DarJoLe Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Afterall, it's needed, and what with the velodrome, BMX circuit, aquatic centre and hockey venue being built regardless, building the stadium would show the IOC London would ready to host a Games in the 2020's if Paris or Madrid wins the 2012 race. I say go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its a bid of magic Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 mmmm... I know what your saying, but I can't see London building an 80,000 seater track 'n' field stadium if they dont' get the Olympics. Particularly when Wembley has the possibility of being converted into a 60,000+ stadium, to host track'n' field events, if the need ever arise for such a scenario. i.e. we got the World Athletics Championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKYSALT Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 We'll be building it for twenty twelve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 I'm not sure there's much point in building unless we get the Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daffyd Pollard Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Plus, the idea of regeneration as an asset in getting the games will be diminished in the IOC's eyes, if we're building everything anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parisphoto Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Plus, the idea of regeneration as an asset in getting the games will be diminished in the IOC's eyes, if we're building everything anyway. Um... the fact that the regeneration would take place anyway was part of the claims of the London bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English Kev Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Plus, the idea of regeneration as an asset in getting the games will be diminished in the IOC's eyes, if we're building everything anyway. Plus we'll end up with a Stade De France scenario in that we'll have an out-dated olympic stadium . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its a bid of magic Posted June 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Plus, the idea of regeneration as an asset in getting the games will be diminished in the IOC's eyes, if we're building everything anyway. Um... the fact that the regeneration would take place anyway was part of the claims of the London bid. Part regeneration would still happen, I think they will still be going ahead and building an Aquatics Centre and Velodrome. It would be folly to believe that they would be able to carry out the same regeneration on the scale of what a "winning bid" for the Olympics would achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parisphoto Posted June 11, 2005 Report Share Posted June 11, 2005 Plus, the idea of regeneration as an asset in getting the games will be diminished in the IOC's eyes, if we're building everything anyway. Um... the fact that the regeneration would take place anyway was part of the claims of the London bid. Part regeneration would still happen, I think they will still be going ahead and building an Aquatics Centre and Velodrome. It would be folly to believe that they would be able to carry out the same regeneration on the scale of what a "winning bid" for the Olympics would achieve. I guess London's bid is a folly then... The London Plan identifies staging the 2012 Games as the‘major catalyst for change and regeneration in east London, especially the Lea Valley, levering resources, spurring timely completion of already programmed infrastructure investment and leaving a legacy to be valued by future generations’. Without the Games, change would still happen, but it would be slower, more incremental and less ambitious from a sporting, cultural and environmental perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 I guess London's bid is a folly then... What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parisphoto Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 I guess London's bid is a folly then... What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Read the quote from the bid book. You can't both say that infrastructure investment would take place anyway and say that it would never take place. Make up your mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Maybe you should look at what is happening before making such an ignorant statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 I guess London's bid is a folly then... What kind of ridiculous statement is that? The building of the Olympic park should go ahead anyway if '12 fails, albeit at a slower pace, the main stadium will need an anchor tenant though. With Wembley as the UK flagship, that's a tough one to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 And there lies the problem. There's no point in building it if you can't make sure it's used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parisphoto Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 And there lies the problem. There's no point in building it if you can't make sure it's used. So London and the UK don't need the Stratford stadium in the final post-Olympic athletics configuration? What a legacy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troubles Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 And there lies the problem. There's no point in building it if you can't make sure it's used. So London and the UK don't need the Stratford stadium in the final post-Olympic athletics configuration? What a legacy! Yes we do .. there is no world class track facility in London - Crystal Palace is far from the necessary standard. UK can stage International T&F in as many cities as they want without taking an event away from any other city. Also, it will act as training camp not just for track & field but for lots of other sports And it will be used by the locals. It is definitely needed, no matter what... I'd say go ahead and build it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 And there lies the problem. There's no point in building it if you can't make sure it's used. So London and the UK don't need the Stratford stadium in the final post-Olympic athletics configuration? What a legacy! I am talking about what happens if we don't win, not if we do. If we don't win, Wembley can be configured to stage a World Athletics Championships and Crystal Palace, while the complex needs some money spending on it, has a large enough stadium for a Grand Prix meeting. The Athens Olympic Stadium looked empty for their meeting the other night. To build this stadium if we don't get 2012 is ludicrous. Unless you can get it used regularly, and that means getting a tenant football or rugby club, it would be a white elephant which is the wrong legacy to leave. Still, if we went ahead and did that, you'd just sit back and chuckle. It doesn't matter what London does - to you it's either always wrong or you'll twist it out of all recognition to suggest so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barstad the jock Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Ok, i aint the sharpest pencil in the box (i admit it freely...lol ) ..... but heres my point of view....... London wins the games..... builds an 80,000 seat stadium then reduces the size of said stadium to approx 25,000 and we have a legacy of an athletics stadium, world class facility that is part of a centre of sporting excellence yadda yaddda yadda...... IF we dont win the games then why not look at this logicaly......... develop the Stratford area in principle to match the post games legacy..... build a 25,000 seater stadium that the UK can use as the centre of sporting excellence, host international track meetings etc but one that can be configured to be expanded with a future olympic bid in mind to add the extra 55,000 seats needed to host. In other threads on here we read that after this bid, there wont be the land to go for this kind of bid again in the future, so why not keep things going as for most of the Stratford park area to go ahead but be developed for the future bid...... i dunno, just the way i see it, but hey, im Scottish........lol :wwww: :wwww: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samleman180 Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 London needs a good atheletics stadium. It has several world class football stadiums (or at least it will in 2012) like ashburton Grove, Wembley and stamford bridge, but if it loses and does not build the atheletics stadium it will stand little chance of getting any other events, like the World atheletics championships. london needs to show commitment to other sports other than football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troubles Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Ok, i aint the sharpest pencil in the box (i admit it freely...lol ) ..... but heres my point of view.......London wins the games..... builds an 80,000 seat stadium then reduces the size of said stadium to approx 25,000 and we have a legacy of an athletics stadium, world class facility that is part of a centre of sporting excellence yadda yaddda yadda...... IF we dont win the games then why not look at this logicaly......... develop the Stratford area in principle to match the post games legacy..... build a 25,000 seater stadium that the UK can use as the centre of sporting excellence, host international track meetings etc but one that can be configured to be expanded with a future olympic bid in mind to add the extra 55,000 seats needed to host. In other threads on here we read that after this bid, there wont be the land to go for this kind of bid again in the future, so why not keep things going as for most of the Stratford park area to go ahead but be developed for the future bid...... i dunno, just the way i see it, but hey, im Scottish........lol :wwww: :wwww: the barstad's right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Dare I say it...Would a Commonwealth Games bid help (if London fails '12) by say 2018, or FIFA WC as a catylist for redevelopment? I know you've got Wembley, Emirates Stadium etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 like the World atheletics championships... ...which you already got and lost, right? :wwww: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdavejb Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Ok, i aint the sharpest pencil in the box (i admit it freely...lol ) ..... but heres my point of view.......London wins the games..... builds an 80,000 seat stadium then reduces the size of said stadium to approx 25,000 and we have a legacy of an athletics stadium, world class facility that is part of a centre of sporting excellence yadda yaddda yadda...... IF we dont win the games then why not look at this logicaly......... develop the Stratford area in principle to match the post games legacy..... build a 25,000 seater stadium that the UK can use as the centre of sporting excellence, host international track meetings etc but one that can be configured to be expanded with a future olympic bid in mind to add the extra 55,000 seats needed to host. In other threads on here we read that after this bid, there wont be the land to go for this kind of bid again in the future, so why not keep things going as for most of the Stratford park area to go ahead but be developed for the future bid...... i dunno, just the way i see it, but hey, im Scottish........lol :wwww: :wwww: The only thing is, is that without a successful bid the money will not be there to build the stadium? Only if we win the bid will the National Lottery bring in a game to raise funds, the sponsors cough up there share and ticket and merchandising sales kick in to pay for said stadium. Hence a sporting legacy after a successful games not before. To build the stadium first is putting the cart before the horse. As to land availability, if we do not win the bid then the bean counters move in and use the land to build office blocks ect. Still a legacy for the area just not a sporting one other then the facilities already being built as they are funded by the various sporting body's but not to an Olympic level in some cases. Ie added diving facilities for the aquatic center which will be put in place for the olympics then moved to another part of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.