IT would be Chicago since they have the political pull with obama in office. Plenty of facilities with all the pro teams and universities/colleges around + throw In u of Illinois and ND

(02-17-2016 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Preseason football games would be easier to move.

I know you are biased for Houston, but I think you underestimate how hard it is to clear a schedule like that in such a short time frame, and open up hotel rooms and amenities. NYC has the best advantage because it has the most of each available. To be clear I don't think ANY single city could do so in such short notice, but NYC, with it's other regional cities that could help with other events, would stand the best chance.

Note that LA would probably be second. Even without the Rams stadium built, they have the facilities and hotels within the area to host, even if some of the facilities are not quite at Olympic level, such as the Rose Bowl an the Colesium. But at that point, they could not be picky. I think even the Dallas metroplex would probably be even ahead of Houston on a facilities list (although I know nothing about the travel within the area). Miami as well, as south Florida probably has the most hotel space, and when you include proximity to Orlando and Tampa all of the needed facilities, , though I think clearing some of that hotel space might be impossible).

Houston rates high because almost everything is connected by public transportation and many potential sites are located in large clusters (e.g. facilities at NRG (Reliant) Park, UH and TSU campuses, Rice campus, Downtown facilities, etc...). This is coming from people on the USOC, who were impressed enough with Houston that if not for the fascination (bias? bribe?) with NYC, may have chosen Houston as the 2012 US finalist (Houston was a semifinalist).

In contrast, a place like DFW has EVERYTHING spread out in basically every corner of its metro with no central core. The IOC hates that as well as the US in general. Florida would also be very spread out and possibly too humid.

(02-17-2016 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  LA is not hot in August. I linked a table of average August temps for U.S. cities above. Average highs in August: 88 in Atlanta, 80 in Boston, 82 in Chicago, 96 in Dallas, 95 in Houston, 84 in LA, 91 in Miami, 83 in NYC, 68 in SF, 76 in Seattle, 87 in DC.

If they ever hold a summer Olympics in Dallas or Houston, it should be in May or October.

Depending on what you mean by LA. Partially growing up in Southern California, that had many definitions (it was once 50's with a wind chill while I was on the beach in the Summer).

(02-18-2016 10:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  LA is not hot in August. I linked a table of average August temps for U.S. cities above. Average highs in August: 88 in Atlanta, 80 in Boston, 82 in Chicago, 96 in Dallas, 95 in Houston, 84 in LA, 91 in Miami, 83 in NYC, 68 in SF, 76 in Seattle, 87 in DC.

If they ever hold a summer Olympics in Dallas or Houston, it should be in May or October.

Depending on what you mean by LA. Partially growing up in Southern California, that had many definitions (it was once 50's with a wind chill while I was on the beach in the Summer)

84 would be a downtown LA temperature, probably also the temperature at the LA Coliseum if they ran track events there. In 1984, the Olympic marathon start/finish was in Santa Monica, probably several degrees cooler than downtown LA.

They wouldn't run the Olympic marathon or track events way inland, in Chino or Diamond Bar or anyplace like that.

(02-18-2016 10:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Preseason football games would be easier to move.

I know you are biased for Houston, but I think you underestimate how hard it is to clear a schedule like that in such a short time frame, and open up hotel rooms and amenities. NYC has the best advantage because it has the most of each available. To be clear I don't think ANY single city could do so in such short notice, but NYC, with it's other regional cities that could help with other events, would stand the best chance.

Note that LA would probably be second. Even without the Rams stadium built, they have the facilities and hotels within the area to host, even if some of the facilities are not quite at Olympic level, such as the Rose Bowl an the Colesium. But at that point, they could not be picky. I think even the Dallas metroplex would probably be even ahead of Houston on a facilities list (although I know nothing about the travel within the area). Miami as well, as south Florida probably has the most hotel space, and when you include proximity to Orlando and Tampa all of the needed facilities, , though I think clearing some of that hotel space might be impossible).

Houston rates high because almost everything is connected by public transportation and many potential sites are located in large clusters (e.g. facilities at NRG (Reliant) Park, UH and TSU campuses, Rice campus, Downtown facilities, etc...). This is coming from people on the USOC, who were impressed enough with Houston that if not for the fascination (bias? bribe?) with NYC, may have chosen Houston as the 2012 US finalist (Houston was a semifinalist).

In contrast, a place like DFW has EVERYTHING spread out in basically every corner of its metro with no central core. The IOC hates that as well as the US in general. Florida would also be very spread out and possibly too humid.

(02-17-2016 12:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  LA is not hot in August. I linked a table of average August temps for U.S. cities above. Average highs in August: 88 in Atlanta, 80 in Boston, 82 in Chicago, 96 in Dallas, 95 in Houston, 84 in LA, 91 in Miami, 83 in NYC, 68 in SF, 76 in Seattle, 87 in DC.

If they ever hold a summer Olympics in Dallas or Houston, it should be in May or October.

Depending on what you mean by LA. Partially growing up in Southern California, that had many definitions (it was once 50's with a wind chill while I was on the beach in the Summer)

That's an outlier but kind of misses the point. Regionally (i.e. within microclimates), temperatures in summer time are consistent and predictable. Beach areas are consistently 10-15 cooler than Downtown LA. Inland Empire is consistently 5-10 degrees warmer than Downtown LA. It is pretty straightforward to locate and schedule events so that they are weather/temperature appropriate.

The Coliseum tore up the track. :(

I don't think any large american stadium has a track. It seems to me that it would more likely go to Sydney or Athens..

(02-18-2016 10:39 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Houston rates high because almost everything is connected by public transportation and many potential sites are located in large clusters (e.g. facilities at NRG (Reliant) Park, UH and TSU campuses, Rice campus, Downtown facilities, etc...). This is coming from people on the USOC, who were impressed enough with Houston that if not for the fascination (bias? bribe?) with NYC, may have chosen Houston as the 2012 US finalist (Houston was a semifinalist).

I hear a lot of qualifiers here. The thing is, Houston with years to plan is a FAR different cry then Houston putting together an event in 5 months. That is where a much larger city like NYC or even LA (or actually destination cities like Miami, and its surroundings) make a far better case in this hypothetical. And even with the benefit of years to plan, even in your own words, NYC was still chosen as the representative.

(02-18-2016 01:59 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  The Coliseum tore up the track. :(

Yeah, they use Cromwell now, which is really small. Drake Stadium at UCLA seats almost 12,000 but that's only on the west side. It could easily be expanded with temp seating on the east side to get to 20,000 or so. Still small for the Olympics, but if the hypothetical is to be ready in 5 months? It'd work.

I should point out the best city would be Londons, since they were the most recent host, were very successful, and has everything needed.

(02-18-2016 12:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  84 would be a downtown LA temperature, probably also the temperature at the LA Coliseum if they ran track events there. In 1984, the Olympic marathon start/finish was in Santa Monica, probably several degrees cooler than downtown LA.

They wouldn't run the Olympic marathon or track events way inland, in Chino or Diamond Bar or anyplace like that.

Exactly, just pointing out that there are varying temperatures throughout the region.

(02-18-2016 04:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I hear a lot of qualifiers here. The thing is, Houston with years to plan is a FAR different cry then Houston putting together an event in 5 months. That is where a much larger city like NYC or even LA (or actually destination cities like Miami, and its surroundings) make a far better case in this hypothetical. And even with the benefit of years to plan, even in your own words, NYC was still chosen as the representative.

I say again, the USOC is a fan of Houston as a potential Olympic host, it's just not sexy (though neither was Atlanta for that matter), this isn't the homer in me speaking. NYC and LA are much bigger cities but Houston is not exactly Omaha. There are millions of people within an hour of NRG (Reliant) Park and Houston has plenty of hotels and amenities, such as two international airports and more a few hours away. It is in a league with Washington, DFW and Philadelphia. And I say again while some places, like Miami or even a Phoenix, are more used to visitors, they would have facilities way more spread out than Houston.

As an emergency host, few cities in the US can compete with Houston. Also, agreed about London.

Semi-related to the concept of this thread (so I didn't have to start a new thread), here are the US cities I think could host the Summer Olympics without breaking the bank too much and doing so in a a relatively compact area (i.e. without using numerous cities or even an entire metro area):


Los Angeles (especially once the Rams' stadium is built)
Houston
Atlanta
Las Vegas (if the new stadium gets built)
New York/Long Island/Newark/The Meadowlands (in theory, they don't have to build a whole bunch of new stadiums, gyms and arenas).
DFW (if they tried their hardest to center everything in one location, like Arlington)
Washington (they'd have to rely on Maryland, Georgetown and George Mason's facilities)
Minneapolis/St. Paul


Ones that just missed the cut or I need more research on:

Pittsburgh
Salt Lake City
Chicago

I don't think the above (except Chicago) would have enough hotel rooms plus some other possible glaring issues.

You're right about LA being close to ready but not about it being a compact games. The '84 games were held in 3 counties and I assume a repeat would similarly spread across Metro LA.

ETA: Wait, you think Vegas could hold a Summer Games?! That's insane on weather alone but there's no way they're even close on facilities.

(02-18-2016 04:02 PM)bostonspider Wrote:  I don't think any large american stadium has a track. It seems to me that it would more likely go to Sydney or Athens..

The US may not have a large stadium but it has plenty of stadiums that have a track. Duke University may still have a track around Wallace-Wade Stadium.

(05-21-2016 10:23 AM)chess Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 04:02 PM)bostonspider Wrote:  I don't think any large american stadium has a track. It seems to me that it would more likely go to Sydney or Athens..

The US may not have a large stadium but it has plenty of stadiums that have a track. Duke University may still have a track around Wallace-Wade Stadium.

The L.A. Olympic bid for 2024 proposes to install a track at the Coliseum if they are awarded the Games, and the track would be removed after the Games. Wouldn't surprise me if other cities propose to do the same in their own large stadiums. It's far less expensive than building a new stadium just for an Olympics.

(05-21-2016 10:00 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  You're right about LA being close to ready but not about it being a compact games. The '84 games were held in 3 counties and I assume a repeat would similarly spread across Metro LA.

ETA: Wait, you think Vegas could hold a Summer Games?! That's insane on weather alone but there's no way they're even close on facilities.

"Beijing" 08 games were far from compact

(05-21-2016 10:00 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  You're right about LA being close to ready but not about it being a compact games. The '84 games were held in 3 counties and I assume a repeat would similarly spread across Metro LA.

ETA: Wait, you think Vegas could hold a Summer Games?! That's insane on weather alone but there's no way they're even close on facilities.

On LA: I think they can keep it relatively compact. You're right, that'd be a challenge unless new facilities were built in and around Inglewood.

(05-21-2016 02:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The L.A. Olympic bid for 2024 proposes to install a track at the Coliseum if they are awarded the Games, and the track would be removed after the Games. Wouldn't surprise me if other cities propose to do the same in their own large stadiums. It's far less expensive than building a new stadium just for an Olympics.

I get the historical connection but why exactly would an Olympic bid go to the Coliseum and not the Rams new stadium?

(05-21-2016 09:06 PM)GhentFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 10:00 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  You're right about LA being close to ready but not about it being a compact games. The '84 games were held in 3 counties and I assume a repeat would similarly spread across Metro LA.

ETA: Wait, you think Vegas could hold a Summer Games?! That's insane on weather alone but there's no way they're even close on facilities.

"Beijing" 08 games were far from compact

But

A. Politics and bribery are not uncommon with the IOC and likely how Beijing got the games and

B. The IOC ideally likes for venues to be in walking or short training distance of each other. They do award bids otherwise but they hate the idea of more than a few venues being outside a geographic core.

I forgot to address Vegas: if they got that stadium built near the Strip they'd have not only a new stadium but a new arena within walking distance of thousands of hotel rooms and one of the biggest tourist hot spots in the world. Thomas & Mack was actually just slightly renovated, so it's not being demolished either. There are numerous convention halls and arenas in the area and on the The Strip. I say this to say other than a few events like sailing/rowing, which may need to be held on the ocean front in LA, Orange County or San Diego, most of the venues for a Vegas bid will be within walking distance of each other.

And they already are in existence with only slight upgrades being necessary.

(05-21-2016 11:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 10:00 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  You're right about LA being close to ready but not about it being a compact games. The '84 games were held in 3 counties and I assume a repeat would similarly spread across Metro LA.

ETA: Wait, you think Vegas could hold a Summer Games?! That's insane on weather alone but there's no way they're even close on facilities.

On LA: I think they can keep it relatively compact. You're right, that'd be a challenge unless new facilities were built in and around Inglewood.

(05-21-2016 02:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The L.A. Olympic bid for 2024 proposes to install a track at the Coliseum if they are awarded the Games, and the track would be removed after the Games. Wouldn't surprise me if other cities propose to do the same in their own large stadiums. It's far less expensive than building a new stadium just for an Olympics.

I get the historical connection but why exactly would an Olympic bid go to the Coliseum and not the Rams new stadium?

The local committee bidding on the Olympics chooses the sites for each event. IOC only chooses one city/country or another. I suppose the IOC could micromanage venue selection in each host city, but one suspects that the IOC $election proce$$ doesn't focus much on which local venue is best for an event.

The Rams stadium will have a more narrow "floor" and, like many newer stadiums, the field will be 15—20 feet below the level of the first row of seats, making it difficult to install a temp track that would overlap those first few rows of football seats. The temp track idea is probably meant for older football stadiums with real "field level" seats for that reason.

(05-22-2016 12:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 11:18 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 10:00 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  You're right about LA being close to ready but not about it being a compact games. The '84 games were held in 3 counties and I assume a repeat would similarly spread across Metro LA.

ETA: Wait, you think Vegas could hold a Summer Games?! That's insane on weather alone but there's no way they're even close on facilities.

On LA: I think they can keep it relatively compact. You're right, that'd be a challenge unless new facilities were built in and around Inglewood.

(05-21-2016 02:13 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The L.A. Olympic bid for 2024 proposes to install a track at the Coliseum if they are awarded the Games, and the track would be removed after the Games. Wouldn't surprise me if other cities propose to do the same in their own large stadiums. It's far less expensive than building a new stadium just for an Olympics.

I get the historical connection but why exactly would an Olympic bid go to the Coliseum and not the Rams new stadium?

The local committee bidding on the Olympics chooses the sites for each event. IOC only chooses one city/country or another. I suppose the IOC could micromanage venue selection in each host city, but one suspects that the IOC $election proce$$ doesn't focus much on which local venue is best for an event.

The Rams stadium will have a more narrow "floor" and, like many newer stadiums, the field will be 15—20 feet below the level of the first row of seats, making it difficult to install a temp track that would overlap those first few rows of football seats. The temp track idea is probably meant for older football stadiums with real "field level" seats for that reason.

Right. The Coliseum was built with a track so putting one back is a reasonable undertaking.