Jump to content

The United States and the 2016 Summer Olympics


Hank

Recommended Posts

According to Wikipedia, there are eight American cities that are considering putting forth a bid for the  2016 Summer Olympics and the Games of the XXXI Olympiad. The candiate Cities are;

A. Baltimore, MD – Washington, DC

B. Chicago, IL

C. Detroit, MI

D. Los Angeles, CA

E. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

F. New York City, NY

G. Philadelphia, PA

H. San Diego, CA – Tijuana, Mexico (Dual Bi-National Bid)

Out of the eight cities listed so far, which one to you believe is the best candidate city and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The candidate city that I would support is Chicago, IL and here is why.

First, Chicago has a lot of security available and every time I have gone to Chicago, I feel very safe walking around the city no matter what time of the day it is.

Second, Chicago has enough accommodations for everyone budget. Chicago has hotels in Chicago, and an abundant of hotels throughout the Chicagoland area. The best accommodations in Chicagoland are in Cook, Dupage, Kane, and Will Country.

Third, Chicago has great public transportation. This transportation includeds buses, trains (especially the METRA that expands into Cook, DuPage, Lake, McHenry, Kane, and Will Counties). I am not sure if METRA expands into Kendall Country, but someone who is from Chicago would know the answer. Other modes of transportation included buses and taxies. Chicago even has two airports which visitors and Olympians from other

Fourth, there are enough sporting venues available. The Olympic Stadium could be Soldier Field, events that deal with boating can be on lake Michigan along with outdoor volleyball, other venues that would be used are the United Center, Wrigley Field, US Cellular Field, Chicago Convention Center (I believe it is near Soldier Field), the campuses of Northwestern University and DePaul University.

Finally, Chicago has everything for everyone. From museums to shopping and from world class restaurants to their famous pizza’s and hot dogs, Chicago has everything for anyone and events that are offer are at reasonable prices.

Right now, I am uncertain to who I am going to support for the 2016 Summer Olympics, but right now I am leaning towards Chicago because I find the city amazing and a real great city to visit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hank, why not wait until March?  Nothing will be official until then.  If you have been reading any of the other threads and related news stories, you will realize that the USOC has asked interested cities to put a lid on it, until they officially announce their stand -- which they said would be after the Winter Games, therefore around March.  

THere's been alot of conjecturing around already, and so far, for posters on this board, Chicago and NYC seem to have the biggest support.  I, too, believe, they would have the best chances of being the winning city.  But we will have to wait until March.

P.S. Don't believe everything that's put on wikepedia.  That's NOT official stuff there.  Anybody, even trolls like Mikel here, can put any crappy piece of news on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia, there are eight American cities that are considering putting forth a bid for the  2016 Summer Olympics and the Games of the XXXI Olympiad. The candiate Cities are;

A. Baltimore, MD – Washington, DC

B. Chicago, IL

C. Detroit, MI

D. Los Angeles, CA

E. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

F. New York City, NY

G. Philadelphia, PA

H. San Diego, CA – Tijuana, Mexico (Dual Bi-National Bid)

Out of the eight cities listed so far, which one to you believe is the best candidate city and why?

NYC or in the case NYC doesn't bid, Chicago.

I hope NYC wins 2016! :)  :;):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following events here on Games bids for nearly two years, as i'm sat at home with a sore throat and a runny nose i thought i'd give my opinions of the American race for 2016 - it has been two years of thoughts so apologies for the length of my post.

In theory i support a New York bid but there are several factors that a USOC would have to address if the United States is to be awarded the 2016 games.  Some of them are more important than others and some will not be so relevent in 2009 when the city is selected, but despite undoubtedly having the financial capability the US has perhaps the biggest hill to climb than any other country in the world.

There have been instances in the last few years of foreign atheletes being denied entrance to the US due to immigration controls and therefore not being able to compete, if the games were awarded to a city i'm sure the IOC would hope that all those who were talented enough were able to take part.

Rightly or wrongly the IOC's view of the last two American Olympics in Atlanta and Salt Lake City is that neither represented the Olympic movement in its best possible light.  Atlanta did make money and was popular throughout the region, however, these games seemed to infuriate almost everyone else with major errors in vital systems such as transportation and technology.  Perhaps worst still was that Atlanta gave the rest of the world the impression of a summer games as a flea market of tacky merchandise which cheapened the Olympic ideal.  Salt Lake City again was a financial success and a good winter games - although ask people what their lasting memories are and they reply about the preceding scandal that surrounded the bidding process.  The Salt Lake team offered bribes then proceeded to blame the IOC for accepting them, also IOC president Samaranch was called to answer to a congressional committee - although he didnt attend it's hardly the behaviour of country that relies on the IOC for future games - does it persuade them that the US is deserving of another summer Olympics?

One can't escape the fact that anti-Americanism has increased since George Bush became president and this will obviously influence the IOC as much as the rest of the world.  With even "loyal" allies of the US wondering how so many people can be so stupid to re-elect Bush last year (a British newspaper headline), i believe this often unfair attitude will continue whilst he remains in office - in 2009 he won't be!  This will be a boost to an American city's chances, even if another republican is elected surely in the summer of 2009 he (or hopefully she) will still be enjoying a honeymoon period of a world relieved to be rid of Bush.  A more positive policy of fewer threats to muslim nations and more focus on trade with the Third world and climate change would also greatly enhance the world's view of the US - it worked for Tony Blair, despite Iraq he remains relatively popular abroad, more so than at home.

There are a few issues such as funding guarantees on a national scale but these should be rectified now so that they are forgotten later.

I believe that the advantages of repeat biddingcan be over-estimated - it hasn't aided Istanbul, Detroit or Paris yet and i don't think that the fact it bid for 2012 will help New York in the eyes of the IOC.  It is only in specific circumstances that a previous bid will almost certainly win the next time, examples of this are Athens and Beijing, both were regarded as favourites and both were only narrowly defeated.  For this reason i believe that the next time Paris bids for the games in 2020 or 2024 it will win (though it must ensure it bids in 2020 if the competition involves Madrid, Rome/Milan, or Berlin/Hamburg or it may miss its chance due to rotation).

Despite 2012 giving New York no sway among IOC members it will have gained experience and contacts.  It is extremely important that the USOC choose New York or Chicago or they risk being embarrassed even more so than 2012.  This years race showed how much the IOC relished having a choice between five of the most celebrated cities in the world, all five could have created an amazing games - it was only the last few days that won it for London.  With cities such as Tokyo, Rio, Cape Town, and Rome showing varying degrees of interest in 2016 it is extremely important that America puts forward its most glamorous location, for who in the IOC would choose Minneapolis or Cincinnati over Rio or Rome?  Perhaps the need for size and glamour has become Atlanta's greatest legacy.

The US will be fighting an up hill battle anyway so New York or Chicago would be their best chance.  Unlike London or Paris the US doesn't enjoy large blocks of support that they can take for granted within the IOC.  Many of the US's traditional allies have loyalties elsewhere, the UK, for example, supported South Africa's World Cup bid and South Africa supported London's Olympics bid in return - with Cape Town interested in the Olympics and England bidding for the World Cup in 2018 the same pact is likely to be maintained.  Much of Continental Europe would have sympathies for a Latin American bid and Japan may well get support from some of their freinds in thr Pacific region.

Perhaps the best chance for the US would be for Cape Town and Rio to decline this time as both have other major sporting events on the horizon.

Many on the forum have argued that the major sponsors of the Olympics would prefer a US city, but i believe that this isn't the case.  Coca-cola and McDonalds are huge multi-nationals anyway with economic ties all over the world.  Football managed to become the most popular and affluent sport in the world - sponsored by American companies despite a lack of any real passion for the sport within the US.  Americans will continue to binge on Big Macs and Coke whether the Olympic Games are in New York, New Dehli, or New South Wales, as will the rest of the world.  NBC doesn't seem overly concerned either where the games should be held, they are quite happy to record the events and broadcast them later at prime-time and posters on this forum have indicated that they don't mind that either.  NBC, Coca-cola, and McDonalds are far more likely to want instantely recognised backdrops in glamorous locations whether that be in the US or elsewhere.

Maybe the US's greatest asset is that they continue to be the most successful Summer Olympians - Good Luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well said....

Cape Town the early early favourites.

Cape Town gets an 8 year headstart

Still eight years from now, before the host city of the 2020 Summer Olympic Games hosts will be announced and Cape Town stands out in the international media like a sore thumb. Arguably Africa's most cosmopolitan city, Cape Town, has been mentioned time and time again whether during the 2012 race as a partner to the Commonwealth in supporting London with hopes of the favour returned in its future bid, to general consensus among the international public that 2020 will be Africa’s turn and Cape Town will step forward ahead of its competitors.

The first mention of a possible Olympic bid by the "Mother City" of South Africa also recently described in the 2010 football world cup bid book as the "jewel" of South Africa, was during a parliamentary conference on bidding for future international events back in April 2003. The 2010 soccer world cup, the 2014 commonwealth games and the 2020 Olympic Games were highlighted as priority events. South Africa’s recent withdrawal from the commonwealth bid and its subsequent support for Nigeria who are still going forth with a commonwealth 2014 bid, has been noted and could be a strategic move in attempts to ensure full African support when it bids for the 2020 summer Olympic games.

Dick Pound, a highly ranked IOC executive has over the past year remarked that the games would need to head to new frontiers soon, and the bidding process may become obsolete, if the IOC makes strategic decisions to move the games into South America and Africa, where the games have never been held before, as early as 2016. This would certainly be in favour of Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town the early favourites for their respective continents. However, this seems very unlikely given the large media attention surrounding the actual bidding process and the good publicity the IOC and many cities receive from simply bidding. Not to mention the substantial "fee" the IOC expects each bidding city to cough up.

If Cape Town is as "hot" as many pundits predict it will and shall be, it would definitely need to have its story together in all aspects of its bid. Gaining invaluable experience in hosting large scale events both sport and non sport related, from cricket, rugby and soccer world cup matches as well Cape Town's top eight position as one of the world best meeting destinations according to bescities.net. This will only improve Cape Town's already solid credibility in the eyes of the IOC. But it would need to battle it out against tough competition such as Prague, many of the losing cities of a 2016 bid as well as Busan, South Korea who just this week announced their plans to go full steam ahead with a bid for the 2020 games. In their respect, Busan hosted 2002 soccer world cup matches and Korea has shown once before it is able to host the games, but the need for something that will redefine the IOC and its true ideals is what previous IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch would describe as a step in making the Olympic Games a truly global event. The list of past and future host cities reads like the who's who of the world's best cities and indicates explicitly the direction the IOC wishes to take, that is, the aim of bringing the Olympic games to all corners of the earth, with some of the best cities in each corner as hosts .Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008, London 2012, perhaps Rio de Janeiro 2016 and Cape Town 2020 would add colour and life to an already world class list.

Whatever the outcome may be, the international competition will regard the city of 2.9 million as the main opposition and will not be afraid to point out each and every weakness Cape Town possibly has. Cape Town however has learned all too well the skill of bidding for an Olympic Games be it only once before for the 2004 games, which in itself placed Cape Town in the back of the mind of the IOC for years to come. Whether or not the IOC will offer the "sympathy" vote to Cape Town, a strong technical plan cemented with unequivocal government backing and a realistic sports venue plan with all other criteria in tact will be a compulsory requirement even before it goes ahead and bids.

Come rain or snow or wind for which the Mother City is all too well known for, Cape Town will remain embedded in the minds of international public, media and the International Olympic Committee as the destination for the first Olympic Games on the African continent and another step forward for the IOC to give true meaning to each of the five coloured Olympic rings. Nobody envisions a Cape Town Olympic Games better than former president Nelson Mandela when he says: "In the mind's eye I see the youth of the world gathered at the foot of Table Mountain to fulfill themselves, to give joy to millions, to celebrate peace and to participate in and sponsor the rebirth of a continent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to want to take this thread too much further off-topic (it's supposed to be a USA thread, after all), but I wouldn't rule Capetown out of winning a 2016 bid yet. With the USA and Canada so far a bit iffy about pursuing 2016 further, Japan the only really confirmed bidder even though it's so soon after 2008 for another Asian bid, Capetown could well sneak through and win four years earlier than a lot of people are hoping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following events here on Games bids for nearly two years, as i'm sat at home with a sore throat and a runny nose i thought i'd give my opinions of the American race for 2016 - it has been two years of thoughts so apologies for the length of my post.

In theory i support a New York bid but there are several factors that a USOC would have to address if the United States is to be awarded the 2016 games.  Some of them are more important than others and some will not be so relevent in 2009 when the city is selected, but despite undoubtedly having the financial capability the US has perhaps the biggest hill to climb than any other country in the world.

There have been instances in the last few years of foreign atheletes being denied entrance to the US due to immigration controls and therefore not being able to compete, if the games were awarded to a city i'm sure the IOC would hope that all those who were talented enough were able to take part.

Rightly or wrongly the IOC's view of the last two American Olympics in Atlanta and Salt Lake City is that neither represented the Olympic movement in its best possible light.  Atlanta did make money and was popular throughout the region, however, these games seemed to infuriate almost everyone else with major errors in vital systems such as transportation and technology.  Perhaps worst still was that Atlanta gave the rest of the world the impression of a summer games as a flea market of tacky merchandise which cheapened the Olympic ideal.  Salt Lake City again was a financial success and a good winter games - although ask people what their lasting memories are and they reply about the preceding scandal that surrounded the bidding process.  The Salt Lake team offered bribes then proceeded to blame the IOC for accepting them, also IOC president Samaranch was called to answer to a congressional committee - although he didnt attend it's hardly the behaviour of country that relies on the IOC for future games - does it persuade them that the US is deserving of another summer Olympics?

One can't escape the fact that anti-Americanism has increased since George Bush became president and this will obviously influence the IOC as much as the rest of the world.  With even "loyal" allies of the US wondering how so many people can be so stupid to re-elect Bush last year (a British newspaper headline), i believe this often unfair attitude will continue whilst he remains in office - in 2009 he won't be!  This will be a boost to an American city's chances, even if another republican is elected surely in the summer of 2009 he (or hopefully she) will still be enjoying a honeymoon period of a world relieved to be rid of Bush.  A more positive policy of fewer threats to muslim nations and more focus on trade with the Third world and climate change would also greatly enhance the world's view of the US - it worked for Tony Blair, despite Iraq he remains relatively popular abroad, more so than at home.

There are a few issues such as funding guarantees on a national scale but these should be rectified now so that they are forgotten later.

I believe that the advantages of repeat biddingcan be over-estimated - it hasn't aided Istanbul, Detroit or Paris yet and i don't think that the fact it bid for 2012 will help New York in the eyes of the IOC.  It is only in specific circumstances that a previous bid will almost certainly win the next time, examples of this are Athens and Beijing, both were regarded as favourites and both were only narrowly defeated.  For this reason i believe that the next time Paris bids for the games in 2020 or 2024 it will win (though it must ensure it bids in 2020 if the competition involves Madrid, Rome/Milan, or Berlin/Hamburg or it may miss its chance due to rotation).

Despite 2012 giving New York no sway among IOC members it will have gained experience and contacts.  It is extremely important that the USOC choose New York or Chicago or they risk being embarrassed even more so than 2012.  This years race showed how much the IOC relished having a choice between five of the most celebrated cities in the world, all five could have created an amazing games - it was only the last few days that won it for London.  With cities such as Tokyo, Rio, Cape Town, and Rome showing varying degrees of interest in 2016 it is extremely important that America puts forward its most glamorous location, for who in the IOC would choose Minneapolis or Cincinnati over Rio or Rome?  Perhaps the need for size and glamour has become Atlanta's greatest legacy.

The US will be fighting an up hill battle anyway so New York or Chicago would be their best chance.  Unlike London or Paris the US doesn't enjoy large blocks of support that they can take for granted within the IOC.  Many of the US's traditional allies have loyalties elsewhere, the UK, for example, supported South Africa's World Cup bid and South Africa supported London's Olympics bid in return - with Cape Town interested in the Olympics and England bidding for the World Cup in 2018 the same pact is likely to be maintained.  Much of Continental Europe would have sympathies for a Latin American bid and Japan may well get support from some of their freinds in thr Pacific region.

Perhaps the best chance for the US would be for Cape Town and Rio to decline this time as both have other major sporting events on the horizon.

Many on the forum have argued that the major sponsors of the Olympics would prefer a US city, but i believe that this isn't the case.  Coca-cola and McDonalds are huge multi-nationals anyway with economic ties all over the world.  Football managed to become the most popular and affluent sport in the world - sponsored by American companies despite a lack of any real passion for the sport within the US.  Americans will continue to binge on Big Macs and Coke whether the Olympic Games are in New York, New Dehli, or New South Wales, as will the rest of the world.  NBC doesn't seem overly concerned either where the games should be held, they are quite happy to record the events and broadcast them later at prime-time and posters on this forum have indicated that they don't mind that either.  NBC, Coca-cola, and McDonalds are far more likely to want instantely recognised backdrops in glamorous locations whether that be in the US or elsewhere.

Maybe the US's greatest asset is that they continue to be the most successful Summer Olympians - Good Luck!

Stu,

First, Welcome to GamesBids.com forum

Second, I see that you support New York City who I supported for the 2012 Summer Olympics. Whatever you don’t do, do not support Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, because if you do, you will take a beating. There is a member on this forum named Joseph who is so annoying and acts like a clown who can’t tell a funny joke. He Supports a Summer Olympics in Minneapolis-St. Paul despite the fact he never has been there and he gets his information from a travel guide and from the internet. I have asked him to stop making post about Minneapolis-St. Paul because Minnesota IS NOT GOING TO HOST THE SUMMER OLYMPICS in 2016. I have seen that Joseph hasn’t post anything about MSP 2016 lately and I have a feeling he has taken my advice.

Third, I know that you have mentions Cape Town, South Africa as a possible city to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. If Cape Town does put forth a bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, I will support Cape Town over my current support over Chicago, IL because I think that an Olympics in Africa could help the continent of Africa by making the continent a place that can host major international sporting events. South Africa is the host of the 2010 World Cup, but the 2016 Summer Olympics will be chosen before the 2010 World Cup starts.

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we pretty much have an identical topic in this forum.

Otherwise everyone here knows I would support MSP, but since they aren't bidding, I will probably go for Chicago. Our fellow midwestern city is rising fast and meanwhile, at least it seems to me, NYC is falling. For more explanation please read the 300+ opinions in the other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha ure funny baron...as much as i think nyc will be great hosts..ive kinda changed my mind..and i dont think USA deserve the games at all...although out of the american candidates NYC should be the choice and would be a city i voted for amongst the list of wannabe US olympic hosts...USA had it in 1996 and 2002...2016 is not necessary and if RIO would bid i would have to choose RIO or a credible city to host...new york is prob my second choice,,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

First let me introduce myself. I'm Chris, I'm an architect and I work for one of the largest architectural/engineering firms in the world. I've bounced around to and from a couple of firms of equivalent size and moved across the country a couple of times working with cities who are putting together Olympic bids. I've worked on 4 bids (2 successful and 2 unsuccessful) in one capasity or another and I'm currently working (all be it tentatively) on my sixth and most challenging bid, which is also the first bid I've been involved with so early. So you could say that I make my living on the olympics.

On the current topic about which American city could (should) host, honsetly any of these cities could not only do it, but could do it well. Yes, even Minniapolis could pull off a class A olympics if given the opprotunity. The real question (after the money issue) is 'what city will IOC buy'? What city can be marketed to the world better then the others? Do any of these cities have that undefinable 'it' factor that is appealing to the rest of the world? In my opinion there are only two options on this list and I must say after reading some of the posts here I'm hesitant to say which I believe have the best chance. At least I'll hold off after others have posted their views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone doubts that the US is capable of providing the Olympic movement with a successful games - i believe that the problem the US has is being selected in the first place and that maybe why they have decided to delay certain cities from declaring.  Only coming fourth in July would have been a wake-up call to many in the USOC, American society doesn't like losers perhaps even more so than other societies.  If they participate again they have to believe that they can win - in the present climate i don't think they believe they can.

But it's four years away, a lot can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
A. Baltimore, MD – Washington, DC

B. Chicago, IL

C. Detroit, MI

D. Los Angeles, CA

E. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

F. New York City, NY

G. Philadelphia, PA

H. San Diego, CA – Tijuana, Mexico (Dual Bi-National Bid)

Out of the eight cities listed so far, which one to you believe is the best candidate city and why?

From what I've been reading in these forums, it pretty always comes down to Chicago and NYC, with the occasional mention of MSP. Though I think that these cities are great, I am curious about the possibility of a bid from Washington, DC. I am from the area, so I am biased, but I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

These are the qualities that I think are a definite plus (not to say that Chicago or NYC don't have them.)

International Recognition.

This one is a no-brainer really. It's the nation's capital.

Transportation.

There are two international airports and one domestic airport that serve the area. Dulles, of course, being the main international gateway. BWI airport though, does handle international flights. National airport is literally 5 minutes from downtown and on the same metro line as the proposed main Olympic Venues in Anacostia. Once (admittedly, if) they extend the metrorail line to Dulles airport, all three airports will be connected to downtown using mass transit. Currently, the plan is complete the Dulles Rail project by 2014. The metro system, in general, is also very clean. It may not go many places, but it certainly goes the places that atheletes and fans will be going.

Architecture.

One of things that I love about washington is that there is a height cap on bldgs, for the most part. It is a very unintimidating environment. You can walk the streets and enjoy the warmth of the sun. The monuments and memorials downtown also add a lot to the city.

As far as drawbacks are concerned, here goes:

-Baltimore. I understand that by splitting the events between two cities, they'd share the cost. However, these cities are 45 miles apart. I feel that there needs to be a clear host city, otherwise each city would in a way be vying for more of the spotlight. Besides, with new convention centers and the like, the events that WERE going to be in Baltimore can be held in DC (gymnastics, etc). I know that baseball will not be an event by then, but they can play softball at the new baseball stadium, right?

-Post-olympic life of venues. I jsut can't for the life of me see any need for an acquatics venue in DC. I'm sure the universities in Virginia and Maryland could use them, but that means spreading out the venues.

-I'm sure I had more negatives to list, but I bet you all have plenty.

I am curious, more than anything, to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhmmm... DC didn't even make the final two 3 years ago.  Why should its stock increase all of a sudden?

#1 - it has the weather of a swamp in July-August.

#2 - All its major venues are outside the DC borders..therefore, why should it be called a DC bid?  

Pass.

Though you have stated your opinion, I don't really find your reasonings against a DC bid to to be unique to DC.

NYC didn't fare well against London, Paris or Madrid, so why try that again?

Yes, DC is hot and humid in the summer... as are most cities.

I'm not where you got the impression that all games were not in DC. This is the info from the main GB site.

Washington’s bid is built around two primary hubs - the Urban Olympic Park in Baltimore where they'll host six sports around the Inner Harbor and the Olympic Sports Complex/Downtown DC enclaves where some 13 sports will be contested. This centralizes the Games layout much more and focuses the events on mass transit access. .... Washington would host the media and international broadcasters as well as track and field, basketball, archery, badminton, weightlifting, and tennis. Baltimore would host baseball, gymnastics, soccer finals and field hockey among other events. The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis would host fencing, beach volleyball, the pentathlon and sailing; Virginia’s George Mason University would host aquatics, judo and wrestling; and slalom canoe competition would take place on the Savage River in western Maryland; FedEx Field would host soccer competition.

The proposed Olympic Park for DC2012 was in the neighborhood surrounding RFK Stadium. It's not the greatest neighborhood now, but it is an opportunity for city to revitalize a part of the city that needs it, much like what London is currently doing.

With the dual-city bid, some of the main events will not be in DC but rather Baltimore. I already gave my opinion on this matter. I feel that the events that were to be hosted in Baltimore can be easily be brought to DC making use of the MCI Center or the new convention center, etc.

As far as other events not being in DC, that's nothing new. London's Soccer/Football finals are at Wembley and its Sailing is in Brighton, I believe. For DC, sailing in Annapolis and it is a great idea. It's not that far away and Annapolis is the sailing capital of the US. Besides, most Summer Olympic games have held the less popular events at area universities, not always within the city borders. That having been said, the largest event that I can think of that would *not* be in DC would be acquatics, which I already addressed.

PS: I just had a neat idea. The kayaking can be hosted at Great Falls, which is actually very close to the city. Of course some temporary man-made obstacles would have to added, but it would be absolutely gorgeous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Philly news that just got posted on the front page...

Philly/USOC Partnership could boost 2016 Bid - GB.com

If that's the case, I'm thinking of taking a day off from work on April 29th, see if I can get any "inside" info from the USOC bigwigs.  :;):

Hmm. I remember an article claiming that it WOULDN'T help a Philly bid.

Article

J. Michael Wilson of the USOC's media-and-public relations division said such partnerships are "not part of the overall process" toward cities landing the Olympics. "We're still assessing the landscape," he said. "After the [2006 Winter Games] we'll start the process.".

This is old news, though. Things might've changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible.  But that is just another grass-roots effort of the USOC.  It also has 'partners'/training centers in the Marquette-No. Michigan Univ., Chula Vista, Colorado Springs, Lake Placid.  It doesn't mean these other 4 sites are host city material.  It takes a whole city to become a viable candidate.  Philly should not kid itself into thinking that 'Partner' status will give it an edge up.  

Having said that, I think the USOC will take all summer to sound out the various candidates, then probably come out with a short list or the Anointed One in the fall.  Plenty enough time to get going, NYC2016.   :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible.  But that is just another grass-roots effort of the USOC.  It also has 'partners'/training centers in the Marquette-No. Michigan Univ., Chula Vista, Colorado Springs, Lake Placid.  It doesn't mean these other 4 sites are host city material.  It takes a whole city to become a viable candidate.  Philly should not kid itself into thinking that 'Partner' status will give it an edge up.  

Having said that, I think the USOC will take all summer to sound out the various candidates, then probably come out with a short list or the Anointed One in the fall.  Plenty enough time to get going, NYC2016.   :wink:

I don't think the city is fooling itself into believing anything. The author of the article mentioned the possiblity of gaining "brownie-points," not anyone from the Philadelphia 2016 Working Group. They see this partnership as an opportunity to gain some experience with the USOC and how they conduct business.

Like you said, the USOC has other partner sites, and the people running a possible Philly bid see that also, but its not as if its just a small group of people are pushing for a bid, this is every major organization in the Philly metro area coming together for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...