The U.S. did not bid for 2020 (the host city will be announced next year), so 2024 will be the earliest opportunity for the USA to host. The last time the Summer Games were in America was 1996 in Atlanta.
Baltimore
Buffalo (joint bid with Toronto)
Cincinnati
Louisville
New Orleans
Chicago, Dallas, Tulsa, and Los Angeles are apparently throwing their hat in the ring as well.
I think LA and Chicago would be the front runners. Baltimore would be my outside candidate. The idea of NO before Katrina probably would be viable, but with all the negative attention that city's gotten about not being able to rebuild, I don't see them being able to build a decent campaign. The other cities, I don't know how big of an international brand they are which given the past winners, I think is critical. Even Atlanta seems a little out of place compared to London, Sydney, Athens, and Beijing. I think names carry weight.
I doubt New Orleans will ever host a Summer Olympics unless they move it forward. A hurricane could wipe everything out.
Surprised about SF and NYC not already having something set up. Once we get closer I wouldn't be surprised to see SOME movement that way.
I wouldn't be surprised if a US city is asked to fill in for someone else (central/south america) before we're officially chosen again.
I think Buffalo-Toronto would be a good idea. It would appeal to the voters by hitting two countries with one stone.
Can't do LA, traffic can't handle it
(09-03-2012 11:50 AM)logan5 Wrote: [ -> ]I think Buffalo-Toronto would be a good idea. It would appeal to the voters by hitting two countries with one stone.
In some ways this would require a bit of shift at the IOC-the IOC even had the London Organising Committee move some events back into the city because of how many events were held outside London. Toronto and Buffalo are nearly 100 miles apart. Even Baltimore and Washington are 40 miles apart.
(09-02-2012 10:20 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]The U.S. did not bid for 2020 (the host city will be announced next year), so 2024 will be the earliest opportunity for the USA to host. The last time the Summer Games were in America was 1996 in Atlanta.
Baltimore
Buffalo (joint bid with Toronto)
Cincinnati
Louisville
New Orleans
Chicago, Dallas, Tulsa, and Los Angeles are apparently throwing their hat in the ring as well.
As much as I'd like to see a Chicago Olympics, I don't know how they would be able to do it. They are so far in debt already that there is no way.
Dallas would be pretty cool. They might be able to use the Jerry dome for some of the events.
Here's a story on the Dallas bid:
http://www.wfaa.com/sports/more/Dallas-g...79916.html
DFW is long on large stadiums that are either outdoors or have retractable roofs: Cowboys Stadium, the Cotton Bowl, Apogee Field (UNT), Gerald J. Ford (SMU), Amon Carter (TCU), FC Dallas Stadium, and even Maverick Stadium (UTA). That should take care of Track & Field, Field Hockey, Rugby Sevens, and at least one of the four-six soccer venues. Archery, Beach Volleyball, and Shooting (in particular the trap and skeet portions) could be candidates for those venues as well.
The heat might be an issue. The IOC requires that the games be held between July 15 and August 30, but that can be waived with IOC approval.
(09-03-2012 11:50 AM)logan5 Wrote: [ -> ]I think Buffalo-Toronto would be a good idea. It would appeal to the voters by hitting two countries with one stone.
Thats why I think detroit could mount a viable bid.
(09-04-2012 07:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2012 11:50 AM)logan5 Wrote: [ -> ]I think Buffalo-Toronto would be a good idea. It would appeal to the voters by hitting two countries with one stone.
Thats why I think detroit could mount a viable bid.
Detroit is similar to Chicago only the voters outside of the city are smarter. There is no way that the state would get behind all that debt based on the situation the state is currently in. Not to mention that Detroit has probably one of the worst reps in the US.
I dont' see any US city being able to make the monetary commitment that the IOC is going to want.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them follow the lead of FIFA and shoot for a Middle Eastern olympics (if Qatar goes well).
(09-04-2012 10:14 PM)RaiderATO Wrote: [ -> ]I dont' see any US city being able to make the monetary commitment that the IOC is going to want.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them follow the lead of FIFA and shoot for a Middle Eastern olympics (if Qatar goes well).
I don't know. A men's soccer tournament is one thing. The world's largest coed athletic competition is a whole different ballgame. Have you seen what the women wear on the track? Not to mention the swimmers and beach volleyball players. I don't think the middle east will be quite ready for the Olympics by 2024. They'd probably be better with the winter olympics (even the skaters wear tights), but I don't think even Qatar has enough money to pull that off.
As for Detroit, well I think they are better off focusing on their zombie amusement park right now.
cincinnati threw in a bid maybe around 2000. it just might happen here because of our spend like no tomorrow city council and our mayor who desperately wants the city to become a "world city." no project is too big for them. but, i think it'd be cool. i could host a sh!t ton of foreigners. i like foreigners.
(09-03-2012 06:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]Can't do LA, traffic can't handle it
Not true. During the 1984 games the dire predictions of world-beating traffic never came true. Less people here then but also narrower freeways, fewer buses and no other public transportation. Of course, another reason traffic was so decent then was that a lot of the events were spread out quite a distance from LA proper and I think that would still have to be part of the plan.
On the other hand, I don't trust that we'd get another Peter Ueberroth to run the games smoothly and make a nice profit. All in all, I'd rather LA not go after another Games.
I live in the city best suited for an Olympic games, Houston. We have tightly spaced facilities and would have to build very little to host the games. That being said..... The Olympics are a huge waste of money and rarely do squat for the hosting city/nation except provide a huge bill for the taxpayers to pay off.
The World Cup is a good event that usually pays off. The Olympics...nah, I'll let others pay for that fiasco.
(09-04-2012 10:14 PM)RaiderATO Wrote: [ -> ]I dont' see any US city being able to make the monetary commitment that the IOC is going to want.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them follow the lead of FIFA and shoot for a Middle Eastern olympics (if Qatar goes well).
The Qatari World Cup will be a fiasco. By the way, the Qataris will have to allow the Israelis and their fans into the country in order to host the Olympics. And remember, Qatar bought the MEN's world cup, with no female participants.
Istanbul has bid for the games in 2020. They might get them. But then again, Turkey isn't anywhere near as bad as the rest of the middle east.
(09-05-2012 04:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]The Olympics are a huge waste of money and rarely do squat for the hosting city/nation except provide a huge bill for the taxpayers to pay off.
Since Atlanta, yes. Which is why I believe no US city will be able to give a big enough HJ to the IOC to get 'em.
(09-03-2012 08:52 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a story on the Dallas bid:
http://www.wfaa.com/sports/more/Dallas-g...79916.html
DFW is long on large stadiums that are either outdoors or have retractable roofs: Cowboys Stadium, the Cotton Bowl, Apogee Field (UNT), Gerald J. Ford (SMU), Amon Carter (TCU), FC Dallas Stadium, and even Maverick Stadium (UTA). That should take care of Track & Field, Field Hockey, Rugby Sevens, and at least one of the four-six soccer venues. Archery, Beach Volleyball, and Shooting (in particular the trap and skeet portions) could be candidates for those venues as well.
The heat might be an issue. The IOC requires that the games be held between July 15 and August 30, but that can be waived with IOC approval.
The problem with DFW is that all of the venues are far too spread out. That is a key reason (in addition to revenue sharing) why Chicago lost to Rio for 2016
I saw Chicago's venue plan video, and I don't get how it could have been too spread out-Chicago would have had 11 sports in the same building (McCormick Place).