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

You are trying to transpose the Rio / Durban argument to a 2022 thread. Don't.

I'm sorry. Considering how the thread is going back & forth here with various themes, & someone else actually mentioned Rio first, I didn't find it too outta the ordinary. Didn't realize you were the thread police, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These "non-stories" are interesting in that they all emphasize the idea that people are mindful of the expense and looking for practical solutions. On a certain level it makes sense to think about a recent host with existing infrastructure, but of course we know it will never happen. Clearly it's not just Europe that sees the problems here.

It does seem incredibly wasteful to keep building the same facilities all over the world every four years, but if this is the paradigm the IOC is married to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you advocating a permanent host city or a rotating list AF?

I don't think either of those will ever happen.

The only single permanent city that makes sense is Athens, but the IOC would have to handle all maintenance and staffing. Don't really see that.

Rotation seems a little more possible, but picking the cities would be a nightmare. Inevitably some would get sick of hosting and have to be replaced. It would be more fiscally responsible, but again the odds

Oops.

The odds of this happening are slim to none.

The best bet is for the IOC to seek out hosts with existing infrastructure rather than aggressive building campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So effectively limit the games to cities that have already hosted - & recently?

No. But I think it's pretty clear that massive Olympic-specific building campaigns (a la Beijing and Sochi) are not the way forward.

Cities who want to host need to develop their sports infrastructure gradually over a period of time by hosting a variety of lesser events so that they don't have to build whole parks especially for the Games.

Also, the IOC needs to adopt more realistic expectations in terms of compactness, capacity, etc. They should favor bids with existing and temporary venues.

Glamour Games in purpose-built Olympic parks are spectacular in the short-term, but will seriously compromise the Olympic movement in the long-term. Giving the Games to a "new frontier" with few venues and very limited experience is sentencing both the host city and the Olympic movement to a plethora of difficulties and likely negative consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're almost to the point where you're going to have to throw out the existing bids and limit to recent hosts just to show that you're listening to most of the world.

There's an anger about these things these days... and it's not just the Olympics.

(Which reminds me to mention that, never mind the IOC's tone-deafness... better them than FIFA. You can go back as far as South Africa, and maybe even Germany, and come to the realization that FIFA's ExCo seems to have made this a stadium-building exercise when that should almost never be the case.)


Excuse me... throw out the current 2022 bids and start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These "non-stories" are interesting in that they all emphasize the idea that people are mindful of the expense and looking for practical solutions. On a certain level it makes sense to think about a recent host with existing infrastructure, but of course we know it will never happen. Clearly it's not just Europe that sees the problems here.

It does seem incredibly wasteful to keep building the same facilities all over the world every four years, but if this is the paradigm the IOC is married to.

especially things like luge tracks and ski jumps. you've got to have a solid plan to where those get used by the host nation's athletes and i guess get entered into the WC rotations. (can you make any money off them, even if they are?)

of course everyone could use an all-purpose convention center-type facility, or whatever they put weightlifting in, after an olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These "non-stories" are interesting in that they all emphasize the idea that people are mindful of the expense and looking for practical solutions. On a certain level it makes sense to think about a recent host with existing infrastructure, but of course we know it will never happen. Clearly it's not just Europe that sees the problems here.

It does seem incredibly wasteful to keep building the same facilities all over the world every four years, but if this is the paradigm the IOC is married to.

Yes and no. Taking the sliding track dilemma. Right now there are only 17 Olympic-caliber sliding tracks in the world. Almost all of them (mostly aside from the ones in Germany) were purpose-built for the Olympics. But think about tracks over the years. The Cesana track used for the 2006 Olympics closed down. The `84 track became a casualty of the war in Yugoslavia. So it's not like there's a great wealth of facilities for these sports out there. South Korea probably isn't about to become a big force in the sliding sports, but at least now there's a 2nd location in Asia for athletes to train and compete.

The idea, as you alluded to, is to make these facilities more practical and efficient. The track used for the 2006 Olympics is that exact opposite of that. Lasted through less than 2 Olympics. And it was extremely expensive to build. Contrast that with Whistler or Park City.. yes, it's the 2nd track in the country, but at least it's a 2nd place to train and allows for a wider competition schedule. What I think needs to happen is for the IOC and the sport federations to no longer expect the biggest and best facility every time out. It shouldn't be on an Olympic host to try and out-do the previous host. If the IOC continues to expect that though, that's where they're going to get themselves in trouble.

ETA: And let's be honest here.. they're already in trouble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no. Taking the sliding track dilemma. Right now there are only 17 Olympic-caliber sliding tracks in the world. Almost all of them (mostly aside from the ones in Germany) were purpose-built for the Olympics. But think about tracks over the years. The Cesana track used for the 2006 Olympics closed down. The `84 track became a casualty of the war in Yugoslavia. So it's not like there's a great wealth of facilities for these sports out there. South Korea probably isn't about to become a big force in the sliding sports, but at least now there's a 2nd location in Asia for athletes to train and compete.

The idea, as you alluded to, is to make these facilities more practical and efficient. The track used for the 2006 Olympics is that exact opposite of that. Lasted through less than 2 Olympics. And it was extremely expensive to build. Contrast that with Whistler or Park City.. yes, it's the 2nd track in the country, but at least it's a 2nd place to train and allows for a wider competition schedule. What I think needs to happen is for the IOC and the sport federations to no longer expect the biggest and best facility every time out. It shouldn't be on an Olympic host to try and out-do the previous host. If the IOC continues to expect that though, that's where they're going to get themselves in trouble.

ETA: And let's be honest here.. they're already in trouble

The sliding track is the single most problematic venue. Expensive with few legacy prospects. I don't think it makes for a great case study. I agree, however, that the IOC needs to relax their standards significantly. They need to lighten the burden on the hosts as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to create temporary luge tracks and ski jumps? I feel like that type of innovation should be part of the solution here, if possible.

A temporary ski jump or sliding center would be nearly the same price as a permanent one. You still have to build temporary venues strong enough to be safe and of high enough quality to satisfy the athletes, fans, federations, broadcasters, etc. If you were to build a temporary sliding track, which parts would be done on the cheap? The only real savings I can see are in the stands, but those are already usually temporary. At least the ski jump stands were in Salt Lake City and Vancouver.

Temporary venues are more important in areas where the land itself holds a lot of value and you can turn it into something else afterwards. I'm not sure what you would replace a temporary ski jump with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sliding track is the single most problematic venue. Expensive with few legacy prospects. I don't think it makes for a great case study. I agree, however, that the IOC needs to relax their standards significantly. They need to lighten the burden on the hosts as much as possible.

The sliding track isn't always a burden though. Forget Sochi and whatever legacy their track does (or doesn't leave). Yes, you have Cesana which was a financial disaster. But that's more the exception than it is the rule. No question it's an expensive piece of any Olympics, but plenty of past hosts still have their tracks in use for World Cup events and other competitions. Whistler, Park City, Hunderfossen, La Plagne, Calgary, Lake Placid, Igls.. all still host competitions. Now if we were talking about a U.S. Olympic bid from a city other than Salt Lake, then yes, it would bring up the question of the viability of another sliding track. I still think Cesana is more an outlier than anything and shouldn't be the defining example of what the future of a sliding track should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sliding track isn't always a burden though. Forget Sochi and whatever legacy their track does (or doesn't leave). Yes, you have Cesana which was a financial disaster. But that's more the exception than it is the rule. No question it's an expensive piece of any Olympics, but plenty of past hosts still have their tracks in use for World Cup events and other competitions. Whistler, Park City, Hunderfossen, La Plagne, Calgary, Lake Placid, Igls.. all still host competitions. Now if we were talking about a U.S. Olympic bid from a city other than Salt Lake, then yes, it would bring up the question of the viability of another sliding track. I still think Cesana is more an outlier than anything and shouldn't be the defining example of what the future of a sliding track should be.

But come on. How many cities are saying to themselves, "if only we had a sliding track! Then this joint would really be jumping!"

It's a super expensive part of the Games that nobody really needs or wants. Sure, they may be able to make some use of it after it's built, but it will never pay for itself. There are plenty of venues for the luge/bob/skeleton competitions around the world. Nobody really needs more. The money just gets thrown away on a non-essential, guaranteed money-loser because it's part of the Olympic program.

I'm not necessarily saying the events should be scrapped. I'm just saying there's not much the IOC can do to lessen the burden on hosts where sliding sports are concerned -- apart from choosing hosts that already have a track.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But come on. How many cities are saying to themselves, "if only we had a sliding track! Then this joint would really be jumping!"

It's a super expensive part of the Games that nobody really needs or wants. Sure, they may be able to make some use of it after it's built, but it will never pay for itself. There are plenty of venues for the luge/bob/skeleton competitions around the world. Nobody really needs more. The money just gets thrown away on a non-essential, guaranteed money-loser because it's part of the Olympic program.

I'm not necessarily saying the events should be scrapped. I'm just saying there's not much the IOC can do to lessen the burden on hosts where sliding sports are concerned -- apart from choosing hosts that already have a track.

Such a GamesBids post, I love it.

No, of course cities aren't going to build a sliding track for the heck of it without an Olympics (mostly since other venues are likely to be a part of that package). Worth noting about Salt Lake though.. as early as 1989, there was a referendum vote to use funding to build winter sports facilities in the SLC area. That was in advance of the vote for the `98 Olympics (which SLC officials were less than confident they'd win). Construction continued even after they lost the vote for 1998. And construction started on the sliding track before they won the 2002 vote. I know this is a different time and place we're talking about, but it's not so long ago that it should be forgotten.

And if we're going to talk about costs, let's put things in perspective. The Whistler Sliding Centre cost C$105 million to build. Whistler Olympic park, home to all the Nordic skiing events cost C$120 million. Plus let's be honest.. most facilities for a Winter Olympics aren't born out of need. The sliding venue is hardly alone in that regard. Are other facilities paying for themselves or getting good use? Probably not. That said, how many American athletes are benefiting from the facilities in Utah? Maybe they're making a buck or 2 hosting competitions and hosting tourists on their runs down the hill (I know I've done that myself at Lake Placid). Again, you could point to a number of sports that by removing them from the Olympic program, the Games would be more managable and less costly. The sliding venue is probably one of the bigger offenders in that regard, but it's not the only problem venue.

So what's the solution? Like you, I have no idea. With this and other issues facing the IOC, there are probably ways to mitigate these problems without resorting to the nuclear option of eliminating sports entirely from the Olympics. Maybe it's on the IOC and the sport federations to not expect the biggest and best facility every time out so that these venues don't come with excessively high costs. It's been done before. I believe it could happen again in the right time and place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if we're going to talk about costs, let's put things in perspective. The Whistler Sliding Centre cost C$105 million to build. Whistler Olympic park, home to all the Nordic skiing events cost C$120 million. Plus let's be honest.. most facilities for a Winter Olympics aren't born out of need. The sliding venue is hardly alone in that regard. Are other facilities paying for themselves or getting good use? Probably not. That said, how many American athletes are benefiting from the facilities in Utah? Maybe they're making a buck or 2 hosting competitions and hosting tourists on their runs down the hill (I know I've done that myself at Lake Placid). Again, you could point to a number of sports that by removing them from the Olympic program, the Games would be more managable and less costly. The sliding venue is probably one of the bigger offenders in that regard, but it's not the only problem venue.

So what's the solution? Like you, I have no idea. With this and other issues facing the IOC, there are probably ways to mitigate these problems without resorting to the nuclear option of eliminating sports entirely from the Olympics. Maybe it's on the IOC and the sport federations to not expect the biggest and best facility every time out so that these venues don't come with excessively high costs. It's been done before. I believe it could happen again in the right time and place.

The sliding center may not be the most expensive of venues, but #105 million is still money nobody wants to spend if they don't have to.

True, most venues are not born out of need, but most are a heck of a lot more useful than a sliding center. Most can be repurposed post Games in ways that can pay for themselves. Very tough with a bobsleigh track.

I think part of the solution is allowing longer travel times in a few exceptional circumstances. I don't want to see the Olympics spread hither and yon, but if there's an extant sliding track 4 or 5 hours from the host city, perhaps it's reasonable to try to work with it. Of course the challenge with this is that you have to draw the line somewhere. National borders? How many sports can be 4-5 hours from the host? It gets messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sliding track isn't always a burden though. Forget Sochi and whatever legacy their track does (or doesn't leave). Yes, you have Cesana which was a financial disaster. But that's more the exception than it is the rule. No question it's an expensive piece of any Olympics, but plenty of past hosts still have their tracks in use for World Cup events and other competitions. Whistler, Park City, Hunderfossen, La Plagne, Calgary, Lake Placid, Igls.. all still host competitions.

Sort of. The Hunderfossen track hosts luge events occasionally, but I don't think it has hosted a World Cup bobsled/skeleton event in at least 15 years. La Plagne did not host any events from 2002-2012. It was reopened to competition in 2012 after the Cesana track closed so that the FIBT would have another World Cup venue in Europe. The Lake Placid luge and bobsled runs were too dangerous to use for competition by the late-90s. I'm not sure there would still be a competitive track in Lake Placid if Ted Turner hadn't paid for a new track to be built for the 2000 Winter Goodwill Games. The Nagano track has hosted only a few events since 1998, though perhaps they will be able to host more events once the Korea track is built. In short, of the 11 Olympic tracks since 1976, 1 has been destroyed (Sarajevo), 1 has closed (Cesana), 1 has been replaced (Lake Placid), 1 is never used for competition (Nagano), and 2 have been used very sparingly for competition (La Plagne and Hunderfossen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the IOC needs to move toward a temporary solution for these events.

That sounds impossible where the sliding sports are concerned.

This article puts some things into an interesting perspective:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/28/winter-olympics-2022-games-nobody-wants

Ouch. It ends on a bitter note where 2012 is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sliding tracks today cost 20x what the did 30 years ago. Why?

Old ones were usually natural. New ones are artificial. Greater safety concerns, technology advancements, wanting to "one-up" the others has jacked up the price too.

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...