Which US city will host the Olympics next?

[baron-pierreIV]

^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.

London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Rio...(the alpha cities).

Agree. The lead-up is too long and too behind-the-scenes...that's why NYC'ers may not care at the start. But w/in 6 months of the Games, once the feel is in the air, NYC'ers will get just as excited as anyone. There is lots of space in Flushing and Staten Island. If I were an IOC member, I'd pick NYC over Chicago.

[OneTimeOnly]

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.

You weren't here during the 2012 bid. I can tell you nobody cared. It was one big collective yawn.

At any rate, NYC would have to bid again, and I don't see that happening. There's isn't any interest.

[Athensfan]

I think an NYC Olympics could be an enormous disappointment. I don't doubt that many within the IOC and around the world would be excited by the idea, but I think the reality would be decidedly less wonderful. If ALL of New York put their muscle behind the Games, maybe something extraordinary could happen, but I really think that's a totally unrealistic, fairy-tale scenario.

I really don't see New York getting excited about the Games. I think they would see the Olympics as an unnecessary complication and a hassle. I think the Games would be swallowed by the city. Although NYC may seem to many like a "sexy" bid, I suspect it might not fare too well in the evaluation report either.... Transportation would be a nightmare. The city is already insanely congested (I'm here in October, it's far worse in the summer).

[baron-pierreIV]

I think an NYC Olympics could be an enormous disappointment. I don't doubt that many within the IOC and around the world would be excited by the idea, but I think the reality would be decidedly less wonderful. If ALL of New York put their muscle behind the Games, maybe something extraordinary could happen, but I really think that's a totally unrealistic, fairy-tale scenario.

I really don't see New York getting excited about the Games. I think they would see the Olympics as an unnecessary complication and a hassle. I think the Games would be swallowed by the city. Although NYC may seem to many like a "sexy" bid, I suspect it might not fare too well in the evaluation report either.... Transportation would be a nightmare. The city is already insanely congested (I'm here in October, it's far worse in the summer).

Forget the congestion issue. Rule of Olympic Games: Games-haters leave town to make room for the visitors. People take their vacations, plan around it, etc., etc. So, it's ALWAYS a wash!!

[Rafa]

You weren't here during the 2012 bid. I can tell you nobody cared. It was one big collective yawn.

At any rate, NYC would have to bid again, and I don't see that happening. There's isn't any interest.

and? ....

Venues would be filled, marketing would be incredible and people will show up.

Whether NYC ever bids or wants to bid is debatable or perhaps even unlikely, but the Games will be a success.

[OneTimeOnly]

and? ....

Venues would be filled, marketing would be incredible and people will show up.

Whether NYC ever bids or wants to bid is debatable or perhaps even unlikely, but the Games will be a success.

Really? And how do you know? How do you know marketing would be "incredible", for example? How do you know the games will be a "success"? Are you psychic?

And how are you qualified to really judge when you are how many thousand miles away, and are not a resident?

[Soaring]

I guess my view is that if NYC really wanted it, they could get it. If they don't, so be it. I agree, it is not a friendly city, and overrated in some ways, but I think the world would be interested, and it would be hard for it to not be successful IMO.

NYC/NJ will host its first Super Bowl in 2014, so maybe that might inspire them to go for something even bigger.

Chicago will always be the optimal choice for a USA bid, but I am biased of course.

[nykfan845]

I guess my view is that if NYC really wanted it, they could get it. If they don't, so be it. I agree, it is not a friendly city, and overrated in some ways, but I think the world would be interested, and it would be hard for it to not be successful IMO.

NYC/NJ will host its first Super Bowl in 2014, so maybe that might inspire them to go for something even bigger.

Chicago will always be the optimal choice for a USA bid, but I am biased of course.

I disagree.

I'll leave it at that.

[Rob2012]

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..."

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.

If someone replaced the words New York with London across the last two pages (and especially in the above posts), you'd have a hard time persauding me this forum hadn't travelled back in time to 2003/4 (when I was a newbie here). The arguments being made against NYC are uncannily similar to those made against London on this very forum six or seven years ago. It's really quite bizarre.

Rickety transport...check

Insanely congested...check

Not enough space...check

The city would swallow them...check

People wouldn't be interested....check

The city doesn't need them as it's already a world city...check

People come here anyway...check

An unnecessary complication and a hassle...check

It is not a friendly enough city...check

I'm not saying anyone's wrong by the way. Maybe these points are more true of New York than they ever were of London, I couldn't say. But this thread does give me a very weird sense of Déjà vu.

[Rafa]

Really? And how do you know? How do you know marketing would be "incredible", for example? How do you know the games will be a "success"? Are you psychic?

And how are you qualified to really judge when you are how many thousand miles away, and are not a resident?

Would you get the carrot out of your behind for just 5 seconds and read what I am saying?

[OneTimeOnly]

Would you get the carrot out of your behind for just 5 seconds and read what I am saying?

I read what you are saying, maybe you should clarify?

[FYI]

If someone replaced the words New York with London across the last two pages (and especially in the above posts), you'd have a hard time persauding me this forum hadn't travelled back in time to 2003/4 (when I was a newbie here). The arguments being made against NYC are uncannily similar to those made against London on this very forum six or seven years ago. It's really quite bizarre.

Precisely. And as a matter of fact, London was right behind New York for 2012, in terms of the level of interest from the respective city's residents. Paris' was higher than both & yet lost out. So this nonsensical point that some other forum members are trying to make "that the residents wouldn't care, a big collective yawn, blah, blah, blah" is for the most part moot.

If the IOC wants it, they get it. If the IOC were to ever want New York, they'll get it. They'll send out those subtle messages to the USOC, like the IOC did to the BOA earlier in the decade about London. Most big cities that want to bid, or place bids, always have their massive critics & if the IOC were to listen to every single one of them, the Games would never be hosted.

[OneTimeOnly]

Precisely. And as a matter of fact, London was right behind New York for 2012, in terms of the level of interest from the respective city's residents. Paris' was higher than both & yet lost out. So this nonsensical point that some other forum members are trying to make "that the residents wouldn't care, a big collective yawn, blah, blah, blah" is for the most part moot.

If the IOC wants it, they get it. If the IOC were to ever want New York, they'll get it. They'll send out those subtle messages to the USOC, like the IOC did to the BOA earlier in the decade about London. Most big cities that want to bid, or place bids, always have their massive critics & if the IOC were to listen to every single one of them, the Games would never be hosted.

Whatever. Bottom line, a New York City Olympics would suck. I know I wouldn't support it. I'd support a Chicago games over a New York games any day.

Everyone who DOESN'T live here sure has a big hard on for a NYC Games though. Ridiculous.

[FYI]

N how do YOU know that a New York Games would "suck"? R you a "psychic" too, like you claim Mo is?

Again, all those arguments that you're making against New York City were also made against London, but yet that didn't matter. What's ridiculous is that you think simply because you "live" there that makes you the wiser & that simply makes the decision. How many of the IOC members, that actually VOTE, LIVE in the cities that they vote on?? Here's a clue: NONE.

Personally, New York wouldn't be my pick for a U.S. Games, but all this B.S. that New York wouldn't work because "it's too busy, not friendly, no space, nobody in the city would care, yada, yada, yada" is just pure nonsense.

[Rob2012]

Whatever. Bottom line, a New York City Olympics would suck. I know I wouldn't support it. I'd support a Chicago games over a New York games any day.

Everyone who DOESN'T live here sure has a big hard on for a NYC Games though. Ridiculous.

Your opinion is obviously more informed than mine when talking about NYC so I won't try to change your mind (I'd love to see a NYC Games at some point in the future). But I would point out that we had several very passionate New Yorkers bigging up NY 2012 on this forum prior to the 2005 vote. We were lacking in Muscovites, but every other bid was well represented by its city's residents on this forum.

Like a lot the French and Spanish members, many stopped posting after their city lost, but there was certainly decent support from many New Yorkers on this forum.

[nykfan845]

Whatever. Bottom line, a New York City Olympics would suck. I know I wouldn't support it. I'd support a Chicago games over a New York games any day.

Everyone who DOESN'T live here sure has a big hard on for a NYC Games though. Ridiculous.

Well, hello Nostradamus.

[Rob2012]

Speak of the devil

[OneTimeOnly]

N how do YOU know that a New York Games would "suck"? R you a "psychic" too, like you claim Mo is?

Again, all those arguments that you're making against New York City were also made against London, but yet that didn't matter. What's ridiculous is that you think simply because you "live" there that makes you the wiser & that simply makes the decision. How many of the IOC members, that actually VOTE, LIVE in the cities that they vote on?? Here's a clue: NONE.

Personally, New York wouldn't be my pick for a U.S. Games, but all this B.S. that New York wouldn't work because "it's too busy, not friendly, no space, nobody in the city would care, yada, yada, yada" is just pure nonsense.

Because I LIVE Here. I know what this city is like.

Speak of the devil

He was a little 14/15 yr old. Doesn't count.

[nykfan845]

I live in the city, too and I disagree.

[cslopes54]

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...).

i just think u have a wrong view of Boston (where i live). an olympic games would be hard to get, but Houston wouldnt come close to it in my opinion. Boston got lots to show the world in contrast to what you've said: its economy center of New England ranking 14th in the top 20 Global Financial Centers, its home to hundred thousands students from around the world that attend our Universities (not just whites, its 50%), lastly its rich in its history. enough said, id just love another SOG in the US.

[Soaring]

New York can and should host (some day at least). Even with their weaknesses in 2012, they could have certainly succeeded, and I don't see how things have changed. Sure, there are many questions, and even concerns I would have with them hosting, but I think the IOC would give their blessing to a NYC bid if the timing were right.

I have been to NYC, and it didn't seem all that glitzy, just huge, dirty and busy. That's why I like Chicago, it is still a big city, but the people are friendlier, it's cleaner, and just seems more manageable for me. It's also easier on the wallet.

[baron-pierreIV]

Well, I lived almost a dozen years in NYC (1972-1983), and it's still a great city I love. It is obviously MORE international than Chicago and it actually has wider subway/tube stations than London.

Also, it got one MORE vote than Chicago 4 years later. Even that tells a little story.

[FYI]

Well, I've spent a couple of days in Tulsa B4, N I'd say that it has everything to make a go of it. It also has that new BOK center, too.

[CanisMinor]

Even with their weaknesses in 2012, they could have certainly succeeded, and I don't see how things have changed. Sure, there are many questions, and even concerns I would have with them hosting, but I think the IOC would give their blessing to a NYC bid if the timing were right.

You've stated this very eloquently. I've lived in NYC, and it is a vibrant (but dirty) city. I'm sure the IOC could be swayed by the big lights one day when they're back begging the US for money. I'm sure NYC could pull it off. However, I also fear it will leave an Atlanta style distaste.

[CanisMinor]

i just think u have a wrong view of Boston (where i live). an olympic games would be hard to get, but Houston wouldnt come close to it in my opinion. Boston got lots to show the world in contrast to what you've said: its economy center of New England ranking 14th in the top 20 Global Financial Centers, its home to hundred thousands students from around the world that attend our Universities (not just whites, its 50%), lastly its rich in its history. enough said, id just love another SOG in the US.

Maybe so. I love New England, but see the history you refer to as a weakness not a strength. The New England history is one of the pioneers and founders of white, English speaking America, who came here in search of a better life. In the 2040's, modern America will be defined by the immigrants that risked their lives crossing the southern borders in search of a better life. I think Houston will have more historical significance to American's in the 40's than Boston.

In addition, I also remain unclear as to how a venue plan would work in Boston.