What if Detroit had hosted a Summer Olympics?

[sopas ej]

Detroit is the Glenn Close of Olympic-bid cities: Glenn Close has been nominated for 8 Oscars and has yet to win one, and Detroit has bid for a Summer Olympics 9 times and never hosted.

Olympic host cities are chosen by the IOC several years before the year they actually host.

Detroit has tried to host the Summer Olympics of:

1940---Lost to Tokyo, which then withdrew because of its war with China, so the IOC gave them to runner-up Helsinki, but then the IOC canceled the '40 Games because of WWII.
1944---Lost to London, but the '44 Games were canceled because of WWII.
1948---Lost to London.
1952---Lost to Helsinki.
1956---Lost to Melbourne.
1960---Lost to Rome.
1964---Lost to Tokyo.
1968---Lost to Mexico City.
1972---Lost to Munich.

Would hosting an Olympics have changed Detroit? Had Detroit hosted the Summer Olympics of 1968, would there have been a race riot in 1967, or would the riot have been handled a lot differently?

In Detroit's bid books to the IOC, at least in their earlier ones, Detroit kept touting its prowess as an industrial city. Some say its problem with why it never got the Olympics was because of its uncertainty of where to put its main Olympic stadium (The State Fairgrounds? Midtown close to Wayne State University? Along the Riverfront?) and how it would be funded---even though back then, it would have been a lot cheaper.

By the mid-1960s, some say that the insistence of Detroit bidding for the Olympics was just the desire of its white elite, to the disadvantage of its African-American residents.

What do you guys think? How would Detroit have done as a Summer Games host, and would it have changed people's perception of it?

[sopas ej]

Here's Detroit's candidature file for the 1956 Summer Olympics:

Detroit Olympic Committee 1949

So much optimism they had!

[Crawford]

If selected in '68 (I think they fell short by just one vote?), there wouldn't have been the Mexico City student massacre. And it would have been pretty weird having the Olympics just a year after the worst riots in American history.

In the long run, I don't think it would have changed anything. The Olympics are a two-week sporting event, and don't really impact macro trends.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Olympics are a two-week sporting event, and don't really impact macro trends.

That's my general read too.

It's gotta be fun for a city to host a big global party.

But in the end, it's only two weeks, and then the world goes right back to turning.......

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If selected in '68 (I think they fell short by just one vote?), there wouldn't have been the Mexico City student massacre. And it would have been pretty weird having the Olympics just a year after the worst riots in American history.

In the long run, I don't think it would have changed anything. The Olympics are a two-week sporting event, and don't really impact macro trends.

Actually, Detroit lost by 16 votes, though they were the runner-up:


They fared worse for the 1972 bid:


Interesting hypothetical about the Mexico City student massacre, which makes me wonder about the Munich massacre... Had Detroit hosted the Olympics in '72, would there have been a Detroit massacre?

[iheartthed]

Detroit was a finalist in all of those Olympic host bids, but it was the runner-up for only 1964 and 1968 bids. In fact, the city leaders thought it was a foregone conclusion that Detroit would be the host city in 1968. Losing to Mexico City was quite a shock. One thing I'm pretty certain of is that Detroit would have a rapid-transit system today if it was the host in either 1964 or 1968.

The spark that lit the fuse for the 1967 riots were the slum clearing programs, and anticipation of being the host city in 1968 was a huge factor for why they were so thorough about "slum clearing" in Detroit. If they had actually won the bid I guess there would have been a better narrative to support the strong tactics of forced removal that the city was using in the 1950s and 1960s, but not sure if that would have avoided the riots.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

By the mid-1960s, some say that the insistence of Detroit bidding for the Olympics was just the desire of its white elite, to the disadvantage of its African-American residents.

How was that different from any other city bidding? Bidding to be an Olympics host city is always a vanity project. I lived in NYC when they were gearing up for the 2012 bid and it was often derided as a vanity project to stroke Michael Bloomberg's ego.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

That's my general read too.

It's gotta be fun for a city to host a big global party.

But in the end, it's only two weeks, and then the world goes right back to turning.......

I am generally in agreement too.

But I ask because many believe Barcelona's hosting the Olympics in 1992 was their impetus to clean up and beautify its waterfront and create a legacy of sporting facilities, and many credit the Olympics for making Barcelona a big tourist destination. But I call bullshit on that last one, I think Barcelona was always a big tourist destination and was becoming a bigger tourist destination anyway post-Franco period.

But yeah, I don't see Atlanta being a huge tourist destination because of its Olympics, and I don't think its having hosted an Olympics changed its direction economically or anything. I think it would have become what it is today regardless of whether it hosted the Olympics or not.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

One thing I'm pretty certain of is that Detroit would have a rapid-transit system today if it was the host in either 1964 or 1968.

I think that can be interpreted then as a possible Olympic legacy had it hosted.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The spark that lit the fuse for the 1967 riots were the slum clearing programs, and anticipation of being the host city in 1968 was a huge factor for why they were so thorough about "slum clearing" in Detroit. If they had actually won the bid I guess there would have been a better narrative to support the strong tactics of forced removal that the city was using in the 1950s and 1960s, but not sure if that would have avoided the riots.

I think it's possible had they won the bid that maybe a riot could have been avoided? "Slum" clearing would have continued, but I think that the city, knowing that they would be hosting an upcoming Olympics, would probably have made them a little more "diplomatic" with the people who were being affected, in hopes of avoiding any protests/riots or even bad press.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How was that different from any other city bidding? Bidding to be an Olympics host city is always a vanity project. I lived in NYC when they were gearing up for the 2012 bid and it was often derided as a vanity project to stroke Michael Bloomberg's ego.

Oh yes, totally a vanity project. No city is REQUIRED to host an Olympics. I think it's a way of showing a city off to the world and encouraging visitors to come to it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I think it's possible had they won the bid that maybe a riot could have been avoided? "Slum" clearing would have continued, but I think that the city, knowing that they would be hosting an upcoming Olympics, would probably have made them a little more "diplomatic" with the people who were being affected, in hopes of avoiding any protests/riots or even bad press.

The Detroit riots were prompted by a police raid on an illegal after-hours bar, which was hosting a party for someone who just returned from the Vietnam War. And this was on a hot summer night, in the days before AC was common. And it was on the main vice/nightlife strip, so there were already people hanging out in the streets. I doubt it could have been avoided.

The riots were so crushing/shocking bc the city had a liberal technocrat mayor who was popular in the black community. And the black community was likely the wealthiest on earth. It was considered the last place for a major riot. But obviously the riot exposed festering issues beneath the surface.

[craigs]

I don't think hosting the Olympics would have changed Detroit's long-term trajectory. There would still have been riots in the 1960s, because that was the zeitgeist and Detroit was not going to escape it. Meanwhile, I don't think Motor City would have built a rapid transit system because of the symbolism. GM, Ford, and Chrysler would likely have insisted on proving they could move people efficiently and effectively with fleets of (their) buses. And while the athletic facilities would have changed the city for a brief period of time, I suspect the impact would have faded quickly as the facilities became irrelevant and eventually fell into disrepair.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Had Detroit hosted the Olympics in '72, would there have been a Detroit massacre?

Probably less likely? Postwar Germany, prior to Munich, had extremely lax security/intelligence. The event was selected, in part, bc Germany was considered an easy target. Not sure if there would have been a similar operation on U.S. soil, but who knows.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I think that can be interpreted then as a possible Olympic legacy had it hosted.

For sure. Olympic host bids are huge urban planning tools, and if the host city walks away not having developed any legacy infrastructure then that would be a pretty.fucking.HUGE missed opportunity lol. Athens, Greece, built a whole subway system to host the games in 2004. Atlanta built Centennial Olympic Park, which was the focal point for a ton of development in the city since.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I think it's possible had they won the bid that maybe a riot could have been avoided? "Slum" clearing would have continued, but I think that the city, knowing that they would be hosting an upcoming Olympics, would probably have made them a little more "diplomatic" with the people who were being affected, in hopes of avoiding any protests/riots or even bad press.

The 1968 host was awarded in 1963, so it was well known that Detroit wouldn't be the host by 1967. But most of the damage had been already been done by 1963, and I doubt the heavy handed tactics would have been much different. As Crawford mentioned, heavy handed policing tactics was also a factor in the riots, but it's unlikely that would have changed much if the city was awarded the 1968 games.

Having said all that, I don't think the Detroit riots in 1967 would have derailed the games at all. Yes, it would have been a huge black eye for the city ahead of hosting the most important event in the world, but they would have moved heaven and earth to get everything back on track after that happened. I think the bigger risk was the rioting that broke out in cities all over America in 1968 that would've probably made organizers uneasy. The games would've still gone on, but the security presence would've been massive.

[Crawford]

I think, for '68, the Olympic stadium would have been at 8 Mile & Woodward, which was pretty far from the riot-scarred areas. But yeah, they would have been nervous that summer, given the chaos of '68. And a lot of the events would have been around Wayne State, which was right next door to the riot epicenter.

[Busy Bee]

Not a Detroit comment but if Argentina wasn't such a basket case, Buenos Aires would have hosted in the last 50 years. Definitely would have preceded Rio. The idea Rio hosted before Argentina must have been head in lap for Argentines.

Maybe sometime in the next 50...

[mhays]

An Olympics (summer mostly) can cause a lot of civic investment, some permanently useful and some not. Were there grand plans? Like maybe build better transit?

Would the population have rallied and gained civic pride?

And here's a big one: Would it have given the city a new level of world attention, both before, during, and after the event? This can be a big effect for a second-tier city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mhays

And here's a big one: Would it have given the city a new level of world attention, both before, during, and after the event? This can be a big effect for a second-tier city.

I don't think a single host city has a worse image for hosting the Games, so the attention from the Games is, historically, either neutral or positive. For already globally well-known cities like London, Paris, maybe Rio de Janeiro, potentially NYC, etc., I don't think hosting a Games really does anything. In some regards, when cities like that host the Games, it drags tourism down because would be visitors decide to avoid the city. That is exactly what happened this year in Paris.

There's some good historical evidence that hosting a Summer Games does have a big effect for lower-tier cities, though. Los Angeles was the fifth largest U.S. city when it first hosted the Summer Games in 1932. Atlanta was the 36th largest city when it first hosted in 1996, and is the smallest municipality to ever host a Summer Games. Atlanta is also the only city ever to host a Summer Games when it was not in the top 5 most populous cities in the host country. And, although it was and is Spain's second city, Barcelona had virtually no global notoriety when it hosted the Games in 1992, but today it is one of the most visited places in the world.

Of the 23 cities to host a Summer Olympics only eight were not the host country's largest and capital. Three of those 8 are U.S. cities. Those three U.S. cities are also the only cities that were not even the host country's second largest at the time of the Games.

City (first hosted Olympics)
St. Louis (1904)
Los Angeles (1932)
Melbourne (1956)
Munich (1972)
Montreal (1976)
Barcelona (1992)
Atlanta (1996)
Rio de Janeiro (2016)

[Xelebes]

I think a race riot would still have happened, if we notice the Stanley Street Riot in Montreal being a result of the Olympics. There would have been clearances to make the facilities to make it more appealing for the international visitors. Perhaps it wouldn't have been so bad in 1940, but there were still race riots ongoing in Detroit back then (Belle Island Riot).

[mrnyc]

what if cleveland had? the cavernous multi-purpose old cleveland municipal stadium was built to host the 1932 olympics. they went to los angeles instead. dam weather lol.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think a single host city has a worse image for hosting the Games, so the attention from the Games is, historically, either neutral or positive. For already globally well-known cities like London, Paris, maybe Rio de Janeiro, potentially NYC, etc., I don't think hosting a Games really does anything. In some regards, when cities like that host the Games, it drags tourism down because would be visitors decide to avoid the city. That is exactly what happened this year in Paris.

There's some good historical evidence that hosting a Summer Games does have a big effect for lower-tier cities, though. Los Angeles was the fifth largest U.S. city when it first hosted the Summer Games in 1932. Atlanta was the 36th largest city when it first hosted in 1996, and is the smallest municipality to ever host a Summer Games. Atlanta is also the only city ever to host a Summer Games when it was not in the top 5 most populous cities in the host country. And, although it was and is Spain's second city, Barcelona had virtually no global notoriety when it hosted the Games in 1992, but today it is one of the most visited places in the world.

Of the 23 cities to host a Summer Olympics only eight were not the host country's largest and capital. Three of those 8 are U.S. cities. Those three U.S. cities are also the only cities that were not even the host country's second largest at the time of the Games.

City (first hosted Olympics)
St. Louis (1904)
Los Angeles (1932)
Melbourne (1956)
Munich (1972)
Montreal (1976)
Barcelona (1992)
Atlanta (1996)
Rio de Janeiro (2016)

Atlanta was the #13 US city in 1990, and probably #12 in 1996 (having passed Seattle). I'm using CSA. I suspect its image grew massively due to the Olympics, though it had some black eyes.

I can't imagine how municipal population is relevant...event sites, hotel inventories, airports, etc., have nothing to do with that.

It's a far more prominent city now, though it never became a tourism center outside the business/convention side (at least to the point of having tourist districts etc.). They did get some infrastructure however, particularly the downtown park.

[bobdreamz]

I'm not sure how holding the Olympics in a major city gives it more "gravitas" than it already had. I remember the hype about Atlanta hosting it and how it's city leaders somehow thought it was going to boost the city into the stratosphere but did it really?

Do these sporting events really have any significant impact anymore? I know it was a "feather in the cap" for Atlanta but sadly for me the most memorable thing about it was that horrific bombing.