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.
Chicago seems like the best choice. Summer in Chicago is great, it is one of the top three cities in the US, it already has a lot of venues, it has great infrastructure.
LA has hosted twice already, I don't see it getting a third anytime soon, especially with the last one being in 1984.
There hasn't been much discussion of DC, but I could see the DC metro doing a good job. You have great transit, venues from all the pro sports plus nearby U of Maryland. And talk about an iconic American city. Plus the growth and energy in DC has been crazy the last 15 years or so.
So because Los Angeles held the Olympics in 1932 and 1984 they should get it again? It has been almost thirty years since they have last held it, that's quite some time and by the time they would be able to again it will not be the same city at all.
It has nothing to do with “deserve” and everything to do with an historically proven record of actually winning bids. Of course it will be a different city in 2024, just as it was a completely different place in ’84 than in ’32. One of those changes in 2024 will be dramatically improved rail transit to the venues than it was available in 1984, although my personal experience with the Games here and with subsequent notable traffic “events” has convinced me ultimate success would not turn on the existence of a comprehensive rail transit network.
International appeal contributes to that proven track record. Conversely, exactly how well-received was Chicago’s most recent bid?
-good weather for olympic games
-Philadelphia is home to the most respected bike race in America
-home to the largest rowing championship in America
-already has a bunch of arenas and stadiums, most of which are concentrated in one area
-there is room in the area around the stadiums for the construction of temporary venues, more parking, housing, hotels, etc.
-hotels and housings built around the sports complex would be useful after the games, more hotel rooms for the sports complex are needed and housing built for the olympic village in the navy yard would have demand after the games
-philadelphia has a great transit system and is rated among america's best and any improvements made for the games could serve the city well for years to come and would continue to be used
To put it simply Philadelphia is a very historic city with a rich sporting history from the palestra to the penn relays to cycling championships etc. If the games were held here new venues would of course have to be constructed, but some of these historic venues and courses and locations could be used as well, giving the games great character and a sense of place. Philadelphia is a great city, but one that is criminally under looked both at home and abroad. The games would be a chance for this city to shine and I am confident that shine this city would.
So many people argue that the games are a waste of money and never work out. Because philly has so much already of what is needed I feel this would lower that cost, and the games would be a coming out party for this city as we announce on the world stage that we are a world class city, and a place where everyone in the world should want to visit. How much of a price tag could you put on that?
I truly feel that Philly is the best city to host the summer olympics in america, but almost more importantly I feel that the Olympics could have the most positive impact on philly as compared to the possible positive impact it could have on other cities.
Being America's birthplace alone should make it a first ballot choice. It's like throwing a New York City high school reunion in Houston.
I don't think that has much international appeal. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if internationally Boston is thought of as the birthplace of the US, even if it is incorrect.
Boston, Philadelphia, and Minneapolis had all been mentioned in regards to the 2020 Olympics. The cities of Tulsa and Birmingham also expressed some interest---realistic or not.
The criteria for being an Olympic city are moving increasingly higher. There are probably 10-12 US cities that could meet those criteria: vibrant economy, transportation infrastructure, hotel rooms, performing venues, large corporate underwriters, etc.; but, in all probability, there are likely only five or six American cities that have the necessary international profile.
Rio is expected to see 200,000 visitors for the 2016 games. They have only 30-35 thousand hotel rooms today, with another twenty thousand expected by 2016. So, even a city of that magnitude has its work cut out for it. I think any future (Summer) Olympic sites will be limited to cities of the highest world stature. A city such as Atlanta would almost certainly be out of the picture as an Olympic choice today.
Our course traffic congestion is worse now, but it was already had the worst in the nation at that time. I’ll take another stab at this: it was not that traffic was manageable during the ’84 Olympics; it was substantially, shockingly, LESS than a typical 2 week period in the summer. I remember it well. I went to number of events with my old man (baseball final, soccer final, basketball prelims) and even as a kid I realized the volume of cars on the road was eerily unusual. Regardless of the commie boycott, almost all the events were sold out. Unless they were travelling to the events, most locals stayed off the roads. It’s amazing what a just a 10% drop in autos on the road does to clear local congestion, eg every year the week between Christmas and New Year’s, or this most recent week of July 4. It’s almost unrecognizable.
As far as the more recent examples I cited, the origin of those spectators does not bear on the capacity of the roads to get them to the stadia.
You also mentioned transportation infrastructure. The total miles of rail transit in Los Angeles in 1984 was exactly zero. However, most of the existing or prospective facilities are within a shuttle bus (which would have specially dedicated routes) from rail transit right now. Staples, Farmers’ Field, LA Convention Center, Galen Center, Coliseum, Rose Bowl, Santa Anita, Home Depot Center, Long Beach Arena, LB Convention Center, etc. And that does not include rail transit improvements, like subway extension servicing UCLA and a renovated Pauley Pavilion, or the Crenshaw line running near a renovated Forum (recently purchased by MSG). With respect to access to likely venues, rail transit is infinitely greater now than 28 years ago.
As it concerns Chicago, I think it would be great place to have the Games. However, selling the “experience” to the IOC is another matter. Many of those in charge of awarding the bid will spend considerably more time in the host region than just the 2 weeks during the Games. Many of them will piggy-back local travel before, during and after that stretch. I could be wrong on this point, but I’m willing to wager California carries more international appeal than does the mid-west, especially in the summertime. Despite the preference of those of us stateside who want to see another city get the opportunity, this in another consideration that would make LA a more viable candidate. To wit, I doubt LA gets KO’d like Chicago did last time out. But if Chicago does get the bid, I hope it wins because it would be a great host.
So, yes, there is more traffic. The roads are far more congested than they were in '84 (in which case shuttles were fairly viable solutions because it wasn't so congested so a rail solution wasn't necessary). The Olympics are far larger than they were before with more athletes, larger supporting staff for those athletes, a greater variety of events, and far larger attendance. Where visitors come from matter, because we are talking about an influx of people into Los Angeles rather than (virtually) only Angelenos getting to their weekend entertainment.
Chicago supposedly got KO'd for a number of reasons. One was the desire to spread the games around and the '96 Summer Olympics and '02 Winter Olympics weren't that long ago. Another were visa and passport regulations. I don't see LA doing much better in the latter since that's on a federal level. I don't see LA doing much better with the former, and possibly worse since it's already hosted the Olympics twice with 1984 being not so long ago.
So, yes, there is more traffic. The roads are far more congested than they were in '84 (in which case shuttles were fairly viable solutions because it wasn't so congested so a rail solution wasn't necessary). The Olympics are far larger than they were before with more athletes, larger supporting staff for those athletes, a greater variety of events, and far larger attendance. Where visitors come from matter, because we are talking about an influx of people into Los Angeles rather than (virtually) only Angelenos getting to their weekend entertainment.
Chicago supposedly got KO'd for a number of reasons. One was the desire to spread the games around and the '96 Summer Olympics and '02 Winter Olympics weren't that long ago. Another were visa and passport regulations. I don't see LA doing much better in the latter since that's on a federal level. I don't see LA doing much better with the former, and possibly worse since it's already hosted the Olympics twice with 1984 being not so long ago.
I agree traffic would be an issue, and something organizers would have to plan around. However, I don't think it would be enough to destroy its bid. The other reasons you listed, certainly are enough.
It would be cool to see it in Philadelphia, not a very nationally-publicized city and it sounds the area could definitely handle them.
So, yes, there is more traffic. The roads are far more congested than they were in '84 (in which case shuttles were fairly viable solutions because it wasn't so congested so a rail solution wasn't necessary). The Olympics are far larger than they were before with more athletes, larger supporting staff for those athletes, a greater variety of events, and far larger attendance. Where visitors come from matter, because we are talking about an influx of people into Los Angeles rather than (virtually) only Angelenos getting to their weekend entertainment.
This will be my fourth and final attempt to make this point, but it’s kind of frustrating arguing this with somebody who was not there. The result of the pre-Olympic traffic paranoia was not that traffic was merely manageable. It was that the roads were basically EMPTY. We temporarily went from the worst traffic in the county, not to average, but to virtually zero traffic. Folks who study traffic patterns in this town conclude driving habits can, and are, altered for short periods of time. Again, it was not a matter a marginal decrease of traffic; the temporary decrease was dramatic.
You previously dismissed the “Carmegeddon” example. I had a family engagement that put me on the road that weekend. The freeways were empty 50 miles away in Orange County. That’s how thoroughly people bought into the idea and practice of actually not driving. It happens. With the same run-up and forewarning to schedule vacation during that window and otherwise stay off the freeways, I have no reason to believe this would not repeat itself. And no, I don’t believe the net effect of increased local population by itself would negate this aberrant, yet predictable, pattern and turn the Sig Alert map from green to all red.
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.
