Jump to content


Premium Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nacre

  1. Is that the government of Norway or the Norwegian Olympic Committee?
  2. Assuming that Norway actually wants to host the Olympics, of course.
  3. The deciding factors were the lack of financial contributions from governments, the inadequate venue arrangements and the huge logistical issues. For anyone who has every actually worked at an Olympics these are huge and obvious concerns. When I volunteered at Vancouver 2010 there were people getting home to Langley at 4:00 AM after volunteering at Whistler that day. I can't imagine how Swedish volunteers from places like Malmo who were assigned to work at Are would manage it.
  4. I wish that cities would stop seeing homelessness as something to be "solved." Many people who are homeless don't want to be put into social housing - especially if that housing comes with sobriety checks. So what do you do? Force them into a program against their will? Maybe cities should start designating some places for tent cities.
  5. A well-supported Swedish bid would beat out Milan's mediocre bid. But . . . Stockholm has not signed the host city contract. The quoted budget for the Stockholm + Are + Sigulda bid is much lower than they will actually need to spend to host the games. The Swedish people don't particularly want the winter Olympics.
  6. Nacre

    Stockholm/Åre 2026

    The obvious problem for Stockholm is that their quoted budget in their bid is far lower than what their plan requires, and they will have to go to the government for more money. And at that point the people and/or politicians could tell them they won't pay. That is the scenario where they lose the games.
  7. Nacre

    Tokyo 2020 Look of the Games

    I want everyone to remember this when they suggest that city X can host the Olympics on the cheap without the sporting federations raising hell. The SOP of the federations has always been to trash the host city in the media to pressure them to give them what the federations want. Be it a lavish venue for their sport, better transit links, a better Olympic village or in this case more money for decorations.
  8. Nacre

    Brisbane 2032

    To me it doesn't seem terribly wise for a city as small as Brisbane to bid (the entire state of Queensland has only 36.4% of the population of the London metropolitan area), but if Brisbane can host without building any white elephant facilities then it could work. And as the spearhead of a new model for the IOC a Brisbane games could potentially put the Olympics within reach of cities like Liverpool, Copenhagen, Casablanca, Durban, et al.
  9. Technically they can't know what the inflation rate will be from 2020-2028, so it's impossible to calculate that even if they wanted to. But it will be 1-3% each year, because the fed only cares about the inflation rate and not monetary velocity. *grumble* *grumble*
  10. What is it with you and gay slurs? Internalized homophobia? As a straight guy (even as one who likes cute animals) it would never even occur to me to say something like that.
  11. Nacre

    Brisbane 2032

    Could and should are different things. Could Brisbane theoretically host the Olympics? Yes. But if you run down the list of the major facilities the Olympics require and the facilities that either exist or make sense for Brisbane, they don't overlap much. Brisbane's professional sports teams have no use for a 60,000+ seat stadium. Retrofitting Suncorp Stadium for basketball, gymnastics and swimming is a project that would likely never be useful again after the Olympics. And there's no reason to assume that a large new arena will be built. Why spend all of that money on facilities that will only be useful for a three week festival?
  12. I am not talking about the IOC's interests. I am talking about the interests of the individual voters in the IOC. Historically they have voted based on the provincial interests of their NOC's, their sports, the brown envelopes that get passed to them, etc. And when their provincial interests are ignored they've lashed out at the host cities. Fundamentally I think this is an is vs ought conflict. I agree that what Los Angeles has done is wise, and the IOC's members should respect this and vote for similar projects around the world. But unfortunately I don't think that sports administrators, athletes and even sports fans actually see things that way, and I expect LA to bear the brunt of snide comments and put-downs when it hosts.
  13. I am not disputing that. Historically cities have run into trouble precisely because they have had to give the sporting federations what they want to get the voters from their sport to vote for them. Even the good bids from well-managed countries have run into this problem. The London 2012 bid promised the IAAF they would provide a permanent track and field stadium, which has contributed to the financial and engineering problems with that stadium. But it succeeded in getting the IAAF's members in the IOC to vote for London, and the IAAF was determined to hold London to its promise to build them a permanent athletics stadium after the games. Los Angeles has very correctly avoiding giving in to this sort of blackmail by the sporting federations. But that also means that it has lost again and again in the past when the sports organization mafia has gathered to vote between heavily state-subsidized bids and Los Angeles bids without government-supported specialty venues. So no, I don't think LA would win in a race against a strong competitor. If the federations had a choice between an LA bid with modest venues and a Shanghai bid with Beijing-level public funding they would pick the latter.
  14. I am NOT saying that Los Angeles will host on unfavorable terms. I am saying that LA is only hosting because it got favorable terms and didn't have to go through the voting process. And I don't believe that people in LA understand this. At least none of the people I talked to when I visited LA over spring break did.
  15. Quaker you are missing my point(s). I am not saying that LA should build a lavish velodrome, or that the media will be justified in criticizing the city. I am saying that the people of Los Angeles do not understand why 1984 worked out well for them, and why they have been able to get out of building them. LA has done well because it had leverage over the IOC in 1932 and 1984, and that enabled it to host in a way that is desirable for Los Angeles rather than what is desirable for the sporting federations, national Olympic teams, et al. But in the past those sporting federations have been really pissy when non-LA host cities have done this, and voted against cities that have "hurt" their sport by not giving in to building them their palaces of sport. This is actually a great example. Rio built a 5,000 seat velodrome for the 2007 Pan American Games. But the UCI didn't like it because it had columns in it that would temporarily (for a freaking millisecond) interfere with the TV cameras view of the cyclists as they went around the track. They also thought it didn't have adequate VIP facilities. So Rio had to demolish their velodrome and build a new one just to get rid of the columns and add more VIP facilities to keep the UCI happy. Guess what? LA's velodrome also has columns in the infield area and is lacking in VIP facilities. Tokyo has also had a huge fight with the UCI over using an existing velodrome outside of Tokyo, Agenda 2020 be damned.
  16. For the past three decades the media has played up any negative story and ignores most of the positive stuff. Rio 2016 had a steady downpour of coverage of the zika virus, pollution and crime. When I was in Vancouver for the leadup to 2010 the ratio of negative to positive coverage was about 3:1. London was the only recent host that didn't get hammered in the media, and even London had to deal with some negative stories. I was not suggesting that LA 2028 will have a bombing attack or lost bus drivers. I am saying that the days of cities hosting the Olympics to get positive publicity are over. Minor flaws in LA will be heavily scrutinized and LA has its share of flaws. But I would be very happy to be wrong. If the world's media spends 2025-2028 looking at the positive side of happenings in SoCal I will be thrilled for Californians. All of those are multipurpose venues except for the tennis center at Carson, (which pales in comparison to Roland Garros in Paris.) What I am talking about is sport-specific stuff like the athletics stadium and velodrome. The private sector in the USA does not support projects like Olympic Stadiums like the ones in Montreal or Munchen/Munich or velodromes on the scale of the government subsidized ones in Europe and Asia. The LA Coliseum is a perfectly acceptable venue for the Olympics, but from the perspective of the IAAF Stade de France is WAY better. Velodrome de Saint-Quentin is also way better for the UCI than the velodrome in Carson. If the IOC members affiliated with the IAAF and UCI were to vote in a contest between Paris vs Los Angeles, they would pick Paris due to the venues.
  17. What did I say that was incorrect? Did LA not win the right to host in 1932 and 1984 by default? Did the Soviet bloc not boycott in 1984? Is LA 2028 not going to use dorms instead of building a new Olympic village? Does LA really have national, government supported sports facilities like Paris does, or does it not have to make due with the facilities the private sector supplies?
  18. Sort of. Los Angeles was the only bidder for 1984, and the very earliest events were chosen by executives rather than a public vote IIRC. But the key difference is the need for governments to cover the inevitable capital cost overruns and security costs. That is what is killing the Olympics and wasn't an issue in 1898-1912. Well, it is somewhat. 1920 Summer Olympic Games: 2,626 athletes, 22 sports, 35,000 seat main stadium, total cost roughly $55 million in 2019 USD 2020 Summer Olympic Games: 11,091 athletes, 33 sports, 80,016 seat main stadium, projected costs of about $15 billion and revenue of only $5 billion The IOC and the sporting federations have to get it into their heads that they can't allow infinite growth in size and expense. And in fairness the IOC is now genuinely trying to look for solutions.
  19. Indianapolis pedestrianized the city streets downtown around the stadium during the 2012 Super Bowl and it isn't difficult to do that in any city in America. They do it during lots of small street festivals across the country that have very little economic clout. I doubt that was the problem.
  20. There are a lot of ways to deal with parking: they can building parking garages (vertical spread) instead of using a lot (horizontal spread) for example. Some stadiums also have parking underneath the structure of the stadium. But I don't think the Angels will accept it. That area of Long Beach has a lot of fan friendly amenities, but Arte Moreno wants to own the area around the stadium, not move into an area with existing businesses he will have to compete with. It would be a lot easier to deck over the sea of parking lots in Anaheim and build shops and restaurants there.
  21. Why would either London or the UK want to host again so soon? And if London hosted again, wouldn't it amplify the cliche that Whitehall only cares about London?
  22. Australia has a huge advantage over the USA and Canada in that Australia's domestic leagues uses oval-shaped fields, tennis is hugely popular, and there is a lot of support for building facilities like velodromes for the Commonwealth Games. I don't think comparably sized North American cities like Vancouver or Minneapolis would ever be able to manage the Olympics. But a major part of that is having so much invested in sports infrastructure that is relatively useless for the Olympics. (For example my city of Seattle spent $900 million in 2019 dollars on a baseball stadium for a team no one here cares about. We could have built two Olympic stadiums for that amount of money if Americans played cricket instead of baseball.) If Carrara Stadium could be rebuilt along the lines of London's original plan for 2012 (25,000 permanent seats + 55,000 temporary seats), Brisbane does have the advantage that its existing sports infrastructure is tailor-made for the Olympics. The insoluble issue seems to be hotel capacity. How much domestic tourism does Queensland get? I can't seem to find any tourism data that isn't behind a paywall.
  23. Again, I don't disagree with any of that. LA has been smart to not waste money. And it makes more sense to cater to long term interests (USC) than a three week sports festival. But the sporting federations' various voters in the IOC have repeatedly (and perhaps foolishly) voted against LA in favor of more lavish bids. Where LA has been successful is not in hosting better Olympics than London or Beijing, but in cheaper Olympics without the sports palaces the sporting executives in Lausanne want. And people in Los Angeles have a serious cognitive dissonance problem on that score.
  24. Los Angeles' non-NFL, non-NBA and non-MLB sports facilities are cheap in comparison to what countries in Europe and Asia have done in building "national" sports venues. To use athletics as an example, Paris got Stade de France because the government put up the money for the building, designed it with a track and forced the French football and rugby federations to use the building when each wants their own building. The stadium was designed so Paris could host the Olympics, cost and the wishes of the tenants be damned. That would never be possible in the USA. In Seattle we couldn't even get the NFL and NCAA American football teams to share a stadium when both wanted stadiums of the same size much less keep a track in Husky Stadium. Private industries have built lavish venues, but they are designed for those private sports events and teams rather than the interests of the country as a whole. The Coliseum's new design will be absolutely awful for the Olympics. The LA 2028 organizing committee has no say in what USC does with the stadium, and will simply have to put a brave face and sell the design as a positive thing even if you can't see half the track from some seats. www.insidesocal.com/usc/files/2015/11/COLISEUM.BAD_.png Given the vociferous complaints by European fans and journalists about Atlanta's stadium, do you really think there won't be complaints about a stadium with obstructed views that bad?