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

San Diego is at the southern end of a metropolitan area with 19 million people which is larger than the population of Texas. There's plenty to do at the beach, mountains, rivers, TJ, etc. The problem with San Diego is few Olympic certified stadiums nearby are built and they are in the same economic depression as the rest of the USA.

IOC Wannabe wrote:

Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore are unappealing in all the ways Rust Belt cities are, so axe those.

Axe them what? Axe them why they be rust belt cities?

If the best Oly Games is the highest profit Oly Games then Los Angeles has it. The IOC certified venues, infrastructure, TV faculities, hotels, international airport, subway lines, practice fields, etc. are already there now. The only thing to be done is temporarily fill in the L.A. Coliseum with soil, grade, and lay a Mondo and hammer/shot/discus on the infield per IAAF rules. That's no bigee. They have motocross, monster trucks, Hummer, and all sorts of freak shows there all the time.

Detroit!

Actually, one of the more likely U.S. alternatives is the combined Tampa/Orlando bid, which was unsuccessful a few years ago. There are a number of positives with a TPA/ORL bid, namely the huge number of hotel rooms and international airport access. No other metro area could compete with the hotel rooms that a combined ORL/TPA would bring, especially after they bring the cruise boats into the TPA area (this is actually what they do).

The heat would be a problem, but only for the distance runners. Plus, if you held it in September, it wouldn't be as bad.

The main drawback of TPA/ORL is just that it would be a little too spread out. TPA and ORL are only 50 miles apart, so it is theoretically do-able, but a bunch of people would complain.

Dang! I came on here to jokingly say Detroit, but you ruined it by putting them on the list. Seriously? Detroit!?

I'm a Michigan native. I know better.

Miami end of discussion. It's only 98 degrees down here in august and most of the T&F athletes train in FL anyway might as well "Take our talents to south beach" (Lebron Voice) ...LMAO ROTFL

I actually think Detroit is a really good option. Like someone posted earlier, they have the potential to build complete athlete villages and complexes without displacing many residents. Seattle, Denver, San Diego might be able to be great venues, but do these cities really need the hassle? Detroit is starving for any type of redevelopment, and they might see this as the catalyst to turn the city around. One of the biggest problems with the Chicago proposal was resident fear of redevelopment and displacement. I think Detroit would be one, if not the only, city in the country that would "want" the olympics, which is a big component of support, success and development. Most importantly Detroit "needs" something like this. Weather in Michigan in summer is not bad, and water is nearby, major sports stadiums, etc. What is the downside?

You don't eliminate a city just because it has hosted an Olympics before. Here is my top 3:

#1. Los Angeles

#2. Los Angeles

#3. Los Angeles

Jerome. wrote:

IOC Wannabe wrote:

Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore are unappealing in all the ways Rust Belt cities are, so axe those.

Axe them what? Axe them why they be rust belt cities?

POD

IOC Wannabe wrote:

An excellent alternative is Seattle. The only problem is rain but that would set up for a great mascot and lots of umbrella and rain slicker sales!

Rain is not usually an issue that time of year. Seattle has a fantastic climate for hosting a major event that time of year. But lack of interest on the part of the locals is a dealbreaker.

Sub 3:00 wrote:

I actually think Detroit is a really good option. Like someone posted earlier, they have the potential to build complete athlete villages and complexes without displacing many residents. Seattle, Denver, San Diego might be able to be great venues, but do these cities really need the hassle? Detroit is starving for any type of redevelopment, and they might see this as the catalyst to turn the city around. One of the biggest problems with the Chicago proposal was resident fear of redevelopment and displacement. I think Detroit would be one, if not the only, city in the country that would "want" the olympics, which is a big component of support, success and development. Most importantly Detroit "needs" something like this. Weather in Michigan in summer is not bad, and water is nearby, major sports stadiums, etc. What is the downside?

It's DETROIT!!!

Philadelphia

Franklin Field

Keep in mind that you will be bidding to build 24 Olympic sized venues and 24 adjacent practice facilities, one per venue. Plus parking structures, water lines, gas lines, fiber optic and phone lines, roads, rail and subway extensions, hotels, freeways, on/off ramps, telecommunication hubs, internet server farms. And upgrading the international airport, local police and local fire depts. How much would that cost the average city ? $100B is my guess. I wonder what the taxpayers would think it you proposed spending $100B to stage a two week show and the facilities have little use afterwards.

I think that San Diego is the ideal place. Its a major city and on the water. We know that the weather would be perfect. They've been looking for a reason for years to build a new stadium and sports arena. It already has an Olympic Training Center. Its beautiful there, and has been called America's Finest City for years. Plus, there are direct flights from all over the world that arrive in San Diego, and LA for that matter which isn't that far away. This really is the best choice.

I love the Detroit idea. Motor City 20xx!!!

There's a new sheriff in town, homes... Taxpayers can't fathom the costs. Forget about it unless you can demonstrate an immediate profit from the games.

How can that possibly be? I know grunge was born there with all its apathy blah blah blah but wouldn't having the Olympics there get a few depressed peeps out of their couches?

polevaultpower wrote:

IOC Wannabe wrote:

An excellent alternative is Seattle. The only problem is rain but that would set up for a great mascot and lots of umbrella and rain slicker sales!

Rain is not usually an issue that time of year. Seattle has a fantastic climate for hosting a major event that time of year. But lack of interest on the part of the locals is a dealbreaker.

I'd love to see the games held in the U.S.A. again and there are many cities that come to mind.

Problem is that U.S. foreign policy over the last 20 or 30 years will destroy any chance.

Lessons like that learned by holding the Commonwealths' in India will not be forgotten by games organisers.

Who could blame organisers for choosing a country without enemies. A country that is respected and is progressive.

A country that does not see itself as the world's policeman and savior.

Sadly the U.S.A. has "cooked it's Goose".