Jump to content

Should Queenstown Bid For 2026 Winter Olympics?


Recommended Posts

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.

Pretty sure the actual cost of what was constructed for the 2014 Olympics was significantly less than $51 billion. That's an awful lot of corruption there. Put the ice events in Moscow? Don't think having the 2 bases for the Olympics being 1,000 miles away from each other is the solution. I think that's a little less that inconvenient because you're still shuttling officials and other dignitaries for events. You have the athletes who all have to be in 1 place for the ceremonies. You can have a snow/ice split like there is at almost every Olympics, so long as the 2 are accessible from one another. Plenty of cities can offer that without resorting to something ridiculous like that. If Russia offered a plan like that, they would not have been awarding the Olympics in the first place.

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.

Vienna/Budapest is simple? That's 2 different countries, 2 different languages, 2 different currencies, and probably some other cultural differences I'm not thinking of. No, that's not simple. Amsterdam/Rotterdam maybe as FYI noted since they're close and accessible.

As it always is, it comes down to a matter of choice. If the IOC's options are, say.. Paris, Berlin, Los Angeles, and Vienna/Budapest, who is likely to win that contest? If 1 city can go at it alone, there's no need for a dual city bid. Again, 2 cities in close proximity to each other in 1 country (as happens often with the Winter Olympics) I could see working. But you're pushing the boundaries of what should be 'allowed' if you think too far outside the box. If this limits the Olympics to a smaller handful of cities and makes them largely inaccessible to some smaller cities/countries, so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Maybe if NZ becomes a dictatorship, terrorises gays and discovers oil it may help....

Well yes, I understand that for Southern hemisphere, it's quite usual to see summer sports competitions during their winter. But let's face it - and again, I'd personally like the idea of an NZ Winter

And yet the number of personnel keeps climbing. PERSONNEL---Lillehammer---Vancouver Media------------8,000-----------12,000 Security---------< 4,000---------16,000 Security for the Commonwealt

Put the ice events in Moscow? Don't think having the 2 bases for the Olympics being 1,000 miles away from each other is the solution. I think that's a little less that inconvenient because you're still shuttling officials and other dignitaries for events. You have the athletes who all have to be in 1 place for the ceremonies.

All they would need to do is have the ceremonies a day earlier and then put the athletes and officials on two and a half hour long charter flights. (Moscow to Sochi is only a bit farther than New York to Atlanta.) That's a tiny price to pay for saving Russia from having to build six venues that will almost certainly end up being white elephants.

Vienna/Budapest is simple? That's 2 different countries, 2 different languages, 2 different currencies, and probably some other cultural differences I'm not thinking of. No, that's not simple. Amsterdam/Rotterdam maybe as FYI noted since they're close and accessible.

Barcelona and Montreal also had two different languages. Austria and Hungary have open borders, the same currency, no restrictions on capital and labor movement, etc. There's no reason they couldn't work together to host.

If Russia offered a plan like that, they would not have been awarding the Olympics in the first place.

. . .

As it always is, it comes down to a matter of choice. If the IOC's options are, say.. Paris, Berlin, Los Angeles, and Vienna/Budapest, who is likely to win that contest? If 1 city can go at it alone, there's no need for a dual city bid. Again, 2 cities in close proximity to each other in 1 country (as happens often with the Winter Olympics) I could see working. But you're pushing the boundaries of what should be 'allowed' if you think too far outside the box. If this limits the Olympics to a smaller handful of cities and makes them largely inaccessible to some smaller cities/countries, so be it.

I agree that dual city bids would not stand a chance right now. I'm arguing that they should.

Auckland/some other city is a good example of why dual city bids are desirable. NZ can't realistically host under the current system of rewarding the biggest and most "magical" bid plans. The IOC needs to push for host countries to make sound decisions and some concessions such as using two cities, or some smaller existing venues rather than big new ones, or using more temporary venues.

Paris, Berlin and Los Angeles are bad examples for my point because they all have lots of existing infrastructure. What I'm saying is that if the IOC is asked to choose between a bid like Athens or Beijing and a Vienna/Budapest bid that they choose the bid that will be less expensive and damaging to the host city (or cities) even if it means picking a bid that requires them to make some concessions.

Splitting the games up between Auckland and a city in the south island would be less fun. The athletes wouldn't have as big of an orgy in the Olympic village, since there would be two villages. The IOC's cocktail parties would be smaller. There would be a one day delay between the ceremonies and the start of the snow sport competitions. That's a worthwhile trade off to allow a great country to be able to host without having to waste huge piles of money on hotels and arenas it doesn't need, though.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm totally on board with joint bids.

But to be picky.. Hungary has it's own currency, and own language that is totally different from German. Not the best choice of countries to co-host.

Bah. They are obligated to join the Euro but haven't done so yet. I really should have double checked that.

Anyway I don't care about Vienna and Budapest particularly. Hamburg and Bremen, Brussels and Antwerp, Toulouse and Marseilles, or Rome and Naples are other examples.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm totally on board with joint bids.

But to be picky.. Hungary has it's own currency, and own language that is totally different from German. Not the best choice of countries to co-host.

Let alone the Austro-Hungarian history and an easily predictable fight over which of these cities would get top of the bill etc etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that dual city bids would not stand a chance right now. I'm arguing that they should.

Auckland/some other city is a good example of why dual city bids are desirable. NZ can't realistically host under the current system of rewarding the biggest and most "magical" bid plans. The IOC needs to push for host countries to make sound decisions and some concessions such as using two cities, or some smaller existing venues rather than big new ones, or using more temporary venues..

The main thing standing in the way of New Zealand hosting is the flip-flop calendar. Not New Zealand being able to use two cities at long distance from one another. That's the least of their worries for the time being.

One could argue that joint bids "should" be given a chance. But how does the IOC enforce that? They really can't, bcuz then they alienate other great, single city options. So it could only be done by a case by case basis.

Many here were literally ridiculing the Stockholm/Are 2022 proposal. But given how the 2022 race has turned into a virtual joke, I bet the IOC would've been looking at that split Swedish proposal like a lion with a piece of steak.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All they would need to do is have the ceremonies a day earlier and then put the athletes and officials on two and a half hour long charter flights. (Moscow to Sochi is only a bit farther than New York to Atlanta.) That's a tiny price to pay for saving Russia from having to build six venues that will almost certainly end up being white elephants.

I wouldn't use Russia as the example here. Between the corruption and the complete and total lack of a legacy plan, not sure you want to point to them that they should have used Moscow. If that's the best they can reasonably offer, then maybe they shouldn't be bidding for the Olympics.

I agree that dual city bids would not stand a chance right now. I'm arguing that they should.

Auckland/some other city is a good example of why dual city bids are desirable. NZ can't realistically host under the current system of rewarding the biggest and most "magical" bid plans. The IOC needs to push for host countries to make sound decisions and some concessions such as using two cities, or some smaller existing venues rather than big new ones, or using more temporary venues.

Paris, Berlin and Los Angeles are bad examples for my point because they all have lots of existing infrastructure. What I'm saying is that if the IOC is asked to choose between a bid like Athens or Beijing and a Vienna/Budapest bid that they choose the bid that will be less expensive and damaging to the host city (or cities) even if it means picking a bid that requires them to make some concessions.

Splitting the games up between Auckland and a city in the south island would be less fun. The athletes wouldn't have as big of an orgy in the Olympic village, since there would be two villages. The IOC's cocktail parties would be smaller. There would be a one day delay between the ceremonies and the start of the snow sport competitions. That's a worthwhile trade off to allow a great country to be able to host without having to waste huge piles of money on hotels and arenas it doesn't need, though.

Maybe they should, but only given the right circumstances. Vienna/Budapest is not it. Amsterdam/Rotterdam is much more sensible. Again, I agree that the IOC needs to ask candidate cities to make smarter decisions, but to re-write the rule book may or may not be a necessarily step.

Getting this back to New Zealand.. as FYI noted, the issue with them is the calendar rather than the choice of city. We always talk about what the IOC 'should' do as opposed to how their votes dictate their actions. But it's a big leap for them to go from being inclusionary to get more countries involved to where they have to throw off their entire calendar to get that country involved. Look how many headaches they are with FIFA and 2022. And that's a much easier sell to move the World Cup elsewhere on the calendar than it would be for the Winter Olympics.

Many here were literally ridiculing the Stockholm/Are 2022 proposal. But given how the 2022 race has turned into a virtual joke, I bet the IOC would've been looking at that split Swedish proposal like a lion with a piece of steak.

I'd say that sounds accurate.. :D

c664d6edcbfc41eedb53e161f02a3451.400x294

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both the dual city and the counter season are certainly hurdles—just how high they are we may find out in the next day or two when the Agenda 2020 report is released. Also in that report will be a new bidding process where you can discuss your proposal up front before spending large sums of money on it. If the IOC said dual cities and counter season were two obstacles too far, then NZ would take the bid no further. Likewise the new infrastructure requirements, if the IOC requirements are still too high then NZ can sensibly withdraw rather than going through a lengthy application process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both the dual city and the counter season are certainly hurdles—just how high they are we may find out in the next day or two when the Agenda 2020 report is released. Also in that report will be a new bidding process where you can discuss your proposal up front before spending large sums of money on it. If the IOC said dual cities and counter season were two obstacles too far, then NZ would take the bid no further. Likewise the new infrastructure requirements, if the IOC requirements are still too high then NZ can sensibly withdraw rather than going through a lengthy application process.

The dual city issue is something the IOC can address if they want. The flip-flop in the calendar, maybe not so much. We know the IOC has addressed calendar issues before, but this would be a new one for them, one they haven't really been confronted with since there has never been a serious bid coming from a Southern Hemisphere city. Someone would probably need to be the guinea pig for that one before the IOC decided whether or not that would get taken seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both the dual city and the counter season are certainly hurdles—just how high they are we may find out in the next day or two when the Agenda 2020 report is released. Also in that report will be a new bidding process where you can discuss your proposal up front before spending large sums of money on it. If the IOC said dual cities and counter season were two obstacles too far, then NZ would take the bid no further. Likewise the new infrastructure requirements, if the IOC requirements are still too high then NZ can sensibly withdraw rather than going through a lengthy application process.

I pretty much admire your enthusiasm Bruce, but you pretty much answered yourself here. Even a report study into hosting costs a couple of million$$. You would need Christchurch.

...But Auckland? I don't think anyone in this topic really knows where Auckland is to Queenstown in relation to geographic and cultural links. I couldn't think of two places more further apart.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quaker2001 I would hope that if a Southern Hemisphere city had the best bid and offered the most to the Olympic movement then the IOC would consider it for its merits, not because it would cause a change in the calendar. If the Olympics were held in New Zealand, I think the best time would be in August with the Paralympics being held in early September which means it wouldn't affect the World Cup, similar timing to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this year.

Also, I believe that the Southern Hemisphere city which would have the best chance of hosting the Games would be Queenstown and to complement @Alexjc's comments, I too believe the bid would need to involve Christchurch. The reason for this is not only Christchurch's Antarctic connection and the earthquakes but I do believe that the blueprint plan for Christchurch has now made Christchurch a much more appealing city to the IOC as it can cater for many of the IOC's requirements.

You have the Stadium and Metro Sports Centre which can host events and ceremonies (and is close to Horncastle Arena in Addington), the East Frame which can be the Athletes' Village, the Convention Centre being the Main Media Centre, Hagley Park and Cathedral Square able to host fan zones, facilities such as the Arts Centre, Arts Gallery and Performing Arts Precinct hosting many cultural Olympiad events as well as being the location of a large percentage of Christchurch's accommodation all within walking distance.

I don't know if anyone saw this but Queenstown experienced record guest night figures for winter this year. Full story: http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/queenstown-experiences-record-guest-numbers-winter-2014-6129693

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quaker2001 I would hope that if a Southern Hemisphere city had the best bid and offered the most to the Olympic movement then the IOC would consider it for its merits, not because it would cause a change in the calendar. If the Olympics were held in New Zealand, I think the best time would be in August with the Paralympics being held in early September which means it wouldn't affect the World Cup, similar timing to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this year.

That's easy for you to say, but you can't discount the fact that the IOC isn't some non-profit organization. They bring in a lot of money from sources like television contracts and sponsorships. That money is then used to help fund the host cities. So if they're flipping the calendar, are those revenue sources as lucrative as they would be in the Northern Winter. I have doubts that they are. You're asking about 9/10ths of the world's population who live in the Northern Hemisphere to get interested in a Winter sports event during their summer. I don't think you can easily discount what a major change that is and if it's going to cost sponsors and TV networks money versus the usual window in February, that's a problem. Particularly when the host city of the Olympics is determined by a majority vote of IOC members, many of which will base their choice out of loyalty to whatever country or sports federation or other entity they are backing. The Commonwealth Games aren't the best example to use here because they jump all over the calendar. The Winter Olympics not so much. And if you put them in close proximity to the World Cup, you'd lose all that build up you normally get from the Winter season that leads into the Olympics.

Beyond all that, here's challenge if you're a country like New Zealand. Sochi's Olympics (put aside all the corruption and the almost total lack of a legacy plan) were based on the premise that they would build this Winter sports resort that people would want to come to for years to come, athletes and tourists alike. If they're trying to build a similar destination in the Southern Hemisphere, will people from around the world come to it? Athletes certainly would since it would be another new training ground during the Northern summer, but is that enough? Does it justify building these facilities in New Zealand to attract people to come visit? That's the other major hurdle. I don't know the answer to that one, but again, I have my doubts. And when you're talking about 'best bid' and what they offer to the Olympic movement, that's all going to come into play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond all that, here's challenge if you're a country like New Zealand. Sochi's Olympics (put aside all the corruption and the almost total lack of a legacy plan) were based on the premise that they would build this Winter sports resort that people would want to come to for years to come, athletes and tourists alike. If they're trying to build a similar destination in the Southern Hemisphere, will people from around the world come to it? Athletes certainly would since it would be another new training ground during the Northern summer, but is that enough? Does it justify building these facilities in New Zealand to attract people to come visit? That's the other major hurdle. I don't know the answer to that one, but again, I have my doubts. And when you're talking about 'best bid' and what they offer to the Olympic movement, that's all going to come into play.

Agree, and this is where I have to be a grinch. The risk of facilities being abandoned is high, you can look elsewhere to see ghostly images of days past glories, Athens anyone? Even Christchurch's QEII Park had clouds over it as an under utilized facility and expensive to operate on a daily basis. The Earthquake was kind of a blessing, they didn't waste time razing it. It's the legacy cost to keep minimal use facilities going long after the magic has gone.

The Cost of even the most basic paired down event would still be high.

The permanent population of Lakes District Council is only @ 25 000, and the Otago and Southland Regional Councils have a mere total of @300 000 between them, and that includes Dunedin and Invercargill. They'll need the strength of Christchurch's 350 000 citizens...(There is only just over 1million people living in the South Island). Central Government would have to step in, which is what will happen anyway.

There are similar comparisons with Sochi, albeit on a vastly smaller scale...Queenstown is also a year round adventure and summertime tourist destination, (snow free as well,) it's also the southernmost wine region you can get.

Apart from reasonable international standard skiing facilities, there would still need to be constructed a Sliegh track and the Ski Jumps. There is a minor fight for where to put those, with Mt Hutt, near Christchurch a major advocate for them. Duplicate facilities may work, but cost is involved.

Talking of 2026 is a long lead in but then so is 2030.

As much as I would love it, with all the factors mentioned here in the last week, I have to pinch myself really hard and say no...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't QEII Park renovated just prior to the earthquake? Turned individual seater to 20,000, a new video screen etc for a Paralympic athletic meet? A new facility could be needed for athletics, perhaps do what Albertville did and turn their Ice Oval to an athletic track post Olympics. Or maybe make it indoors and a dual use facility.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't QEII Park renovated just prior to the earthquake? Turned individual seater to 20,000, a new video screen etc for a Paralympic athletic meet?

Yeah, early plans for a CWGs bid...But the Swimming complex was in need of a serious makeover. All the Pool tanks needed refurbishment. The first quake in 2010 did some serious damage but the stadium seemed to survive with minor repair...The pools were closed and even then plans were to gut the Main Pool hall and turn it into an indoor stadium. Then the 2011 quake hit, and finished the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are crazy for even trying. There are a few folks here in Calgary that are talking 2026 or 2030 and we have 95% of the facilities with the other 5% needing repair or rebuilding. Probably what the WOG need, a great games on budget in a great city.

We - as in New Zealand - are not trying...Now and then you get someone who's sucked in too much mountain air and revives a dream that's been around for the last twenty years. The only capable Olympic event it could host would be the youth version...and even then it's a push. They would never get the central government funding needed for even a basic study.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are crazy for even trying. There are a few folks here in Calgary that are talking 2026 or 2030 and we have 95% of the facilities with the other 5% needing repair or rebuilding. Probably what the WOG need, a great games on budget in a great city.

Too soon after Vancouver? What would Quebec City have to say? I could see a Quebec City WOG before another Calgary one, or at least a failed bid from Quebec City, opening the doors to Calgary in the next one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too soon after Vancouver? What would Quebec City have to say? I could see a Quebec City WOG before another Calgary one, or at least a failed bid from Quebec City, opening the doors to Calgary in the next one.

Why would Quebec City keep trying if they don't have a mountain that could accommodate the Downhill event properly that is within reasonable proximity? That is by far their largest, and possibly only, obstacle from ever hosting the Winter Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any mention of Quebec for a WOG should come with the poster's toughts on the "doesn't have a mountain" problem.

With the possible exception of SLC, I don't see any US city putting together a good bid. I expect Calgary to be the next North American host city, if they IOC every wants to come back here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any mention of Quebec for a WOG should come with the poster's toughts on the "doesn't have a mountain" problem.

With the possible exception of SLC, I don't see any US city putting together a good bid. I expect Calgary to be the next North American host city, if they IOC every wants to come back here.

Denver???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not get back into the Denver/SLC/Reno/Calgary etc debate again, focus here is NZ.

I think it goes without saying that NZ would face a real uphill struggle bidding, let alone hosting, but that is irrespective of which/if any Northern American city would bid as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not get back into the Denver/SLC/Reno/Calgary etc debate again, focus here is NZ.

I think it goes without saying that NZ would face a real uphill struggle bidding, let alone hosting, but that is irrespective of which/if any Northern American city would bid as well.

Amazing how easy it is for a newbie to come along and derail a thread.

But yes, this. If New Zealand is serious about building up winter sports infrastructure, they should start smaller. Not even necessarily a Youth Olympics, but smaller events, then maybe build up to a bigger one. We talk here all the time about how a place like Sochi built itself up from virtually nothing, but New Zealand can't pull off what happened in Russia. Nor should they try. They need to feel things out before they go after a big prize like the Olympics.

  • Like 1
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...