Originally posted by StOnEy333:
I don't agree we'll be the preferred destination. There's plenty of other cities that could do just as good of a job. Stanford is not really an attraction. It's pretty small, and has a very limited range for use. The Niners stadium in Santa Clara might not be a huge draw since it is so far from the actual host city. There's plenty of places that can be used around the bay area for the different sports, but certain stuff would definitely need to be built. And good luck with that s**t around here.
SF did bid for 2016 games, and is likely to bid for 2024 games. I think we have a decent chance. Warriors will have a new stadium in SF, Giants stadium should hold up pretty well till then - A's are likely to have a new stadium by then...maybe Raiders too (unlikely) and Stanford is big enough to hold many of the small events. Marathons and cycling events through Golden Gate will be spectacular! Of course, these venues will not hold the most attractive events - a stadium for that will have to built if we're awarded the Olympics. But, we have plenty of stadiums to hold field hockey, soccer, and other events that require big stadiums.
I believe BA does have rest of the infrastructural requirement. We will have quite a few new attractive stadiums, we have the public transportation and freeways to go along with it...and will only get better with couple new stadiums coming up soon...plenty of international airports to handle the tourists, we have one of the most attractive cities in the World...so it's not crazy. If London can hold them in 2012, I think SF and Bay Area can hold them in 12 years.