Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'd have nothing against having one hockey arena in Oslo and one in Lillehammer as long as the final and the semifinals are played in Oslo. I think they could spread the hockey matches in two cities like they do with football matches in the summer games.

According to Wikipedia:

In the unsuccessful Lillehammer bid for the 1992 Winter Olympics, ice hockey events were proposed played in Hamar and Gjøvik. However, in the Lillehammer bid for the 1994 Winter Olympics, all ice events were moved to Lillehammer proper, after recommendations from the International Ice Hockey Federation, who wanted all the ice hockey events to take place in the same town.

That's also the reason why Krakow dropped the previous idea of using ice hockey venues in neighbouring towns. The bid committee was strongly adviced not to spread the ice hockey venues outside city boundary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have to say I'm surprised by the intensity of some posters' disregard for Oslo. I really don't see it as "been there, done that." What I see is that the IOC has taken two big gambles with the Wint

This statement is incredibly angry and off-putting. The IOC ought to say "mea culpa." Instead they're lashing out at the Norwegians. This isn't going to fix anything and it shows just how out of tou

So 1 of them says that France and Italy may not bid. And the other feels compelled to respond by saying pretty much the same thing, just worded a little differently...

That's also the reason why Krakow dropped the previous idea of using ice hockey venues in neighbouring towns. The bid committee was strongly adviced not to spread the ice hockey venues outside city boundary.

This is the kind of crap the IOC (and sports federations) hav to stop. It places burdens on cities, for little good reason. Salt Lake put the women's hockey down in Provo. Vancouver put it just outside the city limits, but far away from any other venue. Anyone care? Other than those of us who had to schlep out to those arenas.

If Lillehammer has or needs an arena, and Oslo doesn't need a second arena, why the heck wouldn't they allow - or better yet, activly encourage using *needed* areans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to start lobbying the necessary individuals since apparently you know better than the IOC & all of those sports federations.

Ice hockey is one of the marquee events of the Winter Olympics & I can see why many of the organizers would wanna keep everything close together. Having things so spread out doesn't make sense for everything, especially the bigger events.

If we just wanna reuse everything from Lillehammer '94 anyway, why not just change the bid altogether from Oslo 2022 to Lillehammer 2022. Give nothing of a differentiation for the IOC to simply just select someone else. And even with Oslo, many are still citing a "been there, done that" attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have nothing against having one hockey arena in Oslo and one in Lillehammer as long as the final and the semifinals are played in Oslo. I think they could spread the hockey matches in two cities like they do with football matches in the summer games.

I agree. As long as the Gold and Bronze medal matches are in Oslo, I wouldn't argue with one Ice Hockey Arena in Oslo (12,000 Seater) and one Ice Hockey Arena in Lillehammer (6,000 Seater). Also, as far as I'm concerned, if the Opening and Closing Ceremonies are going to be held in Oslo and at least most of the ice Sport's are in Oslo aswell, then it's Oslo 2022 or Oslo/Lillehammer 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice hockey is one of the marquee events of the Winter Olympics Mens Hockey? Yes. Women's Hockey? Not so much. & I can see why many of the organizers would wanna keep everything close together They already aren't keeping everything together. What difference does it make whether women's hockey is in the same town as Alpine skiing or Men's Hockey. Why do you think many of the organizers would wanna keep men's and women's hockey in the same town. How do you balance their desires aginst the cost of building an unneeded area?. . Having things so spread out doesn't make sense for everything, especially the bigger events.

If we just wanna reuse everything from Lillehammer '94 anyway, why not just change the bid altogether from Oslo 2022 to Lillehammer 2022. We don't just wanna reruse everything from Lillehammer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice hockey is one of the marquee events of the Winter Olympics Mens Hockey? Yes. Women's Hockey? Not so much. & I can see why many of the organizers would wanna keep everything close together They already aren't keeping everything together. What difference does it make whether women's hockey is in the same town as Alpine skiing or Men's Hockey. Why do you think many of the organizers would wanna keep men's and women's hockey in the same town. How do you balance their desires aginst the cost of building an unneeded area?. . Having things so spread out doesn't make sense for everything, especially the bigger events.

If we just wanna reuse everything from Lillehammer '94 anyway, why not just change the bid altogether from Oslo 2022 to Lillehammer 2022. We don't just wanna reruse everything from Lillehammer.

The 2nd hockey arena is probably going to host some men's games as well, so it does help matters to have at least those 2 close to each other. They don't have to be next door to each other like in Sochi (or in Calgary, among others), but it would be helpful if they weren't an hour apart like West Valley City and Provo for players and media members who might have to travel between the 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. If they keep the rule that all teams in a group must play their final group game at the same time, that means half the mens teams must play a game in the "women's" arena.

But we are talking about a bunch of NHLers (and their press). They play in Calgary one night, Vancouver the next. Or with a day off, in Tampa. For the KHL it's even worse. I just don't see playing one game in Lillehammer as being a big deal. Especially when the alternative is to build an entire unneeded arena.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia:

That's also the reason why Krakow dropped the previous idea of using ice hockey venues in neighbouring towns. The bid committee was strongly adviced not to spread the ice hockey venues outside city boundary.

I really don't see any problem with two host cities for hockey. The Worlds are usually played in two cities, possibly in different countries. That's not a problem for football in the summer games, why is it a problem with hockey in the winter games? I could see some potential benefits from the bigger market area. I might have different host cities for each round robin group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. As long as the Gold and Bronze medal matches are in Oslo, I wouldn't argue with one Ice Hockey Arena in Oslo (12,000 Seater) and one Ice Hockey Arena in Lillehammer (6,000 Seater).

Well, that's not going to happen as it's Lillehammer who has the 10,000 seat Håkons Hall available. While Oslo at best has the now 6,500 seat Oslo Spektrum available. But plans to build a new 6,000 seat venue at Jordal for future use as the national arena for hockey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's not going to happen as it's Lillehammer who has the 10,000 seat Håkons Hall available. While Oslo at best has the now 6,500 seat Oslo Spektrum available. But plans to build a new 6,000 seat venue at Jordal for future use as the national arena for hockey.

Oslo should build a Temporary 12,000 Seater, then after the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, downscale to 6,000 Seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oslo has existing venues that can be hockey one and two, but they're insisting on building new ones. If they really want a low cost games. just use those with some renovations. You dont have to have everything in a new venue or in lillehammer

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia:

That's also the reason why Krakow dropped the previous idea of using ice hockey venues in neighbouring towns. The bid committee was strongly adviced not to spread the ice hockey venues outside city boundary.

It would be a pain for the hockey teams to travel. Either they have to have sets of rooms in both villages or they have to travel 4 hours round trip. Neither option is wonderful. I can see why the federation wants all the games in the same city.

That's what it means to put the athletes first.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

oslo has existing venues that can be hockey one and two, but they're insisting on building new ones. If they really want a low cost games. just use those with some renovations. You dont have to have everything in a new venue or in lillehammer

No they don't.

Oslo needs these indoor venues.

12,000 seat venue for figure skating and short track skating

10,000 seat venue for hockey

6,000 seat venue for hockey

3,000 seat curling venue

6,000 seat venue speed skating

Oslo today only has

Telenor Arena, originally an indoor football stadium with 15 000 seats. And is planned to be the venue for figure skating and short track skating.

Oslo Spektrum, has a capacity of 6,500 spectators at hockey matches. But isn't planned to be used. I guess the main reason for this is that the hockey federation wants a new national arena with 6,000 spectators.

Jordal Amfi has 4,450 seats, and could by that have been used as the curling venue. But it don't meet any of the other criteria. And therefore can't be used.

So to host all indoor events in Oslo, Oslo needs at least

a 10,000 seat venue for hockey.

a 6,000 seat venue for speed skating.

a 3,000 seat venue for curling.

In addition it plans to build a 6,000 seat venue for hockey. Which will become the new national arena for hockey after the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a pain for the hockey teams to travel. Either they have to have sets of rooms in both villages or they have to travel 4 hours round trip. Neither option is wonderful. I can see why the federation wants all the games in the same city.

That's what it means to put the athletes first.

Oh for Pete's sake. We are taking about hockey players. They travel to play hockey just about every night. They've been traveling to play hockey since they were six... some since they were four. Crosby excepted, these are the toughest, grittiest Olympicans there are.

It's ridiculous to thing having to travel, once, four hours during a 10-day tournament is some sort of burden. A burden so great the people of Norway should spend tens if not hundreds of millions on an otherwise unneded arena.

Forusing on the players means exatly the opposite. Building new arenas is done for the glory of the IOC, legacy, etc. Not because a bunch of hockey players can't travel for a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC has consistently made short travel times for athletes a top priority. That's one of the primary reasons why they value compactness. As the world's premiere sporting event, they don't want the athletes to spend large portions of their days stuck on buses. I think that makes sense. Norway doesn't "have" to build anything they don't want to. They can present any bid they please. Either the IOC will accept their limitations or they won't. Don't yell at me if you think the IOC's preferences are stupid. Tell the IOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC has consistently made short travel times for athletes a top priority. That's one of the primary reasons why they value compactness. As the world's premiere sporting event, they don't want the athletes to spend large portions of their days stuck on buses. I think that makes sense. Norway doesn't "have" to build anything they don't want to. They can present any bid they please. Either the IOC will accept their limitations or they won't. Don't yell at me if you think the IOC's preferences are stupid. Tell the IOC.

True, hence why alot of cities propose upgrading/building travel infrastructure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC has consistently made short travel times for athletes a top priority. That's one of the primary reasons why they value compactness. As the world's premiere sporting event, they don't want the athletes to spend large portions of their days stuck on buses. I think that makes sense. Norway doesn't "have" to build anything they don't want to. They can present any bid they please. Either the IOC will accept their limitations or they won't. Don't yell at me if you think the IOC's preferences are stupid. Tell the IOC.

I'm disagreeing with you because you support the notion of building expensive, unnecessary arenas.

The IOC may use "athlete travel time" as the excuse, but that doesn't mean that's their primary goal. I actually have more respect for the IOC because I think they have alterior motives. If they (or you) actually think it's worth building unnecessary arenas just so a bunch of hockey players don't have to go on one (1!) four hour road trip, that's idiotic.

Add a temporary second tier.

Now I'm not an architecture expert, put I'm pretty sure indoor hockey areans don't have space for temporary 6,000 seat tiers .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for Pete's sake. We are taking about hockey players. They travel to play hockey just about every night. They've been traveling to play hockey since they were six... some since they were four. Crosby excepted, these are the toughest, grittiest Olympicans there are.

It's ridiculous to thing having to travel, once, four hours during a 10-day tournament is some sort of burden. A burden so great the people of Norway should spend tens if not hundreds of millions on an otherwise unneded arena.

Forusing on the players means exatly the opposite. Building new arenas is done for the glory of the IOC, legacy, etc. Not because a bunch of hockey players can't travel for a game.

That's right.. hockey players are tough. No big hardship for them to travel a little. Alpine skiers though? Nah, they're soft. Make them potentially have to travel between Stockholm and Are and that's never going to work.

I know the 2 situations are far from the same, but this isn't a regular season hockey game with charter flights and the like to move teams around. This is the Olympics with hundreds of moving parts to be concerned with. Not to mention we're talking about the IOC. It's far from a deal-breaker to split the hockey venues apart, but if 1 bid is proposing the 2 arenas to be close to each other and the other isn't, which of the 2 is going to be preferred (based on that, I know it's 1 of a thousand things to consider with a bid). And I'm regretting bringing this up already because I'm probably going to skew this thread into an unfortunate tangent.. should we bring up the hypothetical Reno/Tahoe bid where they have to decide where to put their hockey arena and it's been floated they could use Sacramento as 1 of the sites?

This is a choice the Oslo folks have to make here. Again, they have to walk a fine line between doing what's best for them and trying to impress the IOC, legacy concerns and all. I don't know what the answer to that is, but I don't think it's so simple that hockey players are used to traveling so what's it to them to do it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disagreeing with you because you support the notion of building expensive, unnecessary arenas.

The IOC may use "athlete travel time" as the excuse, but that doesn't mean that's their primary goal. I actually have more respect for the IOC because I think they have alterior motives. If they (or you) actually think it's worth building unnecessary arenas just so a bunch of hockey players don't have to go on one (1!) four hour road trip, that's idiotic.

Now I'm not an architecture expert, put I'm pretty sure indoor hockey areans don't have space for temporary 6,000 seat tiers .

Well, as someone who knows quite alot about Architecture, as it's an interest of mine, a technique that could be used is the roof can be held up on hydraulic jacks and a temporary steel second tier. Then, after the Olympics, the roof can be lowered. We have the technology to do it. The prime example is the proposed Baltic Arena in Kaliningrad, Russia for the 2018 Fifa World Cup. I get it that it's a football Stadium and outdoors (Well, with a retractable roof), but I'm certain the same technique could be used at an indoor Ice Hockey Arena. Here are drawings of the Baltic Arena for the World Cup and Legacy use - http://stadiumdb.com/designs/rus/stadion_kaliningrad - Source: StadiumDB.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as someone who knows quite alot about Architecture, as it's an interest of mine, a technique that could be used is the roof can be held up on hydraulic jacks and a temporary steel second tier. Then, after the Olympics, the roof can be lowered. We have the technology to do it. The prime example is the proposed Baltic Arena in Kaliningrad, Russia for the 2018 Fifa World Cup. I get it that it's a football Stadium and outdoors (Well, with a retractable roof), but I'm certain the same technique could be used at an indoor Ice Hockey Arena. Here are drawings of the Baltic Arena for the World Cup and Legacy use - http://stadiumdb.com/designs/rus/stadion_kaliningrad - Source: StadiumDB.com

If we're going to look for an example of how a cost-effective Olympic bid city/country could build such an arena, maybe we shouldn't be pointing to an example from a city in the country that just spent $50 billion on a Winter Olympics. Just sayin'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disagreeing with you because you support the notion of building expensive, unnecessary arenas.

The IOC may use "athlete travel time" as the excuse, but that doesn't mean that's their primary goal. I actually have more respect for the IOC because I think they have alterior motives. If they (or you) actually think it's worth building unnecessary arenas just so a bunch of hockey players don't have to go on one (1!) four hour road trip, that's idiotic.

Now I'm not an architecture expert, put I'm pretty sure indoor hockey areans don't have space for temporary 6,000 seat tiers .

Excuse me. I do NOT support the building of expensive, unnecessary arenas. I never said I did. Work on your reading comprehension.

What I said is that I understand why the IOC and the federation prefer to have the hockey competition take place in a single city. Imposing long travel times on athletes is not ideal.

So there are several options:

A.) The IOC bites the bullet and decides they want Norway to host despite this weakness.

B.) The IOC goes elsewhere to a city with shorter travel times for athletes.

C.) Norway finds a way to make a second hockey arena work for them in the long term.

D.) Norway builds an arena they don't need.

I would not hazard a guess as to how this will play out.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...