Gangwon Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/02/137_105956.html I was reading an article from earlier this year, and came across this quote: Lillehammer is the only recent example of an Olympics recording a surplus. The Norwegian city built no permanent facilities or structures, making do with existing rinks and slopes and makeshift buildings. The Norwegians’ motto was to make no one realize it was an Olympic venue one year on. Compare this with the Korean officials’ plan to build and change as much as possible, even destroying one of the nation’s oldest forests.PyeongChang should be a second Lillehammer, not another Nagano. This is the only way to make the athletics festival a party for local residents, not for builders and speculators. Pyeongchang has a unique opportunity due to its smaller size to have an atmosphere of a village-type sporting festival rather than one of grandeur. As much as I stand in awe of what Sochi is doing, Pyeongchang should in no way spend $30 billion like Sochi to transform the area. It can leave a much bigger legacy by making 2018 about sport and about the athletes and locals. Korea doesn't need to prove how big it is, or how developed they've become. That's what 1988 and 2002 was for. Take a page out of Gangnam Style and make the world fall in love with the culture and the people, not about how impressive your arenas look. Already, the builders and speculators are trying to make it all about them. It's still early enough for POCOG to make this Olympics "right." It's good that Korea is looking to boost funding and support for the young, high-performance elite athletes, and we can already see gains in hockey, skiing and curling. Now is the chance for the regular residents of Pyeongchang, Gangneung and the rest of Korea to discover an interest in winter sports so they can watch and attend 2018 with a passion. Being the first village-type host since Lillehammer, they have the chance to create an atmosphere of intimacy, a chance that recent previous hosts didn't have. At least in the Alpensia cluster. The much larger coastal cluster can continue to follow the trend of the more populated Nagano/SLC/Torino/Vancouver/Sochi, but keep the Alpensia cluster intimate. With cities like Munich/Denver/Harbin seemingly next in line, it might be the last chance in a long time the world can experience a smaller, more intimate atmosphere. Take my advice POCOG. You can impress the world even more this way, at a fraction of the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 My personal favorite quote from that article.. Can you remember Albertville or Lillehammer, two former hosts, and in which countries they are situated? I know Americans have a reputation for being terrible with geography, so no idea where they're going with that one. Even more confusing is the "The Norwegian city built no permanent facilities or structures, making do with existing rinks and slopes and makeshift buildings." I'm sorry, but what Olympics are they talking about? Almost all of the venues were built brand new. To their credit, the `94 Olympics aren't saddled with white elephants and other elements that have plagued other hosts, but I just don't get that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Lillehammer is the only recent example of an Olympics recording a surplus. The Norwegian city built no permanent facilities or structures, making do with existing rinks and slopes and makeshift buildings. Well, what about the hockey rink inside the mountain? That wasn't permanent? And That certainly doesn't look like a temporary structure to me. And at least 2 or 3 more structures. If there were no 'permanent' structures, then what sort of 'legacy' would they have had? Gangwon, better double-check your quoted references before you post them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox334 Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 The bobsleigh/luge track is also permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 The "Lysgardsbåkken" ski jumps (where they also staged the ceremonies and had the main Olympic cauldron) were also newly built for the Lillehammer 1994 Games. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysg%C3%A5rdsbakken Let's check the venues one by one: Birkebeineren Ski Stadium (Biathlon, Cross Country, Nordic Combined): newly built for the 1994 Games Gjøvik Olympic Cavern Hall (Ice Hockey, the venue built within a mountain): newly built for the 1994 Games Håkons Hall (Ice Hockey): newly built for the 1994 Games Hamar Olympic Amphitheatre (Figure Skating, Short Track Speed Skating): newly built for the 1994 Games Hamar Olympic Hall (Speed Skating): newly built for the 1994 Games Kanthaugen Freestyle Arena (Freestyle Skiing): newly built for the 1994 Games Lillehammer Olympic Alpine Centre Hafjell (Alpine Skiing): newly built for the 1994 bid, already finished in 1988 Lillehammer Olympic Alpine Centre Kvitfjell (Alpine Skiing): newly built for the 1994 Games Lillehammer Olympic Bobsleigh and Luge Track (Bobsleigh, Luge): newly built for the 1994 Games Lysgårdsbakkene Ski Jumping Arena (Ski Jumping, Nordic Combined, Ceremonies): newly built for the 1994 Games See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venues_of_the_1994_Winter_Olympics and part 3 of the official report of the Lillehammer 1994 Games: So much about "Lillehammer built no new venues" (that was what that author probably meant, instead of "permanent" - and even regarding "permanent", he was plainly wrong). In fact, nothing of their Olympic competition venues existed before they even bid for the 1994 Games. And all venues are still standing and in use in and around Lillehammer, so they weren't even temporary. Fun fact: Lillehammer even built an ice-hockey arena, Kristins Hall, in the 1980s just for having better chances in their bidding campaign for the 1992 Winter Games (which they lost to Albertville). Since it turned out that Kristins Hall would be too small for the eventual Olympic ice hockey tournament in 1994, they had to build another new arena, namely the aforementioned Håkons Hall. At least the construction of Kristins Hall wasn't in vain: It served as ice hockey training venue during the 1994 Olympic Winter Games and as ice sledge hockey venue during the 1994 Paralympic Winter Games. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristins_Hall So even if Lillehammer were the "cosy village Games" in retrospect, they were actually gigantic in terms of venue construction, especially for such a small community. But regarding how many important winter sports events still take place in Lillehammer (even annually), the Lillehammer organisers were apparently very diligent about how to use all those venues after the Games. This should be a role model for every Winter Games host, not only Pyeongchang. I seriously doubt, though, that Pyeongchang won't create white elephants, in a country with basically no winter sports tradition besides short track and long track speed skating. Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the third part of the official Lillehammer 1994 report: http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1994/E_BOOK3.PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangwon Posted December 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 So even if Lillehammer were the "cosy village Games" in retrospect, they were actually gigantic in terms of venue construction, especially for such a small community. But regarding how many important winter sports events still take place in Lillehammer (even annually), the Lillehammer organisers were apparently very diligent about how to use all those venues after the Games. This should be a role model for every Winter Games host, not only Pyeongchang. I seriously doubt, though, that Pyeongchang won't create white elephants, in a country with basically no winter sports tradition besides short track and long track speed skating. That's true. But maybe I should clarify myself. I don't think Pyeongchang should be focusing on temporary venues, most of what they need should be permanent. They NEED a figure skating arena. It's become legend now, that Yuna Kim had to practise skating late at night with no heating because she had to share the rink with speed skaters and hockey players during the day. Even worse, she had to train at a public shopping mall while her shared rink was being repaired, during public hours. So yes, Korea needs their downhill venue at Jungbong, their sliding centre, their figure skating area. What I meant was that Pyeongchang shouldn't spend unnecessarily to pay for extravagance. They are already in debt with Alpensia, and they have to construct more venues and also their rail link. What I want is for PC to spend wisely, focus on making 2018 about sport and enthusiasm rather than extravagant venues, and take advantage of their smaller vilage-type setting in a way that other recent hosts can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 That's true. But maybe I should clarify myself. I don't think Pyeongchang should be focusing on temporary venues, most of what they need should be permanent. They NEED a figure skating arena. It's become legend now, that Yuna Kim had to practise skating late at night with no heating because she had to share the rink with speed skaters and hockey players during the day. Even worse, she had to train at a public shopping mall while her shared rink was being repaired, during public hours. So yes, Korea needs their downhill venue at Jungbong, their sliding centre, their figure skating area. What I meant was that Pyeongchang shouldn't spend unnecessarily to pay for extravagance. They are already in debt with Alpensia, and they have to construct more venues and also their rail link. What I want is for PC to spend wisely, focus on making 2018 about sport and enthusiasm rather than extravagant venues, and take advantage of their smaller vilage-type setting in a way that other recent hosts can't. So they should rather do it like London which constructed some permanent venues without much "bling-bling" (best example maybe is the Copper Box in Olympic Park, which is a very plain building). I fear, however, that Pyeongchang won't be that sensible. I mean, they will even construct a separate venue for their ceremonies (even if it will be a temporary one) - instead of sticking to their original plan of staging the ceremonies at the ski jumping arena. Yes, a temporary ceremonies venue will make it more comfortable for the spectators and will enable the ski jumpers to keep their training schedule. But I'm sure that they could have found a way to work around those problems, even if they had used the ski jumping arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deawebo Posted December 31, 2012 Report Share Posted December 31, 2012 Well, Pyeongchang has to start from 0 in most of the venues, unlike Lillehammer. Also yhey do need to increase winter culture in order to "remake" Lillehammer's athmosphere.... As for the venues, the ice rink might have a decent future in Korea, but with most pf the venues perhaps they might end up as temporary ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulsa Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Never Pyeongchang will be an Asian lillehammer, there are no winter atmosphere in Korea like in Norway, Korean don't care about winter sport except figure skating and short track, winter sport isn't a culture in korea... And remember some event like Biathlon in 2009, there were nobody in the stadium. I can't imagine Korea become in 5 years like Novergian people or even European people about winter sports... About cost, It is already a catastrophe, Korea and Pyeongchang have spent too much money to host WoG and never this WoG will be profitable to Korea... The cost is already like Sotchi 2014... It's the price to become a winter host now... I hope there will snow in 2018, if not it will a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Never Pyeongchang will be an Asian lillehammer, there are no winter atmosphere in Korea like in Norway, Korean don't care about winter sport except figure skating and short track, winter sport isn't a culture in korea... And remember some event like Biathlon in 2009, there were nobody in the stadium. I can't imagine Korea become in 5 years like Novergian people or even European people about winter sports... About cost, It is already a catastrophe, Korea and Pyeongchang have spent too much money to host WoG and never this WoG will be profitable to Korea... The cost is already like Sotchi 2014... It's the price to become a winter host now... I hope there will snow in 2018, if not it will a joke. Still bitter about Annecy's 7 votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulsa Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Still bitter about Annecy's 7 votes? I don't speak about Annecy, even if I think this bid was better than Pyeongchang in lot of thing like atmosphere, quality of venues, snow, and popular fever... it's finish. Pyeongchang spend too much money to win 2018, they lost 80 000 € per day and Korean government must to bond issue to 20 billions €, it's crazy... Never Korea will be a major touristic destination to Winter sport in the world or even in Asia... Never there will popular fever and atmosphere like in Europe about Winter sport... Moreover some venues could be not very good : snow is uncertain in February in Korea and for some sports Korea has never host contest like ski, freestyle etc. Korea has bought 2018 WoG like Qatar has bought Fifa 2022... And you couldn't compare Pyeongchang with Norway, France etc. The show will be less interesting. But for me the problem is older than 2018, since some years CIO don't choose host cities for their sporting interest or the quality of venues for sportsmen but only for the money whom they spend in Games... In 2022 the host city should be European city (2010 America, 2014 Eurasia, 2018 Asia) but nobody want to bid... In Switzerland people don't want WoG, Norway don't want spend too much money, Barcelone ? (Crazy), Germany ? France it's over... Maybe Poland or Ukraine ? Unrealistic... WoG are become too expensive, and the choice to 2014-2018 was totally illogical and only based on a financial choice... Not sport consideration. In Europe nobody want to continue in this way... it remains USA but not before 2026 and China like countries able to purpose something like CIO want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Can't you just wish them good luck? Sounds like you ant the games to be a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulsa Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 I think there is a risk to have a disaster... And this risk can be very high if weather condition are like in Vancouver. Korea couldn't take snow in the top of mountains because they are not very high mountains like in Canada... Winter it's a dry season in Korea, and if temperature are too high they can't make snow. I think CIO has undervalued this risk when they choose Korea. It's a major risk with the lack to knowledge in the winter sports events, lot of competitions in the lasts years will be cancelled for some reasons : track aren't good or too dangerous for athletes for exemple. And for some sport like ski downhill, slalom, skifreestyle etc. Korea hasn't host this kind of event yet and you can't learn knowledge in 5 years. More and more people raises these problems... I would like to know how CIO and Korea will do if these problems happen ? Now maybe weather condition will be good, and Korean make good things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hektor Posted January 20, 2013 Report Share Posted January 20, 2013 Why so bitter ? Annecy was an untimely move from the CNOSF which make future French bids difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulsa Posted January 20, 2013 Report Share Posted January 20, 2013 Why so bitter ? Annecy was an untimely move from the CNOSF which make future French bids difficult. Doesn't mater Annecy... I don't care. Really, the Annecy bid wasn't good. I'm agree with that and I understand why Annecy loose, it's logical. But Annecy is a better place to host WoG than Peyongchang, but Korean bid was better and corruption too... IOC has realized a mad choice, too expensive to be rentable, no winter atmosphere, no public fever, no knowledge about winter sport event and an important risk to have no snow at all... The only thing than Korean offers to IOC was money... Now no more cities in Europe would like bid. Nobody can understand this choice about a sporting or logical point of view. But here (Gamesbids) everybody seems said : "it was great, wonderfull" etc. but nobody speak about all problems I said before... I don't understand why people remains blind about that. It was Asian turn in 2018, I would like preferred to see Japan bid to win, the only country in Asia able to host WoG in good condition. I'm pretty sure 2018 will be a disaster, I hope not, but when you are realistic it's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Mata Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 And nobody told this to the good folks of the Special Winter Olympics? That's bad. The flame is already heading to Pyeongchang and the games start in 9 days. We can only hope disastrous Pyeongchang is snowy by then... http://www.2013sopoc.org/hb/eng/sub04_05_02?articleSeq=1532 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.