I have been following the travels of the United States Olympic Organizing Committee as they tour the four finalist cities that are competing to be the US selection for 2012.

For those who don't know they are (in ABC order):

Houston
New York
San Francisco
Washington

From what is being said and written, all four supposedly have legimate shots. However, I wanted to get the ball rolling and see what y'all think...which city do you think should get it (and why)?

Please expound in whatever direction you feel appropriate.

i think that houston has the same problem dallas had with its failed bid. its a second rate city, and most people around the world probably havent heard of it. its bid from what i can tell is just as strong as anyone elses, its a real compact area with 3 air-conditioned domed stadiums. the new metro rail line is certainly a help, but the clogged freeways and horrendous air pollution are awful. as a texan i personally would like to see the games there but i dont think it will happen. o well

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: baseball_jock_16 ]

As a runner who has no intentions to still be racing come 2012, Houston is a definite no. Atlanta's temperatures were mild for summer, but Houston will be baking. And with Atlanta having won the '96 games, a Southern city stands no chance of getting a serious bid this soon.

San Francisco would be nice, but it's too windy and the weather is just overall too moody. Plus you have two time winner, LA, down the road. The IOC likes to spread the games around. I doubt that any West Coast city would receive any serious consideration by the IOC, and resultingly will not garner the support of the USOOC.

That leaves the Midwest and the Northeast, and since there are no Midwest finalist, the bid will go to Washington or New York.

I give the nod to New York because sentiment is on its side. Plus it has the hotels and infrastructure in place to handle the worlds largest sporting event.

Washington will not get it because nobody's constituents would benefit. Washington won't get it because there's practically nowhere within the beltway to build an Olympic stadium. Washington will not get it because it would be a security nightmare.

And let's face it, today's Olympic host has to bring something extra or unique to the table. Atlanta had its Southern charm and the fact that no Olympic games had been held in the South. Washington has its merits, but people do not want to come across the globe to see the history of the United States. They want to come and have fun and what better place to do that than in the city that never sleeps. New York gets the bid... if they still want it.

Zaac said everything I have throught about the US choices--and in a far more lucid manner than I would have managed, so I'll just say "ditto."

~Adam

If NY gets the bid, I hope sentiment doesn't enter into it, let us earn it. I'm sick of all the weird things people are coming up with- like having a joint session of Congress here. WHY? Prayers and funding are what will sustain us, I don't think we need 'gestures' like this. I don't think it does anything other than exploit that a few thousand people were killed while at work, or while doing their job. We're OK, we're New York.

I've always thought that the venue considerations is where a bid can succeed or falter. So here's my view on the venue plans for the four bids.

The basic needs are for a 75K+ stadium with a full track and three large scale arenas, one each for basketball, boxing and gymnastics, and large stadia for soccer and baseball.

The USOC decision will be made November 2nd - the IOC decision on the Olympiad itself will be in early 2005:

SAN FRANCISCO

It's more South Bay-Oakland Olympics. Athletics and Open/Close ceremonies at Junior University Stadium (JU also site of I assume new natatorium for swim/dive). Gymnastics at SJ Arena, Basketball at Oakland Arena, soccer at Cal Memorial and NetAssoc Coliseum, baseball at PacBell and (I'm surprised it's still standing) boxing at Cow Palace,

Good Factors: 80% of venues exist including the most expensive ones - also, climate is better in South Bay and East Bay than in The City.

Questionable: Transportation


HOUSTON

Old Astrodome to be remodled with track to host Athletics and ceremonies (will IOC allow indoor stadium)? Basketball at new Downtown Arena, baseball at MinuteMaid, Gymnastics at new 18K seat Arena near Reliant, Boxing at new hall in Reliant complex, Soccer at Rice U

Good: Some Venues already built

Questionable: Brutal humidity, $$$ for new venues, transportation, boxing hall only seats 9k, flabbergasting use of brand new Reliant Stadium as the BEACH VOLLEYBALL venue


WASHINGTON DC

New Olympic Stadium, temorary swim stadium (20k capacity), Basketball at MCI, soccer at FedEx and PSI, baseball at Camden Yards, boxing at DC Armory, gymnastics at new Baltimore Arena

Good: Baltimore gets new arena, pools will be moved to permanent sites (pools will be of the same "on top" construction use in Fukuoka World Championships last year)

Questionable: Construction costs, also, will John Ashcroft make athletes wear "loose. non-suggestive" uniforms??


New York City

New Olympic Stadium south of Javits Center. Basketball at CO Airlines Arena, swim/dive at new pools inside existing Astoria swim complex, gymnastics at the Garden, boxing at an aromoy in Harlem (medal matches at the Garden), Yanqui Stadium for baseball (no mention of Shea), Giants Stadium for soccer.

Good: Best existing transportation infrastructure (if they can keep the 59th Street Bridge from crumbling apart)

Questionable; Cheesy boxing plan. Need to pay for rebuild of lower Manhattan may drain funds - and what about those replacements for Yanqui and Shea Stadiums?

There is little doubt that Washington will get the USOC pick. It had the strongest bid, by far. And there aren't a lot of construction costs because most of the venues are already built or planned to be built. We are an extremely wealthy area with everything the committee could want, in a relatively short distance. We already have lots of transportation facilities (though the traffic does stink) to get from venue to venue.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that everybody wants to come to Washington, at some point.

PCC

I couldn't disagree more. Everybody in the United States may want to come to Washington, but internationally, New York is it. Washington can't even begin to compare.

I would actually like to see the games showcased in the DC area. I just feel like with the war on terrorism set to go on as high-profile for an infinite number of years, the security risk of having that many people in the seat of US power at one time would be a whole lot more than anyone in the DC area wants to deal with.

These host city bids were put together pre-911. The entire dynamic of choosing the US host city has changed. I just do not see any way that the US is going to risk the center of its legislative, judicial, and executive branches being put at a complete stand still. However, the fact that they are summer games and most of the politicians are elsewhere might help DC's case.

But the biggy is culture and culturally DC cannot compare with all the Big Apple has to offer.

Judging by what I have read, DC and SF are the front leaders.

Houston is not primarily because of the Atlanta effect. NY is not mostly because the finances and lack of space. While no one doubts that NYC could be on a fine show, and New Yorkers can do anything they put their mind to, their plan consists of a LOT of construction in downtown Manhattan, which really is hard to pull off. I mean, putting a 80K seat stadium on the West Side, near the Javits Center? How realistic is that? I do like NYC advantages, but I think their plan itself is the problem, not the city.

SF has a good plan, but their main drawback is that it is not really at SF plan. Many of their venues are in Oakland, Berkely, Palo Alto. Not much is actually in SF itself, which could be a detriment. Obviously, weather and international appeal are in its favor.

DC: Of course, I'm biased, and I live here, but the complaints listed above are just not accurate. The plan is very well thought out. Contrary to one comment, there are plenty of places inside the Beltway to build, both in the city and the inner suburbs. I'm not sure where you get that from.

And in response to the shutting down of the city for the event. Hello, any Washingtonian will tell you that DC shuts down in the summer anyway, so what's the big deal.

And given our tourism, yes, people from throughout the world DO want to visit here. Certainly more than Atlanta or Houston. And don't forget that we also have about 200 embassies here, so foreign dignitaries would most definitely want to come.

All that being said, I doubt if the IOC will pick and American city so soon after Atlanta and SLC, so this all seems for naught anyway.

I think the terrorism risk actually works to our favor in D.C. -- we, citizens, law enforcement, etc., are used to dealing with threats and mass demonstrations. We have always been a terrorist target and always will be -- the Olympics will add only increase that marginally. In D.C. everyday one might turn a street corner and run into hundreds of pro-Iraqi marchers; or have downtown traffic blocked off by Secret Service because the V.P.'s motorcade is passing by ...

One thing that does work against us internationally -- as stated in one of the articles mentioned below -- is that many people HATE Washington as THE symbol of the USA. (But then again tons of people hate NYC! ... and I've enver heard anyone who doesn't love S.F.)

In the meantime, The Post has had a good series of articles on each of the USOC visits to the potential host cities.

.. and dupontred -- you're absolutely right -- come here in August and you'll find nobody but visitors. Congress has left; lobbyists and lawyers have left; everyone's gone to Rehobeth or the Outer Banks!

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

If you haven't ever seen this website, check it out. Its a great forum on future bid cities:

Gamesbid website

I think the final 2 US cities will be DC and SF and of those 2, I give the nod to SF. Just my 2 cents.

Complementing the site above (thanks O) is the source site of the bids themselves, the US Olympic Committee site:

Go to either usoc.com or usoc.org, move your mouse over the box on top that says "The Games" , then click on the "bid cities" option that appears directly underneath.

Trivia quiz (don't peek): What US city other than LA and Atlanta have hosted an Olympiad, and when?

Bonus (Carol Merrill will give you lovely parting gifts): What popular food item was invented at that Olympiad?

DC Bucky...you can count me in as one who doesn't like San Francisco...and I am sure I am not the only one...

[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:

Trivia quiz (don't peek): What US city other than LA and Atlanta have hosted an Olympiad, and when?

Bonus (Carol Merrill will give you lovely parting gifts): What popular food item was invented at that Olympiad?

---

That would be St. Louis, 1904. Not sure about the food but I know Ive heard it before. Bubble gum?

Olympic - Ding Ding! Correctemundo - The third Olympiad in the modern era, held in conjunction with the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition (World's Fair). Trivia: The competitions at those Games were spread out over 4 1/2 months

You were on the right track for the food item. There are versions of the story with differing details, but essentially a Syrian immigrant from Norfolk VA named Abe Doumar went to the Fair and Olympics with a waffle machine of his own invention. He was selling on a hot day nect to an ice cream vendor, whose lack of enough ice was threatening the inventory. Abe had an inspiration - catch the beginning to soften ice cream in a rolled-up fresh waffle - and there you hade it - the ice cream cone

I discovered all this by happenstance maybe 8 years ago on my first trip to work with a client in Norfolk - a Doumars ice-cream-and sandwich place (with carhops like the Varsity in Atlanta) is still open and serving. Better still, the same machine is still in use (now burning propane rather than logs) and if you go there in the late morning you get to watch an old man make cones on the very machine - apparently the Smithsonian investigated and has validated the Doumar family's claim.....

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]

My biggest problem with DC is that we don't know how to throw a party. The politicians are too worried about their image back home to have good time (with the exception of the Louisiana delegation!!) Every celebration I've been to here has been too solemn, too patriotic, too heavy on speeches ... just plain boring. Examples:

The 2000 New Year Millenium -- thrown by the Fed. and D.C. gov't at the Lincoln Memorial. Politicians used the event to orate (they can't help themselves) -- the worst being future Sen. Clinton who went on-and-on. An initial display of fireworks went off at midnight -- then more speeches. Everyone went home -- at around 12:30 or so, suddenly the main fireworks display occurred -- everyone was either on their way home or already there.

The Smithsonian Folklife "Festival" -- festival my ass -- it's basically a Smithsonian museum in tents on the mall on hot July days.

The National Symphony concerts on the west lawn of the Capitol -- I'm not a big fan of pops concerts to begin with, but enuf already with Charles Durning and Ozzie what's-his-name reading from veterans' letters to the music of "Fanfare for a Common Man". The best talent we can get is Tony Danza?? And I love "Stars and Stripes Forever" - but I don't wanna hear it forever (it's like Lisa Simpson in the band competition episode)

OK some of the Inaugural Balls are fun -- I went to the MTV on for Clinton and the Midwest one for Bush II -- but they only happen every 4 years. The best events I've been too have been gay-oriented (thank god for us!) -- the High Heel drag race before Halloween and the Pride Parade.

I contrast this with Milwaukee (of all places -- doesn't even pretend to be a "world-class city") I was there a few weeks ago -- went to Summerfest on the lakefront -- at any given time there were six good live bands playing -- great foods, lots of suds, everyone having a terrific time ...

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

I actually like San Franscisco as a venue. The fact that "sister" Oakland and the subs would share the load would be a positive and OaKie could use a showcase for it's rejuvenation.

New York perpetuates the 9/11 saga too long if it's drug out to 2012. We need to get beyond that by then.

Houston strikes me as hot, muggy and a bit boring.

As much as I love DC and that great subway - a model for urban transport - I wouldn't want the inevitable political overkill of an election year to detract from the games, nor I expect would the committee.

The "gay capitol" gets my vote.

Hey Zaac -- you called this one right!

The word around DC this a.m. is that the bid got rejected because of geopolitics -- Washington as the capital of the Superpower -- we might invade Iraq plus Congress interfered with its SLC Winter Olympics investigation -- so the city fell short in the "international strategy" category of judging.

The committee felt the San Francisco and NYC have a better chance of winning against the other cities.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

Yes, yes, it's very nice for San Francisco and New York. But IMHO neither has a snowball's chance in hell. Why?

Because the Congress of the United States of America dared to subpoena members of the IOC and question them about bribery! The nerve! How dare they question the IOC!? About anything at all! The IOC is answerable to NOBODY!!! Such uppityness will never be tolerated!!! The U.S. will never host an Olympic games again!

OK, maybe "never" is too strong but you get my meaning. But that's just the way the IOC thinks. And don't forget, they were unhappy with the tackiness of the Atlanta games, too. I think it'll be a long, long time before we see an Olympiad here again.

On the other hand, the games have gotten so expensive and elaborate that no one can host them except the US & Canada, Western Europe, Japan & Australia. They can't afford to blackball us for long.

If those Games are awarded to NYC, 2012 will become my target date for moving out. There are only so many tourists a Gothamite can abide.

I was just reading in the Baltimore Sun about how the DC and Baltimore group, plus the mayors of both cities, had all these big plans for celebratory press conferences and conference calls and even a party at the ESPN Zone here. They really, really thought they would be one of the two finalists. Oooooooooooops!

By all accounts, Vancouver is the frontrunner for the 2010 Winter Games. If that happens, it doesn't matter who the USOC picks as its contender for the 2012 Games, because the IOC has a stated policy of rotating the Games among the continents, and there is no way two successive Games will be awarded to North America. I would say Rio de Janeiro has a strong chance simply by dint of geography.

[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man:
the IOC has a stated policy of rotating the Games among the continents, and there is no way two successive Games will be awarded to North America.

---

Sorry, gotta disagree with you. Athens 2004, Torino 2006, both in Europe.

Albertville and Barcelona 1992, Lillehammer 1994, all three in Europe.

I see no reason why there can't be a Winter Games in Vancouver in 2010 and a Summer Games in the US in 2012. Even better if San Francisco wins, then all that would need to be done is transport any IOC business and network equipment and such (if the same network hosts both Games) south on I-5.

The consecutive games issue is more relevant to the same season. It is rare that two Summer (or Winter) Games are held in the same general area.

Having said that, I think the US may have a shot at 2012 (depending on who else is in the running). The 2008 Games are going to be in Beijing. I would expect the IOC to want to balance that with someplace like North America (especially since the 2004 Games are in Athens).

I hate to think that sentimentality plays a role, but I would expect NYC to have a good shot at winning the USOC slot. It would be a great place to hold an Olympics and there are already lots of facilities. I wonder how the athletes will deal with all those millions of people, though? Beijing has to be pretty crowded as well.