Despite a last-ditch attempt to win over the U.S. Olympic Committee with the promise of a shiny new legacy stadium to be built in Oakland, San Francisco has lost its bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics and Boston has been selected as the U.S. candidate to host the games.

No word on what role, if any, the “SF No 2024 Olympics” campaign played in the USOC’s decision, but the group definitely made some noise.

The International Olympic Committee will announce the host city for the 2024 Summer Games in 2017.  Boston will be competing with Paris, Rome and either Berlin or Hamburg, at the very least.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Hitman

    Chris Daly wins again! I wish he would win a case of Ebola.

    • Posted by david m

      boston has similar groups. doubt it made an impact.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Was about to say the same – there was a very visible and vocal “No Olympics” group in Boston – I’m sure the USOC and IOC see that all the time, and discount it quite a bit.

  2. Posted by Mike

    This is the best news I’ve read in a long time. We really dodged the bullet this time.

  3. Posted by anotherSF


  4. Posted by R

    *No one is surprised*

  5. Posted by sausalito_res

    Not a great loss. San Francisco is already a city where people from around the world want to visit (and buy property).

    Has anybody studied whether hosting the Summer Olympics provides any tangible long-term benefits after the lights go off on the closing ceremonies? So soon after the Americas Cup land give-away, so many here seem to have gotten sucked-in again by the allure of big sports.

    Someone is getting rich off of the Olympics, but it isn’t the host cities.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      Don’t have data on it, but it obviously varies. Barcelona experienced a huge revival since 1992. It’s an amazing place today, very popular destination for tourism and business, a great mix of old and new, with excellent infrastructure for Southern Europe. Athens, on the other hand, squandered its opportunity and is still a dump.

      • Posted by shza

        Is Barcelona’s revival an effect of having hosted the Olympics though? When I was last there, less than 10 years after the Olympics, the main Olympics area was far from the main parts of town, looked run-down (already), and seemed like a ghost-town. But maybe the tram and bus systems were significantly better than they had been pre-1992 and that made a big difference.

        • Posted by Blabber Girl

          The Olympic Stadium is on Montjuic which is certainly not far from the “main parts” and it’s very nice. The Miro Museum is up there, along with some beautiful parks and other stuff. It’s closer to the city center than Sagrada de Familia which I think is the #1 tourist attraction in Barcelona. Prior to the Olympics, it was a already a beautiful city but also a bit provincial and not as comfortable as today. The Games definitely had an impact.

          • Posted by curmudgeon

            Yes, I was in Barcelona both before the Olympics and after, and it was night and day. The lower Ramblas was considered dangerous at night, the whole waterfront neorth of Barceloneta was underdeveloped. Now the whole place is thriving. Always a beautiful city, but the investments (and PR) of the Olympics really paid off. Clearly they did a lot of smart things.

  6. Posted by anon

    We lost because we weren’t smart enough to repeal rent control like Mass. Sad because it would have been an impetus to the Bay Area to band together to do bigger things — not that I need an impetus but enough politicians do.

    I am in the mood for a lobster and some clam chowder. Maybe a walk in the pahk.

    • Posted by BobN

      If the goal is to do bigger things, perhaps we should pre-bid on the 2096 Olympics. We might just make that deadline.

    • Posted by soccermom

      It is a special characteristic of our on-line chats, when we can take an international sports event location decision and make it about rent control.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        I think we would have won if they’d proposed a taller stadium. And with no parking, because obviously by 2024 everyone will be riding public transit.

    • Posted by cfb

      The fact that you think rent control has anything to do do with the Olympic Committee and their choice of city is hilarious and dumb. Let me guess, rent control is also the cause of global warming, the flu, road rage, alcoholism, earthquakes, and solar storms, among other things.

      • Posted by shza

        I’m pretty sure that was a joke, based on the contentiousness and popularity of the simultaneous threads on the Olympics and rent control.

      • Posted by anon

        cfb: I also think Ebola is the cause of your impaired pre-frontal cortex.

        • Posted by cfb

          No that would be the result of reading the comments on socketsite…truly a great way to lose brain cells.

  7. Posted by WinnersCurse

    Thank you Boston, and good luck. Hmm, siting the “temporary” stadium just across the tracks from Whitey’s old stomping grounds. Hmmmm. Southie ain’t gonna be happy with the traffic and security limitations.

  8. Posted by Semper Externus, Semper Fidelis, Frater Infinitas

    I am Charlie and Boston Strong.

  9. Posted by moto mayhem

    Boston has a much more effective city government and a lot less loonies in their city. plus public transport is 10,000x better. They’re more known for getting sh*t done. SF is known for “not getting sh*t done. we have great private business here and really smart people in private business, but possibly the worst city govt ever. frankly I wish we could give the whole process of city planning to google and get the pinheads out of it

    • Posted by Orland

      You apparently have never been to Boston. There is nothing remotely comparable to BART and they’re still running the Boeing-Vertol cars discarded by SF a generation ago as its “subway.” Really, I can’t imagine how they selected Boston unless their proposal included building new venues for virtually every event as the area currently has nothing. Love Boston for a long weekend, but otherwise, completely perplexing decision.

      • Posted by SFRealist

        “There’s is nothing remotely comparable to BART”

        True. The T is an actual subway system. It has many lines and goes all over the place and extends out to the suburbs. Not to defend Boston’s city government, but the city’s public transit is vastly, vastly superior to ours.

        • Posted by Orland

          Snark for Snark, but you can’t be serious. Boston has nothing above LRV-grade and the Green Line runs cars that were actually previously used on the N-Judah sold off to them a couple decades ago.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Um, it’s called commuter rail in Boston, and it runs to a lot more places than BART. The communter rail runs into North Station and South Station, fully integrated with the MBTA; there’s also Amtrak service into South Station *and* the intercity bus terminal was relocted to South Station. Indeed, our “Transbay Terminal”, even in it’s fully built out configuration (i.e. sometime in 2050s) won’t even begin to compare to South Station in Boston.

          • Posted by anon1

            Agree with Sierrajeff. Boston has a system I used frequently because it was indeed “fully integrated”. I am not sure why San Franciscan’s think our transit is so spectacular. The reality is we are a one subway tunnel town (under Market Street). What people seem to be missing about Transbay is that it is forecast only to be a bus terminal for DECADES. Bart will never run inside Transbay. MUNI subway trains will never run inside Transbay. Even Los Angeles has a rail transit hub that will connect over 4 subway lines (2016), Metro Link, and Amtrack as well as HSR.

          • Posted by Mark

            The Green Line and MUNI rail are similar in design and issues. Neither is really fantastic. The Orange and Red lines are traditional subways and Boston has great commuter rail…much more robust than what we have in SF and the Bay Area and much better integrated regardless of the fact that there are two major rail hubs in the city. Just sayin’.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            Orland, have you ever been to Boston? Public transit there is seriously at least 10X more effective than SF.

          • Posted by curmudgeon

            Orange, Red, and Blue lines are all heavy rail subway lines. Only the Green line is LRV similar to our Muni, with the same problem of two car “trains” and low capacity. As others note, everything is much more integrated in Boston. Orland doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        i lived in Boston for 3 years. THe mass transit is FAR superior to SF as its possible to get almost everywhere on subway. the cars may be old but there are lots of tracks and its much easier to live car free.

        BART is a train built for suburbanites to get into and out of SF. It doesnt actually serve the city of SF unless you live in the Mission or Bernal Heights.

        • Posted by Orland

          In response to several, I’ve been to Boston several times, but have always stayed pretty much in the city center. I’m primarily familiar with the Green Line which does appear to carry the bulk of intracity traffic and, as I noted and confirmed by others, is MUNI Metro-like 20 years removed. I’ll accept the more informed word of others that my limited experience is not completely representative of Boston ‘ s overall metro transit system. But, 10X or “far, far superior” is, I think, a bit of hyperbole in view of how high it ranks in vehicular congestion.

          • Posted by Jimmy The House Flipper

            The Green line is the worst of the T lines. It has a lot of street level crossings and as a result is unbearably slow. The Red line is more typical of the T.

            — 8-year Boston resident.

    • Posted by Not Bashing

      Less loonies? Must be because they abolished rent control…

  10. Posted by Michael

    I was really hoping for LA to get it because it would accelerate their current public transit build out.

    • Posted by david m

      this is true. it’s a real shame on that front.

    • Posted by curmudgeon


  11. Posted by Bob

    SF has failed for so long and so often that the only way it feels good now, is to continue to utterly fail.
    “the city that knows how” to do absolutely nothing

  12. Posted by Hitman

    Them fools at VanishingSF and EvictionFree are loving this. You would think they won a free bottle of Dr. Bronners

    • Posted by Ham

      Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh rooting for Chicago’s failure to lose the Olympic bid a few years ago because Obama is from Chicago.

  13. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    2024 Games will be in Europe anyway. I’m rooting for Berlin. It’s the Americas’ turn again in 2028.

  14. Posted by seriously

    i’m just going to be blunt- i think everyone’s attitude really sucks. yes, it might be expensive and difficult, but the immediate vehement negative reaction i heard from so many people is really disappointing. SF is not a world city apparently. If Boston and ATL can pull this off, then surely SF can if people would just stop being so whiny and negative. what happened to big new ideas and “the city that knows how?”.

    • Posted by ayn rand is stucco in overdrive

      Bless you & I agree. And you didn’t sprinkle your comment with “build it high and dense” to-rise-rhetoric either. Let’s get married?

      • Posted by anon

        I read Ayn Rand in college and loved it. It helped shape who I am today. Running any new and possibly risky idea to folks here is like telling a 70 yr. old to change their ways — ain’t gonna happen. I don’t like stucco unless the industry can make stucco more rubberized and maleable for durability. Stucco cracks so easily and even hairline ones can lead to water intrusion.

  15. Posted by Jimmy The House Flipper

    Berlin is the obvious choice.

    SF never had a chance against a huge city like that anyway.

    • Posted by SFNative

      Huge City? What about Atlanta? Smaller than SF but held the Olympics. Size has no bearing.

      • Posted by Not Bashing

        Less well known? Sure. But Atlanta is not smaller than SF.

        • Posted by Blabber Girl

          Don’t get hung up on the 7×7. The Bay Area is the 4th largest metro area in the nation and much larger than Atlanta Metro.

          • Posted by Jake

            factually, the bay area CSA is the 5th largest in the USA, while Boston CSA is the 6th. Wash-Balt is 4th, per the US Census (namelink). But who needs facts when they have so much blabber.

          • Posted by Not Bashing

            Actually, not correct. In terms of metro area Atlanta is larger. See link:

          • Posted by Not Bashing

            To be clear, the CSA comment is true, the metro comment is not. Depends on how you measure it, it seems…

          • Posted by Jake

            The SF MSA is much smaller than the Bay Area. It doesn’t even include Santa Clara County which is in another MSA. The SF CSA which includes both SF and SC MSAs is a better measure of the Bay Area.
            FWIW, the Bay Area is fairly unusual for a metro area to have two MSA. MSA are defined for workflow around a job core. The Bay Area has two ‘job cores’: downtown SF and about a ten mile area centered around Sunnyvale.

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          atlanta is much bigger than SF. not even close.

          • Posted by Jake

            The Bay Area is much bigger (in population) than the Atlanta metro area, not even close.
            The city of San Francisco is much bigger (in population) than the city of Atlanta, not even close.
            The city of San Francisco has had a larger population than the city of Atlanta since 1849.
            The current population of the city of Atlanta is less than the population of San Francisco in 1920.
            The city of Atlanta has fewer people than Fresno and less than Oakland plus Berkeley.
            Atlanta does have higher average temperature than San Francisco, but SF seems to have plenty of hot air.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            for the world class city argument, atlanta is in the same category, as an alpha-, same as San Francisco. meaning it is viewed on par with SF as a world class city.

            the atlanta MSA is about 1Million more people than SF MSA. atlanta is 9th followed by Boston, then SF at 11th

            9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,522,942 5,286,728 +4.47% Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs, GA Combined Statistical Area

            10 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,684,299 4,552,402 +2.90% Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT Combined Statistical Area

            11 San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,516,276

          • Posted by Jake

            I’ve already posted why you should use the SF CSA and not the SF MSA when trying to understand the Bay Area.
            Unless you somehow think an Olympics in the Bay Area would not include facilities in Santa Clara County like the new 9ers stadium, then there is no reason to keep posting the SF MSA stats, which do not include SC county.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            i wasnt talking about the olympics, though i know this is the thread. the MSAs are the best population comparisons of SF metro vs. Atlanta metro. San Jose is a whole other city and market 1 hr away from SF.

          • Posted by Jake

            The Atlanta MSA is 8,376 sq miles. It has 28 counties.
            The SF MSA is 2,474 sq miles.
            The SF CSA is 10,666 sq miles, of which San Benito County (Hollister) is 1,390 sq miles. It has 12 counties.
            The SF Giants disagree with you that SJ is another market. So do I.

          • Posted by frog

            Moto, you are missing the point which is that those stats are wrong. Anyone who lives out here considers Oakland/Berkeley, SF, and San Jose and maybe even Marin to be one big area, except for the bean counters. You’re undercounting the actual metro area of the Bay Area due to some weird map making quirk.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            ive lived here for 20 yrs. ive never considered san jose to be part of SF bay area. it may be part of bigger bay area. in 20 yrs, ive been to san jose exactly once, and same is true for most san franciscans. thats not the same for san mateo, and oakland

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            anyway, its all moot. sf didnt get selected and atlanta did. the bay area sufferes from very bad local politics and no cooperation between the regions. there is no public transit to speak of.

          • Posted by Jake

            SJ isn’t just part of the Bay Area, it is part of the bay itself, those salt marshes and ponds you see on approach to SFO from the south. As a friend of mine told me when I first moved here over 20 years ago, “San Jose is the armpit of the Bay Area.” Don’t know if they require an odor disclosure like we may soon in parts of SF.

    • Posted by WinnersCurse

      I’ve gotta agree with Jimmy here. Berlin has so much undeveloped land and they’ve won the euro-war. They might just choose to host the olympics to punctuate the win. Plus the parties will be awesome.

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        The Berghain will be rockin.

  16. Posted by Jake

    The mid-July through August schedule for the summer Olympics are a good fit for Boston’s weather and the area is somewhat depopulated then due to the concentration of universities. Their bid mentions up to 30k dorm rooms are available in Boston-Cambridge then. Their bid looks like it is as much a Massachusetts bid as a Boston metro bid.

    If they do get the games, the feds will invest heavily in security.

    • Posted by Blabber Girl

      Sometimes it’s held in September, which is perfect around here.

  17. Posted by sausalito_res

    Sometimes it’s better to be “the city that know when not to.”
    The Olympics, like the America’s Cup, is a big con on the host cities. Team Ellison got their development deals on the first one and when it was announced there would be no Bayfront land give-aways on the next one, they went elsewhere.

    There is a reason why the Olympics venue changes every time. It gives the IOC the opportunity to repeat the grift and get contenders to compete against each other. Again, take a look at Oslo’s reasons for rejecting the 2022 winter Olympics (namelink). Among the IOC’s over-the-top bid specs were the following:

    –“Separate lanes should be created on all roads where IOC members will travel, which are not to be used by regular people or public transportation.”
    –“They demand to meet the king prior to the opening ceremony. Afterwards, there shall be a cocktail reception. Drinks shall be paid for by the Royal Palace or the local organizing committee.”
    –“IOC members shall be greeted with a smile when arriving at their hotel.”

    No word on brown M&Ms. Eff those guys.

  18. Posted by JB

    Not Bashing, au contraire: City population: Atlanta = 447,000, SF = 837,000. Metro population: Atlanta = 5.5 M, Bay Area = 8.5 M.

    • Posted by Blabber Girl

      Take your facts somewhere else. Not wanted here.

    • Posted by Jimmy The House Flipper

      Atlanta 447,000
      SF 837,000
      Berlin 3,292,365

      Berlin has the U-Bahn, S-Bahn, ICE, three airports, and is within a 2-hour flight from almost all of Europe — over a billion people. They have immense tracts of undeveloped land in the immediate vicinity, already accessibly by S-Bahn, near-infinite financial resources as Germany dominates Europe and runs a persistent budget surplus, and they know how to build things quickly and efficiently. The city is accustomed to constant flux and change and embraces new construction. The restaurants are great. The bars are great. The parties will be epic. They did a fine job hosting a previous Olympic games in 1936 which are still talked about today!

      Its obvious.

      • Posted by REpornaddict

        “Boo boo now we can’t have parties like in spain where they go all night
        Shut down in north america
        Or like berlin where they go another night, alright, un huh un huh”

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        Although Berlin does have an Airport that’s 8 years behind the announced opening date, and up to $8 billion in total costs, so the Germans are by no means perfect. Hopefully the airport will be open in time….

    • Posted by Not Bashing

      See link above, Atlanta metro is bigger. San Francisco CSA is bigger.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 5,522,942 5,286,728 +4.47% Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs, GA Combined Statistical Area
        10 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,684,299 4,552,402 +2.90% Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT Combined Statistical Area
        11 San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 4,516,276

  19. Posted by Bay Guy

    Boo Hoo!… (happy tears)

  20. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    I’m a huge Olympics fan but I can’t say this breaks my heart. It’s not like the Olympics confers some cache or stamp-of-status — Atlanta and Athens and Montreal are hardly considered world class cities that somehow gained some huge benefit from hosting the Olympics. SF certainly could reasonably host the games, but it would have been hugely expensive to the taxpayers. And the notion that SF is lesser by not hosting the games is just silly. NYC has never hosted them. Or Chicago. Or Hong Kong. Or Singapore. The list goes on and on. SF is already a gem and most of the world is well aware of it. SF does not need a “coming out” Olympics to sell the place.

    Personally, I’d rather take a vacation and see the games. Was in Barcelona and London. Very fun, but my impression was that the locals in both places were not too happy about the expense and the mess.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      montreal is not a world class city? seriously? it is phenomonal, more multicultrued and erudite than SF

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        Montreal is definitely not a world class city. It is an interesting and unique provincial city. Eye of the beholder, but “world class” is NYC, London, Berlin, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, etc. Montreal isn’t economically or culturally important in the world sense.

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          San Francisco is an alpha- and Montreal is a beta + on the world class cities rankings. Not a big difference

      • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

        I Love Montreal! I love a lot of really pretty cities I’ve visited (Copenhagen, Kyoto, Florence, etc. etc.) But that doesn’t mean they are in the league of NY or Tokyo or London or Chicago.

        Point is that the Olympics does not create world class status in a host city. Nor is any city “lesser” for not hosting the Olympics. SF loses nothing by this development, nor would it (imho) have gained a whole lot had the outcome been different.

        • Posted by Orland

          I am tempted to add that the World is losing out on what a fantastic occasion would be an Olympics hosted in the SFBA.

  21. Posted by MoneyMan

    I see people shorting the Bay area population all the time. Dallas/Ft. Worth likes to tout that’s it larger than the SF MSA, but in reality it’s not. You have to include the San Jose and the Silicon Valley MSA with the SF-OAK-Haywod MSA in order to get a true measure of the population. And this doesn’t even include parts of the North Bay areas.

    After all, would you refer to the LA area’s population as just including the LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA, all add in the Riverside-San Bernadino MSA, as well. Of course you would.

  22. Posted by Conifer

    #1 “for the world class city argument, atlanta is in the same category, as an alpha-, same as San Francisco. meaning it is viewed on par with SF as a world class city.”

    In some technical way this may be correct, but among the educated, rich, cultured and powerful of the world, no one considers Atlanta even close to San Francisco.

    #2 “They did a fine job hosting a previous Olympic games in 1936 which are still talked about today!”

    You may have forgotten there were some problems with the 1936 Berlin games that had nothing to do with organization. The Germans of today would not want to repeat any of those mistakes, nor would they repeat the elections that eventually allowed them to happen in the following years.

    • Posted by REpornaddict

      1936 appeared to be an incredible Olympics. It helped that it was beautifully captured in the Olympia movie, which actually introduced many of the techniques of filming sport still common.

      I’d say that growing up, I was most aware of the 1936 and Mexico City 68 of the ones that happened before I was born.

      Sadly the ones in my youth were ruined by the mixing of politics and sport, such as the US boycott of Moscow which lead to an inevitable tit for tat 4 years later, basically spoiling both of those as a sporting spectacle. 76 had boycotts too, and 88 Seoul had Ben Johnson scandals etc.

      I’d say only since Beijing 2008 were the Olympics great again – with the mega performances of Bolt and Phelps that year.

      • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

        It was awesome when the Soviets boycotted the LA Olympics. McDonalds was running a promotion where you could get a voucher with the name of an event on it. If the USA won a medal in that event you could redeem the voucher for free food. With the Soviets out of the picture the USA won twice as many medals as normal. I ate for free for almost a month.

        Yup, that’s how I rank the Olympics. By how much free fast food it generates.

        • Posted by Anon

          that’s awesome. did you get a big mac

  23. Posted by Anon

    and the fake fireworks were rad

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles