Jump to content

Nacre

Premium Members
  • Content Count

    1318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Everything posted by Nacre

  1. Nacre

    Favourtie Cities.

    If you want to judge favorite cities why don't you just ask for a top 5 and least favorite by continent? It will be easier to answer that since relatively few people who don't live in Asia have been to both Taipei and Kuala Lumpur. My favorites are . . . Top 5 North America: 1. New York 2. San Francisco 3. Miami 4. New Orleans 5. Seattle Worst: Las Vegas Top 5 Europe: 1. London 2. Rome 3. Paris 4. Lisbon 5. Stockholm Least: Milan
  2. Does the canoeing federation actually prefer an artificial river for the whitewater event? Maybe it's because I live in an area with natural whitewater rafting, but it's hard to imagine why anyone would prefer an artificial river even if they cost the same, and they obviously don't. I think we should let the host city choose one local sport for inclusion. Sydney and LA could have surfing, Chicago could have baseball, Tokyo could have Sumo, London could have cricket, etc. Since a host is only going to choose a sport they already have venues for it wouldn't add too much to the cost and would help give a local flavor to the games.
  3. Nacre

    FIFA World Cup 2026

    Cost and sporting tradition. Baseball is played during summer, when people usually enjoy being out of doors. American football is a macho game where fans take pride in braving the elements. However many newer stadiums are built with at least partial roofs (it always seems like that should be "rooves" but it isn't) or a retractable roof.
  4. Nacre

    FIFA World Cup 2026

    Canada would be a great host country, but I have doubts about the stadiums. A lot of them are either old, too small (in comparison to what the US and South America can offer) or are multipurpose baseball/football stadiums. How much public support would there be for building six new big stadiums? It's been a decade since I've lived in Canada, but back then I doubt the public would have been willing to pay for it. Canadians are very patriotic, but also very practical. The debt left from Vancouver and how quickly the public shot down a Toronto Olympic bid it seems unlikely people are going to rally behind spending billions on new football/soccer venues.
  5. Nacre

    FIFA World Cup 2026

    The big concern with any US bid is transportation, but I don't think it would be TOO big of a concern since infrastructure is already in place for most of them. The question I have is whether being located downtown or having light rail or subway access is more important. Of the biggest NFL stadiums MetLife in New Jersey would be my preference for the finals. The stadium in D.C. is awful and I don't think Jerry World in Arlington has mass transportation access. Maybe I am biased since I live in Seattle, but I think Century Link Field is a very easy choice. Seattle is the closest major US city to NE Asia (Japan, Korea, China) and closer to Europe for "great circle" flights than the Southwest. The Sounders average DOUBLE the attendance of all other MLS teams. The stadium is very new and of excellent quality. There are lots of luxury suites (111) for wealthy viewers. The CLink is located downtown and has mass transportation (light rail) access. Stadium capacity is only moderate for the NFL (67,000), but it would still have been the second largest stadium in South Africa's tournament. Summer weather in Seattle is perfect for outdoor sports: low 70's and sunny almost every day. (Sadly the other 3 seasons more than make up the difference.)
  6. Nacre

    Oslo 2022

    I'm sure that was a joke.
  7. Nacre

    Qatar 2022

    I don't think you have to play in the qualification tournaments at all. Bhutan and Brunei did not enter the 2014 World Cup qualifying tournaments, so it should be possible for the US, Mexican and Canadian teams to decline to participate in the 2022 qualifying tournament. FIFA would be enraged. I imagine they would try to levy sanctions against the national teams that declined to participate. Honestly I don't see that as a problem unless FIFA ruins the careers of individual players, which seems unlikely. At this point I don't think FIFA is much of a help to the domestic leagues in North America anyway. The far greater concern is that the Arab world would be outraged as well, which would be a massive political headache for the governments of the countries involved. Since the heads of state have indirect control over their national teams I can't see this happening. I should have mentioned that the only reason I mentioned the North American teams specifically was because of the broadcast revenue. That's the one way fans can directly punish FIFA: by not watching the World Cup. And no Canadian, Mexican or USA team in the cup would really hurt the broadcasters.
  8. Nacre

    Qatar 2022

    It should be easy to "boycott" the World Cup because you can simply not qualify. Don't show up for the qualifying tournament and you won't be in the World Cup. Politics plays a role in this, though. I doubt any government is going to want to boycott the tournament and enrage the Arab world. (Look at how Russia has responded to the relatively slight snubs the Western world is planning for them in Sochi.) While I get the sense that Western governments aren't too afraid of public protests against them, angering the princes of the gulf is another matter.
  9. One possible solution to the problem of the unsustainable growth of the Olympics would be to split the ancient events from the summer games into a Classic series of games. This would remove athletics, pentathlon, wrestling, boxing, swimming, etc from the summer games. You could host these games in either the spring or fall of an odd year or perhaps the same summer as the current winter games. 1. The host of the summer games would no longer need a main stadium equipped with eight track lanes. That means you could use a stadium designed for association or American football, which basically every city has already. 2. The classic games would require one stadium, one aquatics facility and a couple of arenas total. That's very reasonable, and virtually all cities should be able to fit the entire games within one Olympic Park. 3. A spring or fall games helps out those cities whose weather isn't ideal for the summer games. Melbourne is a good example. 4. This reduces the cost of the games for the host without costing the IOC any money since they get another series of games to sell sponsorship for. 5. This should also make the governing bodies of various sports happy since there is more room for various sports to be included. Wrestling doesn't have to worry about being cut and baseball gets back into the summer games. 6. The reduced cost of a smaller Olympics would let the IOC go to cities and countries too small for the current big show. My biggest concern would be with sports like water polo. I guess you could host them in the summer with an aquatics center with a single pool. You would still need another venues, but it would at least be smaller than the current aquatics centers with 3 pools.
  10. Nacre

    Olympic Classic Games

    And obviously the athletes would wear the same clothing they do in the summer games.
  11. Nacre

    Olympic Classic Games

    I don't mean the exact events of the ancient games. Chariot racing, obviously wouldn't work today. But I mean more generally those sports that were practiced in ancient times that we still do today.
  12. Nacre

    USA 2024

    The benefit of the Olympics is that it enables you to establish a ton of infrastructure and urban planning improvements in a single campaign. It also provides a lot of publicity politicians and planners can use to sell a plan to the citizens. If Barcelona had not hosted the Olympics it's unlikely it would have gotten the infrastructure improvements it did. An Olympiad held in a blighted city like Baltimore could be used to push through a lot of necessary changes the public might not have the stomach for otherwise.
  13. Nacre

    USA 2024

    I didn't say there were no decent parks. I said that Los Angeles' parks aren't as good as other major North American cities. Admittedly I have not lived in every major American city. But between LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Boston, Cleveland, etc LA is the worst. A big park of that is the water issue, though, which I suppose SoCal can't really help. I wish I hadn't brought this up, though, since I didn't intend to start an argument about the relative merits of of parks departments of the various cities of the world. Let's move on and pretend I mentioned the issue. Numerous studies have been done on the displacement effect with events like the Super Bowl and Olympics. While I admit that I don't have numbers for Los Angeles in 1984, we do have numbers for the Olympics since then. Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London all saw a fall in annual tourists the year of their Olympics. http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/escape/london-olympic-tourist-figures-disappoints-589656 http://www.offbeatbuzz.com/believe-it-or-not/beijing-tourist-numbers-fell-during-olympics/ http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co.uk/Articles/07/07/2008/321967/Olympics-hosts-see-falls-in-tourist-numbers-after-Games.htm http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/30/do-the-olympics-boost-the-economy-studies-show-the-impact-is-likely-negative.html Is there any reason we need to host the games? If the economic effects are at least slightly negative, there is no plan to reshape the host city and the public doesn't want to foot the bill then there's no reason to go through the effort of bidding on the games. I went to the Olympics in Vancouver and would not have enjoyed them any more if they were in Seattle or Denver. But to be honest I have had no desire to go to any more of the games in person; TV is a lot easier even if the games are in your country.
  14. Nacre

    USA 2024

    Having grown up there I know they have parks. So does every other city in the United States. My point is that Los Angeles' parks are bad compared to those other cities. With the notable exception of Griffith Park, I guess.
  15. Nacre

    USA 2024

    My point is that the Olympics will never make sense if you look at them purely from an economic perspective. Legacy doesn't just mean finding uses for stadiums and arenas after the games (although that is part of it) but also a part of an urban development plan. London is a good example of a city targeting an economically disadvantaged part of itself and trying to gentrify (or "renew") it. That's precisely my point. This is what a city needs to do to be successful. I'm not suggesting that we do what Russia did in Sochi or China did with Beijing. I'm saying that a city that views the Olympics as if its just a really big version of any other sporting event and prioritizes budgeting is making a mistake. The Olympics only make sense if you have some other plan you want to achieve by hosting them. Such as urban renewal, turning a city into a tourist destination or building a large park in the city. The games themselves had an operating surplus, but that doesn't account for what happens to the city as a whole. When a city hosts the Olympics (or the Super Bowl, World Cup or any other such event) it brings in new tourists to see the games but scares off the tourists you would normally get because they want to avoid the chaos. Additionally the locals stay away or indoors. I was actually born in Los Angeles during the Olympics, by the way.
  16. Nacre

    USA 2024

    You will still lose money overall, though. Even financially successful games only consider the net balance of the games themselves and not the commerce driven out of the area while normal life in the city is basically shut down for a month. (Even in a huge city like London.) And that's not getting into the balance of trade problem that arises due to so many international corporations taking over revenue from local businesses. The only way for a city to benefit from the games is to have them leave a strong legacy after the games are over. If there's no American city that is capable of doing it then none of them should bother bidding. http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/07-08-2012/121856-london_olympics-0/
  17. Nacre

    Boston 2024

    They haven't been looking to build a stadium exactly like this since this one has to be equipped with 8 track lanes. Building a stadium for athletics/track would result in a very poor NFL stadium. I don't think any of the NFL stadiums built in the last 40 years has had a track. You would have to redevelop the stadium afterwards to suit the needs of the Patriots. London has done the same thing with their stadium, so it's certainly possible. But it will certainly increase the cost of the stadium, and it is in the best interest of the Patriots to do a football specific stadium from the beginning. So I doubt they will be very cooperative with it unless they get very favorable terms on their lease of the stadium afterwards. If you build a collegiate stadium you probably wouldn't have to rebuild the seating afterwards. While most colleges are moving away from dual purpose stadiums too, there are still quite a few of them out there that have track lanes. Sorry, I thought you wrote Patriots instead of Revolution. However the same thing is true for soccer/association football as American football. West Ham wanted London's Olympic Stadium rebuilt to accomodate them.
  18. Nacre

    Boston 2024

    Regardless of where an Olympic stadium goes, what is it going to be used for after the games? NFL teams hate track equipped stadiums, so I have a hard time seeing the Patriots agreeing to play there. An association football/soccer team (the Rev) would have the same issue. Boston College seems like the only reasonable user to me (since Harvard probably won't be interested.)
  19. Nacre

    USA 2024

    My concern is that ANY future American bid is going to follow that same path, though. The New York and Chicago bids were more of the same. The New York bid used scattered venues in each burough rather than building a real Olympic Park somewhere like Harlem. (Yes, I know London had events in other spots of the city, but they had a large focus area that reshaped the East End.) The Chicago bid would similarly have little lasting physical impact on the city. When the Olympics come back to the USA I hope it will be a dynamic revitalization of some city that needs it rather than a disruption in a city like New York that doesn't need either the prestige or the infrastructure. New York and Chicago already have great public parks and good mass transportation. The Olympics should go somewhere like Philadelphia, and only if that city is interested in a real restructuring of the city.
  20. Nacre

    USA 2024

    I live in Seattle and a couple of people I know would like to have the Olympics here. (Because they were inspired by Vancouver.) While a Seattle Olympics is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, that got me thinking about what the next American city that gets the games should do. In 1909 Seattle had a world's fair ("1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition") and used the exhibition grounds to create the University of Washington campus, one of the top 5 in North America. In 1962 Seattle had another world's fair, cleared out a lot of suburban land and created the 74 acre Seattle Center that is now home to festival grounds, a large arena, small football stadium, several museums and theaters and the city's opera and ballet. In both cases the city did a good job of creating a new public area within the city that will define it in perpetuity. While I laud the fiscal responsibility of using existing venues like Los Angeles and Atlanta did, this doesn't really accomplish anything for the city in the long term. The decision by Los Angeles to spread the events out at multiple universities and suburbs in the SoCal area did nothing to address Los Angeles' biggest problem: of all the major cities in the USA it has the worst public parks. (I grew up in Fullerton; I am not slamming the city, just being honest about its positives and negatives.) The Olympics were a great opportunity for Los Angelenos to create an Olympic Park that would serve as a public park in the future. The worry I have over a Boston bid is that it will repeat the same mistake as LA and Atlanta. Boston is already very well developed, and any plan to raze a large plot of land in the city will likely cause a riot among Bostonians. But spreading the events around Massachusetts would burden the city with the operating costs of the Olympics without the long term legacy improvements of a concentrated games. All other potential American bids seem to have the same issue: people don't want to spend money like Barcelona or Sochi, and would actually want the games to pay for themselves. But the hidden costs of holding the Olympics (trade imbalance, displacement of existing commercial activity, maintenance costs for white elephant buildings, etc) mean that the Summer Olympics are never a good decision purely from a financial perspective. (And the Winter Olympics are going that direction too.) It's only worth holding the games if you plan on using them to leave a lasting legacy in the host city. Is there any chance that Boston will go for a full-on Barcelona style games?
×