Best U.S. city to host Summer Olympics???

don't forget about access to whitewater for those respective events. this rules out pretty much anything in the middle of the country, unless man-made rapids can be used (i don't know).

i think seattle and bay area offer the closest sea-level competition with easy access to whitewater. portland, OR does as well, but it's not as big as the other two.

best summer climate for T&F would also be seattle or bay area.

my knee-jerk upon reading the title (not even the OP) was san francisco - great summer climate conducive to fast distance times.

I think people would refuse to use any TAXPAYER money for the Olympics. In these tough economic times, people would balk at the costs of building up to 24 venues in cities that are not Olympic sports towns. Plus the infrastructure costs to connect sewer, water, fiber optic cables, roads, natural gas, subways, rail lines, and parking structures at each venue. Only Los Angeles has those facilities already constructed and in use 52 weeks of the year.

Philly would be interesting.

1. It has a great stadium area already which could serve as a center for big events (+ an Olympic Stadium).

2. There are plenty of DI schools with venues that could host smaller events and Franklin Field which could host soccer ect.

2. It is already a big time rowing city so there would be no need to locate a suitable area to hold those events.

3. Philly hosts a big bike race each year that includes the carnival like atmosphere of the Manayunk Wall.

4. The expansive suburbs with tons of hotels and easy access to the city and public transportation.

5. As much as people love to hate Philly it is a symbol of the U.S. independence with a crazy amount of history.

6. Oh and easy access to both the Poconos and the South Jersey Shore area (just putting this because I can’t think of all the events and I’m sure this is probably a +)

There are likely other pros and there are certainly negatives but that is what came to my mind.

Stanford, CA.

Boston is one of the worst cities to drive in. I wouldn't pick it.

Every city, county, and state are in a severe economic depression. Unless the bid can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the games would be immediately profitable, then you can forget finding a city that would approve of the games just for vanity''s sake.

Profitable wrote:

Every city, county, and state are in a severe economic depression. Unless the bid can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the games would be immediately profitable, then you can forget finding a city that would approve of the games just for vanity''s sake.

Yea no crap it's just a discussion

I would say Philly or New York.

Btw, I don't live in either of those places, but I know they are great track towns.

Boston might not be a bad idea, if by "Boston" you mean the city as well as anything within 2-3 hours.

That way you extend into NH and down into RI for some events, too.

Isn't that how it goes sometimes? Events held way outside the host city due to the nature of the events??

It would be best for no U.S. city to host the games. The Olympics has never been a profitable venture. It is ridiculous to see so many cities fighting so hard for the right to throw away millions of dollars.

Denver voted down the winter olympics once. I don't believe they will get a second chance.

The answer is none. Olympics should be held in the same place every time. It started in Greece so it should be there.

A UCLA track athlete, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was the genius behind LA84 , the 1st profitable Olympic Games. Tom rescued the Modern Olympics movement by acting as the catalyst, merging major Hollywood media with the Olympic Games creating the 1st live global media extravaganza.

Bay Area, California would be great.

What are the demands as far as athletic infrastructure? I'd love DC, maybe they could demolish RFK and build the track complex there. Olympic village could be built up where all the development was supposed to go around the new baseball stadium. Not sure what the other needs are. DC has handled quite a few big events without any major problems.

Seattle, Denver, and Boston would all be good. So would the Bay Area. Phoenix or DFW would be awful. How about Nashville?

Bay Area, California would be great.

What about San Diego?

Also, a serious query, what about Anchorage, Alaska in the height of summer? That could be great.

Man-made whitewater is not a problem, for whoever asked up-thread. There are also sailing events that typically take place in an ocean. I assume the great lakes would be large enough, I don't know what the minimum size lake would be. That might be a possible problem to some bids.

DC would not be very practical as there is not enough land for facilities and the infrastructure is not conducive to this kind of event. They could do it if it was spread between there and Baltimore. The Olympic Committee doesn't seem particularly adverse to doing this.

Seattle would be a great choice to me.

I'm not sure why they don't award the Olympics to an entire country, the way they do the World Cup. It would seem to make the whole thing much, much easier in terms of facilities and open the thing up to more bidder nations.

Agree 100% with those that said there aren't any cities capable of holding it. Who needs to lose that kind of money when every city in the country ahs the same financial burden the nation has. Out of control.