Jump to content

Concerned for the future of the Olympic movement in Brisbane 2032.


Recommended Posts

I am deeply concerned about the future of the Olympic movement as a whole because of the organization of Brisbane 2032. The Brisbane 2032 organization is in crisis at the moment, with the Queensland government supporting an agenda that makes the Olympics less of a generational opportunity that can harness infrastructure and capital for Brisbane’s benefit, but rather a cost cutting exercise that creates plans that only exist to be the cheapest option, not an option that harnesses the soul of Brisbane to make it a truly global city that is out for the better after the Olympics. The most egregious example of this is the move to hold athletics at QSAC, but the overall changes to cut multiple venues that would have had strong community legacy is worrisome as well. The constant debate occurring in Brisbane at the moment over this is damaging to the Olympic movement as a whole. The Olympic movement is not an afterthought, and I hate to see Brisbane go down the route of being a games of most convenience, where venues and plans are sacrificed for pure convenience. That convenience, however, does not allow Brisbane to use the moment to become a global city and come out of 2032 better for its residents. I don’t want the Olympics to be like this, something that is simply an afterthought and doesn’t change the core of cities for the better. Thank you for listening to my rant. Am I the only one who feels this way? Anyone who s disagrees with me?

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s an interesting post, and a lot to unpack. I think there’s two separate strand that come into it.

First, yeah, the Brisbane government and planners are making a mess of it at the moment. Yeah, they do seem to be hitching up to a cheap, short term solution and sacrificing a chance to build a better legacy from the games. A lot of it’s political, of course - the government (and the opposition) are just too scared to make any decision that could be criticised as over-spending (no matter that the stop-gap solution could end up costing more in the long run). Someone needs to have the courage to make a more forward thinking solution and stand by it and defend it. But it doesn’t look hopeful.

That said, on the other hand I do believe that while a new stadium like Vic Park or a rebuilt Gabba is preferable, if we are stuck with QSAC, it is workable and at the end of the day shouldn’t really detract too much from the games themselves if they’re run properly. Also, I’m not sure what you’re referring to about changes to other venues - I thought most everything else, like Brisbane Live, was pretty well settled and non-controversial. If anything, I think too generously - I can see fat that could still do with trimming (looking at Redlands Whitewater).

Secondly, though, this isn’t just all on Brisbane or the Qld government. It’s very much within the IOC’s vision for the future of the games. They are the ones who have committed to requiring hoists to minimise costs and only use existing venues as far as possible. And they do seem to be serious about that. The days may well now be over where we’ll see hosts constructing new Olympic Parks and stadiums for the games.

Personally, I can see the reasons for that (expensive Olympics spending was becoming too over-the-top, criticised and scaring away potential hosts), and think it’s a well meaning, worthwhile aim. But I don’t think such a blanket policy needs to be applied so strictly to every potential host. The IOC should be more flexible in this, and allow plans that work for the individual cities and their legacy needs (like Brisbane) even if they require some bigger spending. By all means trim costs and stop unnecessary spending and building. But allow it where there is a strong legacy case and business model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

That’s an interesting post

Sorry if I sounded a tad bit crazy LOL

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Also, I’m not sure what you’re referring to about changes to other venues - I thought most everything else, like Brisbane Live, was pretty well settled and non-controversial

Here are some of those changes: 

"A long-awaited vision to overhaul South Bank has been put on hold so it can incorporate still uncertain changes to 2032 Games venues"- Brisbane Times (https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/south-bank-s-future-vision-clouded-by-changes-to-2032-games-venues-20240403-p5fh63.html)

"The Breakfast Creek Indoor Sports Precinct at Albion will not proceed, with the panel recommending an indoor sports centre be located in Zillmere or Boondall instead. The proposed upgrades to the Toowoomba Sports Ground will also not proceed" - Infrastructure Magazine (https://infrastructuremagazine.com.au/2024/03/19/new-direction-for-brisbane-2032-olympic-games-venues/)

The Brisbane Live Arena is also changing locations 

 

Who knows...these might be the better. The problem I have is that, at least in my opinion, the Breakfast Creek Indoor Sports Precinct is exactly the type of legacy plans and community impacting that needs to be prioritized in venue planning. These political debates are just that. Political. They are damaging to the Olympic brand and the ideal of the games to be about legacy and community action, and for the games to be about than just "low cost".

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

It’s very much within the IOC’s vision for the future of the games. They are the ones who have committed to requiring hoists to minimise costs and only use existing venues as far as possible. And they do seem to be serious about that. The days may well now be over where we’ll see hosts constructing new Olympic Parks and stadiums for the games.

I completely agree with you that, even though Queensland politics are certainly at play, much of this is the IOC's doing. However, is this really the way to go? I agree that much of the olympics is insanely expensive, but there needs to be proper consideration about legacy and about allowing the games to truly have an impact for Brisbane. The olympics should not be just a sporting event, it should be an opportunity for Brisbane to become a global city. I believe that a non QSAC-athletics venue would allow for part of that global city legacy to come to fruition. The IOC should be encouraging sustainability and a better games organizing experience, but sustainability does not necessarily mean "low-cost". Coates himself said he wants Brisbane to be a low-cost games, but if low-cost means the olympics do not have legacy, if it means they do not have the ability to make a city a global city, then should low-cost be prioritized. I think Queensland organizers should not be focusing on low-cost per se, but rather on long term profitability, profitability that can come through proper legacy, through Brisbane becoming a global city, and through proper business models that maintain that legacy without being fiscally risky. I think that Queensland organizers need to focus on those long term profitable ventures and thorough, but fiscally responsible, business models. I think thats the problem with venues like Breakfast Creek being cancelled; going for "low costs" instead of using the olympics as an opportunity for a transformation of Brisbane (think Barcelona 1992), while also being fiscally responsible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, venuedesignlover said:

Sorry if I sounded a tad bit crazy LOL

Not at all. That’s what we’re all here for, to rant and spark discussion. I think your post was a GREAT conversation starter.

8 minutes ago, venuedesignlover said:

Here are some of those changes: 

I don’t know Brisbane well enough to have much of a valid opinion about those venues and their alternatives. But I really haven’t seen much in the way of negative coverage of those. My understanding of Brisbane Live is the original site was impractical because of the railway tracks, and the new site had already been earmarked zone for a landmark legacy project and has been well received.

18 minutes ago, venuedesignlover said:

I completely agree with you that, even though Queensland politics are certainly at play, much of this is the IOC's doing. However, is this really the way to go? I agree that much of the olympics is insanely expensive, but there needs to be proper consideration about legacy and about allowing the games to truly have an impact for Brisbane. The olympics should not be just a sporting event, it should be an opportunity for Brisbane to become a global city. I believe that a non QSAC-athletics venue would allow for part of that global city legacy to come to fruition. The IOC should be encouraging sustainability and a better games organizing experience, but sustainability does not necessarily mean "low-cost". Coates himself said he wants Brisbane to be a low-cost games, but if low-cost means the olympics do not have legacy, if it means they do not have the ability to make a city a global city, then should low-cost be prioritized. I think Queensland organizers should not be focusing on low-cost per se, but rather on long term profitability, profitability that can come through proper legacy, through Brisbane becoming a global city, and through proper business models that maintain that legacy without being fiscally risky. I think that Queensland organizers need to focus on those long term profitable ventures and thorough, but fiscally responsible, business models. I think thats the problem with venues like Breakfast Creek being cancelled; going for "low costs" instead of using the olympics as an opportunity for a transformation of Brisbane (think Barcelona 1992), while also being fiscally responsible. 

If there’s one blessing in disguise about all this, it’s that it has sparked a bit of debate - not just here but in the wider public sphere, at least in Oz - about the direction of the Olympics and its sustainability. Questions about cost versus legacy are now very much alive in the media and forums like this.  I think something absolutely had to be done to trim back irresponsible spending on the games, and it’s to the IOC’s credit they are taking concrete steps to do so. I also think that it’s important that it can be shown that lesser cities like Brisbane CAN host the games, in order to attract other new host cities in the future. But, yes, there’s a fine line between low-cost sustainable and cheap just for the sake of it. And I also think the Games can also be used as a positive example for how to improve a city by leaving a legacy beyond the 16 days of competition.  As I said earlier, I think the IOC should be a little more flexible, and tailor a games to a city’s needs and potential, rather than try to make it fit a particular template.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Olympics don't make a city a 'global' city. Just ask Atlanta 1996 or Sochi 2014 that. Barcelona 1992 was an exception, not the rule. The Olympics, can however, bring betterment to a city by way of better urban planning & infrastructure projects. But the IOC is now so scared of more bad PR from cities in the past that went crazy in overspending & blowing budgets, white elephants, etc. that caused a lot of other cities throughout the world to cancel or just not bid at all for future Games, that the IOC now just wants cities to use what they have instead of building new facilities just for the Games. And that's the conundrum the IOC (& especially Coates) & Brisbane find themselves in now. It's a stalemate, & someone has to come in & figure out a way out of that complex maze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All great comments here...and it is an interesting debate.

The trouble is the muddling of this 'stuff'... to a point where sensible decisions cant be made.

For example, a new 60K stadium for Brisbane would be a good legacy and well used asset, but someone has got it into there head that it is an unaffordable extravagance. No, it is not cheap (nothing good in life is cheap), but it is needed and wont get any cheaper!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TorchbearerSydney said:

For example, a new 60K stadium for Brisbane would be a good legacy and well used asset, but someone has got it into there head that it is an unaffordable extravagance. No, it is not cheap (nothing good in life is cheap), but it is needed and wont get any cheaper!

So very true.

I’d go as far to say that if such a new stadium had been proposed as a standalone project, it would have ben far less controversial, possibly even unremarkable. But  as soon as it got attached to the Olympics, it got transformed into a big political target. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If QSAC is fine (and I've heard mixed messages on this with regard to transport, legacy and also - it looks a bit tinpot), then fine.

If  that's the case the IOC should be saying "we're fine with QSAC, but the final decision is yours as long as you don't build a white elephant".

What they are instead saying (or almost saying) is, "You must be our guinea pig - our martyr, our sacrificial lamb - to show the world our New Norm"

It's like they've gone from one form of prescriptivism that puts their apparent needs above a host city's, to another form of prescriptivism that puts their apparent needs above a host city's.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, I asked the exact question this thread is about in the New Norm thread.

But it's good (I don't mean 'good' exactly, y'know what I mean...) to hear it articulated by a local. I did wonder if I was overegging it with this post, but it feels like it's a genuine talking point now...

On 3/20/2024 at 11:36 AM, Rob2012 said:

Something occurred to me when posting in the Brisbane thread. Sorry for the repost, but I think it belongs here more than it does there...

Will the IOC and the New Norm now champion cheap short-term legacies over more expensive long-term legacies? As long as the IOC can tick the twin boxes of "didn't cost too much" and "had some use for a few years after whilst the world is still watching" is that now the ideal?

 

And welcome to the forum @venuedesignlover

Edited by Rob2012
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rob2012 said:

It's like they've gone from one form of prescriptivism that puts their apparent needs above a host city's, to another form of prescriptivism that puts their apparent needs above a host city's.

They pretty much are saying that now, particularly Coates (although I’m sure the sentiment is the same, & really coming, from Bach & Co.), that “it’s his job to protect the Olympic Brand as he saw it, & that he’ll do whatever it takes to protect it”. 
 

Protecting the Olympic brand was key to Coates stadiums plan for Brisbane, says Graham Quirk

Stateline

 / By Jessica van Vonderen

The link didn’t work, but it’s from abc.net.au

The IOC claims that they’re a “non-profit” organization, but like any other business out there (which is really what they are at this point), they’re out there to mainly protect THEIR image & everyone else’s is secondary at best, if at all. 
 

I like Joe Jaz’s comment in the comment section, though lol. Another comment I found interesting, is the one that says why should Brisbane get another (new) stadium instead of one of the other growing areas in the region. And yes, none of those are the 2032 host city, but it looks to be a conversation being had among (SE) Queenslanders nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, FYI said:

The Olympics don't make a city a 'global' city. Just ask Atlanta 1996 or Sochi 2014 that. Barcelona 1992 was an exception, not the rule.

Very true, but I believe that part of that was the global backlash to the Atlanta games. As for Sochi I think many winter games cities never really become global cities because of their geographically unique and oftentimes isolated nature, and also (well let's not get around it), the prestige the summer games bring that the winter games just do not for global audiences. "Global cities" is a hard metric to define, so the closest I can get to it is an increase in international recognition and importance for a host city (alpha, beta, gamma kind of). I think that with proper focus on legacy and taking full advantage of the opportunities olympics provide (not just venues, but business, economic, cultural effects), Brisbane can increase in international recognition. I might be biased about that one though because I've always liked Olympics to be hosted in those alpha cities (thats why I'm not huge on the Ahmedabad bid being that it is only politically motivated). I understand why Brisbane was chosen for the new norm now, showing that mid-sized cities can host olympics, but why not use the olympics to increase Brisbane's international status. Won't that mean that this "new norm" is working?

 

4 hours ago, FYI said:

"it’s his job to protect the Olympic Brand as he saw it, & that he’ll do whatever it takes to protect it"

10 hours ago, Rob2012 said:

What they are instead saying (or almost saying) is, "You must be our guinea pig - our martyr, our sacrificial lamb - to show the world our New Norm"

 

This is the part that confuses me a bit. Are these polarizing debates about venue relocation and legacy truly protecting the olympic brand? And adding onto that, when did Brisbane become the playground for this new norm? Was this a recent decision made by Coates and passed onto Queensland legislators? From my perspective at least there was a solid venue plan for Queensland 2032 at first. This plan included many sites, including that trivial Gabba reconstruction, with beautiful renderings that provided LEGACY to communities. These were not white elephants, rather they were planned to be integrated within and for communities, not isolated Olympic parks. It felt like the olympics were using the soul of a city, Brisbane in this case, to have better outcomes for everyone. But lately, the venue plan has been changed so much, mostly at the hands of Queensland politicians. It seems to me, at least, that Queensland politics have been the ones advocating for this new norm (if they even truly know what it means), with the IOC backing whatever Queensland politicians want ("IOC backs Brisbane 2032 Games preparations amid political turmoil over changes to venue planning"- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-28/international-olympics-committee-meeting-brisbane-2032/103641902). I feel as if the effort for these "low-cost" games has come internally from Queensland politics and election season coming up, not necessarily the IOC.  I think that leads us back to this question: 

 

10 hours ago, Rob2012 said:

Will the IOC and the New Norm now champion cheap short-term legacies over more expensive long-term legacies? As long as the IOC can tick the twin boxes of "didn't cost too much" and "had some use for a few years after whilst the world is still watching" is that now the ideal?

Honestly, we will have to wait and see. Queensland politicians are not following the new norm as I see it (smart, responsible, but nonetheless impactful investments NOT total low-cost spending for fear of overspending as in years past) because they rejected a study's conclusion to build a stadium in Vic Park. If anything, I think building that new stadium would be truly representative of a new norm being that is not reckless spending, rather a smart investment for Brisbane's legacy. It seems that the low-cost new norm is being propelled by Queensland. Do y'all think the IOC is the one actively looking for that low-cost new norm, or is it more Queensland politics at the moment?. And I'm probably biased, I am venuedesignlover, but I think that this low-cost angle can really hurt the olympics and what it seems to do for the world. I love the collective energy and unity the Olympics bring, and I think making the olympics this low-cost thing can really hurt its brand and its reputation, as well as what it wants to do the for world. We will see, more decisions are set to come after election season in Queensland. Hopefully a new direction will be taken from Queensland that involved smart and impactful investments, but investments that are responsible (i'm looking at you Gabba reconstruction which truly is in desperate need of renewal) I think a Gabba reconstruction could really be representative of this new norm (a responsible investment that truly works for a city's development needs and provides the olympics with a stunning venue and legacy). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, venuedesignlover said:

And adding onto that, when did Brisbane become the playground for this new norm? Was this a recent decision made by Coates and passed onto Queensland legislators? 

From my perspective at least there was a solid venue plan for Queensland 2032 at first. This plan included many sites, including that trivial Gabba reconstruction, with beautiful renderings that provided LEGACY to communities. 

Actually, the low cost aspects of the “New Norm” were already well established when the IOC chose Paris and LA in a double award, both bids that highlighted their minimal new builds credentials. When Brisbane was chosen, it was the first under a new selection procedure but that minimal build model had already been baked in.

It managed to get chosen because Coates stacked the rules and did what he could to get it selected. But also part of his managing to get the IOC on board with that was promising it as a low cost games that would use the legacy of GC 2018 and be somewhat regional.The Gabba (which really wasn’t trivial, even if it was desirable) WASN’T part of the original approved plan, and got added after it was chosen and before it was confirmed (and actually already produced tension with the IOC when it was added last minute). Much of the plan was left open and not locked in with a number of venues subject to tbd alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, venuedesignlover said:

Very true, but I believe that part of that was the global backlash to the Atlanta games. As for Sochi I think many winter games cities never really become global cities because of their geographically unique and oftentimes isolated nature, and also (well let's not get around it), the prestige the summer games bring that the winter games just do not for global audiences. 

I guess that depends on who you ask. Cause many, including some on these boards (& even in this very thread) view Atlanta 1996 quite fondly. Commercially speaking, Atlanta 1996 was quite successful, cause it left none of the aftermath that the IOC is worried about these days with the “new-norm”. It’s just the perception of Atlanta 1996 that wasn’t quite well-received globally at the time. 

As for Sochi, while yes, the Winter Olympics aren’t in the same category as the Summer Olympics to determine that factor, the Russians however, spent an obscene amount of money to try & make Sochi more of an international playground post-Olympics, instead of just mainly a domestic one, like it was pre-2014. But well, that didn’t really happened, though. 

1 hour ago, venuedesignlover said:

 "Global cities" is a hard metric to define, so the closest I can get to it is an increase in international recognition and importance for a host city (alpha, beta, gamma kind of). I think that with proper focus on legacy and taking full advantage of the opportunities olympics provide (not just venues, but business, economic, cultural effects), Brisbane can increase in international recognition. I might be biased about that one though because I've always liked Olympics to be hosted in those alpha cities (thats why I'm not huge on the Ahmedabad bid being that it is only politically motivated). 

By definition, a global city is really just the Alpha cities of the world, like London, Paris, New York & Tokyo. And no amount of exposure, even from the Olympics with beta or gamma cities, would ever change that (at least not in the near-term, post-Games). For example, I can’t see Brisbane overtaking Sydney as Australia’s principal city simply because of the Olympics (but maybe raising their a bit though, is another matter altogether). 

1 hour ago, venuedesignlover said:

I understand why Brisbane was chosen for the new norm now, showing that mid-sized cities can host olympics, but why not use the olympics to increase Brisbane's international status. Won't that mean that this "new norm" is working?

That’s if you believe that hype. But I think it’s way overblown & quite disingenuous because for starters, not all cities the size of Brisbane, especially in the U.S. would get half the cost of an Olympics subsidized by their respective federal gov’t, & more importantly…

1 hour ago, venuedesignlover said:

This is the part that confuses me a bit. Are these polarizing debates about venue relocation and legacy truly protecting the olympic brand? And adding onto that, when did Brisbane become the playground for this new norm? Was this a recent decision made by Coates and passed onto Queensland legislators? 

The link is not working for me right now, but go to the Nice-Alpes 2030 thread, page 12 on these boards, & there someone asked a related question, & the moderator of this site reposted his article from three years there in his response “this is why” & the link will take you to that article, which will overwhelmingly answer your questions from here. 

1 hour ago, venuedesignlover said:

Do y'all think the IOC is the one actively looking for that low-cost new norm, or is it more Queensland politics at the moment?

The IOC just wants what’s best for the IOC. They’re only looking for “low-cost” now, cause the years where literally dozens & dozens of cities looking to trip over themselves to give them the lavish sport-spectacles that they long came accustomed too are looking to be long over (at least in democratic societies anyway). But they’d gladly go back to those good ole mega spending days in an Olympic nano-second if they could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

When Brisbane was chosen, it was the first under a new selection procedure but that minimal build model had already been baked in.

It managed to get chosen because Coates stacked the rules and did what he could to get it selected

Got it, that's an important distinction to make. That selection model is another issue altogether. Opens a lot up for flaws that are more systemic than buying IOC votes in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Much of the plan was left open and not locked in with a number of venues subject to tbd alternatives.

Ok thank you for clarifying! I was assuming much of would stay the same. But does that really change the current situation we are in? I would argue that no changes were needed to the original plan, or if any minimal. And not as drastic as QSAC. I would also argue that keeping Breakfast Creek Indoor Sports Precinct would add a lot of legacy and need not be taken out of the plans. The problem I have with the current plans is that they take what make the olympics unique out of Brisbane 2032. I understand that it might just be one stadium, but I would hate for the Olympics go down this path and become something like an afterthought, where it should be something that can bring the world together and add true legacy to its host city. I would argue that something like the Gabba is exactly the type of smart project that this new norm could harm. That goes back to this: 

1 hour ago, FYI said:

They’re only looking for “low-cost” now, cause the years where literally dozens & dozens of cities looking to trip over themselves to give them the lavish sport-spectacles that they long came accustomed too are looking to be long over

Do we think that is the future of the olympic movement? Is the IOC taking away the opportunity for cities to be truly impacted by the olympics? Paris and LA work well for the new norm because they have so many existing facilities and they have that global appeal. I personally think that projects like the Gabba should go through, not just because they are smart and fit Brisbane's infrastructure needs, but because they make the olympics what makes them the olympics. How do you see future host cities following this new norm? Ahmedabad is building brand new facilities, but before the olympics, so technically it would be following this new norm? Is the IOC opposed to new projects like the Gabba completely?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't just the Olympics. We saw that on the FIFA World Cup which they rejected South America and many of the recent Championships. 

The idea of the Olympics helping of the image of the gamma city must leave. This isn't the early XX century anymore. Also with the recent change of international order, that changes the point of the countries which can actually allow them and others who don't. In realism, this is the hierarchy. 

The IOC had survived crisis, but also requires adapting the realities of the system and how to work on it. This won't be different. Now, the idea of the "low cost" and "new norm" is just a failed hypocritical manifesto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2024 at 2:38 AM, Sir Rols said:

That’s an interesting post, and a lot to unpack. I think there’s two separate strand that come into it.

First, yeah, the Brisbane government and planners are making a mess of it at the moment. Yeah, they do seem to be hitching up to a cheap, short term solution and sacrificing a chance to build a better legacy from the games. A lot of it’s political, of course - the government (and the opposition) are just too scared to make any decision that could be criticised as over-spending (no matter that the stop-gap solution could end up costing more in the long run). Someone needs to have the courage to make a more forward thinking solution and stand by it and defend it. But it doesn’t look hopeful.

That said, on the other hand I do believe that while a new stadium like Vic Park or a rebuilt Gabba is preferable, if we are stuck with QSAC, it is workable and at the end of the day shouldn’t really detract too much from the games themselves if they’re run properly. Also, I’m not sure what you’re referring to about changes to other venues - I thought most everything else, like Brisbane Live, was pretty well settled and non-controversial. If anything, I think too generously - I can see fat that could still do with trimming (looking at Redlands Whitewater).

Secondly, though, this isn’t just all on Brisbane or the Qld government. It’s very much within the IOC’s vision for the future of the games. They are the ones who have committed to requiring hoists to minimise costs and only use existing venues as far as possible. And they do seem to be serious about that. The days may well now be over where we’ll see hosts constructing new Olympic Parks and stadiums for the games.

Personally, I can see the reasons for that (expensive Olympics spending was becoming too over-the-top, criticised and scaring away potential hosts), and think it’s a well meaning, worthwhile aim. But I don’t think such a blanket policy needs to be applied so strictly to every potential host. The IOC should be more flexible in this, and allow plans that work for the individual cities and their legacy needs (like Brisbane) even if they require some bigger spending. By all means trim costs and stop unnecessary spending and building. But allow it where there is a strong legacy case and business model.

Spot on: Cape Town’s decision to build a new stadium for the World Cup (football, rugby specific) was the more expensive, tougher decision but the right one for the next 30-50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Actually, the low cost aspects of the “New Norm” were already well established when the IOC chose Paris and LA in a double award, both bids that highlighted their minimal new builds credentials. When Brisbane was chosen, it was the first under a new selection procedure but that minimal build model had already been baked in.

I'd be hesitant to call it a "model" at that point. Paris and LA were both low-build options, sure, but I'd say that was an (almost) inevitable corollary of giving the Games to two well-prepared megacities rather than the basis for the decision.

The IOC massively lucked out in having Paris and LA wanting the Games when the options aside from them were threadbare. They had to nail them down. If Paris or LA or both were opting to build a London-style Olympic Park I reckon the IOC would've made exactly the same decision.

The other reason I don't think it's a "model" at that point is because it's not replicable (and this is a point I've argued with many LA-boosters about with their overblown claims of "saving the Olympics"). Saying "do it like LA" is fine, but that means the venues need to already exist, and for most cities they don't. It's paradoxical nonsense calling a city blessed with 100% existing venues a "model" if that's of zero help to the cities that come after.

I think it's much more arguable to say the change in model has come with 2032, and it's come from the IOC which is the only place it could come from to be sustainable and replicable. My concern is that maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way?

Edited by Rob2012
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about how to respond to this, & for Brisbane specifically, it looks like the approach has collided with a city that a) doesn't have all the facilities existing & b) really could do with a new stadium anyway. Therefore it's reached somewhere where building actually would be best for the city, and they're actively trying to stop them. If there's no change at all to the stadium situation, it's quite possible the next but one Ashes series in Australia won't have a Brisbane Test. I don't know how many people here are cricket fans, but as one - that's pretty unimaginable. So we've gone from the IOC ordering cities to build venues they don't need to the IOC ordering cities to not build venues they do need :blink:.

I said this to Rob in another thread but it's worth repeating - if the New Norm was in place for 2012, they'd have ordered London to use Crystal Palace for athletics and swimming, Manchester for cycling, and Excel, maybe even Birmingham, for the other indoor sports in the Park, because they wouldn't have allowed London to build a Park. It would've been cheaper, probably, although Crystal Palace is fairly remote for London. But the Lower Lea Valley would either still be the wasteland of pre-2005, or the gated Wild West of tower blocks of a Nine Elms 2.0. What it wouldn't be is a beloved park & world-scale sports complex. London would be poorer. 

Which is why if the IOC wanted to end big costs completely, they should've created a rotation pool. If however, they genuinely wanted to help cities do what's best for them & the Olympics, they should've brought back the bid process, with better feedback - because a zero build project like LA, a regeneration project in a country they know like London (or what Brisbane could be), or a coming out party in a new frontier like Rio can all be best. Let the choice be made, and let us see the choice be made. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, yoshi said:

because a zero build project like LA, a regeneration project in a country they know like London (or what Brisbane could be), or a coming out party in a new frontier like Rio can all be best.

THIS x 1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my great Olympic motto:  if all else fails, skip the sports but put on the MOST GLORIOUS Ceremonies!  Then just run sports footage from past Games and digitally change all the signage to BRISBANE 2032.  No one will know the difference if you put on Ceremonies that will beat Beijing 2008 and SOCHI 2014!!  Just don't tell the IOC!! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Here's my great Olympic motto:  if all else fails, skip the sports but put on the MOST GLORIOUS Ceremonies! Just don't tell the IOC!! ;)

Lol, I guess this is what Quaker means when he says that's what this site is mostly all about. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC is just too scared ATM to come up with a balance, after they've seen city after city cancel or just not even bother with Olympic bids anymore in recent years, after many have seen the cost blow outs of previous Games. They really are over a barrel right now.

Social media in this day & age doesn't help this matter either, where many of the naysayers can easily have a platform to spread misinformation. There's also a lot of people that really don't care about the Olympics (this is really an Olympic niche website) & don't want to see 'their' tax dollars fund such a sporting frenzy when there's many other more important issues facing ordinary citizens on a daily basis (which is also understandable).

BTW, do you live in Brisbane (or Australia in general)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, yoshi said:

Therefore it's reached somewhere where building actually would be best for the city, and they're actively trying to stop them.

I feel like this is kind of counterintuitive to the whole idea of a New Norm. The New Norm, according to the IOC itself, "The plan, which focuses on six recommendations of Olympic Agenda 2020 related to the organisation of the Games, will provide cities with increased flexibility in designing the Games to meet long-term development goals" (https://olympics.com/ioc/faq/corporate-citizenship-good-governance/what-is-the-new-normIf a Gabba rebuild works for the long-term development goals of Brisbane, especially because the Gabba is set to become pretty much unoperational by 2032, then won't the olympics be a perfect opportunity to move towards those long-term development goals? I'm worried that this is the future of these games, a future where "low cost" and that sole maxim is prioritized over all else, prioritized over useful legacy, exactly like the regenerative London games. Hopefully Queensland gets its stuff together post election season and can make this "new norm" something more meaningful and progresses the olympics forwards, not backwards. Maybe it can set a tone for what more host cities should do, not hold these "low cost" only games, which is damaging to the Olympic brand in my opinion. I wonder what this means for future bids, I hope completely regional are not the complete future of the games (in my opinion Milan-Cortina is a bit to spread out for my likings, but I do think making regions host Winter games makes more sense than regions hosting summer games). Hopefully there is good news to come from Brisbane venues plan and future olympic "bids" (or dialogues). 

 

2 hours ago, FYI said:

BTW, do you live in Brisbane (or Australia in general)?

I live in the US, but I have family in Brisbane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...