Jump to content

Hamburg 2024


Recommended Posts

Again, there's no need for this type of hostility. Despite your willingness to take this down to the gutter of personal attacks and negativity, I won't accept your invitation to do so. Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere for the fight you so seem to crave.

Getting to the actual substance of things: Can you explain how Boston does not increasingly look like an unviable bid for USOC? Approval ratings of 35% don't usually bode too well - and it's one of the scoring criteria the IOC uses. Or do you seriously want to dispute that view?

Concerning Rome: The economy is an important factor when the hosting decision is made, hence why the IOC includes that as one its criteria as well. I have backed up my views with actual evidence on several occasions, as, you know, it's not my habit to talk out of my backside. You've chosen to ignore the facts and make yet another snippy remark. Then again, if I provided detailed and concrete evidence, you'd probably complain about it being too long to read or being an essay...especially as there is tons of evidence to back up the view that Rome is quite simply an untenable candidate to host the Olympic Games in 2024.

I can imagine - well, Paris is my second preference city. And if a German city wasn't in the race, it'd be my first. So if we don't get it, I hope you do.

Yep, America has had its turn. Time for other countries now...

TBH, I think Boston was a total mistake. It was aleady a long shot for us given there are three potentially strong European cities so going with Boston, a city with such low approval of the bid was a complete mistake. Always put your best foot forward no matter what, not your okay one.

I think Rome is an interesting option because well...it's freaking Rome. But as you point out, their economy is not suit to handle the pressure the games will put on Italy. Then again the Italians can make the argument that Rome hosting would bring 'economic development and national unity', but I think we all know that's some bullshit and I doubt the IOC will take it given there are three other cities that come from nations with stronger economies.

In fact, didn't Germany bail out Italy?

I agree that 1996 was not that long ago, but I think if we loose 2024 (which we will), 2028 is a serious option and could be our games. A North American country has still yet to host the games where as by 2024 nearly every continent will have hosted except for Africa and North America. In Europe's case three times and Asia twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can imagine - well, Paris is my second preference city. And if a German city wasn't in the race, it'd be my first. So if we don't get it, I hope you do.

Which is why your views on this subject can hardly be taken objectively, sorry to say. All of your arguments that you're making against Boston & Rome can just as easily factor in for Paris than it would for Hamburg (& many of us have pointed them out already), but you merely neglect that & just convientenly like to apply them for Hamburg.

But prohibitive favourites have a funny way of falling sometimes - so, I wouldn't quite get out the champagne (personally, I prefer crémant) just yet.

While true in a few instances, when it does happen, it happens for another compelling choice; ie, Athens 2004 - London 2012. Not for alternative choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris, just like all the other Candidate Cities, will have to work to win the bidding process - and you can be sure that no quarter will be given by the other teams, especially given that they are all aware of Paris' prohibitive favourite status.

Is there a reason why Paris wouldn't "work to win"? That goes without saying. And this being their potential fourth attempt, I'm sure they won't take their 'prohibitive favorite status' for granted this time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;):P:D

Yeah, I agree with what your saying. Hamburg has a chance and being from Germany makes it stronger IMO then Romes.

That's depressing.

Actually it's a very good thing. Beijing was a favorite in 2008, Athens in 2004, Barcelona in 1992, Rio 2016, Tokyo in 2020, I can go on. It's that rare occasion when the second city narrowly beats the favorite and the most recent cases I can think of would be Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000, and London 2012. Paris being a favorite in this bid race is a very good thing for them.

Since when is Sydney a 'second city'? Its Alpha++.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I understand the context better now --- but even so --- Beijing's 2000 bid was marred by 1989, it was in no way the same kind of bid that 2008 was. Also its a stretch to call London a non front runner for 2012 - it was neck and neck with Paris. It would have been a shock, however, if Madrid or Moscow had won 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I understand the context better now --- but even so --- Beijing's 2000 bid was marred by 1989, it was in no way the same kind of bid that 2008 was. Also its a stretch to call London a non front runner for 2012 - it was neck and neck with Paris. It would have been a shock, however, if Madrid or Moscow had won 2012.

Sydney won by two votes for 2000, a closer margin than Paris VS London. I would say that's neck and neck. Beijing was always Sydney's competition and even the Sydney team was surprised by their win, event more so given that Beijing lead nearly every round.

2008 was they way it was because they surprisingly lost 2000.

Since when is Sydney a 'second city'? Its Alpha++.

Sydney was not expected to beat Beijing, even to some degrees by their bid team. That doesn't mean Sydney is not a global city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reason why Paris wouldn't "work to win"? That goes without saying. And this being their potential fourth attempt, I'm sure they won't take their 'prohibitive favorite status' for granted this time around.

That's essentially what I said, so I'm not certain why you feel the need to reiterate something that goes without saying. However, I did sense a feeling of "Ah, now Paris has got in, we might just as well book our tickets for France in 2024".

Which is why your views on this subject can hardly be taken objectively, sorry to say. All of your arguments that you're making against Boston & Rome can just as easily factor in for Paris than it would for Hamburg (& many of us have pointed them out already), but you merely neglect that & just convientenly like to apply them for Hamburg.

While true in a few instances, when it does happen, it happens for another compelling choice; ie, Athens 2004 - London 2012. Not for alternative choices.

I'm a bit disappointed that you'd question my objectivity, especially as I'm sure most people on here would agree that I have a facts- and data-based approach and tend to reflect quite carefully before I say something. All I can say is that I'm no blind cheerleader for Hamburg and that I'm always happy to entertain a constructive discussion about the merits of the German bid. I personally don't think (and I've also provided the facts regarding that point) that Berlin would have been suitable, name recognition or no name recognition. I fully am on board with the insight that Hamburg will have to make itself better-known and quite obviously doesn't happen to have Paris' iconic status to go for its bid. That's par for the course, really.

All I'm saying is that (should the referendum pass, which is still a big IF - knowing my countrymen's penchant for throwing a wrench into a well-oiled machine) the German bid shouldn't be so easily dismissed. I'm not disputing name ID, Paris' obvious status as a favourite or the attraction it would pose for the IOC to host the Olympic Games there. So, there's no need to remind me of Olympic history - it's quite possible that Hamburg loses this thing and has to go back to the drawing board - which is why the bid committee and the German sports associations have already provided for a blank cheque authorization for another bid in 2028.

Anyhow, knowing how these types of arguments on GB can devolve into mindless name-calling and a "I said, you said" conversational structure (which I have no interest in whatsoever), I will quite simply just suggest that we should agree to disagree. Chances are, as it stands now, you'll be proven right in 2017 and I'll have to eat the proverbial crow. So yeah, let's just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sydney won by two votes for 2000, a closer margin than Paris VS London. I would say that's neck and neck. Beijing was always Sydney's competition and even the Sydney team was surprised by their win, event more so given that Beijing lead nearly every round.

2008 was they way it was because they surprisingly lost 2000.

Sydney was not expected to beat Beijing, even to some degrees by their bid team. That doesn't mean Sydney is not a global city.

If you read a lot of the media from the time - much of the narrative was that China had emerged with an Olympic bid but it was received with great scepticism, due to organisational concerns and human rights issues, which were far more glaring following 1989. Sydney was bright and sexy and had a lot to offer. I just don't think it was surprising. Even Manchester was regarded as having a good chance for 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read a lot of the media from the time - much of the narrative was that China had emerged with an Olympic bid but it was received with great scepticism, due to organisational concerns and human rights issues, which were far more glaring following 1989. Sydney was bright and sexy and had a lot to offer. I just don't think it was surprising. Even Manchester was regarded as having a good chance for 2000.

It was a wide-open race. At one stage, Berlin was regarded as the favourite to win...until the anti-Olympic protestors and the sheer incompetence of the bid committee effed it up for the city. Frankly,it was just a house of cards...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's essentially what I said, so I'm not certain why you feel the need to reiterate something that goes without saying. However, I did sense a feeling of "Ah, now Paris has got in, we might just as well book our tickets for France in 2024".

Because no one is really saying that. You're confusing some people's excitement as a given. Making the implication that the rest of us somehow don't know or don't think that Paris obviously will have to "work for it" to get it.

I'm a bit disappointed that you'd question my objectivity, especially as I'm sure most people on here would agree that I have a facts- and data-based approach and tend to reflect quite carefully before I say something. All I can say is that I'm no blind cheerleader for Hamburg and that I'm always happy to entertain a constructive discussion about the merits of the German bid. I personally don't think (and I've also provided the facts regarding that point) that Berlin would have been suitable, name recognition or no name recognition.

That's not what I'm (or anyone else here, FTM) refuting. Again, when your "facts & data based approach" arguments can just as easily (if not moreso) be also applied to Paris, but you conveniently just try to tailor-make them for Hamburg, then yeah, that does seem to make you a kind of a blind cheerleader (your words).

No one is necessarily arguing against the merits of a Hamburg bid. But as you pointed out earlier that the favorite doesn't always win, well neither does the most "merited" bid a lot of the time. Whether or not Berlin was suitable is irrelevant now since they're no longer part of the equation, & we have no way of knowing for sure how they would've faired today, other than just mere speculation of past 'facts'.

I'm not disputing name ID, Paris' obvious status as a favourite or the attraction it would pose for the IOC to host the Olympic Games there. So, there's no need to remind me of Olympic history -

And I'm not saying that you are. Only the other intangibles that I (& Quaker) have pointed out, but you convientenly just glossed over. So I'm not reminding you about anything that you don't seem to do yourself.

it's quite possible that Hamburg loses this thing and has to go back to the drawing board - which is why the bid committee and the German sports associations have already provided for a blank cheque authorization for another bid in 2028.

Well, you gotta admit, though, that would be pretty pointless if Paris (or in the unlikely event, even Rome) were to win 2024, right. Only way I can see that remotely working is if no other continents would be interested in 2028. And if Asia is any indication of anything lately, that would be highly unlikely.

Anyhow, knowing how these types of arguments on GB can devolve into mindless name-calling and a "I said, you said" conversational structure (which I have no interest in whatsoever), I will quite simply just suggest that we should agree to disagree. Chances are, as it stands now, you'll be proven right in 2017 and I'll have to eat the proverbial crow. So yeah, let's just agree to disagree.

Okay, sorry, but now I have to call a spade, a spade. Who, in the last couple of pages, has been doing "mindless name calling". If anything, your posts seem to develop into having this underlying sneering & condescending tone to them when others here are challenging your POV's (it's like déjà vu all over again, & Q, you know exactly what I'm talking about).

I guess it's just easier to just say "let's agree to disagree", sometimes, which is fine. But then please refrain from silly & unwarranted accustions when there has been nothing of the kind. Such things make these boards even more unpleasant than mere name-calling IMHO (which there wasn't in this case to begin with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sydney was bright and sexy and had a lot to offer. I just don't think it was surprising. Even Manchester was regarded as having a good chance for 2000.

Maybe to you, but it was a surprise to many, many others.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/24/sports/olympics-2000-olympics-go-to-sydney-in-surprise-setback-for-china.html

And Manchester was never really a contender. That's like saying Annecy 'had a good chance' at 2018.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PBE, I think you're great but you sound like TELA.


Maybe to you, but it was a surprise to many, many others.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/24/sports/olympics-2000-olympics-go-to-sydney-in-surprise-setback-for-china.html

And Manchester was never really a contender. That's like saying Annecy 'had a good chance' at 2018.

Exactly my point. Thanks FYI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PBE, I think you're great but you sound like TELA.

Respectfully, BR2028: You come across as seriously rude and disrespectful. Comparing me to Tony is honestly beyond the pale and completely uncalled for - especially in light of our exchange of correspondence yesterday, in which you expressly assured me that you understood the nature of disagreements somewhat turning into heated arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, knowing how these types of arguments on GB can devolve into mindless name-calling and a "I said, you said" conversational structure (which I have no interest in whatsoever), I will quite simply just suggest that we should agree to disagree. Chances are, as it stands now, you'll be proven right in 2017 and I'll have to eat the proverbial crow. So yeah, let's just agree to disagree.

Things tend to get lost in context here a lot. So it is here. Someone saying "Paris is the favorite" is not to imply the race is over or that the IOC is going to hand it to them on a silver platter. Not to speak for FYI or others, but when the notion of sentimentality or the IOC voting for Paris after several losses, a lot of that will come from them having a strong bid. It got mentioned that Paris can't have a cocky attitude going into the vote. When I hear that, I'm thinking along the lines of an Athens 1996 or a NYC 2012 (where the final presentation was more about how great New York is rather than why it's a good place to host the Olympics). The problem with those cities was they didn't have good bids. If Paris has a good bid (key word there being "if", but we have reason to believe they'll have a good bid), then that's what they can flaunt and that's what will entice the IOC.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2008 was they way it was because they surprisingly lost 2000.

Well, and because Toronto's mayor at the time, Mel Lastman, made some fairly racist remarks which all but contributed to kill Toronto's chances with the African bloc: any chance of the Canadian bid whisking past Beijing died with those slurs made right before a trip to Kenya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, and because Toronto's mayor at the time, Mel Lastman, made some fairly racist remarks which all but contributed to kill Toronto's chances with the African bloc: any chance of the Canadian bid whisking past Beijing died with those slurs made right before a trip to Kenya.

Toronto never had a chance of getting 2008. It was just a great bid, but it was never going to happen for timing reasons, and also China reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, and because Toronto's mayor at the time, Mel Lastman, made some fairly racist remarks which all but contributed to kill Toronto's chances with the African bloc: any chance of the Canadian bid whisking past Beijing died with those slurs made right before a trip to Kenya.

This is assuming Toronto had a chance in the first place, which looking how Beijing literally ran away with the hole thing in only two ballots, that wasn't the case. There were only 15 African IOC members, out of 121, at the time. So even assuming that all of them would've voted for Toronto, Beijing still would've won.

But I'd also like to think that most of these members would be smart enough not to generalize & paint an entire city with one brush & differentiate it from one man's stupid comments. Afterall, Toronto is one of the most multicultural cities in the entire world, & their bid committee emphasized that aspect as much as possible. It was simply just China's time.

I know the following was more or less a different set of circumstances & timing, but when Tokyo governor Naoki Inose made his insensitive comments about the Middle East during the 2020 campaign (in reference to Istanbul 2020), it didn't seem to really damage their bid, since they still won by a very comfortable margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In the article it is mentioned that one proposal is to build the Olympic Stadium asymmetrical therefore the people can see the skyline of the harbour with the the city centre - a disadvantage of that would be that the majority of the stands wouldn't have a roof...

Furthermore in the article the housing of the Trabrennbahn is mentioned - that was a racing track which was changed into a housing area after it wasn't used anymore - I added a link where you can find that racing track on google maps...

The idea is to change the stands into houses - here is how it shall look like:

2c0h554.bild_zpsdxasukx1.jpg


Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very innovative legacy idea, though I don't suppose the athletics lobby within the IOC will love it.

Also, from remembering back to London 2012, our stadium was planned to have no roof initially, but wind studies showed it created conditions which were not ideal for athletes so a small one was installed. Obviously these are very early renders from Hamburg (thanks for posting them!) but I wouldn't be surprised to see a roof appear if Germany is successful.

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...