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

The Game Room
21

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

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.

If I could choose where the games would go next, I think South Africa would top the list, because of the symbolism. Someday I’d love to see a world where Israel could host as well.

22

Denver.

23

I suspect Vancouver could have easily hosted the summer games. Given that the next two winter games are scheduled for Sochi, Russia (actually classified as subtropical) and Pyeongchang, South Korea (pretty much on the same latitude as Seoul (1988 summer games), I suspect the list is actually quite long.

24

Given the temperature, they nearly did host the summer games that winter. :smiley:

25

You can’t have the Olympics in New York. If you did you would have half the Olympicsin New Jersey, and nobody wants that.

26

I wasn’t thinking climate so much as infrastructure, hotel rooms, and restaurants type stuff. Helsinki might be able to host an effective winter olympics today. They were also capable of hosting an effective summer olympics in 1952. I doubt they could host it today.

27

R’lyeh, Ys, and Atlantis.

(The swimming events would be amazing).

28

As Billy Joel can tell you, NY is more of a state of mind than a geographical location. :slight_smile:

29

A fair point, but I think that as far as the winter games go, climate is less a factor than access to mountains. I suspect several cities with sufficient infrastructure for the summer games would also probably be sufficient for the winter games (notwithstanding the IOC’s tendency to award the winter games to smaller cities).

30

Ankara, Turkey.

NYC would be an unspeakable nightmare.

31

The rules are that you have an unlimited amount of money. If you need $50 billion to upgrade the infrastructure, you have it.

However, Helsinki is disqualified anyway.

32

Jo-burg would be pretty high up on my list, but it sorta bothers me that anytime The Powers That Be get together and decide…

“The time has come to give Africa its due! We’ve decided to put the [insert major international event] in Africa for the very first time and pat ourselves on our collective back! Brings a collective tear to our collective eye, it does (sniff).”

…they are only considering South Africa. We saw this recently with the World Cup. I realize there are practical and logistical reasons for this, but it still doesn’t sit well with me. Cairo or another Arab-African city would be nice but I’m thinking of Sub-Saharan Africa here.

How about an Olympics in Nairobi or Lagos? The infrastructure and other logistical problems would be a nightmare but if “we” are serious about bringing Africa into “the fold” then let’s really do it, and do it right.

What if the industrialized/rich countries pulled out all the stops and did what was necessary to prepare a Nairobi or a Lagos for the Games? It would be about much more than just the Olympics… it could be a start—both symbolically and tangibly —toward bringing Africa some real economic (and other) stability. The colonial countries (and others as well, like the USA) probably owe that continent at least as much.

ETA: On re-reading my Pollyanna idea: It’ll never happen but, well… a guy can dream, can’t he?

33

Turkey! Outstanding idea, sir (or ma’am). I would take Istanbul* over Ankara, however.

*not Constantinople. Istanbul, not Constantinople…

34

Jerusalem What could go wrong?

35

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?

36

I don’t know about Lake Placid 1984 - one assumes things happened in the way things happen today with big events - but in 1932 it was a failing winter resort town and had to rely on local movers and shakers to hold the games at all. Probably true that some New York money was involved, but it was a very small-scale event even by the standards of the day.

37

We’re only talking summer games.

Doug, Lake Placid 2.0 was in 1980.

38

No love for the Vatican? :smiley:

For a different cast, how about Ulan Bator?

39

To use a flawed analogy…

Here in the USA, there is no professional football team in Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country. There ARE pro teams in much smaller, less important cities, like Jacksonville and Nashville.

Why? Because Los Angeles doesn’t NEED a football team to “prove” that they’re a big, important, world-class city- they ARE a big, important, world-class city and don’t need to prove a damn thing to anyone. Hence, they won’t spend a lot of tax dollars to subsidize a pro football team, as a lot of smaller cities eagerly do.

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.

China and Brazil wanted this dubious “honor” in order to show the world, “We’ve arrived! We’re big, important countries now!” Well, swell… but EVERYBODY already knew how rich, powerful and important China had become. DId they really need to blow billions to score propaganda points?

As for India… to their credit, they are not and never have been particularly interested in sports. For a country its size, India produces remarkably few world class athletes in any sport. They don’t CARE about sport nearly as much as many countries do. I can’t see Indians getting psyched about hosting sports that mean NOTHING to them.

40

Denver did get the 1976 winter games, but they lost a referendum to provide state funding, and the IOC had to move them to Innsbruck again.

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