Jump to content

Durban 2024/28?


baron-pierreIV
 Share

Recommended Posts

Durban most probably will be South Africa's Bidding City for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics, if South Africa Bid. If not, Cape Town will be.

And you know that because? With four posts a day, it would be nice if at least three were somewhat meaningful. All your posts today were either endlessly repetitive again or just going back to personal fights.

So you just keep wasting your posts and expect the rest of us to just accept this. Good luck with that. And before you (tomorrow) waste another post replying to this one: Save it, I'm not going to discuss this further with you and I can anyway predict how your reply would look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And back on topic: Joburg has a lot of negative reputation internationally because of the crime rate - that alone could give Durban a better selling point. It may not be a hugely known city (though it is for IOC members), but a blank sheet may be easier to sell than one full of dark ugly ink spots.

And anyway, it may well be that inner-SA fighting will be their downfall, in 2024, 2028 or whenever. So Gauteng trying to get into the ring now won't make it easier for Durban to get even the necessary national support.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Durban and Cape Town have always shown the Most interest in Bidding as South Africa's Bidder. Johannesburg also has a Main Stadium, but I'm not sure if it could fit a Running Track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Durban and Cape Town have always shown the Most interest in Bidding as South Africa's Bidder. Johannesburg also has a Main Stadium, but I'm not sure if it could fit a Running Track.

Uh, at the moment Johannesburg is actively promoting a possible bid while Durban and Cape Town are silent. So you really can't say "Durban and Cape Town have always shown the most interest, can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, at the moment Johannesburg is actively promoting a possible bid while Durban and Cape Town are silent. So you really can't say "Durban and Cape Town have always shown the most interest, can you?

Sure he can. Just look at his signature. He still supports Oslo/Lillehammer for the 2022 Winter Olympics (from London, England).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I've heard about Jo'burg makes me hope SA doesn't go down this route. Any city where you're advised not to stop your car at traffic lights because of the crime rate, isn't somewhere I'd want to see an Olympics or Commonweaths. :ph34r:

Maybe in the 90s it was that bad, but that assessment is a slight exaggeration from wherever youve heard that.

Compared to Sydney, the crime is bad, but doesn't make Jo'burg impossible. I think the altitude would be a bigger factor, potentially the highest Games since 68.

Still prefer Durban. I like the idea of the Games going back to the first non-eminent City since 1996.

Sure he can. Just look at his signature. He still supports Oslo/Lillehammer for the 2022 Winter Olympics (from London, England).

Here in England should host it. The 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics Winter Games at Hamstead Heath in Host City of my London, England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, some of You are looking for an argument. I came here to Post My on Topic opinion, ignored some of the comments in another thread that were off topic, but people still can't let things go, but instead make comments, knowing it's going to cause another argument. Just stop with the comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Cross posted from: http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/24954-2028-or-2032-combined-melbourne-sydney-brisbane-bid/page-6

Do they? They have a big stadium. What about all the smaller venues?

Durban does not have all that much in place, but neither does Boston. Other than the Garden, there's no major venues in the city. (Unless you count Harvard Stadium, I suppose., but Durban has a second stadium for football too.) If Boston's lack of an aquatics center, velodrome, etc doesn't disqualify it from hosting then there's no reason to treat Durban differently. Particularly when Durban does have the most important venue.

And once you get beyond *sporting* infrastructure, it's not even close. Air transportation... public transportation... hotels... convention space... fine dining... tourist attractions... telecommunications... etc. Boston clobbers Durban. And Boston is a weak candidate compared to, say, Paris.

I agree. But Durban is one of the few cities -along with Athens- where the IOC would be willing to accept modest accomodations and venues. Boston has to beat the competition in a fair fight. Whereas if South Africa can merely present a workable plan they would probably win against any city but Paris, New York, etc.

The problem for South Africa is economics. But if they decide that they really want to spend $25 billion to host the Olympics the games are probably theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But Durban is one of the few cities -along with Athens- where the IOC would be willing to accept modest accomodations and venues. Boston has to beat the competition in a fair fight. Whereas if South Africa can merely present a workable plan they would probably win against any city but Paris, New York, etc.

The problem for South Africa is economics. But if they decide that they really want to spend $25 billion to host the Olympics the games are probably theirs.

Easier said than done for them to do that IMO. Look at Rio. Didn't make the shortlist in 2012 because the competition was strong. Then they return in 2016, the competition isn't as strong, and they win it.

Let's say South Africa had their act together and put Durban forward for 2024. Not sure I'd like their chances against a Paris or a New York, particularly the potential dynamics of that race which seem like they might favor a big, traditional European city. If we're talking 2028, I like their odds better. Not sure they'd fare so well up against the big boys though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mental masturbation never ends in here does it? South Africa ain't bidding for 2024, I thought that much was clear to most? Durban and the country are focused on 2022 Commonwealth Games. That event, while yes less grand, will serve the city and nation well in its Olympic goals.

Durban will never be New York or Paris and frankly the city would never even want to pretend to be. It has its own unique calling cards they don't have even without the Africa card.

What makes a good games is so vague and differs from person to person, what is most key though is what stake can a host put in the ground to make them more memorable and hence vote friendly.

And frankly, I personally do not believe that because a city is a big global city like Paris or New York, that they in any way shape or form make a better host than a smaller city. The games is about atmosphere too. They frankly do not have it. And personally I think a New York or Paris with people scattered miles apart make horrid potential hosts. But then others will differ in opinion. So what. Ain't that what this place is about, people sprouting stuff as if it actually matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and while some are slagging us off.

Take a look at www.godurban.co.za

The comprehensive integrated transport roll out for the city across bus, rail and non motorised transport. It's a multiphase integrated system that starts going live from 2016.

In addition, some parts have already been determined to be fast tracked, like the airport to city rail link.

In addition the environmental initiatives for the high speed train connecting the city of durban to Johannesburg in a matter of 3 hours are also well advanced. If it moves ahead, it will be ready by 2028 too.

Lots change over time.

The key point is South Africa wants the Olympics one day. The IOC wants the Olympics in Africa one day. At some point those two vectors will meet and the games will happen. Based on the trajectory of IOC meeting and commonwealth games, the logical third step is the same city for the Olympics.

Maximise exposure of a place to the world sporting bodies yet chose a different to bid for an Olympic games? What nation would be that stupid? Surely even the most intellectually challenged can see the journey the city and South Africa are on

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And frankly, I personally do not believe that because a city is a big global city like Paris or New York, that they in any way shape or form make a better host than a smaller city. The games is about atmosphere too. They frankly do not have it.

Are you really going to couter other people's posts with such a stupid and wrong generalisation? I know it's convenient for supporters of smaller cities to come out with this kind of thing, but it's rubbish.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marathon+crowd+london+olympics&biw=1366&bih=635&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1SFFVaXMHcTeaLrtgfgK&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=olympic+crowds+london

Sell Durban on its strengths.

Ain't that what this place is about, people sprouting stuff as if it actually matters?

You tell me.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes a good games is so vague and differs from person to person, what is most key though is what stake can a host put in the ground to make them more memorable and hence vote friendly.

And frankly, I personally do not believe that because a city is a big global city like Paris or New York, that they in any way shape or form make a better host than a smaller city. The games is about atmosphere too. They frankly do not have it. And personally I think a New York or Paris with people scattered miles apart make horrid potential hosts. But then others will differ in opinion. So what. Ain't that what this place is about, people sprouting stuff as if it actually matters?

That pretty much is what this place is about.. sprouting stuff and mental masturbation. But last I checked, none of us here is a member of the IOC and/or has a vote to determine the host city of the Olympics. So the idea is to try and predict what the opinions are of those members of the IOC since they are the ones who actually matter.

To your point - and let me preface this by saying I am a life-long New Yorker - what you're saying about big cities has some truth to it, but the IOC's history paints a different picture. London. Beijing. Sydney. Los Angeles. Paris. Rome. Tokyo. Probably not a coincidence that many prior hosts have been big global cities. Australia tried in the 80s and 90s with Brisbane and Melbourne. Then they won with Sydney. Great Britain tried with Manchester. Then they won with London. France, for some odd reason, bid with Lille. Failed to make the shortlist. Yes, there are exceptions out there, but in general it does speak to what the IOC will select given the options that are out there.

Something to note about New York though, and I've brought this up before.. the NYC area had the Super Bowl here last year. There were some football fans that said that New York was a bad place to have it because there are too many people here and the event doesn't reach as many people percentage-wise as it would in a smaller city like, say, Indianapolis. So like I said, you have a point and maybe a smaller city would lend to a more intimate atmosphere. But is that what the IOC voting members are going to be interested in? For better or worse, this is their decision.

And as Rob noted, a larger city like a London or a Sydney certainly isn't lacking in atmosphere that somehow you might get from a smaller, more intimate city. The Summer Olympics are still a massive event with ten thousand athletes competing at a few dozen venues, all the media that are there to cover it, and hundreds of thousands of spectators descending upon that 1 city. There are a lot of cities out there that are capable of handling that, but the list of cities likely to be selected by the IOC for that honor is a lot smaller. Having a larger city isn't a bad thing, particularly one where transportation infrastructure makes it friendly for a large number of visitors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really going to couter other people's posts with such a stupid and wrong generalisation? I know it's convenient for supporters of smaller cities to come out with this kind of thing, but it's rubbish.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marathon+crowd+london+olympics&biw=1366&bih=635&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1SFFVaXMHcTeaLrtgfgK&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=olympic+crowds+london

Sell Durban on its strengths.

You tell me.

Yes that was a negative post, but I honestly do not believe that large global city = right host for Olympics. You think my comment is wrong, I think your view on it is a perpetuated cycle that size of city is the thing that determines eligibility. You know what, we have different opinions so what?

And yes I stick by my last statement. You think I wrote something was rubbish and I feel the same about your comment on global cities.

Neither of my comments though are to bolster durban in anyway, except for the fact that along the way I believe people have put far too much attention on global cities and have somehow illogically inferred that global city means better success. It's an absurd inference.

Because it links up sometimes does not mean it works for all big cities.

And what are pics of full stadiums have to do with anything in this discussion? Posturing are we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That pretty much is what this place is about.. sprouting stuff and mental masturbation. But last I checked, none of us here is a member of the IOC and/or has a vote to determine the host city of the Olympics. So the idea is to try and predict what the opinions are of those members of the IOC since they are the ones who actually matter.

To your point - and let me preface this by saying I am a life-long New Yorker - what you're saying about big cities has some truth to it, but the IOC's history paints a different picture. London. Beijing. Sydney. Los Angeles. Paris. Rome. Tokyo. Probably not a coincidence that many prior hosts have been big global cities. Australia tried in the 80s and 90s with Brisbane and Melbourne. Then they won with Sydney. Great Britain tried with Manchester. Then they won with London. France, for some odd reason, bid with Lille. Failed to make the shortlist. Yes, there are exceptions out there, but in general it does speak to what the IOC will select given the options that are out there.

Something to note about New York though, and I've brought this up before.. the NYC area had the Super Bowl here last year. There were some football fans that said that New York was a bad place to have it because there are too many people here and the event doesn't reach as many people percentage-wise as it would in a smaller city like, say, Indianapolis. So like I said, you have a point and maybe a smaller city would lend to a more intimate atmosphere. But is that what the IOC voting members are going to be interested in? For better or worse, this is their decision.

And as Rob noted, a larger city like a London or a Sydney certainly isn't lacking in atmosphere that somehow you might get from a smaller, more intimate city. The Summer Olympics are still a massive event with ten thousand athletes competing at a few dozen venues, all the media that are there to cover it, and hundreds of thousands of spectators descending upon that 1 city. There are a lot of cities out there that are capable of handling that, but the list of cities likely to be selected by the IOC for that honor is a lot smaller. Having a larger city isn't a bad thing, particularly one where transportation infrastructure makes it friendly for a large number of visitors.

I do not disagree with most of your points at all. If Rob spoke a bit more eloquently in clarify his POV rather than showing pics of people with flags then maybe his would have landed.

Let me be clear I am not against large cities, they have many positives from scale of reuse to existing systems. BUT those same things can be their disadvantage. My problem is the immediate connection people make that larger city = better games. To me that is a created fallacy. Because the IOC has always done something and likely to continue doing it, doesn't exactly mean it is the best. Some places are better designed for different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not disagree with most of your points at all. If Rob spoke a bit more eloquently in clarify his POV rather than showing pics of people with flags then maybe his would have landed.

Let me be clear I am not against large cities, they have many positives from scale of reuse to existing systems. BUT those same things can be their disadvantage. My problem is the immediate connection people make that larger city = better games. To me that is a created fallacy. Because the IOC has always done something and likely to continue doing it, doesn't exactly mean it is the best. Some places are better designed for different things.

I understand what you're saying. Like I said, I'm from New York, so I probably am biased towards big cities, although I do agree that not all big cities are necessarily better hosts. Case in point New York which would seem to be a good host, but the reality of some aspects of the city make it far less than ideal.

However.. you do need to remember that the Summer Olympics are a quadrennial event. So there is often going to be a desire to go to bigger and more well known cities. Maybe it is a fallacy, but if they're only going to go to a particular country once in a lifetime, most people will probably want that in the country's most prominent city, or at least the one best equipped and designed to host an Olympics.

Again, there is a lot of truth to what you're saying, but to take it to the point to say that a city like Paris might make a "horrid" potential host.. if France wants an Olympics, what other city should be bidding? As you say that large cities aren't always necessarily better, a lot of times those advantages outweigh the disadvantages especially compared to other potential options.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that was a negative post, but I honestly do not believe that large global city = right host for Olympics.

I do not disagree with most of your points at all. If Rob spoke a bit more eloquently in clarify his POV rather than showing pics of people with flags then maybe his would have landed.

And what are pics of full stadiums have to do with anything in this discussion? Posturing are we?

I wasn't trying to say global cities were the only good hosts or anything as broad as that. Nor was I saying you're wrong to opine that you prefer smaller cities over global cities.

I was countering a very specific and totally nonsensical sentence you wrote that said global cities like New York and Paris had zero Olympic atmosphere. I'll quote your exact words:

"And frankly, I personally do not believe that because a city is a big global city like Paris or New York, that they in any way shape or form make a better host than a smaller city. The games is about atmosphere too. They frankly do not have it."

The photos of crowds in London - some filling stadiums, some filling roads and places like Hyde Park when the torch relay was in town, hundreds of thousands on the roadside during marathons and road races - was to show this is demonstrably not true of global cities. What London did Tokyo will do and Paris and New York could do too. It wasn't posturing and on this specific point it is not a matter of your opinion vs mine, You saying global cities don't have atmosphere is simply denying facts.

Which makes me ask why? And I suspect it's you, not me who wasn't being eloquent. I suspct what you meant to say is you believe smaller cities have more intimacy and the Games can envelop them better and take over the whole city. That I could agree with - and we could then debate the extent to which that matters! But to claim global cities have no atmosphere for the Games as you clumsily and wrongly said lead me to the suspicision that you were simply trying to bolster Durban's chances against larger cities.

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

I've mentioned on numerous occasions that the allure of Durban is more about finally bringing the Olympics to Africa than it is about being a "global city". Besides, how many 'global cities' does Africa really have anyway. I believe Durban would fall more in the lines of Barcelona & Atlanta (but of course, under different set of circumstances, though).

After perhaps Cairo (which is a chaotic/air polluted/over populated mess anyway - which makes it more akin to New Dehli or Bangalore than it does to New York or Paris), what other true, 'global city', does Africa really have. Maybe Johannesburg? Maybe, maybe not. But even in that case, it's already been noted why Johannesburg wouldn't be an ideal host in the first place, ie the altitude, the weather, etc, not to mention Johannesburg isn't exactly one of the world's most picturesques cities, either.

So after those two, that really trims the African field dramatically. And while Cape Town OTOH is picturesque, it doesn't have all of the other qualifying & sustainable factors in its favor. It's funny, cuz the ones that like to talk about "agenda 2020" nowadays, are the same ones that think Cape Town should be South Africa's candidate. But that would go totally against Agenda 2020, not to mention all of the other critical attributes that Cape Town is lacking like the ideal weather during the IOC's preferred Games times window.

The question of "atmosphere" is also definitely subjective. Beijing is a perfect example of how that could be interpreted. There's arguments on both sides that Beijing 2008 did/didn't have that atmosphere. I also don't really buy the argument that the Games would get "lost" in a global city such as New York. That's another subjective opinion that we really don't know the answer to unless New York City actually got to host the Olympics one day.

Many were lukewarm to the idea of London hosting the 2012 Olympics. But when the Games got close & then they finally arrived, the Brits totally embraced the Games. Something I believe would hold very similar in New York's case (& in the event that it somewhat didn't, it might have more to do that the U.S. has had more than it's fair share of Games that it would be about the Games getting lost in the city).

In 2020, the Olympics will arrive to the world's biggest metropolis, Tokyo. I still don't see the Games getting 'lost' there either. The Olympics are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the majority of cases. That in itself would give the most indifferent a good sense of pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johannesburg? At that altitude and with their weather?

This has been discussed before.. if the IOC is going to continue to show a preference for bids in the usual Summer window (and that intent will probably get even stronger after what FIFA is doing with 2022), the most favorable weather is in Durban. Johannesburg is a non-starter less you think the IOC would pick a city where the daily mean is about 55 degrees in August. Not going to happen.

I like Johannesburg's chances over Durban's simply because I believe RSA is more likely to pick it as their candidate city than pick Durban. Politics within RSA is a far more important factor, IMO, than weather.

As for Johannesburg's weather... is an average August high of 20C (with no rain) so much worse than London's high of 23C that it disqualifies Johannesburg? Again, I'm not saying Johannesburg doesn't have problems as possible SOG host. Just they their problems are smaller than the other African cities right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cairo

If Durban is a mess of city with lack of infrastructure as you remark, you need to go to Cairo to understand the real concept of mess. Horrible public transport (The metro isn't enough for a city of 10.2 millions, heck, it's not enough for a city of half of the population), lack of public spaces, real chaos in construction and dirt. And this situation isn't exactly recent.

Lagos

Perhaps Nigeria has money (I recognize that), but also the country is on the edge of a civil war. And that's not counting Lagos is a complete disaster for visiters. The roads have irregular comerciants, there's not public order (Even for minimum) and again, if you constantly downing Durban, why did you put a worse city in these conditions

Nairobi

Not counting for the fact Nairobi has the largest slum of the World. But the most ridiculous aspect, you put Kenya, when the country has only a quarter of the gdp of South Africa (With an economy smaller than Greece, Uruguay and Romania), it's one of the most critical countries related to potable water in the world and the political inestability of the region with close neighborns like Somalia, Yemen and Sudan.

Just a reminder, Cairo, Lagos and Nairobi are all cities I said I cannot host today. But your post is a perfect example of why I believe Durban's chances are overrated. The problems you see so clearly in these cities - lack of public transportation, uprisings, weak GDP, larger needs such as getting potable water to citizens, instability in the region.... all challenge Durban to some degree as well. But while people are quick to see the problems with other African cities, they seem to overlook Durban's. (Just to spell this out, I'm not saying these cities are in better shape today than Durban to host.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Johannesburg's chances over Durban's simply because I believe RSA is more likely to pick it as their candidate city than pick Durban. Politics within RSA is a far more important factor, IMO, than weather.

As for Johannesburg's weather... is an average August high of 20C (with no rain) so much worse than London's high of 23C that it disqualifies Johannesburg? Again, I'm not saying Johannesburg doesn't have problems as possible SOG host. Just they their problems are smaller than the other African cities right now.

Does it disqualify Johannesburg? No. Is it something that could work against them if the IOC were voting on them? Yes. London can get away with that more easily because they're London.

And if we're going to make an accurate comparison and the weather, instead of looking at the average high, let's look at the daily mean.. 67F for London, low 50s for Johannesburg. And the average low (this being a Summer Olympics with lots of events outdoors and at night) is mid to high 50s in London (we saw that weather play out at some venues, especially beach volleyball as I recall) versus low 40s for Johannesburg. Plus, if you remember the 2010 World Cup at all, it was not lost on some people that the weather was less than ideal for some games in certain cities.

Here's the thing of it for me. If SASCOC - whenever they eventually decide to bid for an Olympics - was destined to pick Johannesburg as their candidate city, then why is Durban the city they picked to go after the Commonwealth Games? Not to assume that the CWG is necessarily a precursor to an Olympic bid, but it would seem odd to host a major multi-sport event in 1 city only to have a completely different city be the one that eventually is the one they go for the Olympics with.

Just a reminder, Cairo, Lagos and Nairobi are all cities I said I cannot host today. But your post is a perfect example of why I believe Durban's chances are overrated. The problems you see so clearly in these cities - lack of public transportation, uprisings, weak GDP, larger needs such as getting potable water to citizens, instability in the region.... all challenge Durban to some degree as well. But while people are quick to see the problems with other African cities, they seem to overlook Durban's. (Just to spell this out, I'm not saying these cities are in better shape today than Durban to host.)

Durban resides in a country that has hosted a FIFA World Cup and a Rugby World Cup (Durban was a part of both events). Cairo, Lagos, and Nairobi do not and that's not likely to change anytime soon. So my money remains on South Africa to be the first country in Africa to host an Olympics. And amongst South African cities, I think Durban is their best option for success.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Z, thanks for the great laugh. Keep trying the comedy...

I like Johannesburg's chances over Durban's simply because I believe RSA is more likely to pick it as their candidate city than pick Durban. Politics within RSA is a far more important factor, IMO, than weather.

As for Johannesburg's weather... is an average August high of 20C (with no rain) so much worse than London's high of 23C that it disqualifies Johannesburg? Again, I'm not saying Johannesburg doesn't have problems as possible SOG host. Just they their problems are smaller than the other African cities right now.

I will start with this

I believe RSA is more likely to pick it as their candidate city than pick Durban. Politics within RSA is a far more important factor, IMO, than weather.

And still Durban was selected as a city host for many sport events (2022 Commonwealth Games, A1 Grand Prix, FINA Championship Events, athletics rounds among others, some of them, olympical disciplines) and also political summits. Meanwhile Johannesburg needs national events like the Soccer and Rugby World Cups to host and the city can't overcome the national shortlist of the CG or the SOG. I guess the South African politicians can overcome the sturboness and selects the most viable choice or perhaps you don't know about SA politics as you thought.

As for Johannesburg's weather... is an average August high of 20C (with no rain) so much worse than London's high of 23C that it disqualifies Johannesburg?

Quaker explained better, but it's not only the weather, it's also the altitude and the topographic condictions which make Johannesburg more unlikely to host. Johannesburg sits 1.753 meters above the sea levels, which means a close NO by the IOC, especially after Mexico City. Having a city host like Johannesburg will affect in a direct or indirect way the health of the athletes and visitors. If you didn't know, it was one of the big issues related to the 2010 World Cup.

Just they their problems are smaller than the other African cities right now.

:rolleyes:

I guess you don't know Johannesburg. I know it, so I will say, anyone who could say Johannesburg is a better city host than Durban must be nuts or blind. Leaving aside Johannesburg's geographical conditions, Johannesburg is mostly a grey cubic structure with few interesting places. Even some of the building of downtown have been abandoned. I recognize the Museums are the best attractions, but the city isn't exactly a full attraction for the IOC voters. And that's not counting chaotic freeways with rush traffic and horrible public transport. And from most population, it also came bigger slums and poverty.

Choosing Johannesburg as South African city host it would be like Italy choosing Milan, Brazil choosing Brasilia or China choosing Wuhan. Counting all the previous points and the lack of sporting infrasructure (Which Durban is equiped since 2006), in what sense Johannesburg is a better option than Durban? Or as you said, in what sense Johannesburg has less problems than Durban?

Just a reminder, Cairo, Lagos and Nairobi are all cities I said I cannot host today. But your post is a perfect example of why I believe Durban's chances are overrated. The problems you see so clearly in these cities - lack of public transportation, uprisings, weak GDP, larger needs such as getting potable water to citizens, instability in the region.... all challenge Durban to some degree as well. But while people are quick to see the problems with other African cities, they seem to overlook Durban's. (Just to spell this out, I'm not saying these cities are in better shape today than Durban to host.)

What a load of cucko...

Let's start with the fact - Did Egypt, Nigeria or Kenya hosted a Soccer World Cup, a Rugby World Cup and other big events? The answer is NO, and mostly it won't change that. South Africa did and that's put the country in a different category from these countries. And that's not counting the recent South African success in different areas of sport. So it's unfair and ridiculous comparing it.

lack of public transportation

It was showed previously. You need to read it.

uprisings

Yeah, because every previous host country must be quiet and stable to have the right to develop the Olympic Games... Until South Africa didn't came to a civil war, this can't be

weak GDP

And still South Africa is one of the 33 richest countries around the world by gdp (And the second richest of Africa)

larger needs such as getting potable water to citizens

And also it happens in Johannesburg (And in a bigger way, for known experience), hypocritical much?

But while people are quick to see the problems with other African cities, they seem to overlook Durban's.

Equal happened to Rio, Beijing, Sochi and Mexico City. Balance isn't fair, but the advantages can overcome the weaknesses.

  • Like 1
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...