Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Citius Altius Fortius

POLL: Which US-city should step in?

Which city should step in?  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. Which city should step in your point of view?



Recommended Posts

With which city should the USA bid, when USOC decides to stay in the bid competition for 2024?

You are allowed to pick 3!!! Not more!!!!


Rob - I just "edit" the poll - please refresh!!!

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly are we picking here? Cities we would like to see bid or cities we think actually would bid? Because if it's actually would bid, there are only 3 cities that would get any consideration, less you think NYC or Chicago or Honolulu (seriously?) would jump in at the last minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for starters, there's already a 'poll' of this kind in the thread below this one that Baron started last week. And second, shouldn't such a poll be a plausible one anyway?

The USOC is 'talking' to the other three finalists that were also involved before the Boston pick, & they are Los Angeles, San Fran & DC, with L.A. being the most likely one to get pick if the USOC doesn't want another Boston debacle. So all the other cities you listed here are not an option.

Unless of course, you just mean all this to be a pure 'hypothetical' exercise, like "the next 100 years of Olympic hosts cities", which would hold just as much validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted in consideration of a future bid for 2028 and beyond, definitely NOT the current 2024 bid that's coming up since it's too damn late to make a huge difference and get everything in order. You might as well let a city like Phoenix or St. Louis run since they have no real chance of ever hosting the games and the loss won't be a crippling blow to a city that genuinely has a chance to be a good host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC is 'talking' to the other three finalists that were also involved before the Boston pick, & they are Los Angeles, San Fran & DC, with L.A. being the most likely one to get pick if the USOC doesn't want another Boston debacle. So all the other cities you listed here are not an option.

I know that the other cities didn't bid, but I want to get an overview of the opinion, which city should bid in the point of view of the voters...

You are saying that L.A. would be the most likely one if USOC doesn't want another Boston debacle - I don't see think so, L.A. might not leave the competition, but is it really the only city of the USA, which can host Olympic Games...

I added the other cities in the poll to see if they are other ones, who want to see something fresh from the USA

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who voted for Seattle?!?

  • no metro/subway system
  • no dedicated passenger train track for Vancouver-Seattle-Portland (only Amtrak on freight rail lines)
  • only 55,000 hotels in metro area
  • no need to boost summer tourism: it's convincing people to go there in winter that's a problem
  • currently going through its own disastrous Big Dig project with the world's biggest tunnel boring machine
  • probably the least nationalistic part of the USA, and the least likely to spend local money glorifying a faraway national government

Los Angeles is the only city capable of hosting 2024 at this point, but the USA would be better served waiting for 2028 or 2032.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the other cities didn't bid, but I want to get an overview of the opinion, which city should bid in the point of view of the voters...

You are saying that L.A. would be the most likely one if USOC doesn't want another Boston debacle - I don't see think so, L.A. might not leave the competition, but is it really the only city of the USA, which can host Olympic Games...

I added the other cities in the poll to see if they are other ones, who want to see something fresh from the USA

Your survey asks for a replacement bid for the upcoming 2024 Olympics race, and there are very few cities who are capable of throwing something together in such a short period of time and make it a successful bid. Right now, LA is really the only one. They're the only ones who don't have the major obstacle of the track and field stadium since there is one readily available. The major issue they have is getting a opening/closing ceremony stadium, which can also serve as a future NFL stadium. Everything else is not that big of a deal for a city that big.

While yes all the cities mentioned COULD host an Olympic games, they need more than a month's time before the deadline in order to organize a successful bid. I think Houston would be a great city to host an Olympics, but they, along with all the other cities in the list, have a lot of red tape to deal with that make it pointless to enter in such a short amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are saying that L.A. would be the most likely one if USOC doesn't want another Boston debacle - I don't see think so, L.A. might not leave the competition, but is it really the only city of the USA, which can host Olympic Games...

I added the other cities in the poll to see if they are other ones, who want to see something fresh from the USA

Martin, no L.A. is not the only city in the U.S. that could host the Olympic Games. But you posed the initial question "which city should the USOC go with if they were to continue in the 2024 campaign", is that not correct? If it is, then there's only three options that the USOC has at this point, & again those are Los Angeles, San Francisco & Washington, DC. Those are the only three cities that the USOC is talking to at this point after they let Boston go last week.

I'm sorry, but haven't you been following more closely what's been going on with the USOC & this whole Boston mess? IDK, but perhaps the members here from the U.S. have been following much more closely than any of our foreign friends, but if the USOC wants to still compete with 2024, Los Angeles is the only option at this juncture. Something "new & fresh" is beside the point ATM.

Remember the deadline for 2024 is only fives weeks away, so there's no time to be starting all over again with the lengthy domestic process. The USOC already had 2-1/2 years to do that & they fu@ked it royally anyway. So the USOC at this point is only focusing on the other three finalists that were there with Boston back in January, because they would be the easiest to pick up where they left off just six months ago, not to mention that they were the finalists back then. And yes, if we're still talking about 2024, San Francisco & Washington, DC would be another Boston 2.0 for reasons already mentioned in many of these threads.

I'm not talking about later on, like for 2028 or 2032. But the USOC would have to start all over again with the domestic phase in order to see who else might change their mind to want to try this huge endeavor. But for 2024, it really is L.A. or bust at this late stage of the game.

Who voted for Seattle?!?.

Who voted for Houston (well, I at least know where one of those votes came from :-P). It's simply not electable in the international arena. Not to mention that hot & humid/rainy weather during the Games-time window.

Los Angeles is the only city capable of hosting 2024 at this point, but the USA would be better served waiting for 2028 or 2032.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Seattle - they are totally not interested in hosting but I do love the place.

LA - because lets be honest - it will be them. Their 2024 offering will be the same as 2028/2032 so why not?

My 'other' is Las Vegas - if you want a city that will get the infrastructure done on time, will find a commercial use for all the venues post Games and have a surprising number of venues already on the ground or underway that is not LA - why hello LV! UNLV has been begging for a new stadium and there will be no shortage of hotels, etc. The new village can easily be sold off as condos etc. The only downside is the IOC may not be enthralled with all the arenas (bar a couple) being attached to casinos - however as long as they have external entries (they all do) it shouldn't be an issue. A long shot - but not an unfeasible one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin, no L.A. is not the only city in the U.S. that could host the Olympic Games. But you posed the initial question "which city should the USOC go with if they were to continue in the 2024 campaign", is that not correct? If it is, then there's only three options that the USOC has at this point, & again those are Los Angeles, San Francisco & Washington, DC. Those are the only three cities that the USOC is talking to at this point after they let Boston go last week.

I'm sorry, but haven't you been following more closely what's been going on with the USOC & this whole Boston mess? IDK, but perhaps the members here from the U.S. have been following much more closely than any of our foreign friends, but if the USOC wants to still compete with 2024, Los Angeles is the only option at this juncture. Something "new & fresh" is beside the point ATM.

Remember the deadline for 2024 is only fives weeks away, so there's no time to be starting all over again with the lengthy domestic process. The USOC already had 2-1/2 years to do that & they fu@ked it royally anyway. So the USOC at this point is only focusing on the other three finalists that were there with Boston back in January, because they would be the easiest to pick up where they left off just six months ago, not to mention that they were the finalists back then. And yes, if we're still talking about 2024, San Francisco & Washington, DC would be another Boston 2.0 for reasons already mentioned in many of these threads.

I'm not talking about later on, like for 2028 or 2032. But the USOC would have to start all over again with the domestic phase in order to see who else might change their mind to want to try this huge endeavor. But for 2024, it really is L.A. or bust at this late stage of the game.

Who voted for Houston (well, I at least know where one of those votes came from :-P). It's simply not electable in the international arena. Not to mention that hot & humid/rainy weather during the Games-time window.

Exactly.

Houston is along the lines of Atlanta as far as temperature and weather go during the months of July and August. While Houston averages up to 5 degrees higher than Atlanta for daily high during those months and just slightly more humid, Houston averages lower as far as rainy days go for those two months. Currently we haven't had any real good rain in over a month. And while temps have reached as high as 100 degrees (not including feels like temps), the humidity has been averaging 50% or lower. A couple of days ago it got as low as 37%, which I have never seen before. Trust me when I say even though it's pretty damn hot right now, this summer actually FEELS heavenly because of the lack of humidity.

And compared to other cities currently interested in hosting the 2024 Olympics, there are less rainy days in Houston than Toronto and Hamburg. Yes Houston may have some pretty hot weather, but if Atlanta managed to be successful with the weather conditions they have there, the Houston is doable.

And it's funny no one mentions that there are many parts of Los Angeles that average hotter than Houston. And also I wouldn't entrust Chicago with a SOGs considering they don't know how to handle record heat waves. Any time it gets ridiculously hot there, we get bombarded with news stories here in Houston of people dying from it. At one point we were dubbed the most air-conditioned city in the world, so we can handle the heat, and I'm sure we can get creative in ways to handle the heat outside.

And of course the never-ending attack on Houston not being an "electable" city in the international arena. The truth was said about Atlanta, which without ever hosting the Olympics would still have less international appeal than Houston, and it still won. Sure people love to say that was a fluke but it's not it can and will happen again for other US cities. One of the main reasons Atlanta was successful is it had the advantage of being an American city, and American Olympics have been the most profitable, and it will be no different for Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 'other' is Las Vegas - if you want a city that will get the infrastructure done on time, will find a commercial use for all the venues post Games and have a surprising number of venues already on the ground or underway that is not LA - why hello LV! UNLV has been begging for a new stadium and there will be no shortage of hotels, etc. The new village can easily be sold off as condos etc. The only downside is the IOC may not be enthralled with all the arenas (bar a couple) being attached to casinos - however as long as they have external entries (they all do) it shouldn't be an issue. A long shot - but not an unfeasible one.

Would casino named stadia be okay with the IOC's policy and all? Like, the new arena being built in LV has both AEG and MGM in the name alone, so idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also I wouldn't entrust Chicago with a SOGs considering they don't know how to handle record heat waves. Any time it gets ridiculously hot there, we get bombarded with news stories here in Houston of people dying from it. At one point we were dubbed the most air-conditioned city in the world, so we can handle the heat, and I'm sure we can get creative in ways to handle the heat outside.

Well, of course Houston can handle the heat. When it's hot more months outta the year than not, then you have regular methods, in this case air-conditioning, to handle the heat on a regular basis. But when it's mostly cool to cold most of the year like in Chicago (or any other far northern major city), then air conditioning a lot of the time is secondary (when/if it gets unbearably hot for a couple of weeks outta the year), especially in the low income areas where you mainly hear those "bombardment" of over sensational news reports hitting the Houston airwaves.

And that's really the crux here, the people coming from countries with moderate Summer climate weather (like Canada, Scandinavia & the rest of Northern Europe, etc) being able to comfortably deal with that hot, steamy Texas Summer weather. Just because Atlanta was also hot & humid & hosted, doesn't really mean it's ideal weather conditions. But maybe you can go along the way of Doha & propose to build "air condition stadiums", since you guys over there are such "experts" at it! :-D :-P

And of course the never-ending attack on Houston not being an "electable" city in the international arena. The truth was said about Atlanta, which without ever hosting the Olympics would still have less international appeal than Houston, and it still won. Sure people love to say that was a fluke but it's not it can and will happen again for other US cities. One of the main reasons Atlanta was successful is it had the advantage of being an American city, and American Olympics have been the most profitable, and it will be no different for Houston.

It's not a "never-ending attack" on Houston if it's not necessarily true. Just because Atlanta won, doesn't automatically mean the IOC is going to settle again on a second-tier U.S. city, profitable American Games or not. If that was the case, then Chicago would be hosting next year instead of Rio. Lets also keep in mind how many of our international friends on these very boards constantly say that "the U.S. should put their best foot forward". And that's certainly not Houston, & I'm sure virtually all of them would agree on that.

Atlanta also left the IOC with a bad aftertaste. Atlanta also won because Athens just wasn't ready at the time (they were barely ready for 2004 as it was), & the rest of the '96 competition was mediocre to lackluster. I mean Belgrade & Manchester? Uh hello, that would be a big no.

So unless Houston was solely competing against the likes of Doha-hah, Baku-koo & Budapest, they wouldn't stand a chance against the big boys. I mean even New York City couldn't beat London & Paris (& even Madrid)! So you really think in a matchup like that, that Houston would be up to snuff? Not a chance.

There's a reason why the USOC has bypassed Houston everytime they've presented a plan to them. Heck, the USOC even bypassed Dallas this last time for 2024, & I'd say that they'd be more electable on the voting table than Houston would be. Really the only people that have ever boasted about Houston here over the years are mainly houstonians. But in reality, it just falls more inline with the likes of Minneapolis, Philadelphia & Baltimore. Nice cities on their own merit, but Olympic caliber is pushing it a lot. Heck, even Boston was pushing the envelope, & they still stack higher than any of the ones I just mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Idk, man. I keep on getting those Sound Transit ads on my phone whenever I'm on the forums.

Seattle has one light rail line and a commuter rail line. That's hardly a functioning metro system.

I think cities like Budapest, Seattle, etc should aim lower. The aquatics championships are a great fit for Budapest. Seattle could be the first American city to host those if it rebuilt the sporting venues at Seattle Center (and there's already interested private funding for some of that) and built a second light rail line.

Anyway enough about Seattle. My point is that there are lots of events American cities can spend their money on. For the average American the Super Bowl has a higher profile than any event other than the Olympics and is comparatively cheap.

For another USA bid to be viable it has to be one of the big 3 (LA, New York or Chicago) and for either Chicago or New York there needs to be long term planning and cooperation among politicians, developers and sports teams. Long term isn't possible at this point for 2024, so it's Los Angeles or bust for the USOC.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would casino named stadia be okay with the IOC's policy and all? Like, the new arena being built in LV has both AEG and MGM in the name alone, so idk.

They will rename them temporarily - like the O2 Arena in London was renamed 'North Greenwich Arena' for the 2012 Games and HiSense/Vodafone Arena in Melbourne was renamed 'Melbourne Multi Purpose Venue' (how glam!) for the 2006 Comm. Games.

So the new arena behind NYNY/Monte Carlo can be renamed Goodman Arena after the mayor/s. MGM Grand Arena is also known as the Garden Arena - so stick with that. The Colosseum is fine. Mandalay Bay Events Center can just drop the MB. The new arena the convention centre folk are considering building up the north end can be the Silver Arena or Paradise Arena... It will only be a temporary name change for an 8 week period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a long shot, there's probably little to absolute 0 political interest, the place is overcrowded, etc etc. But New York City is THE American city that captures the world's imagination, specially after the (still recent) Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City games.

NYC can push the most authentic international narrative around a bid and they better explore it very soon because Toronto has pulled that same card surprisingly well last month and they can win a olympic bid with it before New York decides on bidding again (if they ever do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ It is. Except I don't think NYC is interested at this time to put on something that is being dictated to them. The IOC has to accept the fact that not all cities are willing to dance to their tune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston - I'm a bit biased as I've lived in Texas for over 30 years. Houston's problem isn't it being a second-tier city. Houston is set to pass Chicago as the third largest city in the U.S. by 2020. Houston's problem is the weather. Texas summers on the coast are not only hot but very humid. The other problem a potential Houston bid would face is the all-cumbersome stadium issue. The Astrodome faces demolition after taxpayers rejected funds to convert it into an exhibition hall and hotel. The University of Houston just opened a 50,000 seat stadium last fall. Houston's 2016 plans called for enlarging the Carl Lewis Track and Field complex from 5,000 to 80,000 which is ridiculous and not feasible. I'd prefer a Dallas bid (again I'm biased even more so because I grew up here) because a bid could be worked into the Trinity River redevelopment in addition to existing venues including AT&T Stadium aka JerryWorld. While Dallas never released a full plan, indications were that a Dallas bid would've used the Cotton Bowl as the athletics stadium and using a platform track the same way Glasgow did for the CWGs.

Las Vegas - Casino naming rights wouldn't be an issue. UNLV does need a new stadium as already mentioned and it's only a matter of time before the city gets a new sports arena, especially if Las Vegas is successful in luring an NHL franchise. The big problem I see with Las Vegas, in addition to the summer heat, is transportation. The Las Vegas Strip is like a parking lot no matter what time of day. Las Vegas would need a light rail or a subway system. That's been discussed but the issue is getting taxpayers to fund it. Right now, the only form of mass transit outside the city bus system is the Las Vegas Monorail which only goes around the strip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston - I'm a bit biased as I've lived in Texas for over 30 years. Houston's problem isn't it being a second-tier city. Houston is set to pass Chicago as the third largest city in the U.S. by 2020. Houston's problem is the weather. Texas summers on the coast are not only hot but very humid. The other problem a potential Houston bid would face is the all-cumbersome stadium issue. The Astrodome faces demolition after taxpayers rejected funds to convert it into an exhibition hall and hotel. The University of Houston just opened a 50,000 seat stadium last fall. Houston's 2016 plans called for enlarging the Carl Lewis Track and Field complex from 5,000 to 80,000 which is ridiculous and not feasible. I'd prefer a Dallas bid (again I'm biased even more so because I grew up here) because a bid could be worked into the Trinity River redevelopment in addition to existing venues including AT&T Stadium aka JerryWorld. While Dallas never released a full plan, indications were that a Dallas bid would've used the Cotton Bowl as the athletics stadium and using a platform track the same way Glasgow did for the CWGs.

Yea I don't think Dallas would ever work considering the major obstacles they faced which was a really spread out venue plan and lack of a decent public transportation plan. The bid would have heavily relied on visitors finding their own transportation to and from the venues. And I remember reading that they wanted to co-host with Houston, or they wanted to dump some of the events in the Houston area so they wouldn't have to deal with them. That's not a great plan. Plus the weather isn't all that better in Dallas, and even has hotter averages than Houston. They do have lower humidity and are dryer than Houston during the summer.

And odd that Houston didn't revisit their plan to convert the Astrodome into a track and field stadium for 2016. It still could work today, although not sure if that's a decision that the residents of Houston would have to vote for if it's just a temporary conversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miami

It may not be the largest USA city but it is one which has that international name recognition. Major tourist destination and cruise ship terminal so hotel rooms shouldn't be a problem. Plenty of sporting arenas. Possible tenant for an Olympic Stadium if designed properly in the U of Miami Hurricanes.

Undoubtedly there are multiple reasons why Miami might not be a suitable location, but with stadia stretching from Fort Lauderdale down the coast, water transport might be a decent way of temporarily overcoming infrastructure issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miami

It may not be the largest USA city but it is one which has that international name recognition. Major tourist destination and cruise ship terminal so hotel rooms shouldn't be a problem. Plenty of sporting arenas. Possible tenant for an Olympic Stadium if designed properly in the U of Miami Hurricanes.

Undoubtedly there are multiple reasons why Miami might not be a suitable location, but with stadia stretching from Fort Lauderdale down the coast, water transport might be a decent way of temporarily overcoming infrastructure issues?

Miami

It may not be the largest USA city but it is one which has that international name recognition. Major tourist destination and cruise ship terminal so hotel rooms shouldn't be a problem. Plenty of sporting arenas. Possible tenant for an Olympic Stadium if designed properly in the U of Miami Hurricanes.

Undoubtedly there are multiple reasons why Miami might not be a suitable location, but with stadia stretching from Fort Lauderdale down the coast, water transport might be a decent way of temporarily overcoming infrastructure issues?

Funny thing is I was just in Miami on vacation last week and got to talking about this with some family members. The positive is as you mentioned a viable tenant for an Olympic Stadium in the Miami Hurricanes who desperately want to get out of Sun Life Stadium. Among potential venues, the Miami-Dade-Ft. Lauderdale area has two of the more problematic venues already in place, the Crandon Park Tennis Center, and two state-of-the-art equestrian centers that would need little to no upgrades - the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center and the Ronald Reagan Equestrian Center which is in Tropical Park in the heart of Miami not to mention you have a metropolitan area that is used to dealing with large crowds. The biggest obstacle, outside of weather, is transportation. I don't think the water transport idea would be feasible. Moscow proposed something similar in their 2012 bid and the IOC shunned it. The Miami Metro has two lines and goes to the airport but traffic is a nightmare if you're anywhere near South Beach or Miami Beach in the summer months. The other problem is local politics. Zoning laws are very complicated and many construction projects (see David Beckham's proposed stadium for an MLS team) get bogged down in the city council.

Re Astrodome. Taxpayers rejected a $217 million plan to convert it into exhibition space last November so it's really just a matter of time before the wrecking ball comes down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston - I'm a bit biased as I've lived in Texas for over 30 years. Houston's problem isn't it being a second-tier city. Houston is set to pass Chicago as the third largest city in the U.S. by 2020.

Not that it really matters in the context that this is being discussed here, but you're saying that Houston is going to grow as big in size as the city of Boston within the next five years? Yeah, I find that highly doubtful. Maybe within the next ten to fifteen years maybe, but that's beside the point anyway, since how many people actually live in Houston proper is not really the issue.

It is in fact that Houston, even if It does grow quite significantly in population within the next decade, the perception will still remain that Houston still will be a second-tier city no matter how you look at it. The black-&-white numbers aren't the answer, it's the perception (which is what matter most to those fastidious IOC members anyway).

Just look at San Francisco, less than half the size of Houston city-proper wise, & globally S.F. Is considered far & above Houston in virtually every category, including as a terrific setting for an Olympics (if they can every get their act together, that is), & why the USOC still had S.F. in the running for 2012 & 2016 while telling Houston (& Philadelphia) to pack it up & go home. So that major problem for Houston isn't going to change simply because it's population has grown.

Houston's problem is the weather. Texas summers on the coast are not only hot but very humid.

Well, not according to our Olympic weather 'expert' in the last page. Their answer in short is, "if Atlanta can do it with its hot & humid weather, than so can Houston". Another thing I would add to that though, is the potential for tropical storms in Houston during the Games-time window.

I'd prefer a Dallas bid (again I'm biased even more so because I grew up here) because a bid could be worked into the Trinity River redevelopment in addition to existing venues including AT&T Stadium aka JerryWorld. While Dallas never released a full plan, indications were that a Dallas bid would've used the Cotton Bowl as the athletics stadium and using a platform track the same way Glasgow did for the CWGs.

This I agree with. But even here, the USOC still found issue with a Dallas bid for 2024. Before they announced their initial 2024 domestic short-list, many thought that Dallas would be one of the U.S. finalists, due to their initial, seemingly technical strength & Texan financial means. But even in this case, it still wasn't enough & the USOC still went with a smaller city, in comparison, in the end. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×