What about co-host cities for the Olympics? Good Idea?

Question

There has been talk of international sister cites putting in a serious bid for the Olympics.

Here are the possibilities of cities that are serious:

Seattle USA and Vancouver Canada

San Diego USA and Tijuana Mexico

Detroit USA and Windsor Canada

Which do you like best?

Is it a good idea?

Answer 1

In theory it is but in fact no.

Maybe one between the USA and Canada will work better.

Answer 2

How about 2 cities within the same country?  For example, with Chicago hosting the Olympics (potentially).  The city is so crowded already, there is no way our public transportation would be able to support so many more people.  Not to mention locations for events.  Where could they do rowing?  Out on the wavy lake?  Perhaps Chicago could team up with Milwaukee or another midwest city to host.  Just a thought, I know it won't actually happen.

Answer 3

Having two countries co-host would be impossible, as the host country gains automatic entry into all events.  With both countries being in North America, with qualification for team sports done by region, you would effectively shut out all of South America for some events, and much of Cental America for others.

Vancouver has the 2010 Winter Olympics, so they're effectively off the map for the forseeable future.  Los Angeles has hosted two summer games, which puts San Diego off the map (a joint Los Angeles San Diego "southern California" bid makes sense).  If Chicago gets the 2016 summer games, then you effectively put America off the map for at least 10-12 years, as North America would have hosted Olympics in 1984, 1988, 1996, 2002, 2010, 2016.  Compare this with Europe (1992, 1994, 2004, 2006, 2012, 2014), Asia (1988, 1998, 2008), Australia (2000).  Africa has never hosted an Olympics (South Africa has the football World Cup in 2010, and the Rugby Union world cup in 2011), and South America hasn't hosted a games in recent memory.

Answer 4

No, I don't think it would be that good of an idea.

Answer 5

I really don't see it working, too many many arguments would start over things like the ceremonies and who would get to host what sport.

Technically though, Beijing has a co-host for the olympics, the equestrian is being held in Hong-Kong because of the Equine Influenza and Beijing couldn't guarantee disease-free zones, whereas Hong-Kong has very tight quarantine policies.  

Answer 6

Hey Bert.

Sounds like fun except they might argue about who does the ceremonies and such.

From your options I choose the second one. The other cities sound a bit too nerdy. Tijuana would be excellent fun!

Answer 7

I'm sorry! I can't get passed your Avatar! that's so damm! funny! My vote would be for San Diego. or Canada.  The games would get washed out in Seattle.  

Answer 8

The only one that would work is Seattle and Vancouver because they're both diverse global cities and they already have stadiums for most major sports, but it’s still a 3 hour drive between each city. San Diego and Tijuana would be good, but the infrastructure in Tijuana isn’t as good as San Diego. Detroit and Windsor have bad economies so they can't afford to host the Olympics.

It would be good if they could pull it off, but there would be debates over who gets to do the opening ceremonies and it would be complicated for international visitors to cross the borders, because they would possibly need visas for both countries.