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

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

Well, cost overruns for one. The Whistler track was supposed to cost $55 million. Final price tag was double that. The standards for buildings these tracks have gotten much higher. Better (but probably more expensive) materials, artificial refrigeration, and probably a lot more is involved. For better or worse, the FIBT probably won't settle for less than the best, particularly with a new track which every Olympics is for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could - they won't, but they could - tell the sliding federation to eff off. Without the Olympics, the sport ceases to exist. Oh, you guys demand we force cities to build expensive gold plated tracks? Well, maybe we make your sport optional and let the city decide

There's an idea.. what other federations could the IOC tell to piss off in an effort to save money? What other sports should be made optional? The sliding sports aren't the only offender here. There are other ways (at least I think there are) to reign them in without cutting them off entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an idea.. what other federations could the IOC tell to piss off in an effort to save money? What other sports should be made optional? The sliding sports aren't the only offender here. There are other ways (at least I think there are) to reign them in without cutting them off entirely.

I'm not advocating cutting them off entirely, but how do you "rein in" sliding sports? The venue is what it is. I don't know that reducing the number of athletes is likely to help much. Beyond that, I don't see many options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating cutting them off entirely, but how do you "rein in" sliding sports? The venue is what it is. I don't know that reducing the number of athletes is likely to help much. Beyond that, I don't see many options.

The cost of the venue has nothing to do with the number of athletes. I doubt it would be cheaper if they had only 2 of the 3 sliding sports. I doubt adding the luge relay increased the costs at all.

The issue is with the track itself and the venue. I don't know how it got so much more expensive than in the past (well, I kinda do), but there are certainly things that can be done to rein in the costs of the venue. Lake Placid's track is still used as a competition venue at the highest level. So clearly it's still a world class track that wasn't as expensive as the ones that were built after it. Ditto for Calgary in comparison to Whistler.

Again, the sliding venue for the 2010 Olympics cost nearly double what was initially projected. I don't know what made the cost skyrocket out of control, but that's the example to look at since it cost around 3 times as much to construct as the track in Utah built just 8 years earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that it is a product of building the track quickly (read: overtime for workers) in order to have it ready for test events three years before the Olympics as well as new and untested environmentally friendly technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of the venue has nothing to do with the number of athletes. I doubt it would be cheaper if they had only 2 of the 3 sliding sports. I doubt adding the luge relay increased the costs at all.

The issue is with the track itself and the venue. I don't know how it got so much more expensive than in the past (well, I kinda do), but there are certainly things that can be done to rein in the costs of the venue. Lake Placid's track is still used as a competition venue at the highest level. So clearly it's still a world class track that wasn't as expensive as the ones that were built after it. Ditto for Calgary in comparison to Whistler.

Again, the sliding venue for the 2010 Olympics cost nearly double what was initially projected. I don't know what made the cost skyrocket out of control, but that's the example to look at since it cost around 3 times as much to construct as the track in Utah built just 8 years earlier.

I know the number of athletes has nothing to do with the cost of the venue. I thought you were trying to rein in the costs of the event as a whole and in that scenario, reducing athletes was the only thing I could think of and it's not going to make much if a dent.

If you're limiting this to the venue itself, then you don't have much if an argument. You say spending can be reined in, but you don't know enough about the venue to offer concrete examples of how this is possible. Presumably the biggest expenses are the engineering/design, materials, labor and then transporting materials and crew into remote mountain regions -- none of which is likely to be cut down much.

Thanks to inflation and rising costs of materials it makes sense that Lake Placid (which was rebuilt later) would be less expensive than its successors.

You can accuse Sochi of gilding the lily, but not Vancouver. If it were so easy to "rein in" costs, I'm sure they would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the number of athletes has nothing to do with the cost of the venue. I thought you were trying to rein in the costs of the event as a whole and in that scenario, reducing athletes was the only thing I could think of and it's not going to make much if a dent.

If you're limiting this to the venue itself, then you don't have much if an argument. You say spending can be reined in, but you don't know enough about the venue to offer concrete examples of how this is possible. Presumably the biggest expenses are the engineering/design, materials, labor and then transporting materials and crew into remote mountain regions -- none of which is likely to be cut down much.

Thanks to inflation and rising costs of materials it makes sense that Lake Placid (which was rebuilt later) would be less expensive than its successors.

You can accuse Sochi of gilding the lily, but not Vancouver. If it were so easy to "rein in" costs, I'm sure they would have.

I find it hard to believe that nothing can be done to reduce the cost of a new sliding venue. The Vancouver organizers did cite increased costs for concrete and steel as reasons for the price tag for the venue. Still, the issue was that they based the $55 million estimate off the cost of Lake Placid, Calgary, and Salt Lake adjusted for 2010 dollars. Then they saw the cost of the Cesana track (nearly $100 million compared to the $26 million for Salt Lake, although to be fair, that facility had additional investments to get ready for the Olympics) and realized they were way off. So that's the question I have.. how did costs spiral so crazily out of control that the price of the venue nearly quadrupled in 4 years and has remained at that level. I can't imagine that materials and labor costs alone are what caused that. I don't know what else is at work there, but something tells me it can be done more inexpensively.

And I'm not accusing Vancouver of anything other than grossly underestimating what it would cost to build the venue. Can't entirely blame them since it was Cesana's costs that ballooned. Still, I think it's worth asking the question of why the venue has become so expensive to construct rather than to say "well, I'm sure they did it as efficiently as possible and there's no way to cut costs." I don't automatically assume that to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that nothing can be done to reduce the cost of a new sliding venue. The Vancouver organizers did cite increased costs for concrete and steel as reasons for the price tag for the venue. Still, the issue was that they based the $55 million estimate off the cost of Lake Placid, Calgary, and Salt Lake adjusted for 2010 dollars. Then they saw the cost of the Cesana track (nearly $100 million compared to the $26 million for Salt Lake, although to be fair, that facility had additional investments to get ready for the Olympics) and realized they were way off. So that's the question I have.. how did costs spiral so crazily out of control that the price of the venue nearly quadrupled in 4 years and has remained at that level. I can't imagine that materials and labor costs alone are what caused that. I don't know what else is at work there, but something tells me it can be done more inexpensively.

And I'm not accusing Vancouver of anything other than grossly underestimating what it would cost to build the venue. Can't entirely blame them since it was Cesana's costs that ballooned. Still, I think it's worth asking the question of why the venue has become so expensive to construct rather than to say "well, I'm sure they did it as efficiently as possible and there's no way to cut costs." I don't automatically assume that to be the case.

I'm not saying NOTHING can be done, I'm just saying I doubt that ENOUGH can be done to suddenly make sliding tracks a comfortable and easily workable aspect of future Winter bids.

Without evidence that Vancouver made some dramatic and expensive mistake or that they unnecessarily chose the ultra-deluxe model when something simpler could've worked, I don't think you can say that costs can be meaningfully reduced.

From what I can see, a sliding center is a guaranteed money pit and that's all there is to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying NOTHING can be done, I'm just saying I doubt that ENOUGH can be done to suddenly make sliding tracks a comfortable and easily workable aspect of future Winter bids.

Without evidence that Vancouver made some dramatic and expensive mistake or that they unnecessarily chose the ultra-deluxe model when something simpler could've worked, I don't think you can say that costs can be meaningfully reduced.

From what I can see, a sliding center is a guaranteed money pit and that's all there is to it.

How many other venues are money pits as well? I agree it probably can't be made into an easily workable aspect of a Winter Olympics, but I'm sure there's something that could be done to make the venue at least a little more cost effective. You don't know what Vancouver did or didn't do any better than I do. They thought the sliding centre would cost C$55 million. It wound up costing nearly double that. So it's absolutely a fair question to ask if it needed to cost as much as it did. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's something that could be done to make the venue at least a little more cost effective. You don't know what Vancouver did or didn't do any better than I do. They thought the sliding centre would cost C$55 million. It wound up costing nearly double that. So it's absolutely a fair question to ask if it needed to cost as much as it did. Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

It's one thing to ask, "Did Vancouver have to cost as much as it did?"

It's another thing to proclaim, "I'm SURE there's something that could be done to make the venue more cost effective." That's quite a statement when you have no knowledge of the venue or of the construction process.

Generally, cost overruns (especially in otherwise fiscally responsible organizations) result from necessity, not prodigality. Until, you show me proof that Vancouver wasted money on their sliding center, the simplest explanation here is that it cost what it cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure other venues are money pits, but how does that justify anything?

The IOC's primary objective should be restructuring the Games so that they are more affordable and less wasteful.

Chicago's bid was derided because it put too many events in McCormick Place. Well, the reality is that McCormick Place already exists, it can handle those events just fine and would've created a concentrated Olympic atmosphere in that area. No splashy new buildings. Nothing over-the-top. But it was a totally workable solution that avoided unnecessary expenditure and future white elephants. But the IOC didn't like it. I'm not saying that because Rio won 2016. I'm saying it because the IOC said it.

If some sports are guaranteed to require money pit venues then the rest of the Games had better be as fiscally responsible as possible. Rather than talking about one of the most problematic venues (the sliding center), the IOC should start by addressing other issues that can be more easily improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to ask, "Did Vancouver have to cost as much as it did?"

It's another thing to proclaim, "I'm SURE there's something that could be done to make the venue more cost effective." That's quite a statement when you have no knowledge of the venue or of the construction process.

Generally, cost overruns (especially in otherwise fiscally responsible organizations) result from necessity, not prodigality. Until, you show me proof that Vancouver wasted money on their sliding center, the simplest explanation here is that it cost what it cost.

If that's the explanation you believe, go for it. I don't need to offer you proof to say otherwise. But if you say my proclamation isn't correct, then you're saying there was NOTHING that could be done to make the venue more cost effective. So you're saying that the VANOC organizers had no choice but to spend every last cent out of necessity. I find that hard to believe that those guys were that efficient that there wasn't anything they could have done differently to reduce the costs of the venue.

Sure other venues are money pits, but how does that justify anything?

The IOC's primary objective should be restructuring the Games so that they are more affordable and less wasteful.

Chicago's bid was derided because it put too many events in McCormick Place. Well, the reality is that McCormick Place already exists, it can handle those events just fine and would've created a concentrated Olympic atmosphere in that area. No splashy new buildings. Nothing over-the-top. But it was a totally workable solution that avoided unnecessary expenditure and future white elephants. But the IOC didn't like it. I'm not saying that because Rio won 2016. I'm saying it because the IOC said it.

If some sports are guaranteed to require money pit venues then the rest of the Games had better be as fiscally responsible as possible. Rather than talking about one of the most problematic venues (the sliding center), the IOC should start by addressing other issues that can be more easily improved.

If the goal is to reduce the overall costs of the Olympics, then maybe there are other areas they can cut costs without sacrificing the quality of the product (which is someone subjective in the first place). You're right that these Olympic organizers need to be as fiscally responsible as possible. Maybe there are ways to do that with the sliding venue. Maybe the best bet is to look elsewhere. Again, you're assuming that the sliding venue "is what it is" and that there's little that can be done about it. You don't know that any better than I do. Let's also agree to disagree on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you say my proclamation isn't correct, then you're saying there was NOTHING that could be done to make the venue more cost effective. So you're saying that the VANOC organizers had no choice but to spend every last cent out of necessity.

you're assuming that the sliding venue "is what it is" and that there's little that can be done about it. You don't know that any better than I do.

I never said "I'm sure." Those were your words.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Vancouver's Organizing Committee was overall quite fiscally responsible and practically minded. Until I have a reason to think otherwise, the most likely explanation is that the cost ballooned out of necessity.

The Olympic microscope that plagues every host would have likely exposed any gross prodigality or costly mistake. The fact that we've heard nothing about it suggests it probably didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the explanation you believe, go for it. I don't need to offer you proof to say otherwise. But if you say my proclamation isn't correct, then you're saying there was NOTHING that could be done to make the venue more cost effective. So you're saying that the VANOC organizers had no choice but to spend every last cent out of necessity. I find that hard to believe that those guys were that efficient that there wasn't anything they could have done differently to reduce the costs of the venue.

Sliding tracks don't just "cost what they cost." Vancouver absolutely could have reduced the cost of its track. In the late-90s and early-00s, there were a lot of complaints from top luge and bobsled athletes that most of the tracks on the World Cup circuit were too easy. These complaints were fueled by the Salt Lake track, which was one of the shortest and easiest tracks in recent Olympic history. The Vancouver organizers responded to these complaints by building the fastest and most technical track in the world. Torino also decided to build a more difficult track and then incurred additional expenses when one of the curves had to be re-constructed a year before the Olympics because it was too dangerous. Vancouver certainly could have decided to build a Salt Lake-style track, and they likely could have done it for less than $75 million CDN. They chose to build a more difficult and more expensive track. Since Torino, Vancouver, and Sochi all built longer, more difficult tracks, the expectation now is that future hosts will do the same. To reduce costs, a future host needs to put its foot down and insist on building a shorter track like the ones in Igls, Calgary, and Salt Lake.

The sliding track has almost always been a white elephant, but it was a cost that cities were willing to absorb when the Winter Games were smaller. We're focusing a lot on the sliding track as a cost center in this thread, but the sliding center is really just the best example of many cost centers that the Winter Games now require. Until 1998, cities were able to host the Winter Games with 2-3 arenas, an alpine center, a nordic center, a speed skating oval, and a sliding track. Many hosts prior to 1998 were able to make use of most of the venues after the Games as both competitive and training centers. Now the Winter Games require at least 4 competitive arenas, an alpine center, a nordic center, an indoor speed skating oval, a freestyle skiing center, a snowboarding park, and a sliding center. Few cities have a need for that many venues after the Games. If the IOC wants to reduce the cost of the Winter Games, it needs to consider reducing the program back to the level that it was in the 80s and early-90s. Does that mean that some sports will have to go? Yes, but most of the snowboarding and freestyle skiing events have an equivalent or superior championship in the X Games. I honestly don't think that most of the snowboarders and freeskiers would be heartbroken if their events were removed from the Olympics. It's not really the biggest championship in their sport, and a lot of them don't really seem to care all that much about the Olympics anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said "I'm sure." Those were your words.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Vancouver's Organizing Committee was overall quite fiscally responsible and practically minded. Until I have a reason to think otherwise, the most likely explanation is that the cost ballooned out of necessity.

The Olympic microscope that plagues every host would have likely exposed any gross prodigality or costly mistake. The fact that we've heard nothing about it suggests it probably didn't happen.

You know what.. best to cut off this argument before it spins too far out of control. I agree with you that the cost ballooned out of necessity. What I'm saying is that maybe the VANOC folks could have done something to reduce the costs. I don't believe that they were that infallible that there was nothing they could have done to save just a little bit on the costs. Maybe not a huge sum of money, but enough that it wouldn't be as big a burden on the Olympic budget as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sliding tracks don't just "cost what they cost." Vancouver absolutely could have reduced the cost of its track. In the late-90s and early-00s, there were a lot of complaints from top luge and bobsled athletes that most of the tracks on the World Cup circuit were too easy. These complaints were fueled by the Salt Lake track, which was one of the shortest and easiest tracks in recent Olympic history. The Vancouver organizers responded to these complaints by building the fastest and most technical track in the world. Torino also decided to build a more difficult track and then incurred additional expenses when one of the curves had to be re-constructed a year before the Olympics because it was too dangerous. Vancouver certainly could have decided to build a Salt Lake-style track, and they likely could have done it for less than $75 million CDN. They chose to build a more difficult and more expensive track. Since Torino, Vancouver, and Sochi all built longer, more difficult tracks, the expectation now is that future hosts will do the same. To reduce costs, a future host needs to put its foot down and insist on building a shorter track like the ones in Igls, Calgary, and Salt Lake.

The sliding track has almost always been a white elephant, but it was a cost that cities were willing to absorb when the Winter Games were smaller. We're focusing a lot on the sliding track as a cost center in this thread, but the sliding center is really just the best example of many cost centers that the Winter Games now require. Until 1998, cities were able to host the Winter Games with 2-3 arenas, an alpine center, a nordic center, a speed skating oval, and a sliding track. Many hosts prior to 1998 were able to make use of most of the venues after the Games as both competitive and training centers. Now the Winter Games require at least 4 competitive arenas, an alpine center, a nordic center, an indoor speed skating oval, a freestyle skiing center, a snowboarding park, and a sliding center. Few cities have a need for that many venues after the Games. If the IOC wants to reduce the cost of the Winter Games, it needs to consider reducing the program back to the level that it was in the 80s and early-90s. Does that mean that some sports will have to go? Yes, but most of the snowboarding and freestyle skiing events have an equivalent or superior championship in the X Games. I honestly don't think that most of the snowboarders and freeskiers would be heartbroken if their events were removed from the Olympics. It's not really the biggest championship in their sport, and a lot of them don't really seem to care all that much about the Olympics anyway.

How does "fastest and most technical" translate to "unnecessarily expensive?" I can see where length might impact cost but look at these figures (taken from: http://olympstats.com/2014/01/03/olympic-sliding-tracks/):

YEAR curves/length

1988 14 1,475 m

1992 19 1,508 m

1994 16 1,365 m

1998 15 1,360 m

2002 15 1,340 m

2006 19 1,435 m

2010 16 1,450 m

2014 18 1,475 m

Vancouver is not considerably longer than most tracks and it does not have considerably more curves. Calgary, Albertville and Sochi were all longer than Vancouver. Albertville, Torino and Sochi all had more curves.

The statistic that stands out most for Vancouver is the fact that the gradient drop was steeper than all other Olympic tracks, but it's hard for me to see how the increase in gradient would increase the budget so significantly.

Even if there is a way to decrease the cost of the venue itself, it is still a guaranteed money pit. Look at the following story. Although the headline talks about "financial success," the story contains the following quote:

But for the year ended September, 2011, the sliding centre generated only $578,000 in revenue against operating costs of $2.76 million.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Whistler+Sliding+Centre+steers+course+financial+success/7597183/story.html#ixzz33iMaTWWy

If that's not a money pit, I don't know what is.

Here's their stab at "financial success":

To supplement the World Cups and public rides, the facility continues to look at other ways to generate revenue, particularly in the summer. Various buildings have been rented out for weddings and corporate events and fees have been charged to shoot TV commercials on the venue’s winding service road and to host a longboard festival.

Bennett says it’s typical after an Olympics for financial assistance to be needed to operate sliding tracks, speed skating ovals and cross-country trails as high-performance sport facilities.

“So that’s what the Games Operating Trust was set up to do. That provides a certain level of funding to the venue and then we hope to make up the balance of what we need through these other things, whether it’s sport, public rides, non-traditional things. But it will take some time to from zero to a steady state.”

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Whistler+Sliding+Centre+steers+course+financial+success/7597183/story.html#ixzz33iMwKt3z

Any venue that requires a trust to keep it operational has a serious problems and the odd wedding or tv commercial is not going to close the gap.

In summary, building a new sliding venue is going to be a financial burden on any host. There's no way around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic, I wonder what Almaty's plans would be for budget travelers. If Sochi wasn't fan friendly I can't imagine what Almaty would be like. There is no tourism industry to speak of in Kazakhstan, and while there are a fair number of business oriented hotels there are relatively few hotel rooms in the 2 and 3 star range. Also, unlike Sochi where visiting internationals stayed in cruise ships, Kazakhstan is landlocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's not a money pit, I don't know what is.

Here's their stab at "financial success":

Any venue that requires a trust to keep it operational has a serious problems and the odd wedding or tv commercial is not going to close the gap.

In summary, building a new sliding venue is going to be a financial burden on any host. There's no way around it.

You're talking about 2 separate aspects of this though. No one here is disagreeing that the sliding venue is a money pit. If it's a necessary evil of hosting a Winter Olympics as Barcelona alluded to, so be it. The question is can it be made to be less of a money pit, even by only a small margin. You keep saying how the sliding venue can't easily be improved upon and how the IOC should look elsewhere to cut costs because this one can't be helped and how the VANOC folks were fiscally responsible and didn't make any costly mistakes. Ya know what.. I know this has nothing to do with money, but tell the family of Nodar Kumaritashvili that no costly mistakes were made in the construction of the venue. As much as driver error is the cause of that tragedy, there's still an element where track design comes into play. So on that basis, I think the track designers and the VANOC organizers lose the benefit of the doubt that they did the best job they could with this venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're talking about 2 separate aspects of this though. No one here is disagreeing that the sliding venue is a money pit. If it's a necessary evil of hosting a Winter Olympics as Barcelona alluded to, so be it. The question is can it be made to be less of a money pit, even by only a small margin. You keep saying how the sliding venue can't easily be improved upon and how the IOC should look elsewhere to cut costs because this one can't be helped and how the VANOC folks were fiscally responsible and didn't make any costly mistakes. Ya know what.. I know this has nothing to do with money, but tell the family of Nodar Kumaritashvili that no costly mistakes were made in the construction of the venue. As much as driver error is the cause of that tragedy, there's still an element where track design comes into play. So on that basis, I think the track designers and the VANOC organizers lose the benefit of the doubt that they did the best job they could with this venue.

Kumaritashvili's death was a real tragedy. That accident has absolutely no bearing on the expense of sliding venues. You're transposing the language of "costly mistake" from a financial context to a safety context.

Because Vancouver was generally fiscally responsible and because there is no data to support the hypotheses of prodigality or expensive construction mistakes, I think it is likely that the cost of a sliding venue cannot be meaningfully reduced.

Please note how the above statement differs from your inaccurate paraphrase if my viewpoint.

As for Almaty and tourism, this whole bid is ego-driven. I'm sure the Kazakhs will be motivated to come up with a glamorous solution that they can show off to the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kumaritashvili's death was a real tragedy. That accident has absolutely no bearing on the expense of sliding venues. You're transposing the language of "costly mistake" from a financial context to a safety context.

Because Vancouver was generally fiscally responsible and because there is no data to support the hypotheses of prodigality or expensive construction mistakes, I think it is likely that the cost of a sliding venue cannot be meaningfully reduced.

Please note how the above statement differs from your inaccurate paraphrase if my viewpoint.

Yes, I see what you're doing. You're making a generalization (you did use the word "generally", so I don't think it's an inaccurate portrait) about the organization of the Vancouver Olympics and then making an assumption. Pretty sure if I tried doing that, you'd call me out on it. You keep talking about a lack of evidence and data to support my conclusions, but you simply don't want to entertain the opposing view. I disagree with your assertion that the cost of a sliding venue cannot be meaningfully reduced and your "evidence" (which is highly circumstantial) does not lead me to believe it's "likely" that's the case. You could be right. But I don't think the idea should be dismissed as "there's no way around it" or "it is what it is."

And no, I'm not transposing "costly mistake." You keep saying how Vancouver was generally fiscally responsible (another generalization.. probably an accurate one, but a generalization nonetheless) and therefore making the assumption they did the best they could on the sliding venue. Obviously they didn't do the best they could because an athlete was killed. Again, I know that has nothing to do with money, but it goes to the point that the organizers/designers of the sliding venue made a major mistake. So why should I assume they built the venue as cost-effectively as they could have. Because they were "generally fiscally responsible"? Who's making hypotheses on that one.

My point stands.. I think it's possible that the cost of the sliding venue could be meaningfully reduced. How? That I don't know, but it's something those in the know perhaps should explore and try and figure out what costs ballooned to the extent they did because I can't imagine it's all labor and material costs. You said earlier that the IOC should look into other avenues where costs can be reduced. If they are going to do that, why not look at this avenue. I don't believe it's a dead end for which there is no solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought sliding tracks would be really fun water slides...enclose it for an indoor water-park then adjust it to make it safe, do the water stuff you need, and BAM you've got a venue that will pay for itself year round!

Another option is that the IOC can limit the Winter Games to established ski resorts and their outer-cities. That way we don't end up with another Beijing or Sochi (Yes I know Sochi was an 'established' resort, but the city and resort were no where near what should be expected. The IOC basically said "Let's put the games in the middle of f*cking no where")

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...