Does the Winter Olympics just need a rotating roster of hosts?

[Australian Kiwi]

Given it has only ever (and seems it only will) be staged in three continents why not spread hosting responsibility amongst cities that are the most prepared and in countries that are the most successful at these Games. When you put it on paper its barely noticeable...

2022 - Beijing

2026 - Milano-Cortina

2030 - Sapporo

2034 - Salt Lake City

2038 - Lillehammer

2042 - Calgary

2046 - Innsbruck

2050 - Sapporo

2054 - Salt Lake City

2058 - Lillehammer

2062 - Calgary

2066 - Innsbruck

 

Thoughts?

[Sir Rols]

Good topic! And timely, considering many of the discussions here today. I guess I don’t feel strongly either way, but can see some benefits to it. But a few random thoughts…

* it seems to be an intractable problem for he IOC to get anyone interested in bidding for them these days. But if the IOC indeed  was to open the call for “prospective host sites to host the Winter Olympic Games on a permanent rotating basis” it could indeed open the floodgates for a LOT of cities to stake their claim. It would be a tempting prize for any major winter sports destination to be able to proclaim itself a permanent Olympic site. I’d imagine the competition could get intense - and bitter.

* Climate change. It’s actually quite f*cked that we now so matter-of-factly, well maybe not accept it, but expect it. That could/would considerably narrow the list of candidates if we’re having to lock in future-proof hosts.

* The thorny old issue in any discussion of permanent host sites - accommodation. How do you viably keep accommodation (Olympic village and spectators/visitors) available when for three out of four years  (or more on a rotating roster) it’s nearly all superfluous. The US (and maybe Canada) could rely on university campuses, but elsewhere it’s not so easy.

[Sir Rols]

 

14 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

6 December 2022

In an historic day for the Olympic movement, the IOC Executive Board announced today they have received several ground breaking recommendations from the Future Host Commission for the Olympic Winter Games.

One of these recommendations is to create a pool of Hosts within which to rotate the Olympic Winter Games.

Who do you think should be in such a Olympic Winter Host Pool  and why ?

 

 

There was already this thread created on the same topic, why start a duplicate?

Edited December 7, 2022 by Sir Rols

[AustralianFan]

10 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

 

There was already a topic created on this, why start a duplicate?

didn’t notice it actually, was doing a few things at the time, took a while to create the topic

[Sir Rols]

In terms of likely candidates, I’d guess the obvious ones would be SLC, Vancouver, Sapporo and Lillehammer

I’d guess the Austrians, French, Italians and Swiss would fight tooth and nail for a second European slot. Ditto China and Korea for Asia.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Sir Rols

[StefanMUC]

5 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

In terms of likely candidates, I’d guess the obvious ones would be SLC, Vancouver, Sapporo and Lillehammer

I’d guess the Austrians, French, Italians and Swiss would fight tooth and nail for a second European slot. Ditto China and Korea for Asia.

The Swiss? After all those failed referendums?

[Sir Rols]

5 hours ago, StefanMUC said:

The Swiss? After all those failed referendums?

If it was to become a permanent rotating winter host, I think their reticence may well be overcome. Heck, even the Bavarian farmers might feel a stirring in their loins.

[StefanMUC]

52 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

If it was to become a permanent rotating winter host, I think their reticence may well be overcome. Heck, even the Bavarian farmers might feel a stirring in their loins.

The Bavarian farmers will in a few decades be able to grow veggies and cereals year in year out without the need to get angry at no longer existing skiing tourism.

[AustralianFan]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:49 PM, Australian Kiwi said:

Given it has only ever (and seems it only will) be staged in three continents why not spread hosting responsibility amongst cities that are the most prepared and in countries that are the most successful at these Games. When you put it on paper its barely noticeable...

2022 - Beijing

2026 - Milano-Cortina

2030 - Sapporo

2034 - Salt Lake City

2038 - Lillehammer

2042 - Calgary

2046 - Innsbruck

2050 - Sapporo

2054 - Salt Lake City

2058 - Lillehammer

2062 - Calgary

2066 - Innsbruck

Thoughts?

Average minimum temperature

The 10 year temperature criteria has to be applied first to any pool of candidates for the Winter Games Host Pool.

To ensure climate reliability, Hosts selected for such a permanent rotating pool would  need to show average minimum temperatures of below freezing for snow competition venues at the time of the Games over a 10-year period.

Frim websites such as weatherandclimate.com or snow-forecast.com these are the “at-a-glance average” minimum temperatures below freezing in Februrary of these hosts:

• Albertville:   -7.3C yes
• Beijing City:  -4C yes /  Xiaohaituo Mountain Area: -9.7C yes
• Calgary:   -11C yes
• Cortina de Ampezzo:  -8C yes / Milano: +1C no / Val di Fiemme:  -8C yes
• Innsbruck:  -3.6C yes
• Lillehammer:  -8.3C yes
• Nagano:   -3.7C yes
• Pyeong Chang:   -10C yes
• Sapporo:  -8.2C yes
• Salt Lake City - 2C yes / Deer Valley:   -4C yes
• Sochi:  +4.1C no / Krasnaya Polyana -2C yes
• Torino:  -0.7C yes / Sestriere  -0.9C yes
• Vancouver:   +1.3C no  / Whistler -10.6C yes

Guessing that they might “weight” the 10 year average measurement toward the snow venues, eg alpine and cross country skiing, rather than the host city temps which are warmer but with capable indoor venues for figure skating, etc not affected by climate change.

Presumably, those cities interested in being in a permanent pool within which the Gmes are rotated would go through a bulk continuous dialogue process with the final group elevated to Targeted Dialogue and the final Group recommended for election by the IOC EB to the permanent pool by the IOC Session.

Considerations for Pool dialogue would be the same as for an individual Games candidature, existing venues and the state of them, athlete accommodation, transport, legacy, environment, security, government guaranteed support, public support, etc.

Once you’re elected to the permanent pool, a Big Party, then how would the IOC decide who hosts first and who hosts after that, etc ?

[AustralianFan]

correction:  

delete the following paragraph from previous post as average minimum temperatures at Games time applies only to snow venues:

Guessing that they might “weight” the 10 year average measurement toward the snow venues, eg alpine and cross country skiing, rather than the host city temps which are warmer but with capable indoor venues for figure skating, etc not affected by climate change.

[krow]

On 12/7/2022 at 12:07 AM, Sir Rols said:

 

* The thorny old issue in any discussion of permanent host sites - accommodation. How do you viably keep accommodation (Olympic village and spectators/visitors) available when for three out of four years  (or more on a rotating roster) it’s nearly all superfluous. The US (and maybe Canada) could rely on university campuses, but elsewhere it’s not so easy.

where would the students who live there go? 

[AustralianFan]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:49 PM, Australian Kiwi said:

Given it has only ever (and seems it only will) be staged in three continents why not spread hosting responsibility amongst cities that are the most prepared and in countries that are the most successful at these Games. When you put it on paper its barely noticeable...

2022 - Beijing

2026 - Milano-Cortina

2030 - Sapporo

2034 - Salt Lake City

2038 - Lillehammer

2042 - Calgary

2046 - Innsbruck

2050 - Sapporo

2054 - Salt Lake City

2058 - Lillehammer

2062 - Calgary

2066 - Innsbruck

 

Thoughts?

 

16 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

Average minimum temperature

The 10 year temperature criteria has to be applied first to any pool of candidates for the Winter Games Host Pool.

To ensure climate reliability, Hosts selected for such a permanent rotating pool would  need to show average minimum temperatures of below freezing for snow competition venues at the time of the Games over a 10-year period.

Frim websites such as weatherandclimate.com or snow-forecast.com these are the “at-a-glance average” minimum temperatures below freezing in Februrary of these hosts:

• Albertville:   -7.3C yes
• Beijing City:  -4C yes /  Xiaohaituo Mountain Area: -9.7C yes
• Calgary:   -11C yes
• Cortina de Ampezzo:  -8C yes / Milano: +1C no / Val di Fiemme:  -8C yes
• Innsbruck:  -3.6C yes
• Lillehammer:  -8.3C yes
• Nagano:   -3.7C yes
• Pyeong Chang:   -10C yes
• Sapporo:  -8.2C yes
• Salt Lake City - 2C yes / Deer Valley:   -4C yes
• Sochi:  +4.1C no / Krasnaya Polyana -2C yes
• Torino:  -0.7C yes / Sestriere  -0.9C yes
• Vancouver:   +1.3C no  / Whistler -10.6C yes

Guessing that they might “weight” the 10 year average measurement toward the snow venues, eg alpine and cross country skiing, rather than the host city temps which are warmer but with capable indoor venues for figure skating, etc not affected by climate change.

Considerations for Pool dialogue would be the same as for an individual Games candidature, existing venues and the state of them, athlete accommodation, transport, legacy, environment, security, government guaranteed support, public support, etc.

Once you’re elected to the permanent pool, a Big Party, then how would the IOC decide who hosts first and who hosts after that, etc ?

Not sure the IOC will have the luxury of contintental rotation in such a Winter Games Permanent Hosting Pool ?  Maybe they will, who knows.   Depends on who makes it into the Pool.

• A Host Contract signed for every edition of the Pool Host Games ?
• Government financial guarantees and Public Support for the Games change over time as we know.  

So would the IOC require the “next Host in line for the next Games” to test both of these before those next Games are awarded?

I can’t see that the IOC would award Games from the Pool more than two Winter Games in advance because of all the unknowns and risks further into the future.

 

 

[Sir Rols]

2 hours ago, krow said:

where would the students who live there go? 

Guess I didn’t think that through. I’m used to the old dorm solution being trotted out for US bid lans, but winter! D’oh!

Are the Mormon’s good at house stay hospitality?

[Nacre]

A major problem for the winter games is that they require a rare outdoor venue (ski resorts with the required vertical drop) AND major arenas, which need large populations to support them. There are lots of places that have either snowy mountains or big cities with cold weather, but only a couple dozen with both.

Solutions: 1) set up a rotating group of host cities, 2) let a ski area and a distant city host the snow and ice events separately. There are lots of cities like Minneapolis and Edinburgh that could manage the arenas if they could pair up with a ski resort for the snow events.

9 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Are the Mormon’s good at house stay hospitality?

Yes.

Mormons face substantial pressure from within their community to put forward a good face towards "gentiles" (non-Mormons) to make their religion look good. Mormons who are unfriendly to strangers, have a shabby appearance, et al face substantial disapproval. This has some surprisingly unexpected effects; for example Salt Lake City is the #1 city in America for breast enhancements (because Mormon women are supposed to be perfect goddesses).

Edited December 9, 2022 by Nacre

[Australian Kiwi]

Or splitting the events up could be great too! ^^

Think Melbourne and Stockholm in 1956 - two different events in two different cities combining to form one edition of the Olympic Games. 

As others mention, this could enable the likes of London-Lillehammer or Paris-Chamonix. 

[fusilli]

Why they get bigger as Summer's get smaller?

 

 

[Circle]

On 12/9/2022 at 1:14 AM, Nacre said:

A major problem for the winter games is that they require a rare outdoor venue (ski resorts with the required vertical drop) AND major arenas, which need large populations to support them. There are lots of places that have either snowy mountains or big cities with cold weather, but only a couple dozen with both.

Solutions: 1) set up a rotating group of host cities, 2) let a ski area and a distant city host the snow and ice events separately. There are lots of cities like Minneapolis and Edinburgh that could manage the arenas if they could pair up with a ski resort for the snow events.

Yes.

Mormons face substantial pressure from within their community to put forward a good face towards "gentiles" (non-Mormons) to make their religion look good. Mormons who are unfriendly to strangers, have a shabby appearance, et al face substantial disapproval. This has some surprisingly unexpected effects; for example Salt Lake City is the #1 city in America for breast enhancements (because Mormon women are supposed to be perfect goddesses).

Edinburgh has one ice rink and the facility is  not up to a high profession level as needed for an Olympic Winter Games.  Also Edinburgh only have a very short dry ski slope.

[Nacre]

41 minutes ago, Circle said:

Edinburgh has one ice rink and the facility is  not up to a high profession level as needed for an Olympic Winter Games.  Also Edinburgh only have a very short dry ski slope.

For some reason I thought that the SSE Hydro was in Edinburgh instead of Glasgow. Anyway, the point is that Scotland could manage the ice events if it could partner with a ski area somewhere else like Slovakia.

[AustralianFan]

For the Olympic Winter Games, I’d like to see more detail over the next year or so on how the proposed new climate warming rules under consideration are meant to work for Olympic host selection, ie the 10-year minimum average temperature for snow venues and the hosting pool, etc.   Lots of questions.

1.  I imagine that the current continuous dialogue / targeted dialogue process will determine who gets into the pool of rotating Winter hosts but how will it work after that?
2. Will the IOC Future Host Commission for the Olympic Winter Games then, every four years from 2038 onwards make a reccommendation to the IOC EB to elevate a candidature/s from the pool for those next Winter Games?
3. How will it work further down the track if a new candidature wants to join the pool of rotating winter hosts? 
4. If a candidature in the winter hosts pool wants out, how will that work?
5. What specific climate data source/s will the IOC Future Host Commission for the Olympic Winter Games accept as reliable and transparent to all concerned to determine that the snow venue minimum average temperatures are below freezing over a 10 year period?
6. How will the IOC’s human rights advisory body (announced 14 Dec-2022) affect the host selection process? (for the Summer Games too)

[Sir Rols]

On 12/7/2022 at 6:49 PM, Australian Kiwi said:

Given it has only ever (and seems it only will) be staged in three continents why not spread hosting responsibility amongst cities that are the most prepared and in countries that are the most successful at these Games. When you put it on paper its barely noticeable...

2022 - Beijing

2026 - Milano-Cortina

2030 - Sapporo

2034 - Salt Lake City

2038 - Lillehammer

2042 - Calgary

2046 - Innsbruck

2050 - Sapporo

2054 - Salt Lake City

2058 - Lillehammer

2062 - Calgary

2066 - Innsbruck

 

Thoughts?

Agree totally. That’s a point I’ve raised in he “New Norm” thread - why would there be a Ned to formalise a rotating oyster? We’re already in a phase a considering recycling recent hosts - SLC and Vancouver 2030 - and people and the IOC seem happy with that. Why not just continue with that, and any recent host can be considered pre-qualified to stay in “continuous dialogue” for future hostings, while still allowing for new aspirants to break through when they appear. A rotating roster Ned not be a sealed and closed list of only certain locations for all games in future. 

[Brekkie Boy]

It is just boringly practical but it would feel somewhat like making the games a closed shop.   I think perhaps reserving every other bid process for previous hosts might be the fairer way to do things - that way it isn't cutting off new applicants completely.

[AustralianFan]

On 12/16/2022 at 4:52 AM, Sir Rols said:

Agree totally. That’s a point I’ve raised in he “New Norm” thread - why would there be a Ned to formalise a rotating oyster? We’re already in a phase a considering recycling recent hosts - SLC and Vancouver 2030 - and people and the IOC seem happy with that. Why not just continue with that, and any recent host can be considered pre-qualified to stay in “continuous dialogue” for future hostings, while still allowing for new aspirants to break through when they appear. A rotating roster Ned not be a sealed and closed list of only certain locations for all games in future. 

11 minutes ago, Brekkie Boy said:

It is just boringly practical but it would feel somewhat like making the games a closed shop.   I think perhaps reserving every other bid process for previous hosts might be the fairer way to do things - that way it isn't cutting off new applicants completely.

The spanner in the works is that even past hosts, would have to demonstrate that at their snow venues over the past 10 years that the minimum average temperature was below freezing.   There’s no guarantee that all past hosts can demonstrate this.

You also cannot have bunch of hosts in continuous dialogue if some of those do not meet the temperature rule.

That’s probably why the IOC are toying with this “exclusive winter hosts club or pool” idea because you don’t meet the temperature rule at Step 1, you don’t get into continuous dialogue and you certainly don’t have any chance of getting into the rotating pool.

[AustralianFan]

correction:   That’s probably why the IOC are toying with this “exclusive winter hosts club or pool” idea because if you don’t meet the temperature rule at Step 1, you don’t get into continuous dialogue and you certainly don’t have any chance of getting into the rotating pool.

[Sir Rols]

The trouble with that is, not even the best climatologist in the world at the moment could give a definitive answer, or even consensus, on what the climate is likely to be in any specific location, 20, 30, 50 years in the future. The best they could do is guesswork based on possible outcomes based on 1.5 degree or 2 degree warming scenarios, with caveats that a whole tangle of localised factors could impact outcomes. For all that, tragically, we’re going to see continued retreats of glaciers and ice caps, we’re also likely to get more extreme weather events like the sever cold snap afflicting North America right now (and prompting the usual climate deniers to declare “warming? What warming”).

Now, surely, it’s putting the cart before the horse for the IOC to want to lock in a handful of hosts right now, when all possible distant forecasting is so variable and uncertain. A six or seven year forecast is a tad more reliable and backable and a useable guide for any location to assess if they have the capability, conditions and desire to host a winter games in the near future. And that seven, or even a decade, window, will prove a more reliable guide in the future too than any guesswork about 50 years down the track would be now. Keeping a recent host in continuous dialogue is not committing them to anything beyond keeping lines of communications open for future opportunities, while allowing flexibility to also consider other new possible entrants. It’s far more flexible and able to change to meet future conditions than  have bunch of hosts in permanent rotation if some of those do not meet the temperature rule in future.

And again, for the umptenth time, the IOC has not just now come to the realisation that it’s desirable to hold the winter games in places with a cold climate in winter. Snow and temperature conditions have ALWAYS been the most basic or requirements for a winter host, and the fist thing for a technical evaluation to tick off. That’s not changed or is a new radical point of policy. 

It’s good the IOC is, finally, acknowledging climate change. But surely the best way to face the uncertainties of climate change is to maintain flexibility, rather than lock in rigidity.

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Sir Rols

[AustralianFan]

6 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

The trouble with that is, not even the best climatologist in the world at the moment could give a definitive answer, or even consensus, on what the climate is likely to be in any specific location, 20, 30, 50 years in the future. The best they could do is guesswork based on possible outcomes based on 1.5 degree or 2 degree warming scenarios, with caveats that a whole tangle of localised factors could impact outcomes. For all that, tragically, we’re going to see continued retreats of glaciers and ice caps, we’re also likely to get more extreme weather events like the sever cold snap afflicting North America right now (and prompting the usual climate deniers to declare “warming? What warming”).

Now, surely, it’s putting the cart before the horse for the IOC to want to lock in a handful of hosts right now, when all possible distant forecasting is so variable and uncertain. A six or seven year forecast is a tad more reliable and backable and a useable guide for any location to assess if they have the capability, conditions and desire to host a winter games in the near future. And that seven, or even a decade, window, will prove a more reliable guide in the future too than any guesswork about 50 years down the track would be now. Keeping a recent host in continuous dialogue is not committing them to anything beyond keeping lines of communications open for future opportunities, while allowing flexibility to also consider other new possible entrants. It’s far more flexible and able to change to meet future conditions than  have bunch of hosts in permanent rotation if some of those do not meet the temperature rule in future.

And again, for the umptenth time, the IOC has not just now come to the realisation that it’s desirable to hold the winter games in places with a cold climate in winter. Snow and temperature conditions have ALWAYS been the most basic or requirements for a winter host, and the fist thing for a technical evaluation to tick off. That’s not changed or is a new radical point of policy. 

It’s good the IOC is, finally, acknowledging climate change. But surely the best way to face the uncertainties of climate change is to maintain flexibility, rather than lock in rigidity.

 

These questions, and others we have not thought of, is what the IOC will be considering now and in the coming months and year.

If a potential host cannot demonstrate 10 year average minimum temperstures being below freezing at snow venues over the last 10 years, if that proposal is adopted, then looking at future temperatures is waste of time.  The climate is getting warmer, not colder.

Having said said, the trajectory of a potential host’s snow venue temperatures might be examined by the IOC Future Host Commission, even if their past 10 years snow venue minimum temperatures are below freezing level.