A Minneapolis 2024/2008 bid?

[Quaker2001]

No, but the point of that was that Atlanta was partly being portrayed as an "African"-American city. That would seem to resonate more with some of the members of the IOC, particularly the African & Caribbean ones, than some "Native American" theme.

Plus the other smoking gun that Atlanta had was Coca-Cola. Again, I'm betting the IOC would like to re-think that one, but it's also part of the reason they were able to beat out Minneapolis in 1988.

But on a purely logistical and functional bid, I doubt Minneapolis could be beaten from a venue location perspective. And to be honest nobody outside of the USA had the slightest bit of interest in the fact that Atlanta was the birthplace of MLK or the fact it is in the Due South - Minnesota could make a play on Native America/First Nation etc

Bids aren't won on logistics and functionality as we've learned before. More often than not, there needs to be a story behind it. The fact that Atlanta is the so-called capital of the American South differentiated it nicely from LA `84. When I think Minneapolis, native America is not what comes to mind. First Nation? Yea, only if you think Minneapolis is really part of Canada and not the US (although culturally in some ways, it is). They need something better than that. A weak bid from a bigger city may have a better shot than a stronger bid from a smaller city.

[Lord David]

The only strength I see with Minneapolis/St. Paul (The bid will be marketed as Minneapolis), is that the twin cities boast 2 major arenas, several minor arenas and 2 exhibition/convention centers that could be used for either indoor sports or have 1 host the Main Media Center.

If they put together a sound plan and no other US major city bids, then perhaps we can see them as the city put forward by the USOC. I wouldn't call it a laugh, just a semi-wise decision on trying with another Atlanta-esque sized city rather than a more better known bigger city like Chicago, NYC or San Francisco.

[deawebo]

A weak bid from a bigger city may have a better shot than a stronger bid from a smaller city.

Amen

[FYI]

If they put together a sound plan and no other US major city bids, then perhaps we can see them as the city put forward by the USOC. I wouldn't call it a laugh, just a semi-wise decision on trying with another Atlanta-esque sized city rather than a more better known bigger city like Chicago, NYC or San Francisco.

The thing with this scenario though, is that the USOC would also have to gauge if the international field would be weak, too. And if it were viewed to be not, then it wouldn't be a 'semi-wise decision' to put them forward.

And then, as usual, we're back to square one. Where is the political will. Even in 1988 it was "semi" there (where Atlanta was leaps & bounds ahead in that aspect), & now even less so, to non-existant. That would be their first mega hurdle. The 2nd would be trying to convince the USOC, & finally 3rd, the IOC, if it even got that far. It's just a non-starter no matter how many different ways we look at it.

[Lord David]

Effectively, Minneapolis would have to promote it's bid on it's strengths, which may seem decent enough but still lacking.

These strengths would include:

- Twin cities next to each other, boasting many existing indoor sports venues.

- The ability to spread events throughout the twin cities, whilst keeping the core in Minneapolis.

- The potential to do what recent/prior US hosting and bids for the Olympics have failed to do: propose a purpose built Olympic Park with the key venues of the main stadium, an aquatics venue, possible velodrome and several other minor venues.

- At least 2 exhibition/convention centers.

- 2 major arenas, at least 1 minor arena and several lesser capacity arenas.

- A major football stadium at The University Minnesota.

- The existing sports venues at The University of Minnesota.

- The Minnesota Vikings' need of a new venue, perfect for original use as an Olympic Stadium, if the proposal is done right, we will not see any travesty like Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Stadium, NYC's 2012 proposal or the idea proposed by San Francisco for the 2016 bid.

- The claim of having "The National Sports Center", which if proposed for expansion, could serve as an Olympic cluster.

- Claiming both Native American and Greek heritage in it's name is derived from "mni", the Dakota word for water and "polis", the Greek word for city.

But the question is, is this all enough?

[Quaker2001]

Effectively, Minneapolis would have to promote it's bid on it's strengths, which may seem decent enough but still lacking.

These strengths would include:

- Twin cities next to each other, boasting many existing indoor sports venues.

- The ability to spread events throughout the twin cities, whilst keeping the core in Minneapolis.

- The potential to do what recent/prior US hosting and bids for the Olympics have failed to do: propose a purpose built Olympic Park with the key venues of the main stadium, an aquatics venue, possible velodrome and several other minor venues.

- At least 2 exhibition/convention centers.

- 2 major arenas, at least 1 minor arena and several lesser capacity arenas.

- A major football stadium at The University Minnesota.

- The existing sports venues at The University of Minnesota.

- The Minnesota Vikings' need of a new venue, perfect for original use as an Olympic Stadium, if the proposal is done right, we will not see any travesty like Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Stadium, NYC's 2012 proposal or the idea proposed by San Francisco for the 2016 bid.

- The claim of having "The National Sports Center", which if proposed for expansion, could serve as an Olympic cluster.

- Claiming both Native American and Greek heritage in it's name is derived from "mni", the Dakota word for water and "polis", the Greek word for city.

But the question is, is this all enough?

I think some of you here (and it seems to be mostly those not from the United States) are giving Minneapolis way too much credit here. First off, what Greek heritage? Because the name of the city is derived from a Greek root, that's supposed to be be meaningful. This is not Vancouver and the first nations we're talking about here.

As for the stadium, it's only going to have 1 original use and that's going to be for football. Here's a proposed rendering of the new stadium..

Does that look like a building that can accommodate a full-sized running track? Not a chance. Let alone the fact that this stadium could get built before 2017 when the vote for the 2024 Olympics would occur. They're not going to wait on this stadium to see if there's an Olympic bid and I doubt they're going to put in whatever necessary provisions they'd need to retrofit the stadium to use for an Olympics. This is not Stadium Australia which they were able to build 110,000 seats for and then downsize it back to 80,000. That's not going to happen here, nor should it. And you call Centennial Olympic Stadium a travesty.. yes it's a shame that building no longer exists in it's original form, but it's going to be used no less than 81 times a year for decades to come. How's the the stadium in Beijing doing these days other than serving as a tourist attraction?

You're right that IF the proposal was done right, it could be a wonderful Olympic setting (although that setting would still be in Minneapolis, not a bigger and more notable city). That's like saying if Chicago could have used the Soldier Field redevelopment as their main stadium, it could have boosted their bid. That didn't happen. It's a nice thought that a city like Minneapolis would be able to use a newly built stadium for the Olympics, but their priority is always going to be to do what's best for the Vikings in the long term. And if that means building a stadium that could never function as an athletics venue (based on the renderings, that's going to be the case here), then so be it and their Olympic dreams can remain just that.. dreams.

[Lord David]

^^ Well in that case, if the new stadium is a replacement for the Metrodome downtown, then any Olympic Stadium proposal could be in a proposed Olympic Park, at 80,000 minimum, downsized as a community use athletics venue at around 20,000.

[Lord David]

The Centennial Olympic Stadium was a travesty, even if the post use was approved by the IOC (therefore stripping it's claim as an Olympic Stadium, when it was altered). It's the Centennial anniversary we're talking about and it deserved more than a legacy of a park.

The venue should have been an athletics venue downsized post Olympics, whilst unused sections of the stands/material/seating would have served as the new stadium for the Atlanta Braves perhaps on the same site as the existing one.

The design would have reflected the classic Greek stadium bowl, with modern American architectural techniques.

It would have served as a community use venue, state athletics meets and international competitions.

Most importantly, the overall shape of this venue would have dramatically impacted how the Ceremonies would have ended up looking like.

The main problem with Beijing's Bird's Nest Stadium (aside from the major event of hosting the upcoming Athletics World Championships in 2015) is that Beijing already has a reasonably good stadium to host it's football teams, the Worker's Stadium. That stadium should have really been demolished post Olympics, as even a city the size of Beijing doesn't really need 2 major stadiums.

[Quaker2001]

The venue should have been an athletics venue downsized post Olympics, whilst unused sections of the stands/material/seating would have served as the new stadium for the Atlanta Braves perhaps on the same site as the existing one.

You really don't know much about sports venues in the United States, do you? American cities don't have much use for an athletics venue. They do have use for a baseball stadium. Why should the best parts of the stadium have been left for a venue that would see little to no use while the Braves get the leftover scraps to construct a brand new venue from scratch (remember also, their former stadium is next door to Turner Field, so it's not like they could have built a new stadium for them at the same time.

Again, I agree it's maybe not the greatest legacy that the stadium only existed in its original form for a few months. But like you brought up.. as opposed to Beijing who built a massive stadium to host the Olympics when they already had a perfectly suitable stadium. There has to be a balance between what works for the Olympics and what's practical for afterwards. If a plan is built on building an 80,000 seat main stadium and then downsizing it into something else, well we saw how well that worked out for Chicago. As much as the legacy of Centennial Olympic Stadium is that it still exists but it really doesn't, at least the venue became something useful on a regular basis, not some sort of community use venue that serves very little purpose.

[Lord David]

NFL to MLS and back is pretty simple though. Especially if they plan on doing it for multiple games every year. Planning for a 400m track is a different animal altogether, especially if the plan is to only use it once (maybe a couple more times depending on what other events they could attract). My pipe dream for Chicago would have been to tie the renovations of Soldier Field to an Olympic bid, although who knows how well even that would have worked out. So you're absolutely right that post games use is an issue.

As for Minneapolis, even if they put together a great venue plan (which they probably could), what's their story? At least with Atlanta (who, let's be fair, won in a weak field and probably would have gotten crushed if the competition had been stronger or especially if Athens was ready to go by then), they could lay claim to being the capital of the American South and would offer something different than LA. Being the 2nd largest economy in the Midwest isn't exactly a selling point. I just don't know what they offer that would compel the IOC to want to leave a legacy there. And if the stadium is getting built irrespective of an Olympic bid, then that can't be it even if it's the centerpiece. I don't know what the solution is in this day and age for the USOC to score the win, but I'd rather see a slightly larger city like a Philadelphia or a San Francisco (if there's no Alpha city in the mix) give it a try. If Minneapolis is the best the USOC can offer, I don't know how it's going to stack up against the competition.

Ok I guess you're right, but Atlanta wasn't facing a WEAK field, sure they may have technically been scored the highest when it came to infrastructure and so forth, but faced a tough Toronto and Melbourne bid mind you.

We could have gotten the games, only if we'd proposed better dates (preferably early September, but it seems unlikely due to unkind weather, rain mostly).

[FYI]

Please, get over it. The 1996 field was NOT a stellar one like the 2012 one was, for example. Really, the only noteworthy city in the 1996 grouping was Athens.

N it also didn't help Melbourne any that they already hosted in 1956, nor Toronto since Canada just hosted a Winter Olympics in Calgary just 2 years prior the 1990 vote for 1996.

Not to mention, that at the time, it was described in the media that many weren't too keen on the idea of how 'isolated' Melbourne was compared to the rest of the competition. So it wasn't just the "rain". There were many factors involved.

[Quaker2001]

Ok I guess you're right, but Atlanta wasn't facing a WEAK field, sure they may have technically been scored the highest when it came to infrastructure and so forth, but faced a tough Toronto and Melbourne bid mind you.

We could have gotten the games, only if we'd proposed better dates (preferably early September, but it seems unlikely due to unkind weather, rain mostly).

Yes they were, it was a weak field. Did Toronto really have any shot after Calgary 1988 and Montreal 1996? And you just pointed out a flaw in Melbourne's bid, not to mention that both them and Great Britain switched their bid city from 1992 and neither was the country's most notable city. And then there's Athens, the sentimental favorite that didn't have its act together.

Hypothetically speaking, pretend for a sec that Atlanta didn't win 1996 and then drop them in the 2012 race or the 2016 race. They would have gotten crushed. They won in 1996, just 12 years after LA, largely as a matter of circumstance. Which is to say that if you had Minneapolis in that race instead of Atlanta, they might have had a shot. But drop them into what could be a hotly contested 2024 field and I don't think they'll fare as well.

[Lord David]

^^ It was a minor flaw (the dates) for Melbourne's 1996 bid. Everything else was very strong. Especially after a farce of a Brisbane 1992 bid.

Not to mention, that at the time, it was described in the media that many weren't too keen on the idea of how 'isolated' Melbourne was compared to the rest of the competition. So it wasn't just the "rain". There were many factors involved.

Brisbane was isolated. So was Sydney, yet they managed to win. Heck, everyone boasts about how Sydney made the standard by offering to subsidize travel expenses for the Athletes and IOC. Melbourne offered something like that in the 1996 bid. Isolated or not, if someone else was willing to pay for your travel, then why not?

[FYI]

^Obviously, that point didn't matter to the IOC for 1996 when there was a stronger, closer option on the table. Like it's been pointed out several times on these boards before, including this thread;. but each bidding race is different with their own sets of circumstances & dynamics that determines the final outcome & eventual winner.

And while Sydney is just as bit as isolated as Melbourne & Brisbane, bcuz Australia in general is, Sydney is still Australia's premier city (& still a highly recognized global one (unlike Minneapolis, Brisbane, Leipzig & so forth) & has the most direct international flights than Brisbane & Melbourne as a result. And Sydney won by the hair on their chiny, chin, chin, mainly, bcuz voting for Sydney was mainly to vote against Beijing for 2000, since the Chinese lead every round of voting except the last one which they lost by a mere 2 votes. These things can't exactly be viewed with black-&-white glasses from bidding cycle to bidding cycle, ya know.

[Jimena]

Minneaplois? Where is it? jajajaja just kidding, but they are not ready when the United States has pleny of cities to choose

[kernowboy]

Potential Olympic Stadium - the TCF Bank Stadium 50,300seats designed to expand to 80,000seats

The University Athletics Stadium, The Bierman is 0.6miles away

Mariucci Arena 10,000 seats - 0.2 miles from the stadium

The Williams Arena 14,625 seats - 0.2miles

New Vikings Stadium - currently fixed roof but designed to have future retractable roof - 70,000 seats, 2.3miles away

Target Center - home of the NBA Timberwolves - 19,500 seats, 3.2miles

[kernowboy]

Target Field, MLB Twins, 39,054 seats, 4.3miles away

Minneapolis Armory, a possible media centre, 2.8miles away

Minneapolis Convention Center, 4 milles away

Over in St Pauls, the Xcel Energy Center, home of the Wild and Swarm, 18604 seats, 7.2miles

and there are other smaller venues within 10miles of the proposed Olympic stadium

[kernowboy]

Lake Calhoun, 6miles away, one of thousands

Rapids running through the city, 1mile away

International Airport

The Hiwantha Line proposed for significant expansion

Duluth on Lake Superior for sailing if the lakes around Minneapolis-St Pauls are deemed too small

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

I know nothing about minneapolis so don't know about the world status. That saying Brisbane isn't either. Is it a state or city if a city which state I have no idea I'd stick to a known city for now but one that hasn't hosted Chicago or NYC again

[Olympic Fan Darcy]

Yowza seems I'm late to this debate I don't think 1996 was very hotly contested I mean everyone has negatives from what I know, Atlanta isn't very well known well to me anyway only reason I know is cause Olympics. Also coca cola was and wasn't a help. Plus they had the games 12 years earlier which is pretty poor I know that no one bid for 1984 but still. 2000 was more interesting.

And is Brisbane really isolated, we have sunny and gold coast about 50 minutes drive away each way. Off to check my bid book thread!

When I say had games I mean America not Atlana. And if someone brings up innsbruck hosting it twice in 12 years I will scream

[kernowboy]

I know nothing about minneapolis so don't know about the world status. That saying Brisbane isn't either. Is it a state or city if a city which state I have no idea I'd stick to a known city for now but one that hasn't hosted Chicago or NYC again

Minneapolis-St Paul's is essentially two cities split by the Mississippi in Northern USA in Minnesota with a combined population of 3.3million. St Paul's is the state capital. It is the 2nd largest city in the MidWest after Chicago. Its about 400miles to the North West.

It is the considered the center of Scandinavian culture in the USA and is also known as the land of 10,000 lakes due to the geography. Its all the head waters of the Mississippi.

Sir Trevor MacDonald, the famous British news reporter described it as the most beautiful city in America.

They have bid for the Summer Olympics four times, and lost out to Atlanta as the USOC representative in 1996.

With America they have so many potential venues that if the city was in another country, would be regarded as a World City that they could go either way.

When they bid with LA, Chicago, NY etc you almost sense there is an arrogant expectation they'll get it merely by showing up. But I think Atlanta has shown that is a so-called secondary city is as keen as mustard, has an excellent infrastructure, offers something different and will really work at it, then that city can be successful to. After all, is Guangzhou in China could easily host the games but is maybe the 5th or 6th Chinese city.

[kernowboy]

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

[FYI]

And yet Guangzhou is still 4 times the size of the Twin Cities & still ranks much higher on the Chinese cities totem pole than Minneapolis does on the American one, which ranks like 15th-16th. Apples & oranges here.

And just as some might think that it's "arrogant" that all Chicago & New York has to do is show up, it's just as arrogant that simply having "venues" will automatically get you the Games. Besides, these so-called venues would be outdated & would have to be overhauled with any future hypothetical Twin Cities bid. Just having venues is not the answer. Look at Denver. Suppossedly the best Winter candidate, in terms of existing venues, that the U.S. has to offer but yet you claim would be severely hampered by the 1976 debacle.

It takes more than venues. You need a compelling story-line behind your bid, too. Just selling your venues alone isn't going to get you the Games. Look at Melbourrne, supposedlley the "sporting capital of the world", but still lost their 1996 bid. Minneapolis is akin to a Manchester & a Brisbane, Seville, Leipzig, etc. Nothing special on the international stage, & no amount of "venues" is going to change that.

What's your affinity to the Twin Cities anyway (which btw, is the 3rd largest city in the Midwest, not 2nd). Is it simply bcuz some British newsreporter dubbed it "the most 'beautiful' city in America", which is debatable anyway. And using the old Atlanta-syndrome argument is a bit naive. Simply bcuz a "secondary" city (which Minneapolis isn't even of it's own region) like Atlanta was able to pull it off, doesn't automatically translate that the IOC would vote for such again.

Again, more apple to orange comparisons.

Rio de Janiero is located on a continent that never has hosted the Games, in a country with an emerging economy & still a much larger city. And you're comparing it to a country that has hosted the Olympic Games moreso than any other country, in a mediocre 3rd tier city. Doesn't cut the "mustard".

[kernowboy]

And yet Guangzhou is still 4 times the size of the Twin Cities & still ranks much higher on the Chinese cities totem pole than Minneapolis does on the American one, which ranks like 15th-16th. Apples & oranges here.

And just as some might think that it's "arrogant" that all Chicago & New York has to do is show up, it's just as arrogant that simply having "venues" will automatically get you the Games. Besides, these so-called venues would be outdated & would have to be overhauled with any future hypothetical Twin Cities bid. Just having venues is not the answer. Look at Denver. Suppossedly the best Winter candidate, in terms of existing venues, that the U.S. has to offer but yet you claim would be severely hampered by the 1976 debacle.

It takes more than venues. You need a compelling story-line behind your bid, too. Just selling your venues alone isn't going to get you the Games. Look at Melbourrne, supposedlley the "sporting capital of the world", but still lost their 1996 bid. Minneapolis is akin to a Manchester & a Brisbane, Seville, Leipzig, etc. Nothing special on the international stage, & no amount of "venues" is going to change that.

What's your affinity to the Twin Cities anyway (which btw, is the 3rd largest city in the Midwest, not 2nd). Is it simply bcuz some British newsreporter dubbed it "the most 'beautiful' city in America", which is debatable anyway. And using the old Atlanta-syndrome argument is a bit naive. Simply bcuz a "secondary" city (which Minneapolis isn't even of it's own region) like Atlanta was able to pull it off, doesn't automatically translate that the IOC would vote for such again.

Interestingly these are the Global cities which are listed ahead of Minneapolis

New York

Chicago

LA

San Franciso

Washington

Atlanta

Boston

Dallas

Miami

Philadelphia.

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

What was the compelling story line behind Sydney 2000? - hardly the first time the games had been held in the southern hemisphere or in Australia. As for story, I don't think any city in the USA could offer anything new to say.

Of course stadiums will be update, though some have only recently been built, though with 12 years to 2024, it is hardly a long time to be believe these venues will be obsolete. After all there a number of facilities built in the 1970s which have been regularly updated and are as modern as any others.

Clearly Denver is in the unique position of being the only host to ever reject the IOC. I don't recall Minneapolis having previous done that - all have regarded it as an honour.

[FYI]

What was the compelling story line behind Sydney 2000? - hardly the first time the games had been held in the southern hemisphere or in Australia. As for story, I don't think any city in the USA could offer anything new to say.

Of course stadiums will be update, though some have only recently been built, though with 12 years to 2024, it is hardly a long time to be believe these venues will be obsolete. After all there a number of facilities built in the 1970s which have been regularly updated and are as modern as any others.

Clearly Denver is in the unique position of being the only host to ever reject the IOC. I don't recall Minneapolis having previous done that - all have regarded it as an honour.

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.