Jump to content

Melbourne Should Bid For Olympic Games


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

You can claim australia would firmly win in 2036- as much as I can't claim we don't have any chance for 2028.

In order for Australia to get a third Olympics, the Summer Games must go to Africa, return to North America and Europe. I think Tokyo getting 2020 may be a positive for Australia- but I think our biggest threat is China. I could see a Shanghai-Melbourne showdown in the 2030s- revenge for 2000 and I think they would have the edge.

Not it Beijing wins 2022, if they win the games will not go back to Asia for a long time...unless we have another race like 2022.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why that year? What is so special about 2036 that 22 years away we can already predict an Australian city hosting???

By 2036 it is safe to say that Europe, Africa, and North America will have hosted thus eliminating the biggest competition for Australia. The only threat to an Oz bid would be Europe (in the case a European city got 2024).

Perth, unlike Brisbane, surprisingly has a centralized rail network, as well as numerous sites for a potential "Olympic Park". They're building a 60,000-70,000 seater new stadium which could serve as the athletics venue, or alternatively just propose a new (to be downsized) athletics stadium. There's several venues right there which could be expanded and upgraded for a potential Olympics.

I think Brisbane could do it, if it were based at the Boondall Wetlands like the 1992 bid. Forget about it's supposed environmental status, just do as minimal work there as possible, which would include a 90,000+ seater main stadium and possibly a new arena to supplement/replace the Brisbane Entertainment Centre. The Chandler area and CBD would serve as 2 additional clusters.

Shows how truly undeveloped they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it seems logical to say that Perth is undeveloped when the phrases "centralized rail network" and "60,000-70,000 seater new stadium" are used in the same sentence. Having space does not necessarily mean undeveloped, it could mean numerous things (population-space ratio, demand, planning, etc) . I can name several "developed" and "rich" cities that have empty lots sitting there waiting to be developed, and some of them are [being planned for new projects]. Boston has some possible lots that can be used re/developed into a stadium, is Boston considered "undeveloped"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undeveloped how? London built an Olympic Park from scratch. Paris proposed numerous temporary sites for their 2012 bid. I fail to see how lacking an existing "Olympic Park" or equivalent makes Perth truly undeveloped.

I guess he came to that conclusion cuz you used the word "numerous" sites. But compared to London & Paris, yeah I'd say that Perth is 'under'-developed instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undeveloped how? London built an Olympic Park from scratch. Paris proposed numerous temporary sites for their 2012 bid. I fail to see how lacking an existing "Olympic Park" or equivalent makes Perth truly undeveloped.

London *re-developed* run down land into an Olympic Park, as did Sydney.

I don't think it seems logical to say that Perth is undeveloped when the phrases "centralized rail network" and "60,000-70,000 seater new stadium" are used in the same sentence. Having space does not necessarily mean undeveloped, it could mean numerous things (population-space ratio, demand, planning, etc) . I can name several "developed" and "rich" cities that have empty lots sitting there waiting to be developed, and some of them are [being planned for new projects]. Boston has some possible lots that can be used re/developed into a stadium, is Boston considered "undeveloped"?

Notice that most of those areas are either limited in size, or surrounded by developed grid systems or suburbs. In some cases they are run down and abandoned.

I guess he came to that conclusion cuz you used the word "numerous" sites. But compared to London & Paris, yeah I'd say that Perth is 'under'-developed instead.

Exactly, had he said maybe one or two perfectly strategic sites then I would not have said undeveloped, but then he went and compared to two of the worlds top cities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

London *re-developed* run down land into an Olympic Park, as did Sydney.

Notice that most of those areas are either limited in size, or surrounded by developed grid systems or suburbs. In some cases they are run down and abandoned.

Exactly, had he said maybe one or two perfectly strategic sites then I would not have said undeveloped, but then he went and compared to two of the worlds top cities...

I was merely stating that the likes of London built many venues from scratch, hence the Olympic Park was built from scratch even if the site was re-developed. Paris would have had to build many venues too. Perth could re-develop an existing site, or simply use an area which has not been developed. All this assuming they want to bid and is Australia's bid of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring it even further

----------------------------------

de·vel·oped
diˈveləpt/
adjective
  • (of a country or region) advanced economically and socially.
    "economic assistance to the less-developed countries"

---------------------------------

"Developed" Nations (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries)

Map_of_Developed_Countries_(CIA_World_Fa----------------------------------

Australia's Regional Competitiveness Index (Source: http://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/research-policy/insight/)

National-Heatmap.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think of as "undeveloped":

Land-2-Large.jpg

What I think of as "developed" :

streetscape1.jpg

chicago_lights.jpg

Perth is:

PERTH%20CITY.jpg

banner-perth-suburbs.jpg

3.%20Yeelirrie.jpg?Action=thumbnail&Widt

Perth is undeveloped in Olympic terms, I can name five (and more) US cities just like Perth that will never host the Olympics because they are not developed to the proper extent.

TAMPA:

tampa-skyline-january.jpg

AUSTIN

AustinSkylineLouNeffPoint-2010-03-29-b.J

NEW ORLEANS

New_Orleans_skyline-02.jpg

MEMPHIS

fls_tennessee_tech_university_nashville.

MIAMI

Miami_Header.jpg

SAN DIEGO

uc-san-diego.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a difference between "undeveloped" & "underdeveloped", though. Western Australia, where Perth is located, is not nearly as "developed" as the Eastern part of Australia. Rogge's 2.5 million minimum number comes to mind here. You'd have to include ALL of Western Australia to get that point. Plus, it's so isolated from everything.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a difference between "undeveloped" & "underdeveloped", though. Western Australia, where Perth is located, is not nearly as "developed" as the Eastern part of Australia. Rogge's 2.5 million minimum number comes to mind here. You'd have to include ALL of Western Australia to get that point. Plus, it's so isolated from everything.

Exactly, Perth is not only underdeveloped (which is what I should have said rather then undeveloped) but it's isolated from the vast Australian population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MEMPHIS

fls_tennessee_tech_university_nashville.

Actually, that's Nashville you got pictured there. But your point still would remain in either case.

But I wouldn't necessarily include Miami in that list. Miami has quite a bit of infrastructure already in place. The Greater Miami has three major airports, & Miami international is huge, with a flock of international daily flights to Europe & Latin America. And hotels are abound over there bcuz it's such a tourist mecca.

If anything, the awful humid & rainy weather in July/august there, & the lack of political will is what most likely would keep Miami off the table. But not bcuz it's "undeveloped" like those other U.S. cities that you named.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perth is undeveloped in Olympic terms, I can name five (and more) US cities just like Perth that will never host the Olympics because they are not developed to the proper extent.

<snip>

Never? If Perth were to bid, would it be just for funsies or would it be because of the legacy and benefits it would produce? If it they were in it for just the heck of it, then sure, count Perth as undeveloped. but If they want to use the benefits of the games to expand and enjoy the positive (if planned right) legacy, then that would kinda be a different story. If anything, the land would be a positive influence as it could be developed for Olympic venues or other legacy things. Really, there's a fine line between realism and just absolute pipedream, but the future may change dramatically for some cities, for the better or the worst. If ya ask me, having everything already perfect would ruin the point of having an Olympics for a legacy seeking city. but yeah, Perth2024 FTW :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that's Nashville you got pictured there. But your point still would remain in either case.

But I wouldn't necessarily include Miami in that list. Miami has quite a bit of infrastructure already in place. The Greater Miami has three major airports, & Miami international is huge, with a flock of international daily flights to Europe & Latin America. And hotels are abound over there bcuz it's such a tourist mecca.

If anything, the awful humid & rainy weather in July/august there, & the lack of political will is what most likely would keep Miami off the table. But not bcuz it's "undeveloped" like those other U.S. cities that you named.

Whops, meant to change that to Nashville.

I'm not sure, Miami has always struck me as the coastal Las Vegas or American Gold Coast/Brisbane. Never really an Olympic city, but you are right in the sense that Miami is a huge tourist destination.

Never? If Perth were to bid, would it be just for funsies or would it be because of the legacy and benefits it would produce? If it they were in it for just the heck of it, then sure, count Perth as undeveloped. but If they want to use the benefits of the games to expand and enjoy the positive (if planned right) legacy, then that would kinda be a different story. If anything, the land would be a positive influence as it could be developed for Olympic venues or other legacy things. Really, there's a fine line between realism and just absolute pipedream, but the future may change dramatically for some cities, for the better or the worst. If ya ask me, having everything already perfect would ruin the point of having an Olympics for a legacy seeking city. but yeah, Perth2024 FTW :P

Yeah because Perth is developed to the point to even imagine being shortlisted. A cities development also refers to their brand and global identity, which is another debate that I think it is best we stray from. In the end I think we all know that Barcelona will never be repeated by any city and the Perth will never host the Olympics.

Now back to Melbourne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah because Perth is developed to the point to even imagine being shortlisted. A cities development also refers to their brand and global identity, which is another debate that I think it is best we stray from. In the end I think we all know that Barcelona will never be repeated by any city and the Perth will never host the Olympics.

I never said Perth would be shortlisted, maybe in the future, but not a definite "never" forever. or do you have the ability to see the future? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I always said the IOC screwed up by blaming the timing as Qatars major problem instead of well let's see (no alcohol, hatred of gays/women, no sporting legacy, etc).

As for Melbourne, it would be great but didn't John Coates already say it wasn't the time for Australia to bid again? Plus didn't he also say when we do bid it'll be with Brisbane? I know he said it 2 years ago but he hasn't said much about Melbourne and I also know Melbourne would have a better shot but still, if they want to bid, it'd be good to have his blessing.

Melbourne might have gotten away with the different months while Coates was just an IOC member but now that is the Vice President, it's going to look bad if they allow Melbourne but not Doha.

Even if he wasn't on the board, the IOC set a pretty firm precedent when they explicitly mentioned the scheduling among the reasons they cut Doha. Qatar would be justified in calling foul if any country now, not just Oz, was allowed to slide on that score.

I don't buy that. I get what you're saying that the IOC made a point of it, but I can't imagine if the situation came up that Melbourne bid and asked for different dates and the IOC treated them differently than Doha that suddenly the Qataris would be up in arms over that one. They have bigger issues to worry about right now, so I doubt they're still bitter. Although if they lose the World Cup, that might change things.

Yeah sure. The IOC should bend their rules whenever they want. They've done a great job in recent years. Cities are lining up all over the world to bid for the Olympics. No wait, they're not and by the looks of how Rio's preparation is going, more and more cities are going to be deterred.

How can you not realize that the IOC blocked themself in a corner. So you think when Melbourne bids (possibly for 2028) they'll say "yeah sure bid with october". And Qatar and other nations will say "that's cool, deny us our changed months but allow Melbourne, we still love the Olympics and won't cause a fuss cause we're such nice, friendly, welcoming people".

All the IOC needed to do was pick ONE fucking problem with Qatar, but now they've fucked Melbourne over or they've fucked Qatar and other countries who think the IOC should stick to their fucking rules! Either way someone is getting fucked.

Anyone ever tell you you say fu©k a lot?

The IOC didn't block themselves into anything. Australia has hosted 2 very successful Olympics. Qatar has.. bought themselves weightlifters from Bulgaria? They can harp on the scheduling issue and be all butthurt about it, but if the IOC wants to have a double standard there, they're not going to get called out on it. No one got fucked here. Not Qatar. Certainly not Australia (now if NBC and their $7.75 billion wants to bitch and moan about it, that's another story)

Cities are losing interest left, right and centre. And sure, why some members may not give a **** about small country Qatar losing interest in hosting, i'm sure other countries won't like the fact that the IOC is bending the rules for some countries. The IOC's reputation is already quite low, maybe they should not go around pissing countries off..

Yeah that's great and well for Brisbane except then the IOC would have pissed off Melbourne and other potential cities with different months (Dubai?) for ruining their chances to host simply because they made up a shitty excuse for Doha.

It's not just pro-Melbourne. I'm "pro" not seeing the IOC face countries boycotting games and countries kicking up a fuss because the IOC is pissing countries off. You think allies of Qatar won't defend them if the IOC screw them over? Or Melbourne/Dubai/other cities with diff dates getting annoyed that they can't host the games because of a stupid precedent?

No question the IOC isn't exactly a shining beacon of fairness. But I have a feel we're harping on this more than anyone in the actual IOC would. You make it sound like Melbourne is already screwed because you're so sure Qatar is going to cause a fuss. Except it's Qatar. What do they really mean to the IOC? You think countries would boycott on their behalf for this? Are you serious? I could see them boycotting FIFA if something happens with the 2022 World Cup. But this is nothing. It's not like Doha would have been a favorite to host 2020 and the big bad IOC eliminated them on a technicality. Let alone that all of this about the timing of a Doha Olympics occurred AFTER they got awarded a World Cup. So like they had any shot at it whatsoever. No precedent has been set here. It's an isolated incident that had the subtext of "thanks, but we'd rather not bring you along, so we'll use this as a convenient excuse." At most, the IOC pissed off one country. No one got screwed. No precedent was set. It's over and done with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, even by GamesBids standards, this is a really stupid discussion. What is the point ANYONE is trying to make here?

Yeah, I don't get this...a local/regional govt ahead of an election is playing with the idea of bidding, and all of a sudden a serious debate on here ignites, even though it seems obvious that any of the Australian cities in question will in all likelihood not host within the next 20 years or even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question the IOC isn't exactly a shining beacon of fairness. But I have a feel we're harping on this more than anyone in the actual IOC would. You make it sound like Melbourne is already screwed because you're so sure Qatar is going to cause a fuss. Except it's Qatar. What do they really mean to the IOC? You think countries would boycott on their behalf for this? Are you serious? I could see them boycotting FIFA if something happens with the 2022 World Cup. But this is nothing. It's not like Doha would have been a favorite to host 2020 and the big bad IOC eliminated them on a technicality. Let alone that all of this about the timing of a Doha Olympics occurred AFTER they got awarded a World Cup. So like they had any shot at it whatsoever. No precedent has been set here.

So you think Qatar won't care if the IOC allows Melbourne to host with different months but not them? Sure, maybe countries won't boycott but will the IOC's already damaged reputation look better if they are pissing off nations (even if they are as small and pathetic as Qatar)?

It's an isolated incident that had the subtext of "thanks, but we'd rather not bring you along, so we'll use this as a convenient excuse." At most, the IOC pissed off one country. No one got screwed. No precedent was set. It's over and done with.

So you admit that they did screw over Qatar, giving them a crap excuse instead of naming one of the several other issues?

I'm not saying Doha was a favorite, or that they should host. Just that the IOC gave an INconvenient excuse which will come back to haunt them in the future bidding cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think Qatar won't care if the IOC allows Melbourne to host with different months but not them? Sure, maybe countries won't boycott but will the IOC's already damaged reputation look better if they are pissing off nations (even if they are as small and pathetic as Qatar)?

Qatar has bigger concerns right now. Yea they may care a little, but that's going to be isolated to them. Do you really think the rest of the world is going to look at it and say "ooh, the IOC has a double standard, what a shady organization, we can't work with them!"? No, they won't. Like you said, Qatar is small and pathetic. Right now, they're the country that may very well be stripped of hosting rights to the World Cup, not to mention their piss poor record of human rights that is being exposed to the rest of the world. There's probably plenty of countries out there that think the IOC did everyone a favor by cutting them off. Again, the decision to not shortlist Qatar was made after they had won the rights to the World Cup. That the timetable was cited as an excuse is something they might harp on (key word: 'might'), you're harping on, but years from now, will it still be something people harp on? I doubt it. Even if Australia were to bid for 2028 (let alone if they bid later on), it's a long time off.

So you admit that they did screw over Qatar, giving them a crap excuse instead of naming one of the several other issues?

I'm not saying Doha was a favorite, or that they should host. Just that the IOC gave an INconvenient excuse which will come back to haunt them in the future bidding cycles.

So when I said No one got screwed, your response to me is So you admit that they did screw over Qatar?

Again, clearly those other issues were at play. The only way you could say Qatar got screwed is if they might have won if not for the timetable. They were never going to win. Doubtful they would have made the shortlist. Therefore, they did not get screwed. The IOC used the timetable as an excuse to not put them on the shortlist, but everyone including those in Qatar probably know that it was more than that. I'm betting you know that too but, in grand GamesBids fashion, you're obsessed with 1 tiny point that you think makes or breaks the discussion. It doesn't. It will not come back to haunt come. Situations change. What was or wasn't acceptable in 2020 may be different in 2028. That's all you need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a difference between "undeveloped" & "underdeveloped", though. Western Australia, where Perth is located, is not nearly as "developed" as the Eastern part of Australia. Rogge's 2.5 million minimum number comes to mind here. You'd have to include ALL of Western Australia to get that point. Plus, it's so isolated from everything.

Perth has gone from 1.5 million in 2006 to 2 million in 2014 just 8 years and is Australia fastest growing city now and will be around the 4 million people mark by 2040, Perth is one of the fastest growing cities in the world and is also one of the longest cities in the world too, 2020s are bit too soon for Perth but in the 2030s and 2040s it will be ready to host the Olympics and Paralympics Games.

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...