Jump to content
yukke14

TOKYO 2020 Venue Plan

Recommended Posts

Taekwondo competition may move to Chiba’s Makuhari Messe for 2020 Olympics

The shakeup of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics continued on Thursday with taekwondo potentially headed to Makuhari Messe in Chiba Prefecture.

Already rocked earlier this week by the significant changes posed to the design of the new National Stadium, taekwondo now could be moved outside the Japanese capital to neighboring Chiba.

The Japan Taekwondo Association said World Taekwondo Federation president Choue Chung-won will lead a June 1 inspection visit of Makuhari Messe, a major international convention center.

To minimize travel, JTA president Noboru Kanehara said an Olympic lane will have to be installed from the athletes’ village to Makuhari Messe.

“We’re not hearing any major complaints,” Kanehara said. “We don’t consider this to be that big of an issue.”

Taekwondo was originally set to be held at Tokyo Big Sight along with wrestling and fencing, but the complex lacked space with the International Broadcast Center also being housed there.

Kyodo

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/05/21/olympics/taekwondo-competition-may-move-to-chibas-makuhari-messe-for-2020-olympics/#.VV7-REYWiJo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Olympics: 2020 Games badminton venue to be moved from bayside

TOKYO, June 7, Kyodo

The Badminton World Federation has reached an agreement with Tokyo 2020 Olympic organizers to move the badminton venue from the center of Tokyo, an informed source said Sunday.

The venue, originally planned for Koto ward on the bayside, will be relocated to the city of Chofu in western Tokyo. According to the source, the organizing committee will present the plan to move the competition at the International Olympic Committee's board of directors meeting on Monday.

The original plan called for a new venue to be constructed to hold the competition and the switch is being made to cut costs.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2015/06/356987.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how Tokyo 2020 had a really compact bid, and that's what made them somehow win those Games. But now, thoses Games really won't be has compact as expected, like, really not. Agenda 2020 happened since they were elected so...fair enough. And that's going to make Paris 2024 look really compact! ;) No, just to say that I'm glad we're back to having not so ultra-compact Games anymore.It's fine, in a megalopole like Tokyo, Rio or London to have venues spread all over the city (and quite big ones). It's hard to fine an area big enough to host the "Olympic Park". When you have all the existing venues, what's the point anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously now that the adjacent Basketball arena wasn't going to be built, there was no point to build this venue. I still don't know what they had planned for the post-game use of both venues... (we'll never know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahahah! They might as well. So, how menue venues have changed since their winning bid? And what's with the new Olympic Stadium. It's very confusing that they've destroyed the old one, to build a bigger one that would see its seting capacity reduced a lot after the games, even less than the old one. Couldn't they have just added some seats to the old Stadium? Talk about saving money....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why they can't just use the big stadium in Yokohama as main stadium with Agenda 2020. It's hosted the World Cup final so it's good enough for the Olympics surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. 70,000 seating capacity Stadium, built in 1998 (not that old), 30 km from Tokyo... A bit of upgrade and this Stadium would have made a perfect Olympic Stadium for the 2020 Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't. Tokyo using Yokohama is akin as Boston using Gillette stadium all the way in Foxboro, or Hamburg or Paris proposing sites well beyond the city limits. Twenty miles is pretty far when you still have most of the action closer to the actual host city itself.

I can't recall any Summer Olympics (if any) that have had the main Olympic stadium that far away. I also don't think that the Japanese wanting to revitalize their national stadium was that terrible of an idea anyway. What's so awful about wanting to improve something that gets plenty of use. Tokyo 2020 has done quite a bit to embrace "agenda 2020" as it is since it's introduction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't. Tokyo using Yokohama is akin as Boston using Gillette stadium all the way in Foxboro, or Hamburg or Paris proposing sites well beyond the city limits. Twenty miles is pretty far when you still have most of the action closer to the actual host city itself.

I can't recall any Summer Olympics (if any) that have had the main Olympic stadium that far away. I also don't think that the Japanese wanting to revitalize their national stadium was that terrible of an idea anyway. What's so awful about wanting to improve something that gets plenty of use. Tokyo 2020 has done quite a bit to embrace "agenda 2020" as it is since it's introduction.

This.

30km is not a short distance from Tokyo when you're dealing with all the athletes, media, spectators, and volunteers who are all in play for the better part of 2 1/2 weeks, as opposed to the World Cup where a stadium will host no more than 7 or 8 games scattered across a month as part of an event all over the country. This isn't some temporary pop-up stadium like some bids have proposed. I have no problem with them reviving and revitalizing their national stadium and making it the centerpiece of their Olympic bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IOC Executive Board confirms Tokyo 2020 venue locations for eight more sports

The International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s Executive Board (EB) has today confirmed the venue locations for another eight sports at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. It is the second major step in the venue master plan review undertaken by the Tokyo 2020 Organising Committee. It follows the recommendations of the IOC’s Evaluation Commission and the unanimous approval by the IOC Members of Olympic Agenda 2020. The venue proposals were developed by Tokyo 2020 after close collaboration with the relevant International Federations and in line with Tokyo 2020’s Games vision. This decision is expected to result in savings of approximately USD 700 million from the revised Tokyo 2020 construction budget.

The EB decision sees the venues for the sports of aquatics, badminton, fencing, rugby, sailing, taekwondo, triathlon, and wrestling all now confirmed. Triathlon and all the aquatics disciplines, except water polo, which will move to the existing Tatsumi International Swimming Centre, will remain in their original bid locations. Other sports moving to existing venues include fencing, taekwondo, and wrestling, which will all be held at Makuhari Messe; rugby, which will move to Tokyo Stadium; and sailing, which will take place at the 1964 Games legacy venue of Enoshima Yacht Harbour. Finally, badminton will move to Musashino Forest Sports Centre, which is currently under construction and is already hosting modern pentathlon events during the 2020 Games.

This is the second set of venues confirmed by the IOC EB for Tokyo 2020 following the confirmation of 17 sports in their original bid locations and the agreement to move three venues at the EB’s last meeting in Rio de Janeiro earlier this year. The total number of sports whose venues are now confirmed is 26. These two IOC EB decisions have resulted in approximately USD 1.7 billion in savings from the revised Tokyo 2020 construction budget.

The venue master plan review has been carried out by Tokyo 2020 and the International Federations in the spirit of Olympic Agenda 2020, which encourages host cities to use existing and temporary venues where possible in order to reduce costs, and following Tokyo 2020’s “athletes first” concept. The approved venue moves make sure that the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Village remains at the heart of the Games in both spirit and geography, giving the athletes a great Games experience, while reducing venue costs, and engaging the population of Greater Tokyo much more in the staging of the Games.

IOC

http://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-executive-board-confirms-tokyo-2020-venue-locations-for-eight-more-sports/246260

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ That's exactly how to win a bid. Promise the IOC the moon, then win the bid. And then when, reality sets in, downscale and then just put in a lot of cheaper venues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that it foregrounds the issue of legal ramifications in the context of not delivering what was on offer. The IOC will actually have strong legal footing against a future Olympic host IF the host was awarded the right to host the games based of specifically rendered plans, then after being awarded deviates substantially from those plans. In fact, it speaks almost to deception. But that is just a casual observation. Japanese people are wonderful and I am sure their explanation of cutting costs is valid. But it is something which future hosts should look closely at because the IOC would have a very strong case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that it foregrounds the issue of legal ramifications in the context of not delivering what was on offer. The IOC will actually have strong legal footing against a future Olympic host IF the host was awarded the right to host the games based of specifically rendered plans, then after being awarded deviates substantially from those plans. In fact, it speaks almost to deception. But that is just a casual observation. Japanese people are wonderful and I am sure their explanation of cutting costs is valid. But it is something which future hosts should look closely at because the IOC would have a very strong case.

The IOC should examine their heads. They are the ones asking for others to spend for them; I am not sure they have the moral right to ask others to spend irresponsibly for them. I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC should examine their heads. They are the ones asking for others to spend for them; I am not sure they have the moral right to ask others to spend irresponsibly for them. I wouldn't.

While this is a very interesting trajectory of reasoning, I submit that the IOC has - in the history of the bidding process - never forced any city to submit a bid - and that is the central point. They simply asked "Are you interested?". The fact that cities submit bids and meet all the criteria for doing so indicates that they have a burning interest to host an Olympiad. Then the respective cities try, through their offerings, to persuade the IOC to bestow upon them, the right to host the games. If you said that you were going to offer a certain product if I used your service, and your final product deviates substantially from what I agreed to, I have a very strong legal case against you because I didn't force you to offer me your product. You offered and based on what I saw at that point, I bought into to. But what I actually received was not what I had agreed to in the first place. Future bidding cities may need to be very careful with regards to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is a very interesting trajectory of reasoning, I submit that the IOC has - in the history of the bidding process - never forced any city to submit a bid - and that is the central point. They simply asked "Are you interested?". The fact that cities submit bids and meet all the criteria for doing so indicates that they have a burning interest to host an Olympiad. Then the respective cities try, through their offerings, to persuade the IOC to bestow upon them, the right to host the games. If you said that you were going to offer a certain product if I used your service, and your final product deviates substantially from what I agreed to, I have a very strong legal case against you because I didn't force you to offer me your product. You offered and based on what I saw at that point, I bought into to. But what I actually received was not what I had agreed to in the first place. Future bidding cities may need to be very careful with regards to this.

Yeah; but there are always extenuating circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah; but there are always extenuating circumstances.

True. But the only one I could really see is "national or international financial turbulence". Can this position be argued in relation to Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting is that it foregrounds the issue of legal ramifications in the context of not delivering what was on offer. The IOC will actually have strong legal footing against a future Olympic host IF the host was awarded the right to host the games based of specifically rendered plans, then after being awarded deviates substantially from those plans. In fact, it speaks almost to deception. But that is just a casual observation. Japanese people are wonderful and I am sure their explanation of cutting costs is valid. But it is something which future hosts should look closely at because the IOC would have a very strong case.

Strong case for what? There aren't legal ramifications here and the IOC wouldn't be foolish enough to press the issue. What's the alternative?

Once a host city is selected, the IOC is working with that city in order to put on the best Olympics they can. Plans often change. Happens all the time. Case in point, Athens. Did the IOC take legal action against them for not having a roof over the aquatics venue?

Yes, to an extent it's bait and switch, but if we're merely talking about the design of a venue, it's a minor thing. This is not the 2022 World Cup where Qatar made promises of air-conditioned stadiums and abandoned that concept almost immediately after they won. And if you'll recall, it was the other bidders (particularly Australia) who raised a stink in that they believed they were bidding for a Summer World Cup and that Qatar bent the rules by making a change after they won. That's a much more serious change than a design element.

Future hosts need not change anything, particularly in the wake of Agenda 2020. Once that host city contract is signed, all bets are off. We've seen plenty of times before where the level of preparedness has been called into question. But if it's a change in the bid? I guess it's a matter of opinion of what "deviates substantially." Olympic hosts cities are not a "service." It's a partnership between the 2 entities. And if that partnership deems that a change is desirable, then what the original product was has little bearing what the IOC voted for.

Bottom line.. 60 out of 96 voters picked Tokyo. It's impossible to know what elements of the bid made those voters pick Tokyo. You can't pinpoint 1 element that - should it be changed - means that those voters would have picked another city. And given the alternatives were Istanbul and Madrid, that was unlikely.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strong case for what? There aren't legal ramifications here and the IOC wouldn't be foolish enough to press the issue. What's the alternative?

Once a host city is selected, the IOC is working with that city in order to put on the best Olympics they can. Plans often change. Happens all the time. Case in point, Athens. Did the IOC take legal action against them for not having a roof over the aquatics venue?

Yes, to an extent it's bait and switch, but if we're merely talking about the design of a venue, it's a minor thing. This is not the 2022 World Cup where Qatar made promises of air-conditioned stadiums and abandoned that concept almost immediately after they won. And if you'll recall, it was the other bidders (particularly Australia) who raised a stink in that they believed they were bidding for a Summer World Cup and that Qatar bent the rules by making a change after they won. That's a much more serious change than a design element.

Future hosts need not change anything, particularly in the wake of Agenda 2020. Once that host city contract is signed, all bets are off. We've seen plenty of times before where the level of preparedness has been called into question. But if it's a change in the bid? I guess it's a matter of opinion of what "deviates substantially." Olympic hosts cities are not a "service." It's a partnership between the 2 entities. And if that partnership deems that a change is desirable, then what the original product was has little bearing what the IOC voted for.

Bottom line.. 60 out of 96 voters picked Tokyo. It's impossible to know what elements of the bid made those voters pick Tokyo. You can't pinpoint 1 element that - should it be changed - means that those voters would have picked another city. And given the alternatives were Istanbul and Madrid, that was unlikely.

Need I remind you that being a "host" ALWAYS, ALWAYS means offering a service. This is why certain cities - who shall remain nameless - are having a tad of a jam in hosting certain events. Had you read the initial posts and following replies minus the obvious acidity, you would notice that I implied that it might very well be a legal ramification. Moreover, the IOC would not be foolish to take a closer look at the issue. In fact, probing the possibility would be a stroke of genius on their part on so many levels. Especially as it pertains to corruption. The mere fact that you have admitted that it a "bait and switch" speaks to deception. I need not thank you for agreeing with me - I knew from the start that I was right. Moreover, I am not only referring to a venue's design. You sought to trivialise it to that point to strengthen what you have inwardly - I imagine - perceived to be an astoundingly brittle argument. If you promised a compact bid, and the technical report ( remember those?) said that it was the strongest aspect of the bid, and all Olympic representatives agreed and gave you the right on that basis, and signed a contract no less, THEN you deviate substantially from those plans, you have breached a contract. You may if you wish, grow Kim Kardashians boobs on the back of your head, it still remains a breach of sorts. It really is that the IOC has been very merciful to Olympic hosts in this regard that they have not pushed it. And because of their ideals, and only their ideals, I doubt that they would explore it but they would have a strong legal case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ THrone, in this day and age, it's the IOC that needs the sucker cities more than the cities need them. The IOC is lucky in that there are always at least 2 cities/towns willing to do their bidding. Of course, you know that in 1984, they were stuck with one town -- and as such, that lone city was pretty much able to set a lot of terms the then still stuffy IOC didn't like...but they had to eat their hat. Just by their Agenda 2020, the IOC still can't be too picky. They need at least one city every 2 years.... and a back-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ THrone, in this day and age, it's the IOC that needs the sucker cities more than the cities need them. The IOC is lucky in that there are always at least 2 cities/towns willing to do their bidding. Of course, you know that in 1984, they were stuck with one town -- and as such, that lone city was pretty much able to set a lot of terms the then still stuffy IOC didn't like...but they had to eat their hat. Just by their Agenda 2020, the IOC still can't be too picky. They need at least one city every 2 years.... and a back-up.

I don't think that this is an accurate trajectory of reasoning to be on Baron. You are making that assessment based on the 2022 race primarily. The Olympics are regarded the world over as an essential aspect of global human heritage. There shall ALWAYS be cities lining up to be apart of that clique of "Olympic Cities". Of course, the intensity of the interest will be affected by global pressures and attitudes towards those pressures. It will also be affected by the "sour grapes" syndrome ( We didn't get them so they must be awful to host anyway). But I don't see a string of Olympic races with only 1 or no bidders. How many "1984's" have their been? New cities are always emerging and always seek to promote themselves through the Olympics. The Olympics are consistently used to index momentous occasions: Barcelona 1992 ( 500 years of European realisation - not discovery - of the New World), Beijing 2008 - China's unequalled coming out party, London 2012 (The queen's longevity party). It will either be the Olympics or World's Fairs that will appeal to young upstarts. I am tempted to say the World's Fairs are under a greater threat than the Olympics but after seeing what was on offer at Shanghai and what Dubai proposes, interest will be rekindled.

Having said alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll that, future bidding cities ought to be mindful of the legal implications straying too far from what was initially offered. We do not like to face the truth as Quaker knows all too well, but it is the truth. Forever faster, higher, stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many "1984's" have their been?

Oh, quite a few...

-for 1948, to keep on their leap-year schedule, as there were NO forthcoming hosts, they had to ask London AND St. Moritz to host 1948.

- Winter 1980, Lake Placid was the ONLY bidder

- Summer 1984 - well, we all know how that went..

- (Summer 1988 - ONLY 2 cities bidding - Seoul and Nagoya; just as for Winter 2006, only Torino and Sion; and now TWO Communist winter cities...)

- Asian Games 2019 - Hanoi bailed out. And the Asians wanted to reset the calendar so that the AG could be an Olympic qualifier in many sports. Indonesia was the only sub to step forward...but they wanted to stage it on their terms - so it will be 2018 instead of the more practical 2019...because the OCA is stuck with ONLY ONE bidder/sucka city.

- For Euro 2019 (to have been the 2nd edition of the new European Games), Holland was the only bidder for 2019; now, they apparently have just pulled out.

- Commonwealth 2022, down to only ONE bidder, Durban.

They have (understandably) just postponed the bidding for World Cup 2026.

You spout those themes as if the Olympic movement were built on them. Put the horse before the cart. Not the other way around. You wouldn't have those high-faluting-sounding themes if you don't have the sucka cities to host them.

Who's to say this will not be the trend of the future?

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need I remind you that being a "host" ALWAYS, ALWAYS means offering a service. This is why certain cities - who shall remain nameless - are having a tad of a jam in hosting certain events. Had you read the initial posts and following replies minus the obvious acidity, you would notice that I implied that it might very well be a legal ramification. Moreover, the IOC would not be foolish to take a closer look at the issue. In fact, probing the possibility would be a stroke of genius on their part on so many levels. Especially as it pertains to corruption. The mere fact that you have admitted that it a "bait and switch" speaks to deception. I need not thank you for agreeing with me - I knew from the start that I was right. Moreover, I am not only referring to a venue's design. You sought to trivialise it to that point to strengthen what you have inwardly - I imagine - perceived to be an astoundingly brittle argument. If you promised a compact bid, and the technical report ( remember those?) said that it was the strongest aspect of the bid, and all Olympic representatives agreed and gave you the right on that basis, and signed a contract no less, THEN you deviate substantially from those plans, you have breached a contract. You may if you wish, grow Kim Kardashians boobs on the back of your head, it still remains a breach of sorts. It really is that the IOC has been very merciful to Olympic hosts in this regard that they have not pushed it. And because of their ideals, and only their ideals, I doubt that they would explore it but they would have a strong legal case.

No. Again, the Olympic host city is forming a PARTNERSHIP with the IOC. They are working together from the day that host city is elected. You make it sound like the IOC is using the host city the way a driver uses the DMV. Doesn't work that way. And since it is a partnership, what legal action is the IOC going to take against that city? Are they going to do that before the Olympics or after? The basis of that - at least as I probe your trajectory - is that another city might have been selected otherwise. Rarely is that the case.

You are talking about a city that would "deviate substantially from those plans" What qualifies as a substantial deviation? That's why I brought up the roof at the aquatics venue in Athens. One could consider that a substantial deviation. Did the IOC take legal action against them? Of course not.

So please, tell me what Tokyo has done that constitutes a far different product/service than what they had initially offered the IOC? That they are potentially cutting costs is probably a decision the 2 entities (the IOC and the Tokyo organizing committee) made together. And even if it wasn't, the alternative choices for the 2020 Olympics were Madrid and Istanbul. So even a slightly lesser Tokyo bid is still preferable to those. It's not like the IOC can make a case unless you can PROVE that specific changes - had they been offered at the time of the vote - would have resulted in 1 of those other cities winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that this is an accurate trajectory of reasoning to be on Baron. You are making that assessment based on the 2022 race primarily. The Olympics are regarded the world over as an essential aspect of global human heritage. There shall ALWAYS be cities lining up to be apart of that clique of "Olympic Cities". Of course, the intensity of the interest will be affected by global pressures and attitudes towards those pressures. It will also be affected by the "sour grapes" syndrome ( We didn't get them so they must be awful to host anyway). But I don't see a string of Olympic races with only 1 or no bidders. How many "1984's" have their been? New cities are always emerging and always seek to promote themselves through the Olympics. The Olympics are consistently used to index momentous occasions: Barcelona 1992 ( 500 years of European realisation - not discovery - of the New World), Beijing 2008 - China's unequalled coming out party, London 2012 (The queen's longevity party). It will either be the Olympics or World's Fairs that will appeal to young upstarts. I am tempted to say the World's Fairs are under a greater threat than the Olympics but after seeing what was on offer at Shanghai and what Dubai proposes, interest will be rekindled.

Having said alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll that, future bidding cities ought to be mindful of the legal implications straying too far from what was initially offered. We do not like to face the truth as Quaker knows all too well, but it is the truth. Forever faster, higher, stronger.

For the 2004 Olympics, 11 cities offered bids. For 2008, it was 10 cities. For 2012, it was 9 cities. For 2016, 7 cities. And for 2020, 6 cities bid, which became 5 once Rome withdrew.
Similarly on the Winter side, there were 8 bidders for 2010. 7 bidders for 2014. 3 bidders for 2018. And we see what we're left with for 2022 (and that's to say nothing of cities that were interested, but dropped out)
Those are pretty damning trends right there. You wax poetic about Olympic ideals, but the trend is that fewer and fewer cities are lining up to bid because it's damn expensive to host an Olympics and to generate a return on that investment. Granted, the IOC had this trouble once and managed to emerge successfully from it (thank you LA 1984), but it's not just 2022 that offers up this trend.
Don't know exactly what truth it is we're supposed to be facing. Here's some truth for you though.. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You keep talking about legal implications, but fail (and not just fail, but fail quite miserably) to put that into context or to offer up a specific example of how that would work. The IOC has enough issues to deal with (many of their own creation) without the threat of legal action against the cities they are trying to entice to bid for the Olympics. The last thing that needs to happen would be for them to be empowered to take legal action against the host cities they agreed to work with (at the expense of others who they rejected). I could see those other cities take issue, but ONLY if they had specific grounds to make a case for why they lost. That's going to be next to impossible to prove unless you're Qatar 2022, who changed the calendar on FIFA after they had promised a Summer World Cup. THAT, my friend, is a substantial deviation for which legal implications are in play. Not for the details of an Olympic bid which rarely would be considered "substantial."
  • Like 1

Share this post


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...