Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
polarbear

Anchorage, Alaska to explore possible 2026 Winter Bid

Recommended Posts

Sorry, I forgot I neee to make every post idiot proof, lest it be misunderstood. Building *another* sledding tract, etc. is useless just about anywhere in the US.

I have the design for a portable one which can be trucked to and from any Winter Olympic wannabee host city.

xoxox Baron-PierreIV, I'll be pulling for you!!

Thanks, Poly. Nice to know my back's covered. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot I neee to make every post idiot proof, lest it be misunderstood. Building *another* sledding tract, etc. is useless just about anywhere in the US.

And I'd still disagree with that. Another sliding track or another speed skating oval increases the odds of landing a major international competition like a World Cup event at that facility. Again, probably won't justify the expense for what they'd get out of it, but a brand new state-of-the-art sliding track in the United States (and obviously we're talking at least a decade from now) would not be completely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alaska Airlines Center has a basketball capacity of 5,600 seats. Even temporarily removing one end of seating to accommodate a curling rink would still enable it to be well above the IOC requirement of 3,000 seats ... they could probably remove at both ends, have perfect camera angles and still meet this capacity level.

Why are the IOC happy to see venues relocated or have their usage changed? To avoid white elephants

the Espozioni was only a venue temporarily adapted, the Richmond Oval was always going to be adapted, whilst all of the 2018 bids involved the building of venues that were going to be dismantled and then reconstructed elsewhere - Munich proposed this with both the 2nd Ice Hockey venue and speed skating arena

Why is this such a big deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alaska Airlines Center has a basketball capacity of 5,600 seats. Even temporarily removing one end of seating to accommodate a curling rink would still enable it to be well above the IOC requirement of 3,000 seats ... they could probably remove at both ends, have perfect camera angles and still meet this capacity level.

You're probably looking at removing both ends of seating if you have any shot of fitting in the ice sheets and all the extra space you'd need to accommodate curling. More seats on the side as well. Then add in all the seats you're losing for press and how much are you left with? Maybe 3,000, but again, it's less than automatic to turn a basketball venue into an ice venue suitable for the Olympics. It's anything but automatic they could pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'd still disagree with that. Another sliding track or another speed skating oval increases the odds of landing a major international competition like a World Cup event at that facility. Again, probably won't justify the expense for what they'd get out of it, but a brand new state-of-the-art sliding track in the United States (and obviously we're talking at least a decade from now) would not be completely useless.

I'm not sure how often the FIBT World Cup would go to Anchorage. They already don't go to Nagano because the cost of transporting the sleds is too high (though maybe that will change after the PyeongChang track is built). The World Cup usually goes to three of the four North American tracks every year--Lake Placid, Whistler, and either Calgary or Park City. It would be very expensive to transport the sleds from Anchorage to Whistler/Calgary/Park City and then Lake Placid in the same year, so in order for Anchorage to be used, they'd probably have to cut the Lake Placid stop in the years that they go to Anchorage. I don't know whether the FIBT would be willing to do that since Lake Placid is one of the traditional and favorite stops on the circuit.

Perhaps the best use of an Anchorage track would be as a tourist attraction, which is essentially what the Hunderfossen track has been used for since 1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... there's still potentially legacy issues. Which is more viable as training/competition venues going foward? It goes back to the logic that first brought Anchorage into the picture in the mid-80s.. is their location and advantage or disadvantage for both U.S. athletes as well as international sport bodies for winter sports that don't make a lot of trips to the United States. A legacy plan could go a long way towards determining whether a city is electable or not in the first place.

Once again, before my thoughts get twisted (as everyone's invariably do here).. I'm not against Anchorage and their efforts here. I'm merely questioning the issue of whether or not their location works for them or works against them. I just don't see it as a positive, but rather a hurdle that they'll need to find a way to overcome (which is certainly possible.. let's see what they have to offer before I pass judgment on that one)

I can agree that Anchorage needs to think through a viable legacy plan, but I think that's more of an issue for Anchorage itself than any other parties involved. Based on history, I don't see the IOC being terribly concerned about the legacy of winter hosts and the ongoing functionality of their venues. In that sense, Anchorage's electability is not tied to their long-term, post-Games plan.

For the Anchorage to be willing to bid in the first place, however, they have to be satisfied that the expenditure of hosting would be justified. Obviously the legacy plan is a key part of this. I really think it all comes down to how much Anchorage is willing to offer. If they pony up with the necessary venues, I don't think the USOC, IOC or the sports federations would discount Anchorage because of its location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree that Anchorage needs to think through a viable legacy plan, but I think that's more of an issue for Anchorage itself than any other parties involved. Based on history, I don't see the IOC being terribly concerned about the legacy of winter hosts and the ongoing functionality of their venues. In that sense, Anchorage's electability is not tied to their long-term, post-Games plan.

For the Anchorage to be willing to bid in the first place, however, they have to be satisfied that the expenditure of hosting would be justified. Obviously the legacy plan is a key part of this. I really think it all comes down to how much Anchorage is willing to offer. If they pony up with the necessary venues, I don't think the USOC, IOC or the sports federations would discount Anchorage because of its location.

Part of the problem though is that Anchorage's plan is going to be based in large part on legacy and how much they can justify their expenditures. In that regard, the location factor is already working against itself there before it gets to the USOC. You talk about other parties and entities from the cities themselves to be involved.. location and city size are not going to help Anchorage all that much in that regard. From the IOC's standpoint, all things being equal, do they want their name and their sponsors' name plastered all over a big city like Denver and their mountain ranges with all the people passing through. Or do they want to be up in Anchorage for the 2 1/2 weeks worth of beautiful vistas? That's why you can only play up the exoticism and beauty of an Olympic host so much. And it's unfair to compare what cities and regions like Sochi and PC are doing because what makes sense for them might not apply to the United States and their own internal competition to get the Olympics.

I think what it comes down to is what you said.. "For the Anchorage to be willing to bid in the first place, however, they have to be satisfied that the expenditure of hosting would be justified" Hopefully 1 of the US candidates will do that. And it's a very big "if" for all of them, including Anchorage. But mind you that this is a city that has gone through this process better, albeit not all that recently. They can use some of that knowledge from the past, but that was a 20th century Olympics they were trying to land. Much different now that the Winter Olympics have grown. I just don't know that they'll be willing to invest what it's going to take for them to win the prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alaska Airlines Center has a basketball capacity of 5,600 seats. Even temporarily removing one end of seating to accommodate a curling rink would still enable it to be well above the IOC requirement of 3,000 seats ... they could probably remove at both ends, have perfect camera angles and still meet this capacity level.

Why are the IOC happy to see venues relocated or have their usage changed? To avoid white elephants

the Espozioni was only a venue temporarily adapted, the Richmond Oval was always going to be adapted, whilst all of the 2018 bids involved the building of venues that were going to be dismantled and then reconstructed elsewhere - Munich proposed this with both the 2nd Ice Hockey venue and speed skating arena

Why is this such a big deal?

A platform setup. You remove lower level seating and install a temporary platform to support the thin curling ice sheets. Could easily be 4,000 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A platform setup. You remove lower level seating and install a temporary platform to support the thin curling ice sheets. Could easily be 4,000 or so.

It's just that easy! And gromit was wondering why I linked the 2 of you together..

What exactly is a temporary platform going to accomplish? It's not going to gain you the extra space you need. Again, look at another rendering of the interior..

LFXTXIWOQXXFSIH.20120710221502.jpg

So let's say you remove all the seating immediately around the court (which seems like it's designed for that).. at that point, maybe you have enough room for your 4 curling sheets. But you probably have little to no room for press and the other functions you need for an Olympics. Plus the seats you're left with probably won't be all that great to see all 4 sheets of ice.

Also worth noting.. Sullivan Arena has a capacity of 8,700 for basketball. For hockey, it's 6,400. So if you use the same numbers, chances are you're losing at least 2,000 seats to convert the UAA arena to an ice surface (if there's room for it in the first place). Subtract from that what would be needed for press to cover 4 sheets of ice and maybe if you're lucky, you're left with 3,000. There's no way in the world you're getting 4,000 people in there for curling.

Honestly guys, I know you like to think outside the box on these things, but that doesn't always work in the real world. The University (with help from the state) is spending more than $100 million on construction of this arena. And it looks like they're specifically NOT making provisions for an ice surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just that easy! And gromit was wondering why I linked the 2 of you together..

What exactly is a temporary platform going to accomplish? It's not going to gain you the extra space you need. Again, look at another rendering of the interior..

LFXTXIWOQXXFSIH.20120710221502.jpg

So let's say you remove all the seating immediately around the court (which seems like it's designed for that).. at that point, maybe you have enough room for your 4 curling sheets. But you probably have little to no room for press and the other functions you need for an Olympics. Plus the seats you're left with probably won't be all that great to see all 4 sheets of ice.

Also worth noting.. Sullivan Arena has a capacity of 8,700 for basketball. For hockey, it's 6,400. So if you use the same numbers, chances are you're losing at least 2,000 seats to convert the UAA arena to an ice surface (if there's room for it in the first place). Subtract from that what would be needed for press to cover 4 sheets of ice and maybe if you're lucky, you're left with 3,000. There's no way in the world you're getting 4,000 people in there for curling.

Honestly guys, I know you like to think outside the box on these things, but that doesn't always work in the real world. The University (with help from the state) is spending more than $100 million on construction of this arena. And it looks like they're specifically NOT making provisions for an ice surface.

Basically the width of a curling sheet (4.4m to 5m) compared to the width of a basketball court means you can (15.24m) means you can fit 3 Curling sheets into the available space, width wise.

The artists impression provided suggests the seating at either end of the image is of a design which could be removed allowing for the extra 17.35m to gain the necessary length of the sheet (though the World Curling Federation allows for 1m less)

As for not being designed for Ice, in Turin 2006, the Torino Esposzioni was converted into a temporary ice hockey venue through the straightforward task of laying a sand base with refrigeration pipes and then freezing water on top. It's basically how they build temporary outdoor ice hockey venues so its not as if the technology is new and unproven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the width of a curling sheet (4.4m to 5m) compared to the width of a basketball court means you can (15.24m) means you can fit 3 Curling sheets into the available space, width wise.

The artists impression provided suggests the seating at either end of the image is of a design which could be removed allowing for the extra 17.35m to gain the necessary length of the sheet (though the World Curling Federation allows for 1m less)

As for not being designed for Ice, in Turin 2006, the Torino Esposzioni was converted into a temporary ice hockey venue through the straightforward task of laying a sand base with refrigeration pipes and then freezing water on top. It's basically how they build temporary outdoor ice hockey venues so its not as if the technology is new and unproven

Do you still not understand what the space requirements are for an Olympics? You can't subtract the length of a basketball court from the length of a sheet of curling ice and say that's all you need. Take a look at the 2002 and 2010 Olympic curling venues (couldn't find a good shot from Pinerolo in 2006)..

2002_Olympic_curling.jpg

Olympics-Curling-002.jpg

That's what you need on 1 end of the ice or the other. Width wise you're probably looking at 25 meters needed (probably a little bit more, less you have seats going right up to the edge). But length-wise, you need at least 50 meters and probably a lot more than that to fit comfortably. I don't think you're gonna get that in an arena purpose-built for basketball only.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...