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

L.A. also has the most traffic, smog, and thugs built in and in use every week as well... L.A. is not the best!

During the Great Depression the 1932 Olympics were held in L.A. Now we're in the 2008 George W. Bush Great Recession and only two cities in the world are ready for an Olympics, Tokyo and Los Angeles. Unless you want to go back to Beijing ;-)

St Louis has already hosted as well.

Philly is a potential bidder for 2024, as is Seattle for 2028. Dallas and Pittsburgh cancelled their bids for 2020. Also, Denver is a potential bidder for the Winter Olympics in 2022 (USOC declined to bid for 2018, but that is irrelevant now as there are only 3 remaining candidates).

Tampa did handle the Super Bowl well, but its hot in Tampa.

I also do not understand the appeal of hosting the games. No one in the world knows what Atlanta is, despite the fact that it has hosted a Summer Games and invented Coke, Delta, and CNN. Does anyone really think that 2014 will put Sochi on the map? Wasn't there just a war in Georgia, like 50 miles from Sochi?

I believe (read it somewhere after Chicago 2016 failed, but haven't read details or follow-up) that USOC said they are not inclined to support any U.S. cities bidding unless they get some positive signs/feedback from the IOC.

if the bids use no tax money then voters will support it.

Denver!!!

If you dont like it, you can cry in your altitude tent like Rupp does every night

polevaultpower wrote:

Seattle looked into hosting the Olympics a dozen years ago. The citizens of Seattle made it clear they weren't interested:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981010&slug=2776834

Also, the track is being removed from Husky Stadium. They plan to eventually build a standalone track, but there's no timeline for that (that I've heard of anyway), and it wouldn't have the seating capacity for a major championships.

Why are they removing the track?

w/e wrote:

Why are they removing the track?

To get more seats closer to the football field.

The Olympics is not just about T&F, read the bios of some of our Olympic athletes, Wrestling, Judo, Rowing, Archery, Basketball, Handball, Weight Lifting, etc.; about 1/3rd of our Olympic athletes come from the NE, specifically (PA/NJ/NY). Why not go with a city that can not only pull it off, but most importantly, deserves it like Philly or New York?

Decent whether in the summer

Transportation infrastructure

Rivers, lakes and beaches

Lot of hotels and attractions

Large universities and stadiums

Lots of sports fans

Marathon and bike courses

Large airports

Extremely diverse populations

Large corporations (sponsorship)

Use to hosting large events

Etc., etc.

Dallas = too hot amoung other things

Denver = too high amoung other things

San Fran = too hilly amoung other things

Setatle = too rainy amoung other things

...removing emotion and sentimentalities from the discussion and just keeping it real!

Seattle weather is outstanding in August, but they need a better transit system to be a contender for an event this large.

Lithe Commuter wrote:

Seattle weather is outstanding in August, but they need a better transit system to be a contender for an event this large.

Both these statements are true. There may not be a better place in the country than Seattle in August. The weather would be phenomenal--upper 70s, clear--and there would be views of the Sound, the Olympics, the Cascades, and Rainier. It would be a great setting.

However, Seattle as is cannot handle its own self in terms of facilities and traffic. The city currently is at 4x its intended capacity and is uniquely bookended by water to the East and West. Unless light rail improves a ton, and bridges across Lake Washington are done, I think it would be a logistical nightmare.

That being said, there is a great outdoors culture to support some of the lesser-name events--kayaking, sailing, cycling, etc. Also, Seattle has a rowing culture similar to Philadelphia, so those facilities and support wouldnt be a problem. It also has venues that are spread out across the city--the professional stadiums, Key Arena for gymnastics, UW for other sports. It is near the ocean and accessible to whitewater.

In the past, Seattle residents have shown a lack of investment in bringing or keeping sporting events in Seattle, as shown by voting not to bid in the past and letting the Sonics leave. Also, I wonder if the IOC would view it as too close to Vancouver...

You forget that just because places have gyms and tracks doesn't mean it meets Olympic standards.

How many cities can construct two dozen Olympics certified venues, throw a two week games, and show an immediate profit.

Cities cannot event afford civilian cops & fire workers, are laying them off, and dragging volunteers out of the woodwork with military, boy scouts, corrections, and rent-a-cop experience.

Taxpayers will not fund one dime in the economic disaster we are in now. There's 25% real unemployment even in foo foo Silicon Valley, California.

Rochester, NY

Nothing is Built Yet wrote:

You forget that just because places have gyms and tracks doesn't mean it meets Olympic standards.

How many cities can construct two dozen Olympics certified venues, throw a two week games, and show an immediate profit.

Cities cannot event afford civilian cops & fire workers, are laying them off, and dragging volunteers out of the woodwork with military, boy scouts, corrections, and rent-a-cop experience.

Taxpayers will not fund one dime in the economic disaster we are in now. There's 25% real unemployment even in foo foo Silicon Valley, California.

The Olympics don't have to be paid for by taxes.

The U.S. is not China. Our government would not be running everything. The Olympics could for sure be held in the U.S. without using public money.

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

Pros: Temperature, obviously. August weather (my sense is that the games have to be within a certain period in August) is lows of 50ish, highs to 60 to 65 or so. By the end of the games/late August, and the marathons, you could be looking at early fall weather. Very nice.

Other pro: Anchorage is 8-9 hours by air from central Europe. Seriously. (And not too much farther from Asia.) Hence the 80s-era slogan, "Air crossroads of the world." (And hence the massive UPS and FedEx hubs in town, and the world's second (?) busiest airport by cargo volume.)

Other pro: The state's not bankrupt (oil money still there).

Cons: Uh, the infrastructure not being there. At all. That would be a dealbreaker.

Where can it be held in the US without the use of taxpayers money ?

I think Seattle is DOA. There was an effort to bring the 2012 Olympics here that overwhelmingly was rejected.

Too many stadium wars here in the last 15 years. We're still paying off the KingDome, which was built in the 1970's and torn down in 2000.

You can take Seattle off the list, it's not happening.

stitch wrote:

where's the love for DC? it's our nation's capital!

______________________

Too crowded.

Pittsburgh for sure. Lots of room. Detroit is a wild idea, but really it make ssense. How about Dallas? No? Too hot in June, I know.

The place has to be somewhere that will be able to us ethe buildings AFTER the Olympics leave. - see Bejing ( we no use anymore...me love you long time)

I can see upstate NY.

Everyone is bitching about it being too "hot" for Olympic games in southern cities and I'm trying to think of how it'd be too hot to host the Open swim event in Tampa Bay or Miami.

You're hosting the Olympic games, you need to cater to ALL sports, not just Track and Field. That's around what? 300 events?

Host the Olympics in the middle of nowhereville and put a new city on the map.