Jump to content

Should Queenstown Bid For 2026 Winter Olympics?


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lilehammer was 20 years ago... not all that different. Modern media has less need to be *right there* than ever before.

And yet the number of personnel keeps climbing.

PERSONNEL---Lillehammer---Vancouver

Media------------8,000-----------12,000

Security---------< 4,000---------16,000

Don't worry about the security issue. Remember a certain Commonwealth Games held in Christchurch in the wake of the Munich Massacre? There was huge security for that event and it went without any incident.

Security for the Commonwealth Games in 1974 and the Winter Olympics in 2026 are not equivalent.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet the number of personnel keeps climbing.

PERSONNEL---Lillehammer---Vancouver

Media------------8,000-----------12,000

Security---------< 4,000---------16,000

Security for the Commonwealth Games in 1974 and the Winter Olympics in 2026 are not equivalent.

Security folks typically have their own housing, barracks, ships, etc. They aren't taking up room at the Holiday Inn.

Put some of the media people in Auckland and/or Wellington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lilehammer was 20 years ago... not all that different. Modern media has less need to be *right there* than ever before. New Zealand is probably the easiest place on earth to secrue.

As for rooms - I'm not aware of any housing shortages in Vancouver or Sochi. There would be many fewer in New Zealand, but people don't need to sleep in hotels. They can camp, sleep in dorms, or the good people of New Zealand can open up their homes.

We make things too hard. Many of these "little" probably can be overcome. If the IOC wants (that's the big question)

And yet the number of personnel keeps climbing.

PERSONNEL---Lillehammer---Vancouver

Media------------8,000-----------12,000

Security---------< 4,000---------16,000

Put some of the media people in Auckland and/or Wellington.

How about put some of the spectators in Auckland and/or Wellington. I'd say they're marginally less important than the members of the media.

The number of media members at the Olympics hasn't grown simply because of growth of digital media and the like. When you have more athletes, more nations competing, and especially more venues, you need more media to cover it all. There are certain people (the blogger types and others) that don't need to be right there and a lot of them probably don't make the trip anyway because of the expense. But if they're going to be there, they need to be taken care of. Not like they need to be in a 5-star hotel, but you're not going to put them up in camps. You don't want to tell these people that there are no accomodations for them or else you're going to wind up with this..

Sochi's Already a Mess, for Journalists at Least

As I understand it from some media members who were in Sochi, if you were there with a TV network or other big organization like NBC, these weren't issues for you. And yes, it was some of the extraneous media members who got hit the hardest by these issues. Still, not how you want to treat journalists who are reporting back to the rest of the world and could influence whether or not tourists and other travelers will come to that city in the future.

Things are a lot different than 20 years ago. Until the IOC trims down the Olympics (and not until after) will they start to resemble one another.

We all know (well, make that we would like to hope) that the IOC probably needs to figure out ways to trim costs. This is not 1 of them. They can accept or reject however many media credentials they see fit, but that's a dangerous game to play to tell accredited journalists that they're not welcome at the Olympics or that there isn't enough accommodation for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, just out of interest...Find a map of New Zealand and locate where Auckland is geographically from Queenstown...and you will find that Christchurch is a better fit as a host city located near the main ski resorts including Queenstown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet the number of personnel keeps climbing.

PERSONNEL---Lillehammer---Vancouver

Media------------8,000-----------12,000

Security---------< 4,000---------16,000

Security for the Commonwealth Games in 1974 and the Winter Olympics in 2026 are not equivalent.

Of course they are not equivalent, it was just used as an example of how security was beefed up for the event that would have otherwise have had the general security numbers of the time.

Guys, just out of interest...Find a map of New Zealand and locate where Auckland is geographically from Queenstown...and you will find that Christchurch is a better fit as a host city located near the main ski resorts including Queenstown.

Auckland/Queenstown is still more reasonable than the likes of Stockholm/Are, simply because Queenstown has it's own dedicated airport nearby and not like 80km away from the ski resorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auckland/Queenstown is still more reasonable than the likes of Stockholm/Are, simply because Queenstown has it's own dedicated airport nearby and not like 80km away from the ski resorts.

Auckland is NZs main International gateway BUT Christchurch is also a main Intl' gateway and can cope with A380 sized aircraft as well...Christchurch being a host city for events and international Mt Hutt skifield nearby.

Queenstown handles fights from Australia on a daily basis up to A320/B737-800. Runway has pretty much lengthened out to the max without some serious engineering work at the lake end...Check out Google Earth to see what I mean. The terminal is being expanded in size and could grow to handle the day to day infux of an Olympics in progress with a good management plan.

But it will need help from Invercargill with it's much longer runway if anything like A321/B737-900/787 types that would be used. Wanaka has a small airport that can handle aircraft up to ATR72 size along with Alexandra further down the Clutha River a similar sized airport.

One thing the Queenstown and Lakes District Region has are excellent main roads due to former hydro electric projects and a high density of tourist road traffic.

Also Auckland is more a sub tropic city with no real "cultural' connection with Queenstown/Wanaka. Christchurch is a far better pairing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting posts there about Auckland vs Christchurch, I think good cases can be made for both.

I'm watching IOC news releases like a hawk because any day now we should see the new IOC requirements. This one on Agenda 2020,

"Some of the key areas addressed were possible changes to the bidding process, shaping it more as an invitation and to reduce costs. More flexibility with regard to the composition of the Olympic programme was also recommended...All the recommendations will be made public in mid-November after the IOC members have had the opportunity to study them.
http://www.olympic.org/news/olympic-agenda-2020-discussions-culminate-in-20-more-than-20-recommendations/239874

I appreciate that if there aren't any significant changes to the IOC requirements then a full feasibility study of the NZ Olympic Winter Games 2026 just won't go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they are not equivalent, it was just used as an example of how security was beefed up for the event that would have otherwise have had the general security numbers of the time.

Auckland/Queenstown is still more reasonable than the likes of Stockholm/Are, simply because Queenstown has it's own dedicated airport nearby and not like 80km away from the ski resorts.

They're on different islands?? I wouldn't say it's reasonable. It's almost the equivalent of having had Sochi co-hosting with Moscow..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auckland/Queenstown is still more reasonable than the likes of Stockholm/Are, simply because Queenstown has it's own dedicated airport nearby and not like 80km away from the ski resorts.

Are you kidding with this?! Twice the distance of Stockholm/Are, not to mentj

..mention a large body of water in-between, is more "reasonable, simply because" Queenstown has it's own 'dedicated' airport. Since when is air travel 'reasonable' for a Winter Olympics anyway. Just when I thought you couldn't come up with anymore more lame brain ideas! Geez :-/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of those "media" members are the journalists actually covering the events, and how many are support/technical people?

No idea what the split is. Don't discount the importance of the technical folks though. People like cameramen and other technicians at the venues aren't easy to come by, particularly if you want the best possible TV broadcast that befits an Olympics. And to what you said earlier, those are the members of the media that need to be at the venues and can't cover the Olympics from afar.

Worth noting in terms of the numbers.. the number of nations competing at the Olympics increased a little over 30% from Lillehammer to Sochi. Numbers of events and athletes have each grown more than 60%. According to Nacre's numbers, the number of media has only grown by 50%. Considering how much more complex television broadcasts are now than they were 20 years ago, I'd say that's a pretty modest increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a parallel universe, Queenstown would be great venue...weather permitting. Sadly, in reality, it will never happen. New Zealand simply cannot justify spending that kind of money on an event it really doesn't care much for.

I've got other things that my taxes would rather be spend on...needs. A winter Olympics is a want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, just out of interest...Find a map of New Zealand and locate where Auckland is geographically from Queenstown...and you will find that Christchurch is a better fit as a host city located near the main ski resorts including Queenstown.

The easiest means of reform available to the IOC is getting away from the idea of a single city hosting. The World Cup is hosted in different cities and nobody has a problem with that. It's certainly a lot more feasible than telling the BBC that its technical crew will be sleeping on the street, or that everyone will have to bring pack lunches to the games since there aren't enough temporary workers for concessions, or that there won't be many volunteers to guide foreign fans.

Amsterdam can't reasonably host the summer games anymore but Amsterdam & Rotterdam could together, and with two cities it would be easier to find post-games uses for the new construction projects.

They can implement other reforms as well. But giving more support to bids like Krakow/Zakopane is the least painful way of accommodating the hosts' needs without compromising the IOC's alliances with broadcasters, sporting federations and of course the fans.

Are you kidding with this?! Twice the distance of Stockholm/Are, not to mentj

..mention a large body of water in-between, is more "reasonable, simply because" Queenstown has it's own 'dedicated' airport. Since when is air travel 'reasonable' for a Winter Olympics anyway. Just when I thought you couldn't come up with anymore more lame brain ideas! Geez :-/

How do you think international fans are going to get to New Zealand in the first place? Swimming?

80+% of people going to a New Zealand winter games from outside of New Zealand would be flying through Auckland anyway. Splitting the games up between Auckland and a second city just means one less flight for people going to the ice events. It would also be better for New Zealanders, since there are far more people living on the north island.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest means of reform available to the IOC is getting away from the idea of a single city hosting. The World Cup is hosted in different cities and nobody has a problem with that.

Technically, more than one city hosts the Winter Olympics anyway, ie Vancouver/Whistler, Sochi/Krasnaya Polyana, PyeongChang/Ganeung, etc. Same goes for the Summer Olympics. So I don't see what's the issue here. Unless you're suggesting a far broader "regional" effort, which then really just dilutes what makes the Olympics so special in the first place.

The World Cup is just ONE sport (who are FANTATIC fans over that sport, I might add) & who's spectatorship & fan base decreases as the tournament goes along. So those remaining die-hard fans will travel to the ends of the earth to see their beloved teams all the way to victory. Plus, unless you're Doha, what one other city (besides none) has a dozen or so soccer stadiums just laying around.

How do you think international fans are going to get to New Zealand in the first place? Swimming?

80+% of people going to a New Zealand winter games would be flying through Auckland anyway. Splitting the games up between Auckland and a second city just means one less flight for people going to the ice events.

Of course not. Don't be silly. Everyone would be wet behind the ears then! :-P

But seriously, traveling ANYWHERE long-distance of course requires air travel. However, once you reach your destination, further air travel then just becomes very cumbersome & tedious. Especially when you're then dealing with venue (& air) schedules right in the middle of winter when the weather could really be unpredictable.

I'm sure that most athletes waiting for their events to begin, would rather spend that time training than to spend it on some airplane getting to their event, or worse yet, stranded due to inclement weather. Not to mention the more logistical & security challenges that this would impose on the host city/country as well. This is akin to the "ferry tranport" that some like to argue here for the Summer Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, more than one city hosts the Winter Olympics anyway, ie Vancouver/Whistler, Sochi/Krasnaya Polyana, PyeongChang/Ganeung, etc. Same goes for the Summer Olympics. So I don't see what's the issue here. Unless you're suggesting a far broader "regional" effort, which then really just dilutes what makes the Olympics so special in the first place.

This is already the de facto reality, though, as you mentioned. No hosts have the majority of events in one Olympic Park anyway.

I'm sure that most athletes waiting for their events to begin, would rather spend that time training than to spend it on some airplane getting to their event, or worse yet, stranded due to inclement weather. Not to mention the more logistical & security challenges that this would impose on the host city/country as well. This is akin to the "ferry tranport" that some like to argue here for the Summer Games.

There would simply be two Olympic villages in this case. The IOC doesn't want to make that change. But it's not really that big of a concession to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest means of reform available to the IOC is getting away from the idea of a single city hosting. The World Cup is hosted in different cities and nobody has a problem with that. It's certainly a lot more feasible than telling the BBC that its technical crew will be sleeping on the street, or that everyone will have to bring pack lunches to the games since there aren't enough temporary workers for concessions, or that there won't be many volunteers to guide foreign fans.

Amsterdam can't reasonably host the summer games anymore but Amsterdam & Rotterdam could together, and with two cities it would be easier to find post-games uses for the new construction projects.

They can implement other reforms as well. But giving more support to bids like Krakow/Zakopane is the least painful way of accommodating the hosts' needs without compromising the IOC's alliances with broadcasters, sporting federations and of course the fans.

Spreading the Olympics across 2 or more cities isn't exactly going to reduce costs. You still need the same number of venues, but if you're in more than 1 city, you're still increasing your infrastructure costs. Yes, maybe it's easier to find post-Olympics uses, but I don't think it needs to go that far from where a single city can't host an Olympics. And if you're going to use the World Cup as an example.. remind me again how the Olympics conduct their football tournaments? 1 city is not going to have enough stadiums (among the other needs to serve the players as well as the fans) to keep everyone in 1 spot. At least with the Olympics, you have many sports and many different venues going on. Not like at the World Cup where teams and their fans might have 4 or 5 days between games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is already the de facto reality, though, as you mentioned. No hosts have the majority of events in one Olympic Park anyway.

So then what's the problem? Having everything TOO spread out isn't the answer, either.

There would simply be two Olympic villages in this case. The IOC doesn't want to make that change. But it's not really that big of a concession to make.

Well, Vancouver had two villages anyway. So the IOC has already embraced that concept. But how exactly is it a "concession" if you're suggesting spending more money on building extra things, like another village, if the need really isn't there for a city to take on, simply for the sake of 'spread of things out', because supposedly that seems cost efficient to some on the surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spreading the Olympics across 2 or more cities isn't exactly going to reduce costs.

It will reduce costs because two cities -by definition- will have more existing infrastructure than one of them would alone.

If Russia had hosted 2014 in Moscow (using existing venues for the main stadium, ice arenas and the sliding track at Paramonovo) and used Adler as a co-host for the snow events, then it wouldn't have blown anywhere close to 51 billion USD on its games.

This isn't as convenient for fans who want to shuttle between all the events. But very few people end up seeing more than a few events anyway. A snow/ice split still leaves plenty of stuff for people in each of the two hosts to see. 99% of fans would be happy with tickets to three of ice hockey, speed skating, curling and figure skating.

And if you're going to use the World Cup as an example.. remind me again how the Olympics conduct their football tournaments?

That's precisely my point. Holding events in Manchester, Portland, etc for a London Olympics hasn't hurt the games. So why should it be impossible for a dual-city bid to work?

Yes, maybe it's easier to find post-Olympics uses, but I don't think it needs to go that far from where a single city can't host an Olympics.

If one city can cope with the games then I have nothing against it, but the list of single cities capable of hosting gets smaller as the games get bigger with each cycle. There are only so many cities as large and influential as Beijing, Tokyo, London, Los Angeles, etc.

Allowing dual city bids is a simple and effective solution for the IOC to allow cities like Vienna and Budapest, Amsterdam and Rotterdam or Santiago and Valparaiso to host.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with a spread of "assisting" venue cities, as long as it is all in a reasonable geographical area. For a hypothetical Queenstown bid, you would probably end up with Christchurch anyway. I suppose Auckland could be used for the Hockey but you'd have to feel for the players stuck way up there near the top of Te Ika a Maui (Nth Island) when all the fun is down near the bottom of Te Waipounamu (Sth Island)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Russia had hosted 2014 in Moscow (using existing venues for the main stadium, ice arenas and the sliding track at Paramonovo) and used Adler as a co-host for the snow events, then it wouldn't have blown anywhere close to 51 billion USD on its games.

OR had the IOC just chosen Salzburg 2014 TBW, it would've saved Russia a whole ton of money, & the IOC a whole ton of headaches now with the joke that is now the 2022 race.

That's precisely my point. Holding events in Manchester, Portland, etc for a London Olympics hasn't hurt the games. So why should it be impossible for a dual-city bid to work?

Again, this is just one sport. And it's not a marquee one at that at the Summer Olympics, so that's why it hasn't hurt the Games in that aspect. Most people that go to (or watch) the Summer Olympics go for the main events like "swimming" :-P, diving, gymnastics, athletics, etc, than soccer.

If one city can cope with the games then I have nothing against it, but the list of single cities capable of hosting gets smaller as the games get bigger with each cycle. There are only so many cities as large and influential as Beijing, Tokyo, London, Los Angeles, etc.

Well, to use Salzburg again (which is far from a Beijing, Tokyo, London, Los Angeles) the IOC had that option, where one city could've coped with the 2014 Winter Games (with a little help from nearby Germany, right across the border), but instead chose the flashy-ness & grandiosity of what Putin had to offer.

Allowing dual city bids is a simple and effective solution for the IOC to allow cities like Vienna and Budapest, Amsterdam and Rotterdam or Santiago and Valparaiso to host.

Amsterdam & Santiago would likely have some venues placed in Rotterdam & Valparaiso anyway, since they are very *nearby*. So that's a given. And even a Vienna/Budapest is still a heck of a lot closer than a 'Moscow/Sochi'. .

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...