Nothing would make me happier or prouder than my home town hosting the Olympics, but, as I believe has been covered many times in this forum, weather in San Francisco proper during the summer would not be ideal. Too cold and windy for most outdoor events.
However, I do think there's potential in the current site of the Oakland Coliseum complex, where the Raiders/A's share a stadium, and the adjacent indoor arena where the Warriors will play for a few more years until moving back to S.F.
With the A's are interested in moving to San Jose/Fremont further south, and the stadium needing a serious upgrade for the Raiders to stay (not that I care), and the general area in need of some revitalization, it could be a suitable locale for the Olympic Stadium (if perhaps a bit too small to serve as a bigger Olympic complex), built to be converted to a football-only venue (or baseball as well, if the A's stay) following the Games.
It's already accessible by public transportation (BART) and a freeway (I-880). It's not a terribly nice area, but neither was the area around Turner Field, from what I understand. Stratford (London), wasn't exactly on par with the nicer parts of London, come to think of it.
Best of all, the marathons could be run from the north side of the Golden Gate Bridge, into S.F. along the waterfront, over the Bay Bridge, and finish at the Olympic Stadium. Yes, I know. Such a course would create major traffic headaches, but one can dream...
There is no way SF could pull this off alone. San Mateo and Contra Costa counties would also have to be involved. Even then, the public transportation to their venues leaves a lot to be desired. And as mentioned, summer weather in SF is not conducive to any outdoor sports, especially for spectators. I'm not sure what events they would want to hold in SF proper. Overall, I can't see see this bid working/winning.
Jacksf wrote:There is no way SF could pull this off alone. ....
Nobody every suggested that it would try. The original piece which started the thread has the SF mayor specifically referencing a Bay Area Olympics and the new stadium in Santa Clara.
But then, when was the last time any Olympics was contested in the city limits of the "host." Never? Bam?
Any attempt to host track in SF proper in anything but a roofed stadium would be an ugly prospect at best. Cold & windy, here we come.
What needs to be remembered is that the demands of TV would mean that an SF Olympics would find track having start times that accomodate live coverage on the East Coast, meaning like a 5:00 kickoff. At which point it's probably 60 degrees with a 15mph wind and on its way down to 55.
Meanwhile, you'd only have to go 40 miles down the road and the temperature would be as high as 75 at the same time.
gh wrote:Meanwhile, you'd only have to go 40 miles down the road and the temperature would be as high as 75 at the same time.
Are you calling for a Sacramento (or Modesto) Olympic Stadium?
I'm guessing he was referring to the Palo Alto (Stanford)/Santa Clara/San Jose (Speed City) area.
wasn't referring to any place in particular (since no stadium actually exists at this point). I'm just noting that if you get some 40 miles outside the city limits of SF, the weather is on a different planet, and is more suitable for track activities.
Bid, bid, bid...you folks talk like there is a rational decision to be made.....Chicago would have been fine, and look what happened. Remember this is the IOC.
Q: Why are they having the Winter Olympics in a place with palm trees and a subtropical climate?
Hersh: Russian supremo Vladimir Putin promised an unlimited budget, and the organizers have overspent that: $51 billion at last count, $11 billion more than the unseemly Olympic record China set for the 2008 Summer Games. Plus, the International Olympic Committee loves having the Games in authoritarian countries, where the government will run roughshod over any dissent.