Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The real question here is how much do the Olympics have to adapt to the limitations of bid cities and how much to the bid cities have to adapt to meet the IOC's demands. Ultimately, the IOC decides where to draw that line based on the options presented to them in a given cycle. For the bid cities, it's a balancing act and it will have to be negotiated. A certain amount of it will be guesswork because the bidders won't really know how their choices affected their chances until after the vote (and perhaps not even then). Can Norway get away with hockey arenas two hours apart or not? Have to wait and see. From Norway's perspective, that's the preferable solution. From the IOC's perspective, it is not.

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...

There is such thing as a temporary arena you know. The prime example was the Basketball Arena here in London for London 2012, so Oslo could have 1 permanent arena and 1 temporary arena.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is such thing as a temporary arena you know. The prime example was the Basketball Arena here in London for London 2012, so Oslo could have 1 permanent arena and 1 temporary arena.

Really? Temporary facilities?! I've never heard of such a thing!!!

Of course there are temporary arena's, but they still cost money. They still require space (which is not easy to come by in a metropolis). Perhaps Oslo can find a way to make a temporary arena option "C" on my list -- a second facility that still works for them in the long-term (being repurposed, etc.).

Most Olympic bids (and Games) claim that the athletes are their number one priority. This is a case where one has to consider whether or not that should be the case.

If the athletes are the number one priority, then no expense should be spared to give them the ultimate Olympic experience.

If the long-term benefit and health of the host city is the number one priority, then the athletes must adjust to the logistical consequences of lower budgets.

You really can't maximize for both variables. Ideally, they are balanced so that the host city isn't selling its soul and the athletes aren't too badly inconvenienced. It's up to each bidder to find the balance that they feel is right and then the IOC will pick the option they like the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Temporary facilities?! I've never heard of such a thing!!!

Of course there are temporary arena's, but they still cost money. They still require space (which is not easy to come by in a metropolis). Perhaps Oslo can find a way to make a temporary arena option "C" on my list -- a second facility that still works for them in the long-term (being repurposed, etc.).

Most Olympic bids (and Games) claim that the athletes are their number one priority. This is a case where one has to consider whether or not that should be the case.

If the athletes are the number one priority, then no expense should be spared to give them the ultimate Olympic experience.

If the long-term benefit and health of the host city is the number one priority, then the athletes must adjust to the logistical consequences of lower budgets.

You really can't maximize for both variables. Ideally, they are balanced so that the host city isn't selling its soul and the athletes aren't too badly inconvenienced. It's up to each bidder to find the balance that they feel is right and then the IOC will pick the option they like the best.

I understand that space and money is a factor, but building a temporary facility is better then having a permanent one that's not going to be used after.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue lies more for the spectators and media. I know NBC shares talent and staff between the men's and women's games, so this would be an issue if the arenas are spread apart. It would also be an inconvenience for spectators, because they'd have to travel 4 hours to get from a men's game to a women's game. It would be a logistical nightmare. Oslo doesn't have to be unique and mix and match the locations of the ice and snow events.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oslo - Lillehammer only takes 2 hours 14 minutes by train, just so it's mentioned. And by 2022 major parts of the Dovre line between Oslo and Lillehammer will be upgraded to 250 km/h HSR. Once the whole stretch to Lillehammer is built, travel time from Oslo will be 1 hour 23 minutes. Which might well be within 2022 should Lillehammer host more events.
So the talk about 4 hours travel time is of course nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that space and money is a factor, but building a temporary facility is better then having a permanent one that's not going to be used after.

Well how do you know a stadium can not be reused later. Another problem I have with permanent stadiums is that we are fixated on the idea that the must stay as sports facilities. Well how greener can a games be (legacy wise) if they turn their main stadium into local house and parkland in the center.

Post Games:

06_FINALRENDER_post_olympics.jpg

During the games:

05_FINALRENDER_olympics.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how much hockey players have to travel in their leagues, I wouldn't say the distance between Oslo and Lillehammer would really be a problem. Maybe a problem for corporate guests who'd attend other events in Oslo the same day.

If travelling between cities would be a problem for players, sholdn't also the FIFA World Cup or the Olympics' football be played within one city? And if travelling is such a big problem for players, then they could do like they do at the Worlds, the round robin groups have different host cities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well how do you know a stadium can not be reused later. Another problem I have with permanent stadiums is that we are fixated on the idea that the must stay as sports facilities. Well how greener can a games be (legacy wise) if they turn their main stadium into local house and parkland in the center.

The cost of conversion can be enormous though, since it is very difficult to design a stadium or arena to serve other purposes. (Consider the cost of reconstructing London's Olympic Stadium when it's just an issue of re-sizing the stands and field.) I really don't see how you can build a stadium that could easily be converted into residences after the games. It would likely end up being cheaper to tear down the stadium and build highrise complexes after the games.

And after the conversion the end product will likely end up not being worth half the cost of the project. There aren't too many governments that are going to be thrilled with the idea of spending hundreds of millions to build a garden complex when a normal greenhouse would cost a tiny fraction of that money.

If travelling between cities would be a problem for players, sholdn't also the FIFA World Cup or the Olympics' football be played within one city? And if travelling is such a big problem for players, then they could do like they do at the Worlds, the round robin groups have different host cities.

I think it's really the media, officials and fans that need a compact, walkable area rather than the athletes. For example broadcasters don't want to have to set up multiple studios for the same sport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of conversion can be enormous though, since it is very difficult to design a stadium or arena to serve other purposes. (Consider the cost of reconstructing London's Olympic Stadium when it's just an issue of re-sizing the stands and field.) I really don't see how you can build a stadium that could easily be converted into residences after the games. It would likely end up being cheaper to tear down the stadium and build highrise complexes after the games.

And after the conversion the end product will likely end up not being worth half the cost of the project. There aren't too many governments that are going to be thrilled with the idea of spending hundreds of millions to build a garden complex when a normal greenhouse would cost a tiny fraction of that money.

Well who said it had to be done in five or ten years. Another thing to consider is if the plan is for the stadium to be converted into a green space living area from the time the city bids to the games, it seems likely that cities would build the stadium with conversion in mind. It would also be cheaper to make it a 20 year progression for a city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The temporary arena seems to be a growing concept in the Olympics. The question still remains though, while definitely cheaper in cost to build, what do you do with it after the Olympics? The Basketball Arena from London has been taken down, but it has yet to be decided what to do with it. I suppose in the end they could easily scrap it and use the materials as recycling. For Sochi, all the talk of the Iceberg, Shayba, and Ice Cube being temporary and being either turned into a velodrome (the Iceberg) or in the case of Shayba and the Ice Cube, there are no plans to take them down and relocate them. All three will be white elephants.

Back to Oslo, the city could definitely use a 10-15,000 seat arena for ice hockey. The second ice hockey venue seems to be an issue. I still don't understand why the Spektrum Arena is not being considered here either for curling and then the new Jordal for ice hockey or curling. If you want to utilize existing facilities, I don't see why you wouldn't use a 7,000 seat arena. There does seem to be an unwritten rule that all the ice events need to be concentrated in the same city, probably more so for media and spectator purposes.

With the talk of using more existing venues in Lillehammer, but Lillehammer being too small to host the Olympics by itself, I'd propose this. Follow the Pyeongchang model. All the ski and sliding events are being held in Pyeongchang, a resort town far too small to host all events of the Olympics while the city of Gangneung on the coast is hosting all the ice events. It could've easily been Gangneung 2018 but the Koreans chose to make their bid city the small alpine resort. Could the Norwegians do the same? Have all the skiing and sliding events, along with the ceremonies in Lillehammer while Oslo could host the ice events. The only thing I think that would have to change is it seems the IOC isn't too keen anymore on using the ski jump stadium for the ceremonies since it could conflict with practice times for the athletes so I suppose in this case that Lillehammer would have to construct a temporary ceremonies stadium like Pyeongchang is doing and Albertville did before. Any thoughts? Could it work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's really the media, officials and fans that need a compact, walkable area rather than the athletes. For example broadcasters don't want to have to set up multiple studios for the same sport.

Still, I wouln't say one hockey arena in Lillehammer would be so bad. It's not like it's apart from everything, there are some sports in the Lillehammer region anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Oslo, the city could definitely use a 10-15,000 seat arena for ice hockey. The second ice hockey venue seems to be an issue. I still don't understand why the Spektrum Arena is not being considered here either for curling and then the new Jordal for ice hockey or curling. If you want to utilize existing facilities, I don't see why you wouldn't use a 7,000 seat arena. There does seem to be an unwritten rule that all the ice events need to be concentrated in the same city, probably more so for media and spectator purposes.

With the talk of using more existing venues in Lillehammer, but Lillehammer being too small to host the Olympics by itself, I'd propose this. Follow the Pyeongchang model. All the ski and sliding events are being held in Pyeongchang, a resort town far too small to host all events of the Olympics while the city of Gangneung on the coast is hosting all the ice events. It could've easily been Gangneung 2018 but the Koreans chose to make their bid city the small alpine resort. Could the Norwegians do the same? Have all the skiing and sliding events, along with the ceremonies in Lillehammer while Oslo could host the ice events. The only thing I think that would have to change is it seems the IOC isn't too keen anymore on using the ski jump stadium for the ceremonies since it could conflict with practice times for the athletes so I suppose in this case that Lillehammer would have to construct a temporary ceremonies stadium like Pyeongchang is doing and Albertville did before. Any thoughts? Could it work?

Again, Oslo has no need of a 10,000 seat venue for hockey. The only top club Vålerenga has an average of less than 1,500. In a venue that can host 4,500 spectators. Even if Vålerenga were to join the KHL, which currently is a topic, even then 5-6,000 is max. And that is covered by Oslo Spektrum. Though the hockey federation wants a new 6,000 seat arena to become the new national arena as well. Of course this is just me speculating. But the reason for not using Oslo Spektrum either as the smaller hockey venue, or as the curling venue, is most likely because the main focus of the organisers is to get new venues to the Oslo area. Using Spektrum wouldn't give a new venue for hockey in the Oslo region. Afterwards Spektrum would go back to host concerts, events and so on. And host a sport event perhaps once every 5 years.

Moving ski events away from Holmenkollen is of course out of the question. Holmenkollen is the sole image of Norway as an winter sports nation. It's a part of our winter sports soul. And besides, Holmenkollen was upgraded ahead of the 2011 Nordic Ski Championship. The Lillehammer venues are pretty much the same as they were in 1994.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Oslo has no need of a 10,000 seat venue for hockey. The only top club Vålerenga has an average of less than 1,500. In a venue that can host 4,500 spectators. Even if Vålerenga were to join the KHL, which currently is a topic, even then 5-6,000 is max. And that is covered by Oslo Spektrum. Though the hockey federation wants a new 6,000 seat arena to become the new national arena as well. Of course this is just me speculating. But the reason for not using Oslo Spektrum either as the smaller hockey venue, or as the curling venue, is most likely because the main focus of the organisers is to get new venues to the Oslo area. Using Spektrum wouldn't give a new venue for hockey in the Oslo region. Afterwards Spektrum would go back to host concerts, events and so on. And host a sport event perhaps once every 5 years.

Moving ski events away from Holmenkollen is of course out of the question. Holmenkollen is the sole image of Norway as an winter sports nation. It's a part of our winter sports soul. And besides, Holmenkollen was upgraded ahead of the 2011 Nordic Ski Championship. The Lillehammer venues are pretty much the same as they were in 1994.

No 10 000 seats stadium is planned for use after the games. The Ice hockey venue (10 000) will be transformed to this:

sportshall%2520%2528med%2520tekst%2529.j

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No 10 000 seats stadium is planned for use after the games. The Ice hockey venue (10 000) will be transformed to this:

I know. But if that's their need. They should build it like that from the beginning. And not go via a 10,000 seat hockey venue. Håkons Hall at Lillehammer stands ready to be used as the bigger hockey venue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the fundings are confirmed, agreed or guaranteed by the Norwegian Government....

In June 2013, an application was made for state aid and a state guarantee for the hosting of the 2022 Winter
Games in Oslo. Negotiations between the parties are ongoing. Subsequent to a positive response on the part of the Norwegian Government, the Norwegian Parliament will make a final decision in the second half of 2014 regarding a commitment to a Norwegian bid for the 2022 Games together with an associated financing solution.

So everything could stop by the end of the year if they did not get the financial support.... Rome 2020 bis repetita !!!

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...