Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GBModerator

Australian 2032 Olympic Bid Boosted By Successful Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, stryker said:

If that's the case then Brisbane is a no go, unless they can somehow convince the IOC to hold the ceremonies in Sydney. 

Per the Olympic Charter, the ceremonies have to take place IN the host city itself. I know that there’s been a couple of instances where the ceremonies have taken place in an adjacent suburb, but that’s really a very minor tweak in comparison to having them 575 (far-flung) miles away. Not to mention the entire inconvenience, to say the least, of having everyone travel back to the actual host city for the Games themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory the ceremonies could be staged on the river at Southbank - bit of creativity needed but it could work potentially.  However the IOC will not go for it so yeah - a new or temporary stadium (or QSAC which could be expanded slightly) will be needed.

Share this post


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

If that's the case then Brisbane is a no go, unless they can somehow convince the IOC to hold the ceremonies in Sydney. 

Yeah, but isn't Stadium Australia being torn down?  Why doesn't Brisbane just buy the parts of the old Oly stadium then??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Yeah, but isn't Stadium Australia being torn down?  

They’ve recently changed their mind. Instead SA will be refurbished. It would’ve been a real waste if they had gone ahead with a demolition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, intoronto said:

Isn't the minimum capacity 60,000?

It would be an awful looking mess but they could add seating at the QSAC (QEII) Stadium.  There is room but it would be a he!! of a job and the stadium location is awful for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FYI said:

They’ve recently changed their mind. Instead SA will be refurbished. It would’ve been a real waste if they had gone ahead with a demolition.  

Sadly part of that refurb includes squaring off the stadium indefinitely - meaning any future reconversion to accommodate track+field will be all but impossible in the new post refurb configuration . 

If Sydney does go for a second Olympics in the next few decades, it will not involve Stadium Australia (at least in terms of hosting T+F). 

I still maintain that Brisbane is being presumptuous, and when the time comes Perth, Sydney and Melbourne leaders will likely have something to say about Brisbane being anointed the honour of bidding without a formal domestic process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(even though I support Brisbane as our next candidate in principle - it is seriously being Sydney and Melbourne, and even Perth, in terms of infrastructure - its probably the least ready of our all major cities). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AOC has already stated Brisbane will be our next bid - and it is their decision.

Unless The IOC offers flexible hosting windows that is just how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, TNMP, how difficult would it be for Brisbane to put together a realistic plan for the Olympics? 

I think the 'global cities' argument is a little bullshit. So all that out the window, from a technical perspective could Brisbane actually do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

I think the 'global cities' argument is a little bullshit. So all that out the window,

Right, that’s why Brisbane lost (& actually came in last) with their 1992 bid & why Sydney got it with 2000. That’s why Rio hosted the Olympics & not Brasilia. That’s why Tokyo again is hosting Japan’s next summer Games & not Nagoya. That’s why Paris for the third time is hosting France’s next Summer Olympics & not Lyon or Lille. That’s why the IOC told the BOA before the U.K. was awarded the 2012 Olympics that it’s really “London or bust” when the BOA was bidding with Birmingham & Manchester in the 90’s. So while it’s “out the window” for you, it’s NOT really for the IOC. That’s why Seville never made the IOC shortlist but Madrid did. Same thing with Leipzig, they were nixed early on for 2012. You’ve always been a Houston proponent anyway, so of course your view is like that. But I’ll still take the IOC’s view on the matter, the people that actually run the show. So thank you very much.

22 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

from a technical perspective could Brisbane actually do it?

That’s another thing. It’s already been discussed in the thread that it’d be a huge undertaking for Brisbane. And in an era where the IOC doesn’t need more bad PR with associating the Olympics with “massive building projects” for the Games, & the IOC supposedly being more about “use what you have” these days, it doesn’t sound favorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FYI said:

Right, that’s why Brisbane lost (& actually came in last) with their 1992 bid & why Sydney got it with 2000. That’s why Rio hosted the Olympics & not Brasilia. That’s why Tokyo again is hosting Japan’s next summer Games & not Nagoya. That’s why Paris for the third time is hosting France’s next Summer Olympics & not Lyon or Lille. That’s why the IOC told the BOA before the U.K. was awarded the 2012 Olympics that it’s really “London or bust” when the BOA was bidding with Birmingham & Manchester in the 90’s. So while it’s “out the window” for you, it’s NOT really for the IOC. That’s why Seville never made the IOC shortlist but Madrid did. Same thing with Leipzig, they were nixed early on for 2012. You’ve always been a Houston proponent anyway, so of course your view is like that. But I’ll still take the IOC’s view on the matter, the people that actually run the show. So thank you very much.

Alright man, chill...I'm getting way more heat than is necessary. 

By bullshit I meant that just because a city is a 'global city' doesn't make it a perfect natural fit for the games. Rio is a great example, as is Athens. Yes they are fantastic global cities, but not such fantastic Olympic hosts. In the case of the other nations you mention, they have the luxury of putting forth truly global cities that are physically capable of hosting the games within the time slots the IOC desires; why would you go with a lesser city when the greater one can host even better (and in July/August).

According to the AOC, Australia doesn't really have that luxury. Sydney and Melbourne are far and away the most suitable cities from every rational perspective, but apparently the AOC and IOC doesn't want to consider them because they can't host in July/August. I don't want Brisbane to host, I just think debating on whether or not Brisbane is a global city is a pointless fight to have given that the AOC apparently doesn't give a damn and has already decided to go with them. 

And just for historical clarification Brisbane made it to the fourth round (came in third place) for the '92 games and beat out both Amsterdam and Birmingham, and I think it's fair to say Amsterdam is far and away a more global city than Brisbane. 

As for my support for Houston, yeah, I do support the idea that the nations fourth largest city (almost third) and huge global center for education, healthcare, sport, research, trade, and culture should host the Olympics some day. My sincerest apologies for not thinking every US games should be held in Los Angeles. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

By bullshit I meant that just because a city is a 'global city' doesn't make it a perfect natural fit for the games. Rio is a great example, as is Athens. Yes they are fantastic global cities, but not such fantastic Olympic hosts. 

Rio & Athens may not be global cities, but they are still the prominent cities of their respective nations. Brisbane is not when you have two other much higher-profile cities in your country’s portfolio. 

29 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

According to the AOC, Australia doesn't really have that luxury. Sydney and Melbourne are far and away the most suitable cities from every rational perspective, but apparently the AOC and IOC doesn't want to consider them because they can't host in July/August. I don't want Brisbane to host, I just think debating on whether or not Brisbane is a global city is a pointless fight to have given that the AOC apparently doesn't give a damn and has already decided to go with them. 

That’s certainly the AOC’s perogative (then again, when the time comes to actually launch a bid, will Sydney & Melbourne just lay idle - I think not), but when push comes to shove, Brisbane would get shoved if their competition happens to be a notch or two above Brisbane. So unless Brisbane’s competition happened to only be Baku-ku, they’ll just get leaped-over for any credible Western European or even Shanghai bid.

And as far as the IOC goes with the “dates” smokescreen (which was really all implemented to tell Doha-hah to shove off), we’ve already seen when it benefits them, they’ll make the appropiate changes to their so-called “rules” in order to accommodate their own needs; see 2024/2028 double-allocation.

37 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

And just for historical clarification Brisbane made it to the fourth round (came in third place) for the '92 games and beat out both Amsterdam and Birmingham, and I think it's fair to say Amsterdam is far and away a more global city than Brisbane. 

Brisbane actually came in fourth place (Belgrade came in third [see GB’s past bid results]) & never did muster anything more than 11 votes & actually lost two of those votes in Round two. But if you really look at the numbers, Brisbane along with Birmingham & Belgrade were really the outsiders in the ‘92 summer race.

And if memory serves me correctly (not for the actual vote, but from reading about it years after the fact), the reason Amsterdam did so poorly was due to lack of public support (even back then), not bcuz it’s not “global”. That’s also what derailed Berlin’s 2000 bid & they finished fourth, & virtually no one would say that Berlin is not a global city. 

46 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

As for my support for Houston, yeah, I do support the idea that the nations fourth largest city (almost third) and huge global center for education, healthcare, sport, research, trade, and culture should host the Olympics some day. My sincerest apologies for not thinking every US games should be held in Los Angeles. 

Perhaps you should give your sincerest apologies to the USOC instead. Since they’re the ones who ‘apparently don’t give a damn’ to give any Texas city a chance. Quite frankly, Dallas appeared to have a technically feasible plan in the works when the USOC was evaluating cities for their 2024 bidding candidate. But the USOC put a halt to them early on. Go figure.

I think it’s easy to cheer for certain cities that we would like to see host the Olympics. But it’s quite something else when these cities at some point have to  “show some skin in the game” (to quote the USOC).

And let’s be fair here for a moment, too. It’s not like the USOC didn’t try to take the Games to a different U.S. city for a change. They did afterall chose Boston as their initial 2024 candidate. But that fell apart precisely due to the issues the IOC is facing with many other cities around the world at the moment - that the Olympics are too costly now & not worth the bother anymore to many of these municipalities. That’s why L.A. is hosting again as a default/practicality & not necessarily cuz it was the primary choice.

I’m sure many of us here would like to see a New York, Chicago or San Francisco Olympics. But if in the end it’s just not in the cards due to high cost concerns, no political &/or citizenry support, etc, then so be it. Someone has to pay for the expensive circus afterall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr.bernham said:

I don't want Brisbane to host, I just think debating on whether or not Brisbane is a global city is a pointless fight to have given that the AOC apparently doesn't give a damn and has already decided to go with them. 

Btw - I never claimed that to be a main criterion against Brisbane (that was your interpretation). But it certainly won’t help them any if they’d happened to be competing against more prominent names as history has mainly shown us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FYI said:

Brisbane actually came in fourth place (Belgrade came in third [see GB’s past bid results]) .

No, Brisbane came third. Belgrade lost six of its round two votes to finish behind Brisbane in the final round.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

So, TNMP, how difficult would it be for Brisbane to put together a realistic plan for the Olympics? 

I think the 'global cities' argument is a little bullshit. So all that out the window, from a technical perspective could Brisbane actually do it?

Long answer - maybe. 

Short answer - not right now and not without a huge amount of construction.

Brisbane has in theory three major stadiums - two are realistically usable as is - though one is a circular cricket ground - so it's actually not going to be overly great for Rugby 7"s or Football - but would do.  The QSAC Stadium could be rebuilt/expanded on it's existing footprint. It's capacity is just under 50,000 - however much of the upper stands are not used and the structural integrity is questionable.  Access is an issue - the entire area is built up and the nearest rail station is not really an option as it is quite far through and accessible via small local streets.  There is a large shopping centre about 2 kilometres away attached to a busway - but it is again not a great walk through an industrial area. 

We have a convention centre that could stage a couple of events - but the capacity requirements would mean some juggling of venue use (so wrestling/fencing/judo etc may need to have sessions staggered to utilise the one hall). The main hall is a 6,000 seater and could host handball maybe.  Realistically it could have three halls in use.  It just isn't that big of a space.

We have one 'major' arena (Brisbane Entertainment Centre) which while next to the main arterial freeway and a suburban train station is known to be a colossal pain in the arse to get in and out of. The Entertainment Centre is also quite old and needs an overhaul.  There are two smaller outdoor-ish venues - the River Stage which holds 9,000 but is basically a grass bowl and thus would be a live site at best. There is the Suncorp Piazza at Southbank that could stage weightlifting maybe?  It has a small capacity though (4,000). 

There is a sports centre further south at Chandler which has a brand new velodrome that can be expanded capacity wise.  There is an aquatic centre there which will need a complete renovation to be Olympic compliant.  There is another small arena there which would be a complete rebuild.  There is arguably space there for a stadium - however it is only accessible by road which is congested at the best of time (very built up suburban area).

We have a modern new tennis centre that could be expanded - however the land around it is getting built up very quickly.

If we add the Gold Coast there is another few smaller capacity venues - none have seating over 6,500.  There is a football stadium that is adaptable for athletics (as we saw for the Commonwealth Games). The rail link between Brisbane and the Gold Coast needs work - it is still a single track for an extended stretch.

There is not a great deal of room close to the city centre or train lines for additional infrastructure and frankly most of Brisbane is industrial - and while green - it is ugly. 

 

The bottom line is this - the AOC wants Brisbane to fit the IOC (NBC really) time window.  The other major sporting bodies (NFL/FIFA etc) seem to have the monopoly on major TV sports time outside of this mythical window and that will hurt us.  Melbourne is far and away the best host. They are 85-90% ready to go and Melbourne constantly upgrades and adds to it's sporting and transport infrastructure.  It is a damn shame that they will probably not get a look in as regardless of what the Government says (state or federal) as the AOC is the only body that can put a bid to the IOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd much prefer to see a Melbourne bid over Brisbane. Melbourne hosted a fantastic CWG in 2006, and a sold games in '56. It would be great if Brisbane lost the 2032 bid and Melbourne hosted in 2036. I feel that would be a good enough distance from Sydney (and maintain Melbourne's 6th year sporting tradition).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to double post, but I found this map made by The Courier Mail depicting potential venue sites in Brisbane. Not sure if it's a reliable source, or a legit proposal, there was a paywall to read the article.

b7a2ba79dc813090267f49ec91269dda?width=6

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would pick Melbourne over Brisbane (or Sydney) anyday as the next Aus host- it really could do it with four years notice if it had to.....its facilities are second to none.

As people point out, it is the timing that is the issue....it is 2000km South of Brisbane, and the Games would have to be held from October.....Sydney just squeezed its in September (and luckily had unseasonally warm early Spring weather.

Share this post


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

No, Brisbane came third. Belgrade lost six of its round two votes to finish behind Brisbane in the final round.

Okay - but what does that really prove? That Brisbane is better than Belgrade? And out of those six votes that Belgrade lost, Brisbane only gained one of them. And as a matter of fact, the other eight votes that were then available in Round three once Birmingham dropped went to Barcelona & Paris, & not Brisbane. As I mentioned earlier, Brisbane never managed to gain more than the 11 votes in got in Round one, so the last place finishes were all really negligible in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, FYI said:

Okay - but what does that really prove? That Brisbane is better than Belgrade? And out of those six votes that Belgrade lost, Brisbane only gained one of them. And as a matter of fact, the other eight votes that were then available in Round three once Birmingham dropped went to Barcelona & Paris, & not Brisbane. As I mentioned earlier, Brisbane never managed to gain more than the 11 votes in got in Round one, so the last place finishes were all really negligible in the end.

Wow, whoop dee doo. Brisbane didn't manage to pick up votes that instead went to the capital of France or the booming Spanish city. Shocker!

In 1996, Melbourne ALSO finished 3rd and after the 2nd round of voting, Melbourne didn't pick up any of the 5 votes Manchester had when they were knocked out. Instead, Melbourne LOST five votes and thus bowed out in the 3rd round of voting.

Can you stop analyzing the voting patterns from over three decades ago? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

Not to double post, but I found this map made by The Courier Mail depicting potential venue sites in Brisbane. Not sure if it's a reliable source, or a legit proposal, there was a paywall to read the article.

b7a2ba79dc813090267f49ec91269dda?width=6

 

And that right there is billions of dollars of construction and the loss of considerable green space.  The 'Victoria Park' is currently a University (TAFE), golf course and abuts the major hospital cluster.

The Curier Mail and Queensland sport boosters are delusional.  They will have protests in the streets over that level of expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

Not to double post, but I found this map made by The Courier Mail depicting potential venue sites in Brisbane. Not sure if it's a reliable source, or a legit proposal, there was a paywall to read the article.

b7a2ba79dc813090267f49ec91269dda?width=6

 

This plan is pretty poor, hell it isn't even geographically correct. The Exhibition Grounds are not that large and recently have been heavily developed which includes a Rydges Hotel and a bunch of other buildings so there's next to no room for development. They could maybe fit equestrian in and that's it. They've also seriously overestimated the available land at Victoria Park which i'm not even sure they'd be allowed to develop. As TNMP said, they have a massive golf course amongst other things so having that as the central hub will not work. I like the idea of using Roma St Parklands but I believe they're already in talks of building a 17,000 seat arena there as well as other facilities so i'm not sure how much room will be left for all these supposed indoor arenas (https://brisbanedevelopment.com/unveiled-new-2-billion-brisbane-live-entertainment-arena-precinct/). Also, proposing a velodrome be built in Victoria Park when there's just been an incredible one built at Chandler? Stupid.

As for the positives though: Kangaroo Point would be good for the climbing and the Convention Centre works perfectly for smaller events like gymnastic and trampoline. Tennis being held at Tennyson works perfectly as does the Shooting at Belmont. Suncorp and Ballymore works for the Rugby and the Gabba for the Baseball.  I also love the idea of the athletes village at Hamilton where countless apartment buildings are already being built. I think they should put some sporting venues there though, instead of loading up the CBD which will be a transportation nightmare. There's a lot of room in Hamilton/New Farm/Meeandah/Pinkenba for development. 

Just my two cents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olympic Fan Darcy said:

Wow, whoop dee doo. Brisbane didn't manage to pick up votes that instead went to the capital of France or the booming Spanish city. Shocker!

In 1996, Melbourne ALSO finished 3rd and after the 2nd round of voting, Melbourne didn't pick up any of the 5 votes Manchester had when they were knocked out. Instead, Melbourne LOST five votes and thus bowed out in the 3rd round of voting.

Can you stop analyzing the voting patterns from over three decades ago? 

To quote someone else here - “alright man, chill. I’m getting way more heat than necessary”.

 And UGH, so says the one who then analyzes the voting pattern from almost three decades ago for 1996. Which by the way, I didn’t even over-analyze in the first place by splitting hairs as to whether Brisbane finished third/fourth or whatever (which by that point, like I said before, was all negligable anyway between the last three losing 1992 cities). So can you save your (usual) snarky sarcasm for those who actually did? 

“And just for historical clarification”, Melbourne actually wound up in fourth place (but at least it was behind Athens & Toronto), & they managed to pick up 21 votes in Round two.That’s ten more votes than the most Brisbane got at 11 votes in Round one of it’s race (just squeaking by Belgrade in the end. “Whoop dee doo”). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“And that right there is billions of dollars of construction and the loss of considerable green space.”

That right there also says it all. And while the IOC would have loved that in the “good ole days” where expense was no object, would they dare take on this type of mega-project again in a supposed “new norm” era of “reform” & “use what’s already on the ground” in an effort to repair their image damaged by bad cost-overruns PR & sending so many Western democratic cities these days running for the hills.

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  

×