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.
Yeah; I wasn't aware Houston was trying to get the Olympics again. The city is more concentrated on pulling in the 2020 Expo.
This whole heat thing is only a problem for some people; some people can deal with it. Athletics are use to enduring these types of climates and train themselves to deal with. Only people who hate heat will cry and complain about it. Yes Houston is hot, but not to the point where all the athletes will drop dead and the Olympics will be ruined.
It looks like they've put together a pretty good bid but the some pretty stiff competition in the US with New York and San Francisco. If they where to come to Houston, the athletes would probably train in some very humid climates with hot summers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAnative10
Houston would be a great city to host it, however I will feel super sorry for the athletes who have to do the Olympics in Houston. Can you imagine running sprints and long distance in the hot and humind Houston summer heat!
Im a runner myself and a year or so ago I went to Houston to visit my dad. Normally in LA, I run about 3 miles every other day. In Houston, I could barely finish a mile and a half before I was so winded, I almost fainted. That hot humidity is hell to run in.
Most of the stadiums in Houston are domed or have retractable roof. I think the best summer month to hold it would be May when the highs are in the mid 80's. But although the humidity can make for a miserable afternoon, the humidity actually makes the evenings are very nice, or at least to me but I'm used to the humidity. If they where to do this in Houston, I would assume most of the indoor event would be held during the hottest parts of the day (about 1-4) and the out door events would be in the mornings or evenings. But, In spite of the how it could be scheduled, the fact is that it does still get really hot in the summer in Houston.
I guess it differs from person to person because when I did track; I ran in Houston and had no problems. I just drunk lots of water (as you should anyways). Personally, I'd rather sit out in the heat than windy cold weather.
L.A. is actually capable of hosting another Olympiad in the future.
A lot of cities currently do not have the infrastructure to hold the Olympics and if they were awarded an Olympiad, they would scramble to build something from nothing and that's assuming that they wouldn't go in debt by just building a few rail lines and venues to host the Olympics.
L.A.'s polycentrism is arguably it's greatest asset in procuring another Olympiad, along with many world-class universities within the city and county limits who have their own world-class venues. We have built a few new Olympic-ready venues since our '84 Olympics:
- The Home Depot Center
- The Walter Pyramid, Cal-State Long Beach
- The Staples Center
- The Galen Center, USC
- And if it's ever built, that new proposed football stadium in CoI.
In addition to the venues we already have, these venues can help with the transition of a smooth running Olympiad.
Also, there is a plan to build a comprehensive, detailed rail system in L.A. in the 2010's, undergoing a second transit boom. And this is not even including the rail that can be built in the 2020's. The rail that we're planning (or already have) now already stops by many venues and universities, so going from point A to B will be no problem. Many of these venues were used in the '84 Olympics, so the rail is merely a tremendous advantage.
Here's a list of rail that will stop by or be in walking proximity of every Olympic-ready facility:
Expo Line - Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles Sports Arena, USC's Galen Center
Purple Line - UCLA's Pauley Pavillion, Los Angeles Tennis Center
Blue Line - Staples Center, Long Beach Arena and Shoreline/Marina Harbor
Crenshaw Line - Hollywood Park, The Forum
And if we were awarded an Olympiad we would undeniably build rail to reach the rest of our already existing venues.
Some of you are probably saying "L.A. doesn't need another Olympiad, they've held 2 before." I would say, "Why not?" London is about to hold their 3rd Olympiad. Even though the last one they've held was back in '48, give L.A. time and we can hold another one again. I would say 2032, because it would have been 100 years since our first Olympics and 47 years since our '84 Olympics. This assuming no other North American city holds it before this timeframe.
The most we would have to do is remodel and refurbish because our venues will have aged considerably by then. But I think we would be powerful contenders at that point because we already have the experience, the weather, the image, and other things that the IOC takes into consideration when choosing a city.
With us aside, though. I think the Bay Area or D.C. would be a good place to hold the Olympics.
I think it's possible to work around not being on a grid-system. London doesn't have a grid system. Athens has a semi-grid but from the satellite looks like it is a model of choas. The biggest thing working in Boston's favor is that our mass-transit system absolutely mops the floor with every other (US) city mentioned.
Here's a map of a proposed expansion of the T. This thing is a complete pipe dream, and I'm not saying we'd be able to accomplish anything like this by 2020. However I think we could possibly build parts of this dream.
(Amazing, right?)
The eastern part of the Silver Line would be the area which would hold the Olympic Village, so that would be the best place to focus development. The line is actually already partially built, but doesn't have the line going South from Harbor Lights which later forms a line going from City Point to Andrew. The line is currently buses on electric lines, but should be converted to light rail for the Olympics. I think building this, and possibly expanding/improving other lines would provide more than sufficient transportation for the city.
Remember, Boston being a massive college town means we've got many athletic facilities spread all around the city. Schools with facilities that could be used for events: Harvard, MIT, Boston University, Boston College, and Northeastern University. All are located on different T lines.
I agree, Minneapolis could be an awesome place to host the olympics.
Wow that really does sound Amazing. Good for Boston! Houston is suppose to have 5 LT lines (right now they have 1) by 2012 so I'm excited about that.
I really do think Boston would be a great city to host if they could work out the logistics. It's beautiful city and there is so much history in that town. And, it seems like the IOC loves themes. Beijing was the rise of China, Athens for the first Olympics and the cradle of Western civilization, even Atlanta for the "rise" of the South. I think a theme around America and American history (or something like that) from Boston could be a great.
I still do like Minneapolis though. I agree it would be an awesome Olympics if the city is up for it.
With us aside, though. I think the Bay Area or D.C. would be a good place to hold the Olympics.
The Bay Area is too balkanized and prone to infighting to ever get it done.
Look at how stupid we are:
SF is the only city that's ever been specifically asked by the USOC to present a bid. First we were supposed to bid for the 1996 games. Public support was so low(I think it was 20% in favor) and local leaders bickered so much about venue locations and transportation issues that this bid never got off the ground. The Atlanta committee chairperson even said that they were ecstatic not to be going up against SF as SF probably would have won the games.
The second time the Bay Area bid was for 2012, once again at the request of the USOC. So this time it was headed by a San Jose area-based group that wanted the majority of the venues in the South Bay-and the USOC wasnt going to be relegated 35 miles south of SF. They didnt want the Olympic Opening Ceremonies in a wooded setting that overhead almost looks rural. So they picked NYC over SF.
The third time was for 2016. SF put together a stellar bid proposal this time and the Olympic Venues were centered in the Inner Bay Area with the Olympic Stadium being in SF Proper-a major coup. Except hold on, people in SF proper when polled flat out hated the idea of a new stadium, they were suspicious of spending any tax payer money, they complained about traffic congestion and the bid unraveled to a point where SF was not cut by the USOC, but instead it took itself out of the running after making it all the way to the final round along with Chicago and Los Angeles.
So I have no doubt that the Bay Area would host one of the most, if not the most spectacular games if given the chance.
Yeah; I wasn't aware Houston was trying to get the Olympics again. The city is more concentrated on pulling in the 2020 Expo.
This whole heat thing is only a problem for some people; some people can deal with it. Athletics are use to enduring these types of climates and train themselves to deal with. Only people who hate heat will cry and complain about it. Yes Houston is hot, but not to the point where all the athletes will drop dead and the Olympics will be ruined.
I don't know about that. I have run track and played soccer all my life and I can tell you that the heat sucks the life out you when you run. The heat does affect performance times. Can you imagine running a 26 mile marathon in Houston's heat in the middle of the summer. The humidity alone would be awful. You probably wouldn't see a lot of new records be broken because the heat would be holding some athletes back.
Just to add to what I was saying:
For the 2012 bid, it was NY, SF, DC, Houston and another city(forgot which one sorry. Either Cincy or Philly I think)
Anyway, every other city placed their venues near the center of town-it was only the SF bid that had its venues far away from the City(the olympic village was about 40 miles south) in a totally suburban setting.
And STILL, SF advanced to the final round against NY beating out the others. I think the USOC was hoping SF would change its tune and move the games north into The City but they gave up when it became clear that wasnt going to happen.
How can a suburban games compete with a NYC-centered games?
I don't know about that. I have run track and played soccer all my life and I can tell you that the heat sucks the life out you when you run. The heat does affect performance times. Can you imagine running a 26 mile marathon in Houston's heat in the middle of the summer. It would be dangerous for runners.
Not saying it would be easy, but we've had lots of running marathons here in the city. Like I said; it differs from person to person. IMO, Houston is hot, but not to the point where I still can't be active. I walk a lots of the time around Houston and the climate has never affected my health. However, that's definitely not the case for everyone so I do understand where your coming from.
Not saying it would be easy, but we've had lots of running marathons here in the city. Like I said; it differs from person to person. IMO, Houston is hot, but not to the point where I still can't be active. I walk a lots of the time around Houston and the climate has never affected my health. However, that's definitely not the case for everyone so I do understand where your coming from.
I am sure many people could function just fine in the heat but you probably wouldn't be seeing that many new records be broken for track and field unless they ran the events at night time. How is the weather at night during August? Still pretty humid?
Just to add to what I was saying:
For the 2012 bid, it was NY, SF, DC, Houston and another city(forgot which one sorry. Either Cincy or Philly I think)
Anyway, every other city placed their venues near the center of town-it was only the SF bid that had its venues far away from the City(the olympic village was about 40 miles south) in a totally suburban setting.
And STILL, SF advanced to the final round against NY beating out the others. I think the USOC was hoping SF would change its tune and move the games north into The City but they gave up when it became clear that wasnt going to happen.
How can a suburban games compete with a NYC-centered games?
I really think the Bay Area would be great but where in the hell are they going to build all these new studiums and villages. It's not like SF has a lot of room to work with.
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.
