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.
Because the IOC was so desperate they selected the hosts for 2024 and 2028 at the same time. They typically don’t select host cities like that. Had Boston been USA’s option they would have done the same thing because it seemed nobody wanted the games.
Exactly. LA is perfect for the Olympics, because its warm without humidity and is building up their transportation system while adding a lot of stadiums. No other city really can host the Olympics in the US, at this moment. If they had chose Boston, it would have been a hot mess.
The Winter Olympics are 4x smaller, and the IOC are still having trouble selecting a bid... it got delayed a whole year, we don't even know who will be hosting it in 2030 yet.
Exactly. LA is perfect for the Olympics, because its warm without humidity and is building up their transportation system while adding a lot of stadiums. No other city really can host the Olympics in the US, at this moment. If they had chose Boston, it would have been a hot mess.
The Winter Olympics are 4x smaller, and the IOC are still having trouble selecting a bid... it got delayed a whole year, we don't even know who will be hosting it in 2030 yet.
Iirc the bid only required like two or three venues to be built. The rest were repurposed University venues. And the Olympic Villiage was going to be repurposed into UMass Boston Dorms
People felt any public money/resources was a waste of money so canned it. But it wasn’t Rio 2016 built the games from scratch situation
WSU draws 26,000 per game, but its county is only 48,000 (the micropolitan area also includes some of Idaho, including a competing university). From Seattle it's 285 miles and Spokane it's 75, with a lot of the 75 being a two-lane road. Going to Pullman is no casual thing for the fan base.
That’s good, no?
What really separates the PNW from other cities is the obsession with soccer tbh. It’s also a hotbed for basketball talent.
Exactly. LA is perfect for the Olympics, because its warm without humidity and is building up their transportation system while adding a lot of stadiums. No other city really can host the Olympics in the US, at this moment. If they had chose Boston, it would have been a hot mess.
The Winter Olympics are 4x smaller, and the IOC are still having trouble selecting a bid... it got delayed a whole year, we don't even know who will be hosting it in 2030 yet.
Denver had the chance to host one of the biggest "major city" winter olympics in 1976, but they balked it to Innsbruck. Denver's profile would certainly be even higher had they hosted.
It's a red herring to minimize the winter games a la "lol Squaw Valley, Sochi, etc" because of the obvious kinds of venues and natural environments needed to host. Hundreds of millions of sports fans will never forget the names of those towns now.
How many people considered Atlanta an Alpha world city prior to 1996, then how many after?
The IOC is exactly the kind of syndicate operation that Bostonians could smell as rotten business from an ocean away. The IOC's expectation to have highway lanes exclusively devoted for its use was the rotten neon cherry on top of the hot mess. I don't think there's a single non-developer person who thinks saying Nope to the IOC was not the right answer.
It's a red herring to minimize the winter games a la "lol Squaw Valley, Sochi, etc" because of the obvious kinds of venues and natural environments needed to host. Hundreds of millions of sports fans will never forget the names of those towns now.
I've heard of Sochi, but I quite literally know nothing about it except I know the Olympics were there once. That only came to mind because you brought it up, and I had to Google Squaw Valley.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
How many people considered Atlanta an Alpha world city prior to 1996, then how many after?
Correlation does not equal causation. Atlanta has benefitted tremendously from the general shift to the sun belt, as have places like Dallas, Charlotte, and Nashville.
Denver had the chance to host one of the biggest "major city" winter olympics in 1976, but they balked it to Innsbruck. Denver's profile would certainly be even higher had they hosted.
It's a red herring to minimize the winter games a la "lol Squaw Valley, Sochi, etc" because of the obvious kinds of venues and natural environments needed to host. Hundreds of millions of sports fans will never forget the names of those towns now.
How many people considered Atlanta an Alpha world city prior to 1996, then how many after?
I don't think it's passe, but I agree with everything you said.
Places spend money that they don't have so that they can host and are left in debt with infrastructure that some never use again.
Everyone wants to host the Olympics but not everyone can.
For places that can the added infrastructure is often needed and hosting just gives a reason to finally make the upgrades.
Even hosting smaller events, such as the divided 2026 World Cup is going to be costly.
I think eventually cities like LA, Paris and London will be in regular rotation for Olympic games as more places just opt out of the debt hosting incurs.
It's definitely a prestigious event, but a lot of places weight the benefits and think they are ok without it.
It did give Atlanta a big boost, but Boston doesn't need it
Agreed...recent over-spending, over-commercialization, logistical errors, white-elephant facilities, and corruption have left a bad taste in the public's mouth and potential applicants' mouths. Rio, Athens, Atlanta, Sochi...
I'd love for my city to host the summer games, but not at the necessary costs.
I don't think it's passe, but I agree with everything you said.
Places spend money that they don't have so that they can host and are left in debt with infrastructure that some never use again.
Everyone wants to host the Olympics but not everyone can.
For places that can the added infrastructure is often needed and hosting just gives a reason to finally make the upgrades.
Even hosting smaller events, such as the divided 2026 World Cup is going to be costly.
I think eventually cities like LA, Paris and London will be in regular rotation for Olympic games as more places just opt out of the debt hosting incurs.
It's definitely a prestigious event, but a lot of places weight the benefits and think they are ok without it.
It did give Atlanta a big boost, but Boston doesn't need it
Disagree. If you're a "sports capital", wouldn't the venues already be pretty much in place?
This goes back to the OP article and then just going with legacy sports that people are comfortable with and using that as the yardstick.
All of the cities that ever said, "Boy, we sure did dodge a bullet by not (getting picked for that convention/bullding that light rail system/agreeing to that downtown development deal/hosting the Olympics)" aren't necessarily wrong in their reasoning, but understand all of those things would almost certainly increase their stature.
So you can't have it both ways-you can be right about the reasons for not wanting it, but then can't just summarily write them off because you didn't get them.
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.
