Tony E Loves Architecture Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 If people keep going on about compact Venue cluster, then Lviv is compact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrpetr Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 What you mean? Oslo - Lillehammer - 136km Lviv - Volovets - 184km Krakow - Jasna - 185km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 What you mean? Oslo - Lillehammer - 136km Lviv - Volovets - 184km Krakow - Jasna - 185km Like I said, the Lviv CLUSTER, not the whole plan, the Cluster is planned around the Arena Lviv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 All those logos are solid and unique. I tend towards #3 (snowdrift/mountain), but like all of them in their own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrpetr Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Like I said, the Lviv CLUSTER, not the whole plan, the Cluster is planned around the Arena Lviv. Sorry, I misunderstood you. As far as I remember Arena Lviv is located in the middle of nowhere. Does it mean all venues and infrastructure are going to be build from scratch here? And budget of Lviv bid is only 3 bln USD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Sorry, I misunderstood you. As far as I remember Arena Lviv is located in the middle of nowhere. Does it mean all venues and infrastructure are going to be build from scratch here? And budget of Lviv bid is only 3 bln USD? The Ice events, so Ice Hockey, Speed Skating and Curling E.T.C, are proposed to be constructed around the Arena Lviv, if Lviv wins. The Snow events will be in The Carpathian Mountains. Also, as we all agree that Lviv won't win, I could see Kiev Bidding for 2024 Summer Olympics, with Olympic Stadium in Kiev as the main Stadium in the Bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Kiev 2024 would be just as hopeless as Lviv 2022. This is simply not the time for Ukraine - yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p85 Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 As far as I remember Arena Lviv is located in the middle of nowhere. I might actually defend that middle-of-nowhere location. It's near to the Lviv's Main Bypass Road, just next to the junction with M06 road, that directly heads towards Tysovets Ice Zone. Plus it's placed only 8 km from the Lviv Airport. Planty of undeveloped space near to the Lviv Arena, and the multipurpose arena is just being built there for 2015 EuroBasket Championship. Does it mean all venues and infrastructure are going to be build from scratch here? And budget of Lviv bid is only 3 bln USD? Planty of venues in Lviv Zone are proposed to be built from scratch. The only existing are Lviv Arena, that being-constructed multipurpose venue, and "Ukraina Stadium" as a freestyle venue. I think it looks way worse when it comes to the Ice Zone based in Tysovets. The only venue that could be used (after a major renovation) is a biathlon track. And the Alpine skiing venue in Volovets of course should be built from the very scratch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world atlas Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 lviv 2022 bid logo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Geez, these people are in SUCH denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Geez, these people are in SUCH denial. IKR! But the logo looks pretty damn good! lviv 2022 bid logo That's beautiful! Also here were the others: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikarus360 Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 This article makes me ask myself why they're still doing this bid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25988661 If the IOC gives the games to this government, I'm going to lose all the remaining faith I have on them. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 IKR! But the logo looks pretty damn good! That's beautiful! Also here were the others: Very nice choice of logo. Quite distinctive. Too bad the bid is DOA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger87 Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Very nice choice of logo. Quite distinctive. Too bad the bid is DOA. Agreed on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 what a corny logo. How many friends does Bubka have in the IOC??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 How many friends does Bubka have in the IOC??? Apparently not that many, considering his least amount of votes in the final round in the presidential election last September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony E Loves Architecture Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Geez, these people are in SUCH denial. So was the Doha 2020 delegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Lviv logo jpeg version: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
politician Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 It's rather irresponsible of the Lviv municipal government to not immediately rescind its bid. There is no chance of Lviv being chosen to host the 2022 Olympics; indeed, current events suggest Ukraine may be out of the running for the next few rounds of bidding. The national government is collapsing, protests are massive and countrywide, the president is intransigent and the country is on the verge of a civil war that would serve as a proxy war between the EU and Russia. There are only 4 legitimate bids left: Almaty, Krakow, Beijing and Oslo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Depends how one defines "legitimate". But if we're gonna go by the strict technical sense, then there's really only one option here, & that's Oslo. After the mess that is becoming Sochi 2014, the IOC truly needs to go "back to basics" to quote member Heidberg. Krakow could be a second option in that sense, but even there the Poles would have quite a bit to do. And Beijing isn't really all that attractive either, only a last resort option if the IOC were to get backed into a corner (like Oslo perhaps withdrawing too, for example). And Almaty, well, not really legitimate in the definitive sense. The IOC really needs to put things back into proper perspective for a change. They've pushed the envelope far enough with the last few elections. Time to get back to & reality & practicality before diving into pool of uncertainly with new locales again. At least until we see how they actually play out as hosts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
politician Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Depends how one defines "legitimate". But if we're gonna go by the strict technical sense, then there's really only one option here, & that's Oslo. After the mess that is becoming Sochi 2014, the IOC truly needs to go "back to basics" to quote member Heidberg. Krakow could be a second option in that sense, but even there the Poles would have quite a bit to do. And Beijing isn't really all that attractive either, only a last resort option if the IOC were to get backed into a corner (like Oslo perhaps withdrawing too, for example). And Almaty, well, not really legitimate in the definitive sense. The IOC really needs to put things back into proper perspective for a change. They've pushed the envelope far enough with the last few elections. Time to get back to & reality & practicality before diving into pool of uncertainly with new locales again. At least until we see how they actually play out as hosts. I am really surprised by the number of people who don't consider Almaty's bid to stand much of a chance. Indeed, it's why I signed up to this site. In reading what little there is written thus far about 2022 (aside from extensive articles on Stockholm's dropping out and Norwegian ennui towards the games), Almaty appears to be seen as the only threat to Oslo. Rather than go over the reasons again, you can see the posts I provided over the last couple hours in the Oslo and Almaty threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm actually surprised by your vehement support of Almaty despite myself & others highlighting the concerns, over your posts, an Almaty games could/would bring. You've pointed out many superficial & technical points about Almaty, but none of them really explain "why" Almaty should get the Games. Like Rio's "it's time for South America", or China's "it's time to give 1/5 of humanity the Games". You call Almaty "exotic", but I would attach that label to mystical Krakow instead, really. I won't go over my counter points again either, since I & others have already done so & you can go over them again as well. At this point, I just have to wonder what's your big partiality with Almaty, TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
politician Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm actually surprised by your vehement support of Almaty despite myself & others highlighting the concerns, over your posts, an Almaty games could/would bring. You've pointed out many superficial & technical points about Almaty, but none of them really explain "why" Almaty should get the Games. Like Rio's "it's time for South America", or China's "it's time to give 1/5 of humanity the Games". You call Almaty "exotic", but I would attach that label to mystical Krakow instead, really. I won't go over my counter points again either, since I & others have already done so & you can go over them again as well. At this point, I just have to wonder what's your big partiality with Almaty, TBH. You act as if it's a certain science, and given the proper variables you can determine the outcome with certainty. I'm merely arguing that - as I see it - Almaty is seriously underestimated. Oslo is the most likely to receive the games, but I believe - for reasons I've given and can expand upon - that Almaty is likely the current runner-up with Krakow being the only other serious contender. If I come off overly enthused about Almaty, part of that is attributable to a personal interest in seeing regions and cultures of the world that have generally been ignored given this level of attention and part of it that I simply believe that people generally strongly underestimate the significance of Kazakhstan's rise and the seriousness of Almaty's bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 You act as if it's a certain science, and given the proper variables you can determine the outcome with certainty. I'm merely arguing that - as I see it - Almaty is seriously underestimated. I'm doing no such thing. 'I'm merely arguing (as have others, too) as I see it' as well. I don't think that it's really a matter of "underestimating" Almaty, but one where you're overestimating them. Oslo is the most likely to receive the games, but I believe - for reasons I've given and can expand upon - that Almaty is likely the current runner-up with Krakow being the only other serious contender. You've only cited statistic-like reasons. But nothing compelling as yo WHY you think that a country with an extremely low Winter Sports tradition, with a less than democratic government in a relatively isolated part of the world, should get the Winter Games. Nothing that you've 'expanded' upon gives any reason to do so whatsoever, other than "I'm a believer of the Olympics going to new places". So am I, but there still needs to be a strong narrative of doing so in the first place. If I come off overly enthused about Almaty, part of that is attributable to a personal interest in seeing regions and cultures of the world that have generally been ignored given this level of attention and part of it that I simply believe that people generally strongly underestimate the significance of Kazakhstan's rise and the seriousness of Almaty's bid. Again, so am I. I would like to see Africa hosts it's very first Olympics ever. But unlike Africa (or South America or China) for that matter, there still isn't enough to send the Winter Olympics to an obscure part of the world simply just for the sake of it. Which seems the basis of your argument, TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
politician Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I'm doing no such thing. 'I'm merely arguing (as have others, too) as I see it' as well. I don't think that it's really a matter of "underestimating" Almaty, but one where you're overestimating them. That's fine, then - and if I misconstrue what you're arguing I, again, apologize. My whole interest in the topic currently stems from the dynamics between what I see as viable cities and I do believe that many arguments I've read do not appear aware of the tremendous and fundamental shift we're currently witnessing in international politics, where the interest of the developing world in general, and major developing powers (of which recent/future hosts China, Brazil and Russia are apart) in particular, are now competitive with the interests of traditional, western developed-countries. The IOC, as I understand it, includes voters who have extremely varied interests and are increasingly from and/or have vested interests in non-European economies/regions. European countries are no longer the foregone conclusion they were two decades ago and there are only going to be greater, not weaker, pressures to bring the games elsewhere as the emerging powers take their place on the world stage. Almaty is now the non-European choice and I think that will attract a lot of votes. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but the notion of what voters 'should' vote for and what they actually will vote for, what their interests 'should' be and actually are are are the same just doesn't seem realistic. Almaty, with a viable and likely impressive bid, will provide a very compelling non-European, non-Western alternative to IOC voters. You've only cited statistic-like reasons. But nothing compelling as yo WHY you think that a country with an extremely low Winter Sports tradition, with a less than democratic government in a relatively isolated part of the world, should get the Winter Games. Nothing that you've 'expanded' upon gives any reason to do so whatsoever, other than "I'm a believer of the Olympics going to new places". So am I, but there still needs to be a strong narrative of doing so in the first place. I am, as is apparent by now, a believer that political and economic calculations are significant motivators behind IOC votes. I believe that on it's own, Almaty is an attractive choice. It's a city in an 'up-and-coming' energy superpower that is clean, organized and can quickly and efficiently be built-upon and prepared for the games. It's nestled in the Altai mountains, untouched by the Olympics, and it is more consolidated than any of the competitor's bids. There is little reason to fear political instability or that the games wouldn't be fully funded and construction would fall behind - the funds exist and the state has the capacity. It's the last region on earth to be forced into becoming part of a modern state and - as a sovereign state - it has only been independent since 1991 with a culture of nomadism and city-states along the Silk Road. All legitimate reasons to allow a country to step onto the global stage, in my opinion, and reasons to give preference to a bid that is from a country - and region - never before represented in the Games. I also believe that being an Olympic Power should improve your right to host the games. It seems to me that this would be a way of perpetuating a viscious cycle in which countries host the games which makes their citizens more interested and them win more medals and therefore more likely to host the games while those that don't host have less capacity to improve interest in sports which leads to fewer medals and so on, and so forth. But that misses the point. I don't believe Almaty should necessarily receive the games. I'm interested in which country will win, which will be truly viable from a political perspective. I believe that there are a number of political forces favoring Almaty right now, many of which I've articulated, and I don't think the Western media has done a very good job of illustrating how these forces are reshaping the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.