USA 2024

[baron-pierreIV]

What case ... most people even from overseas are aware that many businesses/services in Minneapolis or St Paul's are called Minnesota to avoid the twin city rivalries - that's why its the MinnesotaVikings, Twins, Wild, Timberwolves, Thunder, Lynx, Swarm etc etc etc

If that is your case, then god help you

OK, let's go back to 1989. If Minneapolis couldn't even beat the hicks and rednecks from Atlanta, Georgiah to become the U.S. Olympic Centennial candidate -- and Atlanta has grown by leaps and bounds as well since, then really what shot has it now? It's not like the United Nations or the Vatican, or God forbid the Church of Scientology, suddenly moved their headquarters there.

If you really think Minneapolis has a shot at hosting an Olympics in the next 30 year, then God (with a CAPITAL "G" please), help you.

[Crusader]

Is Minneapolis capable of staging Olympics? Yes. Are they electable by the IOC? No.

The US lost 2012 and 2016 for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons included NYC or Chicago being too well-known. Recent voting trends show the IOC wants world capitals -- not Leipzigs. Minneapolis is an American Leipzig in the IOC's book.

You would be aware before making this comment that unlike Minneapolis, Leipzig is in no way even capable of hosting the Olympics so in the IOCs book they would be different.

Leipzig has really no sporting culture since the fall of the GDR. It has a handball team. It has an ice hockey team in the 3rd tier of the German league, and a soccer team even lower. It has an airport where even the charter carriers only fly short haul.

How can you come close to justifying the American Leipzig comment?

[Quaker2001]

Once again, let's remember, this is a competition. Would Minneapolis beat out the big 3? No way. Would they beat out the next tier of cities starting with San Francisco, among others? Doubtful. Even if somehow they wow the USOC enough to get them to submit that bid, do they have enough international cache to convince IOC voters to pick them if there's any sort of legitimate competition out there? I know we just keep going in circles sometimes on what cities are worth discussing, but in what circumstance is Minneapolis going to win an Olympic bid in the foreseeable future short of a 1996-esque longshot win like Atlanta?

[baron-pierreIV]

Once again, let's remember, this is a competition. Would Minneapolis beat out the big 3? No way. Would they beat out the next tier of cities starting with San Francisco, among others? Doubtful. Even if somehow they wow the USOC enough to get them to submit that bid, do they have enough international cache to convince IOC voters to pick them if there's any sort of legitimate competition out there? I know we just keep going in circles sometimes on what cities are worth discussing, but in what circumstance is Minneapolis going to win an Olympic bid in the foreseeable future short of a 1996-esque longshot win like Atlanta?

And at least, despite false cries of bribery, the IOC's major sugar-syrup daddy (Coke) was coincidentally (or intentionally) based in Atlanta so that even a few IOC members or officials had to go there some time or another to conduct business with a backer; and in so doing, at least got a feel for Atlanta. 3M has bailed out on the Olympics. Honeywell? Wells Fargo? Northwest? care to curry favor, even with the USOC for starters (again)? At least a few IOC officials have given Cincinnati a perfunctory look-see since Procter & Gamble signed up as a TOPartner 2 years ago.

As far as I know MSP has only hosted a World Figure Skating Championships; but that's not exactly getting into the IOC's radar.

And again, as a city, I am sure MSP is a fine place to live; but it just doesn't have the size and stature to match up against world capitals. The Olympics are a game for the Big Boys (not the bush league).

[Crusader]

And at least, despite false cries of bribery, the IOC's major sugar-syrup daddy (Coke) was coincidentally (or intentionally) based in Atlanta so that even a few IOC members or officials had to go there some time or another to conduct business with a backer; and in so doing, at least got a feel for Atlanta. 3M has bailed out on the Olympics. Honeywell? Wells Fargo? Northwest? care to curry favor, even with the USOC for starters (again)? At least a few IOC officials have given Cincinnati a perfunctory look-see since Procter & Gamble signed up as a TOPartner 2 years ago.

As far as I know MSP has only hosted a World Figure Skating Championships; but that's not exactly getting into the IOC's radar.

And again, as a city, I am sure MSP is a fine place to live; but it just doesn't have the size and stature to match up against world capitals. The Olympics are a game for the Big Boys (not the bush league).

Please get up to speed - Northwest no longer exist.

The fact is there are 9 Fortune 500 companies HQ'd in Minneapolis which is the 5th highest in the country and more than SF, Philadelphia and even LA so there would be likely be local sponsors. National US sponsors would sponsor whoever was selected as the games were in the US

You mock MSP, but what are the likes of Philadelphia etc doing to get on to the IOC radar? Oh, I forgot... Fencing. Golf is back in the Olympics and guess where the 2016 Ryder Cup is being held?

How about Eugene, Oregon? - they routinely hold Diamond League athletics so are bound to be on the IOCs radar

Its alright criticising some cities but you are offering a big fat zero in favour of other cities. The IOC look to what a city offers, they don't consider if others are worse ...

[Athensfan]

That's hogwash. In what fantasy world is that claim made?

What does MSP have besides the Walker/Tyrone Guthrie Theatre? Video clips of The Mary Tyler Moore Show. That's all.

Minneapolis ranks third behind NYC and Chicago. See references below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_in_Minneapolis#Theater

http://www.examiner.com/article/is-minneapolis-st-paul-one-of-the-top-theatre-cities-the-united-states

http://travel.usnews.com/Minneapolis_MN/Things_To_Do/Tips/

[Athensfan]

According to Travel and Leisure's 2011 rankings (most recent available) live theater rankings are as follows:

Rankings by residents:

1. NYC

2. Minneapolis

3. Chicago

4. Houston

5. Providence

6. San Francisco

Rankings by visitors:

1. NYC

2. Chicago

3. Providence

4. Minneapolis

5. Philadelphia

6. San Francisco

Any way you slice it San Francisco is not in the top three.

Reference: http://www.travelandleisure.com/americas-favorite-cities/2011/category/culture/theater-performance-art/resident

You would be aware before making this comment that unlike Minneapolis, Leipzig is in no way even capable of hosting the Olympics so in the IOCs book they would be different.

Leipzig has really no sporting culture since the fall of the GDR. It has a handball team. It has an ice hockey team in the 3rd tier of the German league, and a soccer team even lower. It has an airport where even the charter carriers only fly short haul.

How can you come close to justifying the American Leipzig comment?

Easily. Just as Germany has multiple cities that would make superior hosts (Berlin, Munich, Hamburg), so does the US -- only on a much larger scale, since the country is much bigger. The comparison is still valid -- the IOC doesn't want the second string. Germany's second string may be weaker than the United States' second string, but that doesn't invalidate the point.

Substitute Manchester for Leipzig in the original post if you prefer. The point is still the same.

[beatles]

According to Travel and Leisure's 2011 rankings (most recent available) live theater rankings are as follows:

Broadway and Londons West End are the only real places with first rate live theater; Everything is a second rate road production. There is a big difference, if you are familiar with "real theater".

Rankings by residents:

1. NYC

2. Minneapolis

3. Chicago

4. Houston

5. Providence

6. San Francisco

Rankings by visitors:

1. NYC

2. Chicago

3. Providence

4. Minneapolis

5. Philadelphia

6. San Francisco

Any way you slice it San Francisco is not in the top three.

Reference: http://www.travelandleisure.com/americas-favorite-cities/2011/category/culture/theater-performance-art/resident

Easily. Just as Germany has multiple cities that would make superior hosts (Berlin, Munich, Hamburg), so does the US -- only on a much larger scale, since the country is much bigger. The comparison is still valid -- the IOC doesn't want the second string. Germany's second string may be weaker than the United States' second string, but that doesn't invalidate the point.

Substitute Manchester for Leipzig in the original post if you prefer. The point is still the same.

[davidm]

Ya never know. One of the secrets supposedly of Atlanta winning over Athens was that Atlanta had a great upscale shopping area (Buckhead, and, if I remember right, the Monarch Shopping Center in particular) while Athens had none. And this was seen first-hand by IOC members. Supposedly,that feature pacified a number of IOC members because their spouses would have a great place to shop whereas there was nothing but ruins in Athens!!

And actually to his day, Athens, Greece is NOT known for great shopping. In my June visit to Turkey, we had a Greek woman in the other group, and I overheard her telling some people that the shopping (2012, not 2004) was better in Turkey than it was in her native Greece. So one can never discount those extra amenities in a tight race.

So yes, Crusader, shopping malls and Museums can win a tight Olympic bidding war!!

If you truly believe that, than Minneapolis has the hands down advantage over any city in the U.S.

I take issue with that. San Francisco is. Shows like WICKED tried out in San Francisco first. Before Hugh Jackman opened his last one-man show on Broadway last year, he tried it out in San Francisco first. When many national tours of hit Broadway shows set out, San Francisco is either the first or 2nd stop on the tour.

Minneapolis is just famous for "The MARY TYLER MOORE Show" and that has long been off the air. That Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce must really stop believing its own false propaganda.

Miles, why don't you check out the statistics rather than continually yacking about "The Mary Tyler Moore Show". Geez, what a blowhard!

Is Minneapolis capable of staging Olympics? Yes. Are they electable by the IOC? No.

Are we capable of hosting the SOGs? Yes, absolutely. Will we in my lifetime? Probably not.

The city doesn't even have its own-named opera company or symphony orchestra. They're both called the Minnesota Opera and the Minnesota Opera!!

And neither is there a Minneapolis Ballet, but a Metropolitan Ballet (Minneapolis / St. Paul) -- trying to pass itself off as the Metropoitan Ballet of New York City!!

How can a 21st century city be truly international or even claim to be the "3rd largest per capita" in the nation if it doesn't even have its own symphony, opera and ballet companies??

At least there are the Tulsa Ballet, Tulsa Opera and Tulsa Symphony companies!!

I rest my case.

Please do.

[PotatoChips]

MSP is not going to host the olympics. I you think otherwise, maybe this isn't the site for you.

[Athensfan]

I've already said I don't think Minneapolis will host the Olympics. I'm just setting the record straight regarding their theater scene.

And "beatles", of course London is the theater capital of the the world -- no argument there at all. That's one of the top reasons why I miss London so much.

Theater across the US can be hit and miss, but everything outside New York is not a "second-rate road production" as you wrote. Some of it is, but there's plenty that's not. Many of the top Tony-award winning Broadway productions started elsewhere, such as Seattle's Intiman, San Diego's Globe, Minneapolis' Guthrie, LA's Ahmanson, LA's Geffen, Chicago's Goodman, Chicago's Steppenwolf, Chicago's Lookingglass.... The list is way too long to go on here.

[intoronto]

@Athensfan if NY and Toronto end up being in a battle for the next N/A host you have the second and third largest English speaking theatre markets so not to worry

[PotatoChips]

@Athensfan if NY and Toronto end up being in a battle for the next N/A host you have the second and third largest English speaking theatre markets so not to worry

If bids came down to NY and Toronto, that would be crazy epic. I'm not actually who would win though.

[intoronto]

If bids came down to NY and Toronto, that would be crazy epic. I'm not actually who would win though.

I think Toronto would win if it came to technicality and NY otherwise.

[PyroKinesis]

NYC has worse traffic than LA. NYC will never win an Olympics because of that fact.

[PotatoChips]

NYC has worse traffic than LA. NYC will never win an Olympics because of that fact.

It depends. NYC has a great subway system, not to mention buses and metro north and Long Island Rail Road. If NYC were to propose an idea to build most venues outside of Manhattan and in the other boroughs I can see the bid being much more realistic.

[Athensfan]

To be clear, I don't think the theater scene has any bearing at all on a city's ability to host the Olympic Games. I suppose it says a bit about how cosmopolitan and sophisticated the city is, but that's about it. My sole goal was to set the record straight....

As for Toronto vs. NYC, you can't pull out a single factor (such as traffic) look at it in a vacuum and declare Toronto the superior choice. NYC is arguably the greatest metropolis in the world. It's a major tourist destination. Residents and visitors alike put up with the traffic because NYC has so much more to offer. There's no place like it in the world. If (hypothetically speaking) it came down to Toronto and NYC I would bet every penny I have that the IOC would choose NYC.

[PotatoChips]

I think NYC could host great games. When they bid for 2012 their bid was awful. The idea was nice, but they didn't think it through. The olympic stadium was the biggest downfall of the whole bid and probably cost them the game as well. If NYC wants the games, they need to make a bid that will not only appeal to the IOC, and USOC, but to the New Yorkers, so the idea isn't turned down 1 month before the final vote.

[Quaker2001]

NYC has worse traffic than LA. NYC will never win an Olympics because of that fact.

First off.. no. No one tops LA in terms of traffic. That they had a successful Olympics in LA, I doubt that's the reason that disqualifies NYC (although I'm sure the traffic is much lighter in Las Vegas and Disney World, so they could still win an Olympics). Second, PotatoChips beat me to it, but NYC has some of the best public transportation in the world. LA had very little back in 1984.

But if we're going to talk about traffic (which is a much better topic than a city's theater presence), you know what other city has some pretty famously bad traffic?.. Atlanta. I've been there a few times before and generally haven't had to deal with it, but they're up there on the list of U.S. cities with the worst traffic. So again, to say that NYC will never win because of the traffic is ridiculous. And not just because of who is saying it.

[Quaker2001]

I think NYC could host great games. When they bid for 2012 their bid was awful. The idea was nice, but they didn't think it through. The olympic stadium was the biggest downfall of the whole bid and probably cost them the game as well. If NYC wants the games, they need to make a bid that will not only appeal to the IOC, and USOC, but to the New Yorkers, so the idea isn't turned down 1 month before the final vote.

Part of the problem comes from people's definition of "NYC." I grew up in Manhattan, so I'm 1 of those people that perhaps somewhat snobbishly thinks of Manhattan as "the city" and the rest as just the outer boroughs. Don't know if outsiders view it the same way, but it's the reason some people question a Manhattan-based Olympics like the 2012 bid offered up versus something based out in Flushing. I think the latter could be great (Sydney and London, among others, have proven your main Olympic park need not be right in the center of the city), they just need to find a way to make it work for the city. The 2012 plan made sense in the sense that the stadium would have been used, but obviously the opposition was too strong, and needless to say that was a serious PR hit, not that I would have thought NYC was going to win anyway.

I hope NYC gets back into the game at some point. I would love to see an Olympics in my lifetime in my home city. But I'm less than optimistic that 2024 is going to be the time. Maybe a little further down the line, but I'm certainly not holding my breath

[intoronto]

First off.. no. No one tops LA in terms of traffic. That they had a successful Olympics in LA, I doubt that's the reason that disqualifies NYC (although I'm sure the traffic is much lighter in Las Vegas and Disney World, so they could still win an Olympics). Second, PotatoChips beat me to it, but NYC has some of the best public transportation in the world. LA had very little back in 1984.

But if we're going to talk about traffic (which is a much better topic than a city's theater presence), you know what other city has some pretty famously bad traffic?.. Atlanta. I've been there a few times before and generally haven't had to deal with it, but they're up there on the list of U.S. cities with the worst traffic. So again, to say that NYC will never win because of the traffic is ridiculous. And not just because of who is saying it.

Can anyone forget about LA last year with the highway being closed and how people stayed home knowing how bad traffic would be.

[PotatoChips]

Part of the problem comes from people's definition of "NYC." I grew up in Manhattan, so I'm 1 of those people that perhaps somewhat snobbishly thinks of Manhattan as "the city" and the rest as just the outer boroughs. Don't know if outsiders view it the same way, but it's the reason some people question a Manhattan-based Olympics like the 2012 bid offered up versus something based out in Flushing. I think the latter could be great (Sydney and London, among others, have proven your main Olympic park need not be right in the center of the city), they just need to find a way to make it work for the city. The 2012 plan made sense in the sense that the stadium would have been used, but obviously the opposition was too strong, and needless to say that was a serious PR hit, not that I would have thought NYC was going to win anyway.

I hope NYC gets back into the game at some point. I would love to see an Olympics in my lifetime in my home city. But I'm less than optimistic that 2024 is going to be the time. Maybe a little further down the line, but I'm certainly not holding my breath

Having the stadium in Flushing would actually work out well. MLS wants to build a stadium in that area. If the MLS stadium is completed in 2016 it can be build with a track as well as a soccer field. If the games are awarded to NYC then the stadium will need to create temporary seating. After the games, the temporary seating and the track can be removed and it will be turned into a permanent soccer stadium.

[paul]

Can anyone forget about LA last year with the highway being closed and how people stayed home knowing how bad traffic would be.

Carmagedon didn't materialize, it was all hype after all. Like almost everything in this thread now.

[Quaker2001]

Carmagedon didn't materialize, it was all just a load of crap. Like almost everything in this thread now.

There, fixed that for you

[Crusader]

To be clear, I don't think the theater scene has any bearing at all on a city's ability to host the Olympic Games. I suppose it says a bit about how cosmopolitan and sophisticated the city is, but that's about it. My sole goal was to set the record straight....

As for Toronto vs. NYC, you can't pull out a single factor (such as traffic) look at it in a vacuum and declare Toronto the superior choice. NYC is arguably the greatest metropolis in the world. It's a major tourist destination. Residents and visitors alike put up with the traffic because NYC has so much more to offer. There's no place like it in the world. If (hypothetically speaking) it came down to Toronto and NYC I would bet every penny I have that the IOC would choose NYC.

As in 2012 when NY lost out to a city like Madrid

Having the stadium in Flushing would actually work out well. MLS wants to build a stadium in that area. If the MLS stadium is completed in 2016 it can be build with a track as well as a soccer field. If the games are awarded to NYC then the stadium will need to create temporary seating. After the games, the temporary seating and the track can be removed and it will be turned into a permanent soccer stadium.

This is much easier said that done.

The standard way of an athletics to soccer stadium, is to dig down and lower the pitch, but that creates extra permanent seating and doesn't help the viewing angles either.

Take the Etihad Stadium in Manchester. The 38,000 seater, became a 48,000 seater soccer stadium, which would be way too big for the MLS.