Jump to content

phandrosis

Members
  • Posts

    767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Posts posted by phandrosis

  1. Not when you have the opportunity on the table to promote winter sports to over 1.3 Billion people. Not to mention these days the IOC is much more interested in re-'launching' their own image than the one of some small dictatorship in a remote part of Asia.

    But will the games reach the entire population of either China or Kazakhstan? Very unlikely. There are a lot of people in every country that hosts who just don't care enough.

  2. I think of Seoul 1988 more along the lines of Tokyo 1964 & Beijing 2008, especially the former. Post Tokyo WWII was an ugly, war-torn industrial city. And the 1964 Olympics pretty much catapulted Japan into the country that we know today, & even the one the world already knew back in 1981. So perhaps that was the IOC's thinking (which who are we kidding. Of course it was), to do the same in Seoul, South Korea with the 1988 Summer Olympics. Push it into the 20th century with the global exposure of the Olympic Games.

    But wouldn't a post-Soviet state also present the opportunity to be launched into the 21st century with Winter Olympic global exposure?

  3. They are going to build a new national stadium, as that was always the goal regardless of the Olympics (due to the RWC, but that's a mess for them already...). There would be no reason to have demolished the old stadium and just leave it at that, moving the main stadium outside of not only the city, but the prefecture. Of course they're supposed to be national games in a sense, but it's not Japan 2020, it's Tokyo 2020.

  4. I don't think this would ever work. Having a National stadium since the early 50's demonstrated the emergence from poverty to innovation. It was always the plan to renovate the stadium, as it was getting simply too old and was no longer up to code for earthquakes. The problem was that they chose a new design that had no concern about costs, and that problem was not addressed even after the design received criticism early on. In reality, they can't just put a park there. There is no stadium of that caliber within Tokyo, and there is need for one. There are sporting events that need to be hosted in the capital, there are concerts that need large spaces that aren't readily available in a cramped city like Tokyo.

    Also it seems like the author is very animositical towards Abe. He stated that this was, " another new low for Japan with the international sporting community". The matter of the fact is that Japan has rejected the common expectation in recent years that design is more important than functionality. Design is more important than legacy. It seems to me that this author has no idea how the price of the stadium can impact the people around it. He even claims that, "Tokyo has squandered a golden opportunity to build some world-class venues that could be utilized for decades to come. I keep recalling the way the international media bashed Russian President Vladimir Putin over the cost for the Sochi Games. The bottom line is that he got all the venues built just like he said he would". This author somehow believes that the 50 billion spent for Sochi was justified because Putin got done what he initially promised. He's looking at the world of stadium construction through a pair of rose colored glasses focused on design and not on legacy nor economical impact.

  5. If you want to get extremely technical & split hairs, go right ahead. But we at least saw what Munich 2018 was capable of delivering, & surely that would've been applied to any 2022 attempt & perhaps even better. Munich 2022 would've been what Paris is very likely going to be for 2024.

    No, that's not true whatsoever. The city that got the lowest technical evaluation in the 2016 preliminary rating was Prague (or Baku), NOT Rio. Rio was only last AFTER the 2016 shortlist was announced.

    Which kinda brings us back to the first paragraph. To compare Rio to Almaty is quite disingenuous, to say the least. Brazil is a booming newer economy, which is home to 200 million people on a continent that never hosted the Games before. That's why Rio mainly got the 2016 Games. It was a compelling narrative.

    Kazahkstan, OTHO, is in a remote part of Asia (which as a continent, has already hosted the Games several times already) with only 17 million inhabitants. Not to mentioned ruled by the same person since 1991.

    Had all those European bids actually materialized, I seriously doubt that Almaty woiuld've been short-listed. There wouldn't have been any need for the IOC to entertain it like there is now. But anyway, these are all things that have been discussed in some of the older threads on this topic. Perhaps you should review them. This isn't necessarily new conversation.

    Don't forget that the main reason the European bids were pulled were because the public didn't wants them. The majority of the Almaty and Beijing public have shown that, through the IOC polls which I don't have the numbers, have a desire to host the games. That's why you can't compare Almaty to these european cities because right from the start none of them had a chance, honestly. The second the idea for a bid in any of the European countries was risen, the public outcry erupted.

    Also, China is in Asia too, and a good part of China is just as rural as the parts of Kazakhstan you're referring to. With that logic neither should host the games.

  6. Presentations start at 9pm EST/2am GMT and go ok for about 4 hours. Voting starts at 4:15am EST/9am GMT. The announcement is at 5:30am EST/10:30am GMT and goes on for about half an hour. So basically if you live in the Americas you can watch both presentations and go to bed for 2020 Youth and voting, then come back for announcement. Europeans can either get up super early for presentations or just pass and wake up reasonably for the announcement.

×
×
  • Create New...