Find content
Male
Display name history
Sir Rols, on 21 March 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:
Exactly - there's gotta be a balance. Obviously, you can't get away with a too ridiculously spread out plan that dilutes the whole value of having it in one city (like, say, an San Francisco bid having the bulk of major events in San Jose or Oakland, or, dare I say, a Reno bid with major events in Sacramento), but on the other hand, I agree, I really think there's case that things can be too compact, cause congestion, and limit things to a single "Olympic Park" and not touch the wider city.
I just think people take this "holy writ" that compact plans are the superior plans too far. And I also think they have far less bearing on the eventual decision than is often assumed. As I stated originally, it's a nice marketing tagline, but I can't think really of any city that has been awarded the games for the sole or predominant reason that they a "compact" bid plan.
Once a city makes the short list, I strongly feel it's the "story" rather than the "plan" that wins the race.
I just think people take this "holy writ" that compact plans are the superior plans too far. And I also think they have far less bearing on the eventual decision than is often assumed. As I stated originally, it's a nice marketing tagline, but I can't think really of any city that has been awarded the games for the sole or predominant reason that they a "compact" bid plan.
Once a city makes the short list, I strongly feel it's the "story" rather than the "plan" that wins the race.
Absolutely. The point was never to say the "best bid" is "compact". I was just interested in the overlay of the concepts.
e.g. in Madrid, given the high quality of public transport, for which I can vouch for, a concept like that of Istanbul would not really be an issue, using existing infrastructure for Games Times services.
So what you need to overlay is , the following, but not limited to;
1. The planned, existing, and additional transport infrastructure
2. The risk of each of these infrastructures
3. The development zones of the city
4. The capacity of venues and peak demand in relation to capacities, and distance from the OV
In addition rather than the concept just looking pretty, does it actually fit together.
No point saying it's a "zone" (well to make the shortlist this matters) but the scattered venue in the zone bear no relation, are not served by a "zonal" transport interchange, secruity and other resources...i.e. the whole point of clustering, being compact i.e. logistics, capacity, transport, vibe, atmosphere, costs...
I would encourage a more hands on approach by the IOC.
Requesting that all potential venues and sites be included, in particular existing venues.
A large existing exhibition centre may be "recommended" by the IOC, rather than "later on" in the bid announcing that sports are moving "outside the Olympic Park"
