Cities that should host the Olympics and Should Not

I would love to see them just do the marathon in Kenya. From village to village. Let the locals win one with a hometown crowd to cheer them on once. 

And going in a completely opposite direction: why not complete the commercialization and hold them in Orlando?

The only place in Africa that might be able to logistically deal with it is South Africa.

As for SE Asia, Kuala Lumpur would be a good pick. Singapore is a big maybe--it certainly has the money, facilities and organization but is so small I'm not sure it could handle the influx of athletes, retinues, not to mention tourists.

Taipei would be great as well, but China would never stand for it.

I wish Chicago would of got them.  Then I would of been close enough to go..

yeah.  you and me.   My cousin was excited Chicago did not get them and yet he is so excited he gets them in London.  I am not happy with him right now.

No question, this has been a success.

Meh. Yes, there was lots of worrying about security ahead of time, and the organizers took a lot of heat over that. But then they brought in the UK military, and they have been great - like the tens of thousands of other volunteers at the games, they have created a remarkably welcoming atmosphere. One of the highlights for me so far: last night, slowly working through crowds going from the Olympic Stadium to the train station, in the rain in the dark, there was a young Londoner sitting on a lifeguard chair with a megaphone, leading the masses singing "If you're happy and you know it ...", and "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi" (the Aussies had just won their first track gold). It was a young Muslim woman in hijab + London2012 uniform. Great symbol of the melting pot of modern London.

This is not exactly right. Empty seats were indeed a big embarrassment at the start of the games, but they were the ones that the IOC sets aside for dignitaries. Meanwhile, the regular seats were consistently full, and were massively oversold, and millions of Brits came out empty handed in the search for tickets. It was certainly hard for US residents to get (affordable) tickets via CoSport, but this is a perennial problem created by the corrupt system that surrounds ticket management for the Olympics (Google CoSport to find out about the unsavory characters behind this). Any Americans who showed up in London expecting to get tickets upon arrival should have done their homework.

The "EU preference" is not an organizational bias. It's a loophole that helped UK ticket seekers. Most people can only buy tickets from their national Olympic Committee, and so this means that they tend to get screwed (US citizens included). But due to EU trade rules, Brits can't be prevented from buying anything from other EU countries. That's how many Brits were able to get tickets, since it was very hard indeed to get them through the UK. 

Can't say that I care much what NBC is making of it all, frankly.

Yes, can't complain about this. Though the home advantage is a familiar phenomenon, so people shouldn't be too surprised. 

Well, London (just one city) has hosted them three times now

I do think it's time for the Olympics to come to Melbourne again. Let 'em live up to their self-professed moniker, the Greatest Sporting City in the World.

Well, the thing about the U.S. is that there's so many potential host sites, but each really is a very different city with a different flavor. I think Melbourne is very different from Sydney and it doesn't really figure into my mind that it's the same country (like it doesn't with the U.S., either). I know that is something the IOC considers (strongly), though.

Hm. I also forgot that Melbourne may be bloody well freezing in July/August. (Me, of all people, who got yanked off IM Melbourne due to hypothermia! I think I've blocked it out ... )

BRISBANE!!!

Yanti, I agree with you that saying one city in Australia is the same as the next is just wrong.  I think the games are better when they're held in relatively smaller cities and from what I hear Australia has two cool ones that you mentioned.

Agree Collin, New York would bleed into New Jersey though and you'd have plenty of venues between the two. You'd also have all kinds of cost overruns getting the venues completed from the unions and mobs...Fuggedaboudit...

Paris is also a huge city with few venues isn't it? I don't know what their venues are like. Could they finish everything at the Champs Elysees?

Amsterdam, I'm stuck thinking of that scene in EuroTrip "These are not Hash Brownies...Put your shirt on white boy!" But that could be a far out place to have the olympics...

Berlin worries me... Germany wasn't threatening the rest of europe when they were selected in '31.  Do we really want to wake them up again? But they would be a good host.

I think any host city needs a terrific public transportation city so Europe as a whole fits that bill.

I'd add Vienna to the mix.  That is a beautiful, very clean, very efficient city.  It's like Belin without the icky parts... But I don't think they want it because Zer too schmart fur zat.