Brisbane 2032 Venues/Stadiums Thread

[FYI]

6 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

We’ll have to agree to vehemently disagree. I love what cities like Paris and London have brought to the games, but I’d hate if they were considered as only something for the elite of world cities. I’d soon tire and lose a lot of interest if they just rotated between London, LA, Paris, Beijing and maybe Tokyo or Melbourne. Just as I’d lose interest if they were permanently staged in Athens or Olympia. I don’t think any city should be “beneath” or “unbefittng” the games. Cities like Atlanta or Brisbane can be great examples and bring their own spin to the games.

Let's put that into more context, though. Paris literally waited an entire CENTURY to shine in the Olympic spotlight again. L.A. hosted twice, & will host again in four-years, during that same timeframe (you were very excited about Paris 2024).

Melbourne hosted all the way back in 1956, so how can anyone be "bored" from that hypothetical prospect (especially when here again, L.A. would've hosted twice in the same timeframe)? I surely would've found Melbourne 2032 a much more exciting prospect than Brisbane. Same goes with Tokyo & London, they were evenly spaced by generations to encounter any degree of boredom. Maybe on a website like this to some it might, but in general, no one would've thought that. 

If there's any large Olympic cities to be 'bored' with right now, it's L.A. & Beijing (simply because they hosted two Games too close together, even though they were for different seasons). We can take it to another level though (if you want to use that argument) & say I'm "bored" with repeat countries. Australia, for it's smallish size, has hosted more than their fair share of Games, but yet they're hosting their third Games, & only 32 years from their last Games. I can still remember Sydney (they were one of my first Games to watch). So if we really want to "broaden" the appeal, how about going to countries that have waited much like longer, like Germany, or who havn't hosted at all, like Turkey or India (& speaking of, some people are still throwing a hissy-fit over the prospect of Ahmedabad).

19 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Yet Charlie Battle showed with Atlanta that a grassroots team behind them, it can be done. And for all hat people here don’t rate it among their shiniest Olympics, it wasn’t a failure. 

It wasn't a failure, but it wasn't exciting either. Not like London 2012 or Paris 2024. Plus, how much have the Summer Games grown since then. Brisbane right now is the about the same population that Atlanta was in 1996 when it hosted.

[Gonzo]

Judging by Crisafulli's remarks in that article, QSAC option is dead if as is likely he becomes Premier in October

[Sir Rols]

32 minutes ago, FYI said:

Let's put that into more context, though. Paris literally waited an entire CENTURY to shine in the Olympic spotlight again. L.A. hosted twice, & will host again in four-years, during that same timeframe (you were very excited about Paris 2024).

Melbourne hosted all the way back in 1956, so how can anyone be "bored" from that hypothetical prospect (especially when here again, L.A. would've hosted twice in the same timeframe)? I surely would've found Melbourne 2032 a much more exciting prospect than Brisbane. Same goes with Tokyo & London, they were evenly spaced by generations to encounter any degree of boredom. Maybe on a website like this to some it might, but in general, no one would've thought that. 

Yes, I was excited for Paris. That doesn’t invalidate also wanting other places to also host.

If I’m talking about “bored” I’m talking about an impossible standard that only certain cities are glamorous and prestigious enough to host an Olympics. I’m not saying we’re bored with Paris or London now - they’d had lots of time between parties. But I would be if they start hosting more regularly in the nearer future because they’re only ones “befitting” or capable of wearing the Olympic jewel. There’s only a very small pol of locations that can fit that such an impossible standard. I want to see other, inevitably less glamorous locations, host before going back again.   

32 minutes ago, FYI said:

It wasn't a failure, but it wasn't exciting either. Not like London 2012 or Paris 2024. Plus, how much have the Summer Games grown since then. Brisbane right now is the about the same population that Atlanta was in 1996 when it hosted.

How well do you remember them from at the time? Because in 1996 Atlanta was a big hyped, watched and celebrated event. It was certainly not seen as unexciting. “Hotlanta” was the hot property in the moment. For all that a Sydney, London and Paris can bring a certain frisson to their games, the Olympics in and of themselves are a spectacle in themselves beyond and transcendent from where they’re located at any particular time.   

Edited August 20 by Sir Rols

[venuedesignlover]

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

 

Absolutely I agree that an obsessive focus on just staging the cheapest possible games can be as damaging as overly expensive white elephant games. What should be, and what the “New Norm” initially set out for, is to tailor the games to what’s best for the city, and if building and developing new facilities works for the city, it should be encouraged. And Brisbane is such a perfect example - it needs a new large oval stadium, and ignoring that in favour of just using the cheapest possible facility they have existing for a one-off event would definitely leave it with a negative Olympic legacy from the games.

Aye, remember https://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/36058-concerned-for-the-future-of-the-olympic-movement-in-brisbane-2032/

Kind of exactly what we were saying a couple months ago. It’s a shame Brisbane is in the same position now

[FYI]

35 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

If I’m talking about “bored” I’m talking about an impossible standard that only certain cities are glamorous and prestigious enough to host an Olympics.

Well, the IOC had a different sentiment in mind, when they told the BOA, after their Birmingham & Manchester losses, that if they wanted to win an Olympic bid, that they needed to bid with London & none other. And what happened only a couple of years after that message (when the U.K. was preparing a bid)? London won the 2012 Games.

And at the same time, though, it's also these glamorous & prestigious cities that can easily accommodate a 21st Summer Olympics & who would be much more "agenda2020/new-norm" complaint.

40 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I’m not saying we’re bored with Paris or London now - they’d had lots of time between parties. But I would be if they start hosting more regularly in the nearer future because they’re only ones “befitting” or capable of wearing the Olympic jewel. There’s only a very small pol of locations that can fit that such an impossible standard. I want to see other, inevitably less glamorous locations, host before going back again.     

What's more "regularly"? If we're talking 20 years or so, sure. I also don't want to see London or especially Paris again anytime soon. But considering the Olympics are a once, every four-years event (that not every city in the world will get to experience  anyway, so only the best, or at least a notch or so below that, should step forward), I don't think that we'll have to worry about that anytime soon. But again, in the meantime, we still have places like Germany, Italy (for a Summer Games), Spain, Turkey (which many here would be excited about) & India, etc still waiting in the wings.

Meanwhile, we have "repeat" places like L.A. & Australia as the next two summer Games penciled in, which many would say (& which I've seen argued here before) as only the "elite & prestigeous" (or some even go farther "anglo") countries only get to host. That's not really that exciting, either.

52 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

How well do you remember them from at the time? Because in 1996 Atlanta was a big hyped, watched and celebrated event. It was certainly not seen as unexciting. "Hotlanta" was the hot property in the moment. For all that a Sydney, London and Paris can bring a certain frisson to their games, the Olympics in and of themselves are a spectacle in themselves beyond and transcendent from where they’re located at any particular time.   

Hotlanta has do it with the hot, Georgia summers. That moniker didn't come from the Olympics. And sure, who can remember that long ago, especially when those were my very first Games to watch. However, I will always remember those horrendous pick-up trucks from the OC! The Centennial Park bombing also put a damper on things.

But you were also there in person, so obviously your POV would be different, VS someone watching on TV. That said,  Paris 2024 though, the excitement was still able to come right through the TV screen!

[Sir Rols]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Well, the IOC had a different sentiment in mind, when they told the BOA, after their Birmingham & Manchester losses, that if they wanted to win an Olympic bid, that they needed to bid with London & none other. And what happened only a couple of years after that message (when the U.K. was preparing a bid)? London won the 2012 Games.

That was a much easier decision to make in the glitzy Samaranch era, when members still voted from a selection and before (the often unfair) examples of Athens, Rio, Sochi et al were driving democratic centuries from bidding for the games in droves because it was getting all too big and expensive.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

 

And at the same time, though, it's also these glamorous & prestigious cities that can easily accommodate a 21st Summer Olympics & who would be much more "agenda2020/new-norm" complaint.

So? Is it a bad thing if that pool of possible hosts can be expanded and shown to be in the reach of others less glamorously endowed?

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Meanwhile, we have "repeat" places like L.A. & Australia as the next two summer Games penciled in, which many would say (& which I've seen argued here before) as only the "elite & prestigeous" (or some even go farther "anglo") countries only get to host. That's not really that exciting, either.

Yet you’ve said before, you’ be happier if it was Melbourne rather than Brisbane for ‘32. I’d have a more excitement if NYC was next up. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to enjoy LA or that I won’t get caught up come ‘32.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Hotlanta has do it with the hot, Georgia summers. That moniker didn't come from the Olympics. And sure, who can remember that long ago, especially when those were my very first Games to watch. However, I will always remember those horrendous pick-up trucks from the OC! The Centennial Park bombing also put a damper on things.

 No, it was very definitely used in both senses, as in temps and as in the hottest show on earth in 1996. It was very much adopted - to the point of cliche - in the spirit of marketing spin to catch the hottest action now in Hotlanta. Heck, I used the term in my stories filed from there. There was just as much celeb spotting going on as in London and Paris - Ted Turner, Jane Fonda, the Clintons and he Dream Team made sure of that. It was the !!!Olympics!!! and still the height of excitement in 1996. 

Every host needs to play to its strengths. In Paris’ case, it didn’t have much to prove in terms of beauty and venues, and that more than made up, and then some, for a lot of shortcomings in terms of its ambitions for the Seine, its execution not matching its determination to be “different” in its ceremonies and its over-emphasis on sustainability in the village. LA has a lot to flex about too. And hopefully Brisbane will be able to marshall Aussie enthusiasm, hospitality, sense of humour and love of sports to set its own stamp.

Maybe it’s not the message you’re trying to convey - too often we back ourselves into polarising arguments when that’s not really what we’re trying to get across - but it comes across like you’re not in favour of “lesser” cites being able to aspire to or host the games, and that cities like Atlanta or Brisbane hosting offends you. 

Edited August 20 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

55 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

So? Is it a bad thing if that pool of possible hosts can be expanded and shown to be in the reach of others less glamorously endowed?

Oh, come on. You know very well that a Melbourne Games would easily fall more in-line with the "new-norm" agenda than Brisbane does. And the ONLY reason why Melbourne was shoved to the wayside is because it couldn't accommodate the Games during the supposedly, more desireable July/Aug. time-frame.

But as it turns out, now the calendar doesn't matter all that much anymore, when Bach has already hinted that the Games could be staged later in the year in an upcoming cycle. How convenient now for JC. He just made it to get that passed through when he did.

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Yet you’ve said before, you’ be happier if it was Melbourne rather than Brisbane for ‘32. I’d have a more excitement if NYC was next up. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to enjoy LA or that I won’t get caught up come ‘32.

If we have to have repeat countries, then yes, I would be more (key word there) excited if it was Melbourne instead, a much more cosmopolitan city, than Brisbane. Just like I would be more excited (just like you) had it been another U.S. city besides L.A. But notice how you said NYC & not Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Kansas City or similar-like city. That's the difference, & the line should to be drawn somewhere. 

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Maybe it’s not the message you’re trying to convey - too often we back ourselves into polarising arguments when that’s not really what we’re trying to get across - but it comes across like you’re not in favour of “lesser” cites being able to aspire to or host the games, and that cities like Atlanta or Brisbane hosting offends you. 

Why would I be offended? On the contrary, maybe you're the one taking this a little too personally since we are talking about an Australian city here.

This reminds of what Quaker has said on here before, like when the Minneapolin, Houstonian & Leipzig supporters would come on here in the past, & then take it all too personally when the rest of us (including you) would tell them that their cities were just not Olympic material.

So did that really mean then those other cities 'offended' us in hosting? Why are you taking my non-excitement about Brisbane as 'offense'? I'm not that particularly that excited about L.A. either BTW, so your assertion would be totally wrong. What I actually find 'offensive' though (more than anything else) is how Brisbane came to be ITFP, which has absolutely *nothing* to do with the city itself. Regardless, I still say that Brisbane needed more time to grow as a city, which is seemingly quite apparent, before being thrusted into the Olympic spotlight so early.

[Sir Rols]

32 minutes ago, FYI said:

Oh, come on. You know very well that a Melbourne Games would easily fall more in-line with the "new-norm" agenda than Brisbane does. And the ONLY reason why Melbourne was shoved to the wayside is because it couldn't accommodate the Games during the supposedly, more desireable July/Aug. time-frame.

But as it turns out, now the calendar doesn't matter all that much anymore, when Bach has already hinted that the Games could be staged later in the year in an upcoming cycle. How convenient now for JC. He just made it to get that passed through when he did.

That’s wasn’t the question though. It was whether you thinking expending the pool of hosts is a bad thing?

32 minutes ago, FYI said:

the line should to be drawn somewhere. 

Where? Who decides? Why should an arbitrary and subjective “glamour” line be the determiner of hosting ability?

I’m as critical of Brisbane as anybody, including how it got chosen, how’s it’s conducted its preparations so far, and some of its venue choices. But I don’t criticise its right to be a host, or that it can serve as a model and example for similar tier cities going forward.

Edited August 20 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

2 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

That’s wasn’t the question though. It was whether you thinking expending the pool of hosts is a bad thing?

No, of course not. But unless the Summer Olympics shrink in size, which it doesn't look like it in the foreseeable future, then the pool of hosts can't expand as much as we'd like, & will have to be reserved to the larger cities. But at the same time, how much can they shrink before they start to lose the allure that we've grown so accustomed to over the years.

8 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Where? Who decides? Why should an arbitrary and subjective “glamour” line be the determiner of hosting ability?

Well, it certainly shouldn't be a select handful in an already exclusive ExCo, that's for sure.

But even you yourself mentioned how NYC would be more to your liking than L.A. again. So does the line above mean that you'd be okay or as excited with a B or C-rate city in the U.S. instead (i.e. Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Nashville, Detroit, Orlando lol, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc)?

 

[FYI]

25 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

or that it can serve as a model and example for similar tier cities going forward.

It couldn't be a model for similar-tier cities, though. Not in the U.S. anyway. The model here for hosting the Olympics is far different than in other countries. That's what I find flawed & exaggerated when it comes to Brisbane's selection, because that's not really why it got anointed in the first place. 

[Sir Rols]

8 minutes ago, FYI said:

No, of course not. But unless the Summer Olympics shrink in size, which it doesn't look like it in the foreseeable future, then the pool of hosts can't expand as much as we'd like, & will have to be reserved to the larger cities.

And yet we have one. How is that a bad thing?

8 minutes ago, FYI said:

But at the same time, how much can they shrink before they start to lose the allure that we've grown so accustomed to over the years.

In terms of sheer capability, there is a limit to how small they can shrink. If a city can manage it, why not?

10 minutes ago, FYI said:

So does the line above mean that you'd be okay or as excited with a B or C-rate city in the U.S. instead (i.e. Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Nashville, Detroit, Orlando lol, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc)?

Many of them I’d be quite okay with. Many others I question the capability.

[Sir Rols]

1 minute ago, FYI said:

It couldn't be a model for similar-tier cities, though. Not in the U.S. anyway. The model here for hosting the Olympics is far different than in other countries. That's what I find flawed & exaggerated when it comes to Brisbane's selection, because that's not really why it got anointed in the first place. 

But Atlanta did it, within the US model.

[FYI]

Just now, Sir Rols said:

And yet we have one. How is that a bad thing?

Because the verdict is still out on that one. The 2032 Games are still 8 years away. Let's wait & see how those Games turn out first before we start claiming success prematurely to a smaller Games.

2 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

In terms of sheer capability, there is a limit to how small they can shrink. If a city can manage it, why not?

Well again (to borrow you-know-who's line), we'll just have to 'wait-&-see'.

4 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Many of them I’d be quite okay with. Many others I question the capability.

Well, exactly. And many are still questioning Brisbane's capability. So I don't see why that should be found 'offensive'.

6 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

But Atlanta did it, within the US model.

That was how long ago? Atlanta 1996 had 271 events in 26 sports. Paris 2024 had 329 events in 32 sports. And how many more events/sports will L.A. 2028 have? So much so that they have farmed-out a couple of events to faraway OKC. I bet even Atlanta today would be stretched thin to do it again.

[Victorian]

Can we please get back on topic.

[AustralianFan]

OTHER VENUES:  BRISBANE 2032 IS ON TRACK

Don’t worry, the Stadium issue will be sorted out.   But there are many more venues than the Track and Field venue which make for a successful Olympic Games.

Yes, the Brisbane 2032 Stadium / Track and Field Venue issue will be sorted out as it always is in Olympic host cities. 

By far the majority of Brisbane 2032 venues exist already or are temporary venues. 

Click below and scroll to the Venue Update   (posted 2 Aug-24)

Sources:

• Brisbane 2032 organising commitee: Brisbane 2032 Venues,  and
• State Development Queensland:

 

[Sir Rols]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Can we please get back on topic.

How is it not on topic? It’s a discussion of Brisbane and its capability and suitability to host.

9 minutes ago, FYI said:

Well, exactly. And many are still questioning Brisbane's capability. So I don't see why that should be found 'offensive'.

Some maybe. Most aren’t questioning the capability as much as the desirability of various venues. 

11 minutes ago, FYI said:

That was how long ago? Atlanta 1996 had 271 events in 26 sports. Paris 2024 had 329 events in 32 sports. And how many more events/sports will L.A. 2028 have? So much so that they have farmed-out a couple of events to faraway OKC. I bet even Atlanta today would be stretched thin to do it again.

Never say never. If anybody can figure out how to stage an Olympics with minimal Federal Government support, it’s the USA.  They’ve done it twice in event decades and are about t do it again.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Sir Rols said:

How is it not on topic? It’s a discussion of Brisbane and its capability and suitability to host.

Some maybe. Most aren’t questioning the capability as much as the desirability of various venues. 

Never say never. If anybody can figure out how to stage an Olympics with minimal Federal Government support, it’s the USA.  They’ve done it twice in event decades and are about t do it again.

This is the venue and stadiums thread not the generic Brisbane 2032 thread

[Sir Rols]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

This is the venue and stadiums thread not the generic Brisbane 2032 thread

And indeed, venues are pertinent within the discussion.

[FYI]

5 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Some maybe. Most aren’t questioning the capability as much as the desirability of various venues. 

Venues aside, I still have concerns over the transport links with a venue plan that is so spread-out, which even regional leaders have said repeatedly needs to be addressed for an effectively staged Games.

7 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Never say never. If anybody can figure out how to stage an Olympics with minimal Federal Government support, it’s the USA.  They’ve done it twice in event decades and are about t do it again.

L.A. & even Atlanta today, though, are still much larger cities than other smaller U.S. cities that are comparable to the size of Brisbane now. That's why I gave you that list of other U.S. cities that would be more-or-less similar in size, & you said that you still questioned the capability on many of them. 

[AustralianFan]

3 minutes ago, FYI said:

Venues aside, I still have concerns over the transport links with a venue plan that is so spread-out, which even regional leaders have said repeatedly needs to be addressed for an effectively staged Games.

What particular Brisbane 2032 venues do you have transport concerns with?

[AustralianFan]

30 minutes ago, AustralianFan said:

OTHER VENUES:  BRISBANE 2032 IS ON TRACK

Don’t worry, the Stadium issue will be sorted out.   But there are many more venues than the Track and Field venue which make for a successful Olympic Games.

Yes, the Brisbane 2032 Stadium / Track and Field Venue issue will be sorted out as it always is in Olympic host cities. 

By far the majority of Brisbane 2032 venues exist already or are temporary venues. 

Click below and scroll to the Venue Update   (posted 2 Aug-24)

Sources:

• Brisbane 2032 organising commitee: Brisbane 2032 Venues,  and
• State Development Queensland:

 

@FYI this is the status of Brisbane 2032 Venues, by far most of which exist already or are temporary.   Aside from the stadiun issue which is being worked out, any comment on the other Venues?

[FYI]

Just now, AustralianFan said:

What particular Brisbane 2032 venues do you have transport concerns with?

Really? For starters, it's no secret that the transport to & from QSAC is going to be "extremely challenging & costly to facilitate", to say the least, during Games time, since it's on the outskirts of the city.  

[AustralianFan]

1 minute ago, FYI said:

Really? For starters, it's no secret that the transport to & from QSAC is going to be "extremely challenging & costly to facilitate", to say the least, during Games time, since it's on the outskirts of the city.  

I agree and if a change of government occurs Oct 27, the Courier Mail editorial (above) is suggesting the likely new Premier, David Crisafulli, will ditch QSAC - thats what many are hoping for.

 But if QSAC survives as the Track and Field venue, then the new Brisbane Metro network with their long electric tram-like vehicles on their mostly dedicated busways will likely be extended to QSAC as stated by the current Premier Steven Miles.  

So yes, Brisbane 2032 is currently working it’s Stadium issue and resolution appears not far away with this fast approaching Queensland State Election.

[AustralianFan]

11 minutes ago, FYI said:

Really? For starters, it's no secret that the transport to & from QSAC is going to be "extremely challenging & costly to facilitate", to say the least, during Games time, since it's on the outskirts of the city.  

 

Just now, AustralianFan said:

I agree and if a change of government occurs Oct 27, the Courier Mail editorial (above) is suggesting the likely new Premier, David Crisafulli, will ditch QSAC - thats what many are hoping for.

 But if QSAC survives as the Track and Field venue, then the new Brisbane Metro network with their long electric tram-like vehicles on their mostly dedicated busways will likely be extended to QSAC as stated by the current Premier Steven Miles.  

So yes, Brisbane 2032 is currently working it’s Stadium issue and resolution appears not far away with this fast approaching Queensland State Election.

@FYI Any other Venue concerns?

[Sir Rols]

24 minutes ago, FYI said:

Venues aside, I still have concerns over the transport links with a venue plan that is so spread-out, which even regional leaders have said repeatedly needs to be addressed for an effectively staged Games.

L.A. & even Atlanta today, though, are still much larger cities than other smaller U.S. cities that are comparable to the size of Brisbane now. That's why I gave you that list of other U.S. cities that would be more-or-less similar in size, & you said that you still questioned the capability on many of them. 

Transport really is their main build moreso than venues. But that’s also a very useful legacy spend that doesn’t even need to come within an Olympic budget. Any decent growing city, like Brisbane, should be striving to improve its transport links.

Just yesterday Sydney inaugurated a new metro line, one of its most significant transport upgrades in decades. Transit improvements are ongoing needs, games or not, and if an Olympics speeds them up, good.

Out of your list, I could see Minneapolis and Orlando as both possibles with the right local political will that I’d have few quibbles with.