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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.