Jump to content

Why Does Rio Insist On Two Stadiums?


Recommended Posts

But when I was a child, I always wanted to know, why Gremio (a major soccer team in Brazil) stadium in Porto Alegre is called Olympic Stadium, since Porto Alegre never hosted Olympic Games...

LOL

I undestand what Onetimeonly said...

I don't think it even has a race track.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It is a strange thing. Ataturk Olympic Stadium in Istanbul is an other example, although it was to be the centerpiece in their 4 successive unsuccessful bids. It doesn't seem right that a stadium can call itself Olympic when it has never hosted...but it happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a strange thing. Ataturk Olympic Stadium in Istanbul is an other example, although it was to be the centerpiece in their 4 successive unsuccessful bids. It doesn't seem right that a stadium can call itself Olympic when it has never hosted...but it happens.

And the LA Coliseum which has hosted 2 only goes by Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum...NOT Olympic.

and the original Athens one is just called the Panathinaiko Stadium or something like that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
But when I was a child, I always wanted to know, why Gremio (a major soccer team in Brazil) stadium in Porto Alegre is called Olympic Stadium, since Porto Alegre never hosted Olympic Games...

LOL

I undestand what Onetimeonly said...

WOW! :blink::wub::);)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said couple of days ago that ONLY Brazilians and other countries mad by soccer believes that World Cup is the biggest sports event in the world (which is polemic, and there are good points for both thougths).

But, at least, not only Brazilians, Argentine and English people have this opinion...

What about New York Times?

"Next year’s World Cup, the biggest sports tournament in the world, will be held in South Africa because of the inclusive policy of the world soccer body, FIFA. In 2014 the World Cup will be held in Brazil. Welcome to the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/0...ml?_r=1&hpw

Well, please don't say only Brazilians, argentine thinks this way...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

But when I was a child, I always wanted to know, why Gremio (a major soccer team in Brazil) stadium in Porto Alegre is called Olympic Stadium, since Porto Alegre never hosted Olympic Games...

LOL

I undestand what Onetimeonly said...

I can give you other examples:

- Metropolitan Olympic Stadium - San Pedro Sula, Honduras - hosted Central American Games

- Mérida's Olympic Stadium - Mérida, Venezuela - Built for Copa America 2007, no multi-sport events held yet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said couple of days ago that ONLY Brazilians and other countries mad by soccer believes that World Cup is the biggest sports event in the world (which is polemic, and there are good points for both thougths).

But, at least, not only Brazilians, Argentine and English people have this opinion...

What about New York Times?

"Next year’s World Cup, the biggest sports tournament in the world, will be held in South Africa because of the inclusive policy of the world soccer body, FIFA. In 2014 the World Cup will be held in Brazil. Welcome to the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/0...ml?_r=1&hpw

Well, please don't say only Brazilians, argentine thinks this way...

Ummmm, I believe that the WC is the largest sports tournament in the world. Are the Olympics as a whole considered to be a tournament? I don't view it that way, but there are tournaments within the Olympics though.

Now, if you are asking if one will is considered more important than the other, the responses depend on the country. Here in the U.S., the Olympics are hands down more important to us over a World Cup. Then, ask Americans if they would watch the Super Bowl over the Opening Ceremony...

We would still agree that the Olympics are "bigger" than the Super Bowl (e.g. involves 10,000 athletes from 200 nations), needs 7 years of prep time, and billions of dollars invested in stadia and infrastructure).

But in terms of importance, it will vary.

I think the question that should be considered is what are Brazilans more passionate about? The WC would take the cake. I view the Olympics more like a desert to Brazil rather than the main course meal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I view the Olympics more like a desert to Brazil rather than the main course meal.

Which is also a view that some in the IOC had while the 2016 campaign was going on, which then led many to believe that Rio wouldn't get it because the IOC doesn't like to be 'second fiddle' when they'd rather be the main attraction. Boy, how that didn't pan out at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is also a view that some in the IOC had while the 2016 campaign was going on, which then led many to believe that Rio wouldn't get it because the IOC doesn't like to be 'second fiddle' when they'd rather be the main attraction. Boy, how that didn't pan out at all.

Yes, I believed that, but I now believe that WC preps helped their bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\ well, plus the fact that the Brazilian economy seems to have weathered the financial crisis that hit the US, Europe, Japan, etc. That fact showed that Brazil could indeed sustain the 2 mega-events 2 years after each other. If their economy was a shambles, or in the negative, I doubt that 2016 would've been awarded to Rio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you know, but the brazilians here tryed explain 58741655 times that the world cup NEVER was a problem to the Rio 2016 bid and the strong brazilian economy anything suffer with the crisis. But sometimes, you foreigners, seems don't understand it. dry.gif

Just a curiosity, the brazilian economy already came back to the numbers before-crisis, and they expect 5,5% of growth this year or MORE! wink.gif And another curisosity, US$14 bi (the Rio 2016 coasts) is anything compared with the entire GDP = 1.574 trillionbiggrin.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you know, but the brazilians here tryed explain 58741655 times that the world cup NEVER was a problem to the Rio 2016 bid and the strong brazilian economy anything suffer with the crisis. But sometimes, you foreigners, seems don't understand it. dry.gif

Just a curiosity, the brazilian economy already came back to the numbers before-crisis, and they expect 5,5% of growth this year or MORE! wink.gif And another curisosity, US$14 bi (the Rio 2016 coasts) is anything compared with the entire GDP = 1.574 trillionbiggrin.gif

How come??? OneTimeOnly just said Brazil doesn't have money to build one stadium!!!

Who should I believe??? LOL!!! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Money will not be a concern both for 2014 and 2016. There is no doubt that invenstments for 2014 will makes things easier for 2016, overall in infra - airports, roads and so on. Maracanã stadium, for example, is under reforms. Of course, they'll have to make some changes for 2016, but they started working and, as much as I know, as schedulled. My concerns go to the large number of challenges the Country will face to prepare itself to both events. Were we talking only about Rio 2016, I wouldn't be worried. Things will be done before the schedulled time. But, as we are talking about the WC too, I have to be honest: 12 cities are involved. That means 12 airports, hotels in 12 cities and so on. We can't forget Brasil is a continental country and there is a hard work ahead to prepare all those cities, provide transportation, accomodation, decent hospitals and everything linked to the event. Money wil not be a problem, but time can become a nightmare. Let's hope the end of this year ellection and see the new administration steps regarding the events. Dilma Roussef seems more pragmatical; Jose Serra, by his turn, can solve the question about the stadium in São Paulo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And let me guess, you guys can't put an athletics field in Maracana?

That's really crappy.

The IOC should make a requirement that Athletics and the Opening Ceremonies must be held in the same stadium. That way you either build a stadium that can accommodate both, or you don't bid.

PATHETIC

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC should make a requirement that Athletics and the Opening Ceremonies must be held in the same stadium. That way you either build a stadium that can accommodate both, or you don't bid.

LOL, this person really thinks Rio or Brazil have no money to build a stadium!!!

If IOC make the "requeriment" Rio would do it smoothly.

Indeed, the refurbshment of Maracana will cost 3 Havelange Stadiums! So, Money ISN 'T really a problem.

BTW, Nine stadiums are being built just by now in entire Brazil for the World Cup, under FIFA requirements (and the requirements for World Cups are very very complex).

Really Pathetic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might actually make sense to remove the two ends of the roof. The roof support trusses seem to be linked to each quarter of the roof i.e. the two ends are held up by trusses separate from the roof cover for the grand stand and stand opposite that. I've made a drawing. Remind me to post it at some point

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...