Jump to content

Where do you think the next Olympics in South America will be?


SantaCruz

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Comparing to the time frame of the Sydney 2000 Games, averages highs in Santiago and BA for September and October appear to jive with those of Sydney (20.0 and 22.1). But BA is closer to Sydney on the average lows for the same time frame (11.1 & 13.5) where Santiago's average lows are a lot cooler.

I think that mid-to-late September and early October are an acceptable threshold for the Summer Games as Seoul and Sydney have proven. Rio is in a tropical zone so they have near ideal conditions year round. Actually, August favours them because it is their driest month.

Certainly, some exceptions can be made to accommodate the games in the Southern Hemisphere - within reason. Hosting the Olympics in September or October is within reason and has been done before. But hosting them in January or February is too far off course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, august is nice month for the games in Rio, not cold not hot, and mostly sunny.

If the games were held in Rio's summer, we could get a problem... Last year Rio got temperatures over 115 in february...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argentina is growing a lot (look at the last IMF report... they are calculating index of Argentina ;) )

I don't think you know much about economy. The link you posted only talk about GDP, they don't say anything about inflation...

9% GDP growth alongside with 20%+ yearly inflation are bad numbers...

If the numbers about Argentina's Inflation reported by independent sources are correct, and most specialist tend to believe on it, then they're not growing at all... Quite the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Football is practically a winter sport.

nope, that's why WC just like Olympics are played during summer...

But I'll not argue this..

Summer Olympics however need sufficiently warm weather. If the IOC isn't flexible enough to stretch the time frame of the Games to at least September, then many of the potential southern hemisphere hosts are simply out of the question.

Sydney 2000 opening day was September 15, last day was October 1...

I think that would be good enough for Chile..

Link to post
Share on other sites

But nobody ever said the IOC wanted to expand the host cities to new frontiers that are not the most suitable and put ages old schedules and traditions out of whack. What need is there to have a Winter Games in August in the Southern Hemisphere when 95% of winter athletes come from the Northern Hemisphere? What need is there to have Summer Games in the desert in February when most schedules and training is geared toward a July/August time frame?

I know everyone likes the ceremonies, the prestige, the exposure and the national pride of hosting the Olympics, but ultimately, the Olympics are about sport and sport is about athletes, so it is thus the responsibility of the IOC to find host locations that are first and foremost to the benefit of the athletes and the sports they compete in.

The reason for July-August timeframe is first and foremost television and money, not the needs of athletes. Otherwise IOC wouldn't have gone to Greece and Beijing in August.

nope, that's why WC just like Olympics are played during summer...

The WC isn't always played in summer like was seen in South Africa or before that in Argentina 1978 and there was no problem about it. Technically football is a summer sport but in practice a winter sport as it's not played in mid summer in for example Europe. Staging the Summer Olympics in winter wouldn't be possible however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that in a continent without wars for almost two centuries, soccer is the bar to measure how great a country can be...

Falkland/Malvinas War in the 80's: Argentina vs. a certain Olympic Host :rolleyes:

I've heard this dub, too; "the French of South America".

WUT?? How dare you compare decadent Buenos Aires with True-French South American Cayenne?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Falkland/Malvinas War in the 80's: Argentina vs. a certain Olympic Host :rolleyes:

WUT?? How dare you compare decadent Buenos Aires with True-French South American Cayenne?!

You're so right. The Falkland war...

But, maybe we can consider no true war between South American countries since 1870.

Which make Brazil more near of Europe than Argentina. In fact, we have borders with France!!! :D

And Rio was during 15 years the capital of Portuguese Empire, hosting the entire crown of Portugal, which makes Rio the only European capital outside Europe. :D :D :D

----

Soccer/Football can be played even in the snow as we can see in some UEFA matches or in Qatar, as FIFA pointed in the last World Cup bid process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can not be. Olympics and football World Cup are a different matter. Football is a sport that is often played in very cold weather especially in Europe. In fact, I would argue that the cool but dry conditions of South Africa were pretty ideal for this sport. Football is practically a winter sport. Summer Olympics however need sufficiently warm weather. If the IOC isn't flexible enough to stretch the time frame of the Games to at least September, then many of the potential southern hemisphere hosts are simply out of the question.

I agree - I think a cold Summer Games is far less acceptable than a cold World Cup. And the whole new IOC-preferred July-August "window" for the games needs to be tested.

I don't think Sydney, for example, would have been able to go much earlier than its late September time-frame - it's usually one of the best times of year weather-wise, but any earlier gets a bit dicey. One of the negative points in the lead-up to the games, for example, were a few national squads who arrived in Oz for training in August and complained about how cold it was then. Melbourne would face a tougher challenge timing-wise - it's a negative factor they'd have to confront, IMO, in any future bid.

And it's one of the factors that saw Durban start to be touted over Capetown for the SOGs (and why I now lean more towards Durban than CT for a future SA bid) - the winter climate is just that bit better in Durbs. And it's a problem that I see most of the oft-mentioned southern hemisphere contenders face now - apart from the Rios or Singapores etc, most other southern possibles like Capetown, BA, Santiago etc would inevitably be cold summer games hosts if it was limited to July-August.

Anyway, I think the IOC would probably be a bit flexible about the timing. I think their intent with their call for potential bidding cities to submit their bid dates ahead of the formal applicant deadline is not so much to totally rule out anything that doesn't strictly fit in the time span, but to sort the not-ideal, but acceptable, proposals from unacceptable ones like Doha's late year proposal for 2016.

But, maybe we can consider no true war between South American countries since 1870.

I know that there's still bitterness between Chile and Bolivia-Peru over the War of the Pacific that deprived Bolivia of a sea coast and has Arica in Chilean, rather than Peruvian, hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But nobody ever said the IOC wanted to expand the host cities to new frontiers that are not the most suitable and put ages old schedules and traditions out of whack. What need is there to have a Winter Games in August in the Southern Hemisphere when 95% of winter athletes come from the Northern Hemisphere? What need is there to have Summer Games in the desert in February when most schedules and training is geared toward a July/August time frame?

I know everyone likes the ceremonies, the prestige, the exposure and the national pride of hosting the Olympics, but ultimately, the Olympics are about sport and sport is about athletes, so it is thus the responsibility of the IOC to find host locations that are first and foremost to the benefit of the athletes and the sports they compete in.

There are some very serious logistic issues to contemplate and it is only logical that not everywhere can host the Olympics. Finland has an excellent winter sport tradition (attended every Winter Games, 6th on the overall medal list, over 150 medals, and 41 golds) but the country barely has a mountain to speak of and will never host because they don't have an Alpine resort up to the job.

Each sport has requirements and so the IOC has a duty to meet those requirements. So it is the duty of any city, town, or country to fit those requirements. If they can't fit the requirements, there will be some other place that can.

You can't compare the unfeasibility of Finland to host the Games with the Southern Hemisphere.

While Finland can't host the Games because of physical problems, you are saying some countries won't be able to do it just because some sort of tradition. Because after all hosting the Games in June-July is just that; 'we' are used to it. All the athletes from the Southern countries have no problem to take part in the Olympics in those months, and they have to change their schedules and nobody says it is a problem for them. And nobody is complaining. But just because richer and larger countries are on the other side of the world, it is a problem without solution.

Nobody is saying that everybody should change their schedule forever... but if a country does have all the capacity to host the Olympic Games, something that can happen probably once in 50 years, it is so difficult to make an effort? Where is the Olympic Spirit when you are saying 'no' to 25% of the population of the world?

Comparing to the time frame of the Sydney 2000 Games, averages highs in Santiago and BA for September and October appear to jive with those of Sydney (20.0 and 22.1). But BA is closer to Sydney on the average lows for the same time frame (11.1 & 13.5) where Santiago's average lows are a lot cooler.

I think that mid-to-late September and early October are an acceptable threshold for the Summer Games as Seoul and Sydney have proven. Rio is in a tropical zone so they have near ideal conditions year round. Actually, August favours them because it is their driest month.

Santiago have lower "average lows" because we have a larger temperature range in the day. We are in the middle of the valley so we have colder nights than Buenos Aires, a city at the coast.

But I agree, September-October are amazing months in Santiago. Lower pollution levels, the Andes are still with snow, the days are warm...

But, maybe we can consider no true war between South American countries since 1870.

The last war was the Cenepa War in 1995 between Perú and Ecuador... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last war was the Cenepa War in 1995 between Perú and Ecuador... :P

It's more a conflict than a war... But, even with this war in 1995, South America is quite a pacific continent, despite some urban violence related to druglords in big cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lima can be awesome with inca background but dont have any idea if the country and the city can handle.

other big ones caracas bogota montevideo i dont think so while there are known cities such as saopaolo buenos aries in the region.

santiago is for winter games .. next to the equator and first in sa...

Link to post
Share on other sites

lima can be awesome with inca background but dont have any idea if the country and the city can handle.

other big ones caracas bogota montevideo i dont think so while there are known cities such as saopaolo buenos aries in the region.

If it was a race between powerful names, you'd be right, but in reality forget Buenos Aires ('til Argentina gets a political and economic revolution) and Sao Paulo due a lots of reasons, mainly lack of empty spaces and bad-urban planning.

Lima will be a candidate for future, for sure. Peru is doing great and growing even more fast than Brazil and Chile, but first, they need to host some PanAms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Montevideo & Uruaguay are too small to host an Olympics.

And seriously Danny, you're being much too harsh on Buenos & Aires & Argentina. They may have issues now, but who's to say what the South American landscape will be like in 30-40 years. Many would've said the same things you're saying about Rio & Brazil 30 years ago, but look at your country today. You simply can't judge 3/4 decades from now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he specially mentioned "traffic", which would be a problem for any major city. As far as space goes, New York doesn't have much of that, either. But everyone always seems to be so gung-ho about them. And I can't see Tokyo with a lot of space eiter, unless they plan to use a lot of artificial islands. And some even talk about India later on. Talk about space constraints.

And like you said yourself, in 30 years time, who knows what that landscape could be like in Sao Paolo, especially like you mentioned again, in a rapidly developing country like Brazil. They could tear down things in the meantime, &/or propose something like London's East End. If were talking at least 30 years down the road & it's too premature to discount places like Brasilia & Salvador, then I don't see why the same reasoning can't be applied to Sao Paulo. Nothing is cast in stone, especially if were talking 3 decades away.

Traffic, meaning there isn't room for improvement which is a no-no for the IOC. Brasilia on the other hand has the space to make improvements.

A return to Rio is possible as well. But will the IOC want to return to Rio in 30 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic, meaning there isn't room for improvement which is a no-no for the IOC.

That's far-fethced, considering any major city wanting to host the Olympics will have major traffic issues to deal with. Istanbul is a good example of such. But their making major improvements to try & alleviate their traffic issues.

People also thought the same thing when Los Angeles was going to host the 1984 Olympics, only to see that traffic went smoothly. New York (which everyone always seems to be so "jump for joy" over) is another one that has major traffic issues. And lets not forget Tokyo, the most congested city in the world. Seriously, this is just splitting hairs, as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People also thought the same thing when Los Angeles was going to host the 1984 Olympics, only to see that traffic went smoothly. New York (which everyone always seems to be so "jump for joy" over) is another one that has major traffic issues. And lets not forget Tokyo, the most congested city in the world. Seriously, this is just splitting hairs, as usual.

Traffic is the least of New York's concerns.. it's not a city well-designed for people to get around easily by car, especially in Manhattan. There's a reason that NYC has the highest percentage of households who don't own a car of any city in the United States and it's by a pretty big margin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Montevideo & Uruaguay are too small to host an Olympics.

And seriously Danny, you're being much too harsh on Buenos & Aires & Argentina. They may have issues now, but who's to say what the South American landscape will be like in 30-40 years. Many would've said the same things you're saying about Rio & Brazil 30 years ago, but look at your country today. You simply can't judge 3/4 decades from now.

I really root for a better Argentina anytime soon, since it's very interesting to Brazil to have better neighbours than a lot of parasite populist countries around... No doubts.

But it's a hopeless situation if you look back their political system... The peronist-populist Justicialist Party can send 3, 4, 5 candidates to president election (it's an absurd system) and keep the power for long time as they are already doing for the last decades...

FYI, again (it's 3rd time I say that), if Argentina gets a political-economic revolution, Buenos Aires will be a strong bid even for before 2040.

A return to Rio is possible as well. But will the IOC want to return to Rio in 30 years?

I hope not. South America has lots to show. Even me would be, at first moment, against a second olympics in Rio in this century.

And lets not forget Tokyo, the most congested city in the world. Seriously, this is just splitting hairs, as usual.

Sao Paulo has problably much more problems with traffic than Tokyo.

At least Tokyo or New York have huge network of subway lines. Sao Paulo does not, indeed, it's ridiculous-sized compared to the size of city.

Even Rio and Brasilia has more subway Km/per capita than Sao Paulo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sao Paolo there is no space for a huge Olympic area of venues village etc. Brasilia has that.

True, Brasilia is very open and a significant chunk of it may be forever since it is Unesco World Heritage site. The "Pilot Plan" AND its original skyline can't be "obstructed" by new buildings conflicting with the modernist architecture and all that. So I think a Brasilia games would better spread to other places in the Federal District to avoid the hell Rio faced with some of its venues/heritage issues leading up to the '07 PanAms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, the problem with Sao Paulo is that it doesn't have anything besides traffic. We all know Beijing, London, NYC, Tokyo and a lot more have traffic problems. But SP seems it doesn't have any charm. I don't know if that is true... but it's my impression. Maybe because it has been overshadowed by Rio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, the problem with Sao Paulo is that it doesn't have anything besides traffic. We all know Beijing, London, NYC, Tokyo and a lot more have traffic problems. But SP seems it doesn't have any charm. I don't know if that is true... but it's my impression. Maybe because it has been overshadowed by Rio.

NYC, London and somehow Beijing have SOME urban planning.

Sao Paulo does not.

It's a huge labirynth of avenues and buildings with HUNDREDS of VERY HIGH DENSITY districts. "An endless downtown" as pointed by one american guy I met. Even the residential areas are full of big buildings.

It would be a hell to clean spaces for a multi-sports event in Sao Paulo.

At least Tokyo can put artificial islands, London have a empty space area. Well, about NYC, I can't imagine where newyorkers would put their olympic venues (have no info on it)...

I don't think Sao Paulo suffers of lack of charming. Some parts of Sao Paulo have its very own chaos-urban-charm. But for sure, not a broadcasting-dreaming place.

Again about traffic. Sao Paulo reaches 150, 200 Km of traffics jams inside its centrical area every single day. I can't imagine how athletes would "travel" across this sea of cars and buses to go to sports venue around the city.

Brasilia is my second option for second olympic in Brazil. Curitiba also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, about NYC, I can't imagine where newyorkers would put their olympic venues (have no info on it)...

They can put up temporary BMX or Beach volleyball stands in Central Park in Manhattan. A number of venues were situated in the NYC 2012 plan in Flushing Meadows, the site of the 1964-65 New York World's Fair. And a lot of Staten Island is still rural and undeveloped land. So there are spaces in NYC that can hold Olympic venues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can put up temporary BMX or Beach volleyball stands in Central Park in Manhattan. A number of venues were situated in the NYC 2012 plan in Flushing Meadows, the site of the 1964-65 New York World's Fair. And a lot of Staten Island is still rural and undeveloped land. So there are spaces in NYC that can hold Olympic venues.

I looked at Google at seems really interesting. At vacations time, NYC could host. I'd be not too sure about athletes leving Olympic Village and crossing districts of NY to attend the matches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...