A Minneapolis 2024/2008 bid?

[kernowboy]

I don't think Sydney 2000 won mainly bcuz they had the most compelling story to tell, but moreso due to the poltical circumstances behind the 2000 race. Those Games were heavily favored to go to Beijing & they lost them by a mere 2 votes. Much like the Finnish food fiasco comment that may have fumbled Paris for 2012 in the few days to the vote, the Chinese may have done the same by only a week or so before the final 2000 vote, they made a statement, that they quickly retracted, that if they don't win the Games, that they would boycott the Atlanta Olympics. I think the 2000 vote was more about voting against Bejing than voting for Sydney.

Yeah, but you're assuming a 2024 bid TBW. Anything later, they'd clearly would have to address any modifications & refurbishments to current Olympic standards. N that's even IF the USOC were to nominate such a lower-tier city in the first place.

I won't argue about Denver's postition. But at the same token, Atlanta turned their Olympics into a cheap, country fair-style Games. Another 'unique' element of an American Games that could make the IOC want to stay away from anything that could possibly resemble the likes of Atlanta.

Exactly.

Minneapolis wouldn't be a caricature of redneck world, nor would it potentially have the massive commercialisation that such events in LA or NY might bring.

With a cultured, literate and informed populace - how about "The Real America welcomes the World"?

[FYI]

Yeah, but you seemingly fail to realize, that Sydney is still Australia's premier, picturesque, iconic city. While Minneapolis hardly registers even in this country. What else do they have besides the Mississppi River, the Mall of America & being the background to the Mary Tyler Moore show. Not much.

[FYI]

Guangzhou has a huge population but even teritiary cities in China like Jilin have populations of over 4 million.

I'm sure a gazillion cities in China have populations over 4 million. Doesn't mean that they're all, if any, going to host the Olympics, though. Not when there's higher prestige Chinese cities available. Same logic can be applied with the U.S. as well.

With a cultured, literate and informed populace - how about "The Real America welcomes the World"?

A slogan like this would be highly offensive to the rest of the country, & one that the USOC would reject anyway.

[markun]

I think for so called 'second tier' cities, Boston would represent a much more attractive proposal.

[Athensfan]

Let's get down to brass tacks, Does Minneapolis even want to bid?

None of those stadiums you posted can host Olympic athletics. There's no Olympic pool. There are a lot of venues, but many aren't even particularly useful for Olympic competition.

What's with these Quixotic crusades?

Oops. Above aimed at Kernow....

[FYI]

Let's get down to brass tacks, Does Minneapolis even want to bid?

According to local officials, that would be a - 'no'. http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/124710533.html

But that doesn't seeem to matter to R fanciful, nostalgic Olympic bid fascinator. Who's just opening up Olympic city hopeful threads all over the boards. I'm gonna start calling him Lord David the II.

[Quaker2001]

Minneapolis is classed a Beta city.

Other Beta Cities include:

Berlin

Hamburg

Athens

Houston

Montreal

Rome

Cairo

Cape Town

Seattle

Abu Dhabi

Rio de Janeiro

Helsinki

Geneva

Just so I'm clear here.. you're telling us that Minneapolis is the equivalent in size and scale to Athens, Rome, and Rio de Janeiro? I have trouble taking you seriously if that's what you're implying. That you brought up Sydney 2000.. I know of more than a few people who have been to Australia and said it's 1 of the most amazing places in the world. That's why their bid looked attractive for 2000. You can't honestly tell me with a straight face that the rest of the world views Minneapolis in that same light? So they're story is going to be the Scandinavian capital of the United States (which I'm not sure I would consider to be true)? The Real America? Not sure I buy either of those. Yes, Minnesota has a lot of beautiful scenery owing to its many lakes and plenty of sports venues, but it's still not nearly as big and grand of a city as you seem to think.

Plus, as noted, the venues, especially the outdoor ones aren't as good to go as you seem to think. Target Field is a baseball stadium, so unless you plan to awkward squeeze football in there, it's no good. TCF Bank Stadium, even if it were expanded, wouldn't be able to hold a running track, let alone the warmup track you'd need nearby. And beyond all that.. a new stadium for the Vikings seems like it's far from a done deal.

Once again, if you're looking at this as a possibility for the sake of looking at it as a possibility, go right ahead. But please stop selling us on all these cities that having a theoretical venue plan gives them all they need to march forward with an Olympic bid

[kernowboy]

Just so I'm clear here.. you're telling us that Minneapolis is the equivalent in size and scale to Athens, Rome, and Rio de Janeiro? I have trouble taking you seriously if that's what you're implying. That you brought up Sydney 2000.. I know of more than a few people who have been to Australia and said it's 1 of the most amazing places in the world. That's why their bid looked attractive for 2000. You can't honestly tell me with a straight face that the rest of the world views Minneapolis in that same light? So they're story is going to be the Scandinavian capital of the United States (which I'm not sure I would consider to be true)? The Real America? Not sure I buy either of those. Yes, Minnesota has a lot of beautiful scenery owing to its many lakes and plenty of sports venues, but it's still not nearly as big and grand of a city as you seem to think.

Plus, as noted, the venues, especially the outdoor ones aren't as good to go as you seem to think. Target Field is a baseball stadium, so unless you plan to awkward squeeze football in there, it's no good. TCF Bank Stadium, even if it were expanded, wouldn't be able to hold a running track, let alone the warmup track you'd need nearby. And beyond all that.. a new stadium for the Vikings seems like it's far from a done deal.

Once again, if you're looking at this as a possibility for the sake of looking at it as a possibility, go right ahead. But please stop selling us on all these cities that having a theoretical venue plan gives them all they need to march forward with an Olympic bid

For your information Quaker, the TCF Bank Stadium CAN HOLD a running track in much the same way as Madrid 2020 are proposing for the Olympics and in the same way Glasgow are using Hampden Park

As for a warm up track why do you think I mentioned the Bierman - it is the UoM Track and Field stadium and is 0.4miles door to door to the TCF pass the Mariucci

When did I say Target Field was going to be used for Football? You think in 2012, London is using Lord's because they are offering cricket? Look it up

And as for the cities comment go to GlobalCities.com and look up the Alpha, Beta and Gamma cities comparison

[kernowboy]

According to local officials, that would be a - 'no'. http://www.startribu.../124710533.html

But that doesn't seeem to matter to R fanciful, nostalgic Olympic bid fascinator. Who's just opening up Olympic city hopeful threads all over the boards. I'm gonna start calling him Lord David the II.

Nice newspaper article referring to bidding for the 2020 games - I don't recall any US city bidding for 2020 - I was under the impression that it was clear this was in reference to 2024 and/or 2028

Here is another document considering an undefined future bid and how it could be accommodated

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/dflpdf/Venues11-8-05.pdf

This was commissioned by the Legislature itself. Here is another one they got the Starting Line Foundation to do on transport infrastructure

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2004/other/040634/Stadium/www.stadium.state.mn.us/proposals/starting_line.pdf

They must have no interest in ever holding a future games and just want to waste tax payers money commissioning these reports eh?

[kernowboy]

Let's get down to brass tacks, Does Minneapolis even want to bid?

None of those stadiums you posted can host Olympic athletics. There's no Olympic pool. There are a lot of venues, but many aren't even particularly useful for Olympic competition.

What's with these Quixotic crusades?

Oops. Above aimed at Kernow....

TCF Bank Stadium can accommodate a deck structure similar to Madrid 2020 or Glasgow 2014. You lose a few front rows of seats but the stadium can also accept an extra tier. There is also the Bierman Track and Field Stadium close by which can be used for warming up by the athletes

In 2003, the Palau Saint Jordi in Barcelona was used to host the World Swimming Championships. This is no a swimming complex. It is an indoor arena they stuck a 50m swimming pool in and will be used similarily again in 2013 = Target Center? Xcel Energy Center?

As for the velodrome - the old Metrodome was big enough to accomodate a full size velodrome track with space to spare and so is the new Vikings stadium.

Of course other US cities can also adopt similar plans

[Athensfan]

Kernow, TCF is only 50,000 seats as it is. You'd lose 10,000 seats by installing an upper deck for a track. You'd also have to build totally new entrances and exits to deal with the radical change in height and this could compromise the structural integrity of the stadium. You'd have to nearly double the remaining capacity with a mammoth expansion. The surrounding area does not have enough room to expand upwards and outwards to the extent required. Such an expansion would demand radical changes to the luxury boxes and the removal of the roof. Where will the Gophers play while all this major construction is taking place? Who will pay for the expansion and who will pay to return it to the way the university had it?

TCF is not an Olympic stadium. Full stop. Logistically it's impossible.

[kernowboy]

Kernow, TCF is only 50,000 seats as it is. You'd lose 10,000 seats by installing an upper deck for a track. You'd also have to build totally new entrances and exits to deal with the radical change in height and this could compromise the structural integrity of the stadium. You'd have to nearly double the remaining capacity with a mammoth expansion. The surrounding area does not have enough room to expand upwards and outwards to the extent required. Such an expansion would demand radical changes to the luxury boxes and the removal of the roof. Where will the Gophers play while all this major construction is taking place? Who will pay for the expansion and who will pay to return it to the way the university had it?

TCF is not an Olympic stadium. Full stop. Logistically it's impossible.

You are aware that the TCF Bank Stadium was designed to be expandable to 80,000 seats?

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2004/other/040634/Stadium/www.stadium.state.mn.us/proposals/starting_line.pdf

It is part of the original bluprints. I am sure they factored in all of your concerns. So even if the first 10,000 seats are used, we're talking at least 70,000 seats

In fact there is already discussion about using some of that expandable capacity when the Vikings play there while the Mall of America Metrodome is being rebuilt

Sorry here is the correct link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCF_Bank_Stadium

and here is information from Gophers fans about how this would be done

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?7761-TCF-Bank-Stadium-expansion

[Athensfan]

No. Because you still have to carve out totally new entrances which will render the expansion plans pointless. Not being an architect, I can't say how many seats would be lost by your floating deck idea, but you would have to build totally new means of egress and ingress and that is not workable. Look at the way the space is currently set up. I never said expansion was impossible I said there's quite a lot in the way and it's cost-prohibitive.

Even if TCF were the most perfect Olympic stadium on the planet, it wouldn't matter because Minneapolis has shown zero interest in bidding. But I'm sure you've factored that in to your argument as well.....

I have to say I find it fascinating that according to you NYC and Chicago are "sorry candidates" but Minneapolis is going to blow away the competition. Wow.

[kernowboy]

No. Because you still have to carve out totally new entrances which will render the expansion plans pointless. Not being an architect, I can't say how many seats would be lost by your floating deck idea, but you would have to build totally new means of egress and ingress and that is not workable. Look at the way the space is currently set up. I never said expansion was impossible I said there's quite a lot in the way and it's cost-prohibitive.

Even if TCF were the most perfect Olympic stadium on the planet, it wouldn't matter because Minneapolis has shown zero interest in bidding. But I'm sure you've factored that in to your argument as well.....

It was designed to be cheap to be expanded. It was architecturally designed to accommodate the extra deck around those horse shoe.

The reason why they didnt go to 80,000 straight away is because of declining numbers when they were in the Metrodome,

As for Ingress and Egress, I can't see how the Scots and Spanish can come up with a workable plan but you Americans think it isn't possible

[Athensfan]

It was designed to be cheap to be expanded. It was architecturally designed to accommodate the extra deck around those horse shoe.

The reason why they didnt go to 80,000 straight away is because of declining numbers when they were in the Metrodome,

As for Ingress and Egress, I can't see how the Scots and Spanish can come up with a workable plan but you Americans think it isn't possible

Really? I would've thought you would expect us to be incompetent since NYC and Chicago ate such pathetic excuses for Olympic candidates. I am not familiar with the dimensions of the conversions on Europe, but the dimensions of an American football field are significantly smaller than those required for a track. If this were such an easy-peasy solution, why aren't stadiums doing it all over the country?

Incidentally, you keep conveniently glossing over that minor detail of Minneapolis showing no desire to bid......

[Quaker2001]

It was designed to be cheap to be expanded. It was architecturally designed to accommodate the extra deck around those horse shoe.

The reason why they didnt go to 80,000 straight away is because of declining numbers when they were in the Metrodome,

As for Ingress and Egress, I can't see how the Scots and Spanish can come up with a workable plan but you Americans think it isn't possible

Expanding the stadium is one thing and I bet they're already preparing to do that temporarily if the Vikings need to move there as you noted (assuming they don't skip town, which is starting to look like a real possibility). Here's the problem though..

Tell me where there is room there for a full 400-meter running track in that stadium. You're talking about a lot more than a few rows of seats you would have to take out. Think Salt Lake Ice Center for the 2002 Olympics.. as a result, unless they made major renovations to the stadium, it would be an awful venue for Athletics. That you brought up Hampden Park in Glasgow, here's an image of that..

Look how much more space there is between the seats and the playing surface. That's how stadiums are generally constructed in Europe. In the United States, most football stadiums are built with the seats as close to the playing field as they can get. And a football field is much smaller than a 400 meter track. Why do you think Chicago didn't use a fairly-newly renovated Soldier Field as their main athletics venue.

If a Minneapolis bid is hinged on using TCF Bank Stadium as the main venue, it's going to be a disaster and you're probably going to have just as negative an opinion of the bid as you would of New York and Chicago.

[kernowboy]

Expanding the stadium is one thing and I bet they're already preparing to do that temporarily if the Vikings need to move there as you noted (assuming they don't skip town, which is starting to look like a real possibility). Here's the problem though..

Tell me where there is room there for a full 400-meter running track in that stadium. You're talking about a lot more than a few rows of seats you would have to take out. Think Salt Lake Ice Center for the 2002 Olympics.. as a result, unless they made major renovations to the stadium, it would be an awful venue for Athletics. That you brought up Hampden Park in Glasgow, here's an image of that..

Look how much more space there is between the seats and the playing surface. That's how stadiums are generally constructed in Europe. In the United States, most football stadiums are built with the seats as close to the playing field as they can get. And a football field is much smaller than a 400 meter track. Why do you think Chicago didn't use a fairly-newly renovated Soldier Field as their main athletics venue.

If a Minneapolis bid is hinged on using TCF Bank Stadium as the main venue, it's going to be a disaster and you're probably going to have just as negative an opinion of the bid as you would of New York and Chicago.

The reason why Chicago didn't use Soldier Field is because the capacity was maxed out at 61,500 - take out 10,000 seats and they could not get above 50,000 seats

The use of the TCF Bank stadium would be no worst than the angles of view when Turner Field was used in Atlanta. Not the best stadium but it fitted the IOCs requirements.

As you are aware, Hampden Park is an exception to European stadiums where there is that gap. 99% of stadiums are the same as in the USA and in fact a number of clubs are redeveloping their stadium to remove the gap. A better example would be Wembley Stadium - a deck solution for athletics was suggested here and would have taken up 10,000 seats

In the end London went for a new Olympic stadium and it has been suggested that maybe that wasn't the best route considering the problems they've since encountered.

As TCF Bank Stadium is approved for FIFA sized foootball pitches then the aspects would be similar. The proposal was for temp platform. In Madrid's 2020 bid they are going for a more semi-permanent solution where the track would be there for a year before being removed.

As Rogge has said that he wants future games to have a reduced environment footprint, realistically every US city will need to consider this as an option as realistically the only stadium which exists is the LA Coliseum and the USC Trojans want that converted into a football only stadium, removing the distance caused by the track.

The advantage of the TCF was that it was all designed to be built upwards.

As the technology exists, I cannot understand why posters think it is a foolish idea especially as it will be substantially cheaper than building a $1bn stadium which will struggle to find a tennant post games. I wouldn't have even suggested it if the technology did not exist to do it.

The Salt Lake Center aka Energy Solutions Arena was one of those arenas designed for basketball usage only. A more modern example is AT&T Center in San Antonio where the capacity between basketball and ice hockey - only 1000 seats in most arenas is significantly larger at these locations because there is no extra tennant and in fact no plans to have an extra ice hockey tennant

[FYI]

Nice newspaper article referring to bidding for the 2020 games - I don't recall any US city bidding for 2020 - I was under the impression that it was clear this was in reference to 2024 and/or 2028

Here is another document considering an undefined future bid and how it could be accommodated

http://www.house.leg...nues11-8-05.pdf

This was commissioned by the Legislature itself. Here is another one they got the Starting Line Foundation to do on transport infrastructure

http://www.leg.state...arting_line.pdf

They must have no interest in ever holding a future games and just want to waste tax payers money commissioning these reports eh?

Wow, really! So your 8 year old pdf files take precedence over my much more CURRENT article, which cites city officlails talking about no such Olympic bid plans simply bcuz you say so, 'eh'.

They may have had an "interest" at one point long ago (doesn't equate that a bid was going to be launched, though. And it was really just ONE female local politician there that was so gung-ho about the idea [her name escapes me at the moment] & approaching the Minnesota Legislature about the idea, which may have started some sort of feasibility study) , but now it's a moot point. Especially when at the time of the article, the Governor of Minnesota was much more interested in running for president of the country, & Minnesota in general, is just far more worried in keeping their NFL team than pursuing some half-pipe dream Olympic bid.

If according to the IOC (& to you), Chicago's plans still weren't technically up to par with Madrid & Tokyo for 2016, they'd just laugh about Minneapolis. Sure, they have a fair amount of venues, but like Los Angeles, most of them R already there & wouldn't leave much room for LEGACY (remember that one? You're always telling Tulsa that's what the IOC loves). Minneapolis falls way short on 3-5 accommodations & transportation, two major areas where the IOC deems critical. And any IOC evaluation would highlight their shortfalls when stacked against the international competition.

Seriously, KB. What's your affinity with the Twin Cities? There must be something! Bcuz the only people that ever come on here to trumpet Minneapolis R generally the ones who live, or use to live there, R originally from there or have some sort of ties to the place. So where within those parameters do you fall into!

I have to say I find it fascinating that according to you NYC and Chicago are "sorry candidates" but Minneapolis is going to blow away the competition. Wow.

My sentiments exactly!

[Quaker2001]

As the technology exists, I cannot understand why posters think it is a foolish idea especially as it will be substantially cheaper than building a $1bn stadium which will struggle to find a tennant post games. I wouldn't have even suggested it if the technology did not exist to do it.

You know, I have another radical idea here. The technology definitely exists for it and it's even cheaper.. don't bid for the Olympics. The costs and risks don't really justify the potential reward for a lot of these cities, especially once you get past the bigger ones. So why even bother? You call it a sorry crop of candidates. Those of us in the United States (I'm sure FYI and Athens among others would agree) call it smart not to bid if there isn't a viable candidate.

You continue to make this assumption that American cities are desperately interested in bidding for the Olympics. That's simply not the case. As FYI noted, right now the city of Minneapolis is on the verge of losing their NFL team. So if they (and by they, I mean the citizens of the state of Minnesota) have to choose between focusing their efforts on keeping the Vikings or bidding for an Olympics, which are they going to choose? If you want to stand by your global cities ranking that says that Minneapolis is in the same category as Rome, go right ahead. The rest of us know better.

And if you're going to use the technical scores as your basis of comparison, maybe you should also mention that the 2012 winner had the 3rd best score of the 5 candidates (only a shade ahead of New York) and that the 2016 winner was the LOWEST of the 4, but in the best geo-political position. So again, why should a city like Minneapolis be so gung ho about bidding when 2 much larger cities just had the door slammed in their faces? American cities have bigger things to worry about than the Olympics these days. Call it a sorry state of affairs if you want, but remember that the late 1970s weren't so long ago when the IOC was reeling from disasters in Munich and Montreal and no one but the United States was willing to step in and offer up a host for the Olympics.

As for the stadium issues, back in the 1970s, the trend in the United States was to built multi-purpose stadiums that a baseball team and football team could share. People soon realized that the trade-off to put both sports in 1 stadium made those stadiums less adequate for both teams. "Concrete donuts" was the term for most of them. So now there's only 1 stadium left in the United States really used for both (Oakland) and both teams want out of there. It's easy enough for an NFL stadium to accommodate a football pitch. Not so much if you're asking to incorporate a track. Ask the folks at USC how that's worked out for them. So this idea that you want some sort of modular design for the rare occurrence that a large-sized stadium would want to hold a track meet is ridiculous. In reverse, look what it did to Atlanta's stadium that they initially set it up for track even though it was really built for baseball. Ditto for Olympic Stadium in Montreal.. that place was never right for baseball because they had built it for track. That's why to find the right combination of a city that can build for the Olympics and for that construction to leave a legacy is going to be next to impossible to find. And in no way have you found that with Minneapolis, especially that you're looking to stretch the limits of reality with your venue plans.

[kernowboy]

Wow, really! So your 8 year old pdf files take precedence over my much more CURRENT article, which cites city officlails talking about no such Olympic bid plans simply bcuz you say so, 'eh'.

They may have had an "interest" at one point long ago (doesn't equate that a bid was going to be launched, though. And it was really just ONE female local politician there that was so gung-ho about the idea [her name escapes me at the moment] & approaching the Minnesota Legislature about the idea, which may have started some sort of feasibility study) , but now it's a moot point. Especially when at the time of the article, the Governor of Minnesota was much more interested in running for president of the country, & Minnesota in general, is just far more worried in keeping their NFL team than pursuing some half-pipe dream Olympic bid.

If according to the IOC (& to you), Chicago's plans still weren't technically up to par with Madrid & Tokyo for 2016, they'd just laugh about Minneapolis. Sure, they have a fair amount of venues, but like Los Angeles, most of them R already there & wouldn't leave much room for LEGACY (remember that one? You're always telling Tulsa that's what the IOC loves). Minneapolis falls way short on 3-5 accommodations & transportation, two major areas where the IOC deems critical. And any IOC evaluation would highlight their shortfalls when stacked against the international competition.

Seriously, KB. What's your affinity with the Twin Cities? There must be something! Bcuz the only people that ever come on here to trumpet Minneapolis R generally the ones who live, or use to live there, R originally from there or have some sort of ties to the place. So where within those parameters do you fall into!

My sentiments exactly!

FYI you haven't mentioned why you have used a single newspaper article referring to a 2020 bid when it this article is 2024/2028 i.e. looking further forward.

Clearly you didn't look at the second pdf which was all about a future transportation plan which obviously would be implemented.

As for accommodation, as the city has previously held nationwide events including the SuperBowl they clearly aren't massively far away.

The IOC require 40,000 hotel rooms or similar dwellings - to host the SuperBowl there must be at least 25,000 rooms within 60mins and 6 years ago Minneapolis was looking into a major room building programme

You know, I have another radical idea here. The technology definitely exists for it and it's even cheaper.. don't bid for the Olympics. The costs and risks don't really justify the potential reward for a lot of these cities, especially once you get past the bigger ones. So why even bother? You call it a sorry crop of candidates. Those of us in the United States (I'm sure FYI and Athens among others would agree) call it smart not to bid if there isn't a viable candidate.

You continue to make this assumption that American cities are desperately interested in bidding for the Olympics. That's simply not the case. As FYI noted, right now the city of Minneapolis is on the verge of losing their NFL team. So if they (and by they, I mean the citizens of the state of Minnesota) have to choose between focusing their efforts on keeping the Vikings or bidding for an Olympics, which are they going to choose? If you want to stand by your global cities ranking that says that Minneapolis is in the same category as Rome, go right ahead. The rest of us know better.

And if you're going to use the technical scores as your basis of comparison, maybe you should also mention that the 2012 winner had the 3rd best score of the 5 candidates (only a shade ahead of New York) and that the 2016 winner was the LOWEST of the 4, but in the best geo-political position. So again, why should a city like Minneapolis be so gung ho about bidding when 2 much larger cities just had the door slammed in their faces? American cities have bigger things to worry about than the Olympics these days. Call it a sorry state of affairs if you want, but remember that the late 1970s weren't so long ago when the IOC was reeling from disasters in Munich and Montreal and no one but the United States was willing to step in and offer up a host for the Olympics.

As for the stadium issues, back in the 1970s, the trend in the United States was to built multi-purpose stadiums that a baseball team and football team could share. People soon realized that the trade-off to put both sports in 1 stadium made those stadiums less adequate for both teams. "Concrete donuts" was the term for most of them. So now there's only 1 stadium left in the United States really used for both (Oakland) and both teams want out of there. It's easy enough for an NFL stadium to accommodate a football pitch. Not so much if you're asking to incorporate a track. Ask the folks at USC how that's worked out for them. So this idea that you want some sort of modular design for the rare occurrence that a large-sized stadium would want to hold a track meet is ridiculous. In reverse, look what it did to Atlanta's stadium that they initially set it up for track even though it was really built for baseball. Ditto for Olympic Stadium in Montreal.. that place was never right for baseball because they had built it for track. That's why to find the right combination of a city that can build for the Olympics and for that construction to leave a legacy is going to be next to impossible to find. And in no way have you found that with Minneapolis, especially that you're looking to stretch the limits of reality with your venue plans.

Well thankfully then we aren't likely to see an American summer bid for at least 50years then

[kernowboy]

Seriously, KB. What's your affinity with the Twin Cities? There must be something! Bcuz the only people that ever come on here to trumpet Minneapolis R generally the ones who live, or use to live there, R originally from there or have some sort of ties to the place. So where within those parameters do you fall into!

Having been to many American cities in the course of work and on holiday - I think I am well into double figures - in my single visit to Minneapolis I found it to be one of my most favourite cities - rather than a lingering sense of disappointment like I felt with the likes of San Francisco, Chicago, New York where my expectations might have been unnecessarily high, I personally felt it was somewhere that even an anti-American would have to work hard to pick holes.

Which is why I'd really like it as a host even if it might not be grand enough for the USOC - if it was a candidate city I think it would do your country proud.

p.s. I was working for RBC Wealth Management at the time

[Quaker2001]

Well thankfully then we aren't likely to see an American summer bid for at least 50years then

Having been to many American cities in the course of work and on holiday - I think I am well into double figures - in my single visit to Minneapolis I found it to be one of my most favourite cities - rather than a lingering sense of disappointment like I felt with the likes of San Francisco, Chicago, New York where my expectations might have been unnecessarily high, I personally felt it was somewhere that even an anti-American would have to work hard to pick holes.

Which is why I'd really like it as a host even if it might not be grand enough for the USOC - if it was a candidate city I think it would do your country proud.

I doubt it'll be that long. I'm sure at some point the IOC will really want that United States bid and the USOC will be waiting there for them. That's the thing though.. you keep saying how the USOC has these unnecessary expectations that all they have to do is bid and they'll win. Obviously that's not true and clearly it's more than technical scores that has prevented it from happening. That's why we're wondering why you're so big on Minneapolis to succeed where New York and Chicago both failed. This isn't 1996 with Atlanta where a less than ideal bid got lucky. Drop New York or Chicago into that race and would they like have won? Probably. But drop Atlanta into the 2012 race and they'd be dwarfed by the other large cities in that race.

As for your personal experience.. I've never been to Minneapolis, save for 1 unintended stop in their airport. But it still doesn't make them a more suitable Olympic host because you had low expectations of the city and were pleased as opposed to New York or elsewhere where you were disappointed. To use a similar experience I had, I was in Belgium for 2 days a few years back, a side trip in my travels from Germany to the Netherlands. I visited both Antwerp and Brussels on my way. I have a much more favorable view of Antwerp, possibly because I was expecting less from them, than Brussels which I was largely unimpressed. Doesn't mean that Antwerp is a bigger, grander city in that respect.

I think it's foolish to look at Minneapolis and say something akin to "well, they're smaller and therefore a more quaint city than New York or Chicago, so let's forget the big cities and look to smaller cities" and expect the IOC to buy it against the competition. The Olympics are an absolutely massive undertaking and if they or no other American cities are into it, then it is what it is and I doubt the multitude of sports fans in this country won't care. That you think less of the United States for it is your perrogative.

[FYI]

FYI you haven't mentioned why you have used a single newspaper article referring to a 2020 bid when it this article is 2024/2028 i.e. looking further forward.

Bcuz it doesn't need any further elaberation. It should be self-explanatory & logical. If the City of Minneapolis wasn't in the works for a 2020 bid, then it's very apparent that they're not looking into it even for later. Especially when they have other priorities at the moment, which you seem just to blantantly ignore & rather just chose to hold on to 8-year old pdf files. If they were interested at least, I think the article would've mentioned as such. Winnable Olympic bids don't exactly grow on trees, ya know.

And hosting the Superbowl is totally different ball game than hosting the Olympics. And that was way back in 1992, anyway. And yeah, the IOC requires 40.000 3-5 star accommdations within a 50-mile radius. Minneapolis has only 35,000 within those limits. But that's there bare MINIMUM. It'll look technically lacking when other cities like Chicago (which has over 90,000 in that same criteria), New York, Paris, Berlin, Rome & Tokyo will dwarf Minneapolis in that same category.

Having been to many American cities in the course of work and on holiday - I think I am well into double figures - in my single visit to Minneapolis I found it to be one of my most favourite cities - rather than a lingering sense of disappointment like I felt with the likes of San Francisco, Chicago, New York where my expectations might have been unnecessarily high, I personally felt it was somewhere that even an anti-American would have to work hard to pick holes.

I think many would say the same about London, too. That many would prefer the other British cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, etc bcuz they seem more English/British than London. But yet that didn't stop London from getting the Games.

Everything is subjective, anyway. I've been to Minneapolis several times myself, & while I will say that it's a very nice city for what it is, I don't think it can match anything that Chicago, San Francisco, etc can offer. I think even Dallas or Houston could have more to offer the Olympics than Minneapolis could.

[kernowboy]

I doubt it'll be that long. I'm sure at some point the IOC will really want that United States bid and the USOC will be waiting there for them. That's the thing though.. you keep saying how the USOC has these unnecessary expectations that all they have to do is bid and they'll win.

I don't think the IOC needs the US, as much as you think. Countries like China, India, Turkey etc where there government is prepared to underwrite the costs are far more attractive. The Games won't die if NBC doesn't show up - that's 300million viewers in 7billion. Its a bit like the FIFA World Cup - if the US didn't qualify no-one would bat an eyelid.

I think many would say the same about London, too. That many would prefer the other British cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, etc bcuz they seem more English/British than London. But yet that didn't stop London from getting the Games.

I have to ask if you've been to Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow?

[FYI]

I have to ask if you've been to Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow?

No, I have not. But I've been to many cities throughout North America & several in other parts of Europe that I'm sure I can base an opinion on. Just like Quaker did with Belgium.

And quite frankly, I think any U.S. bid that would make itself to be "too American" would most likely be a turn-off to most of the IOC, especially after Atlanta. A more diverse & open American bid would more than likely be more attractive to them.