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.
Hmmm Orlando... We know how to deal with millions of tourists. We have many arenas, great weather, only problem is we have no subway ( can't dig tunnels here). we also might have to stop the tolls for a few weeks.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,804,636 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Boston could always hold in The BC Eagles Staduim, I'm sure the colleges would allow that, really Alloston and Brighton areas of Boston have an insane weath of Staduims, with BC, BU, Harvards complex, North Eastern and Fenway not to far away and each with there own soccer, track, Basketball, softball ect Fields.
Oh come on now. Have you seen the Birds Nest or the new stadium in East London? States like Nebraska and Alabama have bigger college football venues than BC or any college stadium in that area. Fenway is way too outdated for any Olympic venue. Boston killed any chance of hosting the Olympics when the new Gillette stadium was constructed out in Foxboro because all the NIMBY's in Southie went "wah wah" when they proposed a new stadium in the Seaport district. Too bad, that would have been a perfect location. But alas that part of Southie still has a sea of parking lots and the Patriots still play in that far flung suburb way down near Rhode Island .
Let someone else have the headache. Most cities don't have the facilities to host the Games, and end up demolishing neighborhoods to build facilities. A staggering homeless problem was caused in Vancouver as a result of their hosting the Games. San Francisco couldn't even begin to handle the traffic that Games attendance would cause. The US really isn't in an economic position to host the Games, anyway. Where would the money come from to build extra stadiums? Only cities with pre-existing adequate facilities would be able to bid. I guess that means LA.
Indianapolis is one of those cities.
Indy has hosted numerous olympics trials. most of the infrastructure is already there.
For the olympic village we could easily reuse Georgia street which was the Super Bowl Village.
the only 2 major drawbacks are #1 Indy isnt as big as Chi-Town/SF/NYC. However im sure an army of volunteers like for the Pan Am games and the Super Bowl could easily be assembled.
#2 Indy doesnt have all the facilities for every sporting event. however some of the places like Lucas Oil Stadium are flexible and can be converted to whatever the need is. Lake Michigan would have to serve for any lake water sports.
however a smaller olympics could actually help out the IOC in the sense that it will be a sell out and a high quality event.
Quality is sometimes more important than quantity and bigger isnt always better.
Ill go out on a limb and say Las Vegas should make a bid.....why not it's not all about fun and games it's also a fashion hub and music center i see the future of Vegas taking off doing many great things
Obviously L.A is the best choice even i think Miami should bid"Los Angeles already had it twice like London and Paris so of course the haters on the eastcoast will cry to the committee about why NYC never had a shot
I think the US's chances for 2024 aren't all that great since the 96 Olympics weren't that long ago and there are a number of developed and newly developed countries with wonderful cities who have never hosted (Central and Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, maybe the Caucasus and parts of the Arab peninsula have cities capable of holding the Olympics and have never hosted, and if Istanbul does not get 2020, then it seems likely it'd be a favorable pick for 2024). For the US to win a bid seems pretty unlikely. Also, I believe the US has had acrimonious relationships with the IOC in recent years with the Atlanta olympics considered subpar and overly reliant on commercial sponsorship. I remember feeling embarrassed for us during the Atlanta opening ceremony.
Anyhow, if there were to be a bid, Chicago is a pretty great choice. There is plenty of space for prime redevelopment in the south side. There's Lake Michigan for some of the boating events. There is a good amount of mass transit (which will have become better by 2024 which would be fast-tracked if Chicago wins a bid) and basic infrastructure. Also, between Chicago, Evanston (due to Northwestern), and Milwaukee, there are a lot of venues available for use within easy transit of each other. That coupled with it having never been selected for the Olympics despite being a world class city makes for a fairly good bid.
The Bay Area/SF also seems like a reasonable choice for roughly the same reasons, though transit in the Bay Area is substantially worse than in Chicago and would need some serious work which would unlikely to be done by 2024.
I would love to see the games in LA again. I was born in 1985, blah, so I obviously missed the 84 games.
LA pretty much has everything the Olympics would need. Once Farmers Field is built, that can host the opening and closing ceremonies. The Coliseum may also be able to do it as well, since now USC has taken over the master lease and has stated that they are focuses on completely renovating it.
All of the other venues that are available here make LA a top choice by that time.
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.
.
