Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Uhh, like I told Baron when he asked me the same thing, no I don't have Swedish heritage. Why does one have to have Swedish heritage or whatever simply bcuz one is in favor of Stockholm 2022.

Were the many here that were so 'passionately' in support of Munich all of German heritage. I know that some were, but not all who were. Or can we ask the same of the ones that are all hot & bothered over over-rated Almaty. I just objectively believe that Sweden has a genuine case for 2022, that's all. No "Sweden hermitage", or Swedish boyfriend/girlfriend or whatever is influencing my opinion here.

I asked why you liked the bid. I didn't say Swedish heritage was the only possible explanation for your preference.

It is interesting that someone who's normally soberly pragmatic is behind such an outlandish proposal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 610
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think this situation is ripe for an exception; a) a weak field outside of Oslo (Norway being a recent host) it being Sweden, a traditional winter sport nation that also is a top hockey nation (R

No government financial support No hope of success Especially when considering the utterly ridiculous distances between Stockholm and Are After all, Oslo can always be persuaded to use Norefjell wh

It wouldn't be called Stockholm/Are anyway. It would just be Stockholm 2022 regardless, since the Olympic Charter that only one city be designated as host. Just like it was only Vancouver 2010, &

Next question: are you black?

Nope.

I didn't say Swedish heritage was the only possible explanation for your preference.

No, but the question seems to imply that it's my main motivation, especailly when Baron asked me the same thing.

.It is interesting that someone who's normally soberly pragmatic is behind such an outlandish proposal.

It may be outlandish to you, but I don't think that it would be to the IOC. Especially when the alternatives have main issues of their own that I don't think they could overcome so easily. We'll just have to "wait & see" what they really think about it.

I believe the bid has compelling potential, despite it's one main weakness, which could have a way of minimizing the that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked why you liked the bid. I didn't say Swedish heritage was the only possible explanation for your preference.

It is interesting that someone who's normally soberly pragmatic is behind such an outlandish proposal.

FYI was actually adamant in the past that a Swedish WOG couldn't work.

(I must have convinced him. Glad you see the light!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI was actually adamant in the past that a Swedish WOG couldn't work.

(I must have convinced him. Glad you see the light!)

That was with Ostersund in the discussion (which is why Rols now finds it amusing that are positions have switched as far as this topic is concerned). And I'm still not convinced. And as many also in support of Stockholm 2022 here will say, the Winter Olympics have outgrown that region & it would create too many white elephants in such a sparse & vast area. It's what I also argued in the past & still maintain now. Stockholm wouldn't face as many of those issues since it's already a well established capital city with plenty of infrastructure in place. The only real concern there is the distance to Are. But I have faith that the Swedes could come up with a feasible plan to tackle this obsticle as best they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(which is why Rols now finds it amusing that are positions have switched as far as this topic is concerned). And I'm still not convinced.

Mate, I'm glad you've switched. As I've mentioned, I want to believe in Stockholm, but find it hard to feel confident.

It's the likes of you, Faster and Kenadian that's helping me keep the faith.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was with Ostersund in the discussion (which is why Rols now finds it amusing that are positions have switched as far as this topic is concerned). And I'm still not convinced. And as many also in support of Stockholm 2022 here will say, the Winter Olympics have outgrown that region & it would create too many white elephants in such a sparse & vast area. It's what I also argued in the past & still maintain now. Stockholm wouldn't face as many of those issues since it's already a well established capital city with plenty of infrastructure in place. The only real concern there is the distance to Are. But I have faith that the Swedes could come up with a feasible plan to tackle this obsticle as best they can.

If Stock-Are makes the cut; this is what they should do at the Final Vote presentations...

1. Turn up the bkgd music to FULL VOLUME when it comes time to mention the distance between Stockholm and Are.

2. Or when that moment comes, bring out hunky Swedes as Chippendale dancers and Hooters waitresses.

That should help overcome the "distance problem" of this bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say Ostersund would have been a better choice if they learned from their previous 3 bid attempts.

You market any new or improved infrastructure as a means of turning Ostersund to a larger city in overall size and population. The Olympic Villages, Media Village and Support/Sponsor Village would provide legacy housing for a potential boost in population numbers. You build a couple of 1,000 hotel rooms in several high rise hotels to meet the demands of a growing tourism industry in the region. A new Trade Fair would serve as the International Broadcast Centre, with the 2002 proposal of the Armed Forces training facility used as the Main Press Centre.

Above all, legacy venues such as the Speed Skating Oval, Ski Jumps and Sliding Centre would be far more better based here than in Stockholm.

Why not build a Winter themed amusement park or even a Casino Cosmopol (which could easily be the largest in all of Sweden) to ensure regular tourism year round? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about going with the Sochi route?

There's some decent infrastructure already there and if you look at their 2002 bid, the venues weren't exactly mega arenas. The main Ice Hockey Venue for example was 10,000 seats, with an adjoining 6,000 seater Figure Skating/Short Track hall, and a 1,000 seater warm up rink. Ice Hockey II and Curling was set in it's own 3,000 seater venue in Are. This venue plan could be modified for any future bid. The same 2/3 hall setup with 10,000 seats for Ice Hockey I, 6,000 seats for Curling. Figure Skating/Short Track would be in a 12,000 seater temporary venue which could be relocated and Ice Hockey II could serve in a legacy venue in Are.

Accommodation isn't a problem as indicated by the 2002 bid. But there should be some hotel infrastructure developed for a potential increase in demand, those who expect high rise hotel development and would rather stay there then say the alternative - a holiday home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said they were building a city? They're turning a large town (or small city) into a proper one. Think of it as a way of alleviating congestion in say the capital Stockholm or other large Swedish cities.

You essentially turn Ostersund into a real winter sports/winter holiday hub and destination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said they were building a city? They're turning a large town (or small city) into a proper one. Think of it as a way of alleviating congestion in say the capital Stockholm or other large Swedish cities. You essentially turn Ostersund into a real winter sports/winter holiday hub and destination.

AFAIK, Östersund is already a hub/destination, and my question remains: What should people from alledgedly congested Stockholm do after moving to Östersund?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Do you think a revved up Ostersund bid would have been better Baron?

As for what the new residents would do in Ostersund, think of Milton Keynes, in England and the like. They were designated as new towns with the idea of providing more housing and other city necessary infrastructure. It could work. I can see an Ostersund with say double it's population at around 120,000 if such an approach were made. I suppose we'll have to see in a 2026 bid.

You would obviously have tourism industry as a major factor, as well as winter sports and remnants of the military industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Do you think a revved up Ostersund bid would have been better Baron?

I think the Swedes (and the Norwegians) realize that the smaller cities of Ostersund and Trondheim just can't measure up to the demands of being the anchor/ice city the way the WOGs are now -- which is why they both chose their capital cities as the marquee name. Building dozens of new hotels not just for visitors and the press wouldn't be the answer. What would the 2 cities do with them after the Games? They're not exactly Switzerland where thousands of foreigners come to fill up the hotels each season. As they realize that both O & T would be overwhelmed if they were the anchor cities, the 2 countries are just gambling that their traditional 'winter spots culture' can overcome the distance problems for their two bids.

The problem is if the 2 advance to the Short List, I think they will cancel each other out. If one is to survive in the long stretch, I think one has to fold early...and unfortunately, the Stockholm-Are distance is just TOO great a distance to be ignored. And Norway, w/ 3 Olympic events in its vest, might just be the old lady of the race. That's my view of how the two-way Scandinavian 2022 race will play out.

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

Nope.

No, but the question seems to imply that it's my main motivation, especailly when Baron asked me the same thing.

It may be outlandish to you, but I don't think that it would be to the IOC. Especially when the alternatives have main issues of their own that I don't think they could overcome so easily. We'll just have to "wait & see" what they really think about it.

I believe the bid has compelling potential, despite it's one main weakness, which could have a way of minimizing the that.

FYI, you're a selective reader. Here's exactly what I wrote:

"FYI's passion for Stockholm surprises me. Where does that come from? Do you have Swedish heritage or do you just like the idea of Swedish games?"

You seem to have ignored the "or". And apparently the answer is, yes, you do just like the idea of Swedish games.

As for "compelling potential", it seems that potential is mainly derived from the Swedish people and their winter sports culture coupled with the fact that they haven't hosted Winter Games, correct?

That was with Ostersund in the discussion (which is why Rols now finds it amusing that are positions have switched as far as this topic is concerned). And I'm still not convinced. And as many also in support of Stockholm 2022 here will say, the Winter Olympics have outgrown that region & it would create too many white elephants in such a sparse & vast area. It's what I also argued in the past & still maintain now. Stockholm wouldn't face as many of those issues since it's already a well established capital city with plenty of infrastructure in place. The only real concern there is the distance to Are. But I have faith that the Swedes could come up with a feasible plan to tackle this obsticle as best they can.

Teleportation?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Do you think a revved up Ostersund bid would have been better Baron?

As for what the new residents would do in Ostersund, think of Milton Keynes, in England and the like. They were designated as new towns with the idea of providing more housing and other city necessary infrastructure. It could work. I can see an Ostersund with say double it's population at around 120,000 if such an approach were made. I suppose we'll have to see in a 2026 bid.

You would obviously have tourism industry as a major factor, as well as winter sports and remnants of the military industry.

Sweden in the early 21st century is not England in the 1950s or so. Sweden is like most European countries not facing an ever growing population that had to be housed/employed wherever possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand all the excuses the Stock-Are supporters are making to get the S-A bid in there. Can they really brain-wash 60 voters into thinking that over 500km can be overlooked and dismissed in the blink of an eye?? :blink::blink: Incredible.

No need to "overlook" the distance. Stock-Are supports explect the Swedes to explain their plan, and for the IOC voters to treat the distance the same way they treat other bids (which they accept All. The. Time.)

One popular theory is that the users of gamebids generally base their affections on whether they find the people (of the relevant gender) of the bidding nation sexually attractive.

For the record, I'm on the fence about this theory.

Hmm. Not I'm going to have to see some Kazak models before deciding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Swedes (and the Norwegians) realize that the smaller cities of Ostersund and Trondheim just can't measure up to the demands of being the anchor/ice city the way the WOGs are now -- which is why they both chose their capital cities as the marquee name. Building dozens of new hotels not just for visitors and the press wouldn't be the answer. What would the 2 cities do with them after the Games? They're not exactly Switzerland where thousands of foreigners come to fill up the hotels each season. As they realize that both O & T would be overwhelmed if they were the anchor cities,

Exactly.

The problem is if the 2 advance to the Short List, I think they will cancel each other out. If one is to survive in the long stretch, I think one has to fold early...and unfortunately, the Stockholm-Are distance is just TOO great a distance to be ignored. And Norway, w/ 3 Olympic events in its vest, might just be the old lady of the race. That's my view of how the two-way Scandinavian 2022 race will play out.

You mean like London & Paris cancelled each other out for 2012. Or like Athens & Rome did for 2004. With looking at the rest of the 2022 field, it looks like these two will be the favorites going in.

No need to "overlook" the distance. Stock-Are supports explect the Swedes to explain their plan, and for the IOC voters to treat the distance the same way they treat other bids (which they accept All. The. Time.)

Exactly. Like seperating ceremonies & athletics, indoor ceremonies, building literally everything from scratch & taking a gamble with less than traditional winter hosts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not talking about spreading the Winter Games all over Sweden, though. We're still talking about having everyone tightly situated in only two clusters. No different from the set up in Vancouver/Whister or Sochi/Krasnaya Polyana or PyeongChang/Gangeung. If anything, Munich would've been proposing more of a "World Cup Bid" with four-clusters all over Bavaria. Yet virtually everyone here was all hot & bothered over that one.

Yeah, but the main hurdle that an Oslo bid faces, & like Baron likes to consistently say; "been there, done that". If anything, I think Norway's two Winter Olympic hostings (& one of those as recent as 1994) is their Stockholm's distance issue. I agree, however, that on a technical standpoint, Oslo is going to get high marks. But will that be enough to make it a "runaway win" for Oslo. IMHO, I don't think so. Although I will say that the Norwegians come in a good second place in this.

Let's remember how many cited Munich 2018's technical strengths & traditional winter sport fervor for the "odds on" favorite for those Games. And how PyeongChang couldn't be able to compete with them in that sense. Well, I think that's what many are doing with Stockholm now. Like PyeongChang 2018, I believe Stockholm 2022 has that real compelling element to overcome their naysayers "PyeongChang" arguments.

Hope you don't mind, but I moved this comment from the Krakow thread to here, where it should be.

Yes it's not different in the sense of a two cluster approach, but it is different in the distance. Those examples you mentioned (especially with Sochi) meant that spectators could see an ice event in the city as well as a snow event in the mountains. Or more importantly, visit the mountain village/town in the same day if they were based in the city and vice versa. It will be difficult or costly to do such a thing with Stockholm/Are given that by road/train it would take as much as 6 hours (that's a good 4 hours or so wasted that could have been spent in either place). Unless some sort of high speed rail is considered, then why bother? The whole idea of the Winter Olympics experience is that the mountains are nearby from the host city.

Stockholm might get in based on the fact that it's Stockholm, but it won't win, that's for sure.

Edited by Lord David
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's not different in the sense of a two cluster approach, but it is different in the distance. Those examples you mentioned (especially with Sochi) meant that spectators could see an ice event in the city as well as a snow event in the mountains. Or more importantly, visit the mountain village/town in the same day if they were based in the city and vice versa.

Remember, we aren't talking about all snow events.... probably we are only talking about the Downhill / Super G / GS. You will still have opportunity to visit snow venue "nearby."

Even when the alpine events are "only" a couple hours away, it's near impossible to attend the big alpine events and a skating event the same day. The big alpine events are typically scheduled around mid day. And it take much longer than you might expect to get off a mounting, to a transportation hub and back..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, we aren't talking about all snow events.... probably we are only talking about the Downhill / Super G / GS. You will still have opportunity to visit snow venue "nearby."

Well, there's also the need to artificially increase a hill near Stockholm for the slalom - also not really tested before, and perhaps even more questionable ecologically. And why have those extra costs if Åre has everything at hand and needs to be used for the other events anyway. Two more events there won't make a big difference at that stage anymore either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about "athletes" being the center of everything, has anyone given any thought to the Paralympians? Does the Stockholm bid plan on using Are for the Paralympics? Becuz as if it isn't hard enough transporting able-bodied people in the winter, what more the disabled athletes and ALL their special equipment?? How would that feel on a 7-hour trip vs. a 2-hour ride?? I am sure it would NOT be fun for the handicapped athletes who have to be in their wheelchairs and prostheses for long hours of time. Think about that...Stockholm-Are supporters.

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

The Winter Paralympics have about 1/5th the number of athletes as in the Winter Olympics. Vancouver had 4 venues for 5 sports with 500 athletes. That's the kind of event a city the size of Ostersund could handle. What is the vertical drop requirement for the Paralympics? The rule is 800 m for the men's downhill at the Winter Olympics. Is it the same at the Paralympics?

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...