Houston 2010?...2016?....

[713 To 214]

Maybe so,but they better hope the weather cooperates during that time of year. The perfect example is Atlanta. Winter storm,no superbowl for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Cowboys' new stadium will have a retractable roof. So, it won't matter (at least not for the game itself).

[MaxConcrete]

Wasn't the former Compaq Center part of the 2012 bid? I seem to remember that as soon as Houston was eliminated, it went to Lakewood church (I could be wrong on that timing- my memory is dim). Anyways, Compaq Center is now Lakewood Church so that may be a problem for future bids.

And what about the Dome? We need to get on with redeveloping it or demolishing it. Don't keep it in mothballs indefinitely for a potential future bid.

In any case, I agree with the numerous comments that Houston should NOT make future bids. The chances of winning are exceedingly slim and benefits are questionable, and even the cost of preparing a bid is a waste of money in my opinion.

There are too many factors working against Houston for the Olympcs, and politics will send it to a non-US glamor city, in my opinion. Our transit system will never be a large as domestic competitors SF or DC, which is actually a good thing because their systems are hugely expensive to operate and maintain. Add in the image problem and we'll have problems just winning the US competition.

Now the Superbowl is another issue. That would be nice, but once again it is a political desicion among the owners.

[Casual Observer]

Max makes a good point - there are already too many high-profile marquee cities in the U.S. Unlike most countries that have only 3 or 4 major cities that are internationally know - the U.S. has at least a dozen.

I would rather spend the money on getting more sure-bet national events instead of betting it all on a long shot.

[YakuzaIce]

When will the bids for '16 start? I guess about three years. We should probably wait till then to decide yet if it is smart to bid on it. I want to say 12 mil was spent working on the 2012 bid.

EDIT: Actually it seems bids may start pretty soon maybe 06, considering when some were eliminated for '12.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Wasn't the former Compaq Center part of the 2012 bid? I seem to remember that as soon as Houston was eliminated, it went to Lakewood church (I could be wrong on that timing- my memory is dim). Anyways, Compaq Center is now Lakewood Church so that may be a problem for future bids.

And what about the Dome? We need to get on with redeveloping it or demolishing it. Don't keep it in mothballs indefinitely for a potential future bid.

In any case, I agree with the numerous comments that Houston should NOT make future bids. The chances of winning are exceedingly slim and benefits are questionable, and even the cost of preparing a bid is a waste of money in my opinion.

There are too many factors working against Houston for the Olympcs, and politics will send it to a non-US glamor city, in my opinion. Our transit system will never be a large as domestic competitors SF or DC, which is actually a good thing because their systems are hugely expensive to operate and maintain. Add in the image problem and we'll have problems just winning the US competition.

Now the Superbowl is another issue. That would be nice, but once again it is a political desicion among the owners.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Compaq Center was part of the 2012 bid AS Lakewood Church. I think they said the new Lakewood Church would host indoor volleball if I recall correctly.

The MAIN way cities lose money in hosting the Olympics is building new stadiums and infrastructure for the Olympics that they almost never use afterward (it's like 20 stadiums in their city in the same state as our Astrodome.

Great news is this: We've already proven that THAT issue is not a factor at all. Every facility is SURE to be used before AND after the Olympics that's already been built, U of H and TSU would use the new aquatics facilities and Olympic Village, AND the ONLY facility we would have ecomonic question to proir to 2008 anyway would probably be the Dome. Our mass transit system is yet to be completed, but we're building it anyway. Buffalo Bayou needs to be cleaned and redeveloped, but we're currently doing that as well. We're still working on cleaner air in Houston as well.

Long Story stort: THERE'S NO WAY WE WOULD LOSE MONEY HOSTING THE 2016 OLYMPICS!!! WE ALREADY HAVE THE CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS IN PLACE!!!!

That's why economics-wise, we're better than ANY city trying to host the games, U.S. AND internationally. Only one city comes close in my opinion, and that's Paris. I consider them a sure bet for 2020 or 2024 should they decide to run again.

As for a chance for a Super Bowl 2010 in Houston, as for now, our chances are GREAT. The earliest for Dallas to be eligible for a Super Bowl is 2011, but that vote would come AFTER the 2010 vote. Dallas would have no problem hosting in 2012 or 2013, so long as the NFL would GUARANTEE that there would be a Super Bowl in Arlington within 5 years of the stadiuim's opening.

By the way, 2016's bid IS in 2009. Everything we need for an Olympics 2016 is everything the city of Houston needs to do anyway.

[YakuzaIce]

AND the ONLY facility we would have ecomonic question to proir to 2008 anyway would probably be the Dome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great post

Also even with the Dome it may have not cost us money. Heres a quote from the HBJ

"Houston also might use an indoor Olympic track and field facility to lure the games to its city. The Houston 2012 Foundation is considering spending $100 million to renovate the Astrodome. Most of the cost of the renovation would come from Olympic sponsorship funds, rather than public money."

Also since the dome is now being considered for MLS it may have a use afterwards also.

[MaxConcrete]

Compaq Center was part of the 2012 bid AS Lakewood Church. I think they said the new Lakewood Church would host indoor volleball if I recall correctly.

...

That's why economics-wise, we're better than ANY city trying to host the games...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for clarifying the Lakewood church issue. I think the Astrodome is still a lingering issue since it would need to sit in a holding pattern indefinitely if future bids are made.

As for the economics, your statement may be correct but that is not the main basis for IOC decisions. Image, politics, and financial subsidy are everything in this game. After all, Paris proposed to use mostly existing venues while London is undertaking a big redevelopment for the Olympics. Apparently the IOC likes big-spending cities. Athens also spent a ton of money to build lots of new stadiums. Atlanta's low-spending, commerialized event didn't go over well.

We should quit this game before spending more money on bidding (one poster suggested $12 million was spent). I think the bid process is also a nice slush fund for politicians. I'm sure lots of Lee Brown's cronies tapped into that slush fund. I'm hoping Mayor White won't slide into the slush fund mode.

[houstonsemipro]

Compaq Center was part of the 2012 bid AS Lakewood Church. I think they said the new Lakewood Church would host indoor volleball if I recall correctly.

The MAIN way cities lose money in hosting the Olympics is building new stadiums and infrastructure for the Olympics that they almost never use afterward (it's like 20 stadiums in their city in the same state as our Astrodome.

Great news is this: We've already proven that THAT issue is not a factor at all. Every facility is SURE to be used before AND after the Olympics that's already been built, U of H and TSU would use the new aquatics facilities and Olympic Village, AND the ONLY facility we would have ecomonic question to proir to 2008 anyway would probably be the Dome. Our mass transit system is yet to be completed, but we're building it anyway. Buffalo Bayou needs to be cleaned and redeveloped, but we're currently doing that as well. We're still working on cleaner air in Houston as well.

Long Story stort: THERE'S NO WAY WE WOULD LOSE MONEY HOSTING THE 2016 OLYMPICS!!! WE ALREADY HAVE THE CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS IN PLACE!!!!

That's why economics-wise, we're better than ANY city trying to host the games, U.S. AND internationally. Only one city comes close in my opinion, and that's Paris. I consider them a sure bet for 2020 or 2024 should they decide to run again.

As for a chance for a Super Bowl 2010 in Houston, as for now, our chances are GREAT. The earliest for Dallas to be eligible for a Super Bowl is 2011, but that vote would come AFTER the 2010 vote. Dallas would have no problem hosting in 2012 or 2013, so long as the NFL would GUARANTEE that there would be a Super Bowl in Arlington within 5 years of the stadiuim's opening.

By the way, 2016's bid IS in 2009. Everything we need for an Olympics 2016 is everything the city of Houston needs to do anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about the 2010 Super Bowl in Houston. If the NFL Committee do a revote, Atlanta will win.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Thanks for clarifying the Lakewood church issue. I think the Astrodome is still a lingering issue since it would need to sit in a holding pattern indefinitely if future bids are made.

As for the economics, your statement may be correct but that is not the main basis for IOC decisions. Image, politics, and financial subsidy are everything in this game. After all, Paris proposed to use mostly existing venues while London is undertaking a big redevelopment for the Olympics. Apparently the IOC likes big-spending cities. Athens also spent a ton of money to build lots of new stadiums. Atlanta's low-spending, commerialized event didn't go over well.

We should quit this game before spending more money on bidding (one poster suggested $12 million was spent). I think the bid process is also a nice slush fund for politicians. I'm sure lots of Lee Brown's cronies tapped into that slush fund. I'm hoping Mayor White won't slide into the slush fund mode.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Though London offered more new facilities to the Olympics than Paris, from what the IOC has said, the deciding factor had NOTHING to do with facilities (because both had world-class ideas for hosting the games.

London won for two reasons. One, the lobbying in Singapore with Tony Blair, Sebastion Coe, and David Beckham the day of the vote, mixed with the deal they made with Madrid (that if only one of those two cities were in the top two, those representatives would vote for their city) got it. And we ALL know Houston is great at lobbying.

Two: London had a different approach than Paris. Paris: this is what the Olympics could do for France. London: This is what London could do for the Olympics. If we take the Paris approach, we could become the lead U.S. candidate. One we became that city, we'd have to STRONGLY take the London approach to win it all. Honestly, the Olympic Houston idea is not that far out of reach.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I don't know about the 2010 Super Bowl in Houston. If the NFL Committee do a revote, Atlanta will win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Houston and Atlanta are still front-runners. Atlanta hasn't put the $150 million dollar Georgia Dome renovation up yet. Miami's hosting in 2007 and Tampa Bay's hosting in 2009, so the chance that the NFL would want to host in the same geographical region 3 out of 4 years are pretty slim. Mix that with how well we hosted in 2004 compared to how Atlanta hosted in 2000, plus the fact that Dallas's Super Bowl doesn't have a year set yet, and I'd say we have a BETTER chance than Atlanta.

[HOUCAJUN]

The Cowboys' new stadium will have a retractable roof.  So, it won't matter (at least not for the game itself).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

weather does matter. transportation problems was a big factor in atlanta and minnesota not having the superbowl for some time.what good is a retractable roof if you can't get there in the first place? That's why i don't know why they are taking a chance and hosting the next super bowl in detroit. Those ice storms really hurt atlanta's bid.

[houstonsemipro]

Is there any words on if the NFL Committee going to revote, or not?

[Casual Observer]

I've been to Minneapolis a few times and never thought anything of the traffic. It was never congested, and although we didn't use it - their bus & light rail system seemed to be in good working order.

Are people claiming Minneapolis to be in too bad of shape for a Superbowl?

[DJ V Lawrence]

I've been to Minneapolis a few times and never thought anything of the traffic. It was never congested, and although we didn't use it - their bus & light rail system seemed to be in good working order.

Are people claiming Minneapolis to be in too bad of shape for a Superbowl?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Minneapolis needs a new stadium first according to the NFL.

NFL revoting for Super Bowl 2010 is now a matter of when, not if.

[zaphod]

in some ways i think that houston shouldnt really get the olympics or even try to get the olympics. all these improvements are really expensive for a one time event.

if the astrodome becomes a track and field center then we would probably lose a major league soccer team.

the its too late to do anything about speeding up the light rail, and with those shitty BRT's who knows how long it will be before we see any trains going on the new expansion lines anyways.

A major part of cleaning up the air involves lowering speed limits on freeways to lower emissions and to put tighter restrictions on ship channel refineries.

It would hurt the economy, and i cant drive 55!

The clubbing paradise main street idea is cool, but until more people live over there and along the light rail, it could be a while.

as for the super bowl, hell yeah!!

[Guest Mastermindbuilder]

I agree with you, zaphod. But, the Dome won't become a track and field, cause a developer is looking at the Dome for a proposal. Houston Sports Authority is giving them until AUG 8 to present the proposal to them. A 1,000 room hotel, convention center, meeting rooms, resturants, retail, maybe a entertainment complex.

Besides, for the MLS Team. The Dome is just tempotary until they built the propose HISD stadium off of 290 hwy near northwest mall.

On the other hand, I do agree with you on the Olympics will cost so much just for a one time thing. Houston shouldn't bid on this. It's really useless. Let New York, or L.A. get it.

[RedScare]

I am not near the fan of the Olympics that I used to be. It's great for the exposure, and it does spur the city to speed up needed infrastructure projects, but at what cost? Frankly, as long as we will need to spend multiple billions just to provide security, I'd rather we waste our money on something else.

If they get it, though, I'll support it to make it succeed.

[Guest DoIreallycare]

Houston won't see another big event for quite some time. If Houston bid on the Olympics again, they will lose again. The Super Bowl? If the committee do a revote, houston will not get it. Atlanta will be next in line.

I predict houston will see another super bowl between 2014-2016.

Let's just hope the Texans pulls off a playoff spot this year.

[YakuzaIce]

If the committee do a revote, houston will not get it. Atlanta will be next in line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just wondering, what are your reasons for saying this?

[Guest DoIreallycare]

Houston and Miami was eliminated first in the 2009 super bowl voting. It was out of Atlanta and Tampa Bay for the super bowl. Everyone thought this will be an easy win for Houston, but thought wrong.

Matter in fact, they probably keep it like it is. New York probably still be the host city of the 2010 super bowl.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Houston and Miami was eliminated first in the 2009 super bowl voting. It was out of Atlanta and Tampa Bay for the super bowl. Everyone thought this will be an easy win for Houston, but thought wrong.

Matter in fact, they probably keep it like it is. New York probably still be the host city of the 2010 super bowl.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no chance that New York will host the Super Bowl in 2010. New Jersey may have a shot if the new stadium they build for the Giants are still in the Meadowlands, that stadium has a retractable roof, and builds that facility before the 2009 season.

With the exception if the billion-dollar security price tag needed to host the Olympics, my argument is that regardless of if we want to host the games or not, our city NEEDS to have the elements vital to hosting it anyway. We eventually NEED the citywide public transportation (light-rail throughout the city) set up. From Bush to Katy to Galveston.

We NEED an image of a world-class city (that is, if we want our convention buildings to actually be profitable to our city). And the only way that would happen is if we're able to make Houston into a tourist attraction with multiple theme parks and resorts (examples: San Antonio, Orlando), Multiple areas with a world-class nightlife (Vegas, New York), a revamped Buffalo Bayou (which is now underway), smart tax-payer spending (HPD, HFD, HISD) and cleaner air.

Sounds far-fetched, but if these things were done, we wouldn't NEED an Olympics to breakout as a, if not THE, World-Class city that we want to be. Right now, the main reasons we want to host Super Bowls and Olympics is because we feel it's our only chances to showcase ourselves to the world. We don't have to wait every 6-8 years to do that. We could do that on a weekly basis if we choose to. Now, some local investors need to step up to the plate.

[RedScare]

I don't know of a single "world class" city known for a theme park, much less multiple theme parks. They are known for 'real' things, such as their art, museums, historical churches, hotels, etc.

Nightlife is usually part of the equation. I don't know what smart spending has to do with it. Clean air is seldom found in world class cities, due to the number of people visiting and living in them. The only cities known for their theme parks are San Antonio, Orlando and Las Vegas, and these are decidedly not "world class".

World class cities become that way because they are working cities. They are financial, industrial and/or business centers, where people worldwide come to do business. The amenities in these cities are put in place to appeal to business travelers. Local amenities, such as the arts, are supported by an intelligent and wealthy populace, initially for their own enjoyment, but later for visitors as well.

Houston will become "world class" when it becomes the center of Latin American trade, through its port and airport, linking South America and the US. It is actively pursuing this goal. I believe it will eventually get to that point, but like the other cities on the list, it is a title that is earned over a long period of time, not a slogan that is marketed.

[DJ V Lawrence]

I don't know of a single "world class" city known for a theme park, much less multiple theme parks.  They are known for 'real' things, such as their art, museums, historical churches, hotels, etc.

Nightlife is usually part of the equation.  I don't know what smart spending has to do with it.  Clean air is seldom found in world class cities, due to the number of people visiting and living in them.  The only cities known for their theme parks are San Antonio, Orlando and Las Vegas, and these are decidedly not "world class".

World class cities become that way because they are working cities.  They are financial, industrial and/or business centers, where people worldwide come to do business.  The amenities in these cities are put in place to appeal to business travelers.  Local amenities, such as the arts, are supported by an intelligent and wealthy populace, initially for their own enjoyment, but later for visitors as well.

Houston will become "world class" when it becomes the center of Latin American trade, through its port and airport, linking South America and the US.  It is actively pursuing this goal.  I believe it will eventually get to that point, but like the other cities on the list, it is a title that is earned over a long period of time, not a slogan that is marketed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Houston already has and is improving it's fine art galleries and museums. The Houston Museum of Fine Arts just recieved a gift of over $400 million, and they're currently being expanded. We also got MANY expansions and new ones on the way. We also have the second largest theatre district in America (second to NYC). The only extreme problem with our fine arts is the lack of money being invested and donated to the Houston Symphony.

As a working city, we already HAVE all the ammenities we need to be considered world-class. We have the most restaurants, the second highest number of Fortune 500 companies, TWO major convention sites, world-class stadium architecture, a first-class airport that is STILL being expanded (Bush), MAD upscale shopping areas (Galleria, Rice Village, etc.) MULTIPLE financial districts (Downtown, Westpark, Uptown, Greenspoint, and many more), the Port of Houston, the list goes on and on. With the exception of a citywide rail system, I'd say we have everything we need to be able to call ourselves citizens of a world-class city.

My point is this: if we don't do something extrordinary now, this may be the best Houston would ever become. We have great convention facilities, but if no conventions go there, those same facilities will become financial losses of our taxpayer money, similar to the Astrodome while it's vacant. And if people don't keep supporting our fine arts programs that we have, we will lose them as well (probably starting with the symphony).

World Class cities don't have theme parks? New York has a Six Flags within it's proximity with the tallest rollercoaster in the world. L.A. has a DisneyWorld in it's corner. Paris has a EuroDisney. They don't need the parks to function, but investors saw those locations as a great financial opportunity. Orlando, Las Vegas, and San Antonio, though without big financial districts, are ALL financially booming cities with multiple tourist attractions, and all have the potential to offer Fortune 500 companies a good package for hosting their conventions, maybe even moving to those locations one day.

Though Houston already has a lot, one piece may be missing in the puzzle.

[RedScare]

"Paris has a EuroDisney."

And, they are eternally grateful.

Conventioneers don't go to theme parks. They go to the museums, shopping, restaurants, and yes, topless bars! (Houston is apparently No. 1 in the entire country on this one.)

Vacationers may go to a theme park, but not business people. If a theme park were important to a city's greatness, Houston would build one. I know a lot of people on this board are passionate about Astroworld, but it is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

BTW, in all of my trips to LA, I've never been to Disneyland. I don't even know where it is.

[DJ V Lawrence]

"Paris has a EuroDisney."

   

And, they are eternally grateful. 

Conventioneers don't go to theme parks.  They go to the museums, shopping, restaurants,  and yes, topless bars!  (Houston is apparently No. 1 in the entire country on this one.)

Vacationers may go to a theme park, but not business people.  If a theme park were important to a city's greatness, Houston would build one.  I know a lot of people on this board are passionate about Astroworld, but it is not that important in the grand scheme of things.

BTW, in all of my trips to LA, I've never been to Disneyland.  I don't even know where it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. 1 in Topless bars. And probably the most highly regulated topless bars in the nation (I remember when the national news was talking about us once having 6 foot rules and dancers having nametags andhaving all these rules and regulations that sounded far-fetched. Not sure if that's accurate, but if it is, then that may be one problem right there. I haven't been in town for a couple years, so someone may have to get back to me on that one.)

My point is that SOMETHING needs to be either added or improved to put Houston at the top of the convention food chain, because as it is right now, honestly, Houston is not a world-famous convention destination. And the ONLY reason why it is EXTREMELY important to become a convention destination is because we have already spent our own taxpayer money for a 1,200-room convention hotel, expanded the George R. Brown with hopes of luring events, built Toyota Center and Minute Maid Park, had the county build Reliant Center, and have currently a vacant Astrodome. We will lose a TON of money that could be put into our schools, streets, and way of life if we don't start investing AROUND these convention buildings that we've already spent our money on.

New theme park, Olympics, Riverwalk, lenient nightlife rules; the one thing they have in common is that they all are examples of that one spark that our city may need to start the fire. But we NEED a spark. Badly. Any suggestions?

[Guest DoIreallycare]

New Theme Park, yes. Olympics, no. Riverwalk, already starting on it - Buffalo Bayou.

We all know that Houston is not a good tourist destination. When people come to Texas they rather have vacations in San Antonio, Austin, or Dallas before they come here.

But, with the new urban park downtown will be a huge boost to more conventions. Two deveoplers already planning on building a residental tower near the park. So, the word is out.

[Casual Observer]

lighter-fluid & a match.. that'll help you with your spark.

[houstonsemipro]

Houston feeling Super again

New York's bid falls through, so 2010 bid process will be reopened

Houston Chronicle

Texans owner Bob McNair said after practice Thursday that Houston will bid on the 2010 Super Bowl that had been awarded to New York if a new stadium in Manhattan was approved for the Jets.

Read more here... http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3307433

[JasonDFW]

I don't know of a single "world class" city known for a theme park, much less multiple theme parks.

If you're growing up in the midwest within 250 miles of (300 or more in some directions) Chicago, you think of one thing, Great America. I'm sure that means nothing to you down here.

Jason

[MidtownCoog]

I'm sure that means nothing to you down here.

It don't.