The_Torch Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 2012 Games Events Could Be Moved Personally I'm pleased to see Wembley Arena play a part in London 2012. The arena has recently undertaken complete refurbishment, and is more than capable of staging both the Badminton and Rythmic Gymnastic events. If it cuts £40 Million from the Olympic budget, then all the better! The report comments on the 1 hour travelling time from the Olympic Village to Wembley, but fails to specify which mode of transport they used. Surely the Olympic (Red-Route) road network will ensure athletes arrive in good time. Perhaps the BBC are under the impression that athletes are to be given One Day Travelcards, and pointed in the direction of the tube! Also the comment regarding athletes 'competing, not commuting" is nonsense. Wembley Stadium was always planned as the venue for the Football Finals. We always knew athletes would need to commute from Stratford to Wembley for Olympic Football. Why should commuting the same distance for the Badminton and Rythmic Gymnastic events be any different?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Torch Posted October 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 The journey from Stratford to Wembley is a 40 minute drive (approximate). Now include a dedicated Olympic Route Network between the two sites. This time can easily be reduced to 20 to 30 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 If Wembley Stadium was OK in the first place, it seems a bit crackers for Wembley Arena not to be. The thing is that, given just how bad things seem to be getting economically, all bets are off and everything has to be considered critically and prudently. I expect the usual criticism to come along before long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 14, 2008 Report Share Posted October 14, 2008 How about a digital, 'virtual reality' Olympics? That would be far cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingspread Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 How about a digital, 'virtual reality' Olympics? That would be far cheaper. They could just play network Wii in their rooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlympicGames Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 They could just play network Wii in their rooms. From the Austerity Games to the Budget Games.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Relative to Beijing, certainly, but in no other terms can these games be called "budget", even with possible cutbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlympicGames Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 So what is going to occupy the space that was to formally be the home of the Fencing venue? Grass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 That's entirely beside the point. Relative to Beijing these Games are budget but that's like calling a Ferrari a small family car because it isn't as flash as a Bugatti Veyron! Compared to any other sporting event of the past twenty years, with the possible exception of the Japan/Korea world cup where everything was built anew, this event is anything but budget. A huge (and I mean huge) area of London is being completely changed and the Olympics are at the centre of this change. The sheer scale of the Olympic Park development area: Prior to Beijing anyone calling this sort of development "budget" would be laughed out of these forums; I'm certain of that. I'm sorry to get so techy at your point, because it's obvious that London is being affected by the credit crunch, but labelling London 2012 as budget either betrays wildly high expectations on your part, or a large amount of ignorance about what's actually happening on the ground only a few miles from the centre of London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlympicGames Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 That's entirely beside the point. Relative to Beijing these Games are budget but that's like calling a Ferrari a small family car because it isn't as flash as a Bugatti Veyron! Compared to any other sporting event of the past twenty years, with the possible exception of the Japan/Korea world cup where everything was built anew, this event is anything but budget. A huge (and I mean huge) area of London is being completely changed and the Olympics are at the centre of this change.The sheer scale of the Olympic Park development area: Prior to Beijing anyone calling this sort of development "budget" would be laughed out of these forums; I'm certain of that. I'm sorry to get so techy at your point, because it's obvious that London is being affected by the credit crunch, but labelling London 2012 as budget either betrays wildly high expectations on your part, or a large amount of ignorance about what's actually happening on the ground only a few miles from the centre of London. I was asking a serious question, I wasn't joking or being facetious. Since the fencing hall is not going to be built, what is going to be in that space now? Grass? A sponsor pavilion or pavilions? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I apologise. Having a look at some of the older and newer maps of the site, the basketball arena looks to have been moved to where the Fencing arena would have been. As for what's going where the old basketball arena was, I'm not entirely sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm Jeremie Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 If Wembley Stadium was OK in the first place, it seems a bit crackers for Wembley Arena not to be. The thing is that, given just how bad things seem to be getting economically, all bets are off and everything has to be considered critically and prudently. I expect the usual criticism to come along before long. Any move to keep the Games cost under control is a welcomed one. However, this always brings back to the eternal question: if Wembley Arena is OK now (and yea, it is OK, even though it will put greater pressure on the transport fleet - 2 or 3 football Games in Wembley is not the same thing as having a venue that will most likely be used almost every day of the Games), why was it not chosen during the bid phase in the first place? Same thing about the fencing arena... I wish a city could win without sexing up its bid too much to be always more compact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearcrossuk Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Any move to keep the Games cost under control is a welcomed one.However, this always brings back to the eternal question: if Wembley Arena is OK now (and yea, it is OK, even though it will put greater pressure on the transport fleet - 2 or 3 football Games in Wembley is not the same thing as having a venue that will most likely be used almost every day of the Games), why was it not chosen during the bid phase in the first place? Same thing about the fencing arena... I wish a city could win without sexing up its bid too much to be always more compact... i suspect that the organisers werent expecting an recession'. i'm not sure whether you are advocating that wembley stadium be used as the olympic stadium or not, but it doesnt have a running track as far as i know. in other games the footie finals take place in the olympic stadium but wembley is such an iconic stadium in terms of football it makes sense to use it i suspect, too, if anywhere in the uk is set up to deal with large crowds travelling to anf from a venue, it will be wembley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Why don't they move Wembley to Olympic Park to save on transport for the athletes? That way, it would be back to being the Compact and Fuel-Efficient Games!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA84 Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 LA was a budget games. And they produced the highest revenues ever. And helped save the games Berlin, Moscow and Bejing were socialist/communistic games. The governments would pay whatever to put on a good show for the world. And then of course, we saw what happened to Germany and the Soviet Union. London saved the Olympic movement twice. Once as a stand in and once when half the city was still in ruins after WWII. So guess who I put my money on for producing a fabulous games - wherever the venues may be? i'm not sure whether you are advocating that wembley stadium be used as the olympic stadium or not, but it doesnt have a running track as far as i know. I will just keep my mouth shut on this one. I have already posted my thoughts on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 I wish a city could win without sexing up its bid too much to be always more compact... i suspect that the organisers werent expecting an recession'. Exactly. London was always intending to build these temporary venues but it's very difficult to justify that kind of cost at the moment which is why considerations are being made (note: none of these new changes are certain) to scrap one, or maybe two temporary venues. You know it's not a case of sexing anything up Jeremie as you can see what's happening around the world at the moment. I'd have loved to have seen things go exactly as planned and it annoys me that they won't be but the credit crunch has changed a lot. If you can suggest how Lend Lease are expected to get the extra money for our Olympic Village that in more healthy economic times they'd have been able to get I'd love to know because banks won't lend to each other at the moment! Things that were possible three years ago when London won are not any more. Despite this, and as I said in my earlier post (with the big photo), this is still very distinct from the kind of proposals put forward by our rivals for 2012; the Olympic Park is still going to be something very special for visitors and the core of the bid promises are still well in place and won't be changed. What the IOC voted for they are, by-and-large, getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlympicGames Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 LA was a budget games. And they produced the highest revenues ever. And helped save the gamesBerlin, Moscow and Bejing were socialist/communistic games. The governments would pay whatever to put on a good show for the world. And then of course, we saw what happened to Germany and the Soviet Union. London saved the Olympic movement twice. Once as a stand in and once when half the city was still in ruins after WWII. So guess who I put my money on for producing a fabulous games - wherever the venues may be? I will just keep my mouth shut on this one. I have already posted my thoughts on this issue. Berlin was not a "socialist/communist" games. Hitler was a fascist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Berlin was not a "socialist/communist" games. Hitler was a fascist. Don't be nit-picky. What he meant was Games staged by 'totalitarian' gov'ts where you had no say whether you wanted them in your 'hood and your taxes used OR NOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 As before I understand the credit crunch but blaming every poor decision on it is stupid. Wembley Arena is an existing, good quality venue that would meet IF and IOC requirements. Like Excel, why build a temporary venue when something better which has hosted events is available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Well, the idea of the temporary venues was that they would be moved to other parts of the country after the Games, thus providing a sound legacy. Also, travelling from east to west London every day isn't an ideal situation for the badminton players. So there were certainly good reasons behind the initial decision but the costs of this venue, it seems, may have become hard to justify in the current economic climate. As I've also pointed out, no decision has been made either way yet; so this thread is all speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Torch Posted October 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 I don't see the removal of a temporary structure, and the saving of £40 Million as a 'poor decision'. The Olympic Games should not be allowed to bankrupt a nation or it's tax payers. I am one of those contributing to the cost of these Games, and I for one support saving money where it is prudent to do so. I'm not advocating a 'tin-hut' Olympiad, but where we have excellent venues not included in the 2012 plan, then we should be using them. Wembley Arena is an excellent venue, with very good transport links. Earls Court & Wembley Arena should always have been included in the 2012 plan, but were excluded because of the need to be more compact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'm not going to buy the economic climate argument for everything. This climate seems unfriendly to London to fine to the European companies offering cities abroad reasonable prices on sub-contracts for various parts of a stadium or sports venue. I would need to know if they are getting architects to create a temporary concept or if they are using temporary/modular structure experts e.g. nussli to design it. This could be the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 correction: but fine to the European... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm Jeremie Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Exactly. London was always intending to build these temporary venues but it's very difficult to justify that kind of cost at the moment which is why considerations are being made (note: none of these new changes are certain) to scrap one, or maybe two temporary venues. You know it's not a case of sexing anything up Jeremie as you can see what's happening around the world at the moment. I'd have loved to have seen things go exactly as planned and it annoys me that they won't be but the credit crunch has changed a lot. If you can suggest how Lend Lease are expected to get the extra money for our Olympic Village that in more healthy economic times they'd have been able to get I'd love to know because banks won't lend to each other at the moment! Things that were possible three years ago when London won are not any more.Despite this, and as I said in my earlier post (with the big photo), this is still very distinct from the kind of proposals put forward by our rivals for 2012; the Olympic Park is still going to be something very special for visitors and the core of the bid promises are still well in place and won't be changed. What the IOC voted for they are, by-and-large, getting. For Chr$st sake, is it possible to say something not ecstatic about London 2012 here and not being lectured by yourself or Arwebb? I have repeatedly stated here that: London won fair London, as far as we can tell now, is going to deliver on its promises Any move to keep the Games budget under control is welcomed This being said, as Mo pointed out: Excel and Wembley arena both existed at bid time. London, as any other candidate city, tried to come up with as compact as a plan as possible, because a compact plan -regardless of a city development needs- seems to be the alpha and omega of a bid. Proof of that is that London, following the applicant city report, decided to make its bid more compact. So yea, London did sex up its bid (and I am not implying that they were not intended to build these temporary arenas) because it is what works with the IOC. My "criticism" was not aimed at London but at the Olympic bid process as it exists now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Very sorry, I misinterpreted your last post. The phrase "sexed up" was maybe not the best choice of words though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.