Jump to content
yukke14

TOKYO 2020 Venue Plan

Recommended Posts

Tokyo will cut building costs of 2020 Olympics rather than move venues – reports

 

Tokyo is leaning towards building new but cheaper venues for some 2020 Olympic Games events rather than moving them elsewhere, Japanese media reported on Thursday.

The city’s authorities are unlikely to make major changes to the plans for several Games venues, but will instead make efforts to pare costs, newspapers reported.

Tokyo’s governor, Yuriko Koike, ordered a review of ballooning Olympic expenses that recommended changing three venues in an effort to rein in costs that were projected to hit 3tn yen ($26.6bn), four times the estimates made when Tokyo won the right to host the Games.

Cost-cutting proposals included moving rowing and canoe/kayak sprint events 400km (250 miles) north of Tokyo to use existing facilities rather than building new ones in the capital, a move opposed by Olympic and sports officials.

But the city now appears to prefer building new venues for these and several other events in Tokyo as originally planned, although it would cut costs by modifying plans, the Nikkei and other papers reported, quoting people connected with the matter.

For the rowing and canoe/kayak site, known as the Sea Forest Waterway, the city planned to cut costs from 49.1bn yen to 29.8bn yen by building temporary seats, the Nikkei said.

Similar modifications would be made for planned gymnastics and swimming venues, it said, adding that a final decision would be made at a meeting between Tokyo officials, central government, 2020 organisers and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) at the end of November.

A Tokyo government official and Tokyo 2020 declined to comment, citing ongoing discussions.

Tokyo 2020 added in a statement: “As for the process and the details of the working group meetings, all four parties have already agreed that these will not be announced publicly until we reach a conclusion.”

Tokyo’s original bid pledged to keep most venues within 8km of the athlete’s village in downtown Tokyo, though several have already been moved. Cycling will take place in Shizuoka prefecture, about 200km west of Tokyo.

IOC reforms known as “Agenda 2020” – carried out with the aim of making the Olympics more sustainable – urge the use of existing facilities, even in other cities or countries, if it makes financial and practical sense.

But the IOC’s president, Thomas Bach, said last month that while the IOC was concerned about rising costs for the Tokyo Games, the experience of the athletes had to be a priority for any planning.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/24/tokyo-will-cut-building-costs-of-2020-olympics-rather-than-move-venues-reports

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you ever post shortly after the previous comment? That way, I wouldn't have to deal with an extra notification for your shitty posts!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2016 at 9:07 AM, gotosy said:

Tokyo will cut building costs of 2020 Olympics rather than move venues – reports

 

Tokyo is leaning towards building new but cheaper venues for some 2020 Olympic Games events rather than moving them elsewhere, Japanese media reported on Thursday.

The city’s authorities are unlikely to make major changes to the plans for several Games venues, but will instead make efforts to pare costs, newspapers reported.

Tokyo’s governor, Yuriko Koike, ordered a review of ballooning Olympic expenses that recommended changing three venues in an effort to rein in costs that were projected to hit 3tn yen ($26.6bn), four times the estimates made when Tokyo won the right to host the Games.

Cost-cutting proposals included moving rowing and canoe/kayak sprint events 400km (250 miles) north of Tokyo to use existing facilities rather than building new ones in the capital, a move opposed by Olympic and sports officials.

But the city now appears to prefer building new venues for these and several other events in Tokyo as originally planned, although it would cut costs by modifying plans, the Nikkei and other papers reported, quoting people connected with the matter.

For the rowing and canoe/kayak site, known as the Sea Forest Waterway, the city planned to cut costs from 49.1bn yen to 29.8bn yen by building temporary seats, the Nikkei said.

Similar modifications would be made for planned gymnastics and swimming venues, it said, adding that a final decision would be made at a meeting between Tokyo officials, central government, 2020 organisers and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) at the end of November.

A Tokyo government official and Tokyo 2020 declined to comment, citing ongoing discussions.

Tokyo 2020 added in a statement: “As for the process and the details of the working group meetings, all four parties have already agreed that these will not be announced publicly until we reach a conclusion.”

Tokyo’s original bid pledged to keep most venues within 8km of the athlete’s village in downtown Tokyo, though several have already been moved. Cycling will take place in Shizuoka prefecture, about 200km west of Tokyo.

IOC reforms known as “Agenda 2020” – carried out with the aim of making the Olympics more sustainable – urge the use of existing facilities, even in other cities or countries, if it makes financial and practical sense.

But the IOC’s president, Thomas Bach, said last month that while the IOC was concerned about rising costs for the Tokyo Games, the experience of the athletes had to be a priority for any planning.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/nov/24/tokyo-will-cut-building-costs-of-2020-olympics-rather-than-move-venues-reports

Will it really make a huge difference to the cost though? All host countries in the past years have had cost overruns when hosting the Olympics. Surely, if they can't keep costs down, its better to have re-useable, temporary infrastructure. it would be impossible to cut costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rachael S said:

Will it really make a huge difference to the cost though? All host countries in the past years have had cost overruns when hosting the Olympics. Surely, if they can't keep costs down, its better to have re-useable, temporary infrastructure. it would be impossible to cut costs

The catch with re-useable temporary infrastructure is that distinctive designs (a prestige point for Olympic hosts) cannot, by definition, be re-used for any other prestige event. They've managed to get people to accept location as the distinctive factor for beach volleyball though, so maybe more efforts could be made in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

The catch with re-useable temporary infrastructure is that distinctive designs (a prestige point for Olympic hosts) cannot, by definition, be re-used for any other prestige event. They've managed to get people to accept location as the distinctive factor for beach volleyball though, so maybe more efforts could be made in that direction.

This may be true but temporary infrastructure is gaining favour. The last 3 Olympic games have used it. Rio used 7 temporary facilities and one of the reasons London 2012 was successful was because of this. And I'm sure Quatar will do the same. They are cost effective and limits the possibility of white elephants. 

https://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/rethinking-olympic-infrastructure/en-gb/

 

 

 

 

"location as the distinctive factor" - can you explain this further please?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rachael S said:

This may be true but temporary infrastructure is gaining favour. The last 3 Olympic games have used it. Rio used 7 temporary facilities and one of the reasons London 2012 was successful was because of this. And I'm sure Quatar will do the same. They are cost effective and limits the possibility of white elephants. 

https://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/rethinking-olympic-infrastructure/en-gb/

 

"location as the distinctive factor" - can you explain this further please?

By "location as the distinctive factor" I simply meant that the beach volleyball arena was essentially the same structure in London and Rio (but not Beijing) placed in an unusually memorable location: one of the world's most gorgeous beaches at Rio, the centuries-old Horseguards Parade in London. Result, distinctiveness without design.

London's use of temporary venues was not as successful as it could have been because, for example, neither Rio nor anywhere else wanted the distinctive Basketball Arena.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic officials say rowing, swim venues will stay in Tokyo

 

TOKYO (AP) - Olympic officials have agreed to keep the rowing and swimming venues at their planned sites in Tokyo for the 2020 Games. A decision on the volleyball venue has been postponed until Christmas.

Representatives of the International Olympic Committee, Tokyo organizers, Japan’s central and city governments have been discussing ways of reducing costs, including possibly moving three sports from planned new venues to existing ones.

The group was established in October after a Tokyo government panel said the Olympics cost could exceed 3 trillion yen ($27 billion) without drastic cuts.

 

AP

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/29/olympic-officials-say-rowing-swim-venues-will-stay/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

By "location as the distinctive factor" I simply meant that the beach volleyball arena was essentially the same structure in London and Rio (but not Beijing) placed in an unusually memorable location: one of the world's most gorgeous beaches at Rio, the centuries-old Horseguards Parade in London. Result, distinctiveness without design.

London's use of temporary venues was not as successful as it could have been because, for example, neither Rio nor anywhere else wanted the distinctive Basketball Arena.

 

How would accepting location as the distinctive factor benefit the planning or legacy of the games? And how would other sports adopt this approach? Wouldn't this only work with beach or water sports?

I agree that it wasn't extremely successful, but it was more successful than previous games. Despite the Basketball Arena having to be dismantled, wasn't it better that that happened rather than having buildings without use and draining money? All materials used for the basketball arena were recyclable so at least it has been put to use somehow. 

The article I've attached says that it couldn't be used in Brazil because it worked out cheaper to build a new one. And as you said, it had a distinctive design. Do you think that the best way to deal with this in future games is to ensure a building has a simple design and negotiate costs with another country before going ahead and building it? 

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/plans-to-re-use-olympic-basketball-arena-in-rio-shelved/8632974.article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gotosy said:

Olympic officials say rowing, swim venues will stay in Tokyo

 

TOKYO (AP) - Olympic officials have agreed to keep the rowing and swimming venues at their planned sites in Tokyo for the 2020 Games. A decision on the volleyball venue has been postponed until Christmas.

Representatives of the International Olympic Committee, Tokyo organizers, Japan’s central and city governments have been discussing ways of reducing costs, including possibly moving three sports from planned new venues to existing ones.

The group was established in October after a Tokyo government panel said the Olympics cost could exceed 3 trillion yen ($27 billion) without drastic cuts.

 

AP

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/29/olympic-officials-say-rowing-swim-venues-will-stay/

It is easy to cut costs with outdoor sports but don't you think they will struggle to cut costs in other areas? What do you think can be done to cut costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rachael S said:

How would accepting location as the distinctive factor benefit the planning or legacy of the games? And how would other sports adopt this approach? Wouldn't this only work with beach or water sports?

I agree that it wasn't extremely successful, but it was more successful than previous games. Despite the Basketball Arena having to be dismantled, wasn't it better that that happened rather than having buildings without use and draining money? All materials used for the basketball arena were recyclable so at least it has been put to use somehow. 

The article I've attached says that it couldn't be used in Brazil because it worked out cheaper to build a new one. And as you said, it had a distinctive design. Do you think that the best way to deal with this in future games is to ensure a building has a simple design and negotiate costs with another country before going ahead and building it? 

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/plans-to-re-use-olympic-basketball-arena-in-rio-shelved/8632974.article

Not just water and beach sports. Any sport that can be open-air can benefit - equestrian was another example at London with Greenwich Park and the Old Royal Naval College as the backdrop.

I think you're right with the basketball arena. Whilst not ideal, it was the lesser of two evils. Leaving an unused building on the Olympic Park would've been a big black mark. Dismantling and making room for new housing was the better, chosen route.

Your last point is interesting but probably difficult with Olympic deadlines. Rio was chosen as Olympic host only three years before London 2012. Most venues would already be well into planning or under construction by then, and Rio wouldn't have been in a position to negotiate that kind of thing until a while later - once their organising committee was formed, venues plans finalised etc.

One thing I would say is that Rio did something London didn't - create a modular venue that could be converted to a different use (one of their arenas will become a school). This is something I'd like to see future hosts explore more, especially as technologies like these mature. Hamburg's embryonic plan for 2024 had something similar, with housing surrounding half the athletics venue in legacy mode, thereby offsetting costs and allowing the venue to remain - that looked really smart and I would've liked to see how they developed that idea but, alas, democracy spoke.

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Not just water and beach sports. Any sport that can be open-air can benefit - equestrian was another example at London with Greenwich Park and the Old Royal Naval College as the backdrop.

I think you're right with the basketball arena. Whilst not ideal, it was the lesser of two evils. Leaving an unused building on the Olympic Park would've been a big black mark. Dismantling and making room for new housing was the better, chosen route.

Your last point is interesting but probably difficult with Olympic deadlines. Rio was chosen as Olympic host only three years before London 2012. Most venues would already be well into planning or under construction by then, and Rio wouldn't have been in a position to negotiate that kind of thing until a while later - once their organising committee was formed, venues plans finalised etc. One thing I would say is that Rio did something London didn't - create a modular venue that could be converted to a different use (one of their arenas will become a school). This is something I'd like to see future hosts explore more, especially as technologies like these mature.

So is there scope to make most sports open air maybe? It would slash costs and add a new experience for visitors. I think that for events like the olympics, people are there for sports tourism rather than tourism sport so they probably wouldn't mind a stripped back setting - they are there for the spectacle. Plus it would be a new and interesting way of hosting. 

In my studies, I have been looking at something called the Dutch Approach. It is a proposal from the Netherlands aimed at showing how the legacy of a mega sporting event can be leveraged. They apply it to the context of bidding for the 2028 olympic games and put emphasis early planning. Preparations for it started in 2006! So yes, Rio may have only had 3 years, but if it was something they knew they wanted then they should've started as soon as - before even bidding. If you want to, you can look up the Dutch Approach article: The future of mega sport events: examining the "Dutch Approach" to legacy planning - Stefan Hartman and Tjeerd Zandberg. 

Modular venues do sound like a great idea. This would especially help the argument that money should be spent on things like hospitals and schools rather than these big events. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rachael S said:

How would accepting location as the distinctive factor benefit the planning or legacy of the games? And how would other sports adopt this approach? Wouldn't this only work with beach or water sports?

I agree that it wasn't extremely successful, but it was more successful than previous games. Despite the Basketball Arena having to be dismantled, wasn't it better that that happened rather than having buildings without use and draining money? All materials used for the basketball arena were recyclable so at least it has been put to use somehow. 

The article I've attached says that it couldn't be used in Brazil because it worked out cheaper to build a new one. And as you said, it had a distinctive design. Do you think that the best way to deal with this in future games is to ensure a building has a simple design and negotiate costs with another country before going ahead and building it? 

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/plans-to-re-use-olympic-basketball-arena-in-rio-shelved/8632974.article

On the "distinctive location" thing, it might be worth doing a study of the use of the old Royal Naval College at Greenwich  as a film set since London was awarded the Games in 2005. For a start, I'm pretty sure its major and overt use in 2013's "Thor: The Dark World" was no coincidence- but it was also more covertly used in the most Olympic-promoted film of all, 2012's "Skyfall"- among many others. (NB: The Olympic exposure did not, interestingly, boost its visitor numbers; perhaps everybody thought it would be in ruins).

Here's a video about the nuts and bolts of the Basketball arena, making the important point that temporary venues with a distinctive skin round standard components can be very cost-effective:

http://www.glevents.co.uk/experience/basketball-arena-london-2012/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Tokyo 2020 and IOC set to reject WBSC proposal for second venue in Metropolitan area

 

Tokyo 2020 and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) appear to have closed the door on the possibility of a second Olympic baseball and softball venue in the capital city's metropolitan area during the Games.

It comes as the Yokohama Stadium was confirmed as the main Olympic venue during a presentation given at the ongoing IOC Executive Board meeting here today.

Holding preliminary games in an additional venue in the Fukushima Prefecture is still being considered, after the prospect was mooted as a way to revitalise an area devastated by a 2011 earthquake and resulting tsunami which left 16,000 dead.

But, while theoretically supportive of this plan, the World Baseball and Softball Federation (WBSC) exclusively revealed to insidethegames last week how their priority remains a second venue in the Tokyo Metropolitan area.

They claim the 320 kilometre distance from Fukushima to Yokohama would place an unfair burden on athletes.

This proposal was not discussed during the presentation itself, according to Tokyo 2020, but was the subject of a special lunch meeting between organisers and the IOC beforehand.

There, both parties agreed they are on the "same page" over the baseball and softball venues.

"Tokyo 2020 and WBSC are currently discussing the potential addition of an extra venue in Fukushima prefecture for the baseball and softball competitions, as part of the effort to contribute to the regeneration of the area," a statement added.

Tokyo 2020 President Yoshirō Mori appeared to leave a tiny sliver of daylight open, however, by claiming he would "verify and review" a WBSC proposal sent to their Sports Department, which he claims to have not yet seen.

But the impression afterwards was that a change of heart is very unlikely.

The WBSC are still supportive of the mood but opted to take a more conciliatory approach in their reactive statement.

"WBSC is delighted with the decision of the International Olympic Committee Executive Board to confirm Yokohama Stadium as a main venue," the body's President Riccardo Fraccari said. 

"Yokohama Stadium with its downtown skyline will provide a spectacular backdrop for Olympic baseball and softball - this is an exciting day that takes baseball and softball one step closer on the historic road to Tokyo 2020."

Karate will join judo in being held in the historic Nippon Budokan venue close to the Imperial Palace.

Skateboarding and sport climbing will take place in the Aomi Urban Sports Venue in Koto City, with it possible they could be joined by other yet-to-be-confirmed new disciplines such as BMX freestyle and basketball 3x3.

Surfing's venue is Tsurigasaki Beach in Chiba prefecture.

All venues have now been decided except for Olympic indoor volleyball and Paralympic wheelchair basketball finals.

There, a decision between existing plans to develop the Ariake Arena and Tokyo Bay and a Metropolitan Government proposal to use an existing venue in Yokohama is due to be made by December 24.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1044549/tokyo-2020-and-ioc-set-to-reject-wbsc-proposal-for-second-venue-in-metropolitan-area

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

That's By Christmas Eve On That Day.

Christmas Eve will be the start of the final in the GamesBids logo Winners' Cup comp

 

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 1 & 2

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 3 & 4

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

diet_set_tib.jpg

 

Edited by Sir Rols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koike now looking to build Ariake Arena for Olympic volleyball at lower cost

JIJI

 
  • Dec 15, 2016
 
 

Tokyo Gov. Yuriko Koike is considering building a new facility called Ariake Arena in Tokyo’s Koto Ward, as initially planned, as a venue for volleyball matches for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, sources said Wednesday.

An alternative idea of using Yokohama Arena, an existing facility in Yokohama, for volleyball for the quadrennial event is likely to be dropped after failing to win support from related athletic organizations in and outside Japan and from the Yokohama Municipal Government, the sources said.

 

Koike is expected to announce her decision shortly, before a meeting expected to be held on Dec. 21 among the International Olympic Committee, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the Japanese government, the sources said.

At a meeting on Nov. 29, the four parties put off the choice between Ariake Arena and Yokohama Arena for volleyball until around Dec. 25 as Koike has been in favor of using existing facilities as competition venues for the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics.

Koike is now aiming to reduce the costs to set up Ariake Arena from the current ¥40.4 billion to ¥33.9 billion and enable the new facility to continue making profits after the Olympic and Paralympic Games, including through selling the rights to operate it to the private sector.

She is also expected to highlight her policy of further curbing the costs for the 2020 Games from the maximum estimated ¥2 trillion.

At the Nov. 29 meeting, the four parties decided to build new facilities as initially planned for rowing and canoe sprint events, and swimming for the 2020 Games, while trimming costs.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/15/national/koike-now-looking-build-ariake-arena-olympic-volleyball-lower-cost/#.WFJbHX35bC8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the decision to go ahead and build the Ariake Arena, that now means all three venues that Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike set out to slash and save money are set to be built. With that, I think Koike has just tightened the noose on her political career. I touched on the issue of the final budget in another thread. I don't see how with all the expenses Tokyo keeps this at their revised budget. Koike promised to cut the costs and targeted three specific venues in rowing, aquatics, and volleyball. All three venues stayed the same but with so-called reduced price tags. The aquatics venue makes sense as Tokyo lacks an Olympic caliber facility outside of the small Tatsumi Aquatic Center, however for rowing and volleyball, she had the opportunity to flat out tell the IOC no and she caved. The Tokyo government controls the purse strings, not the IOC. I liken it to a poker player with a big hand who folds. She folded. The idea that moving rowing to the venue in Miyagi prefecture would be more expensive? Makes no sense so they opted for a scaled down Sea Forest venue under the guise of a smaller venue costing less money. However, that is not as ridiculous as the decision to build the Ariake Arena rather than make a few modifications at the existing Yokohama Arena. Really? Building the Ariake Arena is a more cost effective measure? No way. It will become a white elephant after the Olympics. Tokyo already has the Tokyo Dome, Metropolitan Gymnasium, Yoyogi Arena, and the new Olympic Gymnastics Arena, Tokyo doesn't need another indoor arena but the sports federations want their sparkling glitzy venues for the two week party, and they are getting them. When Koike takes the heat for the rising budget costs, I'm sure she'll issue the standard "I'm not responsible, I simply went with what I was told was the best information at the time." All these new venues not factoring in construction cost overruns plus the ever increasing costs of security for just $15 billion. It's a pipe dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC does appear to be committed to support every initiative for cost reduction. It's actually the sport federations crying foul at broken promises. It all comes back to how TOCOG submitted their bid originally, and the expectations built upon it. Part of the reason Tokyo won the 2020 bid was because they confidently pitched all those new, glitzy venues with the impression that actually making them wasn't going to be a big deal. Now we're scrambling to see what can be trimmed, moved and retrofitted. This is so uncharacteristic of Japan.

It's might set an unfortunate reality where Agenda 2020 only matters after the bid is won. For a sport federation, however, it's just an outcome that amounts to a bait and switch. So, of course they're going to protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC talks about supporting cost cutting. But are they actually *doing* anything about it? The IOC has huge influence on the sport federations... when they start using that influence, I'll start to be a believer. Perhaps cutting the free champagne and caviar budget for IOC members as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

Lower Cost on Volleyball Course Is Good Enough.

Really? Building a brand new venue that will get little to no use after the Olympics is a better option than an existing venue in Yokohama? Even going the route London did with a temporary arena for basketball would be a better option. The numbers don't add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×