Jump to content
baron-pierreIV

Amazon's Search for a 2nd HQTRs

Recommended Posts

Since we won't be guessing Olympic cites, nor expos cites, for long; , then how about this one?    Guessing and discussing which US city Jeff Bezos will pick as his company's 2nd headquarters??

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/technology/amazon-headquarters-north-america.html

I think for my money, it's going to be down to: Austin, Atlanta, maybe Nashville or Knoxville.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the IOC just misses those good old days. When cities were just tripping over themselves (like they're doing here for Amazon) to host their big spectacle. But like the Olympics, it may not be all so rosey for the city that finally gets the second HQ's.

Seattle officials want the second HQ's there, too (which is odd. And which Amazon won't pick anyway, cuz they'll want I'm sure another geographical location far away from their original one - just like the Olympics). But the people there don't want a second HQ's (sounds like a familiar parallel). They barely want the one that's there: citing sky-rocketing housing prices & major congestion as downfalls from having Amazon there.

And Amazon would prefer a city that's already well established anyway, with major universities (to easily recruit new employees from) & mass transit & culture (hmmm, again, sounds just like the Olympics). So all that means that it'll most likely be one of the major cities of the Midwest or East Coast. 

Perhaps the IOC should team up with Amazon to prop up nostalgic interest again. And include in the fine print that whichever city winds up getting the second Amazon HQ's also HAS to host the  Olympics! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the craziest proposals including Calgary changing its name.   So if what is Calgary today is picked as (unlikely) as amazon's HQ2, and is picked as the 2026 WOG host, then it might be Calmazon 2026 or Amalgary 2026!  LOL!! 

http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-headquarters-city-proposals-hq2-2017-10 

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Calgary put in an interesting bid. Would be nice. Could use the work. In the meantime, they did announce we are getting an Amazon Customer Fulfillment Centre up in Balzac close to Cross Iron Mills Mall, which is opening fall 2018. The warehouse jobs are a bit low pay but benefits from day 1 which is nice. I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for a managerial role. My educational background is better suited to HQ2 though. I read the shortlist is supposed to be revealed 6 weeks after the bid closed, so sometime in the first half of December.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 12:02 PM, SkiFreak said:

Yeah, Calgary put in an interesting bid. Would be nice. Could use the work. In the meantime, they did announce we are getting an Amazon Customer Fulfillment Centre up in Balzac close to Cross Iron Mills Mall, which is opening fall 2018. The warehouse jobs are a bit low pay but benefits from day 1 which is nice. I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for a managerial role. My educational background is better suited to HQ2 though. I read the shortlist is supposed to be revealed 6 weeks after the bid closed, so sometime in the first half of December.

I'm thinking it's going to be Atlanta.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe - but I think that Georgia is too conservative, with shaky (& sometimes corrupt) politics, for a progressive & relatively scandal-free company like Amazon. They're also from the liberal Pacific Northwest (& more specifically, Seattle), so I believe that they're gonna want to find another city with similar positions & goals.

Not to mention, that Atlanta's transit system pales in comparion with anything any major Midwest or East Coast cities have to offer. So with all that, I don't see the peach capital ranking as high on the list as some in the media make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortlist was supposed to be revealed 6 weeks after the closing date, so, I think that works out to being next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone happen to know when the shortlist will be revealed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the floods killed Houston's chance of being on the shortlist. Oh well I don't see Austin or Dallas moving forward to another round because they have some of the worst traffic and their mass transit system is some of the worst as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is already settled. I believe the pundits who surmised that Amazon already has a “general” metro in mind, but the bidding war will sweeten whatever incentives...

...that metro Washington can offer it. 

 

That’s to say the people who hacked Amazon and noticed a lot of inquiries being made about Arlington County VA leaked the info and all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Yeah, I also think the MoCo/DC bid looks the strongest. Looks like maybe a DC Summer Olympics won't be far off in the next 20 years?

It is politically impossible.

Philadelphia would be my choice for an Eastern USA Olympic city. They have the history of being America's first capital city during the revolutionary period without the modern political baggage of Washington. They even have a well-prepared Olympic Park area almost as large as Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9051162,-75.1669739,1386m/data=!3m1!1e3

Unfortunately Philadelphia would need a LOT of work to get it ready for the Olympics: a completely new metro system, most of the venues, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nacre said:

It is politically impossible.

Philadelphia would be my choice for an Eastern USA Olympic city. They have the history of being America's first capital city during the revolutionary period without the modern political baggage of Washington. They even have a well-prepared Olympic Park area almost as large as Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9051162,-75.1669739,1386m/data=!3m1!1e3

Unfortunately Philadelphia would need a LOT of work to get it ready for the Olympics: a completely new metro system, most of the venues, etc.

Oh no, I'm 100% with you. I am not all too supportive of a DC Olympics, because after living there for so many years, I understand that that money could go to very many other things the city desperately needs more. I was just referencing the hype they think the Amazon move would bring them ,plus the defeat for 2024/2028 Olympics.

 

But I have always thought Orlando and Philadelphia would make amazing Summer Olympics hosts, I hope Philadelphia could use a Barcelona or Atlanta approach and use their Olympics as an urban renewal project, as Philly has many of the venues, just not the transportation like you said. Orlando lacks a little bit of both but to me could easily become a Summer Olympics city. Not Washington. San Francisco, Boston and Seattle are also on my radar for eventual Summer bids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orlando?! That falls into the same wacky category as Vegas hosting a Summer Olympics. Such tourist traps (not too mention so fricken hot & humid in the summer time) & non-cultured (unless one thinks that casinos & Disney are the cats meow). Certainly not the best of what the U.S. has to offer up. 

And Boston? Did you miss the whole (USOC) fiasco when the citizens of Bean Town resoundingly said NO to their 2024 Olympic bid (& that’s why we wound up with L.A. as the consolation bidder)? So I don’t see that eventually happening anytime soon.

Same thing with San Fran & Seattle. Lots of NIMBY’s those two cities. So neither wouldn’t fair much better as far as civil support for a bid goes. I think we’ve gotten as good as we’re gonna get for a while with L.A. 2028, as far as a Summer Olympics goes in this country. And probably won’t have to worry/think about another one ‘til probably the 2040’s for the next Summer Games here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FYI said:

Orlando?! That falls into the same wacky category as Vegas hosting a Summer Olympics. Such tourist traps (not too mention so fricken hot & humid in the summer time) & non-cultured (unless one thinks that casinos & Disney are the cats meow). Certainly not the best of what the U.S. has to offer up. 

And Boston? Did you miss the whole (USOC) fiasco when the citizens of Bean Town resoundingly said NO to their 2024 Olympic bid (& that’s why we wound up with L.A. as the consolation bidder)? So I don’t see that eventually happening anytime soon.

Same thing with San Fran & Seattle. Lots of NIMBY’s those two cities. So neither wouldn’t fair much better as far as civil support for a bid goes. I think we’ve gotten as good as we’re gonna get for a while with L.A. 2028, as far as a Summer Olympics goes in this country. And probably won’t have to worry/think about another one ‘til probably the 2040’s for the next Summer Games here.

An Orlando Olympics is actually not as far-fetched as you may think, they were in contention for 2024 after all, and were considering a 2028 exploration as well.The city 100% has the needed hotels and airports already in place, and with a refurbishment of Camping World (about 15k more temporary seats) and a renovation of ESPN Wide World of Sports, Orlando also has many venues in place.  They could also pull a Montreal 1976 approach and refurbish events post-Games into attractions like the BioDome, because they have the tourism.Orlando is also the 2nd fastest growing metro area in the USA (Second to Ft.Meyers), and ranks first in projected job growth (Forbes). This is huge when considering the future of the city, as it has made it clear that it doesn't want to be known solely for its theme parks, and what better way to do that than with an Olympics? Think back to Atlanta in 1996. Coca Cola gave a lot to the bid since it was in their hometown, and that was a huge draw for the IOC. Disney/ESPN would also likely give a large sum of money towards the Games, which would not only make it attractive to taxpayers who now don't have to pay so much, but ultimately for the IOC. Going off of a Sochi concept, the new facilities could be built/based with purpose for future events, so the new arenas could host future  events like NCAA National Championships or Olympic trials, etc, and Orlando certainly has the infrastructure to do so. And if not, money could be spent on infrastructure, because like Barcelona 1992, Orlando is still a major tourist city. Also, who said it had to be in the middle of summer? Sydney broke that rule. No reason Orlando can't stage a May, September, or even early October Olympics while still pleasing the correlating season to the majority of viewers/athletes. 

And about culture, there's a vast difference between Vegas and Orlando. Orlando is home to Disney, and while many, including myself, do not find loads of allure in the company, we cannot act like it is not a globally significant company and trademark of the USA. Imagine an Opening Ceremony segment full of references and characters from the famous movies, all directed by the Disney team. While it's not the Olympics theme I would personally go for, it is something the USA is known for globally. LA 1984 drew criticism for its large use of cowboys, as "that's not what all of America is", and so did Atlanta in 1996 for the use of a step team, chrome pickup trucks and cheerleaders, for the same reason. You honestly think Beijing 2008, London 2012 and Rio 2016 did a mass representation of their local city as a whole? Most opening ceremonies find a way to appease international stereotypes and images, while not offending those at home. I highly doubt those in England listen to the Beatles and watch Mr.Bean every day of their lives, but London 2012 surely made it seem that way. The Girl from Ipanema is over 50 years old, but during the Rio Opening Ceremony, those in attendance sang it like it was brand new. What I'm trying to say is is that Orlando has a unique culture, and while Disney obviously wouldn't do the entire OC, it would make logical sense, and would be understood around the world. Plus, look very good in the process.

I understand what happened to Boston, and why Seattle and San Fran didn't go far. That doesn't make them bad Olympic cities though. They could very well be amazing hosts, just lacked the support, and didn't compete against LA. Same goes for international cities like Oslo for 2022. Support from a country/city now shouldn't ultimately dictate the future of a city as a host. I do expect Boston to rise up again for a bid for any of the Games in 2040, and depending on who is in local office at the time/the vibe of the city, I also expect them to be successful, maybe even becoming the USOC pick. There is no doubt that LA is our best Olympic city, but as stated, Orlando, Boston and Philadelphia are also promising in their own ways. Limiting ourselves to just LA is very unfair to the rest of the country, as the entire country doesn't wear flip flops daily and go surfing. I hope once the idea of an Olympics is looked at in a positive light again, those cities step up and start exploring options. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

An Orlando Olympics is actually not as far-fetched as you may think, they were in contention for 2024 after all, and were considering a 2028 exploration as well.The city 100% has the needed hotels and airports already in place, 

They were actually in contention (if one wants to call it that, with Tampa), bcuz even though Orlando has many hotels & an  international airport, they still need additional venues in order to house all the sports, which Orlando by itself doesn’t have. And in the end, who did the USOC choose as their 2024 bidder? It wasn’t Orlando. I don’t even think that the USOC even looked at them seriously after L.A., SF, DC & Boston.

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Think back to Atlanta 1996. Coca Cola gave a lot to the bid since it was in their hometown, and that was a huge draw for the IOC. 

Actually, let’s not think back to Atlanta. Let’s not use an anomoly (which has been used on these boards countless times before) in order to justify Orlando. Coca Cola was merely one factor that played a role in Atlanta’s 1996 bid, but it wasn’t such a selling factor, either. Atlanta won 1996 due to a set of favorable circumstances somewhat similar to what gave China a Winter Olympics that they really had no business to get, at least not for 2022 anyway. 

Athens was just not ready for ‘96 (they were barely ready for 2004), & it’s not like Manchester & Belgrade were that viable & attractive, either. So unless a hypothetically set of favorable circumstances were to align again, Orlando is far-fetched. You also just named a string of other U.S. cities that would take preference in the first place over Orlando. If we wanna talk about a Florida city hosting, then that’d have to be Miami. It has the airports, the hotels, the venues, the palm trees & the cosmopolitan vibe to sell it off. But even there, the brutal humid summer (& rainy) weather is it’s major drawback.

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Also, who said it had to be in the middle of summer? Sydney broke that rule. No reason Orlando can't stage a May, September, or even early October Olympics while still pleasing the correlating season to the majority of viewers/athletes. 

The IOC, that’s who. In recent years, the IOC has stated that the Summer Olympics must be staged between July 15th & Aug 31st. So that rules out May, September & early October. I’m sure that NBC would also object after paying Billions to the IOC for the U.S. Television rights until 2032 to actually have the Summer Olympics in the ‘summer’. 

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

You honestly think Beijing 2008, London 2012 and Rio 2016 did a mass representation of their local city as a whole?

What’s the one major difference between those cities & Orlando, though? They’re all major, global cities/capitals representative of their respective country as a whole to the outside world. That’s what the IOC is mainly interested in when it comes to the Summer Olympics. A mega global image that they can attach themselves to & not the other way around. Hence why the next trio line-up is Tokyo 2020, Paris 2024 & L.A. 2028, & not Nagoya 2020, Lille 2024 or Pittsburgh 2028.

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

I understand what happened to Boston, and why Seattle and San Fran didn't go far. That doesn't make them bad Olympic cities though. They could very well be amazing hosts, just lacked the support, and didn't compete against L.A.

I didn’t say that they would make bad Olympic hosts. All I said is that their NIMBY nature makes them unlikely hosts, at least in the near-term.

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

There is no doubt that LA is our best Olympic city, but as stated, Or——, Boston and Philadelphia are also promising in their own ways. Limiting ourselves to just LA is very unfair to the rest of the country, as the entire country doesn't wear flip flops daily and go surfing. I hope once the idea of an Olympics is looked at in a positive light again, those cities step up and start exploring options.

And there lays the rub. Of course any of those cities (minus the ‘O’ one) would be promising in their own way. But that’s easier said than done. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t have L.A. hosting for a third time come 2028. And if the Olympics keep going on the trend of getting larger & larger (not to mention the extraordinary & necessary cost of security for the Games now) then I don’t see how they’re going to be viewed in a positive light again anytime soon. At best at the moment, the Olympics are viewed as a big PITA to many host cities nowadays. And unless that changes, with the IOC cutting down on the Games somewhat, or at the very least, keep them from getting any more larger, potential host cities (at least in democratic countries) will continue to look down upon them in a negative light & not worth the excessive bother & hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

An Orlando Olympics is actually not as far-fetched as you may think

Yes it is.  The fact you're suggesting they "pull a Montreal 1976" is probably not a good thing.

Forget the anomaly argument that FYI brought up, which I happen to agree that it needs to stop happening here.  There's a difference between a city like Orlando having the technical capabilities to host an Olympics (and/or be able to put a package together that could be put forward) and the chances of them actually being selected by the USOC as their candidate.  The former is up for debate that it could be within reason.  The latter is not.  You say limiting ourselves to LA is unfair.  Well, no one said this was a fair process.  The USOC is always going to put forward their best available candidate.  It is virtually impossible to even imagine a scenario where that candidate is Orlando.  There's a reason the most obvious city is the one that was awarded an Olympics, and not one of the others that's merely "promising in their own ways."  We need to get out of this mindset where large cities like a New York or a Chicago or a San Francisco are lining up for an opportunity to host an Olympics and excited about the prospect of doing so.  And if all of us here are not destined to experience another Summer Olympics on U.S. soil in our lifetimes in a city other than Los Angeles, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

San Francisco, Boston and Seattle are also on my radar for eventual Summer bids.

All three of these cities are in coastal areas with limited land. That makes it both economically and politically difficult for them to host the Olympics even if the people there actually wished to. And they do not.

The USA has Los Angeles and Salt Lake City for the Olympics. I don't think the rest of the world either needs or wants us to host more than once every few decades, in any case. Los Angeles and Salt Lake City are enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes it is.  The fact you're suggesting they "pull a Montreal 1976" is probably not a good thing.

Forget the anomaly argument that FYI brought up, which I happen to agree that it needs to stop happening here.  There's a difference between a city like Orlando having the technical capabilities to host an Olympics (and/or be able to put a package together that could be put forward) and the chances of them actually being selected by the USOC as their candidate.  The former is up for debate that it could be within reason.  The latter is not.  You say limiting ourselves to LA is unfair.  Well, no one said this was a fair process.  The USOC is always going to put forward their best available candidate.  It is virtually impossible to even imagine a scenario where that candidate is Orlando.  There's a reason the most obvious city is the one that was awarded an Olympics, and not one of the others that's merely "promising in their own ways."  We need to get out of this mindset where large cities like a New York or a Chicago or a San Francisco are lining up for an opportunity to host an Olympics and excited about the prospect of doing so.  And if all of us here are not destined to experience another Summer Olympics on U.S. soil in our lifetimes in a city other than Los Angeles, so be it.

That's somewhat contradictory. It seems to me like you're saying that Orlando does not ever have a shot at a USOC bid, but at the same time, has the technical capabilities to host and could put a bid together? What else would it need? Obviously it would need a lot, such as national approval, a wondrous budget, and a low pool for the USOC to choose from, but if Orlando has the technical capabilities, could possibly put a package together, and has public support, the only thing standing in between them and the IOC is the USOC. Is my argument based in hypothetical statements, of course. I completely understand why Orlando has a very slim to none chance of hosting a Summer Olympics. But the fact of the matter is, many US cities could muster up a reasonable bid and send it to the IOC. Given the state of the Olympics right now, I know the IOC would love anything coming out of the USA or a Western European nation, that's just the way the direction of the IOC is right now. After Beijing 2008, it was focused on awarding the Olympics to places that were either new or haven't been seen in a while on the Olympic stage, like Rio, Pyeongchang, and Tokyo. Take away Lake Placid 1980, and the US has ultimately pleased the IOC with each Games. Obviously, the Atlanta bomb and Salt Lake bribery didn't sit well and could be justifying reasons for our 26 year absence of hosting, but who picked up the Olympic movement after the terrible 70s? The US. Who is about to pick it up again? The US. Although they had no competition in 1984, the IOC soon realized things worked out in their favor, because they were quick to elect Atlanta for 1996 shortly after against Toronto, Manchester and Melbourne, and Salt Lake for 2002 shortly after that. The IOC has trust in the United States. Limiting ourselves to Los Angeles is definitely unfair to both the USA and the IOC. As stated, a city like Atlanta, with not much more than a massive airport, keen US civil rights history and good budget beat out historically-moved Athens, Calgary momentum-moved Toronto, and a strong Melbourne bid. Anything can happen when the conditions are right, ie the IOC is desperate for a good Olympics.

 

As for the process, you're right, it's unfair. We get stuck with cities like Rio de Janiero over cities like Chicago for the Olympics, which just proved bad for the longevity of the Olympics. If you honestly feel as though  cities like Beijing and Rio de Janiero are better suited as candidates for the Olympics solely for being the staple cities of their countries, over cities like Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco, I'll have to respectfully disagree. Especially in a time where the IOC knows they have to shape up the bid process and expectations of what a bid would/should/must have and do, I think it is okay to extend our minds past conventional bidding options and look into new ones, as the conventional ones have begun to prove unsuccessful in recent days and draw criticism. With these new measures set to reduce costs, Paris and LA are the best cities to show the world how to do the  Olympics right. But who will emerge after 2028? Do we want cities that already have a majority of venues readily available? Because many of those are going to be in the USA, and even more could be added with an Atlanta approach of a regional, more spread out bid, or Barcelona approach, with a whole urban renewal project, with the Games to culminate. While many of you think cities like Orlando (and I do too, again, my argument was based in hypotheticals before I get flamed) seem far-fetched as Olympics hosts, remember that once the Tokyo-Paris-LA wave is done, we are going to have a new set of cities to choose from for the 2030-2040 Games. Are you really telling me Cape Town would and should beat out Philadelphia? Cairo should beat out San Francisco? Kuala Lumpur should beat out Chicago? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

As stated, a city like Atlanta, with not much more than a massive airport, keen US civil rights history and good budget beat out historically-moved Athens, Calgary momentum-moved Toronto, and a strong Melbourne bid. Anything can happen when the conditions are right, ie the IOC is desperate for a good Olympics.

Again, this is a black-&-white comparison. Even the USOC wasn’t really expecting Atlanta to win. They were surprised when they did. Athens’ 1996 bid solely relied on it’s history with the Olympics to try & win the bid rather than trying to win with actual merit. The Greeks were very arrogant in their approach & thought that it was their “right” to host the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games (this mentality was starting to irritate the IOC towards the end of the ‘96 campaign). The bid was subpar, even according to the IOC evaluation. That’s why it lost to Atlanta. For 2004, Athens came back & instead touted their bid with viability & credibility (instead of historical right) & it paid off for them then. 

As for Toronto, the so-called Calgary momentum actually could’ve hurt the Canadian summer bid rather than helped, bcuz the 1996 vote was only two years after Calgary 1988. Not to mention, Toronto also could’ve suffered from the negativity of Montreal 1976, which was also partly responsible why many cities back then were starting to refrain from bidding for the Olympics in the first place. And as for Melbourne, their great distance from Europe & North America (at the time of the 1996 vote), was viewed more as a disadvantage than anything else. Plus, Melbourne was also a previous host to the 1956 Games, so that was also a disadvantage to them.

Atlanta also knew how to play their cards right. Lobbying whenever & whereever possible. Trying to court members from Africa in order to sell them on the progressive African American city. The IOC (as you mentioned with the U.S. “saving them” back in the 80’s with L.A.) was still riding high with the L.A. 1984 Games, too. Atlanta was promising a similar success but with an “East Coast Games”. Needless to say that didn’t exactly happen, & therefore left a bad aftertaste with many within the IOC. And not just the bomb, but also with some of their organizational & logistical troubles & their over-commercialism of the Games which made them feel like a cheap state fair than an international mega event that the Olympics actually are. 

Let’s also note that Atlanta, in order to get the domestic nod, only had to compete with Minneapolis & Nashville in order to get it. Not exactly a stellar line-up of U.S. cities to compete with. Put Atlanta in the field like L.A. & Boston had to compete with for the 2024 nod & Atlanta surely would’ve come up short.

And speaking of contradictory - how contradictory is it when you say that anything can happen if the “conditions are right, i.e. The IOC is ‘desperate’ for a good Olympics”. If we have to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to achieve that, then IDK how good of an Olympics that can actually be. That the IOC has to be in dire straights just so you can imagine that doesn’t sound like it’s worth the bother to begin with.

40 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Given the state of the Olympics right now, I know the IOC would love anything coming out of the USA or a Western European nation, that's just the way the direction of the IOC is right now.

As for the process, you're right, it's unfair. We get stuck with cities like Rio de Janiero over cities like Chicago for the Olympics, which just proved bad for the longevity of the Olympics. If you honestly feel as though  cities like Beijing and Rio de Janiero are better suited as candidates for the Olympics solely for being the staple cities of their countries, over cities like Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco, I'll have to respectfully disagree. 

Oh really? You think that the IOC would love a Tulsa, OK or a Leipzig simply bcuz it’s in the U.S. or Western Europe? Because that’s essentially what you’re saying.  They’d first make a call out to all the NOC’s before they settled for anything subpar, desperate or not.

And really, we got “stuck” with Rio 2016? As much as I would’ve loved (along with perhaps every other American) a Chicago 2016 Olympics, the IOC voted accordingly at the time back in 2009 what they felt was appropiate. Brazil was in the middle of a booming economy & projected to get even bigger by 2016. Rio also enjoyed good popular support for the bid back then, so the choice made sense. And like in hindsight with Munich, who knows what kind of headaches a Chicago Olympics could’ve brought forward. Let’s keep in mind that at the time of the 2016 campaign, Chicago towards the end only had 47% support accross the city. That’s a drastic drop from the 65% at the beginning of the endeavor. And many people were not happy at all with Mayor Daley when he wanted to put the city on the hook for any cost overuns that could’ve/would’ve occured. 

It’s also not a matter of selecting cities like Beijing & Rio solely bcuz they’re the staple cities of their respective countries. But to follow the mantra over in the PyeongChang threads when Tulsa was spewing his xenophobic diatribe last month about the lack of fervor for Winter sports in Asia - but the bigger picture here is that the Olympics belong to the world, & not just to a select few countries in North America & Western Europe. Brazil & China (particularly for 2008) were selected primarily bcuz they represented a large portion of humanity that had yet to directly experience the Olympic Movement in their part of the world. The Olympics only come around only once every four years. So that means that not every city in every country is going to get that experience. So therefore, when a country like the U.S. (which has hosted the most Olympic Games than any other) wants to bid, it’s important that they put their best foot forward to make a compelling case. Otherwise, why bother if are reasoning should be “well, the state the Olympics are in right now can mean that anything is possible & therefore we can just offer the IOC any city then”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NY Times reported it looks like the 2nd Hqtrs will be split between Long Island City, NY, and Crystal City are of Arlington, VA.   How odd that they would both be in the Snow Belt.   Surely thought it was going to be in Atlanta.  Oh well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of the country as a whole, it is a shame that they didn't pick a rust belt city.

We really have two separate economic problems in this country. The coasts have jobs but not enough housing to go around and the rust belt has few jobs but a massive housing surplus. I have a cousin who moved to Detroit and bought a big house for $50,000. A comparable house in LA (where she used to live) would cost about $1 million.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nacre said:

For the sake of the country as a whole, it is a shame that they didn't pick a rust belt city.

I think "Sun Belt" is the more appropriate term.  "Rust Belt" is actually the old, aging parts of the Midwest, with a lot of "steel-involved" industries which do rust over time, because of snow and the melting.  

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

×