Kenadian Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Gold Coast will win. Hambantota just seems too small and too underdeveloped to be ready for such a big event. A bid that looks great on paper and in pixels isn't worth much if there isn't much for people and pavement on the ground. Seems to me the only reason Hambantota is even in this race is because the current president of Sri Lanka is from the region. Otherwise, I'd have expected them to put forward a bid for Colombo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 gamesSL...do we have another "Tulsa/nUture" here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 gamesSL...do we have another "Tulsa/nUture" here? He reminds me more of our old Nigerian mate James (the actual young Nigerian christian James, not the evil JJ!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamesSL Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Seems to me the only reason Hambantota is even in this race is because the current president of Sri Lanka is from the region. Otherwise, I'd have expected them to put forward a bid for Colombo. Q: Why does the government believe that Sri Lanka is a qualified host for Common wealth games in 2018? Q: What is the significance of identifying Hambanthota as an apt venue for Commonwealth Games in 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Hambantota is in the race, because I believe they claim Colombo has no space to build and the lack of planning in place in Colombo. Baron I agree with your comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 I have no qualms with Sri Lanka wanting to bid for the games and for them wanting to develop the Hambantota area. But I don't get why they feel the two jive? The Commonwealth Games last only a few days and the legacy venues and facilities need to have some sort of use in the community. That often requires a population base and infrastructure that can support these venues. That doesn't just mean highways, ports and airports. I'm talking about universities and sports teams, schools and clubs, individuals and families. Hambantota is a completely new community. Not a new frontier, but brand new bricks and mortar new and it is small. The community has to first evolve and grow before trying to thrust itself into the hosting spotlight. My mind still boggles. It just sounds a lot like the 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley - a completely made up venue - the difference being that we now live in a much more complex world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 He reminds me more of our old Nigerian mate James (the actual young Nigerian christian James, not the evil JJ!) JJ again Rols?... Anyway where is James Abuja these days? Look give Habanthota an A+ for at least presenting a good effort. Speaking from a nation that has walked away from this event, you can't deny SL from planning a more stable future and at least trying to develop in what will be this late century's economic powerhouse region. Yes India went well over the top with the 2010 edition...But then did we expect it? Melbourne four years previously pointlessly put on an Olympic sized event. Wasn't needed. The CWGs ARE NOT worth spending a $billion on! The CGF should not and must not see the Commonwealth as the IOC views the Olympic movement. Costs need to be pulled back so we can start to see candidate cities plus five bidding again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 JJ again Rols? Anyway where is James Abuja these days? Heheheh - I posted that especially for you. I knew you couldn't resist it!!!!! I don't miss him whatsoever, but you sure seem to. james? I expect his Dad revoked his net rights. He was here, after all, arguing religious ethics with satanistic homos! He wasn't too bad - just young and naive. Nowhere near as disgustingly offensive as other parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Took the bait ...worth it though! I did expand on that post though...I do take the pointless overcosts of the CWGs seriously...It's not fair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 Melbourne four years previously pointlessly put on an Olympic sized event. Wasn't needed. Okay, you bit on my bait, I'll take a nibble from yours ... Jeez, I get the impression that you consider the mere existence of a neighbour across the Tasman that is larger and with a bigger wallet than the Shakey Isles to be over the top and excessive. So, Melbourne 2006, let me see ... well, the athletes' village was brand new, as they ALWAYS are, but then again, athlete's villages are usually the best commercial investment for any games planners. Apart from that, the MCG (existing) had one of its regular upgrades (as it deserves as our high shrine of sport), the aquatic centre (existing) had a bit of an upgrade, which at $51 million was pretty cheap. In terms of NEW, it got a new multi-purpose 11,000 seater arena, but that was a pretty modest addition. I can't think of a lot else - have I missed anything Melburnians? All in all a pretty modest event-purpose investment building on the foundations of a fantastic sporting infrastructure our second largest city, and second world city, has built up over decades. A bit over a billion in direct costs, compared to the $13 billion odd that Delhi spent on its CWGs or a less than a 50th of what Beijing spent on its Olympics. I'm puzzled what would have made it less excessive and over-the-top for you. Would you suggest that Melbourne should have ignored the MCG and built a new smaller NZ-scale stadium so (some) Kiwis like yourself didn't feel inadequate or envious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 Okay, you bit on my bait, I'll take a nibble from yours ... Jeez, I get the impression that you consider the mere existence of a neighbour across the Tasman that is larger and with a bigger wallet than the Shakey Isles to be over the top and excessive. So, Melbourne 2006, let me see ... well, the athletes' village was brand new, as they ALWAYS are, but then again, athlete's villages are usually the best commercial investment for any games planners. Apart from that, the MCG (existing) had one of its regular upgrades (as it deserves as our high shrine of sport), the aquatic centre (existing) had a bit of an upgrade, which at $51 million was pretty cheap. In terms of NEW, it got a new multi-purpose 11,000 seater arena, but that was a pretty modest addition. I can't think of a lot else - have I missed anything Melburnians? All in all a pretty modest event-purpose investment building on the foundations of a fantastic sporting infrastructure our second largest city, and second world city, has built up over decades. A bit over a billion in direct costs, compared to the $13 billion odd that Delhi spent on its CWGs or a less than a 50th of what Beijing spent on its Olympics. I'm puzzled what would have made it less excessive and over-the-top for you. Would you suggest that Melbourne should have ignored the MCG and built a new smaller NZ-scale stadium so (some) Kiwis like yourself didn't feel inadequate or envious? While I appreciate the scale of Manchester 2002, you are right in that Melbourne already had the infrastructure. Even with MCG so giant, it had pretty good attendance for such a large venue, and swimming as always was packed. If Melbourne was not the right scale for the CWG well then that's because its a global sporting capital. It can't really do small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 Nibble?...more like a Chomp! (wonder if they still make those ) Not so much monochromatic Australia v multicoloured New Zealand...(wooo buuuurn! ). More like India was expected to out-do 2006 and simply blew it as a consequence. Probibly the first time I totally ignored a CWGs from start to finish. It was this form of oneupmanship that nearly destroyed the Olympics in the 1970's. As for today, Beijing was pure Nationalisim, London looks like common sense. Glasgow, will, hopefully bring a more fairer ballance to hosting the CWGs. From all accounts, Gold Coast is following this principle. Thats not being envious, it's modest and it's sensible - and then prehaps Habanthota seems more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 29, 2011 Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 Not so much monochromatic Australia v multicoloured New Zealand...(wooo buuuurn! ). More like India was expected to out-do 2006 and simply blew it as a consequence. Probibly the first time I totally ignored a CWGs from start to finish. It was this form of oneupmanship that nearly destroyed the Olympics in the 1970's. As for today, Beijing was pure Nationalisim, London looks like common sense. As Mo said, it's hard for Melbourne to do small - what do you do when you're already one of the best equipped sporting cities in the world and are one of the few that would have little difficulty picking up an Olympics at very short notice? And it's not like they actually added much at all specifically for the CWGs. It's telling that you pick on Melbourne for "outsize" (much like you always tend to single out Sydney as your personal over-the-top, oversized Olympics) but no mention of Kuala Lumpur, which did set out from scratch for an Olympic-scale games. Basically, we've just been through a run of four games - KL, Manchester, Melbourne and Delhi - that were all in huge cities that were their countries' capitals or the second largest city in their countries. A Glasgow or a GC are always going to be on a different scale to a major Commonwealth metropolis. As for Delhi one-upmanship - if you read much of what was coming out of India in the lead-up and during the games, it was Beijing they were cosnsciously trying to emulate and match (indeed, it was to be their springboard for a 2020 Oly bid), not Melbourne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 I have no qualms with Sri Lanka wanting to bid for the games and for them wanting to develop the Hambantota area. But I don't get why they feel the two jive? The Commonwealth Games last only a few days and the legacy venues and facilities need to have some sort of use in the community. That often requires a population base and infrastructure that can support these venues. That doesn't just mean highways, ports and airports. I'm talking about universities and sports teams, schools and clubs, individuals and families. Hambantota is a completely new community. Not a new frontier, but brand new bricks and mortar new and it is small. The community has to first evolve and grow before trying to thrust itself into the hosting spotlight. My mind still boggles. It just sounds a lot like the 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley - a completely made up venue - the difference being that we now live in a much more complex world. Apparently, a sports university and 2 other universities are being built. All other venues have uses after the games, for ex. the exhibition center will be used for bollywood productions etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 All other venues have uses after the games, for ex. the exhibition center will be used for bollywood productions etc. If the Chinese Navy don't have a use for them themselves, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted June 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 If the Chinese Navy don't have a use for them themselves, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 There is an interesting debate over in the 'Will US bid for 2020 Olympics' page regarding 'Alpha' and 'Beta' cities with Baron fiercely defending the proposed Reno/Tahoe 2022 OWGs bid proposal. Many believe that Reno is more a 'Capa' sized city and stands little chance... ...transferring this over to the CWGs, its plain to see, and as Rols has mention, that the last four hostings were in 'Alpha' sized cities. And with them, the cost factors. Two were for national pride, one for little brother can still do it just like big brother, and one who actually got it down right. Before those, looking back to the six previous, all no larger than a 'Beta' city. Yet this is where the CWGs need to be. It's a great development tool. Yes now and then drop an 'Alpha' in to boost the event but look towards the mid-sized 'Betas' such as Gold Coast to broaden the mix. Alpha cities are rare in my region, with only two - Melbourne and Sydney. However large Betas, there are three in Perth, Brisbane, and Auckland. While mid-Betas in Adelaide, CG, Carins, Wellington, and at a shattered stretch, Christchurch. Smaller Capa cities are your regionals around the 100k to 300k mark. Habanthota would probibly fit into the Capa region, yet has a development plan for growth in it's region and sees the CWGs as a tool to achieve this. Looking to 2022, South Africa looks like it will front up it's 'Beta' candidates in Cape Town and Durban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted June 30, 2011 Report Share Posted June 30, 2011 Looking to 2022, South Africa looks like it will front up it's 'Beta' candidates in Cape Town and Durban. In a global context Cape Town or Durban would barely meet "Beta" status but in an African and South Africa context, and to a large extent, a major events context, I would put both above Gold Coast, and rather in the league of Melbourne or Sydney. While Durban still has to attain a broader international profile, I would hardly see Cape Town as being second fiddle, to, well, any other viable African candidate. The question will never be about Alpha or Beta. There simply just isn't the demand by cities to bid for the CWG to even use those types of categories. What cities need to do is host the CWG within a range and at a scale that is suitable. Melbourne is a major global sports capital and hence the CWG would feel very "Alpha" or large". Manchester, used an approach focusing on regeneration. Delhi, was too an entirely different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 In the world of the Commonwealth, the rules of cities is a bit different. London is by far the Alpha. With Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne, Montreal, Cape Town, Delhi, Durbam, Mumbai, Jo-burg, Vancouver, Manchester, Brisbane, Auckland and others following. Hambantota falls somewhere between Alice Springs and Yellowknife. Just because you have big plans and dreams doesn't mean you make a sensible choice for such an event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted July 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 In the world of the Commonwealth, the rules of cities is a bit different. London is by far the Alpha. With Toronto, Sydney, Melbourne, Montreal, Cape Town, Delhi, Durbam, Mumbai, Jo-burg, Vancouver, Manchester, Brisbane, Auckland and others following. Hambantota falls somewhere between Alice Springs and Yellowknife. Just because you have big plans and dreams doesn't mean you make a sensible choice for such an event. I'd have to agree with you. Even India compared with Hamilton there was a huge discrpency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 Yeah, I was wondering when the eval report would come out. And i think it was even worse for Hambantota than I expected - medium to high risk? I think Abuja got better than that for its 2014 evaluation. Oh well, just confirmed what was always likely. Report boosts Gold Coast Games bidThe Sri Lankan city taking on the Gold Coast for the 2018 Commonwealth Games presents a medium to high risk with substantial development needed, official Games evaluators say. The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) has released its review of both cities' bids ahead of the November vote to decide who will host the Games. The Gold Coast is up against the Sri Lankan city of Hambantota, which was described by the Lonely Planet tourist guide in 2009 as a "dusty little workaday fishing town". In its summary of findings the CGF report says the major difference between the two bids is risk. "It is not for the CGF and this Evaluation Commission to cast doubt on any of the very comprehensive and serious undertakings made by both cities," the report reads. "Nevertheless ... a Games staged on the Gold Coast presents a low risk, subject to Village development arrangements being secured, while a Games in Hambantota presents a medium to high risk". Hambantota will need to build $1.1 billion worth of facilities to host the Games, and substantial upgrades to its hospitals, transport system and telecommunications infrastructure will be needed, the report found. There were also questions raised over its security system, which hasn't been tested at such a high level, and the city's ability to provide enough accommodation. In comparison the Gold Coast has 80 per cent of its Games facilities already existing and an advanced transport and infrastructure system, the report found. Its history as a tourist destination means it would easily be able to accommodate Games crowds. But Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke warned against becoming complacent in the lead-up to the bid vote. "A good report from them (the CGF) would make a difference of course but ... our worst enemy now is any complacency whatsoever," he told AAP. "Now we just have to work as hard as we possibly can and show our enthusiasm for our representation in November. "(Just because we have a favourable report) doesn't mean the delegates are going to vote that way." The 2018 Games host will be announced on November 11 after a vote from the 71 Commonwealth delegates. NineMSN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted September 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Hambantota is the highest risk ever for any bid that is the final round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted October 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Another vote form the Gold Coast: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/15212171.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexjc Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Here's one of those situations where UK protectorites get vote alongside fully sovereign states in the Commonwealth...Is this fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Here's one of those situations where UK protectorites get vote alongside fully sovereign states in the Commonwealth...Is this fair? It's the only major international games they get to compete in under their own flag. Fair enough they get a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.