Jump to content

2028 US City Options


LDM
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

So yes, you're right that they have a feel from the other cities, but things can change in 4 years and unless there is a deal in place that says LA is automatically the 2028 candidate (which there very well might be), other cities probably should get at least a brief look. 

Yeah, sure, things can change in four years time. But again, I don't see things changing that much in places like Chicago & San Fran. There's too much red tape & opposition in these cities, not to mention that both of them would also have the major issue of where to put that damn Olympic stadium at.

If in eight years Chicago still wasn't interested again, then I don't see how another four years (& technically, it would be just one more year from now if the USOC finds itself with a 2024 loss) is going to change anything of significance, especially when the city's challenges have gotten greater since the last time they bid. And no matter how many times the USOC can take a 'brief look', isn't going to 'change' that. 

As far as New York (& Philly), that could go either way, maybe. I asked you earlier to enlighten us on it, since you've cited many times before that the city's 2012 run was a "one & done" shot & that the city has "moved on". Is that still your view on it, even within the next year? If so, then I don't see what else the USOC can look at in any of these other four cities in the short-term (if need be). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

The only realistic cities the USOC could look into would be LA, NYC, Chicago, Philly, Houston, or Dallas, maybe Miami too, but this is about it.

i'd like to see miami host before it sinks into the sea, but it's beyond not worth it. maybe if they put together some agenda 2020 plan using half of florida they might be able to get something going, but the only way a bid like that would be competitive is if the IOC was desperate for non-asian bids, which is hardly an unthinkable scenario to be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's another handful of U.S. cities that could potentially pull it off, but they lack, to severely lack, in the international flair dept, to be competitive enough in the international arena. And the USOC has repeatedly shown that they have no interest in such cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in 2028 our biggest competitor bar africa will be toronto.

i'm not saying we should phone it in because toronto is competitive, but, i mean, suddenly seattle and philadelphia don't look quite so ridiculous as they would have in, say, 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Africa has said that they'll stay away until the 2032 race. They wanna get through the 2022 commonwealth games first. So we probably wouldn't need to worry about them. 

I think Seattle would have a bit more international cache than Philadelphia, but Seattle is one of those cities, along with Boston, that what is needed to host the Games does not justify the effort & great cost in the end. Plus, Seattle is also another one of those NIMBY cities.  

Los Angeles would fair just as well against Toronto, I'd say. Plus, I would just LUV to read the Flame Wars here between Truff & Co, & the contentious Ontarians if that were the case! Since I wouldn't care either way then! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

The only realistic cities the USOC could look into would be LA, NYC, Chicago, Philly, Houston, or Dallas, maybe Miami too, but this is about it.

 

Miami is disqualified due to hurricane season

Houston has nothing going for it that would make it appealing as an Olympic host

The only reasons I'd give Dallas a > 0% chance are (1) the Cotton Bowl, (2) rich Texans with big ideas

I don't get the for Philly, but it probably has a better than 0% chance. 

I'd put DC ahead of any of those cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main problems with presenting DC, is that as the seat of our federal government, it'd very likely be too polarizing as a candidate within the broader IOC membership. which would neutralize any pros the city could have going for it.

Not to mention, the times DC has presented plans, they were way too spread out. They would need to make it a bit more centralized. The high humidity there in the summer is also a factor.

Bottom line, all of these second-tier U.S. cities are virtually non factors, unless of course the international competition was to be Doha-hah, Baku-koo, Havana, Leipzig, Bari, Adelaide & Kazan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, FYI said:

Not to mention, the times DC has presented plans, they were way too spread out. They would need to make it a bit more centralized. The high humidity there in the summer is also a factor.

Their 2024 plan was more compact than Boston and primarily within actual DC. 

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

Houston has nothing going for it that would make it appealing as an Olympic host

It has a lot more than Atlanta ever did. It's our fourth largest city, has the largest museum district next to DC, largest theater scene next to New York, and more fortune 500 companies than any other city next to New York. Not to mention, a public that would embrace it and private sector that would be willing to fund it. That's more than any other city you mentioned.

And as Krow said. 2028 will be a showdown of North American host cities. Hell, the US could probably throw up Atlanta again and win. 

So honestly, why not Houston? Especially if we need host cities that are willing to fund it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

Their 2024 plan was more compact than Boston and primarily within actual DC. 

It has a lot more than Atlanta ever did. It's our fourth largest city, has the largest museum district next to DC, largest theater scene next to New York, and more fortune 500 companies than any other city next to New York. Not to mention, a public that would embrace it and private sector that would be willing to fund it. That's more than any other city you mentioned.

And as Krow said. 2028 will be a showdown of North American host cities. Hell, the US could probably throw up Atlanta again and win. 

So honestly, why not Houston? Especially if we need host cities that are willing to fund it. 

As I said, Houston has nothing going for it that would appeal to IOC voters. It's only the 4th largest city if you go by meaningless city limits. As a metro area, it's 9th. Size of museum district? Who cares. Has anyone for oversees ever said, "Let's go to Houston for their museums?" Ditto theater. Ditto fortune 500 company headquarters. Quality matters, not "size of district." 

As for the public that would embrace it and willing to fund it... says who? Have they ever put themselves forward? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If LA doesn't get 2024 and South Africa doesn't bid until 2032, 2028 will be the perfect time for North America to host. Perhaps that will encourage more major cities in the US to bid, as they would have the certainty that the one chosen by the USOC will be the clear favourite to win. A domestic race with New York, Los Angeles and Chicago would be very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, FYI said:

As far as New York (& Philly), that could go either way, maybe. I asked you earlier to enlighten us on it, since you've cited many times before that the city's 2012 run was a "one & done" shot & that the city has "moved on". Is that still your view on it, even within the next year? If so, then I don't see what else the USOC can look at in any of these other four cities in the short-term (if need be).

It is still my view with the caveat that there's a very unpopular mayor in office right now.  If he's out of the picture and someone with a new vision for development is in place, that could change things, although I'm certainly not counting on it.

14 hours ago, FYI said:

One of the main problems with presenting DC, is that as the seat of our federal government, it'd very likely be too polarizing as a candidate within the broader IOC membership. which would neutralize any pros the city could have going for it.

DC's other issue is how it's governed and administrated.  Very easy for any plans for an Olympics there to get shot down.  That makes it a tough sell in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

It has a lot more than Atlanta ever did. It's our fourth largest city, has the largest museum district next to DC, largest theater scene next to New York, and more fortune 500 companies than any other city next to New York. Not to mention, a public that would embrace it and private sector that would be willing to fund it. That's more than any other city you mentioned.

And as Krow said. 2028 will be a showdown of North American host cities. Hell, the US could probably throw up Atlanta again and win. 

So honestly, why not Houston? Especially if we need host cities that are willing to fund it. 

Oy.  Atlanta should not be the baseline for "least acceptable potential host city" and any city above that line deserves a look.  The question shouldn't be "Why not Houston," it needs to be "Why Houston?"  Because of their theaters and museums?  No one outside the United States (or probably Houston, for that matter) thinks of them that way, and no, this is not an opportunity to show themselves off to the world.

Regardless of who else is in the running for 2028, the USOC needs to put their absolute best foot forward.  They wound up with Atlanta for 1996 because it was only second and third tier cities offering themselves up.  They can't count on that this time.  That's why I said earlier.. if LA is interested, that's the baseline who for belongs in the conversation.  Not Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Athan said:

If LA doesn't get 2024 and South Africa doesn't bid until 2032, 2028 will be the perfect time for North America to host. Perhaps that will encourage more major cities in the US to bid, as they would have the certainty that the one chosen by the USOC will be the clear favourite to win. A domestic race with New York, Los Angeles and Chicago would be very interesting.

We just had a domestic race.  We may or may not have another one.  If the big boys like NYC or Chicago show interest, that's one thing, and then yes, the USOC would take notice.  But I wouldn't count on that happening.  I don't doubt the USOC is going to try to solicit a bid from those cities, but if they're not interested, that's the end of it.  Like I said to bernham, the opportunity for a US city to win is not necessarily an impetus for lesser cities to come out of the woodwork and make a case to be the USOC's host city.  If they don't measure up, they don't belong in the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Like I said to bernham, the opportunity for a US city to win is not necessarily an impetus for lesser cities to come out of the woodwork and make a case to be the USOC's host city.  If they don't measure up, they don't belong in the conversation.

Yeah, cuz then you'll have the "why not Minneapolis, why not Indianapolis, why not Charlotte, why not Nashville, why not Cleveland, why not Syracuse, why not El Paso, why not Tulsa, why not OKC, why not Athens, GA & why not Paris, TX" crowds! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, many more U.S. cities submitted interest to the USOC for the 1996 Olympics (14 to be exact). Atlanta & Minneapolis were just the "final two" after the USOC had determined that they presented "the strongest" plans. 

The others were; San Fran, DC, Miami, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Honolulu, Cleveland, Columbus, Nashville & Indianapolis. 

What's interesting about that list, is that not all of those are "second & third-tier cities". You got San Fran & DC for starters. But I can imagine why the USOC may have wanted to stay away from San Fran at the time (& to a lesser extent, San Diego). Having a California city as a candidate after another California city had just finished hosting the previous Summer Olympics was probably too much to ask for. 

The other surprising ones that got overlooked (at the time) in favor of Atlanta & Minneapolis, are Miami, Dallas & Houston. If the big Texas cities couldn't beat the likes of Atlanta & Minneapolis ("big museum/theater" districts or not), then they have no chances at all when even bigger players come out to play. Back then, was probably Dallas' & Houston's only good shot. And (unlikely) Atlanta took it from them. The other cities are obvious why they got the heave-ho right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FYI said:

Actually, many more U.S. cities submitted interest to the USOC for the 1996 Olympics (14 to be exact). Atlanta & Minneapolis were just the "final two" after the USOC had determined that they presented "the strongest" plans. 

The others were; San Fran, DC, Miami, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Honolulu, Cleveland, Columbus, Nashville & Indianapolis. 

What's interesting about that list, is that not all of those are "second & third-tier cities". You got San Fran & DC for starters. But I can imagine why the USOC may have wanted to stay away from San Fran at the time (& to a lesser extent, San Diego). Having a California city as a candidate after another California city had just finished hosting the previous Summer Olympics was probably too much to ask for. 

The other surprising ones that got overlooked (at the time) in favor of Atlanta & Minneapolis, are Miami, Dallas & Houston. If the big Texas cities couldn't beat the likes of Atlanta & Minneapolis ("big museum/theater" districts or not), then they have no chances at all when even bigger players come out to play. Back then, was probably Dallas' & Houston's only good shot. And (unlikely) Atlanta took it from them. The other cities are obvious why they got the heave-ho right away.

This is also a few short years after the oil bust. The Texas economy looked less than sound. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, the options for a U.S. bid in 2028 are incredibly limited. Chicago and New York are out due to the stadium issue. Washington's biggest problem would be security. As a lifelong Texan I'm a bit partial to either Houston or Dallas. Houston and Dallas both have major issues with public transport and there's a reluctance right now in the Republican dominated state to spend more money on it. One thing Dallas would have is the ability to use the Cotton Bowl as the athletics stadium via the use of a platform track. It's similar in structure to the L.A. Coliseum. Houston also would have a problem with what to do with an athletics stadium afterwards. The only possible use I could think of would be one for Rice University to replace aging Rice Stadium, however, the Rice Owls rarely draw more than 20,000 per football game. Frankly when it comes down to it, it's Los Angeles or bust for 2028 and I say that based on the amount of existing infrastructure that's already in place, most important of which is the Coliseum. They don't need to build a new stadium for athletics and worry about what type of legacy it will leave afterwards.

Miami - Not likely but I think it would be a bit more practical than one might think, though it would never get chosen over the likes of Los Angeles. One, they have a need for a stadium, one for the Miami Hurricanes, who now play the the stadium used by the Dolphins which is a good bit of ways from the campus. Facilities wise, they have much in place already (Florida International University, University of Miami, the BB&T Center, American Airlines Arena, Marlins Park, Miami Beach Convention Center, Crandall Park, Tropical Park, and the soon-to-be complete MIami Worldcenter) Weather is a factor but no so much because of hurricanes but because of the rainy season. Even then, having been to Miami multiple times, the two biggest drawbacks IMO are traffic congestion (getting to South Beach from the downtown area is a nightmare), and local politics (it's complicated with practically each small town neighborhood surrounding Miami wanting a say). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if LA 2024 can't pass their anti-american bias, we should be more sparing. Sit out 2028 try for 32, 36, or maybe even wait for 40. I think LA has best the city layout for this type of thing. I would hope that any bid would be acceptable by the residents of the city, so looking for more spread out cities, where it wouldn't cause that much disturbance to most people, Houston, Phoenix, Minneapolis is pretty spread out I think. Chicago somewhere in the middle, though SF is really compact and I think it would cause a huge disruption to people, same with NY although I think NY is so big already it could absorb it and people wouldn't be too disturbed by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GoNutz said:

I think if LA 2024 can't pass their anti-american bias, we should be more sparing. Sit out 2028 try for 32, 36, or maybe even wait for 40. I think LA has best the city layout for this type of thing. I would hope that any bid would be acceptable by the residents of the city, so looking for more spread out cities, where it wouldn't cause that much disturbance to most people, Houston, Phoenix, Minneapolis is pretty spread out I think. Chicago somewhere in the middle, though SF is really compact and I think it would cause a huge disruption to people, same with NY although I think NY is so big already it could absorb it and people wouldn't be too disturbed by it.

What's the purpose in waiting an extra 4 years (or more)?  Are you hoping the supposed anti-American bias (which is not a thing, IMO, as it relates to bidding) will be lesser then?  If LA loses 2024, go hard after 2028.  No one knows what the future holds, but a cycle coming off a European host, with South Africa biding their time until 2032, sets up quite nicely for a US win.  Take advantage of that rather than hoping the conditions will be better down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...