Which US city will host the Olympics next?

[baron-pierreIV]

OK...didn't want to start a whole new thread just for this, so I thought it appropriate to stick it on here.

On "Jeopardy!" (for non-UN folks, this is the longest running quiz show on US TV... and they had their 6,000th telecast tonite). This evening's Final Jeopardy question, on the subject of US presidents, was: Who was the first president elected in an Olympic year?

And the answer is: Who was McKinley? All 3 contestants got it right. And of course Alex Trebek (the host) waxed on about grandpappy, Baron I!! I kinda got an extra shiver with tonight's episode because of that.

Over and out.

[Ivan Couver]

Hi,

ANCHORAGE for he W.O.G. and LOS ANGELES for the S.O.G. could be fine.

[stryker]

Anchorage for the Winter Games with Sarah Palin officially opening the Games

Austin, Texas will be the next U.S. summer host but after winning the rights to host the Games, Texas secedes from the U.S.

[Triffle]

The only US city i want to see host the olympics in the next 40 years is New York. The rest are boring except maybe San Francisco but it wouldnt seem fair if California hosted a third games while the North-East hadnt hosted any. So go NYC 2032! (after Tokyo, Paris, Cape Town thanks)

[FYI]

I know what you mean. Just like Sydney is Australia's only exciting city. The rest are boring.

[Ivan Couver]

Hey, I've just thought about the thrilling city of SPOKANE, Wa, I discovered last Summer. What a nice Olympic place!

[Dino]

I know what you mean. Just like Sydney is Australia's only exciting city. The rest are boring.

[Sir Rols]

I know what you mean. Just like Sydney is Australia's only exciting city. The rest are boring.

Hey, you're forgetting that Hobart is the swingingest metropolis of the Southern Ocean.

[CanisMinor]

I just don't see the IOC biting with any 'Texan' city (N especially after Atlanta). Houston is *not* 'the best the U.S. has to offer', if that's how you're going to categorize it.

Houston will do a far better, and more appealing job of a SOG than Reno-Tack-ho will do of a WOG.

I just don't believe you can cut out cities in 3 decades time.

- In the 60s, who would ever have guessed that the Spanish host would be sprawling Barcelona and not Madrid?

- In the late 70s, who would ever have guessed that Beijing could host

I am no fan of Houston, especially the humidity. But let's be serious, in 204X, Houston WILL be at least the 3rd largest city in the US, and culturally will be FAR more representative of the US population than an elitist Boston. I fully expect that before the mid to late-30s, when the next US host is to be decided, Houston will have had successfully put itself on the map as a 2022 World Cup venue, and have tried to go for the PanAm Games (and possibly even hosted them).

[FYI]

I just don't believe you can cut out cities in 3 decades time.

- In the 60s, who would ever have guessed that the Spanish host would be sprawling Barcelona and not Madrid?

- In the late 70s, who would ever have guessed that Beijing could host

Why not? You're cutting out 'elitist' Boston way down the road.

And seriously, comparing Barcelona & Beijing to Houston is not a relative comparison, since both had a major player on the their side (JAS) & a compelling argument to host (especially Beijing) at the time of their bids.

Even if Houston were to excel in all those areas that you highlighted (& that's assuming the U.S. wins it's 2022 WC bid, & if Houston were to become the 3rd largest city in the country by then, & I would seriously doubt that they'd be the 3rd largest METRO area, that claim would still belong to Chicago), if Chicago, being the 3rd largest city in the country now & being a global player in many, many areas, couldn't do it, what makes you think that some Texan city that resembles Atlanta (especially to those fastidious, Euro-centric IOC members) would have any sort of chance of convincing them otherwise.

I would say that they would drop Houston faster than they dropped Chicago & a HOT-potato in Texas' July heat. This game is not necessarily of whose the largest & whose hosted what, per se, but also more of what they have to offer the Olympic Movement, & Houston doesn't seem like it could offer much of a compelling case, especially in a country that's hosted the Olympics Games more than any other on the planet, & would need more of a WOW factor to win over those "elitist", royal-wannabes, a.k.a. IOC members.

[OneTimeOnly]

The only US city i want to see host the olympics in the next 40 years is New York. The rest are boring except maybe San Francisco but it wouldnt seem fair if California hosted a third games while the North-East hadnt hosted any. So go NYC 2032! (after Tokyo, Paris, Cape Town thanks)

The Northeast hosted Lake Placid 1980, what are you talking about???

[baron-pierreIV]

Houston will do a far better, and more appealing job of a SOG than Reno-Tack-ho will do of a WOG.

I just don't believe you can cut out cities in 3 decades time.

- In the 60s, who would ever have guessed that the Spanish host would be sprawling Barcelona and not Madrid?

- In the late 70s, who would ever have guessed that Beijing could host

I am no fan of Houston, especially the humidity. But let's be serious, in 204X, Houston WILL be at least the 3rd largest city in the US, and culturally will be FAR more representative of the US population than an elitist Boston. I fully expect that before the mid to late-30s, when the next US host is to be decided, Houston will have had successfully put itself on the map as a 2022 World Cup venue, and have tried to go for the PanAm Games (and possibly even hosted them).

Houston? Meh. They've done the boom town bit with Tokyo, Atlanta. Houston is just a little safer bet than those Doha's and Dubai's...but still the same in terms of the infernal heat...except the desert towns have drier heat and more camels.

[Rafa]

New York. Chicago. SF

[OneTimeOnly]

As a New Yorker myself, I can say, and I've said this before, that a New York Olympic Games would suck. I am qualified to speak to this issue (as well as a Los Angeles games and a San Francisco games) while others who don't live here or perhaps have only visited can keep on fantasizing about something they have no real substantive experience with.

[CanisMinor]

New York. Chicago. SF

New York = That ship has sailed for the IOC

Chicago = That ship has sailed, and sunk to the depths of Lake Michigan. Chicago will not bid again before the second half of the century. The public support is gone, wiped out. It will take two generations before enough Chicagoans will think it's a good idea again.

SF = They may get the nod from the USOC, if they can ever get a viable plan together

As a New Yorker myself, I can say, and I've said this before, that a New York Olympic Games would suck. I am qualified to speak to this issue (as well as a Los Angeles games and a San Francisco games) while others who don't live here or perhaps have only visited can keep on fantasizing about something they have no real substantive experience with.

Largely agree with you here. New York can pull it off (if they can get a venue plan) but it will get lost in the city. Most of the people won't even notice it's happening - it'll be a sideshow.

I think many folks have an impression of New York from one or two weekend visits, or simply from its reputation. They've never lived in the city, so they cannot fathom how insignificant a SOG will appear in NYC, nor how difficult it will be logistically.

[CanisMinor]

Why not? You're cutting out 'elitist' Boston way down the road...

And seriously, comparing Barcelona & Beijing to Houston is not a relative comparison, since both had a major player on the their side (JAS) & a compelling argument to host (especially Beijing) at the time of their bids.

...

I would say that they would drop Houston faster than they dropped Chicago & a HOT-potato in Texas' July heat.

Firstly, don't put words in my mouth - I didn't cut-out elitist Boston. I simply stated that Houston will be far more culturally representative of the US in the 40's than Boston. Boston is becoming more middle-class, educated, white folks. That is already not representative of the US and is getting less so.

Make no mistake, a Boston Games may get the nod. But I think a venue plan will be logistically very, very challenging in that city, and frankly other than fall leaves and rolling meadows reminiscent of the UK, what does the city have to offer the world?

Secondly, the very reason you are using for why Barcelona and Beijing are special, are the same reasons a Houston may get it. The next power broker in the IOC may have ties to Houston, who knows? In the late 30's, Houston may have a unique "political coming out". Who knows? Granted, it may also not happen, but I don't think we can count out one of the largest, possibly richest cities just because it is "boring" today.

Thirdly, Chicago wasn't dropped because it was Chicago. It was dropped because it was a US bid. Regardless if the US had bid with New York again, LA, Chicago, SF or Tulsa - the result would have been the same (ok, maybe Tulsa wouldn't have made the candidate list...).

[Detroit]

I say this. IF TULSA GETS THE GAMES THEN NOBODY ELSE BID, OR THEIR WAS HUGE BRIBES. case closed

[FYI]

Secondly, the very reason you are using for why Barcelona and Beijing are special, are the same reasons a Houston may get it. The next power broker in the IOC may have ties to Houston, who knows? In the late 30's, Houston may have a unique "political coming out". Who knows? Granted, it may also not happen, but I don't think we can count out one of the largest, possibly richest cities just because it is "boring" today.

Thirdly, Chicago wasn't dropped because it was Chicago. It was dropped because it was a US bid. Regardless if the US had bid with New York again, LA, Chicago, SF or Tulsa - the result would have been the same (ok, maybe Tulsa wouldn't have made the candidate list...).

I'm not necessarily advocating Boston, just would see their chances better than a Houston bid. If Detroit (having an American IOC president at the time who was even born there) couldn't get it bid after bid, I wouldn't bet any money on Houston. Plus, that would mean that the U.S. would have to have someone with Houston ties within the IOC right now (which they don't) in order for the them to be in any realm of big influence within the rest of the membership in 25 years time when you're arguing over the next potential U.S. summer bid.

And look, I know Chicago losing wasn't about Chicago but much more about the U.S. I didn't join here just yestesday. And I'm not saying Houston can't/couldn't or whatever, only merely stating that they're odds would be very low considering all the geopolitical b.s. the IOC goes through, hence the 2016 race itself. And it doesn't matter either if Houston would be one of the richest cities in the U.S. in the late 2030's either. Just ask Doha, Tokyo & even New York & Chicago. The money is not 'always' the answer & the IOC goes after the money when it wants, & not necessarily when it's being dangled in front of them like some teaser. But I digress now, since we're not going to agree on this.

[Kenadian]

I think Chicago gave up too easy. The 2016 race wasn't the smack in the face they thought it was. It was a marketing opportunity to set them up to win a future round.

[Detroit]

NYC could never host it, because they have no where to put it. No space for the events. Case closed

[Athensfan]

NYC could never host it, because they have no where to put it. No space for the events. Case closed

I've been in NYC for the last week. I cannot see the Olympics here. The Big Apple is not a friendly, welcoming place. It's got a lot of money, arts, diversity, excitment, but it doesn't have hardly any space and New Yorkers are unlikely to be terribly excited about the Games. There would certainly be a percentage who would be eager to welcome the world, but the majority would probably say, "Oh great! The WORLD is coming to New York? Now I'll never get a cab..."

I'll say it again: Chicago is my pick.

[Soaring]

NYC could never host it, because they have no where to put it. No space for the events. Case closed

And Detroit now has tons of vacant space to host it today...

NYC's flaws of having to space things out would probably be overshadowed by giddy IOC member's desire to vote for the most international city in the world. Again, with all it's flaws, NYC was just a mere two votes behind Paris, and three votes behind London in the first round for 2012. This even after a lack of confidence in their stadium plan, three years after SLC (which was plagued with scandal), and with Bush in office waging two wars.

I think NYC would be the strongest candidate, but Chicago would have a better venue plan IMO. San Francisco and Boston are "international" enough to throw in a bid, and could probably put something together if they eased on their local politics (directed more to SF).

IMO, Houston does not seem to be a contender by any stretch of the imagination. I don't doubt their ability, I just don't think it makes the cut. I think cities like Washington D.C. or even Miami (which could at least boast their experience in organizing the most Super Bowls) should have more consideration that Houston.

[OneTimeOnly]

New Yorkers are unlikely to be terribly excited about the Games. There would certainly be a percentage who would be eager to welcome the world, but the majority would probably say, "Oh great! The WORLD is coming to New York? Now I'll never get a cab..."

Bingo. New Yorkers don't give two rips about hosting the Olympic Games. Plus, the world comes to New York regardless of the games, so no one will care about "welcoming the world". New York already does that.

San Francisco and Boston are "international" enough to throw in a bid

San Francisco yes, Boston, no. And not Houston either. And not Detroit.

San Francisco's biggest hurdle is as always, local politics.

[FYI]

^One could also say that about London, Paris & Rome, too. But that didn't stop the IOC between choosing, in the 2012 final round, between London & Paris. And for Rome to be the early favorite for 2020.

Even many Italians back in 1997, when Rome was bidding for 2004, were saying that "Rome doesn't need the Olympics to boast it's image, since they're already the Eternal City & the world already comes here". If the IOC were to listen to such diatribe, they wouldn't be wanting & preferring (most of the time anyway) the glamour capitals of the world.

I think if it ever came that the IOC were to pick New York City, most New Yorkers, would warm up to the Games once the lead-up was near. Since the Olympics are all about national pride anyway, that even New Yorkers wouldn't be immune to that element.

[Rafa]

Exactly. The energy, financial power, buzz, people, cultures, and the rest of the US market make a New York bid something out of this world.

With the right timing, New York could possibly take the Games to different level.