Houston Olympic Talk is Back!

[DJ V Lawrence]

I agree with Kimberly. It's not going to happen. I just can't see Houston hosting the Olympics. Besides, we have to wait until damn there 2009 just for who going to get the 2016 Olympics. That's 3 more years from now.

Anyhow, I can't see it. Houston still have strong competition. Chi-town, San Fran, L.A. and Philly (and Philly is no push over).

I beleive Houston will get cut first, or second round. The final two will be Chi-town and San Fran.

We made it in the top four in America last time. What has happened in Houston since the 2012 bid until now to make Houston's chances worse of winning the bid other than Chi-town and Philly also being in the running?

[KimberlySayWhat]

citykid09:

It would be really cool if it did happen. Just think of all of the improvments and new stuff that would be built if it does come to Houston.

That would be the best positive to come out of it. Like someone else said, the Olympics just aren't what they used to be. People will watch "American Idol" over the Olympics.

I would be more excited about accomplishments in the city rather than the Olympic events themselves.

[houstonsemipro]

^^^ Totally agree.

[DJ V Lawrence]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3850025.html

I'm still optimistic. It now says that Houston, Chi-town, San Fran, Philly, and L.A. are THE five candidate cities that may represent the U.S. in the 2016 bid, as opposed to before ehrn they said other cities could join up. Also, the USOC wants to make a decision between the five before March 31, 2007. Apparently, Houston has a legitimate shot.

[maceo9903]

San Fran is not a flagship city of the US. They're under a million in population and not in the top 10 list of US largest cities. They're beautiful.. Thats all they got going for them. Nice terrain, nice bridge.. Thats all.

NewYork is the flagship city.

LA and Chicago are the 2nd and 3rd.

Hell, Thats LA too. Beautiful fake people. If it weren't for the fact that the film industry set up base there.. LA wouldn't be on that list.

Clearly you dont understand what peoples mindset is. People dont consider Houston to be the 4th largest city because of its relitive low density when compared to a city like San Fran. San Fran has a population of 800,000 in an area of 45 square miles making it the 2nd most densly populated city in America. People say Houstons population is not accurate because of its physical size. People (especially those in Philadelphia) will always say "if S.F. or Philadelphia were 600 sq miles like Houston they would be bigger than Houston"

Secondly, people tend to go by metro populations in which Houston ranks 7th, but again this is not taken seriously because of the size of the area. Also the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro is larger so most people dont even consider Houston to be the largest city in Texas.

Next, someone said something about IAH not being able to handle the Olympics because it not world class.

If an airport that rank 2nd in the nation in the number of non stop domestic and international flights with 221 trialing only atlanta which has 250 is not world class then exactly what is?

[MidtownCoog]

so most people dont even consider Houston to be the largest city in Texas.

LOL.

Who is "people"?

Dallas?

[skwatra]

last time we had this discussion on HAIF, weren't there a lot of people that were against the Olympics (i'm not one of these people, just wondering where they are now?)

or do we only bring that up if we lose the bid? claim we didn't want it in the first place to make us feel better...

[Highway6]

Too tie together two topics here..

Could the developers who just purchased the Astroworld site... do you think they would sit on the property for a yr until the outcome of which city gets the USOC bid is determined ?

Would the city or county be willing to buy the Astroworld site to make it part of the bid... olympic village perhaps ?

[2112]

LOL.

Who is "people"?

Dallas?

Nah. It's only the people who work for the Port of Dallas authority.

[RedScare]

so most people dont even consider Houston to be the largest city in Texas.

Even Dallas residents don't believe that. And, since Philadelphia is losing residents, I doubt they say it either. What most people say is, "I don't care".

And, on that point, I would agree with them.

Now, go on back to SSP, where they say things like that.

[GovernorAggie]

Clearly you dont understand what peoples mindset is. People dont consider Houston to be the 4th largest city because of its relitive low density when compared to a city like San Fran. San Fran has a population of 800,000 in an area of 45 square miles making it the 2nd most densly populated city in America. People say Houstons population is not accurate because of its physical size. People (especially those in Philadelphia) will always say "if S.F. or Philadelphia were 600 sq miles like Houston they would be bigger than Houston"

Secondly, people tend to go by metro populations in which Houston ranks 7th, but again this is not taken seriously because of the size of the area. Also the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro is larger so most people dont even consider Houston to be the largest city in Texas.

Next, someone said something about IAH not being able to handle the Olympics because it not world class.

If an airport that rank 2nd in the nation in the number of non stop domestic and international flights with 221 trialing only atlanta which has 250 is not world class then exactly what is?

These "people" that you speak of are not reliable sources. No matter how you shake it, 2 million people is 2 million people. And for the metro area, 5 million people is 5 million people. Comparisons are all relative. San Fran has nothing on Hong Kong or Bangkok or Karachi and it never will. Philadelphia has nothing on San Fran, and it never will.

I would also like to point out that in your own post, you show how these "people" are schizophrenic at best. They brag about how dense their cities are, but then they also want to brag about the size of their sprawled out metros? I've flown into San Fran and seen the curvilinear, tract, cookie cutter homes south and east of the city. So they say Houston is not "really" the 4th largest city due to low density, then it's not even the biggest city in Texas because of metro size??? Which one is it? Because everyone's metro sprawls--a lot.

So all that you have established is why "people" will never get anywhere if they only look at what "people" say. It changes with what makes them feel better.

By the way, I believe ultra-dense, got-all-that-is-right-with-a-city San Francisco is losing population, and not only losing population, but losing family population. Like it or not, that is a key component.

Back on topic, I hope that Houston wins these Games or at least the Games for one of these years. I would like to see them here and it would just make it even sweeter to have them before the "powerhouse" US cities like New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. If we think we get Houston Hate now, I can't imagine what it would be like then--if anything, it will be comical.

Even if not the Olympics, I'll take the Pan Am Games or even the World Cup or the World Basketball Championships.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Too tie together two topics here..

Could the developers who just purchased the Astroworld site... do you think they would sit on the property for a yr until the outcome of which city gets the USOC bid is determined ?

Would the city or county be willing to buy the Astroworld site to make it part of the bid... olympic village perhaps ?

I highly doubt it. Whatever the developer's intentions are (rather they will leave it vacant and wait, or if they actually plan on doing anything to the property) will become apparent to the public probably 4 months from now with either an announcement or quiet press.

And in terms of Olympic Village, I think for anyplace in the Reliant area to become Olympic Village would be converted later into hotels or something. But I think the 2012 proposal was a good one when they planned on UH and TSU being the Olympic Village, and renovating them into dorms after the games. Any University in the area would be an ideal place for a revitalization plus new dormatories, but I think UH and TSU's areas need a bigger renovation than Rice does. (Though Rice University wouldn't be a bad place for Olympic Village either.)

Yo, check dis out from the 2016 Chronicle article...

"UH athletic director Dave Maggard said organizers also have discussed the possibility of expanding the Carl Lewis/Tom Tellez track and field complex as an Olympic track stadium rather than stage track events at the Astrodome."

So is it safe to assume UH would have Olympic Stadium if the Astrodome became a hotel?

[Highway6]

And in terms of Olympic Village, I think for anyplace in the Reliant area to become Olympic Village would be converted later into hotels or something. But I think the 2012 proposal was a good one when they planned on UH and TSU being the Olympic Village, and renovating them into dorms after the games. Any University in the area would be an ideal place for a revitalization plus new dormatories, but I think UH and TSU's areas need a bigger renovation than Rice does. (Though Rice University wouldn't be a bad place for Olympic Village either.)

My exposure to an olympic village is limited. Never been in person. The only one I think i've seen portrayed in movies was in The Cutting Edge.

There.. it was almost like a Olympic hotel.. i distinctly remember a elevator scene, and the rooms were almost suite sized.

Anyways.. the point.. why would it have to be converted to dorms afterwards.

Why not as part of this mixed used property, including a midrise condo likeyou see sprouting up all over uptown. Or a hotel perhaps... that at the beginning of its life started out as Olympic Village - Midrise.

Maybe I just have no concept of just how big and how many athletes have to be housed.

[ricco67]

I was rather curious about the number myself and was stunned to read that 10,300 athletes participated in the 2000 summer olympics!

Maybe turning them into dorms afterwards would be a good idea afterall!

[RedScare]

The 2004 Games had 11,100 athletes participate. Therefore, the Olympic Village(s) need to be substantial. Many of the professional athletes make their own accomodations. For instance, the US basketball team stayed on a cruise ship. This may explain why they sucked.

The most common use for old Olympic Villages is dorms, but it is not the only use. Some have become government housing. Some have, in fact, become private residences, as Hwy 6 suggested. If dorms are needed, this is an easy way for government to help pay for the Games without merely giving away money. If dorms are not needed, a mixed use community would be a good way to recoup investment. However, because of the cafeterias needed, it might still work best to build dorms.

The Houston Committee looking into expanding UH's track for Olympic competition does not move the Opening/Closing ceremonies. Reliant is still penciled in for that.

[Highway6]

I was rather curious about the number myself and was stunned to read that 10,300 athletes participated in the 2000 summer olympics!

Maybe turning them into dorms afterwards would be a good idea afterall!

UH is a commuter school. What do they have.. maybe 30000 students.

They have the Moody towers and the Quad which maybe houses 2000. And thats all they need really. They've gone the whole of their existence with the majority of students commuting form off campus.

What the heck would they do with 10,000 dorm rooms ?

Not to mention.. Where on or near UH or TSUs campus would you put that many rooms... without razing a big chunk of third ward.

Lastly.. I had friends get accosted several times out in parking lots when i was in grad school there...

I know there would be security out the wazoo if there was an olympic village there... but still. that just isnt a safe or pretty part of town... Of all the places in Houston to showcase and we stick olympic village in one of the poorest and crime-ridden areas of town ??

Edited May 11, 2006 by Highway6

[ricco67]

You're thinking inside the box:

it would not be one massive complex, but rather a series of various complexes located around the city.

UH has a large number of kids that are from out of the city/state/country and usually have off campus housing.

UH, TSU, Rice, and HBU amoung the FEW campuses that could upgrade/expand their current dom facilities.

also bear in mind that several areas of town can be put in as well along with various support staff and coaches and could be sold later on as private dwellings or perhaps made into public centers later on.

[Guest danax]

Wouldn't it be amazing if the worst natural disaster in US history became Houston's greatest moment?

Good point and possibility. If the Committee is PC oriented then they are probably also bleeding hearts and might feel like rewarding us in some way. Our good karma for our Katrina actions has yet to bear fruit, but bear it must eventually.

It would be really cool if it did happen. Just think of all of the improvments and new stuff that would be built if it does come to Houston.

I don't know, kid. I lived in LA in '84 when they hosted The Games and really I don't remember anything being substantially added to the city. A lot of businesses were all pumped up about it and some started up just because of the games, and the general feeling I remember was that it was a big disappointment. I drove a taxi during them and, although we did ok, it was nothing like the euphoria that preceeded it.

I'm sure the hotels, restaurants etc. all would do great but it's more of a PR boost for a city, as long as all goes well, that is.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Good point and possibility. If the Committee is PC oriented then they are probably also bleeding hearts and might feel like rewarding us in some way. Our good karma for our Katrina actions has yet to bear fruit, but bear it must eventually.

I don't know, kid. I lived in LA in '84 when they hosted The Games and really I don't remember anything being substantially added to the city. A lot of businesses were all pumped up about it and some started up just because of the games, and the general feeling I remember was that it was a big disappointment. I drove a taxi during them and, although we did ok, it was nothing like the euphoria that preceeded it.

I'm sure the hotels, restaurants etc. all would do great but it's more of a PR boost for a city, as long as all goes well, that is.

What happened to L.A.'s Olympic Village post-games?

[Guest danax]

What happened to L.A.'s Olympic Village post-games?

They used the existing dorms at UCLA, USC and a few stayed 90 miles away at UC Santa Barbara.

Since nothing new really had to be built, those Games were a financial success and actually turned a 200 million dollar profit, and were financed privately. Remember the cross-country torch run? That was a great idea. And LA was even more sprawling than we are and had zero rail. I believe they simply used buses for the most part.

Financially, I think we could pull it off in the same manner or better, we just seem to have a glamour factor of around zero.

[maceo9903]

These "people" that you speak of are not reliable sources. No matter how you shake it, 2 million people is 2 million people. And for the metro area, 5 million people is 5 million people. Comparisons are all relative. San Fran has nothing on Hong Kong or Bangkok or Karachi and it never will. Philadelphia has nothing on San Fran, and it never will.

I would also like to point out that in your own post, you show how these "people" are schizophrenic at best. They brag about how dense their cities are, but then they also want to brag about the size of their sprawled out metros? I've flown into San Fran and seen the curvilinear, tract, cookie cutter homes south and east of the city. So they say Houston is not "really" the 4th largest city due to low density, then it's not even the biggest city in Texas because of metro size??? Which one is it? Because everyone's metro sprawls--a lot.

So all that you have established is why "people" will never get anywhere if they only look at what "people" say. It changes with what makes them feel better.

By the way, I believe ultra-dense, got-all-that-is-right-with-a-city San Francisco is losing population, and not only losing population, but losing family population. Like it or not, that is a key component.

Back on topic, I hope that Houston wins these Games or at least the Games for one of these years. I would like to see them here and it would just make it even sweeter to have them before the "powerhouse" US cities like New York, Philadelphia, or Boston. If we think we get Houston Hate now, I can't imagine what it would be like then--if anything, it will be comical.

Even if not the Olympics, I'll take the Pan Am Games or even the World Cup or the World Basketball Championships.

I totally agree with you guys and you're right, I have heard that a lot on ssc, and that they dont consider Houston to be a "real city." I have also used the same argument that 5.5 million people is 5.5 million people no matter how you slice it, but they (ssc people and especially the ones from philadelphia) dont want to hear that. I was just saying that according to the rest of the country S.F. is defiently a flagship city and Houston is no where near being even a city of intrest for them.

I want to ask this question to you guys and maybe someone can help me out with this. What is it that Houston so desprately lacks (mass transportation aside) that other cities have. I have been to most large cities in this country, except for Las Vegas and Seattle, and I just dont see it. Houston has just about everything that Chicago, L.A. and every other World Class City in America has.

Lastly, I'll get back to the original topic. Houston could defiently host the Olympics if mass transportation were built and I hope that gets done very soon. If so nothing should be able to stop the USOC from chosing Houston to represent the US bid other than peoples stereotypes and unfounded hang ups about the city. Maybe once people are there, Houston will finally get the name reconition it deserves.

Edited May 12, 2006 by maceo9903

[RedScare]

I want to ask this question to you guys and maybe someone can help me out with this. What is it that Houston so desprately lacks (mass transportation aside) that other cities have. I have been to most large cities in this country, except for Las Vegas and Seattle, and I just dont see it. Houston has just about everything that Chicago, L.A. and every other World Class City in America.

Age...and media exposure.

In 1900, Houston had 44,000 residents. NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, etc. had millions. The US through the early 1900s was centered in the Northeast and Midwest. These cities had manufacturing. The South had farms.

Similarly, when the West developed, SF and later, LA were the bigshots. The major media concentrated in these cities and never left. The majority of people form opinions based on media accounts. Those cities with major media are covered better, and therefore sound bigger or better than they otherwise may be. Even Atlanta, due to it's CNN headquarters, has garnered a measure of respect, though it is no larger than Houston, and it's layout is similar.

Houston's supposed flaws are not the issue. The media coverage is more the issue. Houston is flat, hot and humid. But, all of the Northeastern and Midwestern cities are flat, and their winters can be frightenly cold. People move south to escape the cold. Few move North to escape the heat. The difference is that once the subliminal decision is made that one's city is better than another, one seeks out reasons to justify the decision. If one's profession is reporting, that decision comes out in print. So Houston is often painted as worse than the media heavy cities.

It is said that living well is the best revenge. By and large, Houstonians do that. And slowly, it gets out. Perception always lags reality. Houston's reputation may never reflect it's reality. But, it is a lot better today than it was in 1980. And it will be better tomorrow than it is today.

[MidtownCoog]

The Houston 2012 bid had the Olympic Village at Scott St. and I-45.

After the games they would be converted into Apartments for students.

UH definetly has the track history to support a new stadium. If they do, I think you'd see the Village in the same proposed location for 2016.

if mass transportation were built

We already have mass transportation, and the venues are compact.

What in the world is your idea of mass trasnporation?

I bet it's rail.

[GovernorAggie]

They used the existing dorms at UCLA, USC and a few stayed 90 miles away at UC Santa Barbara.

Since nothing new really had to be built, those Games were a financial success and actually turned a 200 million dollar profit, and were financed privately. Remember the cross-country torch run? That was a great idea. And LA was even more sprawling than we are and had zero rail. I believe they simply used buses for the most part.

Financially, I think we could pull it off in the same manner or better, we just seem to have a glamour factor of around zero.

I think that it is key for everyone to not sleep on this aspect. I saw an article where Peter Ueberroth (sp?) himself said that the USOC is not looking to have a taxpayer-funded Games host. He was also the guy ho did the LA Olympics, so I can see why. He also said that he'd basically have no problem if a city commited money, i.e. an Olympic Stadium, that it could use later.

We haven't heard about Houston's plans this time around, but I would think that Houston would STILL be #1 in a cost-effective Games. If the USOC is looking for this, then Houston is the pick. However, I do agree that the image problem is what hurts us--even if the image is unjustified.

Think about it, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran are all looking at building new facilities, some at astronomical costs. Also, what would Chicago do with a $1 Billion Olympic Stadium after the Games? I guess they could pull an Atlanta and demolish part of the stadium and make it the new home for the White Sox--but I think they have done some revamping to their existing park. Philly already has a ton of stadiums--I guess they could retrofit Penn's stadium or something and that would be its later use. San Fran--well let's just say the 49ers have been trying to get a new stadium for what seems like forever. It's no secret that SF has one of the most famous NIMBY "issues" in the U.S. Besides all that, if New York couldn't get a stadium done, why should we think that San Fran could? They can't use it for much afterwards. The sight lines would suck for football (a la LA's Olympic Stadium) and you could have thousands of empty seats a game if the stadium has 90-100,000 seats.

So that leaves us with LA and Houston--in some ways twins born years apart. But LA could have the same stadium issues unless they plan on using the current Olympic Stadium. Regardless, I sincerely hope that Houston would be the pick.

[GovernorAggie]

Also, maybe the slowness of Astrodome redevelopment could be a blessing in disguise. I think that this bid puts the Dome back in the mix. And the use of the Dome as an Olympic venue doesn't have to preclude it from the current grand reuse plan--just postpone it.

Does anyone have any idea of what the cost was to revamp the Dome for 2012?

[maceo9903]

The Houston 2012 bid had the Olympic Village at Scott St. and I-45.

After the games they would be converted into Apartments for students.

UH definetly has the track history to support a new stadium. If they do, I think you'd see the Village in the same proposed location for 2016.

We already have mass transportation, and the venues are compact.

What in the world is your idea of mass trasnporation?

I bet it's rail.

Yes it is rail, and Im just telling you what the world wants and what it would take to get the olympics. Dont shoot the messenger.

In response to Redscare, peoples uninformed view of Houston sickens me! I have no problem with someone who has been to Houston, experienced the city and what it has to offer (good and bad) and decides its not for them. I respect everyones INFORMED opinion. To each his own. No city will ever be able to please everyone. At least they tried it for themselves. What pisses me off is people who have NEVER set foot in the city and have these 1880 views of Houston and Texas as a whole. Like everyone lives in ranches and is a cowboy. Any media exposure the city does get the first thing they want to show is a damn cow or an oil drill in an open field! When the Astros, Texans, or Rockets play a national televised game just notice at how they rarely show off the skyline but they will show the things I metioned before in a hurry! Then they will always say things like "We got us an old fashioned shootout here deep in the heart of Texas." Ugh! These things just boil my blood! I know all of the above metioned things are, and always be a part Texas and they are what made Texas....well, Texas. I just think there is so much more to Houston than that and the media simply will not convey that to the public. People who have never been to Houston still (in 2006!!!!!) think of it as a hick town with nothing to do! Thats because of what they see on T.V. and the movies. Its why you couldnt tell anyone who is not into census stats and dosent know any better that Houston is bigger than atlanta. One other thing that got to me is that in the days preceeding the NFL draft, they had Reggie Bush doing a few interviews for ESPN. They would keep asking him his feelings about coming to Houston like he was being sent to exile. His only response was "No state taxes." My point in telling you that is something like that sticks in peoples mind and makes them feel like Houston is exactly what the media tells them or leads them to beleive it is: in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do. The only reason people are there at all is because of oil related jobs. Then there is Bush who has just killed any chance at all of people liking Houston or any other Texas city.

Edited May 12, 2006 by maceo9903

[MidtownCoog]

people liking Houston

You and your "people".

Oy vey.

[DJ V Lawrence]

They used the existing dorms at UCLA, USC and a few stayed 90 miles away at UC Santa Barbara.

Since nothing new really had to be built, those Games were a financial success and actually turned a 200 million dollar profit, and were financed privately. Remember the cross-country torch run? That was a great idea. And LA was even more sprawling than we are and had zero rail. I believe they simply used buses for the most part.

Financially, I think we could pull it off in the same manner or better, we just seem to have a glamour factor of around zero.

We've got the facilities and the proximity between them to do just that.

[houstonsemipro]

The question is. Why Dallas not bidding for the 2016 Olympics? I think Dallas got a better chance then us, cause Dallas have a popular name and they get stuff done, while Houston have think about the shyt then wait for a couple of years to do it. Slow ass Houston I tell ya. I could run faster then how Houston thinks.

Oh, and I like to add. They're making a full length movie about the popular TV Show, Dallas on the big screen. And that's going to make Dallas a bigger tourist spot.

Edited May 13, 2006 by houstonsemipro

[Highway6]

We already have mass transportation, and the venues are compact.

What in the world is your idea of mass trasnporation?

I bet it's rail.

NYC, Chicago, London, Paris, Tokyo....

In how many world class global cities do people get around in busses?

Yes it's rail. Rail has a permanence, image, and status that bus mass transportation will never have.