Jump to content

Should the IOC spend for their own Games?


Should the IOC spend for their own Games?  

9 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the IOC spend for the (new) venues to their Games?



Recommended Posts

It would depend. Ideally, a well planned games should have a venue that residents would be willing to have and maintain (whether it be infrastructure or logistics) or will become an integral, essential, and beneficial legacy. Temporary venues would be a maybe. The IOC could collect donations from former hosts and recycle/reuse seating, signage, and other little things like that. Or, as TorchbearerSydney suggested, the IOC could reuse entire stadia entirely. But I only see that working for less developed nations. I don't think a first-world, developed nation would like to take donations from the IOC and use a repetitive layout as a venue. It may be economical, but it doesn't make you look very good (even if temporary venues don't need to be too extravagant) if not slightly embarrassing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should totally pay for the venues if not at least half of them.

City infrastructure is more for the city itself and in some cases not necessary, but I think at the end of the day the IOC should be giving the cities a lot more money or building specific venues for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things we learnd (or should have learned) from London is that things like a transportable basketball arena or confertible stadium *sound* good, but don't actually work in practice.

Except that it did (sort of). The alternative would've been a far inferior solution. I suppose you could say it was the lesser of two evils in a sense - but I'm in no doubt that the correct compromise was made.

The area where the basketball arena was will have hundreds of homes built on it. That's a better solution than having an unneeded permanent arena gathering dust just a stone's throw away from the Copper Box on land that could've been put to better use.

I'd still like to know exactly what's happened to all the components though. Are they still in storage? (it may be they've been spread around various sports clubs - I know my local non-league football club now has seating from the temporary wings of the Aquatics Centre, for example).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always interesting to see what happens to the temporary equipment post Games. One example is Atlanta's Olympic track which is now used by one of the local universities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that it did (sort of). The alternative would've been a far inferior solution. I suppose you could say it was the lesser of two evils in a sense - but I'm in no doubt that the correct compromise was made.

The area where the basketball arena was will have hundreds of homes built on it. That's a better solution than having an unneeded permanent arena gathering dust just a stone's throw away from the Copper Box on land that could've been put to better use.

I'd still like to know exactly what's happened to all the components though. Are they still in storage? (it may be they've been spread around various sports clubs - I know my local non-league football club now has seating from the temporary wings of the Aquatics Centre, for example).

Having a *temporary* basketball arena vs permanent was a good idea. But it was built to be transported and reused. That didn't work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because if cities don't have a reasonable plan for the venues they just shouldn't bid. The problem is really the size and opulence of the venues.

  • An outdoor concrete velodrome constructed for public use should cost less than one million pounds. London spent 105 million pounds on Lee Valley VeloPark.
  • London spent 270 million pounds on an aquatics center designed by starchitect Zaha Hadid, while a new university aquatics center in the USA costs about $20 million.
  • The only events a city would ever need an 80,000 capacity track and field stadium for are the Olympics or IAAF World Championships. Even Olympic qualifiers and IAAF Diamond League meets only attract a maximum of about 25,000 fans. So building a huge athletics stadium is a ridiculous expense for the host city.

Reform needs to either reduce the number of venues required (allowing dual city bids or breaking the Olympics into team and solo versions) or reduce the scale of the venues back to reasonable sizes. It's not unreasonable to expect the host cities to support athletes. It's just unreasonable to expect the host city to build grand palaces for athletes.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is really the size and opulence of the venues.

  • An outdoor concrete velodrome constructed for public use should cost less than one million pounds. London spent 105 million pounds on Lee Valley VeloPark.

That was the cost of the indoor velodrome (The Pringle)- add another huge amount for the outdoor facilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sydney venues were really low tech and cheap- from the main stadium to the pool, velodrome and indoor halls. They were made mostly with simple wood and steel frames, pressed metal roofs, temporary seats and air-con. No star architects. Best Games ever.

It can be done.

A great park precinct and remediation of highly polluted land was the major cost.

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...