What American city should host the next games?

[Sir Rols]

And Sydney Olympic Park was nowhere near the Sydney City local government area.

I do think a lot of people take it all too literally. As long as it's in the greater metropolitan region of a city and not too ridiculously spread out, it shouldn't really matter.

[FYI]

Then how would Paris bid. Their main stadium and probably olympic stadium, Stade de France, isn't in Paris.

The Stade the France is only 6 miles from Paris, not 40 miles, like the Santa Clara stadium is from San Francisco. That's the real crux of the matter.

And Sydney Olympic Park was nowhere near the Sydney City local government area.

I do think a lot of people take it all too literally. As long as it's in the greater metropolitan region of a city and too ridiculously spread out, it shouldn't really matter.

Yeah, but Homebush Bay was only 10 miles from downtown Sydney, compared again, to the 40 miles that this new 49'ners stadium will be from San Francisco. That's a HUGE difference in travel times, logistics & planning.

I agree, though, that if it's as minute, like in Sydney's & Paris' cases, then it shouldn't be taken too 'literally'. Like if San Francisco could find a stadium solution in nearby Colma or Daly City. But a 40+ mile trek all the way down towards San Jose is not feasible.

I think some people just don't get how far San Jose really is from San Fran, in terms of planning of this magnitude like the Olympics, & how large the Bay area really is. The Paris & Sydney examples aren't the same in this particular case. It's akin to the Boston - Gillette stadium discussion in the Boston 2024 thread right now. Foxboro is simply too far from Boston for it to be the main venue. And again, there, if Boston hypothetically could find a stadium solution in nearby Camridge or Somerville, then there as well the "rule" shouldn't be taken too seriously, either.

[Sir Rols]

San Francisco, and San Jose, I know pretty well, and, yeah, I agree it is a bit of a stretch to envisage them successfully sharing events under an SF Olympics banner. Boston I haven't been to at all and have no idea about, so I appreciate.such explanations of the logistics.

[FYI]

It's my pleasure.

Having the main stadium for example, in Santa Clara, just really makes it a "San Jose" Olympics rather than a San Fran one. Since Santa Clara & San Jose are literally right next door to one another. And a perfect hypothetical example where the stadium 'rule' should be 'tweaked' if it were to be a "San Jose" Games.

[PotatoChips]

This doesn't have to do with SanFran or Boston, but on a side note NYC possibly last hope for an olympic bid will probably be crushed soon. The Cosmos have submitted a stadium idea to be located outside of the city, and it looks like it would be for soccer ONLY. No renovations or stuff like that. This will probably destroy the stadium in Flushing Meadows idea, and destroy any logical idea for a NYC bid.

[zekekelso]

The Stade the France is only 6 miles from Paris, not 40 miles, like the Santa Clara stadium is from San Francisco. That's the real crux of the matter.

But it is *not* in the city of Paris. You keep bringing up the the Olympic Charter requires that the stadium must be in the host city. But the IOC clearly doesn't take that literally.

[Quaker2001]

But it is *not* in the city of Paris. You keep bringing up the the Olympic Charter requires that the stadium must be in the host city. But the IOC clearly doesn't take that literally.

And that's where the idea of a city/state/region gets blurred. You alluded to it earlier.. "New York" could refer to New York State, New York City, or even New York County (otherwise known as Manhattan). So I think it's more distance that would make a difference. Putting the Olympic Stadium in Manhattan would have been the best solution. Putting it in Queens is still technically New York City and could be made to work (in theory, at least). But anything beyond the 5 boroughs of New York would probably be pushing it.

[FYI]

But it is *not* in the city of Paris. You keep bringing up the the Olympic Charter requires that the stadium must be in the host city. But the IOC clearly doesn't take that literally.

I'm not the only one that has 'keep bringing up' the Olympic Charter on these boards. But is it not a rule that's *offcially* on the IOC's books? If some parties know "the rules" of certain procedures, then SHOULD one "literally" go out of their way to break them? At this point, you're just splitting-hairs & being argumentative.

Obviously the IOC has made some "exceptions" to their own rules in the past, but that doesn't mean that they're going to make them for *everyone*. And it also doesn't mean that they're going to bend their own rules by a complete 360 just bcuz someone else is saying that they should.

But as the others & I went on to talk in this thread, the IOC can "tweak" their own stances, if they see it is necessary, & if it's where they really want to go i.e. Rio, PyeongChang, Beijing (remember, the "storyline, narrative" that a city has to have like you're saying in the Boston thread right now). But they're not willingly going to do this, especially if it's literally going out of their way of what they're asking for.

[baron-pierreIV]

Then how would Paris bid. Their main stadium and probably olympic stadium, Stade de France, isn't in Paris.

Yes, it is. It is in Paris' 16th arrondissement. Maybe a suburb, but it falls under jurisidction of the Greater Paris Administrative Unit.

http://wikitravel.org/en/Paris/16th_arrondissement

[FYI]

^you need to tell that to the argumentative one, too.

[Rob2012]

This is the trouble. What defines a city varies greatly from country to country. I'm with FYI; basically common sense is needed when interpreting this....

If St Denis isn't technically in Paris, that doesn't matter....its well within Greater Paris, not a great distance from the centre, has transport connections available etc.

That's not going to be looked upon the same way as a stadium with one train line on the outskirts of sprawling American suburbia, even if technically it may be in the conurbation.

It's hard to explain, or define where exactly the "cut off" point would be. The line is blurred. That said, it's easy to see cases which aren't suitable and a stadium 40 miles from a city's cultural centre is probably not going to cut it. Of course, it depends on the plan and, like everything, what other cities and plans you're up against. But you don't want to go into a race with a handicap before you even start.

[runningrings]

San Francisco, and San Jose, I know pretty well, and, yeah, I agree it is a bit of a stretch to envisage them successfully sharing events under an SF Olympics banner. Boston I haven't been to at all and have no idea about, so I appreciate.such explanations of the logistics.

Interestingly, for all the comparisons between SF and Sydney, I think Boston is the US city most similar to Sydney. Their geography is quite similar, in that they are former colonial settlements-come major city set on an interesting graphic layout, both with sprawling metro areas heading west.