Next Usa Summer Bid (poll)

[baron-pierreIV]

Hm i guess hosting the inauguration every four years doesnt count as a large event? Of all the arguments to make against DC that one seems the most foolish. The USOC has put up two Big cities (NYC and Chicago) and both have been rejected, the USOC needs to think outside of the box.

To my mind, an inauguration is NOT quite the same thing. That's for the most part, a FREE event for one morning (OK, VIPs and friends get tickets).

NYC and Chicago were rejected because of the extra-strong competition and timing. Yeah, I knew you would say that the USOC didn't get anywhere with NYC and Chicago, what makes you think DC would be a stronger candidate? BTW, what tax base and large corporations that are DC-based have to raise the over $50 mil needed for a bid?

And you still haven't answered the question: where will the main Oly Stadium and Village go? That's the other all-important question because that's what seems to be the Achilles heel for other US cities.

I just think DC does not really have a central pedestrian core that visitors can hang out at, etc., etc. How many sports and will they be the major ones that will play within DC borders...or will all the major sports be OUTSIDE DC borders?

[dc/baltimoreolympics]

To my mind, an inauguration is NOT quite the same thing. That's for the most part, a FREE event for one morning (OK, VIPs and friends get tickets).

NYC and Chicago were rejected because of the extra-strong competition and timing. Yeah, I knew you would say that the USOC didn't get anywhere with NYC and Chicago, what makes you think DC would be a stronger candidate? BTW, what tax base and large corporations that are DC-based have to raise the over $50 mil needed for a bid?

And you still haven't answered the question: where will the main Oly Stadium and Village go? That's the other all-important question because that's what seems to be the Achilles heel for other US cities.

I just think DC does not really have a central pedestrian core that visitors can hang out at, etc., etc. How many sports and will they be the major ones that will play within DC borders...or will all the major sports be OUTSIDE DC borders?

Well I think DC has proven it can host large events. I dont know of specific companies that would be willing to contribute, but I do know that Redskins owner Dan Snyder (a billionaire) wants a new stadium in Downtown DC, which could serve as an olympic stadium. DC is a very wealthy area, i think raising the money would be easy.

The olympic village could go in Anacostia near the new nationals stadium, the city has been trying to revitalize that area for decades. I dont know all of the exact locations of the events.

All i am saying is that if Atlanta can win an olympic bid, so can DC.

[Olympic USA]

I really question whether DC has the right flavor for an Olympics. It is the political heart of the country. The federal government is what makes DC DC. It's difficult for me to imagine the IOC responding well to that. DC does not come off as remotely cosmopolitan. It is aggressively red white and blue. The character of the city is so totally saturated with American politics that it doesn't seem compatible with an international celebration of sport.

Incidentally, DC doesn't have a great history of hosting sporting events anyway.

I have spent a lot of time in DC and Washington is a very cosmopolitan city. True, government is the leading industry there but that doesn't make up Washington's identity 100%. Go walk around Dupont Circle or Adam's Morgan at 11 PM on a Friday night and tell me that "DC is not remotely cosmopolitan".

As I mentioned before, DC is a very international city, and one of the most diverse that I have visited.

[Olympic USA]

To my mind, an inauguration is NOT quite the same thing. That's for the most part, a FREE event for one morning (OK, VIPs and friends get tickets).

NYC and Chicago were rejected because of the extra-strong competition and timing. Yeah, I knew you would say that the USOC didn't get anywhere with NYC and Chicago, what makes you think DC would be a stronger candidate? BTW, what tax base and large corporations that are DC-based have to raise the over $50 mil needed for a bid?

And you still haven't answered the question: where will the main Oly Stadium and Village go? That's the other all-important question because that's what seems to be the Achilles heel for other US cities.

I just think DC does not really have a central pedestrian core that visitors can hang out at, etc., etc. How many sports and will they be the major ones that will play within DC borders...or will all the major sports be OUTSIDE DC borders?

I think people have a hard time realizing that there are places in DC outside of the National Mall area. Granted, DC's city limits are not that big, no one has ever claimed it to be, but it's metro area's population is around 5.4 million.

DC could host Ceremonies, Athletics, Aquatics, Tennis, Gymnastics, Road Cycling, Marathon, and probably more events. Of course not every single event will be able to be held in the DC city limits. San Francisco's plan never included every single event in the city limits either and hardly anyone criticizes them for that.

[FYI]

All i am saying is that if Atlanta can win an olympic bid, so can DC.

You know, Washington could very well have a shot if they ever try to bid again & the USOC picks them, but only if they clean up their bid massively & make it a very workable plan.

But why do people from all the lower-tier U.S. cities always make this simple black-&-white comparison about Atlanta? And then, at the same time contradict yourselvles, go on to make jest of New York's & Chicago's faliure to secure the Games? Do you really think that Washington would've done better for 2012 &/or 2016? If anything, looks like Washington would've ranked worse than New York & Chicago, considering the poor state of affairs between the USOC/IOC & the global relations with the U.S., considering Washington is the capital of the U.S.

Again, I'm not shooting down Washington, but you're simple comparisons just make you sound like all those other people on here from the other smaller U.S. cities (notably that little one from Minneapolis) & comparing apples to oranges, when in reality, every race is different & has there different circumstances why they win or loose.

[FYI]

We didnt seem to have a problem having the Olympics in Beijing with the worst pollution in the world. Again there is a DC nightlife, its just not next to the White House. I think the imagery of rowing on the the Potomac with Monuments in the background is hard to beat. Give DC a shot, people seem to shoot down every idea on this board. I too grew up near DC and the pollution is no worse than say LA and NYC.

Sorry, but yet another simple black-&-white comparison. You can't honestly compare Beijiig (the capital of the most populous nation on the planet that never hosted before) to Washington. Beijing could've been sitting inside a sewer, for all the IOC cared, but they were bound & determined to go to China for the very first time.

Again, not shooting down, nor anybody else I think is "shooting" down DC, but it's a matter of being objective, realistic, & contructive. Again, DC would have to clean up their bid big-time, have a compelling project as to why they should host & the timing would have to be right. The first main hurdle of course, would have to be to win over the USOC. Although, I would say that DC would still have a better chance than say, hmmm, Minneapolis.

[Raphael]

Back to the thread tiltle, IMO Chicago is the best choicefor USOC. Surely, the city has learnt during the whole process it has just passed through. That would be senseless for USOC to pick another city and start from the begining. That would be a waste of time, money and expertise. A Chicago bid will be stronger just for the city being humble to present it again.

[aluz]

Back to the thread tiltle, IMO Chicago is the best choicefor USOC. Surely, the city has learnt during the whole process it has just passed through. That would be senseless for USOC to pick another city and start from the begining. That would be a waste of time, money and expertise. A Chicago bid will be stronger just for the city being humble to present it again.

I totally agree with Chicago proving to be the best choice, especially with the acquired knowledge. However, the way the USOC handles the American bids does not encourage a city to bid in succession. The city has to handle all the costs of the bidding process. There is no strategic planning on the part of the USOC to foster a bid over time.

For 2016, for instance, the USOC calculated that Continental Rotation would pave the way and open the internal bidding process. Other NOCs are bidding before their continent turn in order to perfect the bid to win. Rio has bid 3 times in the last 4 races. Beijing bid twice. Paris has been bidding since the 80's and nobody rules them out. Istanbul also had repetitive bids, but the Turkish seem to have failed to improve the project. Cape Town seems ready for a new bid. So, maybe choosing a city to run for several years might be useful, but, for that, the USOC will have to build a country-wide financing for the bidding process, which seems unlikely.

[Olympic USA]

^ That would be interesting for the USOC to try and put forth a city everytime but as you mentioned the bidding city here in the USA has to put forth the cost of the bid on their own. Honestly, I see very few US cities willing to bid over and over until they win. If you look at cities from the 2012 and 2016 bid races only Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston showed up again and I remember reading an article asking the USOC about why they weren't looking at NYC to which they replied "We gave many cities all around the country ample time to submit interest in hosting the 2016 Olympics and NYC never did submit or tell us they were interested."

I would personally love to see Chicago bid again and have to agree it is probably the best shot for a games right now. Their plan for 2016 was awesome, best bid in US history, they have the infastructure, international appeal, and experience bidding.

As for Washington DC - assuming that they present a totally revamped bid that focuses on DC, have compelling reasons to host that FYI talked about, has good solid public support from the people as well as DC, VA, and MD - then it could be a viable option if NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles decide not to bid again and the USOC does. Washington is still an international city, whether it be in a positive or negative light is a matter of opinion, it is still one, it handles a large number of visitors daily, has experience hosting large events, and the city and area would provide a dramatic backdrop for the games. I am not saying that DC is the best choice overall, but if the top tier cities that people are so passionate about decide not to bid again soon then DC is in my opinion the best option to go with.

[aluz]

The way I see it, bidding has become a country-wide effort and not a given city particular choice. Seoul, Beijing, Barcelona, Athens, Rio and London are the best example of this trend. Despite the SOG being awarded to a city, not a country, the IOC representation is country-driven. So, the inter-country competition is more important than the inter-city one. And that's how the IOC has always worked.

Despite what JJ says, for me, the main reason why the American cities lost so many times in initial rounds is the large number of them in the race. In most occasions when the American cities lost in the post war era, there were at least 2 of them in the race. That only changed in the races for '76 and '80, when the US was competing against countries that were trying to host for the 1st time (USSR and Canada) and when the American image was suffering from the Vietnam war and authoritarian regime support in Latin America. Besides, in '73, The USSR got its prize for its outstanding performance in the medal tally. At this time, anti-American sentiment might have played a role.

Anyway, currently, I think the cities that manage to get their entire country behind them were successful. So, for the US to win a bid, they must show that to the IOC. It's not an accident that heads of state have been appearing in the voting. If you compare Obama's and Lula's speeches, this becomes clear. The Obama's were supporting Chicago and Lula showed up to demonstrate that he, in the name of the Brazilian government, would be committed to making the Rio 2016 SOG happen. Blair did a similar thing for London. He didn't show up at the last moment to deliver a speech in support, he committed his country with making the Games come true.

I agree that, with the aversion to government spending in the US for that kind of event, the approach cannot be the same. So, I think it is important for the USOC to take that role and get everyone behind the bid. To do that, the USOC will have to find a way to finance this long-term bid plan. It cannot be left for any city to pay, for it's too large of a burden for them to carry.

[Olympic USA]

^Going by your scenario it seems like it would be a good idea for the USOC to fund a bid again and again until they win. However, once the city is elected then they are responsible for the financing of the games. This means that the city wouldn't have to pay for the bid multiple times (i.e. wasting money in their eyes) but would fund the big prize!

I still think it's circumstantial - for some countries/cities it has worked to bid again and again until they win (Rio, Athens, Beijing) and other countries it has worked to present a new city each time, like Australia did with Brisbane 1992, Melbourne 1996, and then Sydney winning 2000. So who knows?

[FYI]

Not to mention the UK too, with Birmingham, Manchester & then finally succeeding with London.

[FYI]

... although, to be fair, the IOC always wanted London, out of all the UK cities.

[Athensfan]

When it comes to Olympic bids, perception is more important than reality -- particularly international perception. Internationally, DC is thought of as the heart of U.S. government and not much more. Add to weather and lack of sports history and there's a serious problem.

New York and Chicago lost for different reasons. DC would lose for another set of reasons still. Atlanta was an anomaly. The IOC is constantly changing. A 2013 IOC is not going to make decisions in the same way as the 1991 IOC. It's a different ballgame.

There are many cities that COULD stage the Games. There are far fewer cities that can WIN the right to do so. They are totally different questions.

[Rob2012]

NO WOGS!

[Raphael]

^ That would be interesting for the USOC to try and put forth a city everytime but as you mentioned the bidding city here in the USA has to put forth the cost of the bid on their own. Honestly, I see very few US cities willing to bid over and over until they win.

This is why I suggested humility in bidding.

[aluz]

... although, to be fair, the IOC always wanted London, out of all the UK cities.

Like France when bidding with Lille. nobody takes it seriously until Paris is in it. Same applies for the UK. It help the NOC to keep some relationships with the IOC and get a feeling of what they need to do.

[Olympic USA]

^ So the question is, which city does the IOC want the USOC to put forward? Personally, I have always thought that San Francisco is the US city the IOC wants to see host a games the most - the problem is that they have a hard time coming up with a good solid technical bid plan.

[FYI]

That would be the question. I think the IOC would be pleased with any of the top 4 U.S. cities; New York, Chicago, San Francisco & even Los Angeles. And maybe "deal" with a few others, like Boston, Washington, Philadelphia & maybe Seattle. If the USOC were to put forth any other, much smaller tier cities than the ones mentioned here, then I think the IOC would send the message to the USOC (like they sent to the BOA several years back, that they preferred London), that smaller U.S. cities just won't cut it.

[Olympic USA]

^That is a good analysis FYI - basically the IOC would be pleased with the top tier 4 US cities mentioned and would deal with the 2nd tier cities. Now for the future, we just have to see if Chicago will be interested in bidding again. San Francisco and Los Angeles have showed their willingness to continue bidding. At this point it's probably going to be a wait and see. Heck, who knows, maybe even NYC will shock us and enter the race again and we will ask - "Where will the Stadium/Village go?"

[FYI]

In all irony though, I think the next bid should be Los Angeles. They seem to have the will & determination to keep on bidding no matter what, which is what aluz emphasizes should be the main ingredient to make a USOC bid successful. New York & Chicago I think have been "stung", & I don't think either one of them are coming back anytime soon. Bloomberg & Daley seem to have that same kind of attitude of "okay, so you don't want us, then we don't care to bother anymore".

I know people keep saying that Los Angeles has hosted twice already & all but (like London) their first 2 hostings were not "awarded". And by, let's say 2024/28 or 32, it would be 40-48 years respectively since Los Angeles 1984. Also Los Angeles comes back over & over to want to bid, so that's probably one of the main reasons why the USOC seems to be partial with them (but who knows, besides the USOC, what the real reasons for that are). Los Angeles would have to come up with a compelling project though (like London did) in order to win over the IOC with a 3rd Los Angeles proposal. If they could do that, then they could have a good shot.

[Olympic USA]

^That make sense, Los Angeles seems committed on bringing the games back and no one argues with their international appeal or infrastructure to do it, plus they have the proven track record of hosting successful games. I think the IOC would be happy with Los Angeles but I think they want NYC, San Francisco, or Chicago more and like you said NYC and Chicago seem jaded right now and I doubt they will come back soon.

San Francisco, according to those in the Bay Area, seems unlikely to bid due to several reasons, namely the stadium issue. Although I still think if they could get a good plan in place they would be the most attractive option.

However, for both San Francisco and Los Angeles, the state of California really needs to clean up it's financial situation and I doubt that will happen in time for a 2020 bid so looks like for them 2024 would be better.

[Olympic USA]

The only concern I have about a Los Angeles bid is that judging from their 2016 proposed bid, the venues seem a little too spread out . If the bid team could move some events closer in to central Los Angeles it would be even more attractive. Like others have said, the IOC wants the games to leave a big legacy and I agree with FYI that presenting a plan similar to what London is doing would be a great option.

[FYI]

Yeah, Los Angeles would have to make their plan more compact. There's no reason why Long Beach should stage that many events. Like Baron pointed out at some point, Los Angeles should move some of those evetns much closer to Santa Monica, & the rest have them in the city of Los Angeles. I don't know what's with these U.S. cities across the country in always wanting to have their bid plan spread out all over the place, besides the nearby big communities wanting a piece of the pie, too (i.e. "Florida 2012", "Wash/Bal 2012", the "Bay Area 2012"). That totally defeats the purpose of what makes the Olympics so special to begin with.

[Olympic USA]

^ Definitely agree with you there, places like Baltimore, Ft Worth, San Jose, Palo Alto, Long Beach and Anaheim should only see preliminary events or maybe 1-2 secondary events that cannot be held in the city hosting. I think the reason bids do it is to get more support from the wider metropolitan area and to get the region involved. What they don't understand is that while the IOC does appreciate the support they don't like having multiple events spread out here and there.

I remember seeing Baron mentioning the spread out plan of the Los Angeles bid, definitely agree with moving the Long Beach events up to Santa Monica, and the events in Anaheim and Pasadena moving into Los Angeles. In looking at the bid plan it seems like they didn't utilize USC or UCLA enough. Another question, could the Rowing venue proposed for Long Beach be able to be in Santa Monica or somewhere closer to central Los Angeles? I don't remember there being such a spot on my trips there.