Jump to content

U.S. Cities Capable of Bidding for an Olympics (Over the Next 30 Years)


Soaring

Recommended Posts

I have updated my map, and listing to include professional sports teams (now the big 4), and metro populations. I also eliminated the category Strong Possibility, and reshuffled the categories a bit. :)

usoc-bid-city-index3.jpg

Here are the cities/metros listed in each category. I considered suburbs that have stadiums like Arlington/Dallas, Foxboro/Boston, and places like East Rutherford, NJ to be part of the closest major city. If I were the USOC, I would only consider cities in red and orange for 2024, 2028 or 2032. I would not even entertain the idea of the others as credible bids, but they may be more capable at the later end of two decades to be able to, but mostly they would be hurt by their lack of international recognition. Oh, and threw Las Vegas into the mix just for fun. Forget Tulsa, it is not even worth including them.

Good Possibility

Chicago (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 9.5 million

Los Angeles (MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 13 million

New York City (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 19 million

San Francisco (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 4.4 million

It's Possible

Dallas (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 6.5 million

Miami (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 5.7 million

Philadelphia (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 6 million

Washington D.C. (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 5.7 million

Unlikely

Atlanta (NFL, MLB, NBA) Metro Population - 5.4 million

Boston (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 4.6 million

Denver (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 2.6 million

Houston (NFL, MLB, NBA) Metro Population - 6 million

Minneapolis (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 3.3 million

San Diego (NFL, MLB) Metro Population - 3.4 million

Seattle (NFL, MLB) Metro Population - 3.5 million

Very Unlikely

Baltimore (NFL, MLB) Metro Population - 2.7 million

Cincinnati (NFL, MLB) Metro Population - 2.1 million

Cleveland (NFL, MLB, NBA) Metro Population - 2.1 million

Detroit (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) Metro Population - 4.3 million

Indianapolis (NFL, NBA) Metro Population - 1.8 million

Kansas City (NFL, MLB, NHL) Metro Population - 2.1 million

Las Vegas Metro Population - 2 million

Phoenix (NFL, MLB, NHL) Metro Population - 4.3 million

Pittsburg (NFL, MLB, NHL) Metro Population - 2.4 million

St. Louis (NFL, MLB, NHL) Metro Population - 2.8 million

Tampa Bay (NFL, MLB, NHL) Metro Population - 2.8 million

No Chance

Buffalo (NFL, NHL) Metro Population - 1.1 million

Charlotte (NFL, NBA) Metro Population - 1.8 million

Green Bay (NFL) Metro Population - 400,000

Jacksonville (NFL) Metro Population - 1.4 million

Memphis (NBA) Metro Population - 1.3 million

Milwaukee (MLB, NBA) Metro Population - 1.6 million

Nashville (NFL, NHL) Metro Population - 1.6 million

New Orleans (NFL, NBA) Metro Population - 1.2 million

Oklahoma City (NBA) Metro Population - 2.8 million

Orlando (NBA) Metro Population - 1.3 million

Portland (NBA) Metro Population - 2.3 million

Salt Lake City (NBA) Metro Population - 1.1 million

Sacramento (NBA) Metro Population - 2.2 million

San Antonio (NBA) Metro Population - 2.2 million

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sorry Baron, you are now blocked for this comment made above.

Oh, SHEESH...my loss! :( ...sheds copious tears.... :(

If anything, the USOC should circulate a list like this to the mayors and civic leaders in each of these metros to give them a reality check before they make stupid public statements. :lol:

The USOC does not have the manpower to do this. Remember as the current contract w/ the IOC winds down (OK, 8 years away) and the more restrictive one for the USOC takes place in 2020, the USOC will have to run a leaner ship. And even if they did this, it still wouldn't have reached the likes of that rogue Vegas developer whose dream would only be stopped by actual word from the IOC that he had to go via a certain route that he tried to circumvent. So, let the IOC pay for that letter and fax transmission to that guy. After all the millions that the US/USOC has given them, I am sure two or three letters sent by Rogge's office will NOT break their bank account. And he might have similar counterparts in China, India, Russia, etc. The IOC and their probably enlarged staff can very easily handle these direct communications. Let them take care of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC and Baltimore will never do a joint bid, but I can see a DC bid having a couple of venues in Baltimore, like soccer for example.

The USOC would not allow cities to joint bid (since the IOC does not allow it), so if DC and Baltimore tried it, they would be dead in the water. I don't think DC would be the strongest USOC candidate, because it is seen too symbolically as a very political place, but it is not out of the realm of possibility over the next 30 years I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 - in the July and August hurricane belt.

Not to overly dispute you but peak of the season is actually starts from about mid-September and wanes in October. That would actually be outside a July/August Olympic/Paralympics Games window.

#2 - All talk and no action. Tried to get a Fair for the Americas for 1976 going; nothing doing.

Sadly, I have to agree. While the CIty and County agreed to form a committee to explore and the hosting of a Games is included in all development plans, no concrete actions of have been taken.

#3 - Until the Castros or their stooges are out of power, the local Cuban-Americans will RIOT before a bonafide Cuban team will play on their courts.

While I don't have a special insight in to the Cuban Community even as resident, I suspect that as long as Castro or any of his lackeys don't physically attend the Games, they wouldn't actively try to sabotage something that, in my view, would be a positive development for the community.

Even GOLDEN GIRLS footage was all shot in Burbank.

I didn't know that, that's just hilarious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I originally had them up one category, but after further thought I felt that they were one notch below Dallas when it comes to organizing and will power to bid. I don't think Dallas has a much better chance, but at least they built their stadium with the Olympics in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is building a stadium, that's 20 miles away from Dallas, with no real public transit access, & not capable of hosting athletics, "with the Olympics in mind". I don't think that Jerry Jones, nor the city of Arlington were thinking about the Olympics when proposing this stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these last bits of that story says it all:

"Twice we've been a stalking horse, with technically superior bids, yet we haven't reached the head of the class," he said. "I don't want to go through the process again just to provide a benchmark for other cities to jump over. But I still think Houston would be a great host city."

"The Olympics would have been more realistic here than the U.S. selection committee gave us credit for," said Jack Kelly, the longtime consultant who worked with Houston 2012. "If Houston, with its three covered stadiums and even with its heat and humidity, had been in any country except the U.S., it would have been the leading candidate."

Same could be said of places like Dallas & Minneapolis. Especiallty if they were indeed located in countries that have never hosted before. It takes more than just having the best technical bids to win this very competitive international contest. All we have to do is look at some of the past losses where the best technical bid was overlooked in favor of the bigger picture.

And it's not that the USOC didn't give Houston any credit, it's that the IOC was/is the one that wasn't really interested on who had/has the "best techincal bid". Something that this Jack Kelly doesn't really understand according to this article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas and Houston are nothing but slightly more cosmopolitan versions of Doha and Dubai. Cities built with great oil money over the last 50 years and where you won't see the people walking in those desert robes. They're really Vegas WITHOUT the fun and the neon. At least the heat is drier and the paint is fresher in the Arab Gulf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could say a lot of great things about Houston. I never thought much about a bid there but you could really make that city look cool with the "look of games" trim. There are super cool giant surfaces and superstructures everywhere, it's all BIG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could say a lot of great things about Houston. I never thought much about a bid there but you could really make that city look cool with the "look of games" trim. There are super cool giant surfaces and superstructures everywhere, it's all BIG.

The Euro-centric IOC is not impressed with "BIG" stuff. And Houston heat in the summer is HORRIBLE!! If I had to choose between a Houston or a Dubai Olympics, I'd bite my tongue and go to the drier heat instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas and Houston are nothing but slightly more cosmopolitan versions of Doha and Dubai. Cities built with great oil money over the last 50 years and where you won't see the people walking in those desert robes. They're really Vegas WITHOUT the fun and the neon. At least the heat is drier and the paint is fresher in the Arab Gulf.

You're mostly right and hilarious. There's a lot of good in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing going for Washington is a post games legacy both sporting and housing.

Reading some previous comments, if there is social inequality then a 20,000 bed Olympic Village converted into affordable housing does sound like a positive step.

Equally if the owner of the Redskins, Daniel Snyder desires to relocate the Redskins back into the District of Columbia then you've got a tenant for the Olympics .... The Organising Committee pays for the Stadium, and then Snyder pays the $500m a lot of owners are being asked to contribute to adapt it for post games use, such as lowering the pitch etc and you could build it at the site of the RFK Stadium.

(you could build a stadium like the one in Durban which holds 54,000 seats but has the extra tier available to take it up to 80,000 seats. After the games you remove the extra tier, lower the pitch which could add space for an extra 20,000 seats and you are left with a 74,000 seat stadium for the NFL)

Before you started on this stadium, you could build a soccer specific stadium for DC United, which could be used for the Hockey during the games. With lots of colleges, plus the NBA/NHL in town there should be enough indoor venues.

and as the Qataris are investing a load of money in climate controlled stadiums this could be introduced to mitigate the heat issue.

The two questions for me are:

1) Whilst a political power, does Washington have the economic strength?

2) What is the attitude of Americans to 'Washington' hosting the games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Twice we've been a stalking horse, with technically superior bids, yet we haven't reached the head of the class," he said. "I don't want to go through the process again just to provide a benchmark for other cities to jump over. But I still think Houston would be a great host city."

"The Olympics would have been more realistic here than the U.S. selection committee gave us credit for," said Jack Kelly, the longtime consultant who worked with Houston 2012. "If Houston, with its three covered stadiums and even with its heat and humidity, had been in any country except the U.S., it would have been the leading candidate."

The Olympics *could* work in a number of U.S. cities, probably including Houston. But at the end of the day, it's still Houston and not New York or LA or Chicago or San Fran. And we know the best technical bid rarely wins on the basis of being the best technical bid.

Now you could look at this 2 ways. Either 1) these lesser cities (and compared to the big boys, Houston is a lesser city and they know it) realize they're not so likely to pull it off and the USOC has finally realized the folly of having an open competition they way they have. Or 2) the USOC has had it wrong this whole time and should be pushing the best technical bid over the most prestigious city. Between those, which is more likely to happen? More importantly, which is more likely to work.

The fact remains that if the IOC is continuing to look for the best and brightest out there (and it seems like they are), then the alpha cities are still the best option. Will a geo-political opportunity present itself again where they're going to pick whatever city the USOC offers up like they probably did in 1996? It might, but they certainly can't wait for it to fall into their laps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...