Which US City should be next in line to host the Olympics? (live, rail)

[SouthCali4LifeSD]

there are 5 American cities that highly deserve the olympics. New York or Chicago deserve it IMMEDIATELY and Miami, San Diego, and Seattle deserve it within this decade.

Here's why I chose these 5.

1. New York City -- Well, for one, it was attacked by terrorism. Also, its probably the worlds most improved city since 1990 and I think its time to show off its improvements.

2. Chicago -- its a major world city and yet, its still an elusive city to the rest of the world, even to many American's.

3. Miami -- well... It gets a lot of super bowls which the IOC will take into consideration but come on, its a world city on the beach

4. San Diego -- although not immediately ready for an event of this magnitude, it has the weather, the beaches, and the topography. If it continues to improve its infrastructure and grow by another million over the next 30 years, it will be ready. The IOC will also take into consideration the fact that it needs more international spotlight.

5. Seattle is an amazing city that hasn't really had much recent success in hosting extreme events. Why was the space needle built again? Was it for a worlds fair or something? Anyway, like San Diego, the IOC will take into consideration that Seattle needs more international spotlight, and even Seattle sports, like San Diego, haven't won any world titles.

I didnt pick Boston because the IOC knows how amazing Boston sports are and how they've dominated America this decade, they've received their share.

The Bay area is nice but the IOC might be very hesitant on the Bay Areas unusually cold summer temperatures.

Los Angeles had them in 1984

Philly, MoTown, St.Louis, Baltimore, D.C. need extreme gentrification b4 the IOC even takes their bids seriously.

Dallas or Houston are similar to Atlanta in terms of weather, sprawl, and topography so that may impose a threat on their chances, but one of those cities will one day get a winning bid for them.

I think Minneapolis would be better for the winter olympics, same with Denver.

Don't hate me cuz I'm right

[mikey1984]

San Antonio would be a good choice. It almost landed the 2007 PAN AMERICAN GAMES. It beat out Miami but lost to Rio De Janero.

[SixKick]

Originally Posted by Lemonsaregood22

Tokyo is winning so far.

2016 Summer Olympics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's still too early to be talking about who's "winning." Last time around London had the third best bid score as well.

If you check out this website, this guy has been tracking the bidding processes for decades. According to his BidIndex, Chicago is marginally leading right now.

[j33]

I voted for other, because I'd like Chicago to get the Olympics in 2016 (perhaps then they'll finally fix our subway). I'm hoping by that time, I'll have saved up enough money to buy an apartment, and I can rent it out for a lot of cash when it comes through

[Spade]

Originally Posted by SouthCali4LifeSD

Don't hate me cuz I'm right

Most of your reasonings for choosing the cities are not right though. But there are more than 5 American cities that could get it. You need to look at it from an IOC perspective, though. Miami is just as sprawly as Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas. It's just more denser. But you live by the car in South Florida. Not to mention that their transportion system could be the worse in the South after Dallas and Houston finishes it's current rail expansion systems in the next 5 years. Public transit is a huge factor in determining a host city.

Only one other city in California will be considered for the olympics and that city is San Francisco. That is a perfect location for the olympics. Good weather, great public transit, good infrastructure. I believe Sydney's weather is similar to San Francisco's and they hosted.

I don't believe the IOC cares about how successful Boston is in American Sports. In fact, I don't think they care who wins a world series or the nba finals. If that was the case. Los Angeles would have never been chosed for 1984. Or Chicago wouldn't be in consideration for 2016.

[missionhome]

San Francisco weather is perfectly fine for the Olympics. My only question would be where they would build the Olympic facilities and stadiums? San Francisco is literally built out and there is no room in the city limits for the stadiums without demolishing a huge amount of city buildings. Perhaps they could build them down south in the San Jose area or out east by the suburbs of Livermore. That is the only problem I see them running into.

[WildWestDude]

there's a poll on this for the final 2016 Olympics cities:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/world...ur-cities.html

[happ]

Originally Posted by DAP443

Which US City do you think should be next in line to host the Olympics?

Why isn't Los Angeles on the list since you included Atlanta? Not that I think another summer Olympics should be in LA [but the 1984 games went quite well.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by happ

Why isn't Los Angeles on the list since you included Atlanta? Not that I think another summer Olympics should be in LA [but the 1984 games went quite well.

Already hosted twice I believe.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by SouthCali4LifeSD

The Bay area is nice but the IOC might be very hesitant on the Bay Areas unusually cold summer temperatures.

The Bay Area or San Francisco? Learn the difference.