Defining eras of the Modern Olympics...

[Australian Kiwi]

Is that the way the history could be evolving? We have...

• Pre-war Era - Athens 1896 to Stockholm 1912 (de Courboutin's time getting the event on its feet off the back of the World's Fair and Intercalated Games).
• Inter-war Era - Antwerp 1920 to Berlin 1936 (the era where the Games found its soul and traditions through Eurocentric nationalism and fascism)
• Post-war Era - London 1948 to Helsinki 1952 (Austerity and keeping the Games in safe and steady hands)
• Cold War Era - Melbourne 1956 to Seoul 1988 (possibly the most transformative era?... Boycotts, Gigantism, violence, Organisational woes, Television broadcasts, Debt, Profit, Doping)
• The Capitalist Era - Barcelona 1992 - Rio 2016 (the Internet, Olympic consumerism and sponsorships, ongoing gigantism, Olympics as a tool of urban regeneration and city brand making, hyper competitive and highly anticipated bidding processes)
• The Current Era - Tokyo 2020 onwards... (post pandemic, organisational woes, financial crisis, pandemic disruptions, austerity, loss of prestige, downturn in hosting interest, the 'New Norm'...)

How would others cut the cake?

[Bear]

is this part of your "proof" that the olympics are cheapening

[Australian Kiwi]

55 minutes ago, Bear said:

is this part of your "proof" that the olympics are cheapening

Please don't misinterpret and misrepresent my arguments from different threads. 

[TorchbearerSydney]

1956 to 1988 I would add the Games went to the World- it broke out of Europe and the US- Australia, Mexico, Canada, Japan , Korea....it go to the Southern Hemisphere, Developing World etc...

1992 onwards-  end of any pretense / last remnants of Amateurism....

[Sir Rols]

A bit eye of the beholder, but here’s my classifications:

1896-1020: Establishing the Games: Getting the whole concept kick-started and establishing the format and traditions that would give them their mark. These set the foundations for what were to come.

1924-1964: The “Classic” Games: The Games fulfil their potential and hit their stride, capture popular interest and imagination and eventually start going more global beyond Europe and North America. Still mostly remembered in black and white images and by the end only just starting to find its spot in television broadcasting.

 1968-1988: The Time of Troubles: The growth of the Games’ prestige hits a roadblock as economic and social problems and unrest, terrorism and Cold War tensions start to threaten their very existence. By the time they stagger to 1988, it’s a relief that finally a Games can be celebrated relatively unscathed.

1992-?: The New Golden Era: The end of Cold War tensions and the rise of 24-hour broadcasting usher in a Renaissance for the games, resulting in a series of ever-more spectacular and successful showpieces. Ironically, these celebrations also sow the seeds of potential future problems as gigantism, and the rising costs of staging such a growing behemoth arise.

Still too early to know whether or not we’ve entered a new era. In terms of the “New Norm”, it’s more a mixture of common sense statements (sustainability of facilities and less spending on new builds) which were already starting to be followed and were simply necessary to get any city to host, mixed in with a new bureaucratic process for selecting hosts. I don’t think it’s as revolutionary as some make out. I think the Games’ biggest challenge is still reining in gigantism - they can’t keep growing in scale and somethings gotta give. Also, we have yet to see how such issues as climate change, social media and changes to how people consume sports and entertainment, changing social mores and the rise again of global tensions will play out for the Games.  
 

[TorchbearerSydney]

1968-1988: The Time of Troubles:

This is spot on - each of those Games had a major flaw- protest, terrorism, boycott, boycott, boycott, boycott/protest. And again the amatuer/professional drama peaked and died in this era too.

[Australian Kiwi]

Love these perspectives. 

I think its a good time to think about it because the recent few years have all the hallmarks of those shifts that have ushered in change (for better or worse). 

Whats clear is that Barcelona 1992 was the start of a period which may have just ended. 

Perhaps Paris 2024 is a new beginning? I know LA can certainly match its pragmatism and "sweating existing assets", not yet convinced Brisbane will do the same though (as I've said elsewhere I think we are in for a long decade of cost blowouts on that one).

[TorchbearerSydney]

Brisbane wont have a cost blow-out- they will build a few large things over a 11-year time frame, in its transition to a major city status. The Gold Coast Comm Games were done on a good scale and budget. Blow outs tend to occur in last minute rushes to get things completed, and all signs are Brisbane will be ready very early.

Sydney was a very cheap Games done on a grand scale and serves as a recent model.

[Australian Kiwi]

59 minutes ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

Brisbane wont have a cost blow-out- they will build a few large things over a 11-year time frame, in its transition to a major city status. 

I would argue the long lead in time will create a scope-creep risk. Cindy Hook has admitted this as a challenge. 

[Scotguy II]

Have to admit, I do really miss the 90's 00's games

[TorchbearerSydney]

Q: I would argue the long lead in time will create a scope-creep risk

Its is a risk, the whole 10 plus years thing is a possible risk in many ways.....but all indications are they are being pretty methodical and practical with their plans. In fact I think they are being too pragmatic- and could do with a bit more imagination and ambition, especially with their architecture.

[Australian Kiwi]

1 hour ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

Q: I would argue the long lead in time will create a scope-creep risk

Its is a risk, the whole 10 plus years thing is a possible risk in many ways.....but all indications are they are being pretty methodical and practical with their plans. In fact I think they are being too pragmatic- and could do with a bit more imagination and ambition, especially with their architecture.

We don't know what the Gabba rebuild or the Roma Street Aquatics Centre (Brisbane Live) will entail yet from a design POV. Brisbane Live requires construction atop of an active railway line - that in itself is an extremely difficult task and has huge potential risks. 

These, along with necessary transport upgrades to support a highly dispersed Games all contain potential for cost blowout. Plus inflation, and the inevitable economic shocks the Australian economy will encounter over the decade. 

Doesn't make Brisbane 2032 any less viable but I'd argue its a riskier proposition than Sydney 2000 which was subject to years of bid-stage planning and scrutiny followed up by a tight centralised plan (plus a significantly more developed suite of existing urban infrastructure to support it).

 

[TorchbearerSydney]

I think you are exaggerating the 'risk' - the risks are not huge. Those few projects are not rocket science and are being amortised over 11 years. Sydney 2000 cost less than 1 percent of State GDP per year for 7 years.... 

Currency fluctuation affecting income is a bigger risk....but with the AUD falling and unlikely to rise that will help, as it did in Sydney 2000 when the AUD hit 48cents as USD denominated income came in after the Games.

[Australian Kiwi]

On 10/2/2023 at 8:58 PM, TorchbearerSydney said:

I think you are exaggerating the 'risk' - the risks are not huge. Those few projects are not rocket science and are being amortised over 11 years. Sydney 2000 cost less than 1 percent of State GDP per year for 7 years.... 

 

I'd not minimise it. 

Decking over railway corridors (active corridors) are extremely fraught, disruptive and expensive. There is a reason Melbourne has never been able to deliver its long term dream of decking the lines between Richmond and the City and around Southern Cross Station. 

This project would be potentially billions less if it were going on a site without these constraints. Compare it to Rod Laver, or even SOPAC.