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.
Of course, any rules can be changed, but I do not know if there would be enough support.
And for what I said earlier, I am not sure if the problem was two different countries, or two different cities (I know that events are almost always held in multiple cities but only one city's name is on the bid).
I think it should be hosted in DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia. It would also make it so NYC is in reachable distance without bringing the event into the metro area but the question is what would be the primary city?
Because the IOC has clamped down on bribes(direct or indirect) to members from all over the world who vote for the cities which will host, I say the best choices might be Los Angeles, Miami, Las Vegas or San Francisco. Cities that are extremely world famous but do not represent what the world hates about America(a perceived notion that we are hypocritical, imperialistic, warmongering, greedy corporatists that are hellbent on worldwide domination) Actually I also think the TX cities(Dallas & Houston) might have a shot if they focus on the cliches that foreigners LOVE like cowboys and genteel countryNESS and TXns talk very little about their largesse in energy. Were it not for its size being too small to handle the logistical and infrastucture requirements to host, Id say Honolulu would be the most attractive US city to win a bid to host a Summer Olympics if for nothing else the universally favorable image Hawaii has around the world.
Think iconic on a global level, but not threatening to people around the world. The further away from the Northeast, the better.
The IOC isn't looking at "world class" or whatever is perceived as that. It's looking for ones that will make them money and who has the gumption to go broke in the process. Sorry, I don't consider Rio nor Athens world class by any stretch, nor Beijing. They're just willing to spend the cash and at the end of the day, that's all they care about.
Yeah, the Olympics should stick to world-class cities like Atlanta and Salt Lake City... Beijing's the political and cultural capital of the largest country population wise and second largest economy in the world. It's developing into a very modern international city at a lightening pace. As for Rio, it's a great city and those complaining that it's a third world must have never spent any time in the beautiful center of the city itself. Brazil's another country with a fast-growing economy, so it's a natural choice for the first games in South America. It's not as if they'll be holding the marathon or bicycle races through the hillside favelas.
Love all the posts that complain about the IOC's anti-American bias, yet counting both the Winter and Summer Olympics the United States has hosted the games almost twice as much as the next closest country in terms of number of times hosted. But what the hell, I think Tulsa, Oklahoma was interested in a bid for the games, so maybe that should be our next candidate.
Because the IOC has clamped down on bribes(direct or indirect) to members from all over the world who vote for the cities which will host, I say the best choices might be Los Angeles, Miami, Las Vegas or San Francisco. Cities that are extremely world famous but do not represent what the world hates about America(a perceived notion that we are hypocritical, imperialistic, warmongering, greedy corporatists that are hellbent on worldwide domination)
I'm not sure if LA or Vegas meet your own criteria. For better or worse, LA is at the heart of American pop culture, one of our biggest "exports." I would argue U.S. pop culture is received well around the world by some, but it is also received very, very poorly around the world to others. Vegas is a city built for frivolous thrills and wasting money, which I'm not sure is a city that accurately represents what the world even should like about the U.S. Plus, its desert location seems like a poor choice for the summer games, in my opinion. Miami might be nice, but the last U.S. summer games were held in Atlanta. I like the San Francisco idea, but I also think somewhere in the upper Midwest or the Northeast would have just as likely of a chance.
I'm not sure if LA or Vegas meet your own criteria. For better or worse, LA is at the heart of American pop culture, one of our biggest "exports." I would argue U.S. pop culture is received well around the world by some, but it is also received very, very poorly around the world to others. Vegas is a city built for frivolous thrills and wasting money, which I'm not sure is a city that accurately represents what the world even should like about the U.S. Plus, its desert location seems like a poor choice for the summer games, in my opinion. Miami might be nice, but the last U.S. summer games were held in Atlanta. I like the San Francisco idea, but I also think somewhere in the upper Midwest or the Northeast would have just as likely of a chance.
No, Los Angeles is only perceived negatively that way by Americans, leave the country and LA is almost universally liked, admired, even coveted.
Same goes for Vegas, same goes for Miami, same goes for San Francisco.
Puritanical and uptight Americans have lots of negative things to say about these cities but they are extremely well liked abroad.
Its just one of those things where we have to remove ourselves from our nationalistic pride and say "Okay, do we want the US to actually win the Olympics or not?"
Atlanta won(beating Athens and Toronto), but NYC didnt beat London and was actually 3rd behind Paris in the voting? Chicago was also a distant 4th behind Rio, Madrid and Tokyo. That should speak volumes about exactly what I was talking about----the further away from what the world associates with typical American capitalism, greed, military industrial complex, the better.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,870,451 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter
The only thing Chicago has are hotel rooms. Everything else would have to be built from scratch and at a pretty penny then add on Chicago back door deals so another 20-25%. Let's face fact, the taxpayers will be paying off the soldier field renovation for the next how many decades with the payout increasing drastically. It truly is not in a position to make a bid. Greece went all but broke over it. Beijing hasn't fared much better in that regard. Even Atlanta suffered financially trying to build olympic capable venues. Some may say it was a worthy trade off for the exposure but to be honest, the Atlanta Olympics left a lot to be desired. California's spend what you don't have is starting to catch up.
Your midsized like San Antonio, even 57k rooms is not enough for the Olympics, it doesn't have a 100k plus stadium just to host the opening ceremony and trying to redo the Alamo Dome to try to accommodate that would be more costly than just building from scratch. The Jerry Dome in the boonies of Dallas has the capacity but the worst location one could ever have. Indianapolis has the Speedway which is historic and still the worlds largest sporting venue plus other Olympic ready structures but like the other midwest cities, doesn't have the transportation infrastructure to handle such an event over that prolonged period of time and definitely doesn't have the hotel rooms required sitting at around 35k throughout the region. It hosted the Pan Am Games but the Pan Am is NOT the summer Olympics.
The IOC isn't looking at "world class" or whatever is perceived as that. It's looking for ones that will make them money and who has the gumption to go broke in the process. Sorry, I don't consider Rio nor Athens world class by any stretch, nor Beijing. They're just willing to spend the cash and at the end of the day, that's all they care about.
Like it or not, Beijing is world class. Rio probably also is....just not top 20.
Atlanta won(beating Athens and Toronto), but NYC didnt beat London and was actually 3rd behind Paris in the voting? Chicago was also a distant 4th behind Rio, Madrid and Tokyo. That should speak volumes about exactly what I was talking about----the further away from what the world associates with typical American capitalism, greed, military industrial complex, the better.
Umm...how would hosting the Olympic games in a city like Las Vegas be preventing people from thinking about greed in the U.S.?
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.
Beijing's the political and cultural capital of the largest country population wise and second largest economy in the world. It's developing into a very modern international city at a lightening pace. As for Rio, it's a great city and those complaining that it's a third world must have never spent any time in the beautiful center of the city itself. Brazil's another country with a fast-growing economy, so it's a natural choice for the first games in South America. It's not as if they'll be holding the marathon or bicycle races through the hillside favelas.
