Jump to content


Premium Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nacre last won the day on February 17

Nacre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

209 Excellent

About Nacre

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    near Seattle

Recent Profile Visitors

6908 profile views
  1. I think that they could re-use the one in Richmond. AFAIK the building itself was not reconstructed after the event, only the individual rooms repurposed to turn it into a community center. It should be easy to turn it back into a speed skating oval if the people in Richmond want to do that. The question is whether they want to give up their community center to host the Olympics.
  2. Innsbruck hosted in 1964 and 1976 with an interval of only 12 years, but that was due to Denver refusing to host after being selected. St. Moritz hosted with only a 20 year interval between 1928 and 1948, but that was in another age. In the current environment with the IOC preaching the re-use of existing venues who can say how they would react to Vancouver hosting again so soon after 2010. The other side is much more interesting. Why would Vancouver want to host again? It is a truly herculean effort to host, and you don't gain as much economic or PR benefit from hosting as boosters think. So would Vancouver actually be up for hosting again?
  3. As the disastrous financial costs of the Montreal games of 1976 became clear to the world, there was only 1 bid for 1984 and 2 for 1988. But after Los Angeles hosted in 1984 without incurring debts it became fashionable to bid again. The same thing may happen again after affordable Olympics in Paris and Los Angeles.
  4. 1) How can they include an Ainu-specific segment without a similar one for the Ryukyuan people, Burakumin, etc? 2) Depictions of aboriginal peoples are a no win situation. If the organizers don't include aboriginal culture they are accused of whitewashing the past and when they do they have been accused of cultural appropriation. It would be great if they could include a segment on the Ainu. But if they don't think they can do it well, then that should be OK too.
  5. The public transport = big government and cars = small government argument is particularly bizarre since automobile infrastructure requires more government subsidy per rider than public transit. If you live in rural Nebraska would you rather pay $25 in taxes for more bikes and trains in big cities or $100 in taxes for more freeways and parking lots in Dallas, LA, etc? The real problem for public transport is that it is really slow even in cities like Paris with good public transport. (The average speed of the Paris Metro is about 25 kph/15.5 mph, which is only marginally better than the average American bus at 13 mph.) But that's a problem for big city commuters, not the Republican Party.
  6. How can Australia accept hosting the 2032 games before figuring out what it will do with these major venues? A wise city works out the legacy plan first and only afterwards proceeds with a bid for a sporting event. Winning the bid and then planning the legacy afterwards is like making arrangements for a wedding and afterwards desperately looking for someone to marry. Perhaps it will all work out for the best. But if I were the mayor of Brisbane or premier of Queensland I wouldn't risk the future of my citizens on "perhaps".
  7. I don't see anything in there to shows how Brisbane will fund the new venues after the event. That information is not listed under "Master Plan and Venues" or "Legacy and Sustainability". Labelling a venue as a "Legacy Opportunity" does not absolve governments from needing to pay to maintain that venue after the three week event is finished. Let's not forget that the Brazilian government also heralded Rio's Olympic Park as a legacy opportunity as a training grounds for Brazilian Olympic athletes. The tricky part is finding the money for it. So the organizers need to explain to the Australian public how those facilities will be maintained. Moreover there is a fundamental problem with creating new facilities to replace existing ones without consulting with the key stakeholders using the existing facilities. For example Durban built a new multipurpose stadium (Moses Mabhida Stadium) suitable for hosting the Olympics for the 2010 World Cup. But the local rugby union club has refused to move to the new stadium because they prefer playing in a rectangular stadium. The same issue is likely to be a sticking point for a plan to replace the rectangular Suncorp Stadium with either a new oval-shaped stadium or an expensive convertible stadium. In fact replacing The Gabba makes much more sense as cricket and the AFL use oval-shaped fields. Living in another continent I wish Brisbane the best, and even if this turns into another Montreal I won't have to pay for it. But if I were Australian I would want a clear and concise plan for those venues rather than thinking "we already have venues for archery, golf and taekwondo, who cares about a few niggling details like the Olympic Stadium"?
  8. This is a bit disingenuous, though, considering that the structures that need to be built are the most expensive venues. There are many cities that are "only" lacking the main stadium, aquatics center, and two large arenas for gymnastics and basketball.
  9. It's hard for me to believe that they can install a track in a rectangular football stadium and only lose 10,000 seats. Hampden Park lost 12,000 and it is already an oval shape. And the same will be true for the LA Coliseum in 2028.
  10. It depends on how much money they are willing to spend. Decking over a railyard would probably be the best choice for creating land, but it wouldn't be cheap. As for the stadium's purpose it would need to either be temporary or a national stadium like Stade de France. Politically I don't know if the latter option is viable with the national mens football team as one of the few things uniting the Basques and Catalans with the Castilians.
  11. I think you are seriously overstating the reality of the changes thanks to "Agenda 2020". Italy still handily beat out Sweden's bid for the 2026 winter games due to Sweden's bid using low cost existing venues and greater spread of venues. (620 km from Stockholm to Are vs 420 km from Milan to Cortina) To be clear, I have nothing against another Australian Olympics, or one in the Gold Coast. But the empty suits who will vote for the 2032 Olympics still have the same institutional interests they did when they voted for Sochi to host the 2014 Olympics. Their priorities are their sports, their sponsors and their national teams, not the economic future of the host city. Until we actually see them pick a low cost, spread out bid over a high cost, dense bid I will remain skeptical that Agenda 2020 is more than a public relations move.
  12. Sad. If Idaho could stump up the money for this then surely Sweden could manage it. I don't know the technical requirements for alpine skiing at the winter Special Olympics, but it seems to be only about 500m vertical drop. If so then this would be a great event for Scotland to host in Dundee or Aberdeen.
  13. I understand why WADA has to do this but it really, really stinks that clean Russian athletes are likely going to lose a lot of the sponsorship revenue they desperately need to live on while virtually all of the people guilty of the mess in Sochi will get taken care of by the Kremlin and various oligarchs. Welcome to life in Russia, I guess.
  14. Winter events are a lot harder to cluster together. There are many places that have ski jumps but no bobsledding track, or a speed skating rink and no alpine skiing course with the required vertical drop needed, and very few places even in Europe with everything needed for a winter games. The Netherlands has lots of support for speed skating, for example, but it would be totally unable to host if the speed skating and alpine skiing events took place at the same location. I think the best option would be to televise simultaneous events with a collective medal table.
  15. Options: build a convertible stadium (like Stade de France) build a stadium with mostly temporary seating (like Budapest's new stadium for the 2023 World Athletics Championships) build an oval stadium that is converted to a rectangle after the event (like City of Manchester Stadium after the 2002 Commonwealth Games) build a semi-oval stadium with a temporary platform or excavation for athletics (like Hampden Park for the 2014 Commonwealth Games) I think the financing and club cooperation are bigger obstacles than the technical issues. BVB, Borussia M, Schalke, Fortuna and Bayer Leverkusen all have existing stadiums that suit their needs better than a Frankenstein hybrid stadium.
  • Create New...