Jump to content

2020 Applicant Cities - Who will bid?


monorail

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 374
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Probably the most photogenic cities (and these are purely subjective -- OK, 78-85% looks; 22-15% - importance):

the A+ cities (in no particular order):

Rio

Vancouver

Hong Kong

San Francisco

Cape Town

Sydney

maybe Miami (or at least the way it's shot on CSI: Miami)

(notice all with beautiful harbors and coast lines)

of course, Paris

"A"

Istanbul

- Salzburg and any of the winter cities because they all look beautiful under a coat of snow

A-

Barcelona

Rome

St. Petersburg

New York

Prague

Beirut is actually quite beautiful, but small & dangerous

OK, Venice (smallish and smelly)

B+

Athens

Buenos Aires

Las Vegas

Montreal

B (sort of interesting)

Bangkok

London

Los Angeles

Berlin

Shanghai

B- (Big, Bold, Bland and Boring)

Chicago

Toronto

Madrid

Melbourne

Atlanta

Beijing

C+

maybe Durban? (don't much else about Durban)

Milan

C- (Dreadful)

Birmingham, UK

Moscow

Sao Paolo

Mexico City

Feel free to add your own...

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how about Annecy?;)

Le Palais de l'Isle et le château ont l'air d'être magnifiques! :P

Annecy's problem is also that it's not well known in other places in the world, and the same as Madrid for 2020, one of Annecy's rivals (Munich) is more famous, although it also lacks a spectacular monument. I'd rank Munich close to Madrid and Toronto in this aspect.

However, many of us here think the one who will get the 2018 Games will be the least known of them all: PyeongChang. As far as I know it's not even a town, and it's difficult to find photos or something on the Internet, so the scenery is important but not vital. ;)

And baron, I disagree with the majority of your list... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, it's purely subjective. But probably by a postcard index, it might be close.

I'd have to disagree with the B- for Toronto. In the next 2-3 years the Waterfront will change and it will look great!

lol at the CSI Miami comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to disagree with the B- for Toronto. In the next 2-3 years the Waterfront will change and it will look great!

Yes it definitely will with all the new projects currently under construction. Ie. My signature pic below. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that may be because the USA has hosted not once, but three times recently, with a lapse of time of less than 10 years between each of them (1984, 1996 & 2002).

Anyway, if the USA had bid for 1996 with Los Angeles, I highly doubt they would have got it, so even here city rotation might have been important.

And yes, there are fewer options for the Winter Games than the Summer Games, but for 2010 the IOC could have chosen a new host (South Korea) instead of going to a country that had already hosted 22 years before, and they didn't. I wonder if Canada would have got those Games if they had bid with Calgary again.

For 1980 & 1984, the IOC had nowhere else to go. So how is that the U.S.' fault. And if the IOC had truely felt comfortable enough & believed that Athens would've been ready for 1996, the IOC would've gone with the Greeks, regardless.

And yes, in these cases perhaps city rotation could've played a small role, but I don't believe it's still a strong determining factor like you're portraying it out to be. For 2010, PyeongChang almost did get it. The only lost by a mere 3 votes, but I think that it was more about Beijing 2008 was a deterent factor to some of the members in going back to Asia just 1-1/2 years later, rather than it being about Canada just going with a different city. Had Beijing not had 2008, I think we would've seen PyeongChang 2010 instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 1980 & 1984, the IOC had nowhere else to go. So how is that the U.S.' fault. And if the IOC had truely felt comfortable enough & believed that Athens would've been ready for 1996, the IOC would've gone with the Greeks, regardless.

And yes, in these cases perhaps city rotation could've played a small role, but I don't believe it's still a strong determining factor like you're portraying it out to be. For 2010, PyeongChang almost did get it. The only lost by a mere 3 votes, but I think that it was more about Beijing 2008 was a deterent factor to some of the members in going back to Asia just 1-1/2 years later, rather than it being about Canada just going with a different city. Had Beijing not had 2008, I think we would've seen PyeongChang 2010 instead.

Almost guaranteed, because if Beijing lost, Toronto would have likely won, meaning Vancouver would not have bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 1980 & 1984, the IOC had nowhere else to go. So how is that the U.S.' fault. And if the IOC had truely felt comfortable enough & believed that Athens would've been ready for 1996, the IOC would've gone with the Greeks, regardless.

It's not the US' fault, but the fact is that they hosted many times in little time, so maybe for 2016, as the Games were going to the Americas, the IOC preferred to go to somewhere else. And also, I personally think that Oprah Winfrey and especially the pathetic job done by Obama hurt the bid a lot, the IOC didn't seem to like all that sensationalism...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting list Baron...

I don't think Bangkok, LA, Vegas and Montreal are as photogenic, as Madrid, Chicago, Toronto, or Beijing.

But I agree with the "A+" list... it helps to have the ocean nearby, and mountains... Paris being the big exception of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, good point.

Although, that whole scenario would've changed the dynamics for 2010 & more than likely 2012, since Beijing probably would've tried again.

I think 2012 was almost reserved for a European country, and Beijing probably would not tried after 2010 if Pyeonchang had won in 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally disagree with Baron's Chicago rating. I think it's not too far behind San Francisco. Chicago is stunning. Watch the movie "Source Code" to see it at it's autumnal best and then imagine it in the summer. It's absolutely gorgeous (and incredibly clean too, by the way...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the most photogenic cities (and these are purely subjective -- OK, 78-85% looks; 22-15% - importance):

the A+ cities (in no particular order):

Rio

Vancouver

Hong Kong

San Francisco

Cape Town

Sydney

maybe Miami (or at least the way it's shot on CSI: Miami)

(notice all with beautiful harbors and coast lines)

of course, Paris

"A"

Istanbul

- Salzburg and any of the winter cities because they all look beautiful under a coat of snow

A-

Barcelona

Rome

St. Petersburg

New York

Prague

Beirut is actually quite beautiful, but small & dangerous

OK, Venice (smallish and smelly)

B+

Athens

Buenos Aires

Las Vegas

Montreal

B (sort of interesting)

Bangkok

London

Los Angeles

Berlin

Shanghai

B- (Big, Bold, Bland and Boring)

Chicago

Toronto

Madrid

Melbourne

Atlanta

Beijing

C+

maybe Durban? (don't much else about Durban)

Milan

C- (Dreadful)

Birmingham, UK

Moscow

Sao Paolo

Mexico City

Feel free to add your own...

I'm wondering if you have spent much time in Chicago, it is an absolutely beautiful and exciting city, and one nice aspect is the majority of people are unassuming unlike many other mega cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, 2015 -- but most of those are 'man-made' structures. My "A+" cities are in the "drop-dead beautiful" category due to their NATURAL topography...blended with other elements...NOT their man-made structures. Those are beautiful shots...but ANYONE can take gorgeous shots given all the right lighting, camera, time of day, etc.

32226932260653a52774b.jpg[/url]

Flickr

Actually, the Forum is the UGLIEST and scariest part of Rome. Who wants to see all those decrepit ruins? Leave those to Athens and Pompeii.

But not too worry, I will probably be visiting Rome again in the near future with my college chum being named Ambassador to Rome. ;) Maybe even time it for the announcement in 2015!

Stir, I'm taking about just the natural beauty and ambience -- not the quality of the people. It would be a whole different mix if we went by the natives' character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going out on a lim here and saying that 2020 is not going to Rome or Europe and it isn't going to Tokyo or Asia or the Middle East for that matter.

I am going to make my prediction now that 2020 is going to the City of

LOS ANGELES.

Why?

Click here to read an article about how the NBC winning bid is sparking possible interest in a US bid for 2020.

I think that the USOC will put forth a city for 2020 for sure even though they were so adamant about not doing so in the years after Chicago lost but with the mending of ties over the entire revenue sharing debate as well as NBC'S mammoth winning bid and with the convenient absence of a strong African city (Lets face it South Africa is the only country in Africa that had a legitimate shot at bidding much less hosting the games), the IOC in my opinion would almost want to cut out the entire process and hand the games to the US to increase the revenue.

Why LA?

Well...Plain and simple Chicago isn't going to bid again. I think the city is still bitter about the loss and is not in the mood to go through the entire process again. Now there are many other US cities that have spoken of hosting the games but let's be real Tulsa and Detroit aren't going to get it anytime soon. That leaves us with two candidates that have expressed in the past that they were interested in the games. Dallas and Los Angeles. Why LA wins in my books? well the deadline to submit bid cities by NOC's is September which is three months away. Dallas won't be as prepared as a 2 time host and runner up to Chicago 2016. If you read further down in the article LA isn't even denying the fact that they are interested in possibly bidding. Going as far as to say they are always ready.

I personally think that this has been the contingency plan for USOC in the event relationships with the IOC smoothed over in time to bid.

on a lighter note isn't this entire thing a bit funny. If LA were to bid and win it would mean that every time they were the USOC candidate they would have won. Becoming the luckiest US city in the process at being given the rights to host the games. Chicago on the other hand is the most unlucky city due to the fact that in addition to the snub in 09 that would make four loses of the games for Chicago. 3 failed bids for 2016, 1956, 1952 and the moving of the 1904 games from Chicago to St Louis for the World's Fair.

Poor Chicago maybe they are just not destines to host the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going out on a lim here and saying that 2020 is not going to Rome or Europe and it isn't going to Tokyo or Asia or the Middle East for that matter.

I am going to make my prediction now that 2020 is going to the City of

LOS ANGELES.

Why?

Click here to read an article about how the NBC winning bid is sparking possible interest in a US bid for 2020.

I think that the USOC will put forth a city for 2020 for sure even though they were so adamant about not doing so in the years after Chicago lost but with the mending of ties over the entire revenue sharing debate as well as NBC'S mammoth winning bid and with the convenient absence of a strong African city (Lets face it South Africa is the only country in Africa that had a legitimate shot at bidding much less hosting the games), the IOC in my opinion would almost want to cut out the entire process and hand the games to the US to increase the revenue.

Why LA?

Well...Plain and simple Chicago isn't going to bid again. I think the city is still bitter about the loss and is not in the mood to go through the entire process again. Now there are many other US cities that have spoken of hosting the games but let's be real Tulsa and Detroit aren't going to get it anytime soon. That leaves us with two candidates that have expressed in the past that they were interested in the games. Dallas and Los Angeles. Why LA wins in my books? well the deadline to submit bid cities by NOC's is September which is three months away. Dallas won't be as prepared as a 2 time host and runner up to Chicago 2016. If you read further down in the article LA isn't even denying the fact that they are interested in possibly bidding. Going as far as to say they are always ready.

I personally think that this has been the contingency plan for USOC in the event relationships with the IOC smoothed over in time to bid.

on a lighter note isn't this entire thing a bit funny. If LA were to bid and win it would mean that every time they were the USOC candidate they would have won. Becoming the luckiest US city in the process at being given the rights to host the games. Chicago on the other hand is the most unlucky city due to the fact that in addition to the snub in 09 that would make four loses of the games for Chicago. 3 failed bids for 2016, 1956, 1952 and the moving of the 1904 games from Chicago to St Louis for the World's Fair.

Poor Chicago maybe they are just not destines to host the games.

Not happening. The USA needs to organize a bid race and its too short of a time to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not happening. The USA needs to organize a bid race and its too short of a time to do so.

Valid point but at the same time. it's a minor issue to use just that argument "too short a time" to explain why there wasn't a bid race and why LA would be chosen. Now again this is my theory something i could see happening and in all honesty I would like to have happen. but you are right. The way things are done in the states are too democratic for such short notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Valid point but at the same time. it's a minor issue to use just that argument "too short a time" to explain why there wasn't a bid race and why LA would be chosen. Now again this is my theory something i could see happening and in all honesty I would like to have happen. but you are right. The way things are done in the states are too democratic for such short notice.

The other -which is the main reason- is that the USOC made it clear that they won't bid for 2020 after the disaster the Chicago bid turned out. If they want they're bid to be successful they need to be on agreeing terms with the IOC and make tough choices that would ultimately make both parties sastified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, 2015 -- but most of those are 'man-made' structures. My "A+" cities are in the "drop-dead beautiful" category due to their NATURAL topography...blended with other elements...NOT their man-made structures. Those are beautiful shots...but ANYONE can take gorgeous shots given all the right lighting, camera, time of day, etc.

Actually, the Forum is the UGLIEST and scariest part of Rome. Who wants to see all those decrepit ruins? Leave those to Athens and Pompeii.

But not too worry, I will probably be visiting Rome again in the near future with my college chum being named Ambassador to Rome. ;) Maybe even time it for the announcement in 2015!

Stir, I'm taking about just the natural beauty and ambience -- not the quality of the people. It would be a whole different mix if we went by the natives' character.

First of all thanks for the answer

Precisely which "natural topography" of excellence has Paris (A+ for you)? hills and a river, like Rome (which at least has a backdrop of mountains and the sea at a stone trow).

I don't think in the "beauty" of a city you can separate nature from man made structures: after all a city is a man-made structure imposed over a piece of nature. Rio has surely a more dramatic setting (even thought when you will visit Rome you will notice the seven hills give plenty of picturesque views) but rather unimportant human buildings (or slums). Rome has so much man-made beauty that most other cities on earth pale in comparison and it has them from a very long array of centuries.

About the shots: of course a professional can make better shots than an amateur like me but well...the subject itself is geogeous. I did not even include the most "usual" views of Rome and concentrated in a few...there are thousands more beautiful places in Rome

About the ruins: you told me that before. Your personal taste to consider a ruin ugly. If you a positive energetic and future-looking guy I may understand why. I am the sort of person that in a ruin first of all is seing all the centuries of rain, disasters and spoiling that took to bring at the present state. A ruin demands you attention: you have to imagine, figure it out how it may have looked in its heyday. together with the green prevalent in the "imperial" Rome around the Colosseum and the Forum it creates a rather melanchonic place where to stroll and thing at how history passes over us and makes even the grandest of the ancient time empires in rubble.

And yes, for me and for many many others those ruins are beautiful in a way S.Peter or the Spanish steps will never be (to name other two attractions of Rome): it's the beauty of time, of the people that we will never met and lived among them, of their blend with nature which is trying to reclaim them for good

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other -which is the main reason- is that the USOC made it clear that they won't bid for 2020 after the disaster the Chicago bid turned out. If they want they're bid to be successful they need to be on agreeing terms with the IOC and make tough choices that would ultimately make both parties sastified.

Come on with all due respect don't be naive. This is a political money making organization people say things they don't mean all the time. They felt like they got snubbed so they said they won't bid. But if it looks like they can make some money I would wager that the USOC will make a bid. I think the lack of time factor is a much larger issue than what the head of the USOC said two years ago.

It would be extremely lucrative for the USOC to bid if they mend relations with the IOC because 2020 looks to be one of the least competitive years. With Rome the only one in the race the IOC is desperate to have another major economy country throw in a bid. I highly doubt Tokyo will submit a bid due to the fact that it is still way to soon to be talking about spending money on an event when they are still trying to contain the nuclear plants. I think saying that they would is definitely a move to test the waters but in the end the sensitivity of a nation in crisis will overcome the million dollar fees to bid for an Olympics. I can see Madrid throwing in the hat but I think after london and Rio the IOC will be saying anywhere but Europe. On this forum we are all smart people for the most part, who really follow this process, I think it is safe to say that if the USOC reach a resolution on the revenue sharing issue in the coming months that they would actually be stupid to not bid for the 2020 games. Chicago may have been a disaster but that wouldn't stop the USOC from entering the race in a year when there are no front runners at all. Waiting for 2024 would be unwise as a lot of countries would have reached the status of Developed nation and would be looking to bid in an event to mark the celebrations .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...