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.
NY, SF and Chicago keep making the US IOC finals but they get booted out real quick when the decision comes down to the IOC.
San Francisco has never been the US bid city. The Bay Area has shot itself 2 times in the foot because of internal fighting between locals who cant agree on anything. SF never made it to the global competition.
Which is a shame because SF is the only city that the USOC has actually invited to put together a bid, which was back for the 1996 games, that bid never took off and Atlanta was then selected to choose the US because they were more organized.
For the 2012, it was New York vs San Francisco but the Bay Area's bid was run by a South Bay-based group that didnt even want to call their bid San Francisco 2012 but because of bid rules they begrudgingly used SF as the city, however most of the venues were in the suburban Silicon Valley, which is preposterous because most people in the world associate SF with the city itself. So NY won because they had a far more ambitious and exciting plan.
Bottom line, trying to develop anything big or even trying to renovate existing structures along the Bay shore takes years and years of patience due to terrible red tape and intense NIMBYism by environmentalists and political activists.
Otherwise, SF is a very popular city on the world stage and would have gotten tons of votes specifically because it is seen as a rather atypically American, American city, that is tolerant and accepting of people of all stripes. SF has that sort of cache around the world, and we could have capitalized on that vs a London or a Paris and might even have won 2012.
The games have become so ruinously expensive that it would almost have to be one of the big three. Smaller cities would have a difficult time financing it all.
The games have become so ruinously expensive that it would almost have to be one of the big three. Smaller cities would have a difficult time financing it all.
I think most cities would have trouble financing the games. You would need big corporate support which is what Atlanta had. In the end, that hurt the view people had on the games.
I'd personally love for either Houston or New Orleans to be the next American town to host, but August in the Gulf Coast is nothing pretty. The heat and humidity would surely make things difficult.
San Francisco has never been the US bid city. The Bay Area has shot itself 2 times in the foot because of internal fighting between locals who cant agree on anything. SF never made it to the global competition.
Which is a shame because SF is the only city that the USOC has actually invited to put together a bid, which was back for the 1996 games, that bid never took off and Atlanta was then selected to choose the US because they were more organized.
For the 2012, it was New York vs San Francisco but the Bay Area's bid was run by a South Bay-based group that didnt even want to call their bid San Francisco 2012 but because of bid rules they begrudgingly used SF as the city, however most of the venues were in the suburban Silicon Valley, which is preposterous because most people in the world associate SF with the city itself. So NY won because they had a far more ambitious and exciting plan.
Bottom line, trying to develop anything big or even trying to renovate existing structures along the Bay shore takes years and years of patience due to terrible red tape and intense NIMBYism by environmentalists and political activists.
Otherwise, SF is a very popular city on the world stage and would have gotten tons of votes specifically because it is seen as a rather atypically American, American city, that is tolerant and accepting of people of all stripes. SF has that sort of cache around the world, and we could have capitalized on that vs a London or a Paris and might even have won 2012.
Who knows.
Isn't the biggest sticking point still for a San Francisco Olympics the fact that there's no real will to finance a new large enough stadium right in San Francisco or just outside of it? Same reason the 49ers most likely will leave to Santa Clara.
It's the same reason that New York has had problems going for the Olympics--they didn't want to finance the Westside Stadium and thus didn't have a big enough stadium that would've been the centerpiece of their Olympic bid.
I said they make the USOC finals. For the 2012 bid Houston wasn't chosen for the finals. Houston, DC NY and SF were the four remaining cities for the 2012 bid but the USOC chose NY and SF for the Final two, then chose NY.
anyway my point of the faulty thinking by the USOC is best summed up in this quote:
Quote:
"There remains an issue of whether Houston is perceived in the U.S. as a destination city," DeMontrond said. "My belief is that the Olympic community has to realize that people don't go to the Olympics for much other than to go to the Olympics.
"Cities with 'Disney appeal' have issues. New York is classic of that. Chicago was a better choice in that regard. It's much easier to get around Chicago in terms of what it would have been like getting to venues in New York and dealing with the extra infusion of people. And in San Francisco's bid, most of the venues were not in San Francisco.
"It was clear to the USOC that our bid in 2012 was the best technical bid, but it became more about place. They call it 'international appeal.' I call it 'Disneyland.'
NYC could host the olympics. The only main problems there are now is the aquatic center and olympic village. Currently in the NYC metropolitan area there are 5 arenas, 1 American football stadium, 1 soccer stadium, and 2 baseball stadiums. And I'm not including many smaller stadiums used for college athletics.
San Francisco has never been the US bid city. The Bay Area has shot itself 2 times in the foot because of internal fighting between locals who cant agree on anything. SF never made it to the global competition.
Which is a shame because SF is the only city that the USOC has actually invited to put together a bid, which was back for the 1996 games, that bid never took off and Atlanta was then selected to choose the US because they were more organized.
For the 2012, it was New York vs San Francisco but the Bay Area's bid was run by a South Bay-based group that didnt even want to call their bid San Francisco 2012 but because of bid rules they begrudgingly used SF as the city, however most of the venues were in the suburban Silicon Valley, which is preposterous because most people in the world associate SF with the city itself. So NY won because they had a far more ambitious and exciting plan.
Bottom line, trying to develop anything big or even trying to renovate existing structures along the Bay shore takes years and years of patience due to terrible red tape and intense NIMBYism by environmentalists and political activists.
Otherwise, SF is a very popular city on the world stage and would have gotten tons of votes specifically because it is seen as a rather atypically American, American city, that is tolerant and accepting of people of all stripes. SF has that sort of cache around the world, and we could have capitalized on that vs a London or a Paris and might even have won 2012.
Who knows.
I don't think SF is the only city to be invited. I k.ow Houston was for the 2016 games, since the 2012 bid was so centralized. I believe Philly was also.
NYC could host the olympics. The only main problems there are now is the aquatic center and olympic village. Currently in the NYC metropolitan area there are 5 arenas, 1 American football stadium, 1 soccer stadium, and 2 baseball stadiums. And I'm not including many smaller stadiums used for college athletics.
Which stadium would be used for athletics? Met Life would not be able to handle a track without serious modifications. Modifications the Giants and Jets would never agree to and would severely cut the capacity of the stadium.
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.
