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.
Philadelphia. Yes, I live there so it's an obvious vote, but here are some valid points:
A bid for 2024 is already being discussed. This would not be the city's first bid, and certainly the city knows what needs to be done this time to win.
Philadelphia is spending 5 billion to expand the airport. That's a crucial infrastructure improvement that is already happening. Should improve the 2024 bid's chances.
Philly already has the infrastructure. By 2024, Accela from Philly to NYC will be the most advanced stretch of railroad track in the country. 1 hour from Manhattan via rail, Philly is no 'island' - it's a major neighborhood in Megalopolis. Philly's main subway runs from the city core to the sports complex, and the sports complex has the land needed to build new Olympic venues. An already world-class sports complex would suddenly have few equals.
Philly could use the renovation. Simply put, Philly is a world-class city but it's gotten kind of old and dusty, needs a refresh. No better excuse than a forthcoming Olympics.
Sports - Philadelphia is in the middle of a sports renaissance. Each year Philly's teams are getting better, reaching the playoffs, really contending. The Phillies, what can I say... love 'em. Philly loves sports to an exceptional degree and that's part of what would make a Philly games succeed - enthusiasm.
Culture - When you aren't watching an Olympic vent, you might want to see some art, eat at a restaurant, go to the symphony, opera, ballet. Philly offers all these things, straight-up cosmopolitan experience. The Barnes Collection having moved downtown is reason enough to try and attract the 2024 Olympics.
The main point against Philly? Currently there are not enough hotel rooms just to accommodate the expanded convention center. Philly would have to add thousands of rooms to accommodate an Olympics, and they'd have to figure out how to fill those rooms before and after the games.
I hope Philly hosts an Olympics in my lifetime, that's all.
Yes, you couldn't have the Winter Olympics in the US anywhere east of the Rockies except for parts of the Northeastern US(The Adirondacks, Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine basically) ... Basically just for the fact that you need to be in close proximity to mountains and ski areas with consistent winter snowfall that are large enough to host World Cup-level downhill events to be able to be considered a contender to host the Winter Olympics. You can't have a Olympic downhill at a ski area with a vertical drop of 500-700 feet. You need a mountain with a consistent pitch for over 2,000 feet.
Agreed. I think the best bet for a winter Olympics would be Denver, Seattle, Boise, maybe Portland. All three cities are large enough to support the games, and they are fairly close to large mountain ranges with good snow.
I just don't see why any east coast city can realistically host the winter Olympics. They are way to far away IMO from any decent skiing.
May have been mentioned before, but Anchorage Alaska....San Diego or San Francisco for the summer Olympics. Imagine Phoenix for the summer Olympics....that would be a joke obviously.
Of course it has. But how far is Lake Placid from NYC? Nearly 300 miles. Sorry but that is way to far IMO.
No one has suggested NYC, which of course no one would consider for a winter venue. It seemed you were contradicting the poster who suggested The Adirondacks or New England.
My vote would be Denver for the winter games. However, considering that we were awarded, then rejected the Olympics in 1976 and SLC (in the US Mountain West) hosted them in 2002, I think it will be a long, long, long time before the IOC awards them here again.
I was shocked when I first found out that Denver was once awarded the Winter Olympics and gave them up. How incredibly shortsided/stupid of the people in Denver at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
It is clear that the European-led IOC will always have an anti-American slant. They've stated so in multiple press releases, but they don't directly say something as banal as "the US sucks, we ain't going there." They state that their aim is to "take the Olympics and sports to the world."
So it is plainly obvious that any US city will lose. First it is Rio in South America, then it will likely be a city in Africa, then back to Asia again, then likely back to Europe, then the middle east. Doesn't matter how dangerous or backward it is in, if they can appear as "fostering sport" aka being pigs willing to accept any bribe from a country with looser rules and/or being in the fortunate position of being from Europe.
I predict it won't be until 2032 that the USA may, just MAY, have a chance. Until then, cities should just not even bother. It's clear the IOC is frothing at the mouth over anti-Americanism, "fostering sport", and over the television and lucrative revenue rights of airing the Olympics.
Unfortunately I think this is true. Proof was had when Chicago was knocked out in the first round of voting for the 2016 Olympics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior101
I would also say that a reason why the US has been shunned lately has been due to politics related to anti GW Bush and America's occupation of Iraq. I think the election of Obama has helped to soften the image of the US abroad, but it still has a ways to go to undue the damage that was done in terms of international opinion. I'd say there's an outside possibility of the US being awarded the Olympics in the next couple selections, but it may be longer than that.
For all the talk of people around the world just not liking the U.S. for George W. Bush, they sure seemed to relish embarrassing President Obama in passing over his hometown so quickly. The truth is the rest of the world just doesn't like the U.S. because of who we are, not merely who our leaders are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rialta
May have been mentioned before, but Anchorage Alaska....San Diego or San Francisco for the summer Olympics. Imagine Phoenix for the summer Olympics....that would be a joke obviously.
You would think Anchorage would be better suited for the Winter Olympics?
I've had somewhat of a pipe dream of my hometown of Albuquerque hosting the Winter Olympics ever since the Salt Lake City games. In my scenario Albuquerque would host the indoor events and the outdoor events would be held in some of the northern New Mexico ski villages/resorts.
I honestly don't know all that is required to host the outdoor events, but I imagine northern New Mexico would be adequate enough to host them. The main drawback might be amount of snow but northern New Mexico gets quite a bit of snow usually. I do remember that during the Salt Lake City games there had to be some snowmaking due to less than normal snowfall.
Another drawback would be accomodations in Albuquerque. But I imagine enough hotel rooms could be added from the time of selection and the actual date of the games. And I would think the additional hotel rooms in Santa Fe might help for the outdoor events in northern New Mexico.
The Olympics can be a strain and an struggle for cities. Although I thought the city did a decent job hosting the olympics, it did for time leading up them I think ATL struggled with, trying to get the venues in place that already wasn't there. It was the same with Beijing, just a massive struggle and now too many things built that no has no purpose and sits idle..
Even Chicago and NYC would have to build to accommodate a lot of venues. Let's face MSG for basketball would be horrible, granted they will definitely have the hotel space.
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.
