2030 Olympic Winter Games Bids

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Now that you mention it, I kind of like the idea of Lyon as well. It was a great host city for the 2019 WWC Semi Finals and Final, so it would be great to see the city host the ceremonies and indoor events, with the alpine events further out from the city. But I'm gonna have to go with SLC or even Denver for 2030 - least problematic, could rake in loads of money, and the IOC may not want to lean Central Europe after immediately doing that.

The USOC has already chosen Salt Lake over Denver should they decide to pursue a 2030 bid.  That decision has been made.

1 hour ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Wonder if at any point someone will step up and say that a 2026 World Cup, 2028 Summer Olympics, and 2030 Winter Olympics is too much for the USA. I feel like it won't happen, because the USA hasn't played host to a major world tournament since the 2003 Women's World Cup, so an entire generation hasn't been able to cheer on Team USA at home, but 2028/30 are far from now - who knows what the political and social situation of the USA will be.

The LA2028 folks may say that only because they're concerned about another event cutting into their sponsorship money.  Logistically, the United States will have absolutely no problems hosting all 3 in that span.  It just may not be as lucrative as it might be if it was spread out.

As for the "entire generation" part.. in a 22 year span, the United States hosted 4 Olympics and a World Cup.  And here we are again where it may be 2 Olympics and a World Cup in less than 4 years.  So it's not as though the United States hasn't been able to attract these events.  They're not just well spread out.

[anthonyliberatori]

18 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

As for the "entire generation" part.. in a 22 year span, the United States hosted 4 Olympics and a World Cup.  And here we are again where it may be 2 Olympics and a World Cup in less than 4 years.  So it's not as though the United States hasn't been able to attract these events.  They're not just well spread out.

Oh the concern isn't attraction, the USA tried for Olympics like 2012 in New York and 2016 in Chicago and just didn't get them. But all I'm saying is the long length may finally be coming to a close, which is good, because anyone born 1992 and later (like me) likely has no recollection of a Team-USA-At-Home world event. I wonder if the lack of the ability to space out hosting events has to do with American culture. Back in the 80s with the Cold War, the USA was in cultural competition with the USSr and working to maintain its cultural dominance. I wonder if the USA wanting to go back to hosting all of these events could have something to do with us feeling the need to defend our global image in some regard. It's fair to say that the IOC just wanted a break from the USA, and they're just now coming back to it, or that the IOC is in financial trouble and needs an economically viable Olympics to save its image and it trusts the USA the most to do that, but I wonder if 2026-2028-2030 could have some sort of cultural ties to them.

[yoshi]

By putting Oslo against SLC, you raise the question of whether the WOGs have now grown so much that Norway as a whole is now too small to host...even if you have a city that’s suitable, do you now really need to have the funding & support base of a major country - a US, France etc - to pull it off? Might go a way to explaining why the IOC did 2026 - they weren’t picking Milan over Stockholm, but Italy over Sweden. 

[baron-pierreIV]

With NBC's current $7.75 BILLION-dollar contract ending with 2032 (which it looks like will be in the East Asian/East Oz time zone; might locking in the 2030 and 2034 WOG sites simultaneously provide for a $10 billion contract?  Or is that huge contract now a thing of the past since prime-time live broadcast isn't the only platform anymore??  

[Quaker2001]

23 hours ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Oh the concern isn't attraction, the USA tried for Olympics like 2012 in New York and 2016 in Chicago and just didn't get them. But all I'm saying is the long length may finally be coming to a close, which is good, because anyone born 1992 and later (like me) likely has no recollection of a Team-USA-At-Home world event. I wonder if the lack of the ability to space out hosting events has to do with American culture. Back in the 80s with the Cold War, the USA was in cultural competition with the USSr and working to maintain its cultural dominance. I wonder if the USA wanting to go back to hosting all of these events could have something to do with us feeling the need to defend our global image in some regard. It's fair to say that the IOC just wanted a break from the USA, and they're just now coming back to it, or that the IOC is in financial trouble and needs an economically viable Olympics to save its image and it trusts the USA the most to do that, but I wonder if 2026-2028-2030 could have some sort of cultural ties to them.

You are reading way too much into this.  This is all a matter of circumstance and coincidence than any sort of effort to have history play out like this.  When you say "the USA wanting to go back to hosting".. no, the USA has always wanted to host these events.  They put in a bid for literally every Summer Olympics between 1944 and 1984.  Took a break after that and bid for 1996, which of course they won.  Took another break and bid for 2012.  There has always been a "want," but the IOC doesn't always want to come here.  Don't just look at the times the United States has hosted these events as the only times they have *wanted* to host these events.  When I used the word "attraction," it's not about the United States and various cities being interested so much as the country's ability to actually bring those events here.  And obviously that's going to be based on recent history where if they have hosted an Olympics or a World Cup in recent memory, they shouldn't expect to see another one for a while.

In that regard, 1996 is a big exception, but look at what has been discussed here as the "what if Atlanta doesn't get 1996" alternate history.  Maybe Salt Lake gets the `98 Olympics then.  Maybe New York is properly timed to get either 2008 or 2012.  Now all of a sudden these events are all much more spaced out.  Either way, especially when looking at the Olympics and the World Cup, 1 has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  The Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics are certainly tied together.

In short.. how history has played out (and will play out) has absolutely nothing to do with American culture or global image or anything like that.  All a matter of timing and it just happened to work out that 2026 and 2028 will see a World Cup and an Olympics here, with another Olympics probably not too far behind.

[Quaker2001]

23 hours ago, yoshi said:

By putting Oslo against SLC, you raise the question of whether the WOGs have now grown so much that Norway as a whole is now too small to host...even if you have a city that’s suitable, do you now really need to have the funding & support base of a major country - a US, France etc - to pull it off? Might go a way to explaining why the IOC did 2026 - they weren’t picking Milan over Stockholm, but Italy over Sweden. 

Even if we're making this about the countries, they didn't pick Italy over Sweden because it's the larger country, but more because they had stronger support for their Olympic bid efforts.  Yes, those can often go hand in hand, but what scared off Oslo for 2022 wasn't the size and scope of an Olympics relative to the size of the country but rather a 7,000 page list of demands that they would have to follow.

I think we'll see some sort of bid from Norway eventually.  They'll figure out a way to put a plan together that the country can get behind, but a lot of that is based on the IOC's attitude and are they in fact more willing to work with a country like Norway to make an Olympics more feasible for them.

[Quaker2001]

19 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

With NBC's current $7.75 BILLION-dollar contract ending with 2032 (which it looks like will be in the East Asian/East Oz time zone; might locking in the 2030 and 2034 WOG sites simultaneously provide for a $10 billion contract?  Or is that huge contract now a thing of the past since prime-time live broadcast isn't the only platform anymore??  

Those last 2 things aren't necessarily related.  NBC seems to be looking good in terms of sales for Tokyo despite the fact they're slowing moving away from putting everything into primetime.  So the length of the contract isn't necessarily tied to NBC's ability to generate revenue from primetime.

The extension NBC got was a gift from the IOC.  Basically a "thank you" for what probably was an over-pay on the 2014-2020 package.  Tough to tell what the Olympics will be worth a decade from now.  I don't think we can expect a contract of that length based on that reason.  Especially if there's open bidding because at that point, I doubt anyone is looking for a package of 6 Olympics.  4 maybe, but that's likely the max.

That all said.. don't think it necessarily has a bearing on the host selection.  A little bit of certainty will be nice, but we're a ways off from when that will come into play.  

[Roger87]

On 10/11/2019 at 3:01 PM, Booville said:

For Lillehammer to add those additional sports would be minimal ... Kanthaugen hosted freestyle skiing and half-pipe, and Hafjell the slopestyle in 2016, the curling already has a purpose built arena and there is likely to be enough capacity to host additional women's hockey games

A games encompassing the true spirit of the games vs a games forever tainted by bribery ... clearly an easy call

 

They choose Beijing. So yep, bribery can be accepted if this is practical.

[Roger87]

On 10/19/2019 at 9:32 AM, anthonyliberatori said:

Now that you mention it, I kind of like the idea of Lyon as well. It was a great host city for the 2019 WWC Semi Finals and Final, so it would be great to see the city host the ceremonies and indoor events, with the alpine events further out from the city. But I'm gonna have to go with SLC or even Denver for 2030 - least problematic, could rake in loads of money, and the IOC may not want to lean Central Europe after immediately doing that.

 

Wonder if at any point someone will step up and say that a 2026 World Cup, 2028 Summer Olympics, and 2030 Winter Olympics is too much for the USA. I feel like it won't happen, because the USA hasn't played host to a major world tournament since the 2003 Women's World Cup, so an entire generation hasn't been able to cheer on Team USA at home, but 2028/30 are far from now - who knows what the political and social situation of the USA will be.

Under current times, practical choices. Also the USA is the biggest country, the American media still pays the big bucks in TV and streaming rights and the sponsorships. 

But yep, if I need to go for a potential next future hosts:

2030: Salt Lake City (USA)

2034: Sapporo (Japan)

2038: Lyon/Alps (France)

[Quaker2001]

New Utah Olympic bid committee announced

Here is one of the key takeaways from the story..

Quote

Utah leaders took the next step in bringing another Olympics to Salt Lake City Wednesday, announcing a new committee responsible for preparing a future bid that looks increasingly like it will be for the 2034 Winter Games.

 

[mountainboarder_530@yahoo.]

2030 Sapporo, 2034 SLC, i guess the real conversation is gonna be 2038.  Both are safe picks, which is exactly what the IOC needs right now.  They were extremely lucky the Italy bid jumped out at the last minute a-la Major League Soccer's Nashville bid.

[world atlas]

Quote

No ‘sense of urgency’ to advance Salt Lake City Olympic bid, national official says
By Lisa Riley Roche, KSL | Posted - Feb. 15, 2020 at 11:24 a.m.

SALT LAKE CITY — The head of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee made it clear Friday there’s no hurry to decide whether Salt Lake City should bid to host the 2030 or 2034 Winter Games even though Sapporo, Japan, is already in the race for 2030.

“We don’t feel any sense of urgency that we’re going to miss an opportunity,” Sarah Hirshland, the CEO of the national Olympic committee, told reporters after a meeting with leaders of the just-announced Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games at the Salt Lake City-County Building.

Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall agreed.

The new committee, the mayor said, shows support “to pursue this and do it right. So we’re taking the right steps. We’re putting the team in place. We’re beginning the evaluation and conversations, and we are not going to rush a decision of this scale.”

Hirshland said there’s plenty of time to evaluate which year is better for the national Olympic committee as well as for Salt Lake City and Utah. Much of the national committee’s efforts are focused on Los Angeles, the host of the 2028 Summer Games.

“The next available Games, as you know, is not until 2030, which is still quite a long way away. So it isn’t a function of a lack of interest,” she said. “Frankly, it’s simply a function of we are well ahead of a typical schedule in naming future venues. So the opportunity for us is really to continue to evaluate. We have time on our side on that.”

There is no timeline for choosing which of the next two Winter Games Salt Lake City should bid for, Hirshland said, and there doesn’t need to be one despite Sapporo’s recent announcement and the International Olympic Committee’s new, more informal host city selection process.

“Sapporo’s decision was a decision made exclusively by them,” she said. “If we determine 2030 is the right time for the state of Utah, the city of Salt Lake and the USOPC, we’ll be ready and we’ll be right in the mix as we need to be. If we determine that 2034 looks more optimal or there’s another opportunity, we want to make sure we’re really inclusive of all of our options and are confident we’re not going to miss anything.”

Crews move the 2002 Winter Olympic cauldron at Rice-Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City on Friday, Feb. 14, 2020. The cauldron will be moved to a temporary location where it will be refurbished while work is completed on the stadium’s expansion project, after which it will be returned to a new pedestal at the stadium. (Spenser Heaps, KSL)

Those options, Hirshland acknowledged, could include not bidding for a Winter Games.

“I think you have to be open to every possibility. The commitment that I think we share together is to do the work and make sure that this the right opportunity for everyone involved,” she said. “As long as that opportunity is there for everyone involved, then we’re super excited about pushing forward and I think the optimism is absolutely there.”

Hirshland and other national Olympic officials in town to attend the world speedskating championships underway at the Utah Olympic Oval in Kearns, also made a stop at the state Capitol, where they met with Gov. Gary Herbert, House Speaker Brad Wilson, R-Kaysville, and Senate President Stuart Adams, R-Layton.

The governor’s spokeswoman, Anna Lehndart, said afterward that she “appreciates the opportunity to meet with USOPC and looks forward to working with the newly appointed (Salt Lake-Utah) committee to show Utah is ready, willing and able to host a Winter Olympics.”

Herbert told KSL after the committee’s membership was announced Wednesday that “the bottom line is, we’ll get what we can get,” and said getting the 2030 Winter Games “might be a little more problematic, I think, timewise,” coming on the heels of another American city, Los Angeles, hosting in 2028.

Adams said he stepped off the Senate floor for the meeting.

“We’re talking. There wasn’t a lot of conversation from me about which year,” the Senate president said. “We’re preparing and when the opportunity comes forward, we’ll be ready.”

He said the Legislature has a budget request for $6 million toward updating the state’s Olympic venues, that include a ski jump and a bobsled, luge and skeleton track in Park City as well as the oval, money that’s going “to be hard to come by but we hope to find some funding for that.”

KSL

 

[Booville]

It is such a disappointment that we don't look like seeing Munich 2030.

An international city with direct international connections to five continents, with all the venues already in place bar an extra coat of paint and meeting the minimum capacity requirements without the need to add a single seat

Ceremonies - Olympic Stadium

Bobsleigh/Luge - Schonau am Kongisee

Speed Skating - Max Aider Arena, Inzell

Cross Country/Biathalon - Ruhpolding

Skiing/Ski Jumping - Garmisch Partenkirchen

Figure Skating - Olympiahalle

Ice Hockey Main - SAP Arena

Ice Hockey Second & Curling - two from Olympia Eishalle, Audi Dome, or further afield Curt Frenzel Stadion (Augsburg) Saturn Arena (Ingolstadt), Eisstadion am Gutenbergweg (Landshut)  or Olympia-Eissport-Zentrum (Garmsich) the last 4 either DEL or DEL2 arenas all within about 90kms of downtown Munich.

Bavarian sponsorshop possibilities could include Siemens AG, BMW, MAN AG, Audi, Allianz, Munich Re etc.

SLC would not be a slam dunk anymore

 

 

 

[stryker]

19 hours ago, Booville said:

It is such a disappointment that we don't look like seeing Munich 2030.

An international city with direct international connections to five continents, with all the venues already in place bar an extra coat of paint and meeting the minimum capacity requirements without the need to add a single seat

Ceremonies - Olympic Stadium

Bobsleigh/Luge - Schonau am Kongisee

Speed Skating - Max Aider Arena, Inzell

Cross Country/Biathalon - Ruhpolding

Skiing/Ski Jumping - Garmisch Partenkirchen

Figure Skating - Olympiahalle

Ice Hockey Main - SAP Arena

Ice Hockey Second & Curling - two from Olympia Eishalle, Audi Dome, or further afield Curt Frenzel Stadion (Augsburg) Saturn Arena (Ingolstadt), Eisstadion am Gutenbergweg (Landshut)  or Olympia-Eissport-Zentrum (Garmsich) the last 4 either DEL or DEL2 arenas all within about 90kms of downtown Munich.

Bavarian sponsorshop possibilities could include Siemens AG, BMW, MAN AG, Audi, Allianz, Munich Re etc.

SLC would not be a slam dunk anymore

 

 

 

The problem is the people don't want the Olympics. That was evident in the referendum that doomed Munich's 2022 candidacy. Any Munich bid would need Garmisch anyways and from my understanding that's where most of the opposition came from.

[StefanMUC]

3 hours ago, stryker said:

The problem is the people don't want the Olympics. That was evident in the referendum that doomed Munich's 2022 candidacy. Any Munich bid would need Garmisch anyways and from my understanding that's where most of the opposition came from.

Yeah, why flog a dead horse...There‘s local elections in three weeks and it will very likely end up with a social democractic/green coalition in the city council (I would certainly hope so). No major (and minor) party has an interest in dragging a bid into the election campaign.

And actually, the main reason for the negative referendum was clearly contempt for the IOC. The city is heavily pursuing other sports events (Football Euro 20&24; CL final 22 I think, European Championships 22, possibly also Handball Euro in 24, etc). Garmisch is bidding for another alpine world champs, the other venues mentioned are also still regularly hosting big events.

But not under the auspices of the IOC. And remember that the referendum came only two months after a German became IOC boss. In a way, that made things worse because he is so unpopular here.

The only thing I could imagine would be Munich being considered a last minute emergency plan in case Covid 19 makes Beijing 22 an absolute no go. And even then, there‘s probably others on standby too.

[arwebb]

On 9/5/2019 at 5:34 PM, Quaker2001 said:

The phrase "highly unlikely" is being pretty generous IMO.  If it's that unlikely, why does there *always* have to be the question?  Because it happened once, we need to acknowledge it as a possibility every time now?  Can we as a forum that's supposed to be knowledgeable on these things be fucking smarter than that?  Is that too much to ask?  The answer to that rhetorical question sadly is yes, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The IOC didn't do what they did with Paris and LA to avoid criticism.  There was certainly a level of diplomacy there because it required making a deal, but that didn't come without a cost.  It shouldn't be the default assumption that because that happened once, somehow there's a precedent there that we need to have in the back of our minds.

And yes, I will continue the ranting about this because it symbolizes what this site has somewhat tragically devolved into.  Which is a crying shame and I don't think it happened just because Olympic bidding got boring in the past few years.

Although I've been, to put it mildly, somewhat out of the loop in relation to this forum in recent times, I have been studying and thinking about the broader issues that sporting bodies face in relation to their bidding processes. As I see it, we are dealing with a new reality. The days of there being multiple first-rank global cities or nations being willing to bid for the Olympics are, for the moment at least, over. Not only that, but it is now far easier to mobilise mass popular opposition to a bid (as the examples we all know about have demonstrated) and there is less willingness to accept these events, at least in the bidding stage, as the universally beneficial things that their proposers might wish them to be seen as. This isn't a new problem, of course, but I do think it would be unwise for us to completely dismiss the Paris-Los Angeles scenario as a one-off. The rather hand to mouth existence of the Commonwealth Games at the moment is perhaps the best demonstration of the prudence of that move.

[Quaker2001]

On 2/28/2020 at 5:34 PM, arwebb said:

Although I've been, to put it mildly, somewhat out of the loop in relation to this forum in recent times, I have been studying and thinking about the broader issues that sporting bodies face in relation to their bidding processes. As I see it, we are dealing with a new reality. The days of there being multiple first-rank global cities or nations being willing to bid for the Olympics are, for the moment at least, over. Not only that, but it is now far easier to mobilise mass popular opposition to a bid (as the examples we all know about have demonstrated) and there is less willingness to accept these events, at least in the bidding stage, as the universally beneficial things that their proposers might wish them to be seen as. This isn't a new problem, of course, but I do think it would be unwise for us to completely dismiss the Paris-Los Angeles scenario as a one-off. The rather hand to mouth existence of the Commonwealth Games at the moment is perhaps the best demonstration of the prudence of that move.

There are definitely some new realities out there.  Certainly agree with you on that one.  And it's definitely possible that leads to more unorthodox elections of host cities going forward.  Still, we do need to treat Paris/LA as a one-off and not necessarily something we should expect to see again.  That's not to say the possibility is being completely dismissed, but again, let's not treat it as precedent either as if it's something to be expected again.

As an example, look at what the future potentially holds for the Winter Olympics.  Originally, it seemed like we might have a Sapporo vs Salt lake showdown.  Now however, seems like Salt Lake may set their sights on 2034 instead, leaving Sapporo for 2030.  So the dynamics aren't necessarily the same as what we saw with Paris and LA.  It's far from unthinkable we could see the IOC award 2030 and 2034 together.  But for an organization that doesn't have the most sterling reputation these days, they need to be careful about making closed door deals like that.  Different when they had engaged with Paris and LA for nearly 2 years before working out 2024/2028.  

[arwebb]

Given that the 2024-28 decision came at the moment of what would have been expected to be the 2024 election, that suggests the IOC has got three years before it needs to make a final call on 2030 and/or 2034. We're probably best to see the Paris-Los Angeles approach as the option up the IOC's sleeve, to be used if necessary. But the key point in its favour for the IOC is that it does buy them time for the prevailing atmosphere to change.

[Hightowerio86]

2 hours ago, arwebb said:

Given that the 2024-28 decision came at the moment of what would have been expected to be the 2024 election, that suggests the IOC has got three years before it needs to make a final call on 2030 and/or 2034. We're probably best to see the Paris-Los Angeles approach as the option up the IOC's sleeve, to be used if necessary. But the key point in its favour for the IOC is that it does buy them time for the prevailing atmosphere to change.

I've been saying that the IOC might do another double allocation just like they did for Paris and LA but it's very likely Salt Lake is going for 2034

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, arwebb said:

Given that the 2024-28 decision came at the moment of what would have been expected to be the 2024 election, that suggests the IOC has got three years before it needs to make a final call on 2030 and/or 2034. We're probably best to see the Paris-Los Angeles approach as the option up the IOC's sleeve, to be used if necessary. But the key point in its favour for the IOC is that it does buy them time for the prevailing atmosphere to change.

The days of multiple cities competing with each other for the right to host the Olympics are over, possibly forever.  So the IOC certainly needs to adapt to that changing climate.  But I don't think it's a matter of buying time and hope they atmosphere changes.  They need to change unless they want to keep flirting with potential danger.  It should be considered encouraging for them, especially on the Winter side, that there are cities and countries interesting in returning as hosts after a relatively short amount of time.  Because we're likely not looking at any new frontiers any time in the near future.

Right now, we've got Sapporo and Salt Lake showing interest, although perhaps conveniently for the IOC, they're seemingly not after the same prize.  So it may not be necessary to use unusual tactics.  That Salt Lake is eyeing 2034, I doubt that would change much between now and 2027 when it would be time to announce a host.  Locking them in earlier than that may have its advantages, but it need not be like Paris-Los Angeles where it was a 3-way deal for 2024 and 2028.  This one can be done independently.

[Nacre]

For the winter games I think the biggest issue has already been solved: the sliding center. If the IOC will let the host city use a remote site on the same continent it opens up a lot more potential cities. 

The problem with the games are the capital and security costs, not the event itself. Host cities roughly break even on the operational costs of the games. It's the expensive sports venues that cause so much trouble. The IOC needs to show (not tell) that the era of white elephant stadiums is over. If they can do that in Milan/Cortina then they may be back on the path to popularity with potential hosts.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Nacre

[stryker]

On 3/2/2020 at 9:23 PM, Nacre said:

For the winter games I think the biggest issue has already been solved: the sliding center. If the IOC will let the host city use a remote site on the same continent it opens up a lot more potential cities. 

The problem with the games are the capital and security costs, not the event itself. Host cities roughly break even on the operational costs of the games. It's the expensive sports venues that cause so much trouble. The IOC needs to show (not tell) that the era of white elephant stadiums is over. If they can do that in Milan/Cortina then they may be back on the path to popularity with potential hosts.

I'd say the speed skating oval and ski jumping complex is almost as problematic as the sliding track. In terms of the IOC showing that the era of the white elephant venue is over, I'm very skeptical Milan-Cortina can do that. Milan needs two ice hockey arenas and a speed skating oval, none of which have any concrete plans post-Olympics (Pyeongchang has the same problem). If that happens then Milan-Cortina could be the death knell for the WOGs in Western Europe. If Torino gets back on board as they can provide the ice hockey arenas and the oval then the bid has a real shot as being the first WOGs to avoid the dreaded white elephants.

[Quaker2001]

On 3/2/2020 at 12:23 PM, Nacre said:

For the winter games I think the biggest issue has already been solved: the sliding center. If the IOC will let the host city use a remote site on the same continent it opens up a lot more potential cities. 

The problem with the games are the capital and security costs, not the event itself. Host cities roughly break even on the operational costs of the games. It's the expensive sports venues that cause so much trouble. The IOC needs to show (not tell) that the era of white elephant stadiums is over. If they can do that in Milan/Cortina then they may be back on the path to popularity with potential hosts.

What the IOC needs to show is that they're willing to choose the sustainable bid over the flashy, shiny new one.  They had a chance to do so for 2022 (and let history not forget how close that vote was), but it didn't happen.

Chances are, the next 2 Winter Olympic hosts will be Sapporo and Salt Lake.  So the next test of that may be a decade from now.  And as I've said here more times than I can recall.. the IOC can only choose from cities/countries that propose a bid.  I doubt we're ever going to go back to the days when there was a full field of bidders.  If the mantra going forward is to reduce or eliminate the number of white elephant stadiums, then how could any country without the majority of the facilities already built hope to be able to put in a sensible bid?

[Nacre]

2 hours ago, stryker said:

I'd say the speed skating oval and ski jumping complex is almost as problematic as the sliding track. 

They certainly aren't cheap, but ski jumps don't require artificial refrigeration (unless Qatar wants to build one) and huge support infrastructure. You also only need a pair of $500 skis to go ski jumping compared to $50,000 for a bobsled. Speed skating ovals are relatively easy to operate as public ice skating venues and can even be easily converted to other uses as at Vancouver. A $100,000 per annum government subsidy for a public ice skating venue isn't a crazy use of public money.

I am certainly not suggesting that building facilities for ice skating or skiing is cheap. But I personally wouldn't mind paying tax dollars to rebuild the Bakke Hill ski jump at Leavenworth in Washington State even without an Olympic bid, whereas I would be seriously annoyed if my state built a bobsledding track with public money. There are private commercial ski jumps in New Hampshire and Michigan that operate without any connection to an Olympic bid. 

2 hours ago, stryker said:

In terms of the IOC showing that the era of the white elephant venue is over, I'm very skeptical Milan-Cortina can do that. 

Unfortunately I kind of agree, which is why I said "if". But I certainly think there's at least a chance that the Italian plan will work out OK financially. Milan is a lot bigger than Gangneung and Italians are more interested in winter sports than Koreans.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Nacre

[stryker]

On 3/4/2020 at 2:05 AM, Nacre said:

They certainly aren't cheap, but ski jumps don't require artificial refrigeration (unless Qatar wants to build one) and huge support infrastructure. You also only need a pair of $500 skis to go ski jumping compared to $50,000 for a bobsled. Speed skating ovals are relatively easy to operate as public ice skating venues and can even be easily converted to other uses as at Vancouver. A $100,000 per annum government subsidy for a public ice skating venue isn't a crazy use of public money.

I am certainly not suggesting that building facilities for ice skating or skiing is cheap. But I personally wouldn't mind paying tax dollars to rebuild the Bakke Hill ski jump at Leavenworth in Washington State even without an Olympic bid, whereas I would be seriously annoyed if my state built a bobsledding track with public money. There are private commercial ski jumps in New Hampshire and Michigan that operate without any connection to an Olympic bid. 

Turning a speed skating oval into a public ice skating venue worked for Vancouver and I agree it's not a an exorbitant amount of taxpayer money to spend but I'd argue Vancouver is a winter sports city, way more than Milan. I could see Milan trying the same thing but how much use would it actually get? 

Pine Mountain in Michigan regular hosts the Continental Cup? How much use to ski jumps actually get though if they are not part of the regular FIS calendar? Nansen in New Hampshire is on the national register of historic places. Speaking of Canada, Calgary couldn't even find the funding the rebuild their ski jumps for their failed 2026 bid and had to use Whistler instead.

Interesting you mentioned Bakke Hill Ski Jump. I had a student about a year ago create a mock Seattle WOGs bid for a class project and one of his proposals was to rebuild Bakke Hill. His plan also included the sliding track at Whistler and a speed skating oval that would become a community ice skating rink.