Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gromit

Lillehammer 2026/2030

Recommended Posts

According to the Norwegian media, Lillehammer is considering a bid for the 2026 or 2030 games ... if the IOC do a double bid then Lillehammer would look at 2030 only with the possibility of some events being held in Bergen, Stavanger, Oslo or Trondheim

http://www.vg.no/sport/idrettspolitikk/lillehammer-utreder-ny-ol-soeknad/a/23967192/

Whilst the practicality of transportation links across Norway make the difficulty of adding extra cities unlikely, Lillehammer already has a number of existing facilities in place.

Bobsleigh tracks, Biathlon/Cross Country stadia is still in place as is the Ski Jumping Hill and Arena

As for the other venues there is:

Hakon Hall (10,500 seats) - Ice Hockey1,

Nordlyshallen in Hamar (7,000 seats) - a wooden structure, potentially expandable to 12,000 seats temporarily for Figure Skating

Gjovik Olympic Hall (6,000 seats) - Curling,

the Vikingskipet (10,600 seats) - Speed Skating.

Kristins Hall (4,000 seats) in Lillehammer could be used for Curling 

The Briskeby Arena in Hamar might also have a potential use

It would seem to be already better placed than the likes of Innsbruck

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lillehammer put on a memorable WOGs in 194, the last of the small resort towns to do so. I think there's a place for Lillehammer if Norway ever decides to give it another go, but the WOGs have become too big for Lillehammer to do it alone. Working with Oslo would be a better (and cheaper) option. Much like Innsbruck, I could see a Norway bid utilizing many of the indoor ice venues in Lillehammer rather than the Oslo 2022 plan which concentrated the ice events in Oslo and the snow events in Lillehammer. Vikingskipet would be a definite candidate for speed skating. Hakons Hall could host either ice hockey or figure skating. Nordlyshallen would practically have to be rebuilt from scratch to increase capacity from 7,000 to 12,000, and there's no need for Lillehammer to have three 10,000 seat plus arenas (along with Vikingskipet and Hakons Hall). IMO, a more cost conscious option would be using Telenor Arena and the Spektrum in Oslo for indoor ice events Telenor can hold close to 15,000 so that along with Hakons Hall takes care of that requirement. My guess would be Telenor Arena would be the main ice hockey arena with the Spektrum as the secondary one. Hakons Hall could host figure skating and short track. Given the problems getting cities to bid, I doubt the IOC would be too unhappy if a prospective WOG candidate did not keep the standard ice cluster and snow cluster but spread them out much as Innsbruck is proposing and likely what Sion will propose.

Having said all that, I think a WOG bid from Norway is highly unlikely for 2026 and maybe even 2030 as well. It's not just the prospective referendum that would have to pass, but I imagine there's some bad blood right now between the IOC and Norway, especially after the IOC raked Oslo over the coals when they withdrew from the 2022 race. Recall that when the likes of Krakow and Munich pulled out, the IOC response was one of "we're disappointed but we respect the decision of the people." When Oslo ended its bid, the IOC gave a very hostile response in part because of who they were left with. I don't think Norway has forgotten that and they won't anytime soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did mention 'temporary'

London 2012 had a temporary basketball arena quickly taken down after the games holding 12,000 people

The Shayba Arena is Sochi is designed to be temporary and moveable. One of the arenas in 2018 was designed only to be temporary

Lillehammer, Hamar and Gjorvik are three individual settlements with Lillehammer and Hamar over 35miles apart with their own teams. Clearly over the last 23years they've had no difficulty in effectively operating such large venues

The original idea in 1994 was to have all the ice arenas in Lillehammer and the relocate two of them after the games. Nordlyshallen was originally planned as a temporary structure. There is no reason that it cannot be rebuilt for the games and then have it's capacity reduced - the Peaks Ice Arena had a capacity of 8,400 for the 2002 games since reduced to 2,300 seats

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, gromit said:

I did mention 'temporary'

London 2012 had a temporary basketball arena quickly taken down after the games holding 12,000 people

The Shayba Arena is Sochi is designed to be temporary and moveable. One of the arenas in 2018 was designed only to be temporary

Lillehammer, Hamar and Gjorvik are three individual settlements with Lillehammer and Hamar over 35miles apart with their own teams. Clearly over the last 23years they've had no difficulty in effectively operating such large venues

The original idea in 1994 was to have all the ice arenas in Lillehammer and the relocate two of them after the games. Nordlyshallen was originally planned as a temporary structure. There is no reason that it cannot be rebuilt for the games and then have it's capacity reduced - the Peaks Ice Arena had a capacity of 8,400 for the 2002 games since reduced to 2,300 seats.

 

 

 

 

London's temporary arena is the only example of a successful temporary indoor arena. Shayba Arena was designed to be temporary but it's structure does not allow it to be moved without complete demolition as intended. It is a white elephant among the many of Sochi that is one of the reasons that the IOC is in the mess it is with the WOGs. The secondary ice hockey arena for Pyeongchang is designed to be temporary but look at its structure. It's highly unlikely it is going to be deconstructed and moved afterwards. Even London's arena was supposed to be reused but it was not financially feasible. At least it was cheaper than a permanent white elephant. However, when it comes to either using an existing arena or building a temporary arena, using the existing arena is the cheaper option. It's the reason that London went from building four temporary arenas to one (fencing moved to EXCEL, volleyball to Earls Court, and rhythmic gymnastics and badminton moved to Wembley Arena). Same goes for Oslo/Lillehammer. Why build a temporary arena or undertake an expensive expansion to an existing one when you already have the arenas with the capacity required?

Nordylshallen could be rebuilt but the cost of doing so would be way more expensive rather than using an existing structure in Oslo (Oslo is also building a 6,000 seat ice arena to replace the Jordal Amfi Arena. 

A note about the Peaks Ice Arena, its capacity was reduced after the WOGs but the extensive renovation does not allow for it to be expanded again barring practically gutting it and rebuilding it. The same would have to be done to Nordlyshallen. I don't discount that it could be rebuilt but the question is is it financially feasible if existing venues can do the job? It's much more difficult to increase capacity of indoor arena precisely because it is enclosed. It's not like adding capacity to an outdoor stadium where you have more room to work with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the current bad blood between Norway and the IOC, I just don't see Lillehammer winning an Olympic bid in this day and age without Oslo being the anchor city. And I don't see Oslo being part of the games if it isn't the anchor city either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I believe that the IOC would welcome a smaller Winter Olympics - they have gotten way out of control and the smaller venues while costing the organisers some revenue and the obvious smaller pool of ticket availability would be a welcome reset from the superdomes of Sochi etc.  PC is doing this to a degree and Beijing is building very little so a smaller Games with existing infrastructure will be music to the IOC's ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

Beijing is building very little

tumblr_o39x2fzeQc1tk48vko1_400.gif

While the city itself may not have to build any indoor events, the bid has to practically build an entire alpine skiing resort from scratch as well as every outdoor venue. Let's not forget the cost the bid will endure from all the artificial snow they have to produce since it hardly, if ever snows where the outdoor events will be held. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up spending more than what Pyeongchang will spend for their Olympic games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus I said Beijing and not Zhangjiakou :)

Lillehammer has the benefit of multiple existing indoor venues without the need for alpine construction (for the most part).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:42 AM, thatsnotmypuppy said:

Personally I believe that the IOC would welcome a smaller Winter Olympics - they have gotten way out of control and the smaller venues while costing the organisers some revenue and the obvious smaller pool of ticket availability would be a welcome reset from the superdomes of Sochi etc.  PC is doing this to a degree and Beijing is building very little so a smaller Games with existing infrastructure will be music to the IOC's ears.

Does the IOC really want a smaller Winter Olympics? They still seem like an in  organization that wants to have the cake and eat it too. I agree with the concept of smaller venues. Eric Garcetti hinted at that in Lima, but the problem comes with less revenue as you pointed out. That means less money which is what I think hampers any meaningful reforms within the IOC.

Pyeongchang isn't doing the IOC any favors as its questionable legacy plans are shaping up to be Sochi Part 2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 4:07 PM, stryker said:

Pyeongchang isn't doing the IOC any favors as its questionable legacy plans are shaping up to be Sochi Part 2. 

Kind of exaggerated if you ask me. Sochi was left with not only a legacy of white elephants, but of human rights violations, political corruption, and overspending. Even if Pyeonghcang has a couple white elephants left over, there's no saying that the area will go deserted. With many Asian countries now modernizing, and their number of outbound tourists exponentially increasing, mostly within Asian countries (You should see what the cruise line have done between 2007-2017 in terms of Asian ship deployment), South Korea could really turn this area into a touristic mecca prepared to welcome Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and any other tourist for a unique, asian-oriented ski holiday. 

Granted, fears of North Korea loom, and tickets are selling very slowly (However the Asian market is known to buy last minute as I have read), but I am optimsitic for Pyeongchang. If they keep this railway intact and create a positive world image, I expect a steady tourism flow and possibly even a future event hosting for Pyeongchang. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Kind of exaggerated if you ask me. Sochi was left with not only a legacy of white elephants, but of human rights violations, political corruption, and overspending. Even if Pyeonghcang has a couple white elephants left over, there's no saying that the area will go deserted. With many Asian countries now modernizing, and their number of outbound tourists exponentially increasing, mostly within Asian countries (You should see what the cruise line have done between 2007-2017 in terms of Asian ship deployment), South Korea could really turn this area into a touristic mecca prepared to welcome Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and any other tourist for a unique, asian-oriented ski holiday. 

Granted, fears of North Korea loom, and tickets are selling very slowly (However the Asian market is known to buy last minute as I have read), but I am optimsitic for Pyeongchang. If they keep this railway intact and create a positive world image, I expect a steady tourism flow and possibly even a future event hosting for Pyeongchang. 

Tourism isn't going to pay the bills for the white elephants and if you look at Korea's history of hosting big sporting events (FIFA World Cup, Asian Games, Olympics) they have a less than stellar track record. I will agree you could see a boost in tourism at the ski resorts though the prized Alpensia resort was close to bankruptcy just a couple years ago. Pyeongchang is having well documented legacy issues with the ceremonies stadium and the indoor ice arenas. It's gotten so bad that they are actually seriously considering demolishing the speed skating oval after the Olympics. That would a huge waste and exhibit A for why the IOC cannot attract and keep WOGs hosts. Then you have the sliding track which the IOC actually wanted to the Koreans to halt construction on (I think they had already started building it) and move the sliding events to Japan. After the Olympics conclude, how much use is that track going to get, maybe a world championships here and there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Korea and Japan have both been strangely poor performing tourist destinations for a long, long time. I don't really understand it, but maybe the growth of Chinese tourism will change it.

Winter sports facilities tend to do a little better than summer facilities. Ski resorts and ice skating rinks have a reasonable chance of earning their keep in operations costs. The bobsledding track is the only thing doomed to be a white elephant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stryker said:

Tourism isn't going to pay the bills for the white elephants and if you look at Korea's history of hosting big sporting events (FIFA World Cup, Asian Games, Olympics) they have a less than stellar track record. I will agree you could see a boost in tourism at the ski resorts though the prized Alpensia resort was close to bankruptcy just a couple years ago. Pyeongchang is having well documented legacy issues with the ceremonies stadium and the indoor ice arenas. It's gotten so bad that they are actually seriously considering demolishing the speed skating oval after the Olympics. That would a huge waste and exhibit A for why the IOC cannot attract and keep WOGs hosts. Then you have the sliding track which the IOC actually wanted to the Koreans to halt construction on (I think they had already started building it) and move the sliding events to Japan. After the Olympics conclude, how much use is that track going to get, maybe a world championships here and there?

I understand and agree with you. I guess I am viewing it more through a(n optimistic) projective lens, but given the severe boom of the region, the tourism could definitely help foot some of the bill, and at least keep the area well known, so there is a potential for the area to be used for future competitions and for training if the area remains populated. I guess I'm looking at it like Bangkok, which, after many decades, has passed Paris in the number of yearly visitors, making it the world's most visited city by tourists, and a vast majoirty of the tourists are Asians coming from these economically up-and-coming nations like China and India who are looking for a new place to explore that is close to home. Sochi was doomed from the beginning, it's a summer beach town that no one in Europe is going to visit to ski in the winter when they have some of the world's best skiing right in the Alps, or go on a beach holiday in the summer when they have Greece and the Med islands and  beaches all within their reach, and the political corruption and overspending for Sochi did not help. All I'm saying is that Pyeongchang is in a good place to advertise and grow its tourism sector, which could help the local economy, and give it an international name, two of the best outcomes of hosting the Olympics. Are they doing a good job? Eh, not really, the sales are pretty low. Do they have some negtive qualities that could severely hurt the area and its legacy? Yes. I guess I'm just being too positive, but I see a new area for all of the Asian teams to practice in every winter for the Olympics, a new tourism area that could be geared toward the booming Asian tourism market, and a place that will be ready to host another international sporting competition, if given the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Nacre said:

Winter sports facilities tend to do a little better than summer facilities. Ski resorts and ice skating rinks have a reasonable chance of earning their keep in operations costs. The bobsledding track is the only thing doomed to be a white elephant.

If that was the case then why are the Koreans considering demolishing the speed skating oval after the Olympics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 1:07 PM, Nacre said:

Korea and Japan have both been strangely poor performing tourist destinations for a long, long time. I don't really understand it, but maybe the growth of Chinese tourism will change it.

Winter sports facilities tend to do a little better than summer facilities. Ski resorts and ice skating rinks have a reasonable chance of earning their keep in operations costs. The bobsledding track is the only thing doomed to be a white elephant.

It depends on if Korea is serious about being a sliding country or just invested in the sport for the home Olympics. Canada wasn't a sliding country in 1988 and look at Canada now. Lots of people would have said looking at Calgary that it would be a white elephant and in 4 years time there will be three tracks in Asia relatively close together. Enough to make it worth the World Cup trip, just like having Lake Placid, Park City, Calgary and Vancouver make it worth the trip now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there’s a surprise. But not really. I find the excuse of not having enough time to formulate a bid as a poor excuse not to move forward. Most of the interested bids right now still need to work out many of the details. And with the possibility of the IOC perhaps doing another allocation, but this time for the winter side, Lillehammer being out for 2026 also means that they can be out for 2030 too, their supposed more focused target, according to the article. I think the real reason is what’s been derailing many of these ‘traditional’ winter bids over the last few years; the continued lack of political & citizenry support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×