Rob2012

Of those that have been posted so far, France is winning by a country mile.

Nothing to dislike, but very safe

Good morning! Are we up to four stadium options now?

Maybe you're right, but I've been hearing this for years, will believe it when I see it. Anyway, we're getting well off topic.

France's electoral system produces 'least-worst' winners. And it was designed with exactly that aim in mind (I read a really interesting piece on how it was conceived a while back, doubt I can find it again now). America's electoral system produces whatever the Electoral College barfs up any given cycle, which twice this century has meant the candidate with the fewest votes winning. The next election will be decided on the whims of maybe just 100k voters in key areas regardless what the other 150 million think. Even if America doesn't want Trump it, and LA28, might get him.

Yeah, she's excellent. Good that she called out Wrexham's co-owner Mr Rob McElhenney too.

I didn't mean to say Melbourne itself was unmanageable - just that these almost Olympic-scale Commonwealth Games hostings would be unmanageable and out-of-reach for most other cities, who are either not blessed with venues of that size or couldn't afford to build them. And sure, in term of construction, include Manchester in that as well. Certainly include Delhi. Glasgow '14 definitely scaled down from what had gone before. And we thought that had become the model. But apparently not.

Anyway, when it comes to 2026 the Games doesn't need to be replicable. It just needs to be....there.

Brilliantly put!

Perhaps what they're proposing would be more replicable and I should get a slap for my first response being cynically pasting those paragraphs next to each other. But we need to see the details. But what does replicability mean now when it comes to these Games? A decade ago we were (rightly. I think) praising Glasgow for bringing things down to a smaller, manageable scale after Melbourne and Delhi. That lasted all of two editions post-Glasgow before being seen as too big again. It does just seem like the whole thing is running out of momentum.

"We are ready to explore our concept with the CGF and key partners in greater detail, with the aim of delivering a world class-sporting event in Scotland using a model that could be replicated across the Commonwealth for future editions." ... "Glasgow has a fantastic track record of delivering large sporting events within sensible budgets, with world class facilities and expertise already in place as a legacy of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games a decade ago." Lol

Still weird to me we can't see who's reacting to our posts on this forum. Thanks for the 'thanks', whoever that was.

Disregard his opinion going forward then.

THIS x 1000

I'd be hesitant to call it a "model" at that point. Paris and LA were both low-build options, sure, but I'd say that was an (almost) inevitable corollary of giving the Games to two well-prepared megacities rather than the basis for the decision. The IOC massively lucked out in having Paris and LA wanting the Games when the options aside from them were threadbare. They had to nail them down. If Paris or LA or both were opting to build a London-style Olympic Park I reckon the IOC would've made exactly the same decision. The other reason I don't think it's a "model" at that point is because it's not replicable (and this is a point I've argued with many LA-boosters about with their overblown claims of "saving the Olympics"). Saying "do it like LA" is fine, but that means the venues need to already exist, and for most cities they don't. It's paradoxical nonsense calling a city blessed with 100% existing venues a "model" if that's of zero help to the cities that come after. I think it's much more arguable to say the change in model has come with 2032, and it's come from the IOC which is the only place it could come from to be sustainable and replicable. My concern is that maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way?

Funnily enough, I asked the exact question this thread is about in the New Norm thread. But it's good (I don't mean 'good' exactly, y'know what I mean...) to hear it articulated by a local. I did wonder if I was overegging it with this post, but it feels like it's a genuine talking point now... And welcome to the forum @venuedesignlover

If QSAC is fine (and I've heard mixed messages on this with regard to transport, legacy and also - it looks a bit tinpot), then fine. If that's the case the IOC should be saying "we're fine with QSAC, but the final decision is yours as long as you don't build a white elephant". What they are instead saying (or almost saying) is, "You must be our guinea pig - our martyr, our sacrificial lamb - to show the world our New Norm" It's like they've gone from one form of prescriptivism that puts their apparent needs above a host city's, to another form of prescriptivism that puts their apparent needs above a host city's.

Yeah, mayoral election is in a month. General election in only a few months where we're almost certain to see a change in government. Can't see anyone committing to anything like this in the next few months - there's too much up in the air politically. Khan has said London stands ready, as he does whenever this kind of thing happens, but he doesn't even know if he'll be in a job in a month (odds on he will), and as he said it would need the government to support it first and foremost and we've heard nothing from them. And as I've said many times in the London 2036 thread, the chances of this moronic government giving Khan/London anything are close to zero. They actively dislike this city and constantly talk it down because we won't vote for them...

Compared with previous entries (Olympics on the moon!), this is a much more pissed-off satire than an actual April Fool. But all the better for it. And I'm sure @GBModerator enjoyed writing this one more than most of the others too. LOL, is this the first time a member of this forum has been trolled in one of these? Or am I reading too much into this line?

Seems to me that'd be cutting it a bit fine.

The thing about this Brisbane situation, is it's the first time I remember a huge argument about where the main stadium should be - certainly after a host city has won the Games anyway. We've had plenty of arguments over design (e.g. Tokyo*), legacy usage (e.g. London), environmental and social cost (e.g. Beijing**), but I can't remember the last time this kind of mess was seen. Not knowing where your Olympic stadium is going to be is not ideal at this stage. * I know it was decadent in the extreme, and would've looked doubly so during the Covid Games, but a part of me still wishes we'd seen that Zaha Hadid stadium built. ** Though that controversy was mainly played out in the international media, I don't think there was much debate allowed within China about it. Excellent find!

So what are the Liberals hoping their 100 day review will magically fix? This prudent/half-arsed* approach to the stadium encouraged by Coates and supported by Labor does look like bad value for money long-term - as the Quirk review argues. But if it's all that can be supported at this time then I guess it'll do. So....what's the magic new solution from the opposition? Doesn't look like they have one to me. *delete as appropriate