "then used for affordable housing." S.F. bid spokesperson Nathan Ballard said that Levi's Stadium "would be ideal for soccer and rugby." However, "another question is a lack of a suitable aquatics center for swimming, diving, synchronized swimming and water polo." Ballard in an e-mail wrote, "Stanford and Cal have terrific training facilities, but don't have quite enough seats to accommodate the crowds that swimming draws. Temporary pools are on option; they could even be moved to underserved neighborhoods after the Games." Almond noted the bidders are "considering combat sports for San Jose, and are undecided about gymnastics," which was planned for SAP Center in previous bids (MERCURYNEWS.com, 11/20).
NOT A BAD START: A S.F. CHRONICLE editorial stated there are “points of emphasis to like” about the organizing committee’s approach. The Games “would make use of the rich array of existing professional and collegiate athletic venues in the region.” Events “would be located ‘in the path of needed transportation,’” thus “giving extended life to any upgrades.” The “goal would be to include a wide swath of the Bay Area in the Games.” The region’s “diversity, appeal as an international destination and leadership in technological innovation would make it a perfect fit for an Olympic Games -- as long as it’s done our way, with sensibility and sustainability.” The “framework of this fledgling bid is very encouraging” (S.F. CHRONICLE, 11/20).
TOO MUCH INTER-CITY ANIMOSITY? In San Jose, Mark Purdy wrote the "principal problem" is that this "has to be a regional effort." S.F. is "too small a city to handle an Olympics by itself." It is "not even the largest city in the Bay Area," so "all the surrounding counties and cities must be involved." But assuming Baer "remains at the forefront" of the bid, it would be the same man "who is keeping the A's from moving to San Jose, which has caused the city to sue" MLB. Purdy: "How do you think San Jose leaders will respond when Baer asks the city to host events at SAP Center or the Earthquakes' new stadium or the San Jose Convention Center?" Baer "may be sincere in his Olympic efforts but frankly, his name is toxic inside San Jose City Hall." And how will Oakland respond when S.F., which has "stolen away" the Warriors from the East Bay, "wants cooperation?" Generally, S.F. people "do not handle regional efforts well" (MERCURYNEWS.com, 11/20).
BEANTOWN OR BUST? In Boston, Eric Wilbur noted the USOC was in Boston on Tuesday for its final meetings with local execs and officials before it "makes its final decision" on a U.S. rep for the '24 Games. There were "fewer than 100 people that attended the lunch at MIT." That is "fewer than 100 people representing a monumental undertaking that will affect millions and cost 10 times that amount." Boston is "this close to being a serious contender to host the Olympic Games a decade from now, a promise that the majority of the Hub’s citizens seem to be magnificently against, yet with no say whatsoever." Should Boston get the USOC's nod, that would mean "powerful, international businesses will be letting the IOC know in every way they can that Boston is the nominee it would prefer over the other handful of cities figured to submit bids around the world." Rightsholder NBC will "drool over the prospects of an East Coast time zone Olympic Games, while corporations like Nike and McDonald’s will surely relay the fact to the IOC that it will have been 28 years since a Summer Games visited the U.S. and their billion dollar marketing investments in an American Games just might go a little further." Boston 2024 in a statement said, "If Boston is fortunate enough to be selected, there will be a full community review of the plans before any final decisions are made" (BOSTON.com, 11/19).
HOUSE OF CARDS: In DC, Douglas Fruehling wrote of the Washington 2024 organizing committee, "Enough with the secrecy. Enough with the evasion. Enough with the vagaries." Residents "have yet to get a full briefing on what Washington 2024 ... plans for Washington." Fruehling wrote he supports bringing the Games to DC, but Washington 2024 Chair & CEO Russ Ramsey and the rest of the group "simply must be more forthcoming with even the most basic details." If their message "isn't strong enough to pass public muster, we should give up all hopes of winning and hosting a successful Olympics right now." The bottom line for the bid group is that "unless you begin to change your ways, you are never going to gain the support and trust of the community," but rather you are "just going to lose it" (BIZJOURNALS.com, 11/19).
