No 2016 bid from USOC?

[NewYork2016]

Again, a lot of what is being stated is supposition, theories, looking for hidden meanings, etc. to justify NYC winning 2016 without any competition from any other interested cities.

Peter Ueberroth put it best when he said that the IOC needs the Olympics in the United States more than the United States needs an Olympics.  At no time has he indicated that it had to be certain cities.  Ueberroth has made it clear that if we are to bid again, all interested cities will have to meet criteria dictated by the IOC as well as USOC standards.

I agree to a degree. With the IOC's mindset right now, specially after a lot of cities are expressing interest, the USOC would be in the very best position if they'll nominate their #1 city forward.

The reason - the IOC is not going to care if it is between Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia or New York.  As long as it is a solid bid, meets IOC rules and regulations and continues to garner television rights selling for billions of dollars, the IOC will come back to the U.S., no matter where the city is.  

New York is not in as good a position as it would like to think.  If it were, opening up bidding again from other cities would not be happening since when NYC won against San Francisco  the deal was that if they didn't win 2012 they would be the US's candidate for 2016.

Of course everyone wants to meet IOC rules and regulations. But the IOC can't require the Federal Government to do this, nor does the City and State Governments wants to do this. The IOC Evaluation Committee during the 2012 race fully understood how we work out deals here in the USA, Moutawakel even pointed out that this is not a problem as they know how we operate here in the USA. The Federal Government just won't foot the bill on any shortfall. It's just not how our economy, whether city, state or federal, works.

New York was called "arrogant" by the USOC and certain IOC members for being the only city that did not meet IOC requirements for 2012 regarding liability.  And since the State of New York's liability limit is $250 million, it is doubtful that the voters of the state would want to raise that limit just so New York could throw a two week party. That, coupled with questions raised about NYC's abilities to host the games when it couldn't get the stadium deal that they promised done, it will take a good P.R. person to undue these lasting impression.

Again, the issue with the liability wasn't a big deal with the IOC. They know how we operate here in the USA. Even with the falldown of the West-Side Stadium, I admit it cost us a lot of votes.

But overall, IOC members impression were the opposite of what you've stated. NYC2012 received very positive remarks about NYC's organization, presentation, and handling of issues during the 2012 race, even with the stadium fiasco.

Plus, would the USOC give their nod to a city with a $4B surplus or a city with a $300M deficit? Of course, they'll give it to a more capable city. I don't think one is capable if it even can't handle it's budget and having a flat economy while other competing cities are booming.

If we do go for 2016, it is an open race.  New York, if they bid, needs to realize that and not pull an Athens '96 thinking that somehow they are more superior, or have an edge over other candidates

NYC is definitely not thinking it's superior to anybody because NYC is the #1 in most aspects in the country already, no need to emphasize that. We just act on our promises and continue to interact with the people we need to communicate. Everyone can just point out on the West-Side Stadium fiasco and negate NYC's chances because of that, but it's the only bruise on the failed NYC2012 bid. Most of the plans proposed are already happening, and losing 2012 won't hamper NYC's growth.

I just hope that NYC will pursue a re-bid. And with some of the news that came out the past few months, it surely gives us great signs that NYC could very well do it again  

[ArrowHead]

Chicago is not a B city; it is one of ten world "Alpha" cities.  Along with LA and NYC.  

The List:  Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html

[ArrowHead]

Rather, that was suppposed to be:

London, New York City, Paris, Tokyo, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore,

[baron-pierreIV]

Rather, that was suppposed to be:

London, New York City, Paris, Tokyo, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore,

Milan?  :shocked:  More so than Beijing, Moscow, Rome or Sao Paulo?  I mean what momentous world decisions are made in Milan?

[NewYork2016]

Chicago is not a B city; it is one of ten world "Alpha" cities.  Along with LA and NYC.  

The List:  Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html

I'm not saying Chicago is not an alpha city, in fact it is, along with NYC and LA.

But, when you have them ranked, just look at Table 7, it's the 4 Alpha Cities of London, New York, Paris and Tokyo with a score of 12. Still, NYC is ahead of LA and Chicago who had 10.

Table 1 actually states which are the top cities according to several publications. New York was cited in almost all of the them except 4. Chicago was only cited twice.

This table was actually posted on this board some time ago. Thanks for the link though.  

[Athensfan]

To be honest, I don't really understand all this talk of "Alpha" cities. First and foremost, the IOC is looking for a bid that captures their imaginations -- a bid that will showcase the Olympics in a new and spectacular way.

One of my concerns about NYC is that it is TOO "alpha". There is so much going on in New York that one wonders if the Games would get enough attention. NYC 2012's assurance of controlling 90% (if memory serves) of billboards, taxi ads, etc. would help guard against the Games getting lost in the shuffle. Even so, it is hard to imagine that New Yorkers would turn their attention to the Olympics for 17 days, much less 7 years of preparation. As opinion polls show, support was lukewarm at best. There are just too many other things going on.

By contrast, I can imagine Chicago being a city that appeared to "drop everything" for the Games. Because Chicago doesn't have New York's hyper-agressive atmosphere, the Games would get the spotlight that the IOC wants them to have; they would feel like a huge event in the history of the city. Chicago still gets all the pluses of being a major world city (infrastructure, finance, corporate interest, organizational ability, etc.), but it doesn't posess NYC's overbearing personality that would almost certainly eclipse the Games. Chicago could be a pedestal for the Olympics to shine. The Olympics would just be another nice feather in NYC's cap.

As for LA, the '84 Games were undeniably magical, however since that time the Olympics have changed radically. Many of the city's weaknesses would not be overlooked in a 2016 bid. Consider:  LA has abominable public transport. Venues would be scattered over a large area. No brand new bright and shiny architectural monuments to the Games. Traffic is FAR, FAR worse than it was in '84 (when gridlock was still a concern). Worst of all, LA lacks the organizational drive that it had previously. Peter Ueberroth, Paul Ziffren, Harry Usher -- these guys were brilliant minds with a clear vision and practical know-how. They had ample corporate sponsors headquartered in LA (many of whom have since moved out of state) who could bring their vision to life. In twenty years LA has changed a lot.

Speaking of giving the Games the attention they deserve, what part will tv ratings play in the 2016 bid? Viewers in the USA didn't seem overly invested in the Torino Games. What if the same holds true in Beijing? Again, everything will be substantially tape delayed. There is also a real possibility that American athletes will not do as well as they have in previous years and the Chinese team could well eclipse them. If the American viewing audience becomes disillusioned and tunes out, what effect will this have on the IOC? Will they say to themselves, "We better revive American interest (and financial support) by staging the Games in the U.S.". Or will they say, "Americans aren't interested in the Olympics. We ought to give the Games to a country that actually wants to host them." Thoughts?

If the USOC doesn't bid for 2016 AND American viewership continues to fall, I can imagine the IOC becoming somewhat concerned and working hard to cater to US interests. Perhaps this wouldn't be an all bad thing in terms of helping the US regain clout in the IOC. Then again, maybe the IOC wouldn't care -- or at leat would PRETEND not to care. Of course all this is insanely hypothetical......

[Guardian]

Me neither, Athensfan. It's like comparing apples and oranges here. Each city in the world that MAY want to bid for the Olympic Games has its unique strengths and weaknesses.

[LA84]

A very well thought out and logical post Athensfan.  Thanks -

Just curious where you see Philadelphia in the mix?  I suspect they would be like Chicago as far as execution and spirit.

[Stu]

Speaking of giving the Games the attention they deserve, what part will tv ratings play in the 2016 bid? Viewers in the USA didn't seem overly invested in the Torino Games. What if the same holds true in Beijing? Again, everything will be substantially tape delayed. There is also a real possibility that American athletes will not do as well as they have in previous years and the Chinese team could well eclipse them. If the American viewing audience becomes disillusioned and tunes out, what effect will this have on the IOC? Will they say to themselves, "We better revive American interest (and financial support) by staging the Games in the U.S.". Or will they say, "Americans aren't interested in the Olympics. We ought to give the Games to a country that actually wants to host them." Thoughts?

If the USOC doesn't bid for 2016 AND American viewership continues to fall, I can imagine the IOC becoming somewhat concerned and working hard to cater to US interests. Perhaps this wouldn't be an all bad thing in terms of helping the US regain clout in the IOC. Then again, maybe the IOC wouldn't care -- or at leat would PRETEND not to care. Of course all this is insanely hypothetical......

It could well be the case that the IOC decide to award the Olympics to the US to inrease any interest there, but it is also plausible that this could count against them - the enthusiasm shown to hold the Games is one of the things that is measured by the IOC, why should the Olympics be awarded to a country indifferent to the Olympics when there are so many other countries who are passionate about them?  

I think the way to increase US interest in the Olympics is to show events live as they happen - there are so many other sources of information these days that it is unlikely many people can avoid hearing or seeing the results before they are transmitted on television.  If people are truely enthusiastic about the Games they would stay up late or get up early as they do in other countries - my memories of Seoul '88 are sat watching it early in the morning before school, my memories of Atlanta are watching late into the night (millions of Britons stayed awake to watch the curling final in Salt Lake City).

[baron-pierreIV]

I think it's all relative. 18 million people watching one night of Olympic coverage would be phenomenal in a country like San Marino; but against the US's 295 mil, does seem paltry.  I'm sure the IOC (or at least its Broadcast people) is aware that whenever the Games are held outside the US, and there is no Tonya-Nancy feud, and Michelle flunks out, ratings drop.

But I think the IOC treasures more its relationship with NBC (who has stood by them thru thick and thin), than just the thinning numbers; and I'm sure if it were within the scope of the few members who are aware of that relationship, they would definitely push for a 2016 Games in the US, if only to 'award' NBC again.  I mean, life is give-and-take, and I am sure the IOC is aware of this.  Or I would like to think so.

[southcarolinaj]

I read today where NBC's ratings dropped over 30% from the Atlanta Games to the Sydney games. So I suppose the roughly 30% drop between Salt Lake City and Torino, especially considering the increase of events broadcast live on NBC's cable outlets and internet news, the drop is to be expected.

Perhaps for those not in the United States it is worth mentioning the difference in marketing and promotion an Olympic Games in the United States vs. virtually anywhere else, including Canada.

For Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake, it is hard to go anywhere in the United States that has media or marketing reach, where you are not confronted with the upcoming Olympic games. Athletes from obscure sports become household names, sometimes several months before the games. Business, culture, regional differences are all discussed, on top of any sports discussion. It can be an very inward looking time period to measure how a region measures up to other regions of the natoin (LA - west, Atlanta - south, Salt Lake - Rocky mountains).

For Torino and Athens especially, many Americans had forgotten that the Olympics were even upcoming and were surprised the week of the Torino games that they were starting; as attention of the American sports mind has been on football playoffs and basketball season.

[Stu]

18 million people watching one night of Olympic coverage would be phenomenal in a country like San Marino

I agree that would be truly be a phenomenal event!

[LA84]

NBC's ratings were down, but not as much as people think.  While they didn't retain the No. 1-5 spots as they typically do for the full two weeks they nevertheless were in the top 10 for the entire 17 days.  

There is a reason that the IOC keeps coming back to the United States and Canada on a regular basis - $$$$$$$.  So if anything, the recent downturn in viewership will help the USOC's efforts to bring the SOG's back to the U.S.  The IOC won't use declining viewership against the U.S. because that would essentially be cutting off the hand that feeds them.

[Athensfan]

Just curious where you see Philadelphia in the mix?  I suspect they would be like Chicago as far as execution and spirit.

LA 84 --

I've spent significant time in LA, NYC, and Chicago, but I don't really know Philly. Hence, no Philly in my analysis.

My gut tells me, however, that Philadelphia isn't likely to capture the IOC's imagination. The best thing it has going for it is its public support (80-90% -- I think). As for American history, that certainly doesn't hurt, but to me (a non-Philly expert) it just doesn't have the sex appeal of Chicago.

Not only is Chicago a major financial and transportation hub, its also a very classy city with a lot of culture -- art, theater, etc. This may seem a stupid observation, but Chicago is also remarkably CLEAN. Even its public landscaping is artful. It's very easy for me to imagine it as a stage for the world's biggest event.

Oddly enough, Chicago's lack of a stadium may even turn out to be an advantage. It gives them a chance to promise the IOC another architectural masterpiece (as opposed to the somewhat stale Stade de France approach). Unlike NYC or LA Chicago has enough empty space to be able to build an Olympic Park.

Based on my little knowledge of Philly, it doesn't conjur up images of class and international glamour. I don't think the Atlanta argument helps either. The next US candidate should not remind the IOC of Atlanta in any respect. Saying "Atlanta did it, why not Philadelphia?" is the worst possible strategy.

This doesn't mean Philly can't stage fantastic Olympics, it just means that they may have an extremely difficult job convincing the international community of their ability. I don't think the USOC is going to take a risk on anything that isn't pretty close to a sure thing. That's why a 2016 bid depends primarily on the leadership in Chicago and New York.

I think LA, Philadelphia, and San Francisco are a big stretch for a variety of practical reasons. The only way those cities have even a slim chance is if they can put forth brilliant technical bids with exceptional leaders, AND Chicago and New York can't quite get their acts together organizationally.

This is why I don't think a US bid for 2016 is a sure thing. It isn't solely about the various cities' potential. It all depends on whether or not there are hyper-capable PEOPLE in those cities who are committed to realizing their potential. If no city has an extraordinarily competent team in place, I think the USOC will pass on 2016.

[baron-pierreIV]

OK, I have a solution for what I think will be the final 4 finalists, even if there might be no formal run-off.  For whichever city gets it, let the football/soccer prelims be held in Chicago, Philly, NYC and/or SF -- not the little inky-dink college towns.  That would raise the whole tournament to an entirely "Alpha" town status.

And whichever doesn't get the 2016 plum, then the other 3 can have the honors for the Opening and Final Games for World Cup 2018.  How's that for fairness?

P.S.  If I may say so myself, I think this is capital idea, and I will send it right off to my friend Pete.

[nykfan845]

Unlike NYC or LA Chicago has enough empty space to be able to build an Olympic Park

The new Mets Stadium would probably be used as the Olympic Stadium in 2016 if NYC would be elected as host city, and the Flushing area would be developed into an Olympic Park.

Chicago and New York can't quite get their acts together organizationally

How can you tell, there isn't even a USOC race yet? Then again, you WOULD know about being disorganized. For all I know, Chicago's looking disorganized. I'm not sure about some venues being placed in Milwaukee and South Bend.

And since when does being TOO "alpha" a disadvantage to winning a bid? I recall an "alpha" city last year won the bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games.

This would be the perfect year for any American city to put forth a bid. It's 20 years out of Salt Lake City, and the European cities are most likely out of the race in 2016. The USOC would be insane not to bid, although it's becoming more and more obvious that the USOC will put forth a bid. Any American city that wants the Olympic Games in their neck of the woods soon had better start organizing a bid now.

[baron-pierreIV]

Let's be patient.  I believe the USOC powers, having just come back from Torino and schmoozed with their equals, will come up with some sort of consensus in the coming weeks.  They would want to put together an airtight a bid as possible.  It just takes a little time to line up all your ducks in a row.

[lpatron]

I attended a panel discussion this morning where Bill Martin, former president of the USOC (Feb 2003-June 2004), said there is "no question that we (the USA) will bid."  So I would expect something formal in the next few weeks.

[ThrillosAG]

@ Athensfan

There's a couple things I disagree with in terms of Philadelphia:

My gut tells me, however, that Philadelphia isn't likely to capture the IOC's imagination. The best thing it has going for it is its public support (80-90% -- I think). As for American history, that certainly doesn't hurt, but to me (a non-Philly expert) it just doesn't have the sex appeal of Chicago.

I will always believe that IOC when it comes to voting for a host city, takes into effect the fact whether or not the games are actually wanted by the people of that city.  I don't know of any poll numbers from Chicago and the thing about NYC's numbers were that they were low compared to the other bid cities in the 2012 contest; but the fact of the matter is that 90% is an impressive amount of support coming from any American city at this early stage. Surely the IOC (and USOC) would notice this with a favorable eye...

Based on my little knowledge of Philly, it doesn't conjur up images of class and international glamour. I don't think the Atlanta argument helps either. The next US candidate should not remind the IOC of Atlanta in any respect. Saying "Atlanta did it, why not Philadelphia?" is the worst possible strategy.

Worst thing you wrote in your response was to compare Philadelphia to Atlanta.  Philadelphia is nothing like Atlanta. I say this because Philadelphia wouldn't use Atlanta as a stepping stone to gain the 2016 bid. They're two completely different cities in terms of the people, the history, the "what's there to do" factor, and most importantly the way sports are followed.

In Philadelphia, the overall emotion and feeling of the people are intertwined with the outcomes of the four major sports franchises in the city.  Add the five major colleges and their sports teams and you have a city that is obsessed with sports 24/7/365.  Sports are what makes this city, which is why Philadelphia would be a perfect host to the athletes of the 2016 Olympics; they would be supported by the people as if they were competing in front of their own countrymen.

...that's not to say that sports are the only thing that take precidence in the city.  There are plenty of museums, theaters, and historical sites that would give Philadelphia that intrigue the IOC voters are supposedly looking for.

This doesn't mean Philly can't stage fantastic Olympics, it just means that they may have an extremely difficult job convincing the international community of their ability. I don't think the USOC is going to take a risk on anything that isn't pretty close to a sure thing. That's why a 2016 bid depends primarily on the leadership in Chicago and New York.

I completely disagree with you there. If given the opportunity, Philadelphia and the Organizing Group would show that Philadelphia is just as (if more) capable of hosting the games as NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles are. The city has a 90% venue readiness rating, with only an Olympic Stadium, Swimming Complex, and a Tennis Center to complete.  Tell me what other city had a 90% venue readiness rating in their bids.

And its not as if Philadelphia is without land to build an Olympic Complex on, take a look at the S. Philly Complex (click on link):

S. Philly Sports Complex

What I'm trying to say is that Philadelphia is more than capable of hosting the games.  The support for the games is there amongst the citizens, government, and civic leaders (including the four major sports teams and Universities). I'm confident that when the USOC takes a look at a Philadelphia bid, they will be just as confident.

[NewYork2016]

One of my concerns about NYC is that it is TOO "alpha". There is so much going on in New York that one wonders if the Games would get enough attention. NYC 2012's assurance of controlling 90% (if memory serves) of billboards, taxi ads, etc. would help guard against the Games getting lost in the shuffle. Even so, it is hard to imagine that New Yorkers would turn their attention to the Olympics for 17 days, much less 7 years of preparation. As opinion polls show, support was lukewarm at best. There are just too many other things going on.

By contrast, I can imagine Chicago being a city that appeared to "drop everything" for the Games. Because Chicago doesn't have New York's hyper-agressive atmosphere, the Games would get the spotlight that the IOC wants them to have; they would feel like a huge event in the history of the city. Chicago still gets all the pluses of being a major world city (infrastructure, finance, corporate interest, organizational ability, etc.), but it doesn't posess NYC's overbearing personality that would almost certainly eclipse the Games. Chicago could be a pedestal for the Olympics to shine. The Olympics would just be another nice feather in NYC's cap.

Overall a good point. However, being a too "alpha" city like London, Paris and Tokyo didn't hamper them to pursue and host the summer games, why would Chicago be a better host when too "alpha" cities have proven they can host great games? With one coming in 2012.

With all of what's going on in NYC right now, venue promises for 2012 continuing, rebuilding ground zero, regeneration of a lot of neglected spots in the city, and constructing a lot of new infrastructures that will benefit the city, couple it with everyday chaos in the city, and Chicago would be a better host because it is less chaotic, quiter, and cleaner? I disagree though.

IMO, all the more reason why NYC should host. NYC symbolizes what the olympics are all about. NYC has it, winners, losers, and everything in between. It's about everybody trying to achieve the best that they can achieve. The Olympics coming to New York would be a feather on the cap not only for the NYC, but also of the IOC.

Regarding the NBC's ratings, the Torino Games still generated a lot interest although it's not the most viewed TV program during their timeslots and a decline from Salt Lake. SLC was the games after 9/11 so having the games on home soil and cheering your countryment competing was giving a lot Americans a lot of comfort and were trying to restore some of the pride lost when the Towers fell and the country was attacked.

But giving the games to the USA on 2016 because of the low ratings, to revive American interest in the games, I think is inappropriate, although the IOC wouldn't care what anyone would think about it if that was the reason they want to do it. There are just a lot of factors to consider when looking at TV Ratings. One was the most of the events were shown in tape delay. Plus, with the advent of the internet, Americans are able to view realtime results. I for one, would be discourage a little bit if I already know what's going to happen.

Just look at the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid. The hockey game with the US against the Russians got a 32% rating, more than 65% share, although that was a tape delay.

Plus, NBC actually reported earnings in advertising revenue from the Torino Games so the heck with the ratings. They still got their money's worth.

Not only is Chicago a major financial and transportation hub, its also a very classy city with a lot of culture -- art, theater, etc. This may seem a stupid observation, but Chicago is also remarkably CLEAN. Even its public landscaping is artful. It's very easy for me to imagine it as a stage for the world's biggest event.

I guess being artful is on the eye of the beholder. I for one were not impressed with Chicago, although I thoroughly admire the cleanliness, when I stayed there (I actually stayed with a friend on one of those high-rise condos on 5050 Lake Shore Dr). Contrary to what everyone would think, New York has the largest conglomeration of parks in the United States. NYC is not just about Central Park, the largest park in the City is the Pelham Bay Park in the Bronx, venue for some of the events proposed in NYC2012.

I think when you talk about art and theater, you'd think about London, New York, and Paris although Chicago does have its own artistic feel to it.

Oddly enough, Chicago's lack of a stadium may even turn out to be an advantage. It gives them a chance to promise the IOC another architectural masterpiece (as opposed to the somewhat stale Stade de France approach). Unlike NYC or LA Chicago has enough empty space to be able to build an Olympic Park.

Oh my, you're totally misinformed on this one my friend.  

Even though Chicago has available land near downtown, New York doesn't have that lack of space. Maybe in Manhattan. Flushing Meadows Olympic Park is one where you got Willet's Point and the former Flushing Airport surrounding it. Then you got the Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, where a sports park will be built. Lots of space on Coney Island too. All in New York City.

Remember Moutawakel's words after the IOC's decision? She was interviewed by WABC 7 and she indirectly stated that the West-Side Stadium killed the NYC2012. Chicago has less than a year and half to plan and act on it then convince first the USOC, before they finally have a chance to convince the IOC. The West Side Stadium was planned way before Bloomberg even sat in the Mayor's office.

Based on my little knowledge of Philly, it doesn't conjur up images of class and international glamour. I don't think the Atlanta argument helps either. The next US candidate should not remind the IOC of Atlanta in any respect. Saying "Atlanta did it, why not Philadelphia?" is the worst possible strategy.

This doesn't mean Philly can't stage fantastic Olympics, it just means that they may have an extremely difficult job convincing the international community of their ability. I don't think the USOC is going to take a risk on anything that isn't pretty close to a sure thing. That's why a 2016 bid depends primarily on the leadership in Chicago and New York.

Totally agree... Exactly my point. It will all come down to who is more capable, can connect well to the USOC and IOC, and very much appeal to their $en$e$ ::  

This is why I don't think a US bid for 2016 is a sure thing. It isn't solely about the various cities' potential. It all depends on whether or not there are hyper-capable PEOPLE in those cities who are committed to realizing their potential. If no city has an extraordinarily competent team in place, I think the USOC will pass on 2016.

IMO, the USOC will put forth a bid... Hopefully, it'll be NYC again and a second crack to fulfill one of Baron Pierre de Coubertin's wishes of holding it in NYC.

Let's be patient.  I believe the USOC powers, having just come back from Torino and schmoozed with their equals, will come up with some sort of consensus in the coming weeks.  They would want to put together an airtight a bid as possible.  It just takes a little time to line up all your ducks in a row.

Thanks for calming me down baron...  ::  

[JH1033]

I am in complete agreement with ThrillosAG on all of his points with Philadelphia and it's willingness and ability to host the 2016 games. The momentum among the city and surrounding area has grown even higher in the past months. The city has almost everything that is desired by both the USOC and the IOC. Of course there will be the need for a stadium for the opening and closing ceremonies but there is a great deal of land around the sports complex that has not even begun to be developed by the city and could be used to build a stadium. I am really looking foward to the next few weeks and months when we should see the USOC start to look at the cities who may put forth a bid for 2016.

[southcarolinaj]

I personally think Philadelphia would be a terrific choice. It is a sports hub in many ways.

Billy Payne of Atlanta '96 has been reported to be consulting the folks from Philadelphia recently.

My biggest concern about Philadelphia is about a new stadium for track/field/ ceremonies. The city has recently built new baseball and football stadiums. How would they feel about building another stadium so soon?

Can Lincoln Financial Field be reconfigured to have an 8 lane track around it?

[beatles]

@ Athensfan

There's a couple things I disagree with in terms of Philadelphia:

My gut tells me, however, that Philadelphia isn't likely to capture the IOC's imagination. The best thing it has going for it is its public support (80-90% -- I think). As for American history, that certainly doesn't hurt, but to me (a non-Philly expert) it just doesn't have the sex appeal of Chicago.

I will always believe that IOC when it comes to voting for a host city, takes into effect the fact whether or not the games are actually wanted by the people of that city.  I don't know of any poll numbers from Chicago and the thing about NYC's numbers were that they were low compared to the other bid cities in the 2012 contest; but the fact of the matter is that 90% is an impressive amount of support coming from any American city at this early stage. Surely the IOC (and USOC) would notice this with a favorable eye...

Based on my little knowledge of Philly, it doesn't conjur up images of class and international glamour. I don't think the Atlanta argument helps either. The next US candidate should not remind the IOC of Atlanta in any respect. Saying "Atlanta did it, why not Philadelphia?" is the worst possible strategy.

Worst thing you wrote in your response was to compare Philadelphia to Atlanta.  Philadelphia is nothing like Atlanta. I say this because Philadelphia wouldn't use Atlanta as a stepping stone to gain the 2016 bid. They're two completely different cities in terms of the people, the history, the "what's there to do" factor, and most importantly the way sports are followed.

In Philadelphia, the overall emotion and feeling of the people are intertwined with the outcomes of the four major sports franchises in the city.  Add the five major colleges and their sports teams and you have a city that is obsessed with sports 24/7/365.  Sports are what makes this city, which is why Philadelphia would be a perfect host to the athletes of the 2016 Olympics; they would be supported by the people as if they were competing in front of their own countrymen.

...that's not to say that sports are the only thing that take precidence in the city.  There are plenty of museums, theaters, and historical sites that would give Philadelphia that intrigue the IOC voters are supposedly looking for.

This doesn't mean Philly can't stage fantastic Olympics, it just means that they may have an extremely difficult job convincing the international community of their ability. I don't think the USOC is going to take a risk on anything that isn't pretty close to a sure thing. That's why a 2016 bid depends primarily on the leadership in Chicago and New York.

I completely disagree with you there. If given the opportunity, Philadelphia and the Organizing Group would show that Philadelphia is just as (if more) capable of hosting the games as NYC, Chicago, and Los Angeles are. The city has a 90% venue readiness rating, with only an Olympic Stadium, Swimming Complex, and a Tennis Center to complete.  Tell me what other city had a 90% venue readiness rating in their bids.

And its not as if Philadelphia is without land to build an Olympic Complex on, take a look at the S. Philly Complex (click on link):

S. Philly Sports Complex

What I'm trying to say is that Philadelphia is more than capable of hosting the games.  The support for the games is there amongst the citizens, government, and civic leaders (including the four major sports teams and Universities). I'm confident that when the USOC takes a look at a Philadelphia bid, they will be just as confident.

I  have said this before!

I lived and went to medical school in Philadelphia for over

8 yrs.

Philadelphia is a great city but like a number or of other "second tier", cities in the USA(eg. Dallas, Baltimore, Minneapolis-St Paul, Boston, Detroit, Seattle, etc), It isn't a "internationally recognized city, like NYC, LA, Chicago, SF.

Do you think these second teir cities would have a chance against the likes of Rio, Tokyo, Capetown,etc ?

If you want to see a first rate play, why go to the Walnut Theater, when you can hop on Amtrak and be in Broadway in 90mins?

Why would the USOC if they are really serious about an American SOG in 2016, but forth a bid from a second tier city when they would have it "in the bag" with a NYC, SF or Chicago?

Forget the Sports complex in South Philly, how many hotels are within 20 mins? There are at least 30x more hotels in midtown Manhattan alone.

Center City Philly"rolls up its streets at 5PM and the only real action you will see is in South Street.

Center City Philly could easily be mistaken for downtown Atlanta, like many other American cities.

I has no "CHARACTER", like downtown New York(Manhattan).

Phillys SEPTA subway system has urine smelling train stations like the one at Broad & Vine!

There is still no decent exist off I-95 into Center City.

Besides the south Philly sport complex(Franklin Financial, the old and new Spectrums), there is really no world class sports facilities in the city or across the Delaware in Camden, NJ. Forget the small second rate college facilities at Temple, U of Penn, Villanova, or St Johns.

NYC will have before 2010, a new Yankee, Shea stadiums, a New Meadowland sports complex across the Hudson, and a new or refurbished, Brooklyn arena, Nassau Colliseum, Metro Stars  soccer stadium, Madison Square Garden etc.

NEW YORK 2016

::  :unclesam:

[ThrillosAG]

I personally think Philadelphia would be a terrific choice. It is a sports hub in many ways.

Billy Payne of Atlanta '96 has been reported to be consulting the folks from Philadelphia recently.

My biggest concern about Philadelphia is about a new stadium for track/field/ ceremonies. The city has recently built new baseball and football stadiums. How would they feel about building another stadium so soon?

Can Lincoln Financial Field be reconfigured to have an 8 lane track around it?

The organizers have hinted at the fact that the Olympic Stadium (post games) would be used to house the college football teams or to lure a future MLS franchise to city.  They also hinted that the capacity would be reduced after the games were finished.

And to answer your other question, no Lincoln Financial Field can not fit a track inside the field.

[ThrillosAG]

@Beatles

When did you spend your 8 years in Philadelphia?  The reason I ask is because is what you said is nothing like what Philly is today or is becoming.

If you want to see a first rate play, why go to the Walnut Theater, when you can hop on Amtrak and be in Broadway in 90mins?

Why would the USOC if they are really serious about an American SOG in 2016, but forth a bid from a second tier city when they would have it "in the bag" with a NYC, SF or Chicago?

If you're in a city (any city) to watch the Olympics, why are you  going to care what plays are in town?  Go watch a play when the Olympics aren't in town.

And again I stress when it comes to the Olympics and the fickle nature of the IOC voters, a bid from a "1st Tier" American city is sure thing.  Take for example NYC's West Side Stadium plan.  I remember reading that I was a "sure thing" and that this would do wonders for Manhattan (bring the Super Bowl to the city!).  What happened?  The whole plan collapsed and NYC2012 scrambled to get a Queens/Shea Stadium plan set just before the elections took place.

Forget the Sports complex in South Philly, how many hotels are within 20 mins? There are at least 30x more hotels in midtown Manhattan alone.

Center City Philly"rolls up its streets at 5PM and the only real action you will see is in South Street.

Center City Philly could easily be mistaken for downtown Atlanta, like many other American cities.

I has no "CHARACTER", like downtown New York(Manhattan).

Here's a link to all the hotels in the Philadelphia city limits. The majority of them are in Center City. And since it doesn't take more than 20 minutes to get from the Sports Complex to Center City, I'll let you do the math and figure out how many there are.

Philly Hotels

As for nothing to do after 5pm, methinks you mistook Philly for South Jersey.  In S. Jersey there's nothing to after 5pm, in Philadelphia you have the Old City Club/Bar District, South Street (which you mentioned), the museums on the Parkway, University City, etc. etc.  Just because Philly isn't NYC doesn't mean we don't know how to have fun.

I'm also starting to think that you spent your 8 years of Med School in Atlanta instead of Philly, because in the past few years, there has been such an influx of building construction all over the city, but most importantly in Downtown Atl... I mean Center City. You don't believe me, then peruse this site:

Phillyskyline.com

If you really want to see what I'm talking about then click on this link:

phillyskyline.com - The Skinny

And for Philadelphia having no character like downtown NYC or Atlanta, then you must have forgotten the Old City district; specifically Independence Hall, The Liberty Bell, Penn's Landing, The United States Mint, The Constitution Center, and the rest of the historic sites. The history of Philadelphia is its character.

Phillys SEPTA subway system has urine smelling train stations like the one at Broad & Vine!

There is still no decent exist off I-95 into Center City.

Besides the south Philly sport complex(Franklin Financial, the old and new Spectrums), there is really no world class sports facilities in the city or across the Delaware in Camden, NJ. Forget the small second rate college facilities at Temple, U of Penn, Villanova, or St Johns.

NYC will have before 2010, a new Yankee, Shea stadiums, a New Meadowland sports complex across the Hudson, and a new or refurbished, Brooklyn arena, Nassau Colliseum, Metro Stars  soccer stadium, Madison Square Garden etc.

While I agree with you on SEPTA, I hate to tell you but even they're getting their act together.  They've been doing clean up on all their stations for the past two years.  And unlike a certain NYC mass transit agency, who went on strike and crippled the entire city for over a week; SEPTA doesn't go on strike unless all negociation paths have been exhausted.

And of course they're isn't a decent exit off of I-95 into the city! That because all those exits would take you to the Old City/Riverfront district.  If you want to get to Center City from 95, all you have to do is follow the signs into 676 and there you'll find plenty of "decent" exits into Center City.

Small second rate facilities of Philadelphia Universities?  If you're calling the Palestra "the Cathedral of College Basketball" a second rate facility, then I would like to have some of what you're smoking.  And Temple doesn't play at The Apollo anymore, they play at the Liacouras Center, which seems to be a good enough venue for the NCAA to host some of their tournament games.  I won't elaborate anymore on the capability of Philadelphia College facilities, as its obvious that your remark was made without actually consideration of the facts.

And to finish off replying to your comments, I'm happy that NYC will have all those venues you listed completed in a few years.  But Philadelphia already has all their venues in place.  Let me list the ones that you might have missed after you left Philadelphia:

Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia Eagles

Citizens Bank Park - Philadelphia Phillies

Wachovia Center - Philadelphia Flyers/Philadelphia Sixers

Wachovia Spectrum - Philadelphia Phantoms/Philadelphia Kixx

Liacouras Center -  Temple University

Campbells Field - Camden Riversharks (minor league ball club)

The Armory - Drexel University's new Basketball Arena scheduled to be refurbished by end of 2007

The Palestra - "The Cathedral" and Historic Home of College Basketball.

Franklin Field - host to the Penn Relays, the largest outdoor track and field event in the United States.

All these venues already exist!  And I'm not even including the other venues that are being look at for the Olympics.  I've said it before in other posts, but I'll say it again.  Philadelphia has a 90% Olympic Venue Readiness rating already! NYC doesn't have that, and won't have that before the USOC makes its decision.

Look you spent 8 years in Philly which is great; I've lived my entire life in this city and area.  The things going on now and in the future are going to transform this city into a "first tier" city.

Even National Geographic dubbed Philadelphia with the tag "Next Great American City."  They must see something in Philadelphia that you don't.

gophila.com - Philadelphia "Next Great American City"