TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Sochi did whatever the hell they wanted and if you say otherwise you're truly clueless on the subject and they just told Tokyo yesterday they could downsize whatever they want and make things temporary to lower costs as long as they get each thing approved with the sports federation it would affect. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Sochi did whatever the hell they wanted and if you say otherwise you're truly clueless on the subject and they just told Tokyo yesterday they could downsize whatever they want and make things temporary to lower costs as long as they get each thing approved with the sports federation it would affect. ;-) Yes, but there's a big, big difference between tweaking a host's venues to reduce costs after it's been awarded the big prize vs the IOC choosing the bid with the most temporary/responsible venue plan. The former happens quite often, the latter hardly ever. London, for example, moved things around a bit after we won the bid by bringing a couple of existing venues into play and removing a couple of builds from the Olympic Park. But our plan was, and even remained after the tweaks, the most ambitious in the five-city field. Tokyo, similarly, beat a very solid looking Madrid venue plan with a lot of existing venues and is building probably the most ambitious new national stadium anywhere in the world. Rio beat a similarly austere Madrid bid, and a Chicago bid offering a downsizable main stadium of the kind Boston may be proposing. There's a gap between the IOC's own rhetoric and who it selects as hosts. Maybe that gap will close under Bach, we'll have to wait and see, but I wouldn't take the desire for a smaller Games at face value. The IOC loves to feel like it's making an imprint on cities and the federations love a legacy for their sport. That's a heady combination that leads to big bids being selected time and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Yes, but there's a big, big difference between tweaking a host's venues to reduce costs after it's been awarded the big prize vs the IOC choosing the bid with the most temporary/responsible venue plan. The former happens quite often, the latter hardly ever. London, for example, moved things around a bit after we won the bid by bringing a couple of existing venues into play and removing a couple of builds from the Olympic Park. But our plan was, and even remained after the tweaks, the most ambitious in the five-city field. Tokyo, similarly, beat a very solid looking Madrid venue plan with a lot of existing venues and is building probably the most ambitious new national stadium anywhere in the world. Rio beat a similarly austere Madrid bid, and a Chicago bid offering a downsizable main stadium of the kind Boston may be proposing. There's a gap between the IOC's own rhetoric and who it selects as hosts. Maybe that gap will close under Bach, we'll have to wait and see, but I wouldn't take the desire for a smaller Games at face value. The IOC loves to feel like it's making an imprint on cities and the federations love a legacy for their sport. That's a heady combination that leads to big bids being selected time and again. Tokyo won because there was no fear of government or financial collapse or horrible violent protests... And quite frankly they don't deserve anything until they clean-up Fukashima and there are 6 venues being changed the main stadium was the least of their concerns and recieved no warnings yet on their changes like the Canoe, Basketball and Tennis received Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Sochi did whatever the hell they wanted and if you say otherwise you're truly clueless on the subject and they just told Tokyo yesterday they could downsize whatever they want and make things temporary to lower costs as long as they get each thing approved with the sports federation it would affect. ;-) Yes, of course they COULD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are forced to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Yes, of course they COULD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are forced to. What? Why would the be forced to? You can go above and beyond all you want but people shouldn't be stupid enough to blame the Ioc for that every city is going to want to try and be the best on some form and building huge buildings has always been the way of the world for everything. And my point was Tokyo decided on their own to downsize and the IOC said absolutely! As long as the plans got approved for each individual sport like they had to do with their original bid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Tokyo won because there was no fear of government or financial collapse or horrible violent protests... And quite frankly they don't deserve anything until they clean-up Fukashima and there are 6 venues being changed the main stadium was the least of their concerns and recieved no warnings yet on their changes like the Canoe, Basketball and Tennis received This doesn't chime with what you claimed earlier which was the point I was addressing. A few posts back you said the IOC wanted everything smaller. I pointed out their host city selections show the opposite - there's a gap between what they claim they want and their actions. Now, it seems to me it's Tokyo pushing for these changes in the venues plan, not the IOC. The IOC is working with Tokyo and has said it will sign off on venue changes if the IFs are happy with them. That's not a signal the IOC is pushing for smaller games or will begin to buck its own trend by selecting host cities with more austere venue plans. All it shows is they're willing to be flexible with hosts already selected, which is nothing new. That's a subtle but important difference in the context of this thread. If Boston is to put forward a more conservative plan (which is laudable if a bigger plan would be excessive for the city's future needs), it needs to understand that that may handicap it against more 'flamboyant' competition. Recent history shows this to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 This doesn't chime with what you claimed earlier which was the point I was addressing. A few posts back you said the IOC wanted everything smaller. I pointed out their host city selections show the opposite - there's a gap between what they claim they want and their actions. Now, it seems to me it's Tokyo pushing for these changes in the venues plan, not the IOC. The IOC is working with Tokyo and has said it will sign off on venue changes if the IFs are happy with them. That's not a signal the IOC is pushing for smaller games or will begin to buck its own trend by selecting host cities with more austere venue plans. All it shows is they're willing to be flexible with hosts already selected, which is nothing new. That's a subtle but important difference in the context of this thread. If Boston is to put forward a more conservative plan (which is laudable if a bigger plan would be excessive for the city's future needs), it needs to understand that that may not work to its ultimate advantage. I never said that was what the IOC wanted in regardes to Tokyo actually. And the IOC has been talking about downsizing future bids for months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Well, they've been talking about it for years really. I remember the Paris 2012 bid team being miffed because they followed the IOC's technical brief for lots of temporary venues closer than anyone else and yet lost (I think they opted for 11 in total). Indeed, this is from a report nine years ago... Alone among the cities, the IOC report says Paris "shows careful consideration" of new guidelines adopted by the IOC in 2003 to reduce the cost and complexity of the Games. http://aroundtherings.com/site/A__29074/Title__Paris-2012-IOC-quotAppreciates-Our-Planquot/292/Articles Well, they came close to winning, but no cigar, losing to a bid with a lot more planned construction. And after that the IOC chose Sochi, Rio, and Pyeongchang!! We'll see what comes of the 'talks' to "reduce the cost and complexity of the Games" this time....maybe things will change, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 So what you're saying is that the IOC will almost certainly choose the most elaborate bid in any given race, & any cost cutting can only be done after winning. Not a setup likely to help bids get through referendums :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 What? Why would the be forced to? You can go above and beyond all you want but people shouldn't be stupid enough to blame the Ioc for that every city is going to want to try and be the best on some form and building huge buildings has always been the way of the world for everything. And my point was Tokyo decided on their own to downsize and the IOC said absolutely! As long as the plans got approved for each individual sport like they had to do with their original bid... Well duh, there's a minimum requirement. As long as they meet that, they can downsize (or upsize) all they want (as long as the IOC gives an 'OK'). But does that necessarily mean the IOC supports it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 But then again, London's promise of an athletics legacy (in a downsized stadium) was certainly one of the promises which saw the vote swing towards them and away from Paris. I'm certain Paris would've won that battle without that promise. So sometimes it matters as London proves, other times it doesn't as Sydney and Atlanta prove. Each race has it's own dynamics so it's hard to say whether it'll be a factor for future races. Certainly I think a stadium with a workable athletics legacy stands you in better stead than one without, but whether it'll be a deciding factor depends on the race. Fair point. At least there is some legacy for the stadium, so it's not like they're left without anything in that department. I don't remember what Paris offered there, but I'm sure it didn't hurt London's case to have that planned as an original part of their bid Most cities? I'd say no city needs a large scale athletics venue. Note to cities - "promise" whatever you want when bidding, but it's insane to actually carry through. Maybe someday the IOC will learn and stop unofficially requiring this. Yes and no. Cities don't need a venue specifically for athletics, but many cities that would consider an Olympics certainly could use a large scale stadium. Worked out quite nicely for Sydney. Easier said than done, but certainly there could be a city or 2 out there that doesn't need to offer a plan of a stadium that needs to be significantly downsized after the Games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 So what you're saying is that the IOC will almost certainly choose the most elaborate bid in any given race, & any cost cutting can only be done after winning. Not a setup likely to help bids get through referendums :/ Not what I said at all... I said FUTURE bids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Fair point. At least there is some legacy for the stadium, so it's not like they're left without anything in that department. I don't remember what Paris offered there, but I'm sure it didn't hurt London's case to have that planned as an original part of their bid Paris already had the Stade de France, with its retractable seating and athletics track and had just hosted the 2003 World Athletics. Voting for London meant a new athletics stadium in a major European capital. It's unfortunate (and was unfortunate for Paris) but understandable that existing facilities can actually work against a bid in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Well duh, there's a minimum requirement. As long as they meet that, they can downsize (or upsize) all they want (as long as the IOC gives an 'OK'). But does that necessarily mean the IOC supports it? NO you can't downsize or upsize all you want LOL THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY POST! ... people in this room can't read Lets move on you will all see the big changes coming which is why Boston or DC were even considered ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 It feels like none of you follow the current IOC decisions, meetings, conversations with Rio, Tokyo or any of their plans or "requirements" especially when it comes to Temporary or Legacy because everything people have listed has been the opposite to what they want. They are very much for less expenditures of funds and are in favor of perm/temporary structures that can be reduced in size and they are making the athletics program Smaller! They say they're in favor of that but their actions speak differently. Either way, this is still a competition. Until we see the IOC make a decision along those lines in terms of a host city, I remain skeptical that's what they actually want. It should be what they want given the climate of potential bid cities out there, but all it takes is for that 1 bid to promise to go above and beyond and the IOC will be drawn to them. Tokyo was in a favorable position to do what they want because their competition was weak. Let's see what would happen if this theory is truly put to the test rather than them just talking about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 They say they're in favor of that but their actions speak differently. Either way, this is still a competition. Until we see the IOC make a decision along those lines in terms of a host city, I remain skeptical that's what they actually want. It should be what they want given the climate of potential bid cities out there, but all it takes is for that 1 bid to promise to go above and beyond and the IOC will be drawn to them. Tokyo was in a favorable position to do what they want because their competition was weak. Let's see what would happen if this theory is truly put to the test rather than them just talking about it Except for the fact that they have never put together 14 Working Groups with venue experts etc. to change and work on all of these factors which started to work this month, which will be presented to the executive board in July then worked on till it's announced to the rest of the board in December... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Olympic Agenda 2020 - Working Groups http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Agenda2020/OlympicAgenda2020-Working_Groups_Members.pdf Bidding Procedure* (Notice #1 ;-) ) Sustainability and Legacy Differentiation of the Olympic Games Procedure for the Composition of the Olympic Programme Olympic Games Management Protecting Clean Athletes Olympic TV Channel Olympism in Action Including Youth Strategy Youth Olympic Games Culture Policy Good Governance and Autonomy Ethics Strategic Review of Sponsorship, Licensing and Merchandising IOC Membership Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 NO you can't downsize or upsize all you want LOL THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY POST! ... people in this room can't read Lets move on you will all see the big changes coming which is why Boston or DC were even considered ;-) Considered. Not accepted. How exactly do you know "big changes" are coming? For all we know, Boston may not even have a plan. We do not know how the USOC cropped out the cities. It could've all been aesthetics or sentiment. Claiming "big changes" will happen purely based on the fact that the USOC is considering Boston/DC without knowing how they based their choices on isn't very factual. Do you think downsizing would make a city like Boston host in the 21st century? If anything, the "big changes" will mostl likely boost cities like Durban. Still placing my bets on LA, but I like fantasizing about Boston, though *would most likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Except for the fact that they have never put together 14 Working Groups with venue experts etc. to change and work on all of these factors which started to work this month, which will be presented to the executive board in July then worked on till it's announced to the rest of the board in December... Those 14 working groups are not all going to be full of conversations about choosing existing and temporary venues over new construction. As long as cities propose lavish plans, the IOC will find those bids very hard to resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Except for the fact that they have never put together 14 Working Groups with venue experts etc. to change and work on all of these factors which started to work this month, which will be presented to the executive board in July then worked on till it's announced to the rest of the board in December... You're right that this has never been fine before. But this is still the IOC we're talking about. Let's see them implement these changes and a new line of thinking before we assume they're going to change their decision making process. Like Athens said, if they have a lavish bid placed in front of them, chances are they're going to choose it over a more conservative proposal. And so too will it probably be that way with the USOC as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 @ChrisValentine Just to clarify: the highlighted area is the entire Beacon Park, correct? My understanding is that theBeacon Yard site extends to the far side of Cambridge Street as well. The plan to re-do this transportation hub is independent of an Olympic bid and entails moving the rail yard and straightening the Mass Pike (I-90) and eliminate the tangle of on/off ramps. That entire region is under development by Harvard (housing, academic buildings, etc.) Just to the north and outside the frame of the map is Harvard's athletic complex. Harvard Business School is due north of the site and just beyond that across the river is Harvard's main campus. To the south and south east (within walking distance) is Boston University and its housing/athletic complex. There is subway service on both sides of the river near this site and the potential for water taxis to run up and down the river from both Boston and Cambridge. I think Cabot Yard is a stronger location for an Olympic park and has been all over the media, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cabot Yard was a diversion and that Beacon Yard was the true plan. But what do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Rik, the IOC can say whatever it wants. Until the IOC voters actually choose a modest bid over a more extravagant bid, I ain't convinced. Form almost the committees you want. Give whatever speeches you want. It's still the same people voting. And those voters clearly love cities that build grade odes to the IOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 That is what I read in a few articles. For a Boston bid to be feasible, an Olympic stadium has to be built within the city limits. Will this new (temporary) olympic stadium also include track and field? If so, that would give a terrible look for a soccer stadium to have the spectators deal with more distance away from the soccer field once the stadium is converted for a soccer team. And tearing up the track and field and moving the seats over them just sounds expensive, and not even possible probably. And it probably wouldn't give them the bid either, as the IOC was extremely upset when the track & field was gone after Atlanta finished hosting the games. They want a legacy of track and field in whatever city is hosting the Summer Olympics. Modern stadia can be designed to be very flexible. With the exception of Centennial Park/Turner Field, each main Olympic stadium has hosted soccer/football after the Olympics. Sure, Opening/Closing ceremonies require a huge field, but once the athletic competitions are over and a Games closes, a host stadium can always reconfigure sets for its next use. Not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 Modern stadia can be designed to be very flexible. With the exception of Centennial Park/Turner Field, each main Olympic stadium has hosted soccer/football after the Olympics. Sure, Opening/Closing ceremonies require a huge field, but once the athletic competitions are over and a Games closes, a host stadium can always reconfigure sets for its next use. Not a big deal. Actually it is a big deal. The issue isn't having space for Ceremonies. They could easily take place on a smaller field. The problem is the track. That's what dictates the seating arrangement. Once you remove the track it is not easy at all to reconfigure the seating to get it closer to the FOP. As far as I know, only the Stade de France has a solution for that problem with their movable seating, but it was an expensive solution in a permanent stadium. Trying to implement movable seating in a stadium with a huge percentage of temporary seating is a design and engineering nightmare that will probably end up being at least as expensive as a permanent Olympic athletics stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromit Posted June 28, 2014 Report Share Posted June 28, 2014 The new Singapore National Stadium has sliding stands over a possible track, whilst London's Olympic Stadium is having this retrofitted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.