I don't like regional model Games, but I'm still keen to see a joint host between two equals.

[Australian Kiwi]

As we've seen with the spread out Queensland Olympics in 2032, regional Games are difficult to organise. And very expensive. This was demonstrated through the collapse of the 2026 Commonwealth Games (although this was also due to poor organisation). 

I do believe that two cities - of equal contribution - is a different model all together that I would like to see the IOC explore. There are a few places in particular I think this could work for future Summer Olympics. 

Alberta (Calgary-Edmonton)

We know that Alberta's joint Calgary-Edmonton bid for the 2030 Commonwealth Games ended due to the finances not stacking up. They mostly cited the limited revenue associated with those Games.

They're not Toronto, but they're not that different to Brisbane in terms of status and size.  

Alberta has money. The two cities between them have some impressive sports/events infrastructure that could support it - including Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton which would obviously be the site for the Athletics. 

Scotland (Glasgow-Edinburgh)

Again, two cities of fairly equal footing that bring different things to the table. I've long thought that a fourth British Olympics would be great - just not in London. Would love to see them in Scotland - would feel like an entirely new host country in some ways.

Thoughts?

[Sir Rols]

Interesting concept - I agree would probably be more viable than a spread out regional games. I guess for me, I’d still like the cities close enough to have some connection. The ones you suggested would be okay - I wouldn’t be keen on, say, NYC-LA or Melbourne-Perth, though.

I’ve always liked the idea of a Glasgow-Edinburgh Scottish games!

[FYI]

I'd say that Scotland & Alberta would still be too small. Plus, we all know how Queensland actually got anointed (rather than it being anything about preference). And like Kevan Gosper, former Australian IOC VP recently said, that "one city, one Games" still makes the most sense. 

But to touch upon the subject, instead of Calgary-Edmonton, how about Washington-Baltimore, or Dallas-Ft.Worth, or Austin-San Antonio, or GASP Minneapolis-St. Paul  (although I'd say they would have many of the similar problems as Brisbane, though). And instead of Glasgow-Edinburgh, how about larger Birmingham-Manchester (both actually tried for the 1992, 1996 & 2000 Olympics, respectively. 

[Australian Kiwi]

32 minutes ago, FYI said:

I'd say that Scotland & Alberta would still be too small. Plus, we all know how Queensland actually got anointed (rather than it being anything about preference). And like Kevan Gosper, former Australian IOC VP recently said, that "one city, one Games" still makes the most sense. 

But to touch upon the subject, instead of Calgary-Edmonton, how about Washington-Baltimore, or Dallas-Ft.Worth, or Austin-San Antonio, or GASP Minneapolis-St. Paul  (although I'd say they would have many of the similar problems as Brisbane, though). And instead of Glasgow-Edinburgh, how about larger Birmingham-Manchester (both actually tried for the 1992, 1996 & 2000 Olympics, respectively. 

All great ideas - yes. I think the benefit of the two examples I've given is that they fall under one jurisdiction. This is important for coordination. 

I like the idea of Texas with San Antonio and Austin, some very cool mid sized American cities with great character. Problem is venues. Alberta and Scotland have the athletics question answered. 

[Nacre]

I still think that it makes the most sense to cut the Olympic games in half (thus games for individual sports, team sports, mountain winter and ice/city winter) rather than a regional or dual hosting model, as many officials have to be shuttled between the two sites. The dual host model is already the de-facto norm for the winter games with Vancouver-Whistler in 2010, Sochi-Krasnaya Polyana, Gangneung-Pyeongchang, Beijing-Zhangjiakhou, and now Milan-Cortina. And it clearly isn't ideal.

Edited March 2, 2024 by Nacre

[Australian Kiwi]

12 minutes ago, Nacre said:

I still think that it makes the most sense to cut the Olympic games in half (thus games for individual sports, team sports, mountain winter and ice/city winter) rather than a regional or dual hosting model, as many officials have to be shuttled between the two sites. The dual host model is already the de-facto norm for the winter games with Vancouver-Whistler in 2010, Sochi-Krasnaya Polyana, Gangneung-Pyeongchang, Beijing-Zhangjiakhou, and now Milan-Cortina. And it clearly isn't ideal.

So basically a traditional Summer Olympics for individuals and separate one for team sports?

I'd rather them just cut team sports out entirely. The issue of the stadium will still remain, as athletics is an individual pursuit. 

[Nacre]

58 minutes ago, Australian Kiwi said:

So basically a traditional Summer Olympics for individuals and separate one for team sports?

There are roughly equal numbers of athletes for team sports vs individual sports in the games, so separating them would result in two games of roughly similar sizes.

58 minutes ago, Australian Kiwi said:

I'd rather them just cut team sports out entirely. The issue of the stadium will still remain, as athletics is an individual pursuit. 

Although the athletics venue would remain a problem, overall capital costs would actually be dramatically reduced by cutting the Olympics into two parts: on average by about 2/3rds. Moreover there are many cities like Vienna, Buenos Aires, Casablanca, Phnom Penh, et al that have the athletics stadium but would be ruined by the costs of the metastasized modern Olympics. Cutting the size of the games in half would give these cities a realistic chance of hosting without serious financial losses beyond the security costs which are dead money for any city.

Edited March 2, 2024 by Nacre

[Australian Kiwi]

Good point! Thanks for pointing those things out. Would love to see some Of those more exotic mid tier cities host (and as you point out many have athletics stadia)

[Nacre]

I think it's important to point out that the ancient games happened every year with a rotation of four cities (Athens, Corinth, Delphi and Olympia). A cycle of four events with one of them held each year would let the IOC continue or even increase its revenues while also meeting the needs of athletes, fans and the host cities . . . and return to the one games every year model of the ancient Panhellenic games.

[Bear]

5 minutes ago, Nacre said:

I think it's important to point out that the ancient games happened every year with a rotation of four cities (Athens, Corinth, Delphi and Olympia). A cycle of four events with one of them held each year would let the IOC continue or even increase its revenues while also meeting the needs of athletes, fans and the host cities . . . and return to the one games every year model of the ancient Panhellenic games.

Is the appeal of the Olympics not partially based on the fact that it takes place every four years? spreading events so there's events every year would kill the popularity so fast. it would just make it seem like a normal sport championship event, just that there's more than one taking place simultaneously

splitting the games into two or four is not the answer, it would be better to just limit the amount of events per sport (and even cutting out some sports entirely - for example the ones where their championships hold more prestige than the olympic tournament, as is the case with football.)

[FYI]

^Exactly. The appeal of the Olympics is how *unique* it is from your typical sporting events/world championships, etc. We know that many athletes hold the Olympics as being the pinnacle of their sporting careers by competing in them. Cheapening them by having more hosts or spreading things too far out, or worse, having "different locations" takes all of the allure away. That's not the answer either. "One city, one Games" still works. 

I'd much rather see the Games scaled back in some fashion before I would want to see such an extreme measure make the Olympics just your average, everyday sporting meet just for the sake of being cost-effective. If that's the case, what would be the point of the Olympics, cause they would then become redundant along with all of the other sporting events out there. 

[baron-pierreIV]

They tried it in 1956 -- Stockholm-Melbourne!  

Other viable pairings: 

Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Da Hague

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Dallas-Ft. Worth

San Marino-Monaco-Vatican!

Pamunjon-PyongYang  
 

[FYI]

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

They tried it in 1956 -- Stockholm-Melbourne!  

Other viable pairings: 

Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Da Hague

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Dallas-Ft. Worth

San Marino-Monaco-Vatican!

Pamunjon-PyongYang  
 

 

17 hours ago, FYI said:

But to touch upon the subject, instead of Calgary-Edmonton, how about Washington-Baltimore, or Dallas-Ft. Worth, or Austin-San Antonio, or GASP Minneapolis-St. Paul  (although I'd say they would have many of the similar problems as Brisbane, though). 

Rhine-Ruhr would be a perfect exercise for this with Cologne-Dusseldorf & surrounding areas.

[StefanMUC]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

 

Rhine-Ruhr would be a perfect exercise for this with Cologne-Dusseldorf & surrounding areas.

R-R plus Cologne is about half the size of LA-Anaheim-Long Beach actually (based on some quick Wikipedia based calculations)...so are we talking about "regional models" in terms of area size or really several nearby cities going for a joint effort? The former is already happening in large metros like LA or Tokyo anyway.

[FYI]

25 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

R-R plus Cologne is about half the size of LA-Anaheim-Long Beach actually (based on some quick Wikipedia based calculations)...so are we talking about "regional models" in terms of area size or really several nearby cities going for a joint effort? The former is already happening in large metros like LA or Tokyo anyway.

Funny you should mention that, cause I was just doing the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm starting to see that urban sprawl is not as large in Europe as it is here in the U.S. For example, cities like London, Paris, Berlin & Munich, I notice the sprawl only goes as far as about 20 miles or so. In the largest U.S. metro areas, like New York, Chicago & L.A., that urban sprawl is easily twice as much. Now I'm starting to see why public transit is so much more effective over there than here. The U.S. really is so much car reliant because of those massive sprawls.

And yeah, I was just looking at L.A.'s 2028 venue plan, & it actually looks pretty compact, considering it's huge urban sprawl. IIRC, I think it's more compact than it's 1984 venue plan was. The only far-flung venues I saw for '28, were Honda center in Anaheim, & a venue in Long Beach, San Dimas & rowing in Moreno Valley (which I think that one is the one that they're talking about moving to OKC, which will really be far-flung then lol). But yeah, you're right if we're talking about the former.

[baron-pierreIV]

2 hours ago, FYI said:

And yeah, I was just looking at L.A.'s 2028 venue plan, & it actually looks pretty compact, considering it's huge urban sprawl. IIRC, I think it's more compact than it's 1984 venue plan was. The only far-flung venues I saw for '28, were Honda center in Anaheim, & a venue in Long Beach, San Dimas & rowing in Moreno Valley (which I think that one is the one that they're talking about moving to OKC, which will really be far-flung then lol). But yeah, you're right if we're talking about the former.

Back in 1984, there was no white-water rafting, Surfing or open-water swimming; so Long Beach was used only as the Indoor Volleyball venue (the LB Arena).  Rowing was up at Lake Casitas, outside Sta. Barbara; and its football venues (then, men-only) were as far in the East as Wash, DC; Harvard and Stanford.  Modern Pentathlon and Shooting were down in Coto de Caza, the heart of Orange County.  

For '28, they're doing all the soccer matches in CA; LB is much more in play; and OKC will be the only outlier. 

But remember, they haven't yet announced the venues for the 5 new sports.  Baseball/soft will definitely go to Dodgers Stadium.  The other arenas in the SoCal area on standby assignment are:
- LaCrosse might go to the Dignity Health Field Track (where Field Hockey is currently assigned)-- double-up on a tight sked;
- Intuit Arena (18,000 capacity) 
- Long Beach State Water Pyramid (seats around 5K, I think)
- Pepperdine Univ. Firestone Fieldhouse (5K, was used for Weightlifting in 1984) 
- Bren Center @ UC-Irvine - 5,600 capacity; 
- Angels Field (Anaheim) - Cricket?  
 

Edited March 2, 2024 by baron-pierreIV

[Australian Kiwi]

7 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

They tried it in 1956 -- Stockholm-Melbourne!  

As I understand it we didn't actually want it to be this way - the decision was led by pressure from conservative Country Liberal/Nationals in Canberra who didn't want any concession on the quarantine period. 

[baron-pierreIV]

14 hours ago, Australian Kiwi said:

As I understand it we didn't actually want it to be this way - the decision was led by pressure from conservative Country Liberal/Nationals in Canberra who didn't want any concession on the quarantine period. 

And it backfired for the OZ equestrians.  It was the team (w/ the horses) that had to travel the farthest in order to get to the competition they didn't want to host!