Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Germany have an abundance of ready built stadiums for the Euro's. Most would need roughly 9 days to take of branding and apply the euro logos. It's not like Turkey which would have to build heaps of infrastructure for both-a hard task for the country

The point was, esp. in Turkey's case, was that, aside from the stadia, any host will have teo provide suitable housing and training facilities for the thousands of fans. In Turkey, other than Istanbul, Ankara, Antalya, Mersin and Izmir, the other cities aren't/weren't equipped with 3 or 4-star hotels for the thousands of visitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 494
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Woohoo! I've always been ready to get behind a bid for a games in CAF's backyard. Don't worry, I'll help you with zapping the anti-Hamburg spam.

So apparently it's official: DOSB decided today to bid for 2024, and if necessary possibly also 2028. The city (Berlin or Hamburg) will be determined on 21st March 2015.

tomorrow we will get mor info about the hamburg bid http://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/article205351683/Spektakulaere-Plaene-fuer-Hamburgs-Olympiastadion.html

Some new renderings of the olympic facilities planned for Hamburg:

3-format2020.jpg

3,w=650,c=0.bild.jpg

The aquatic centre (post-olympic use with beach)

3,c=0,h=554.bild.jpg

Olympic stadium converted into housing:

2,w=559,c=0.bild.jpg

Archery in the "Stadtpark"

2,w=559,c=0.bild.jpg

Water polo

2,w=559,c=0.bild.jpg

Olympic dome (e.g. basketball, gymnastics) is to be converted into into a cruise ship terminal

2,w=559,c=0.bild.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an S-Bahn station nearby and by 2024, the Hamburg U-Bahn will have been continued to the south shore of the Elbe river. Concerning their walkable and bikeable games concept, there will probably some new pedestrian/bike bridges from the city centre, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The renders certainly look great, but I don't see how the transport and security will work with that setup. Will they use water taxis to move fans to the stadium?

That is possible - there are two musical theatre on the southern banks of the river Elbe and the vast majority of the audience is using water taxis...

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC - the IOC did not llke the use of 'ferrys' to transport people to Olympic venues in the NYC 2012 bid, citing that as a 'security risk'. So doubtful that they'd like that concept here either.

I remember reading that in the 2012 evaluation.

Does Hamburg have any other options for transport to the main venues then ferrys?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several subway and railway stations within walking distance to the Olympic quarter (see arrows in the map below), possibly also a temporary one in the south. I doubt that ferries will play a significant role for the transport of most of the spectators, also for security reasons.

grafiken-dina3-260814-4grafiken2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts on Hamburg:

A-In Europe (Positive)

B-In Gemrnay (Positive)

C-Pretty good bid plan (Positive)

D-Has a positive looking-legacy, but an expensive one where sports doesn't always benefit(Mutual)

E-pretty small compared to Paris and LA (Negative)

F-Not a well known city (negative)

G-Very small amount of existing venues, especial indoor venues and Olympic stadium

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC - the IOC did not llke the use of 'ferrys' to transport people to Olympic venues in the NYC 2012 bid, citing that as a 'security risk'. So doubtful that they'd like that concept here either.

The use of waterways as soft barriers, with limited bridge access, seems to have been a successful security feature of London 2012. So long as the bridges are not ridiculously narrow, and are sensibly sited relative to public transport stops, access should not be a problem.

My thoughts on Hamburg:

F-Not a well known city (negative)

Not well known?

It's got a McDonalds menu item named after it!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamburg is not an iconic city like London, Tokyo or Paris, but that should not be a requirement for hosting. There should be room for cities like Barcelona to reveal themselves as "hidden gems" as well.

The concern for me is that these types of cities need to have a lot in place before bidding. Barcelona already had their Olympic Park with the athletics stadium, two aquatics centers, arenas, etc before bidding for the Olympics. They built their Olympic Park and sporting venues over time with the Worlds Fair, European championships for various sports, etc. Hamburg is going to try and do the whole thing in one attempt, and the past history of that style of Olympics includes a number of cautionary tales.

On the other hand the best success story for a smaller city building an Olympic Park is another German city. (That's Munich, of course.) So perhaps it will turn out alright for Hamburg.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not well known?

It's got a McDonalds menu item named after it!

Can I sig this?

Also, for those unfamiliar with McDonalds sense it's not a well known company here is a picture of the menu:

7983181340_6feda8b595_b.jpg

Hamburg is not an iconic city like London, Tokyo or Paris, but that should not be a requirement for hosting. There should be room for cities like Barcelona to reveal themselves as "hidden gems" as well.

The concern for me is that these types of cities need to have a lot in place before bidding. Barcelona already had their Olympic Park with the athletics stadium, two aquatics centers, arenas, etc before bidding for the Olympics. They built their Olympic Park and sporting venues over time with the Worlds Fair, European championships for various sports, etc. Hamburg is going to try and do the whole thing in one attempt, and the past history of that style of Olympics includes a number of cautionary tales.

On the other hand the best success story for a smaller city building an Olympic Park is another German city. (That's Munich, of course.) So perhaps it will turn out alright for Hamburg.

Munich by no means was or is a small city. Munich has been a global city and the capital of Southern Germany for quite a long time, even more so in 1972.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamburg is not an iconic city like London, Tokyo or Paris, but that should not be a requirement for hosting. There should be room for cities like Barcelona to reveal themselves as "hidden gems" as well.

Who says being an iconic city 'should be a requirement'. More than likely, it's merely a preference of the IOC when given the choice. We've seen where other "hidden gem" cities like Chicago, Osaka & others have all ended up before. And Barcelona would've never gotten the chance to 'reveal themselves' had it not been for then IOC president JAS being from there & finagling things much to their favor.

So considering that the IOC now has two (or three, depending how some view Rome [although, albeit, Rome has their own issues as well]), global cities on the 2024 roster, I don't see the IOC going for the 'hidden gem' city in this cycle either. And like you outlined, Hamburg still has A LOT of work to do. And if the IOC really wants to brush away the bad image lately where the Olympics are becoming wayyy too expensive these days & making other cities think twice about wanting to host them, barring Budapest, Hamburg is the least likely one to benefit from the "agenda 2020" angle. Not to mention, there's still the issue of Euro 2024 (is Germany still going to bid for that or not).

Having said all that, however, what Hamburg does have on it's side, is Germany being Europe's top economy. They're a sporting prowess at the Summer Games & compared to the others, again, barring Budapest, they've never hosted before (but also like being an iconic city, not having hosted before should also not be a 'requirement' depending on the conduciveness of that new potential host. Otherwise, let's just give it to Budapest, since Hungary has never hosted). But all of that still remains to be seen if it would be enough to get them to top contender position, considering the rest of the competition with all the many other tangible factors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Munich by no means was or is a small city. Munich has been a global city and the capital of Southern Germany for quite a long time, even more so in 1972.

Agreed. And Munich at the time was probably the strongest candidate for the 1972 Summer Olympics against Madrid, Montreal & Detroit. Hamburg this time around is facing much stiffer competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says being an iconic city 'should be a requirement'. More than likely, it's merely a preference of the IOC when given the choice.

I don't think it should even be a preference, though. For all of the negatives associated with the Olympics, the one thing the games absolutely bring is media attention. If there is a wonderful city without much of a mainstream media profile then it will gain more benefit more than a well known city would. It's the issue with New York not wanting to host. New York does not need to be introduced to the world.

Agreed. And Munich at the time was probably the strongest candidate for the 1972 Summer Olympics against Madrid, Montreal & Detroit. Hamburg this time around is facing much stiffer competition.

Madrid had a higher international profile than Munich, though. It is the capital of Spain, home of the Spanish monarchy, former imperial city of a great empire, has the national museums of Spain, etc. Whereas in Germany that stuff has been located in Berlin, though of course Munich had the Bavarian monarchy in the pre-Germany era. Munich had a better plan, and that's all I am saying the IOC should consider. The city with the best plan should win, even if it is not the most prestigious city.

Right now it is easier to judge Paris and Los Angeles than Hamburg since the former have most of the venues in place. That should be the real stumbling block for Hamburg, not the lack of international reputation compared to Paris or Los Angeles.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it should even be a preference, though. For all of the negatives associated with the Olympics, the one thing the games absolutely bring is media attention. If there is a wonderful city without much of a mainstream media profile then it will gain more benefit more than a well known city would. It's the issue with New York not wanting to host. New York does not need to be introduced to the world.

London doesn't need to be introduced to the world either, yet the 2012 Olympics were one of the most watched Olympics ever. So somehow, I don't see the arguement that a Hamburg Olympics would somehow be more watched than a Paris Olympics would. I actually believe the opposite would be true.

New York may not be interested in hosting, but that has absolutely nothing to do in the rest of the world being very interested in seeing them do so. If this board is any indication, a New York Olympics would very much be on the global media profile. Much moreso than unknown Atlanta ever got, which the Olympics didn't do very much in raising their international profile.

This is also a competition afterall, & if global cities are still lining up wanting to host, then I don't see why the IOC shouldn't take any preference in them. Afterall, the IOC is much more interested in their own image on a global scale than they are of trying to enhance the image of lesser-known cities.

Madrid had a higher international profile than Munich, though. It is the capital of Spain, home of the Spanish monarchy, former imperial city of a great empire, has the national museums of Spain, etc. Whereas in Germany that stuff has been located in Berlin, though of course Munich had the Bavarian monarchy in the pre-Germany era. Munich had a better plan, and that's all I am saying the IOC should consider. The city with the best plan should win, even if it is not the most prestigious city.

Back in the 60's though, when the 1972 race was going on, Spain didn't have a 'monarchy'. It was ruled at the time, by a dictator named Francisco Franco. So, much like Erdogan & Istanbul 2020, perhaps the IOC didn't feel quite comfortable with Madrid despite all of the other attributes that Spain had to offer. Plus any other intangibles at the time that we might not be currently aware of. So to say now that the IOC "chose the best plan" in Munich over more 'prestigious' Madrid back then really is a hazy picture at best. Not to mention that Hamburg still isn't even a Munich.

Right now it is easier to judge Paris and Los Angeles than Hamburg since the former have most of the venues in place. That should be the real stumbling block for Hamburg, not the lack of international reputation compared to Paris or Los Angeles.

We're still talking about an *international* organization with 100+ fastidious members, who have their own preferences, agendas & desires, not what one thinks shouldn't be part of the equation. All other things still being equal, many would more than likely pick the site that best excites them to be in, in 2024. History has illustrated that before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamburg is not an iconic city like London, Tokyo or Paris, but that should not be a requirement for hosting. There should be room for cities like Barcelona to reveal themselves as "hidden gems" as well.

The concern for me is that these types of cities need to have a lot in place before bidding. Barcelona already had their Olympic Park with the athletics stadium, two aquatics centers, arenas, etc before bidding for the Olympics. They built their Olympic Park and sporting venues over time with the Worlds Fair, European championships for various sports, etc. Hamburg is going to try and do the whole thing in one attempt, and the past history of that style of Olympics includes a number of cautionary tales.

On the other hand the best success story for a smaller city building an Olympic Park is another German city. (That's Munich, of course.) So perhaps it will turn out alright for Hamburg.

I don't think it should even be a preference, though. For all of the negatives associated with the Olympics, the one thing the games absolutely bring is media attention. If there is a wonderful city without much of a mainstream media profile then it will gain more benefit more than a well known city would. It's the issue with New York not wanting to host. New York does not need to be introduced to the world.

Madrid had a higher international profile than Munich, though. It is the capital of Spain, home of the Spanish monarchy, former imperial city of a great empire, has the national museums of Spain, etc. Whereas in Germany that stuff has been located in Berlin, though of course Munich had the Bavarian monarchy in the pre-Germany era. Munich had a better plan, and that's all I am saying the IOC should consider. The city with the best plan should win, even if it is not the most prestigious city.

Right now it is easier to judge Paris and Los Angeles than Hamburg since the former have most of the venues in place. That should be the real stumbling block for Hamburg, not the lack of international reputation compared to Paris or Los Angeles.

Few things here..

You can't take a long view of this and apply it to a single Olympics. The IOC has their 5 cities. They'll pick the one they want to host the Olympics, by whatever criteria they decide to use. It can't be "they should pick more of this type of city." It's never going to work that way. If you want to make that type of argument for Hamburg itself, that's one thing. But this being the IOC, I don't know how compelling an argument it is.

The catch-22 is also that a city with more in place and a better international reputation is better prepared to host the Olympics than a city that has to build more from the ground up. And we know that can be problematic. What Barcelona pulled off was unique to them. As much as it is 1 of the ultimate Olympic success stories, you have to apply it directly to Hamburg rather than making it a generalization about the type of city it is.

Most importantly though.. the Olympics are a once-every-4-years event. That means at most, 25 cities will get to host this century. So if the IOC has the option to choose only the most prominent cities, that's what they're going to go with. On rare occasions there will be a 1996 where a less-than-prominent city wins because the competition isn't stellar. But obviously that's not the norm. As a New Yorker, I totally get what you're saying about New York not needing the Olympics. But that's an argument to make in that time and place. And in that same vote, it was an equally prominent world city in London that won it. Saying the city with the best plan should win is pie in the sky thinking. I don't see this organization suddenly starting to think that way.

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...