U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026

[Lord David]

What kind of stadia does Reno have?

We have the Lawlor Events Center, seating approximately 12,000 for Basketball. Could be reconfigured to 10,000 for say, Ice Hockey Preliminaries?

Then you have the Reno Events Center at 7,500. Likewise will need to be reconfigured to say 6,000 - 7,000 for Curling perhaps.

As such you will then need to build another 2 Ice venues for Ice Hockey Finals and Short Track/Figure Skating, as well as a Speed Skating oval.

The question is, does Reno need such high capacity arenas? I think not. The solution could be to build a convertible Speed Skating oval like Anchorage's proposal for 1992 and 1994. Or to more logically build some sort of Winter Ice Institute, which houses a large capacity arena, a slightly smaller one and the Speed Skating oval. Which post Olympics, will be converted to a Winter Institute (in which much of the seating is removed) and general recreation center.

The Opening/Closing Ceremonies will most likely be staged in Reno, which justifies Reno being the name of the bid. It could be held at a heavily renovated Mackay Stadium, perhaps with the track removed (to compensate, build a new athletics facility nearby) at say 50,000+? It could happen if they build a new tier where the track used to be and corner off one of the ends? In which the open end will house the temporary stands for athletes?

Or should they close of the whole stadium and allocate temporary seating to athletes, much like what was done with BC Place Stadium in Vancouver?

Which brings us to the snow venues, such as those for Ski Jumping, Biathlon and the Sliding Track for example. It's doubtful that the US needs such facilities in the Western part of the country considering the already existing facilities in Salt Lake City, but then again, you have Vancouver, which is close to Calgary. So I suppose making such venues permanent isn't such a big problem, there's always room for more of such facilities!

Overall, the Reno bid will be a tough bid to sell considering it's existing venues, whether there's a need for more permanent ones, and if they will decide on more permanent than temporary.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ WE...? Are you part of the Reno bid team?

Overall, the Reno bid will be a tough bid to sell considering it's existing venues,

Well, Lake Placid and Sochi have FAR LESS than what Reno has 12 years ahead of its desired playdate.

[FYI]

Speaking of Lake Placid, according to wikipedia, they would like to co-host with Albany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Winter_Olympics

Seems interesting, but the distance between Albany & Lake Placid could be a bid breaker, considering it's twice as far than Vancouver to Whistler.

[Lord David]

/\ WE...? Are you part of the Reno bid team?

Well, Lake Placid and Sochi have FAR LESS than what Reno has 12 years ahead of its desired playdate.

What? Huh? Oh sorry. Well Lake Placid do have the ski jump, a small arena, speed skating oval, Biathlon course and sliding track. They will be partnered with a city, something close please, Burlington might do.

Sochi had a unique proposal with their "Olympic Park".

I suppose Reno has the time to build before they propose, but do they need such facilities?

[FYI]

Problem with Burlington though, is that everyone would have to be ferried across to Lake Placid & that could be a logistical mess. They'd be better off with Albany.

[Lord David]

Can't they build a bridge?

[baron-pierreIV]

What? Huh? Oh sorry. Well Lake Placid do have the ski jump, a small arena, speed skating oval, Biathlon course and sliding track.

Did LP have them before 1932? Did it need them before 1980? I mean LP's official population in 1974 was 900 people; greater Reno's area today is 280.000.

Can't they build a bridge?

I guess they could and then transfer it to Lake Tahoe to ferry Californians over to the Nevada side and vice-versa. I mean temporary bridges will be the next big Olympic rage like trmporary stadia!!

[Soaring]

Interestingly enough, there was even talk of Montreal hosting with Lake Plaid, but obviously having two countries co-host the Olympics in this day and age would be out of the question.

[polarbear]

Environmentalists would have a field day against an Anchorage bid, too.

Fishing, mining or oil drilling perhaps.. but the Olympics?

I've been listening to rumbles about another bid here for quite a while now, but haven't heard a peep from the environmental community. Why would they care? They didn't care last time and most of the ski areas have doubled in size since then. If anything, they'd be pushing for it.

Alyeska ski resort is a half hour drive from the city (or you can take the train).. And Hillside, Kincaid, and other ski areas are right in the city.

The largest hockey arena in Anchorage is already TOO small for this city, but there's several different groups with various plans on the table for a new one. I seriously wish they'd hurry up on this one since the Sullivan Arena is ready to be torn down!

As far as U.S. cities vying for future Olympics though, I can't imagine why you'd think Anchorage would never be viable? We're surrounded by mountains, BURIED IN SNOW, and you won't find a more scenic winter city in the states.

Besides.. Where else can you go to the Olympics, then watch the start of the Iditarod right smack downtown?

[stir.ts]

Fishing, mining or oil drilling perhaps.. but the Olympics?

I've been listening to rumbles about another bid here for quite a while now, but haven't heard a peep from the environmental community. Why would they care? They didn't care last time and most of the ski areas have doubled in size since then. If anything, they'd be pushing for it.

Alyeska ski resort is a half hour drive from the city (or you can take the train).. And Hillside, Kincaid, and other ski areas are right in the city.

The largest hockey arena in Anchorage is already TOO small for this city, but there's several different groups with various plans on the table for a new one. I seriously wish they'd hurry up on this one since the Sullivan Arena is ready to be torn down!

As far as U.S. cities vying for future Olympics though, I can't imagine why you'd think Anchorage would never be viable? We're surrounded by mountains, BURIED IN SNOW, and you won't find a more scenic winter city in the states.

Besides.. Where else can you go to the Olympics, then watch the start of the Iditarod right smack downtown?

Sounds fantastic! Games in Alaska would be very exciting!!!

[polarbear]

Sounds fantastic! Games in Alaska would be very exciting!!!

I guess I just get a kick out of some of the comments that roll through here about potential U.S. cities that could bid some day for the winter games.

I mean.. Bozeman, Montana? It makes me wonder if the person suggesting it has actually been there?

In any event -- if you made a list of U.S. cities that surrounded by mountains, downhill and x-country ski trails, and more snow than we know what to do with - it boggles the mind that so many here think that Anchorage is the one place where it will "never happen".

Alaska has a 2.2 million dollar SURPLUS due to oil revenues. How many other states are sitting on a surplus? Since 1976 the state has paid every single resident a fat check each October just for living here. (They've gotta spend the oil revenues some how!) So if they wanted to vie for the games again here, I'm not so sure money would be an issue.

"FYI" here said that "Anchorage's chances on getting the Winter Games are probably just as bleak as Honolulu getting the Summer Games" and "CanisMinor" said "Anchorage is too far north".

~~~~ (( ))

Then again.. I guess that's what makes this forum so entertaining!

[polarbear]

Alaska has a 2.2 million dollar SURPLUS due to oil revenues.

Oooh. big correction. That should read: 2.2 BILLION with a "B" surplus.

Good grief, did I ever short change the state!!

[baron-pierreIV]

Fishing, mining or oil drilling perhaps.. but the Olympics?

I've been listening to rumbles about another bid here for quite a while now, but haven't heard a peep from the environmental community. Why would they care? They didn't care last time and most of the ski areas have doubled in size since then. If anything, they'd be pushing for it.

Alyeska ski resort is a half hour drive from the city (or you can take the train).. And Hillside, Kincaid, and other ski areas are right in the city.

The largest hockey arena in Anchorage is already TOO small for this city, but there's several different groups with various plans on the table for a new one. I seriously wish they'd hurry up on this one since the Sullivan Arena is ready to be torn down!

As far as U.S. cities vying for future Olympics though, I can't imagine why you'd think Anchorage would never be viable? We're surrounded by mountains, BURIED IN SNOW, and you won't find a more scenic winter city in the states.

Besides.. Where else can you go to the Olympics, then watch the start of the Iditarod right smack downtown?

I don't see where the interest is in ANchorage or by its citizenry. Plus, it's the same general region as Vancouver...and a $2.2 BILLION surplus is actually a handicap. The IOC likes to award its games to bankrupt cities and towns..so that their debt to the IOC will be forever. The last thing the IOC needs is another solvent American games.

[polarbear]

The IOC likes to award its games to bankrupt cities and towns..so that their debt to the IOC will be forever.

Oh. Well in that case, count us out!!

[OneTimeOnly]

I guess I just get a kick out of some of the comments that roll through here about potential U.S. cities that could bid some day for the winter games.

I mean.. Bozeman, Montana? It makes me wonder if the person suggesting it has actually been there?

In any event -- if you made a list of U.S. cities that surrounded by mountains, downhill and x-country ski trails, and more snow than we know what to do with - it boggles the mind that so many here think that Anchorage is the one place where it will "never happen".

Alaska has a 2.2 million dollar SURPLUS due to oil revenues. How many other states are sitting on a surplus? Since 1976 the state has paid every single resident a fat check each October just for living here. (They've gotta spend the oil revenues some how!) So if they wanted to vie for the games again here, I'm not so sure money would be an issue.

"FYI" here said that "Anchorage's chances on getting the Winter Games are probably just as bleak as Honolulu getting the Summer Games" and "CanisMinor" said "Anchorage is too far north".

~~~~ (( ))

Then again.. I guess that's what makes this forum so entertaining!

How may hours of daylight does Anchorage get in the winter? What tie is the sun rising and, and what time is it setting in the dead of winter?

[polarbear]

How may hours of daylight does Anchorage get in the winter? What tie is the sun rising and, and what time is it setting in the dead of winter?

World clock -> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?month=2&year=2010&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1&n=18

[FYI]

Fishing, mining or oil drilling perhaps.. but the Olympics?

Well, yeah, of course the Olympics.

The Winter Olympics in particular seem to get the most environmentalists in action because of the topograhy of Winter Olympic hosts & wanna be hosts. The amount of construction that would have to be done a lot of times in prestine & previously untouched landscape.

Other previous winter host cities & candidates have come up to opposition as well, like Lillehammer, Calgary, Denver, Vancouver (particularly the Sea to Sky Highway retrofit project) & Sochi. So Alaska, being one of the last prestine places on earth, can't imagine environmentalists not speaking out against if an Anchorage bid ever became extremely serious, cause surely there would need to be lots of construction & upgrades that would need to be done.

[Sir Rols]

Well, yeah, of course the Olympics.

The Winter Olympics in particular seem to get the most environmentalists in action because of the topograhy of Winter Olympic hosts & wanna be hosts. The amount of construction that would have to be done a lot of times in prestine & previously untouched landscape.

Not to mention, whether their grievances are justified or not, the Olympics is too big a spotlight for them to be able to resist the profile and notoriety protesting the games can give them.

[Soaring]

I would support Anchorage if I saw a bit more public support, and a feasible venue plan. Out of the three cities I started the thread with, Anchorage is the least developed, but it doesn't have a permanent handicap like Denver botching the '76 Games, or Reno's multi-city, multi-state approach.

[Athensfan]

To those who say "The IOC rejected our best (NYC, Chicago) therefore we should try something else and give up on Summer Games," I would argue that the biggest problem with both NYC and Chicago was timing. NYC was still fairly soon after Atlanta and the stadium debacle was a disaster. Chicago had the unfortunate bad luck of facing a competent (if not superior) Rio bid. TIMING was the biggest problem in both cases. I don't think that's an argument for putting forward a bid from an uninspiring city like Reno (though I acknowledge 2022 would be more favorable timing in terms of both continental rotation and recent U.S. defeats).

Regarding the name of the bid -- if the USOC submits a Reno/Lake Tahoe bid it will become the Reno bid. As others have noted, the city hosting the ice events names the Games. Regarding Baron's "multi-word" argument, there's a big difference between multiple words and dual locations. Salt Lake City is three words. So what? If Vancouver - Whistler didn't happen, why would Reno - Tahoe? As for Garmisch-Partenkirchen, it is now more commonly referred to simply as "Garmisch." Incidentally, if we can have Lake Placid Games, I don't see why we couldn't have Lake Tahoe Games. The reason it won't happen, however, is that Tahoe is not going to host ice events or the ceremonies.

That leaves us with Reno 2022. An uninspiring city (and many seem to be arguing that the character of the city is irrelevant) with alpine events located in a different state. I'm sorry, this does not sound ideal. I cannot imagine an Evaluation Commission being particularly impressed with Reno.

Regarding Anchorage, yes it's a more novel location and they have the money to host, but a lack of enthusiasm and interest is a big problem.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\ Athenrye, I give you permission to take 2022 off.

You can probably spend that year helping LA, NYC or SF prepare for their next failed bids.

[Athensfan]

/\ Athenrye, I give you permission to take 2022 off.

You can probably spend that year helping LA, NYC or SF prepare for their next failed bids.

Always good to have YOUR permission, Baron.

Such pessimism! It's all in the timing....

[FYI]

To those who say "The IOC rejected our best (NYC, Chicago) therefore we should try something else and give up on Summer Games," I would argue that the biggest problem with both NYC and Chicago was timing. NYC was still fairly soon after Atlanta and the stadium debacle was a disaster. Chicago had the unfortunate bad luck of facing a competent (if not superior) Rio bid. TIMING was the biggest problem in both cases. I don't think that's an argument for putting forward a bid from an uninspiring city like Reno (though I acknowledge 2022 would be more favorable timing in terms of both continental rotation and recent U.S. defeats).

That leaves us with Reno 2022. An uninspiring city (and many seem to be arguing that the character of the city is irrelevant)

No one is saying that we should "give up" on the Summer Games or make it an argument for a Reno bid because of the failed U.S. summer bids. But we've tried the former, so why not try the latter in the meantime. Why must one be like a stubborn mule if they don't get their way. The USOC has stated that they would consider this in order to try & mend relations within the IOC & it's realm.

And somewhat agree on bad timing for 2012, but *totally* disagree on bad timing for 2016. Nobody expected much from Rio in the beginning of the race, considering for 2012 they were flat out rejected for a very poor bid plan. And the timing was right for the Americas' this last time around. If anything, Chicago just got the short end of the stick at the very end.

And why shouldn't some argue that the character of the city is not that relevant, especially for the Winter Games. It's not like Salt Lake, Turin, Calgary, Nagano & especially Sochi, are that "inspiring" themselves. The topography of the area is what takes precedence for the Winter candidates.

[Athensfan]

No one is saying that we should "give up" on the Summer Games or make it an argument for a Reno bid because of the failed U.S. summer bids. But we've tried the former, so why not try the latter in the meantime. Why must one be like a stubborn mule if they don't get their way. The USOC has stated that they would consider this in order to try & mend relations within the IOC & it's realm.

And somewhat agree on bad timing for 2012, but *totally* disagree on bad timing for 2016. Nobody expected much from Rio in the beginning of the race, considering for 2012 they were flat out rejected for a very poor bid plan. And the timing was right for the Americas' this last time around. If anything, Chicago just got the short end of the stick at the very end.

And why shouldn't some argue that the character of the city is not that relevant, especially for the Winter Games. It's not like Salt Lake, Turin, Calgary, Nagano & especially Sochi, are that "inspiring" themselves. The topography of the area is what takes precedence for the Winter candidates.

Everybody's entitled to their opinions. Let me start by saying that I've got two separate views:

1.) The U.S. should not bid for Winter Games and should instead focus on landing the Summer Games in 2024 or 2028.

2.) If the U.S. elects to go for 2022 it should be with a city that is more appealing than Reno.

Just because I think it is important that the U.S. host a Summer Games before a Winter Games does not make me "a stubborn mule." I can see and appreciate the various reasons for the last two losses, but I'm certainly not stuck in the past. To the contrary, I've learned a lot from those races.

Going forward, I still think it is best for American audiences, sponsors and athletes to host a Summer Games first. If another U.S. Winter Games comes first, I fear the wait for a Summer Games will be so long that the Games will lose a great deal of traction in the U.S. Some may think that an American Summer Games could follow fairly quickly on the heels of a Winter hosting. Based on the IOC's commitment to global Games, I think this theory is unsupportable. In my opinion, the USOC would do well to say, "If we only get one Games in the next 40 years we better make them count. Do we want them to be Summer Games or Winter Games? Let's not assume we can have both." This isn't blindly stubborn. It's reasoned. Many in this forum disagree with the rationale and that's fine.

Regarding the timing of 2016 -- I agree that it looked very promising at the outset for Chicago. I have said before that I do not think Chicago was foolish to bid. Unfortunately, they came up against a surprisingly competent (though not superior) bid from Rio in the same bidding cyle. Nothing Chicago did would have trumped the "new frontier" card as played by a credible bidder. I call that unlucky timing. If you disagree, ok.

Similarly, if people feel the character of a Winter Games bid city is irrelevant -- fine. They're entitled to their opinions. Your observation about Sochi is absolutely well-founded, but considering that Pyeongchang was their primary competition, they kind of lucked out. Also, most IOC members hadn't seen the city, so the bid team milked the snow-and-sun/ski-and-sea concept and let the IOC's imaginations fill in the blanks.

I believe the character of any Olympic host city matters. Any host nation would want to showcase some of the best they have to offer. Just because you might be able to get away with something doesn't mean it's the best course of action. To say that Sochi is unappealing and therefore a Reno has a great chance seems like odd logic to me -- especially if Reno's international competitors have any degree of charm or history. Considering how rare Olympic hostings are, I just can't see inviting the world to a sub-mediocre city like Reno. Again, I'm using the previously stated rationale: "If we only get to host one Games in the next 40 years...." Using that criteria, it is utterly astonishing to me that Reno has so much support.

Please remember, just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm telling them they're not allowed to voice their ideas.

[Soaring]

Athensfan, I agree with you spot on. I would prefer the U.S. to host a summer games before a another winter games. Tahoe is awesome, but Reno is not a city I would be proud of. Sure, SLC wasn't amazing, but it was doable. Realistically though I think it is going to be hard for the USOC to sit out 2022, 2024 and 2026. So, we are just going to have to sit back and see what happens. One argument that was made during the 2016 race is that most of our future bids could come from sub-par cities, since the mega cities (NY, Chicago, etc.) will probably sit out future races. I think that kind of now applies to our winter bids too. I would prefer Anchorage or Denver to Reno, but obviously civic enthusiasm/support matter deeply with both of those cities.