Jump to content

Anchorage, Alaska to explore possible 2026 Winter Bid


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sound's like somebody is feeling their pet host being in danger.

I don't know Anchorage and its area, so do not say it is not feasible to organize the Games here. I just check the size of the population... and saw that the size of the Metro is almost as big as the

I can't believe some of the replies that have rolled across this thing since I posted this thing! (( )) "Baron P. Myles IV book writer extraordinaire", I really, really hope the Olympics are held

Anyhow, let's try and get back to topic.

Anchorage > Bozeman which of course is > Reno.

An Anchorage games would be far more viable than Bozeman or Reno of course. Perhaps doing that multifunction venue from their 1994 bid could work.

Let's agree to disagree on that one. There's no "of course" there. I would probably go Reno > Anchorage > Bozeman and that's a big gap between the last 2.

I'm not familiar with Anchorage's `94 bid other than the theory was to put training facilities in a location between Europe and Asia. I don't know what the venue plan was there. Keep in mind though that the scale of the Olympics has grown considerably since then. You need at least 3 arenas for hockey/figure skating/short track plus a curling venue. Snowboarding wasn't in the `94 program. And the size of the arenas is going to make a difference as well. A North American city just offered gave us an Olympics with an 18,000 seat main arena, a 14,000 seat secondary arena, and a 3rd at 7,200. Obviously that's more than most Winter Olympic hopefuls would offer, but in terms of the USOC, that's what needs to be in the back of their minds when they're looking at potential host cities.

What amazes me is the false claim about the remoteness of Anchorage.

These are the destinations flown from Ted Stevens: International Airport to the rest of the USA:

Chicago, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Denver, LA, Phoenix, Dallas, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Salt Lake, San Francisco which is at least as good as another contender.

The Port of Anchorage can also host the larger cruise liners which like the proposed Tromso bid, can significantly aid accommodation issues,

As opposed to the destinations flown from Bozeman-Yellowstone?

That's actually a good point about the cruise liners, so that will definitely help them in that regard. But yes, it's still a remote location that's not all that easily accessible. How many flights do those cities have to Anchorage? Because you're talking about tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people descending upon Anchorage all at once. Not that the airport isn't big enough to handle it, but it's also going to be pretty expensive to get there. Contrast that to a place like Reno where instead of having limited options (it's not like you can drive to Anchorage and there are only so many flights there, even if airlines add more for the Olympics), you can fly there or you can drive from SFO or a couple of other airports in the area. And that's not an unimportant detail during the winter when weather can wreak havoc on airline schedules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhmmm...cruise ships in the winter in Alaska? How about more like icebreakers??

All the cruise lines have repositioned their "Alaska" ships to warmer waters as early as October and do not return until late April or May.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

San Francisco, LA , Salt Lake, Denver, Chicago, even NYC are all CLOSER to Reno than Anchorage!!

Who cares? They're also closer to Truckee, California and Yuma, Arizona. What's that got to do with anything?

Every Olympic host is close to someone and far from someone else. Would the US IOC members have voted against Sydney because it meant a long flight? Of course not.

Silliness.

I don't understand why you are so desperate to prop up sad, pathetic ReNO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Olympic host is close to someone and far from someone else. Would the US IOC members have voted against Sydney because it meant a long flight? Of course not.

Because it and the Tahoe region are more realistically MORE accessible to the lower 48 where 303 million people live than to the under 1 million in Alaska. Y don't you go to H-E- double hockey Styx?? :P

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it and the Tahoe region are more realistically MORE accessible to the lower 48 where 303 million people live than to the under 1 million in Alaska. Y don't you go to H-E- double hockey Styx?? :P

Careful. Your desperation is showing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhmmm...cruise ships in the winter in Alaska? How about more like icebreakers??

All the cruise lines have repositioned their "Alaska" ships to warmer waters as early as October and do not return until late April or May.

Quebec 2002 proposed ice breakers to break up the river and allow for cruise ships for the sake of additional accommodation.

It would certainly work for Anchorage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares? They're also closer to Truckee, California and Yuma, Arizona. What's that got to do with anything?

Every Olympic host is close to someone and far from someone else. Would the US IOC members have voted against Sydney because it meant a long flight? Of course not.

Silliness.

I don't understand why you are so desperate to prop up sad, pathetic ReNO.

Thank you, Athens. What an insightful and valuable contribution this is to this discussion. Since you're asking a semi-serious question and know you won't get a serious answer from baron, let me see if I can offer one..

Who cares, you ask? Actually, the USOC cares. Especially in the context of Anchorage and a U.S. Winter Olympic bid, those distances absolutely matter. They certainly did back in the late 1980s when the USOC was searching for winter candidates. Don't think that's true? Here's some research for you.

From May 1989 when the USOC was mulling over candidates for the 1998 Olympics... Anchorage Still In Olympic Running

Many USOC executive board members had been privately rooting against Anchorage. They worry about Alaska`s future as a training site because of its relative isolation.

``It`s not fair to say the USOC has distanced itself from Anchorage, but there are people within our organization who wonder how much a set of facilities in Anchorage will help promote winter sports in the U.S.,``

So where baron mentioned earlier in the thread about the viability of a 2026 Anchorage bid, this is exactly what he was talking about. In which case I think it's a very fair question to ask.. what is going to be different now than back then? I know baron doesn't always make the most compelling arguments (mostly because he's not trying to), but the remoteness of Anchorage was a problem then. Stands to reason it still could be a problem now.

As always, it comes down to choice. The USOC has to make a decision between a city like Anchorage, close to a small base of a population and separated by hundreds of miles from the rest of the country, or a city like Reno, much closer to larger population bases. In that regard, Reno-Tahoe makes for a more attractive location for the Olympics than Anchorage (Denver and Salt Lake aside since I'd argue they're both better than Reno). And to make a comparison to Sydney comparison is foolish and pointless. It's easy for us to look at Anchorage and see them as an exotic and attractive alternative to a location in the continental U.S. But the USOC has to be practical about these things. They potentially have a choice between Anchorage and other U.S. cities in the lower 48. The difference goes beyond a long flight. It goes to the sensibility of where to offer an Olympics and spend billions of dollars on something that's supposed to leave a lasting legacy.

And (this one is for baron).. once again, it seems like this is more about arguing with him than challenging the merits of his argument. I know that must seem like a futile effort, but you're just lowering yourself to his level if to this is about his attempts to prop up a city he supports. Like I've said dozens of times, I don't think Reno has what it takes to land an Olympics as I know you don't either, but they still have a better shot at it than you and others want to give them credit for.

Quebec 2002 proposed ice breakers to break up the river and allow for cruise ships for the sake of additional accommodation.

It would certainly work for Anchorage.

It COULD work for Anchorage. But it comes at a cost. Again, this is where it comes down to an issue of choice. Will these cruise line companies want to park their ships in or around Anchorage in the dead of winter to offer additional accommodations for a potential Olympics? And even if they do, how does that compare against other cities that can offer up actual hotel rooms instead? I do like the idea of temporary housing in the form of cruise ships, but I don't know if that's the best option for the USOC to pitch to the IOC (obviously this is only 1 of many factors, but it still speaks to the suitability of Anchorage against other potential US bidders)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste millions in building hotel/apartment accommodation that would be far too much for expected post Olympic demand.

Assuming that current accommodation capacity is sufficient for Anchorage, propose the Olympic Village, a full Media Village (both of which would serve as public housing post Olympics or in the case of the OV, student accommodation in the University of Alaska).

You then have modern new hotels numbering a couple of 1000 rooms, perhaps some apartment complexes at a couple of 1000 too.

Once you got say over 30,000-40,000 overall you supplement them with several cruise ships, offering a couple of 1000 rooms overall, just in case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste millions in building hotel/apartment accommodation that would be far too much for expected post Olympic demand.

Assuming that current accommodation capacity is sufficient for Anchorage, propose the Olympic Village, a full Media Village (both of which would serve as public housing post Olympics or in the case of the OV, student accommodation in the University of Alaska).

You then have modern new hotels numbering a couple of 1000 rooms, perhaps some apartment complexes at a couple of 1000 too.

Once you got say over 30,000-40,000 overall you supplement them with several cruise ships, offering a couple of 1000 rooms overall, just in case.

Again, that's easier said than done. Most cruise ships aren't scheduled to operate during the winter and I'm betting many of them aren't well designed to handle large crowds in cold temperatures like you'd have during an Olympics. In Jacksonville, Florida when they had the Super Bowl there, they used cruise ships to cover the hotel shortage. So it can be done, but that was in a relatively warm weather location. Not so sure it's that automatic to do it in Alaska around the same time of year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Norwegian Hurtigruten Line operate throughout the winter so could be invited in to be a consultant. If an actual investigation of the Cook Inlet is done, although part of it does ice up ... it is not thick ice so doesn't require full on ice breakers.

As for Anchorage as a local, people talking about 2026 fail to think of the 'elephant in the corner' in the shape of the FIFA World Cup which is essentially North America v South America v Africa.

As Turkey found out, Euro2020 and Istanbul2020 were incompatible and they had to make a choice before the award of location was made.

The USOC might be able to argue, that Anchorage being so far from any venue like to host the soccer, would not impact upon the success of the US Winter Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ The USOC does NOT run the US' World Cup bidding. US-Soccer does. Two, if you knew your stuff, totally different and independent bodies.* And unlike Turkey which, like most countries, exists on gov't funding (as will probably the upcoming South African bid), so that excuse of Anchorage, if it were to be taken seriously as the Winter 2026 site, offering a distance from the US mainland, just to shield a FIFA World Cup 2026 bid, is again rather specious and does not quite compute. Further, the US is not Turkey or one of the new foundling "tiger" economies. The infrastructure in the US to handle these large mega-events is a century or two ahead of a just emerging "semi-industrialized" country like Turkey (if they don't turn back the clock themselves). And except for Denver, the possible US entry for a 2026 WOG run, wouldn't be the same city as a possible World Cup city. Perfect case in point, and yes, they were 2 years apart: for the 1994 World Cup, the next summer Olympic host, Atlanta, was NOT a World Cup venue..so no cross-sectional fear which of course again has been debunked by Rio pulling double duty as the 2014 finals site and 2016 summer host as well. Thus, again, gromit, your argument does NOT exactly bolster and compel Anchorage as the preferred 2026 candidate vs. a lower 48 setting.

Wait a second, you forgot Bozeman...oh, but wait...they're putting in a bid to be a World Cup venue...(sarcasm)

*Of which, US Soccer pointedly made a difference marking its Centennial at the USA-Germany men's friendly in Washington DC on 6-02-2013. What is now the USOC did not officially get organized as such (under another name) until 1921. So, there are still 8 years left before the USOC celebrates its own centenary.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you seem to be clueless

If the USA bid to host the FIFA 2026 world cup they will not be a contender for the 2026 Winter Olympics

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Jacques Rogge said that Turkey will have to withdraw its bid for the 2020 European football championships if Istanbul is awarded the 2020 Summer Olympic Games. He said IOC rules state that a Games host country cannot hold another major sports event in the same year.

I see you continue to make you pathetic moronic comments about Bozeman.

Sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. Can you please cite the Section in the IOC rules which spells that out? Was not aware that they had formally made that rule.

And obviously, the Bozeman mention just slid past your clueless, un-nuanced brain...if u had one. Where's your master, Wallace? Why aren't you on a leash, gromit?? ;)

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quebec 2002 proposed ice breakers to break up the river and allow for cruise ships for the sake of additional accommodation.

It would certainly work for Anchorage.

"It would certainly work?" How could that be since Quebec 2002 never happened? :blink: Am I missing something? I thought 2002 happened in a mountain setting??

Just because it has been proposed and NOT actually implemented, doesn't mean it'll work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. Can you please cite the Section in the IOC rules which spells that out? Was not aware that they had formally made that rule.

And obviously, the Bozeman mention just slid past your clueless, un-nuanced brain...if u had one. Where's your master, Wallace? Why aren't you on a leash, gromit?? ;)

So apparently you know more about IOC rules than Rogge does and the Turkish nation just dumped their Euro2020 bid on a whim?

Your arrogance knows no limits

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer my question: cite the Section in IOC Rules which states that!! I believe Rogge ONLY stated that in reference to Turkey. And if it were so, again it would NOT apply -- because you obviously CAN'T READ -- to the US because the US sports bodies do NOT get their funding from the US gov't. But maybe that distinction and nuance is too obtuse for the likes of you.

Where's your master Wallace, gromit? Why are u out w/o a leash?? Arf-arf!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USOC is in a very different position now than it was in the '80s. There are many world-class training sites in the continental US, not least among them Salt Lake City and Colorado Springs. And obviously Anchorage's distance did not prove an obstacle for the USOC even in the 80s because they nominated it twice. Now that the there are even more training facilities. In the lower 48, I think that makes it crystal clear that Anchorage's distance is not a weak point,

So I'll ask my rhetorical question again: who cares that Anchorage is a bit farther away?

Apart from Baron and Quaker, I mean...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic Charter

Rule 34. Election of the Host City*

Bye Law to Rule 36

No1.6

"All applicant cities shall comply with the candidature acceptance procedure, conducted under the authority of the IOC Executive Board who call determine the contents of the procedure ....." - if they say this is the rule, then this is the rule

Rule 35. Location, sites and venues of the Olympic Games*

Bye Law to Rule 35

No2.

"The organisation, holding and media coverage of the Olympic Games shall not be impaired in any way by any other event taking place in the host city or its neighbourhood (sic. country) or in other competitions sites or venues"

http://web.archive.org/web/20110723070003/http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_122.pdf



http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ioc-chief-rogge-urges-turkey-to-pick-either-olympics-or-euros-.aspx?pageID=238&nid=20382

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Baron is confused, please see Quaker's argument below on why Anchorage's location matters. .

As I just wrote, the argument doesn't hold water because the USOC clearly wasn't bothered by Anchorage's distance in the 80's. They nominated it twice. If anything, the distance is less of an issue now than it was then because there are so many new training facilities in the lower 48.

Thank you, Athens. What an insightful and valuable contribution this is to this discussion.

Who cares, you ask? Actually, the USOC cares. Especially in the context of Anchorage and a U.S. Winter Olympic bid, those distances absolutely matter. They certainly did back in the late 1980s when the USOC was searching for winter candidates. Don't think that's true? Here's some research for you.

From May 1989 when the USOC was mulling over candidates for the 1998 Olympics... Anchorage Still In Olympic Running

So where baron mentioned earlier in the thread about the viability of a 2026 Anchorage bid, this is exactly what he was talking about. In which case I think it's a very fair question to ask.. what is going to be different now than back then? I know baron doesn't always make the most compelling arguments (mostly because he's not trying to), but the remoteness of Anchorage was a problem then. Stands to reason it still could be a problem now.

As always, it comes down to choice. The USOC has to make a decision between a city like Anchorage, close to a small base of a population and separated by hundreds of miles from the rest of the country, or a city like Reno, much closer to larger population bases. In that regard, Reno-Tahoe makes for a more attractive location for the Olympics than Anchorage (Denver and Salt Lake aside since I'd argue they're both better than Reno). And to make a comparison to Sydney comparison is foolish and pointless. It's easy for us to look at Anchorage and see them as an exotic and attractive alternative to a location in the continental U.S. But the USOC has to be practical about these things. They potentially have a choice between Anchorage and other U.S. cities in the lower 48. The difference goes beyond a long flight. It goes to the sensibility of where to offer an Olympics and spend billions of dollars on something that's supposed to leave a lasting legacy.

The distance certainly will not be an issue for the IOC. Baron's original posts did not explain which group he thought would have a problem with Anchorage's distance. I fail to see how either the USOC or IOC would have a problem with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic Charter

Rule 35. Location, sites and venues of the Olympic Games*

Bye Law to Rule 35

No2.

"The organisation, holding and media coverage of the Olympic Games shall not be impaired in any way by any other event taking place in the host city or its neighbourhood (sic. country) or in other competitions sites or venues"

It says "...in the host city or neighborhood.." YOU added (sic country)!! :lol::lol: Not only are u an alien dog...but your own interpreter of IOC rules!! :lol::lol:

Your forget that Istanbul and Ankara were going to be the focal points of both of Turkey's 2020 plans and that both events would have taken place w/in 6 weeks of each other if they got both. This is what the IOC wants to avoid.

A WOG isn't happening 6 weeks before a World Cup. As a matter of fact, there are at least FOUR months' separation between these 2 events in a northern setting.

Further, a Winter Games in the U.S. mountains is NOT exactly in the same "neighborhood" as LA, SF, Philadelphia, Dallas or, heck, even Tulsa. And even if Denver were a cross-over city in an early WC list, it could always be dropped from that list if it would endanger a WOG bid. There are so many other alternate cities wanting to go on the WC list. God, do I have to spell it out for you?? :rolleyes:

And finally, I have to break this out to you in separate paragraphs, you do realize...probably you don't...that they can amend those rules any time to suit the situation because they are the IOC.

Think about that for a minute. Only for a minute... I do not want any brains here on GB hemorraging. ;)

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what's in the charter. The only thing that matters is what the IOC will vote for. Based on the stern warning to Istanbul, I think it's unlikely that the IOC would award Winter Games to the US in 2026 if the US is already hosting (or bidding for) the 2026 World Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "...neighborhood.." YOU added (sic country)!! :lol::lol: Not only are u an alien dog...but your own interpreter of IOC rules!! :lol::lol:

Never argue with an idiot .. they simply drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

with experience

Ah...the "key" word, g-r-o-m-i-t. ;)

To be fair, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what's in the charter. The only thing that matters is what the IOC will vote for. Based on the stern warning to Istanbul, I think it's unlikely that the IOC would award Winter Games to the US in 2026 if the US is already hosting (or bidding for) the 2026 World Cup.

Or vice-versa...NOT getting the World Cup because it would already be going for the Winter Games. What a situation to be in. :( Which to go for??

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...