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 problem with SD is that the venues would have to be quite spread out, many perhaps not technically in the city of SD so the IOC would have to work with several city governments. A good place around SD would be Chula Vista which already has an Olympic Training Center and room for development. Water sports events however would be in SD, quite possibly Mission Bay which as you know is no where near where an Olympic Village etc. would be in CV.
It's not impossible though and I think SD would be a great Olympic city.
I think so too- it's also very clean, safe and tourist friendly. I wonder why the bid was passed up?
I think so too- it's also very clean, safe and tourist friendly. I wonder why the bid was passed up?
Like I said, feasibility is an issue in SD. Not to mention, we can't even get a new stadium and update our own convention center. Our city leaders aren't known for competence.
I hate to agree with winterfall not because I don't like LA but more because he's two tacos short of a combo plate. However, he makes a good case for LA, not because of his insane statement about Paris but because LA really wouldn't have to build much of anything so it would hardly be a loss for LA.
Same goes for Rome (and to a lesser extent Paris). They would just have to redevelop most of the structures that are already there, speed up the metro works that have been going on for decades already. Only a few structures such as the Olympic Park would need to be built from scratch. I think a loss is practically automatic though. Look at London for an example, they had most of the things already in place but ended up spending 287% more than forecast losing a decent chunk of money.
Two videos from the official website of Rome 2024:
I think San Diego would be better, LA just seems very spread out, plus they already hosted. SD wasn't chosen though- maybe the infrastructure isn't enough to sustain the games.
San Diego wouldn't hold a candle in terms of appeal to Budapest, Rome and Paris
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
it'll happen. The EU is afraid of Hungary due to their questioning of refugees so they're out, Paris is pretty much terrorist controlled territory, that leaves LA.
I think this talk about money is sort of missing the point of the Olympics.
I still love watching the games as they put otherwise minor sports in the spotlight and are the only properly global sport event but the point of the Olympics was lost in 1936 when they started being used as a megalomaniac event so that the host country could show its grandeur. Now, hosting them means running at a loss. Is this loss valuable enough for the citizens of a country?
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.
