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.
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.
excellent summary. Agree totally. Especially the last part in bold.
Was just gonna ask the poster who said it, what was so special about Athens, Rio or Beijing that they found world class.
The US shouldn't even consider bidding for a good long while. Anti-Americanism and the IOC's stated goal of "spreading the Olympics" to other "under-served" nations guarantees that after London it will be at least another 24 years until the US is even remotely considered. Also, the IOC hates the American olympic committee because the lion's share of the advertising revenue goes to the US.
Why?
2012: London
2016: Rio de Janiero (South America)
2020: I bet Istanbul gets it, just to show that the IOC isn't "repressing" Muslim countries
2024: Somewhere in Africa
2028: Back to S. America or Asia
2032: Again somewhere in S. America or Asia
2036: ??? I bet somewhere in Europe because by then the Euro-centric ***** will be woe is unto them and gnash their teeth
In short - I don't think any US city should waste their time with a bid to the summer olympics until 2036 at the least, 2040 may be better.
At that stage in time, maybe Chicago would be a contender. I fully think NYC should consider it.
Wait no ... it'll likely go to a Canadian or Mexican city. So yeah, the Olympics should be renamed the "America Need Not Apply But We'll Take Your Money" Sports Games.
The US didn't make any bid for the 2020 Olympics, so maybe it will bid in 2024. In 2024, it will have been 28 years since the US has hosted the Summer Games.
New York has never hosted, but I feel like the majority of residents including myself wouldn't such a gigantic event here, so I don't see a New York Olympic bid happening any time soon.
Despite its loss for the 2016 games, I still think Chicago would be an excellent host city.
Any other thoughts?
Seems like you like to attend and enjoy the Olympics, but just don't want to take the pains to host the event. Only cities which whole-heartedly want to host it need apply, because there are too many contenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02
What about Denver? Seems like that would be a good city for it.
They were once awarded the Winter Olympics and then backed out at the last moment, upsetting all plans (Innsbruck had to step in to host). Definitely not an example to follow, and one that should automatically eliminate them for a long long time!
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.
RE: the space, Chicago definitely has the arena space. The area has plenty of seating capacity and arena capacity. It's just they'd force the hometown teams to play elsewhere in the summer. And they'd still probably build all over Grant park and make a terrible mess of it and ruin it for the residents.
Though I do agree with everything else. I do think Chicago shouldn't do a bid because they're already world-class and don't need the olympics for any bragging rights.
The aforementioned visa process is also a nightmare. In fact I think that's probably the reason why Chicago didn't pass the first round. Combine the usual assumptions they had the votes and thus would pass and thus everyone voted for someone else ... with the visa issue up front and center and Obama's frankly bad attitude towards it ("we will protect our citizens while welcoming everyone ..." ugh ... yeah, just say "we don't f-ing care" why don't you?), and it's sealed. The US won't get the Olympics again anytime soon. We're too busy making busywork for a new government arm called the TSA to worry about making business with the world.
I dont see a good benefit from hosting the olympics with the politics and other games they play and its outrageously expensive....let the other mega cities get a shot at it before Tx gives it ago again. I think Miami, Houston with their coastal location and summer olympics coming in the hurricane season make it risky for those two cities to get any bang for the big bucks it cost if they get unlucky like Dallas did for the super bowl. We dont need no stinking olympics in Texas IMHO
I'd like to see NYC get it although NYC is really too hot in the summer for many of the sports. Same with Chicago. SF, Seattle, or Boston might be better in that regard.
Please spare us from extra traffic and congestion resulting from the Olympics.
Olympics in NYC? Please no.
A Seattle or Seattle/Vancouver bid sounds great to me.
A Detroit one to spur development would be great, but next to impossible to mount.
People have been talking about a joint Seattle/Vancouver bid for over two decades. Isn't going to happen. Getting across the border would be too much of a hassle. Seattle repaved some roads here anticipating people coming here from the 2010 Vancouver games ... didn't happen. The US border crossing is too much of a hassle for most people, and there's a perception the US is hostile to visitors. I don't think the IOC is keen on dual country bids either. Most Canadians would hate the idea too because they don't want the "trashy southern neighbours" ruining their games.
Seattle also considered a bid for the 2010 games in 1992. They put it up for a referendum vote. Over 60% of the people voted no.
And I would agree. Land is too constricted here, where would everyone be put? The highway system is clogged as it is and the geography is too challenging to put more in. You couldn't even if you wanted, at least in the city itself. Then there's the burbs ... most would oppose it because it would require bulldozing lots of forest and land, and the environment is too beautiful around here to be sullied with temporary structures.
The US doesn't need it. This country has had 8, more games than any other and the last one was just in 2002. Let others have their turns. I don't know about the IOC hating America but they've been generous in the past. The US got the Winter games in 80 even after Denver turned it down in 76, then the US got the 84 Summer games, then the 96 Summer and 02 Winter games. People act like we never get any. We can wait a few decades. But if I had to pick, I think maybe I'd like Boston.
The U.S. should focus on hosting another World Cup instead of the Olympics.
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.
(Innsbruck had to step in to host). Definitely not an example to follow, and one that should automatically eliminate them for a long long time!
