Jump to content

Which 4 cities do u think will make the 2022 Short List?


baron-pierreIV
 Share

Which will be the 2022 Finalist cities?  

116 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick 4 that u think will make the Short List.

    • Almaty
      77
    • Beijing-Yankeejoe
      68
    • Krakow-Jasna
      81
    • Lviv
      27
    • Oslo-Kvitjfell
      108
    • Stockholm-Are
      72


Recommended Posts

The IOC seem to live in denial that they have a problem, so don't see the need for improvement. When Bach is cited with "Sochi made a surplus", you cannot have much faith in a realistic assessment of the situation...

I found an interesting comment in insidethegames.biz about Bach's visit:

Thomas Bach was completely dismissive of any criticism to IOC on his visit to Norway. He explained western countries dropping out of the bid process to firstly being because "they were happy with their hotels being fully booked", and secondly, because of "false impressions" of high costs. This was a blow to the Oslo2022 campaign, who have painted an image of Bach in Norway as a IOC leader who "understands" IOCs failings, and want to reform the organization, and needs Oslo2022 to facilitate this.

(...)

The only comment I´ve seen independent of the Oslo2022 camp, was from Amnesty Norway. Amnesty Norway was disappointed with the visit: http://www.amnesty.no/aktuelt/skuffende-møte-med-ioc-president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrogance comes before the fall.

However, as I commented months ago, I'm not sure the IOC would consider Beijing or Almaty a "fall." Perhaps they're really just fine with three Asian Games in a row. Personally, I'm not. And it doesn't seem that most people on these boards are, but is it possible that the IOC genuinely is?

I will say this: I can't stand Bach. He's an out-of-touch blowhard. It's patently obvious. Yuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran p85's quote from Norwegian Amnesty through Google translate. Apparently Bach refused all requests for stricter controls regarding human rights violations. He said the IOC is totally happy with its current system and that it works just fine. Amnesty is demanding that certain human rights benchmarks be included in the bidding criteria for prospective hosts. Bach apparently was not on board.

Repulsive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stand him either. He's an ignorant moron. Rogge looks like the greatest guy in the world in comparison.

From every ceremony forward when they announce Bach and the fact that he's a gold medalist in fencing, I'm going to feel sick to my stomach.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another article in the mainstream media on the current mini-crisis:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/does-anyone-want-to-host-the-2022-winter-olympics-195531135.html

Is it true that Nagano still hasn't paid off their debt? I know they burned their financial and administrative documents to keep the public from seeing them, but surely government debt should be a matter of public record.

While part of this is the fault of the IOC, let's not forget who is typically leading the bidding process of potential host cities: property developers. Nobody is forcing Tokyo to hire starchitects to create fantasy buildings: Tokyo has chosen to do that. And nobody forced Brazil to bid when doing so means taking money away from education and economic development programs. Brazil's politicians chose to do that. If politicians and property developers in the bid cities go to bed together that's not the IOC's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the IOC encourages this prodigality by rewarding those bids. The IOC does not care about fiscal responsibility. They don't care who pays for their party or hat sacrifices are made.

All they care about is the image of the games. Now they are starting to see their image is bad, however it looks like they are trying to send the blame down to the host cities and countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the IOC encourages this prodigality by rewarding those bids. The IOC does not care about fiscal responsibility. They don't care who pays for their party or hat sacrifices are made.

I don't think they actually prefer those bids. Obviously they want modern venues, but I doubt they care whether Tokyo's stadium was designed by Zaha Hadid or is a simple design, as long as it seats 80,000 and works for the broadcasters. Unless they choose to snub all non-first world, western countries they will have to accept the issues we saw in Beijing and Sochi. And eventually they DO have to pick non-democratic and second world countries to host, or the Olympics will become political.

I think people are focusing on a few high profile issues rather than the things that really cost billions. Putting the IOC in a 5 star hotel is irritating, but Sochi didn't cost 51 billion because of a three week hotel bill. It cost that much because of rampant corruption with Putin's cronies doing the construction work. We didn't see that with Vancouver and London. And while the games are too bloated it's silly to think that what happened in Sochi would also happen in Oslo, Vienna or Denver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sochi cost 51 billion because it was a testament to one man's hubris. In a country literally blanketed with ice and snow they chose THE ONE CITY that is warm and sunny for Winter Games. And the IOC supported that approach every step of the way. The ice rink in Guatemala City made it crystal clear how Putin would approach the Games and the IOC ate it up. They fell all over themselves. They wanted the lavish, over-the-top approach -- a whole city built just for them. They are absolutely responsible for the consequences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sochi cost 51 billion because it was a testament to one man's hubris. In a country literally blanketed with ice and snow they chose THE ONE CITY that is warm and sunny for Winter Games.

I don't entirely disagree, but while most of Russia is covered in snow during the winter, most of Russia is also as flat as Minnesota. IIRC, there aren't any ski resorts in the Urals that meet the height requirements for alpine skiing that are within easy reach of Yekaterinburg. And Vladivostok is a no go because of their terrible winter weather. And it would also need a tourism industry built from scratch, with no hope whatsoever of future use.

There are a very small number of cities that would be good Olympic hosts. For winter there are probably a dozen in Europe, maybe half that number in North America and perhaps two or three in Asia. For the current 10-12,000 athlete version of the summer games, any city that isn't an alpha city with a lot of land to spare would be a poor host. There are around a dozen such cities in the world. There are way more countries and regions than there are capable hosts, so the IOC is going to have to award some games to hosts that will struggle with aspects of hosting.

Because of this, I think cities that aren't well suited to host need to take responsibility for their own actions. If they can't handle hosting they shouldn't bid. Unfortunately recent events have also scared off cities who could manage the games. That part certainly is the fault of the IOC. Instead of making stupid statements about how Sochi made a profit and will leave a great legacy, they need to point to Vancouver and say that European countries can host without ruining their economy. But Russia's extravagance itself isn't their fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is their fault. They opened the door. They could've gone with PC and instead they went with Sochi because it was flashier. And that doesn't even take Salzburg into account (really, it was the 2014 bid that made the most sense). Without the IOC embracing Putin's razzle-dazzle prodigality Sochi could not have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is their fault. They opened the door. They could've gone with PC and instead they went with Sochi because it was flashier. And that doesn't even take Salzburg into account (really, it was the 2014 bid that made the most sense). Without the IOC embracing Putin's razzle-dazzle prodigality Sochi could not have happened.

To play Devil’s Advocate.

It’s easy enough to be wise in hindsight. Yeah, Sochi’s legacy may well be now one of the black eyes of the Olympics, but back in 2007 in Guatemala City, it was received pretty reasonably. The idea of it all being created from scratch was generally, in the wider media as well as here, was received, well, that like China, the Russkis could be relied upon to make sure and pay whatever it takes to get it all done. Which they indeed did… just that nobody (including the IOC) predicted or was really expecting the kind of grotesque expenditures that get bandied about now. The whole reason $51 billion is so appalling and surprising is because it is so unprecedented and beyond the realms of even the most vehement Olympic doomsayer of the time. And, of course, Europe’s also looking at this through the prism of being the most bruised region still coming out of the intervening GFC. Not to mention Sochi's infamy's been embellished a lot too - after the fact - with events in the Ukraine.

Beyond that, like the 2018 World Cup, Sochi’s election was generally considered an understandable, fair and timely call at the time. Certainly here, I can’t really remember beyond one vehement disapprover. Wasn't really much disquiet heating up about it until, what? Maybe a year or a bit more ago?

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tempering viewpoint is certainly not without support. However, I still have a real problem with the idea that the Russians ran amok and the poor, innocent IOC had no hand in it and was appalled at the spending and gigantism involved. Heck, even now Bach is totally unapologetic for Sochi's gross excesses. That's called enabling.

Truthfully, I'm not sure how many of us realized the radical disparity between the existing venues in Salzburg and the absolute nothing that was Sochi. This was not emphasized in the evaluation report. Just like the report downplayed crime, poverty and transportation times for Rio, it obscured the reality of Sochi. That was a decision that the IOC made. They chose a viewpoint and wrote the report accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play Devil’s Advocate.

It’s easy enough to be wise in hindsight. Yeah, Sochi’s legacy may well be now one of the black eyes of the Olympics, but back in 2007 in Guatemala City, it was received pretty reasonably. The idea of it all being created from scratch was generally, in the wider media as well as here, was received, well, that like China, the Russkis could be relied upon to make sure and pay whatever it takes to get it all done. Which they indeed did… just that nobody (including the IOC) predicted or was really expecting the kind of grotesque expenditures that get bandied about now. The whole reason $51 billion is so appalling and surprising is because it is so unprecedented and beyond the realms of even the most vehement Olympic doomsayer of the time. And, of course, Europe’s also looking at this through the prism of being the most bruised region still coming out of the intervening GFC. Not to mention Sochi's infamy's been embellished a lot too - after the fact - with events in the Ukraine.

Beyond that, like the 2018 World Cup, Sochi’s election was generally considered an understandable, fair and timely call at the time. Certainly here, I can’t really remember beyond one vehement disapprover. Wasn't really much disquiet heating up about it until, what? Maybe a year or a bit more ago?

I think the 2018 world cup wasn't much of an outrage because Qatar's announcement for 2022 was beyond ridiculous.

I agree that in 2007 it didn't seem that Russia and Sochi would spiral into the way it is now. It's the IOC's fault, they should have voted for the city that was better evaluated. They didn't just turn up one option that was better ranked, but 2. They brought this on themselves. Just like with Rio, they desperately wanted to cross South America off the list and now it seems to be stumbling. Bit irrelevant but the people I talk to know I love the Olympics and nearly everyone has mentioned the fact that Rio is drastically behind schedule and that the IOC vice president has expressed concern.

The IOC should stick to the safe cities and safe choice if they want the Olympics to continue. Safer cities generally = lower budgets which entices more cities to bid.

However, it's a problem if Oslo pulls out of 2022 cause there stuck with Beijing (the 2008 olympics weren't cheap either) or Almaty (i'm not too sure if they will have a budget blowout but who knows?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tempering viewpoint is certainly not without support. However, I still have a real problem with the idea that the Russians ran amok and the poor, innocent IOC had no hand in it and was appalled at the spending and gigantism involved. Heck, even now Bach is totally unapologetic for Sochi's gross excesses. That's called enabling.

Truthfully, I'm not sure how many of us realized the radical disparity between the existing venues in Salzburg and the absolute nothing that was Sochi. This was not emphasized in the evaluation report. Just like the report downplayed crime, poverty and transportation times for Rio, it obscured the reality of Sochi. That was a decision that the IOC made. They chose a viewpoint and wrote the report accordingly.

Again to play Devil's Advocate.

$51 billion has become a very effective bludgeon for IOC criticism. The IOC has certainly done a very poor job dealing with it and addressing it.

But,

The figure itself is unofficial. It's cited over and over again, but no-one's owned it.

It was an estimate, factoring in corruption (and, yes, the money trail is murky and distasteful), for a wider infrastructure transformation to transform Sochi into Russia's all-seasons holiday seaside Central. Their Costa del Sol with nearby mountains. The Sochi Games were a kick starter to it, but a component of a wider mega project nevertheless. The OCOG costs a drop in the lake of even that. I'd say there is a justification for the IOC for not owning the $51 billion. I'd give them a fail for their efforts to explain it, but I can see their position.

Salzburg's bid wasn't without its problems. I seem to recall it suffered a bit of internal organisational instability, as well as the issue (which still seems to be a big problem for lots of people in the 2022 bids) of venues across a national border. It was not one that was setting much enthusiasm alight at the times - to the despair of Austrians here at the time.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 2018 world cup wasn't much of an outrage because Qatar's announcement for 2022 was beyond ridiculous.

No, Russia was a pre-vote favourite for 2018 and generally approved of. The money was on the Russia-US double. Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sochi getting 2014 was criminal: it was all bid and no existing infrastructure, in a country with dubious leadership. There was another bid that was superior in every respect except one: security. But given Sochi's position in the Caucasus and Pyeonchang's proximity to the DMZ, that's a wash.

Russia got the Games because:

  1. It was bizarre that such a winter sport powerhouse had never hosted them--the last of the powerhouses to not have done so, in fact.
  2. Russian whinging about being treated badly by "the West": turning things like judging scandals and drug cheats into some bizarre anti-Russian conspiracy nonsense.
  3. Bad aftertaste from Korean IOC scandals still in enough members' mouths.
  4. Putin's speech in English as a metaphor for cooperation.

If 2014 had gone to Pyeonchang the Russians would've probably not bid for 2018 (*pout*) and Munich would have those OWGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, even now Bach is totally unapologetic for Sochi's gross excesses. That's called enabling.

This is really the problem, IMO. The IOC has to make it clear that 51 billion isn't the new normal for the Olympics, but a one time thing with Russia trying to build a city from scratch. Oslo would still pay a lot of money, but it would probably be a tenth of the cost of Sochi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really the problem, IMO. The IOC has to make it clear that 51 billion isn't the new normal for the Olympics, but a one time thing with Russia trying to build a city from scratch. Oslo would still pay a lot of money, but it would probably be a tenth of the cost of Sochi.

I can't see 2022 costing anyone less than 8 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see 2022 costing anyone less than 8 billion.

That's still only one sixth of the cost of Sochi. The point is that a metropolis with existing tourism infrastructure and venues is going to be able to host for a small fraction of the 51 billion USD figure people keep throwing around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's still only one sixth of the cost of Sochi. The point is that a metropolis with existing tourism infrastructure and venues is going to be able to host for a small fraction of the 51 billion USD figure people keep throwing around.

Sure. I think everyone knows they don't have to spend what Sochi did. But 8 billion still isn't chicken feed -- and I think that number is optimistic. I don't think your 10% figure is workable.

Plus, I suspect ego plays into this. No one wants to look bad in comparison to the glamour Games. If the only way to compete is to spend like crazy (even if it's "only" 25% of what Sochi spent), might as well sit it out.

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...