Jump to content

Paris 2024


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Olympics2028 said:

I can't figure out why some summer games go with the highrise format of a Tokyo or Rio, while Paris or Sydney in 2000 goes with a friendlier format. Personally, the 2000 games appeared to have the most human-scaled, accessible format.

It’s just totally dictated by what works best for the host - it’s just an aspect where local needs, resources and traditions take precedence over aesthetics. How much space they have for a major housing project in the environs of the Olympic facilities? What are the housing traditions in those nations/cities? Not every city, indeed not many cities, have a large enough area of vacant land ripe for redevelopment as a residential zone for a games. Apartment living is more common in many areas, particularly Europe and Asia, than others. The US has tended to utilise its tradition of college dorms, which is pretty unique to North America- most of the rest of the world does not have that tradition.

Funnily enough, this was a source of much friction here during what was then an LA vs Paris race for 2024. Some Angeleno posters painted LA’s dorm solution as the trump card, and attacked Paris’s residential village as an expensive waste and a flaw. They couldn’t seem to grasp that government-funded public housing projects are far more accepted, even expected, in countries outside the US, where it appears the notion is anathema.

Ultimately, Olympic Villages are usually one of the leas controversial acts of Olympic planning - it’s usually (outside the US at least) easy to sell the concept of a new residential project for post games use.

Conversely, it’s one of the major negatives against the concept of a permanent Olympic host site or small selection of permanent host cities - it’s just not economically viable to maintain a mini-city/suburb for 16,000+ athletes and support staff in pristine and vacant condition between games. Take Sydney, whose village you admire. It’s all an established and fully populated suburb now. If Sydney were to host again in the near future, it would need a whole new Olympic Village, and I’m not aware of any tracts of land in the immediate Olympic Park vicinity suitable for development. Plus, while Australian cities have long been closer to the US suburban sprawl concept where standalone housing is more common, in recent years population pressure is changing that and we’re starting to se a lot more medium to density residential projects - ie, apartment complexes - than in the past. If Sydney were to host again soon, it would probably have to use apartment towers.  

Similarly, Paris’ Cite du Cinema village was also only a one off thing. In the race for 2024, when the IOC was asking about its preparedness to wait out till 2028, Paris said it couldn’t be done because the Cite du Cinema couldn’t be maintained for village use beyond 2024 - the business plan that made it viable required it to convert to residential use immediately post-games.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

It's NOT her decision to make.

I say the IOC / IPC should say nothing until the very last minute -- AND then ban the Russkies and the Belarusskies.  That hurts even more.  Just keep 'em guessing.  

Whether it's her or whoever the president of France is they can make that decision without IOC approval. Do you really think the IOC would risk a PR disaster trying to take France to court over this? They'd have no shot at winning especially if the French frame it ad a national security issue. Easy fix. Just deny the Russians and Belarusians entry visas and keep airspace closed to flights from them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stryker said:

Whether it's her or whoever the president of France is they can make that decision without IOC approval. Do you really think the IOC would risk a PR disaster trying to take France to court over this? They'd have no shot at winning especially if the French frame it ad a national security issue. Easy fix. Just deny the Russians and Belarusians entry visas and keep airspace closed to flights from them 

It’s such a fluid situation, who knows how things will be playing out in two years. We’re just going to have to wait and see. There’s so many scenarios:

* Ukraine collapses and becomes a Russian client state with an ongoing guerilla insurgency. I’d suggest sanctions, economic and social/sporting, will remain.

* Continuing stalemate/Russians bogged down. Potential negotiated settlement before 2024 with Russkis out but guarantees of no-NATO for Ukraine. A bit murkier to predict the reaction, but I’d expect some easing of the sanctions tightrope.

* Russia mired in stalemate and recession. Popular uprising or palace coup removes Vlad before 2024. Negotiated end to conflict, possibly on west’s terms. All is forgiven. Sanctions lifted. You’re our friends now Russia, we’ll help you rebuild/re-assimilate.

* Putin goes feral. War with NATO, nukes come out. We’re all f*cked. Paris 2024 becomes an asterisk in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Funnily enough, this was a source of much friction here during what was then an LA vs Paris race for 2024. Some Angeleno posters painted LA’s dorm solution as the trump card, and attacked Paris’s residential village as an expensive waste and a flaw

You may be forgetting that LA '24 originally proposed building an Olympic village (legacy selling point: loads of affordable housing) and that a couple of the posters who attacked Paris were originally full of praise for this when it was LA proposing such a concept. :lol:

The change to using the (seemingly very high quality) UCLA dorms was budgetary and political given LA decided to go HARD on not having to build anything to differentiate itself from Paris. I'm not saying it was a wrong choice, I think it is smart, but it was hammered home (ridiculously) hard as a point of difference.

As much as I miss the old bidding days, you do wonder how much city's concepts were skewed by what other bids were up to. If this was the last such example it's ironic given that they didn't ultimately need to differentiate themselves form Paris at all with the double-awarding.

 

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Take Sydney, whose village you admire. It’s all an established and fully populated suburb now.

So did the 2000 OOC have more land to work with for a lower-density format compared with what was available in Tokyo or Rio? I'm assuming yes. Even London and the upcoming village in Paris appear somewhat higher in density.

Still, the buildings for 2020/2021 and 2016 looked like they were much taller than what Sydney required for its much lower lower-density layout and had to spread over smaller structures. 2000 looked more like an extended-stay resort, whereas 2020 or 2016 looked more like a row of office buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rob. said:

You may be forgetting that LA '24 originally proposed building an Olympic village (legacy selling point: loads of affordable housing) and that a couple of the posters who attacked Paris were originally full of praise for this when it was LA proposing such a concept.

 

That earlier concept was a joke to me. Anyone who knows what the area where the village would have gone up had to realize that was a non-starter.

Personally, I don't think Olympic games should be necessarily real-estate projects. The 2-week-long event is about sports and athletes, not rental housing or residential construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Olympics2028 said:

That earlier concept was a joke to me. Anyone who knows what the area where the village would have gone up had to realize that was a non-starter.

That's fair enough, and as far as I can remember you've been consistent on that.

I would disagree with you about what the Games "should" be to a city though. I think the thing the Olympics needed to get away from was over-prescriptiveness. What's right for one place might not be right for another. The dorms solution is smart and I'll trust others that it was the right decision for LA. I'm sure what Paris is doing is also right for them. One thing Bach's reforms do deserve some credit for is allowing a bit more flexibility from host to host.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Olympics2028 said:

Personally, I don't think Olympic games should be necessarily real-estate projects. The 2-week-long event is about sports and athletes, not rental housing or residential construction.

That’s totally unavoidable when you have to house and Fred 16,000+ athletes and support staff. Much less also cope with incoming spectator visitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

French players criticise "embarrassing" proposed basketball venue for Paris 2024 (insidethegames.biz)

I didn't think we'd get to this point regarding the basketball venue. Makes me wonder if there's such a fuss over a convention center for basketball in Paris as to whether or not they could force Los Angeles (they have preliminaries set for the L.A. convention center) to make a change. I guess FIBA wants the sparkling new arena complete with luxury boxes for VIPs and all the bells and whistles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rob. said:

I would disagree with you about what the Games "should" be to a city though.

 

My overall POV is that the summer games (but even more so winter ones) should revolve around a pre-picked number of cities. I liked the idea of Sydney hosting again, and since London also put a lot of time and money into 2012, I favor the idea of UK's capital hosting another games too.

By contrast, I don't think Rio has to go down that route again. And, for largely political reasons, I'd want Beijing to bow out in the future too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite surprised at the lack of specialised indoor arenas in Paris... have they really only got two that can meet the requirements for say basketball without temporary seating, reconfiguration etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stryker said:

Whether it's her or whoever the president of France is they can make that decision without IOC approval. Do you really think the IOC would risk a PR disaster trying to take France to court over this? They'd have no shot at winning especially if the French frame it ad a national security issue. Easy fix. Just deny the Russians and Belarusians entry visas and keep airspace closed to flights from them 

Uhmmm . . . the IOC/IPC owns the Games.  They are the ones who SEND out the invitations -- NOT the host city.  So, just to be technical -- it's NO ONE's but the IOC's decision.  And all of that is spelled out in the Host City contracts.  If China had its way, they would have allowed their friends the Russkies and the Belas to play at the Paras.  But the IPC over-ruled them because the IPC owns the Games -- and everything vital connected with how it's run.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, yoshi said:

Quite surprised at the lack of specialised indoor arenas in Paris... have they really only got two that can meet the requirements for say basketball without temporary seating, reconfiguration etc?

Paris really doesn't have the need for any outside of Bercy Arena and the new La Chappelle arena. Had the renovation of Parc Des Princes gone through with the retractable roof or if 

 

1 minute ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uhmmm . . . the IOC/IPC owns the Games.  They are the ones who SEND out the invitations -- NOT the host city.  So, just to be technical -- it's NO ONE's but the IOC's decision.  And all of that is spelled out in the Host City contracts.  If China had its way, they would have allowed their friends the Russkies and the Belas to play at the Paras.  But the IPC over-ruled them because the IPC owns the Games -- and everything vital connected with how it's run.  

The host city contract means nothing and wouldn't hold up in a court of law. The IOC or IPC has no political authority. If France wants to ban Russia and Belarus they can do so on grounds of national security. No one stopped Belgrade when they refused to allow boxers from Kosovo at the world championships back in Belgrade (which is now hosting the world athletics indoor championships) nor did the IJF sanction Abu Dhabi when they refused to allow Israelis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

That’s totally unavoidable when you have to house and Fred 16,000+ athletes and support staff. Much less also cope with incoming spectator visitors.

I think London and Rio -- as surely will Paris and LA -- host close to over 20,000+ people.  One always hears 10,500 athletes -- but as you said thier support staff must be at least another 3,000.   Then there's the Press (in 2028, they will have USC;s entire housing.  I don't know at what number the IOC accredits the Press now - 8,600?).  Then there are:
- the IF officials,

- the judges and tech officials per sport;
- the various Observer teams,

- performers for the Ceremonies,

- special guests,
- parties of heads of state coming for the Opening.

For a SOG today, I'd say it's more like housing at least 22,000 people.  So, Oly2028, the real estate component is a VERY REAL and IMPORTANT piece of the puzzle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stryker said:

The host city contract means nothing and wouldn't hold up in a court of law. The IOC or IPC has no political authority. If France wants to ban Russia and Belarus they can do so on grounds of national security. 

Nope.  Wrong. Disagree with you.  "Means nothing"?  Huh, tell that to the Russian Volleyball Federation whose hosting duties for the Men's World Champs this year was, undertandaly, taken away last week.  You need to take a law course or 2.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

For a SOG today, I'd say it's more like housing at least 22,000 people.  So, Oly2028, the real estate component is a VERY REAL and IMPORTANT piece of the puzzle.  

That reminds me of how Olympic ceremonies nowadays are becoming too much of a big blur to me.

Each games not only have to host more participants than ever before, they all have to show those athletes marching into the stadium. I don't discount the important of that either. The games, after all, are for them. Not for TV viewers, not for show-biz producers, not for foo-foo entertainment concepts.

But just as I wonder how that can be modified without shortchanging the athletes, I also wonder how the housing can be modified so it's not such a huge real-estate development project. Unless becoming a major player in host cities' housing market is what the IOC wants. Maybe they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Olympics2028 said:

But just as I wonder how that can be modified without shortchanging the athletes, I also wonder how the housing can be modified so it's not such a huge real-estate development project. Unless becoming a major player in host cities' housing market is what the IOC wants. Maybe they do.

You’re welcome to make suggestions. Pitch tents? Set up caravans/trailers? Hotels aren’t the answer - most cities already have to come up with creative solutions to meet the hotel demand of guests coming to watch the games.

and it’s a non-issue, or only an issue in your mind. Olympic Villages are almost always a non-controversial aspect of any Olympic plan. Every city welcomes new residential homes or upgraded college dorms. They’re almost never seen as a loss maker or blight. They’re nigh on always a positive legacy of a games. Your main complaint seems to be  architecture/aesthetics - and that’s a maters of urban design trends, not the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

You’re welcome to make suggestions. Pitch tents? Set up caravans/trailers? Hotels aren’t the answer - most cities already have to come up with creative solutions to meet the hotel demand of guests coming to watch the games.

and it’s a non-issue, or only an issue in your mind. Olympic Villages are almost always a non-controversial aspect of any Olympic plan. Every city welcomes new residential homes or upgraded college dorms. They’re almost never seen as a loss maker or blight. They’re nigh on always a positive legacy of a games. Your main complaint seems to be  architecture/aesthetics - and that’s a maters of urban design trends, not the Olympics.

 

Probably because 2016 is still fresh in mind - and although it's only one summer games out of many - it still really put me off about "Olympics."

It's why I think the IOC needs to formally vow to no longer roll the roulette wheel of the past. They had to do that with 2022, 2024, 2028 and 2032, however. But I bet if they can get bidding wars to somehow start heating up all over again, they'll be right back to same square one.

https://architizer.com/blog/inspiration/stories/olympic-villages-after-the-games/

The Olympic village of the 2000 games to me looked way nicer and friendlier than this did:

1200px-Rio2016_julho_VilaAtletas_Barra_0

Quote

Unfinished Rebuilding Plan: Rio de Janeiro (2016)

In many cases, the Olympic Games seem unbelievably anti-sustainability. Stadiums and large scale residents are planned and built for a festival that lasts no longer than a month. Afterwards, many of them are abandoned immediately after the games, leaving structures to rust and all the money spent to evaporate into thin air.

One miserable example is the Rio 2016 Olympic Village. The Village built on a favela was originally planned to be renovated into luxury apartments for sale. In the end, however, only 7% was sold. The Olympic Park next to it was nearly vacant as well, with “…arenas shut, no shade, no food and nothing that attract tourists or locals” — as tweeted by Stephen Wade one year after the game.

I know that area in Rio has since been re-energized. So the so-called legacy of those games is not as much a downer. Still, I have absolutely no higher regard for Rio after the 2016 Olympics than I had before they took place. If anything, the 31st Olympiad of the modern era somewhat tarnished my impression of one of Brazil's most famous cities. 

Barcelona 1992 helped spiff up the image of its host city. But when a town lands the Olympics, that's not a guarantee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uhmmm . . . the IOC/IPC owns the Games.  They are the ones who SEND out the invitations -- NOT the host city.  So, just to be technical -- it's NO ONE's but the IOC's decision.  And all of that is spelled out in the Host City contracts.  If China had its way, they would have allowed their friends the Russkies and the Belas to play at the Paras.  But the IPC over-ruled them because the IPC owns the Games -- and everything vital connected with how it's run.  

Technically, it is not up to France to decide. Practically, though, for sure if France and a few dozen other countries say they can't compete with warmongers among them by the time, what other choice will the iOC have but to ban Russia and Belarus? The Beijing paralympic ban came to be through pressure by several NPCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am very pragmatic and we will make a decision when the moment comes," the Mayor of Paris said, as reported by Reuters.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1120640/hidalgo-paris-2024-russia-belarus-ban

So we're not talking about a  decision now for two years' time. And given that the IOC are currently disallowing Russian and Belarusian athletes, I don't think there's any need to assume that a conflict between the next host and the IOC is on the horizon. If the situation is anything like what it is at the moment, the ban will surely continue.

I guess the question is; are there any scenarios where the IOC will want to lift said ban but where Paris thinks its too soon? I don't know the answer to that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob. said:

"I am very pragmatic and we will make a decision when the moment comes," the Mayor of Paris said, as reported by Reuters.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1120640/hidalgo-paris-2024-russia-belarus-ban

So we're not talking about a  decision now for two years' time. And given that the IOC are currently disallowing Russian and Belarusian athletes, I don't think there's any need to assume that a conflict between the next host and the IOC is on the horizon. If the situation is anything like what it is at the moment, the ban will surely continue.

I guess the question is; are there any scenarios where the IOC will want to lift said ban but where Paris thinks its too soon? I don't know the answer to that.

 

That might be an oppertunity for other countries who have not won a medal to earn one for the first time ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, where did my posts go, the one about the urban high-rise format of Rio 2016 versus the resort low-rise format of Sydney 2000? And the other one about how Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) and its Eastern-bloc alliance boycotted the 1984 games, so an Olympics without those major powerhouses isn't unknown.

If someone judged those posts as somehow less relevant for "Paris 2024," the 2024 village look like it's going to be lower density than 2020/2021 and 2016 were. It looks like Paris's village will have a friendlier vibe than the towers where athletes at the Tokyo and Rio games stayed.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...