What's the greatest city to not host an Olympics?

[ElvisL1ves]

Baghdad.

[RedFury]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Baghdad.

Ya sick puppy. That said, how many kills for a Gold?

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

Regarding New York and San Francisco, weren't the Lake Placid and Squaw Valley Olympics basically theirs? Sure they weren't actually in those cities, but they were the big urban area that was really supporting the games. Or are we only talking summer games?

Lake Placid is about a 5 hour drive from NYC, so I don't think it counts as an example of an Olympics held in that city.

[suranyi]

There are many great cities that have never been Olympic host cities. This is because the "greatness" of a city is low on the priority list of what the IOC considers when it decides on the host. Not only that, but many great cities have never bid for the games.

[Blank Slate]

Originally Posted by RickJay

I'd be interested in hearing the argument for Dublin over a hundred or more other cities. How is Dublin important?

I'm starting to think Istanbul's a good choice though.

I'd like to hear an argument for Dublin being less important than Helsinki or Montreal or Barcelona or Amsterdam or Atlanta etc..

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

I'd like to hear an argument for Dublin being less important than Helsinki or Montreal or Barcelona or Amsterdam or Atlanta etc..

Helsinki, Montreal, Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Atlanta have all held the Olympics before and so are disqualified by the rules of the OP. We are not comparing Dublin to those cities. We're comparing Dublin to New York City, Istanbul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Cairo, Madrid, and Delhi.

Indeed, in the OP I note Atlanta was a ridiculous choice. I'm asking for the GREATEST cities, not just "any place better than Atlanta," which would be a hell of a long list.

[jkirkman]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

OK, so I'm wrong...
LA was the 5th largest city in the 1930 U.S. Census, and the first West Coast city to make the top ten (1920) and the top five (1930).

Atlanta still hasn't even made the top ten.

Largest cities in the US by population, by decade

It is never going to, either, if you use the city limits, as that cite does. There is nothing wrong with the cite, or in using the city limits.

If you use the metropolitan statistical area, it is currently 9th in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_metropolitan_area

Both ways of measuring population are valid and useful.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by suranyi

This is because the "greatness" of a city is low on the priority list of what the IOC considers when it decides on the host.

Qualities the IOC officials consider: (1) the size of the potential host city's bribe to said officials, and (2) see no. 1.

[lisiate]

Istanbul would be awesome. But I think the answer has to be New York.

[aceplace57]

I wonder if they'll run out of cities that want to host the Olympics? It's such a costly undertaking. Plus, in todays world there's terrorism to worry about. Great Britain literally called in the Army and Navy to secure the London Olympics.

At some point, they need to pick a permanent site. Maybe even host the Pan Pacific and World Championships Games there too? That way the site gets regular use.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally Posted by RickJay

Indeed, in the OP I note Atlanta was a ridiculous choice. I'm asking for the GREATEST cities, not just "any place better than Atlanta," which would be a hell of a long list.

To be fair to Atlanta, they are one of the very, very few who were able to turn a profit on the games. The cost over runs of the 2004 games in Athens may have contributed to Greece's current economic plight, Barcelona didn't fare much better, and it took Montreal 30 freaking years years to pay off the debt incurred from hosting the 1976 games. (cite). But Atlanta made a profit. Think about that for a second. That's insane when compared to how other "better" cities ran the thing when they hosted it.

But, your thread is not really about that, though. So I'll throw out one that I don't think has been mentioned: Singapore.

[Fiendish Astronaut]

I want to see an Olympics on the moon. Almost every world record would be smashed although it would ruin the swimming events.

[Loach]

Newark

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

I wonder if they'll run out of cities that want to host the Olympics? It's such a costly undertaking. Plus, in todays world there's terrorism to worry about.

It already almost happened. Los Angeles was the only city that bid for the 1984 games. Everybody else was scared off by the experiences of Munich and Montreal.

[Mangosteen]

I always try to think of the athletes who usually have to compete in the heat and humidity of a large city in the northern hemisphere that has an air pollution problem.

This is why I think the Summer Games should be held in the "winter" conditions of the southern hemisphere.

Auckland, Joburg, Cape Town, and any of the cities of Australia, Brazil, Argentina, etc. come to mind.

Singapore, Jakarta, etc. are almost right on the equator and hot year round. Not the ideal place for outdoor sports.

[kenner116]

Istanbul would be my top choice. Haven't been there yet but everyone seems to love it.

New York, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Singapore, Kyoto, Bangkok, Shanghai, Delhi, Cairo, Tehran.

[Autolycus]

Pittsburgh would be a great city to not host the Olympics in.

[robardin]

Originally Posted by astorian

The Olympics are a great show, but frankly? I'd rather NOT live in a place that hosts them! They cost a fortune, and I can't think of any good reason cities should soak their citizens to pay for a big show that profits a private organization.

The Olympic Committee should find ONE permanent host city (Athens works for me as the Summer site; St. Moritz would be fine for the Winter Games) and pay for the construction and maintenance of their own facilities.

I was born and raised in New York City, and while I love the place, there's absolutely NOTHING the Olympics can offer us in the way of prestige. We never needed the Olympics and still don't.

Hosting is NOT an honor, it's an extremely expensive chore that benefits very few people.

Amen to all of the above!

As for permanently hosting the Olympics in one location: absolutely! Why not at or near the site in Olympia, Greece? As the current Internet meme that is going about says, "Put Zeus back in the Olympics - He is the reason for the season".

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by Mangosteen

Singapore, Jakarta, etc. are almost right on the equator and hot year round. Not the ideal place for outdoor sports.

Good post/username combo!

I thought of this, too, and that's why I mentioned Delhi. The city itself is actually not THAT close to the equator. More imprtantly, it's only a few hours' drive from the foothills of the Himalayas, and that's where where a lot of the action could actually take place.

And sailing would happen not TOO far away, off the Kutch peninsula.

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The OP wants major historical cities? Cairo, Damascus, Tunis/Carthage, Timbuktu, Delhi, Bangkok, Xian, Nanjing, Great Zimbabwe, Mohenjo-Daro, Angkor.

Bangkok is hardly a historical city, dating back only to the 1780s. Except for Bangkok's stint as a very, very tiny, peaceful fishing village, the US is older than this city.

We did half-heartedly form an Olympic committe about 10 or 15 years ago, but it was really just a vehicle for some bigwigs to siphon off some government money. No serious attempt was made to get the Olympics.

[Uncle Goat]

Chicago pissed away 100 million for the Olympic committee to Consider hosting games there. Talk about a huge scam. Why not plow under the remains of Detroit and keep the games there going year round, with everyone under a bronze medal executed? We could call the athletes "tributes" or something and give the annual event a name for people who really want to win, those guys who are hungry for victory. I don't know. I'll think of something.

[StusBlues]

New York in a walkaway. If you've spent three hours in San Francisco, you know how inappropriate it is to host an event like the Olympics. Great place to live, but dumping a few extra million folks into the mix would not be a good idea.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by runner pat

New York City and San Francisco come to mind.

I volunteered to help with the NYC 2012 Olympic effort a few years ago. But it more or less collapsed when the West side stadium boondoggle didn't go through.

At that time I read NYC would have had the smallest geographic spread of any summer Olympics ever. The venues would all have been within 20 miles of the new stadium. (or about that distance)

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin

Clearly San Francisco is the greatest city never to host the Olympics.

However, that doesn't mean I want us to host the games. Although we have bid in the past, I have always been opposed. We're already a world-class tourist city, and I think the disadvantages in terms of cost and disruption to life in the city outweight any possible benefits. It's not like the world hasn't heard of us.

I feel precisely the same way about Washington, DC. Fantastic city, but I can't think of a single damned thing hosting the Olympics would do for us. It's turned London into a mess.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by astorian

The Olympic Committee should find ONE permanent host city (Athens works for me as the Summer site; St. Moritz would be fine for the Winter Games) and pay for the construction and maintenance of their own facilities.

This, a thousand times over.