I was just wondering what it would be like... Heck, Salt Lake City pulled it off. Why not the third most populous city in the states?

I think Houston applied but got turned down for one of them.

Never happen.
Believe it or not, there isn't nearly enough corrupt $$$ in Texas to win an Olympic bid.

ummm who's our VP again? LOL

Wasn't Houston a finalist for 2012 or 2020....something like that.

They wanted 2012...they didn't make it to the finals though

Houston was bidding for 2016; but, along with Philadelphia, was dropped from the short list.


I know nothing about Dallas' desire to host the Olympics; however, Houston has a very committed group of business leaders who are determined to bring the games to the city. They've got several obstacles to overcome, but it won't surprise me to see it happen in my lifetime.

There is no bigger money pit than hosting a modern olympics.

quote:

---

There is no bigger money pit than hosting a modern olympics.

---

Agreed. The City of Montreal were $2 billion in debt after there 1976 olympics.

Dallas was trying to get the 2012 and put a lot of money into the campaigning for it

Yes, Houston for example has Heat, Humidity, Traffic and Smog. Not to mention a visitor would likely get mugged and killed so they seem to meet all the prerequisites.

It's too hot here to host an Olympics. Doubt it will ever happen.

By the way, some of Houston's proposals called for some competitions to be held in surrounding cities, including soccer games at Kyle Field.

I think Houston is a terrible location for the Olympics. Dallas in my opinion is the only option in Texas, but I doubt we'll ever see that.

what makes Dallas that much better than Houston for hosting an Olympics? I could some advantages but I also see where Houston has advantages. Whatever the case, neither one would get it. At least no time soon.

[This message has been edited by Iceberg (edited 8/10/2008 11:22p).]

Houston is the only city close at all, and it ain't close, obviously.

quote:

---

There is no bigger money pit than hosting a modern olympics.

---

It's kind of funny actually. Los Angeles got the 1984 Olympics because no other city wanted them after Montreal lost so much money. There wasn't even a vote.

They then turned in the most financially successful Olympics since the 1932 Olympics. Which were also in LA.

The trick was that LA used already existing venues--the Coliseum, Dodger Stadium, the Forum, Pauley Pavilion, housing at USC, other venues at UCLA and USC.

After LA made so much money, other cities wanted to host again. The problem is, none of them seemed to understand why LA had done so well.

Unless Dallas can turn Jerry-World or the Cotton Bowl into an Olympic stadium or Houston can turn Reliant into one, you are looking at a HUGE waste of money and effort for either city to host. Both cities would probably also have to build new a new aquatics center.

LA was able to take advantage of USC, UCLA, Pepperdine, Loyola Marymount, and a couple of Cal-State schools.

Dallas has TCU and SMU, I guess, but I don't know what kind of facilities either school has to compare with USC and UCLA. UH has Houston and Rice, but there might be the same issues.


[This message has been edited by Theo (edited 8/11/2008 4:33a).]

chicago was chosen over houston for the 2016 US bid

As I recall Houston was fighting a huge post 9/11 sympathy vote for New York.

They were looking at farming out events to surrounding communities. In addition to Kyle Field, even the Rec Center was being looked at for some of the swimming events.

It would have been a great thing for Houston. Would have forced the city to address (and fast track) mass transit issues among others. Keep in mind it was recently voted as one of the best places to live in the country.

Wasn't there talk of combining the Dallas and Houston Bid. To form a Texas Bid ?

Not sure about that, Dis. I know College Station (Kyle Field) was part of Houston's original bid--as was the Alamodome in San Antonio for soccer.

Some Dallas venues were included in the Houston bid. This year there are events in Hong Kong and Shanghai. Also weather shouldn't be a deciding factor. Beijing and Atlanta get almost as hot and humid as Houston.

The problem with Jerry World or Reliant as far as using them for the opening/closing ceremonies is that you couldn't put a track in either of them, meaning you'd have to have a separate track venue, which would be a big waste of money. Atlanta did it right when they built their stadium for the olympics and then converted it to Turner Field once the games were over.

Where were the swimming events held in Atlanta?

It doesn't have to be a money pit. Atlanta, which to some wasn't run THAT well, made a 10 million dollar profit. LA made a couple hundred million in 1984. Seoul and Sydney both made gobs of money. Montreal was the definition of how not to run an Olympics...most host cities have learned from Montreal's mistakes. Athens actually posted a loss, but they purposely avoided commercialism that would have made them money.

Remember that Houston was going to renovate the Astrodome and transform it into a modern indoor track & field facility. We were not going to have to build a brand new stadium.

The cost of renovating the Astrodome to something that wouldn't be terrible would probably exceed the cost of just building a new stadium.

I wonder how much China is losing on these games. They didn't just build new stadiums, they built crazy ass new stadiums. I'm sure they will claim they made billions, but I just don't see how they can cover the costs of something like the Water Cube.

They spent 40 billion on this thing. 40 'B'illion.

Wow.

the world's biggest pissing match

I remember reading after the Atlanta games that the IOC would set a weather standard in place...if a city averaged some much heat and so much humidity it would be ruled out. Hot'lanta lived up to its name that year.

Never been to Bejing, but that Smog layer is rediculous in wide TV shots.

I worked for the Atlanta Olympic Committee for all of 96. One of the big things they learned was the Olympics is a bust for local business. Hotels, Restraints and Bars did less business then a normal summer 2 week period, and in cases of ones not near any Olympic activities business was off substantially as all the locals stayed home. The early stories about people renting houses out for huge money never materialized either. A few mansions where rented out by corporations or other countries but that was about it.

ALl this talk about Houston or Dallas, nobody even mentioned Abilene, or Buffalo Gap?

Alpine could host the winter olympics.

quote:

---

I remember reading after the Atlanta games that the IOC would set a weather standard in place...if a city averaged some much heat and so much humidity it would be ruled out. Hot'lanta lived up to its name that year.

---

They should be able to work around that by putting them earlier in the year.

The problem is that late spring early summer can be dicey in North Texas weather wise, too.

quote:

---

Yes, Houston for example has Heat, Humidity, Traffic and Smog. Not to mention a visitor would likely get mugged and killed so they seem to meet all the prerequisites.

---

Atlanta hosted. And when did Dallas get rid of their heat, humidity, traffic, smog and crime?

[This message has been edited by 1876er (edited 8/15/2008 8:43a).]