Jump to content

USA 2024


Athensfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

, but then what about Rio? If the IOC and IAAF were that strict about a seating requirement, then why is Athletics being held at João Havelange instead of at the much larger Maracanã?

haven't really been paying much attention to the details about Rio and not that I care that much...but isn't the Havelange more conducive to T&F and Maracana, as already tested at the PanAms, more suited to Ceremonies (and the football finals)? But we have we heard all along that the IOC decrees an 80,000 seater, or is that just another convenient round number? I'm merely curious...not that it's going to change my life 1 way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haven't really been paying much attention to the details about Rio and not that I care that much...but isn't the Havelange more conducive to T&F and Maracana, as already tested at the PanAms, more suited to Ceremonies (and the football finals)? But we have we heard all along that the IOC decrees an 80,000 seater, or is that just another convenient round number? I'm merely curious...not that it's going to change my life 1 way or another.

Wow

I think 60,000 is probably the bare minimum the IOC requires, whereas 80,000 is probably more of an unofficial benchmark. Barcelona and Athens get a pass because they had stadiums already built that could provide a legacy. Ditto for Rio who can at least boast new construction while providing a new legacy for Maracanã. Probably not a coincidence that the capacity of Havelange is listed at 60,000. And I think you're right.. looking on Google maps, they have the necessary warm-up track literally right outside Havelange whereas Maracanã doesn't seem like it would set up as well for a standard 400-meter track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My God, you're quoting a losing domestic U.S. bid. I mean Minneapolis-St. Paul (another one!!) bid didn't even make a U.S. shortlist. How reliable is that? Besides, of course it would say USOC because they are going thru a "USOC" filter...NOT an IOC filter at that stage.

I did state that Barcelona and Athens were below 80,000. I KNOW THAT!!! But Barcelona is the IOC President's hometown -- so nobody's going to say anything; and Athens also slipped by since that was the original homes of the Games.

But you still didn't address my earlier question: why did Sydney put up a stadium of over 100,000? Beijing of some 81,500 (thereabouts)? and London a round 80,000?

Madrid is NOT an Olympic city; Baku is a joke. Of course, they'll put up a stadium of 64,000 -- that's what they presently have.

If there are existing stadia of 70-80,000, I believe that would do. What's give or take of 5,000 seats or so between friends?

Yes I did because if you'd bothered to read the link it clearly states from the State Legislature

Olympic Stadium Requirements

USOC minimum seating: 80,000

Width: 308 f plus margin for safety

Not IOC, USOC minimum requirement

Further down you can see in the Venues section

Capacity 80,0000

Requirement 60,000

This is then confirmed in an IOC document on Page 34, that the capacity required for Athletics is 60,000

Your opinions and lack of facts you present is extraordinary

Why is Madrid not an Olympic city? .... they are a capital city, have the population, have the sporting history and facilities, have the facitlities, have the infrastructure etc. It sounds like you have never been to Madrid.

In the IOC evaluation they rated at 8.3. By comparison New York was 7.5 and Chicago in 2016 scored a 7.0

If Madrid is not an Olympic city, New York and Chicago definitely are not.

And for your information, Baku's 64,000 seat stadium has NOT YET been built. The current national stadium of Azerbaijan is 35,700. Not only that, the ecomomy whilst not at Qatari levels is awash with petro dollars and they have held a number of international sporting events recently. If the IOC wants to move into new regions it is only total arrogance that leads to them being easily dismissed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

I think 60,000 is probably the bare minimum the IOC requires, whereas 80,000 is probably more of an unofficial benchmark. Barcelona and Athens get a pass because they had stadiums already built that could provide a legacy. Ditto for Rio who can at least boast new construction while providing a new legacy for Maracanã. Probably not a coincidence that the capacity of Havelange is listed at 60,000. And I think you're right.. looking on Google maps, they have the necessary warm-up track literally right outside Havelange whereas Maracanã doesn't seem like it would set up as well for a standard 400-meter track.

You are correct.

The IOC stipulate a requirement of 60,000 seats for Athletics and Opening Ceremonies.

Whilst certain sites will build largeer capacities in the expectation that those capacities will be reached or design stadiums which can be down-sized post games, the IOC after Montreal do not want vast stadiums which cannot be filled over the event. To climb from 60,000 to 80,000 actually requires quite a lot of money over and above the smaller capacity in terms of foundations to the structure, extra tiers, extra safety requirements etc, and when you watch a lot of events, often the stadium isn't full.

For American bids, the USOC have however stipulated an 80,000 seater requirement as evidenced by the document provided by Minnesota State legislature on Pages 2 and 6

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/dflpdf/Venues11-8-05.pdf

As for Sydney and Beijing, it was always the intention with Sydney to drop it to 83,000 in the knowledge that they would have home teams playing there in Rugby League, Rugby Union, Aussie Rules as well as the National teams.

However Beijing is an example of why you shouldn't go big without a post games usage planned and now its main source of revenue are sight seers despite the paint now peeling.

The Joao Havelange in Rio have Botafago FC as a future tennant along with Fluminese as both find the Maracana too big for all but derbies between the Rio clubs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madrid is NOT an Olympic city;

I think I've heard it all now. Lets consider some FACTS about Madrid

Status: Capital City of a Country of 45million

Size: 3.3million + 3million more in the immediate vicinity

Third largest city in the EU after London and Paris and third largest GDP

Major financial centre of Southern Europe

4th most visited tourist city in Europe (after London, Paris and Rome)

10th most livable city in the world

12th greenest city in the world

Considered an 'Alpha' City - only LA, NY and Chicago fit this criteria in the USA.

Sporting culture:

- Real Madrid at the 80,000 seat Bernabeau

- Athletico Madrid (who would take over the Olympic Stadium) and Getafe

- Two major basketball teams with arenas holding 15,000/12,000 - the Real Madrid team being the most successful in Europe

- Major cycling culture. 1 of the 3 major global events finish in Madrid

- Hosts the Mutua Madrilena Madrid Open, an ATP World Masters Tennis Event

- 92.6% support to host the games

- 8.3 and 8.1 evaluation scores for 2012 and 2016, beating both American candidates.

Infrastructure:

- ok, I know traffic can be shocking during rush hour but

- Madrid Badajoz Airport is 11th busiest in the world and the 4th busiest in Europe, with two additional runways being built

- there is a major Metro system, the second largest in Europe after London

- a huge overland rail network and the hub for a highspeed rail network across Europe

- a major road network and is surrounded by FOUR orbital networks.

and this is before discussion occurs as to the historical and cultural sites of a city, a thousand years in existence that once ruled one of the largest empires in history.

Why isn't Madrid an Olympic city should be the question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Sydney and Beijing, it was always the intention with Sydney to drop it to 83,000 in the knowledge that they would have home teams playing there in Rugby League, Rugby Union, Aussie Rules as well as the National teams.

However Beijing is an example of why you shouldn't go big without a post games usage planned and now its main source of revenue are sight seers despite the paint now peeling.

For me, Sydney is the model of what an Olympic Stadium should be. Large enough to hold Olympic-sized crowds and then downsized to host post-Olympic events but still be a centerpiece sports stadium (and convertible for both AFL/cricket as well as rugby/soccer.. that's pretty impressive).

Beijing obviously over-did it on their stadium and now the place has become a glorified tourist attraction. At least Olympic Stadium in Montreal saw heavy usage after the Olympics even though it was never well set up for baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, Sydney is the model of what an Olympic Stadium should be. Large enough to hold Olympic-sized crowds and then downsized to host post-Olympic events but still be a centerpiece sports stadium (and convertible for both AFL/cricket as well as rugby/soccer.. that's pretty impressive).

Beijing obviously over-did it on their stadium and now the place has become a glorified tourist attraction. At least Olympic Stadium in Montreal saw heavy usage after the Olympics even though it was never well set up for baseball.

Agreed

The Singapore Sports Hub is a great model if slightly enlarged as the seating is movable allowing cricket, football and athletics.

Unfortunately it is the additional cost which makes it prohibative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't Madrid an Olympic city should be the question

Well, because it has NOT staged an Olympic Games. The late IOC president put his hometown, Barcelona, over Madrid...thus, Barcelona is Spain's Olympic City...NOT Madrid. Simple as that.

R u rewriting history again and labelling Madrid an "Olympic city" when SO OBVIOUSLY, it is not?? You are imprinting another of your fantasies onto an untrue situation. Yes, Madrid has the capability to stage an Olympics...as has New York City (the premier US city) and half a dozen OTHER alpha cities...but the FACT is that unless you have staged an Olympics, you are NOT an Olympic city. Yes, Antwerp and Atlanta are true, bonafide Olympic cities while Madrid and Minneapolis are NOT. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, because it has NOT staged an Olympic Games. The late IOC president put his hometown, Barcelona, over Madrid...thus, Barcelona is Spain's Olympic City...NOT Madrid. Simple as that.

R u rewriting history again and labelling Madrid an "Olympic city" when SO OBVIOUSLY, it is not?? You are imprinting another of your fantasies onto an untrue situation. Yes, Madrid has the capability to stage an Olympics...as has New York City (the premier US city) and half a dozen OTHER alpha cities...but the FACT is that unless you have staged an Olympics, you are NOT an Olympic city. Yes, Antwerp and Atlanta are true, bonafide Olympic cities while Madrid and Minneapolis are NOT. ;)

So the qualification is to have hosted an Olympic games then?

Chicago and New York are clearly not Olympic cities then.

Why did you mention Madrid not being an Olympic stadium when the discussion was about stadium capacity?

You were WRONG about that - 80K is mandated by USOC not the IOC as the IOCs own documents have proven yet no admission.

I am not creating an untrue situation. You clearly adopted a derisory attitude towards any possible location not your favourite and then try to twist what people have said.

Antwerp is an olympic city as is St Louis ... in name only, because they don't have the ability to host again

You must be on a record number of ignore lists being incapable of having a civil discussion and admitting when you are incorrect.

You've just joined my ignore list group so no need to reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply because the IOC "stipulates" that 60,000 is acceptable does not necessarily mean that it's the most desirable. That number is merely the bare minimum that the IOC would accept for the main Olympic centerpiece.

It's like anything else that people bid for. You stick it out until you sell it to the "highest", or in this case, the most "extravagant" bidder.

This is even more embarrassing than Tulsa 2020 ever was. At least the Tulsans knew what page to be on. But this? Ai caramba! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply because the IOC "stipulates" that 60,000 is acceptable does not necessarily mean that it's the most desirable. That number is merely the bare minimum that the IOC would accept for the main Olympic centerpiece.

It's like anything else that people bid for. You stick it out until you sell it to the "highest", or in this case, the most "extravagant" bidder.

I think the issue is that Olympic games have been stung by post game main stadium white elephant embarassments.

I think if you look at most games, the stadiums are only full for the final events in the evening and tend to be half empty for a number of preliminary events.

Also the IOC want to make the opportunity to bid for the games to be accessible.

Rio had the smallest of all of the main athletic stadiums that bid for 2016 yet won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Yes, but Rio is holding the Opening & Closing Ceremonies at the Maracana, which will seat close to 90,000 at that time. Certainly for the Ceremonies the IOC would not accept such a low number of seats, since the ceremonies, especially the Opening, is usually the Pinnacle event of the Summer Olympics.

In addition, Rio's victory was mainly due since South America had never hosted before. So the IOC clearly made in exception in their case to allow for the seperation of the ceremonies & athletics for the very first time.

While white elephant stadiums are a concern, as long as there are cities willing to spend & give the IOC what they want, the IOC will continue to choose the most extravagant, spectacular bids. Not until the IOC is "forced" to be more sustainable (like in late 70's when virtually no one wanted to bid for the Games), will they consider/accept much more practical options.

Look at Sochi, certainly the Winter version of Beijing as far as extravagance is concerned. Yet that's what the IOC chose for 2014 & completely turned the other cheek from a more traditional & pratical bid from Salzburg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Yes, but Rio is holding the Opening & Closing Ceremonies at the Maracana, which will seat close to 90,000 at that time. Certainly for the Ceremonies the IOC would not accept such a low number of seats, since the ceremonies, especially the Opening, is usually the Pinnacle event of the Summer Olympics.

In addition, Rio's victory was mainly due since South America had never hosted before. So the IOC clearly made in exception in their case to allow for the seperation of the ceremonies & athletics for the very first time.

While white elephant stadiums are a concern, as long as there are cities willing to spend & give the IOC what they want, the IOC will continue to choose the most extravagant, spectacular bids. Not until the IOC is "forced" to be more sustainable (like in late 70's when virtually no one wanted to bid for the Games), will they consider/accept much more practical options.

Look at Sochi, certainly the Winter version of Beijing as far as extravagance is concerned. Yet that's what the IOC chose for 2014 & completely turned the other cheek from a more traditional & pratical bid from Salzburg.

Except the IOC stipulate 60,000 seats - they won't rule on bids due to the fact they are only slightly over.

Madrid were talking on having a 65,000 seats capacity yet graded second in the evaluation process in both 2012 and 2016.

The IOC are not selecting bids on 'extravagance' - they are looking principally at post games legacy.

Extravagance resulted in Montreal 1976 which is still costing the host city money.

London's bid in 2012 was far less extravagant than both Madrid and Paris.

I refer you to page 34

http://www.olympic.o..._report_809.pdf

The games are not decided on the size of the main stadium and who has the biggest. If you meet the criteria its a simple tick and then move on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, simply because it's "stipulated" does not automatically dictate that's what the IOC will settle for.

And yet look where Madrid ended up for those 2 races. In the losing bids file.

And of course the Games are not chosen SOLELY on extravagance, but it ceratinly does help to sell your bid.

Motreal finished paying their Olympic debt a couple of years back at least.

And what on earth are you talking about? London's 2012 bid was/is by FAR more adventurous & extravagant than Madrid's & Paris' were. The entire rejuvenation of a totally run-down part of the city, London's East End, is not legacy-driven & extravagance? :huh: While Paris & Madrid were both just offering "we have everything in place". That doesn't leave much more for "post-Games legacy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear.

Something worth pointing out is the article comes from The Onion. For non-US residents, this is a comedy site disguised as news. No WAY was the article for Indianapolis anywhere in the neighborhood of serious, forget realistic.

I have to ask, and I am probably sticking my head not just in the lion's mouth, but way down its throat, but why this strong almost vitriolic reaction to a Minneapolis bid? I get it, the city is NOT to the same standards as a New York or an LA, but it does have similarities to an Atlanta and is probably only a few steps behind a Chicago. There is no reason that a well put together and thought out bid plan might not work. Just because it is an unknown quantity does not make it Pago Pago, you know.

I admit a bias: I like the Twin Cities quite a bit and I like the IDEA of a SOG there. I honestly cannot say it will happen, but fun to imagine. When the rubber meets the road, we'll just have to see how a realistic model compares to the hypothetical.

I seem to recall Atlanta getting a lot of snickers back in the day when their bid was announced. Who was laughing in 1991?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing Atlanta was in 1996. At the time of their selection the golden memory of LA was still burning bright. I really think Atlanta owed their victory more to LA's success than anything else. Unfortunately, Atlanta dropped the ball and produced the most mediocre Games in modern memory. I think that's tarnished the chances of not only the South, but all second-tier American cities.

Also, the IOC's expectations have grown dramatically since Atlanta. They expect grandiose Games in world capitals. Whenever they return to the US, they''re going to insist on the "A team." I don't see Minneapolis as being a contender against the likes of Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, Toronto, Shanghai, Durban, Dubai, etc.

I like Minneapolis, but in comparison Chicago has it in spades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that anyone here is saying that a Minneapolis bid "couldn't work". Only that it would severely struggle to hold it's own against a line-up of high-caliber international cities such as Rome, Tokyo or Madrid (with much more imaginative & ambitious plans). Or new frontier locales such as South Africa, Turkey or even India. Since time & time again, the Olympic bid process has proven that it's not just solely about the "capabities" of a bid, but what other much bigger picture can the bid offer the IOC.

And as long as the IOC has Alpha cities lining-up around the block giving them what they want, why would they then settle for far less. And Minneapolis is far more than just a "few steps" behind Chicago. That would be like saying Chicago is only a few steps behind New York, or Tulsa only a few steps behind from Minneapolis. Or a KIA only a few steps behind a BMW. And while the KIA would be just as reliable as the BMW to get you from point A to point B, & just as 'capable' "for the rubber to meet the road", given the free choice, why would someone choose the lower-end model. Just look at the international equivalents to a Minneapolis that they IOC has flat-out rejected early on in their respective races; Seville, Lille, Leipzig, Manchester, Birmingham, Brisbane. And even NOC haven't given green lights, either, to gamma cities. Like Hiroshima or Venice. Once the high-end models start to dry up on the IOC, then could these much lower-tier places maybe will be given a gander by the IOC. But I don't see it beforehand until the IOC is forced to do so.

And why is the "Atlanta comparison" incessantly brought up by some people when it comes to places like Minneapolis, Houston, Dallas & Tulsa. Atlanta was received luke-warm, at best, by the IOC when they played host. So why would they be in any hurry to return to such a similiar scenario. Not to mention, when Atlanta won, other than Athens (which just was arrogant with their bid & clearly weren't ready anyway), their competition weren't Alpha cities across the board, either. So they were pretty much on par. So it's not that black & white to simplistically say, "well, if Atlanta did it...".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing Atlanta was in 1996. At the time of their selection the golden memory of LA was still burning bright. I really think Atlanta owed their victory more to LA's success than anything else. Unfortunately, Atlanta dropped the ball and produced the most mediocre Games in modern memory.

Stop exaggerating. Atlanta, specifically Andrew Young, ex-US-Ambassador to the UN, built their bid on a coalition of his African and 3rd world contacts. And it just so happened too that Athens was faaaar from ready and there was no hiding this. So when Athens, combined with the arrogance of the Greek team, could not whitewash their un-ready state, Atlanta just happened to be at the right place and at the time to catch the Athens fall-off.

Most "mediocre games in modern memory? Were you even there? There were just 2 major snafus: some buses losing their way and drivers (which mainly affected some press people); and the IBM meltdown. But overall, Atlanta's stadia were filled with more enthusiastic crowds than Athens was 8 years later. I heard of lousy, inefficient, unmotivated volunteers in Athens who put themselves BEFORE visitors' needs--and having just been to Greece last year, I can heartily believe that. U r just so blinded by your having been in Athens...but I am sure, efficiency-wise, they are/were about the same. Can't believe u're part of the old 'Athens-sour grapes' crowd.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing Atlanta was in 1996. At the time of their selection the golden memory of LA was still burning bright. I really think Atlanta owed their victory more to LA's success than anything else. Unfortunately, Atlanta dropped the ball and produced the most mediocre Games in modern memory. I think that's tarnished the chances of not only the South, but all second-tier American cities.

Like FYI brought up.. the field of candidate cities for 1996 wasn't all that strong. Against Atlanta you had an under-prepared Athens, Toronto bidding just 2 years after Calgary, Australia and Great Britain putting up less than their biggest cities, and Belgrade just a few years after Sarajevo had hosted. Compare that to the scope of the loaded 2012 field and what we've largely seen in most bid cycles since `96. Regardless of how those Olympics turned out, Atlanta is forever an aberration, a bid that probably wouldn't so much have sniffed the USOC nomination since then, especially when the `96 US field wasn't exactly filled with big name cities either.

So that's the thing with Minneapolis. Would they stand a chance against a strong field? I doubt it. So why would the IOC go there if they have their pick of other bigger and more intriguing cities, and that's worldwide, let alone what the USOC might throw at them. Let's be fair about Atlanta. They got lucky. I wouldn't expect it to happen again anytime soon.

There were just 2 major snafus: some buses losing their way and drivers (which mainly affected some press people); and the IBM meltdown.

We're not going to count the Olympic Park bombing? Most would probably consider that a pretty big snafu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains that the overall impression created by Atlanta was underwhelming in comparison to other Games. The concrete specifics are of limited importance in comparison.

The transportation, the security, the commercialism, the aesthetics - lack of memorable venues and vistas, the uninspiring look, the tacky ceremonies. Together it left most posters on this forum and the IOC cold. For the first time Samaranch didn't say they were the best Games ever. I later read a story where he said, "Let's be honest. The Games of Atlanta were not good games." Dont ask for a reference - it was pre-Rogge.

Quaker, you're right about the weak field. I still think LA helped.

Truthfully, no prospective American bid should regard Atlanta as an example. They were an aberration that occurred in extraordinary circumstances that we're unlikely to see ever again. Furthermore, the disappointing quality of their Games is a powerful deterrent against the IOC awarding the Games to any city that seems even vaguely similar. Prospective bid cities should stress how they are NOT like Atlanta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing Atlanta was in 1996. At the time of their selection the golden memory of LA was still burning bright. I really think Atlanta owed their victory more to LA's success than anything else. Unfortunately, Atlanta dropped the ball and produced the most mediocre Games in modern memory. I think that's tarnished the chances of not only the South, but all second-tier American cities.

Also, the IOC's expectations have grown dramatically since Atlanta. They expect grandiose Games in world capitals. Whenever they return to the US, they''re going to insist on the "A team." I don't see Minneapolis as being a contender against the likes of Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, Toronto, Shanghai, Durban, Dubai, etc.

I like Minneapolis, but in comparison Chicago has it in spades.

I thought Atlanta was selected has host city over Athens in 1991, which is why I went with that date. Details, as they say.

And I certainly see your point on expecting the best of the best cities. Then again, it could also be argued that getting to host a Games might raise a city's profile to the world-class status. Cases in point: Atlanta, Seoul, Barcelona. Granted, that was 20 years ago, but if you demanded world class only cities like Istanbul, Doha and Durban would not even be getting whispered about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...