enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 A bid has to have a right mix of existing, temporary, upgraded, and new permanent venues. Let's keep in mind that the Philippines does not have a strong and extensive sporting culture. I think the only sure shots at post-Games legacy are the badminton, basketball, boxing, and indoor volleyball venues. I still don't see a strong reason why Manila needs a 60,000 plus-seater athletics stadium, permanent or temporary. With barely any national interest in athletics and football, this one could end up just being a concert and worship venue. A high-capacity aquatics stadium doesn't even seem viable in the long run. And yeah, welcome Enoch. Salamat sa mainit na pagtanggap, kababayan. Legacy would not be a problem. Let's put it this way, the venues could be used to host World Championships and other international events. It would be easier if the right venues are in place, plus our UAAP and NCAA leagues could use the newly upgraded facilities to bolter their interests in other sports. Pl;us, it will add a new look in the Manila Bay area, makes it more interesting as a tourist hub. And what legacy could be greater, if we would convert more Filipinos into embracing more sports discipline, just because it hosted an Olympics. I think, for me, that is the best legacy of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 1. Well, the large Shopping malls are businesses enterprises that hope to get their investment back sometime. How does a stadium (for a predominantly basketball and beauty-pageant-loving country) do that? If you are referring to the Miss Earth here. a lot of countries were interested in hosting it: like Australia, Nepal, Sweden and even England precisely they loved the concept. It only proves that the Philippines could make a very god concept out of a mere beauty contest--what more for the Olympics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 A bid has to have a right mix of existing, temporary, upgraded, and new permanent venues. Let's keep in mind that the Philippines does not have a strong and extensive sporting culture. I think the only sure shots at post-Games legacy are the badminton, basketball, boxing, and indoor volleyball venues. I still don't see a strong reason why Manila needs a 60,000 plus-seater athletics stadium, permanent or temporary. With barely any national interest in athletics and football, this one could end up just being a concert and worship venue. A high-capacity aquatics stadium doesn't even seem viable in the long run.And yeah, welcome Enoch. Good points indeed, but there's still significant warrant for building a National Stadium and Olympic Park. An inspirational national stadium of 70,000 will help inspire and develop athletics and football in the city and region, it'll be surely used for the rotational SEA games and potential future Asian Games. There's the concert and worship ground for sure, but annual athletic meets and football matches should help ensure the longevity of such a venue. As for the new aquatics center, that would easily be used as a public ground after the games, with easy conversion to a competition venue when the need arises. It should be noted, that there are many poorer countries and cities out there with high capacity venues which are mere one offs for one reason or another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Good question. I like the idea and it would certainly help raise the levels of comp in some of the big Asian events. On the other hand, Australians tend to be a bit ambivalent about our northern neighbours.I think the thing is, the Commonwealth Games serves our purposes well these days in lieu of a continental games. Personally, I;d like the see the Pan-Pacific idea expanded more. In swimming, the Pan-Pacs are already the second event after the world champs. Maybe a Pan-Pac Games would challenge the Asian Games as a real prestige meet. I think a lot of Asians does not consider Australia as Asian because primarily, the people are of caucasian decent. But Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, for example, are of caucasian stock as well, so I don't think there's no worry any more. The Asian Games is, by far, the largest gathering next to the Olympics. Plus, it is really anticipated, so I thinmk it will take really that "big" to challenge its present stature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 It should be noted, that there are many poorer countries and cities out there with high capacity venues which are mere one offs for one reason or another... I wonder which cities are these. Would you care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Re this dream for an Olympic complex on reclaimed land in Manila Bay (I guess a la Tokyo's 2016 plan), that is going to require some heavy-duty engineering. Unless it's going to be a lightweight structure w/ temporary stands and aluminum folding chairs, one will have to consider the weight of HUGE concrete structures and how much weight the reclaimed land can carry before sinking back into the Bay. And all that is going to be expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 While I am against Manila submitting a bid for an SOG, I still toy around with the idea of creating a compelling speculative SOG bid plan for Manila for fun. Perhaps the five or so Filipinos here can team up for the next fantasy SOG bid war here on GamesBids. Team Manila! Great things start from dreams. Always remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Re this dream for an Olympic complex on reclaimed land in Manila Bay (I guess a la Tokyo's 2016 plan), that is going to require some heavy-duty engineering. Unless it's going to be a lightweight structure w/ temporary stands and aluminum folding chairs, one will have to consider the weight of HUGE concrete structures and how much weight the reclaimed land can carry before sinking back into the Bay. And all that is going to be expensive. Don't worry, the Japanese are world known engineers. I think there is a concrete plan for this, otherwise the Philippine Congress would be all out to oppose this plan. The presidential derby will come by 2010 and it would be ugly. Never worry, because if such a plan would be a farce, a lot of Pinoys would be against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Don't worry, the Japanese are world known engineers. I think there is a concrete plan for this, otherwise the Philippine Congress would be all out to oppose this plan. The presidential derby will come by 2010 and it would be ugly. Never worry, because if such a plan would be a farce, a lot of Pinoys would be against it. It should also be noted that the Mall of Asia complex and new suburbs have been built on reclaimed land along Manila Bay, building a reasonable sized Olympic Park and Athlete's Village nearby shouldn't be a too difficult, permitting a reasonable budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Don't worry, the Japanese are world known engineers. I think there is a concrete plan for this, otherwise the Philippine Congress would be all out to oppose this plan. The presidential derby will come by 2010 and it would be ugly. Never worry, because if such a plan would be a farce, a lot of Pinoys would be against it. Hmmmm. A lot of wool gets pulled over Filipinos' eyes. All this is good for dreaming; but in reality is not good for the Philippines. I used to live in Manila -- so I know. Other cities lining up also appear more viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Hmmmm. A lot of wool gets pulled over Filipinos' eyes. All this is good for dreaming; but in reality is not good for the Philippines. I used to live in Manila -- so I know. Got relatives in San Francisco and New York... so they know too. It's just a joke, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 It should also be noted that the Mall of Asia complex and new suburbs have been built on reclaimed land along Manila Bay, building a reasonable sized Olympic Park and Athlete's Village nearby shouldn't be a too difficult, permitting a reasonable budget. Amen, Mr. Speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 PShi enoch and olympics08, didn't know there were new Filipino GB peeps here! welcome! Thank you. That thesis is really impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 2. uhmmm... you will need an Olympic Village, an IBC AND tons of practice courts and warm-up venues... There are a lot of that in Manila. The only problem are world-class venues that would serve as main competition sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 After a nearly exhaustive treatise on the matter, I think Manila could/should go for the 2018 Asian Games but really tread lightly over any further Olympic ambitiions. Against the likes of world-class cities (forget 2020 -- that's probably going to Capetown; and 2024 will probably be Paris), Manila's traffic, heat, humiidty and pollution will immediately knock Manila out of the short list. (Notice, the Olympics have never been held in the equatorial belt. There is a reason for that.) Sorry to douse any dreams here, but better to be realistic from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingspread Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Besides, this should be a thread about the 2018 Asian Games. Let's get back on track, shall we? As of today (4 January 2008), Wiki says that potential bidders are Hanoi, Manila, Colombo and Singapore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 After a nearly exhaustive treatise on the matter, I think Manila could/should go for the 2018 Asian Games but really tread lightly over any further Olympic ambitiions. Against the likes of world-class cities (forget 2020 -- that's probably going to Capetown; and 2024 will probably be Paris), Manila's traffic, heat, humiidty and pollution will immediately knock Manila out of the short list. (Notice, the Olympics have never been held in the equatorial belt. There is a reason for that.) Sorry to douse any dreams here, but better to be realistic from the start. Of course, we are not saying here that this will all happen necessarily in the 2020s... but it is going to be a start. Manila's temperature is hot in the summer, so they might move the proposed schedule towards the end of the year for a friendlier weather. They allowed this for Sydney 2000. I agree with you Baron, 2020 is most likely going to Cape Town, but the evaluation commission report of the IOC to Manila will serve as a guide for it to assess itself on where and what phases of the bid it should improve on. Besides, the proposal is a joint bid: since it's hot in Manila, I would say that they will consider scheduling indoor games in Manila then all outdoor sports in Hiroshima. I'm sure the Philippine Olympic Committee knows that (for the IOC to be fair to equatorial belt countries, they must consent on this bi-national, bi-city thing in the Olympic Congress), that is why they chose a temperate city to balance everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Besides, this should be a thread about the 2018 Asian Games. Let's get back on track, shall we? As of today (4 January 2008), Wiki says that potential bidders are Hanoi, Manila, Colombo and Singapore. They should definitely push for that Asian Games bid. But you guys have to admit, Manila could submit a competitive bid given that all technical aspects of the plan are in place. It's been nice to be dreaming in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 Besides, the proposal is a joint bid: since it's hot in Manila, I would say that they will consider scheduling indoor games in Manila then all outdoor sports in Hiroshima. Enoch, didn't u get it the first time? A joint bid AIN'T gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 Enoch, didn't u get it the first time? A joint bid AIN'T gonna happen. I'll have to agree, a joint bid by Manila-Hiroshima would be bound to fail. If Manila were to bid, it would have to be on it's own, and the event would be held during the cooler months say December to February abouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 I'll have to agree, a joint bid by Manila-Hiroshima would be bound to fail. If Manila were to bid, it would have to be on it's own, and the event would be held during the cooler months say December to February abouts. The only way a joint bi-national bid would ever win is if the IOC had no alternative bidder. Why would they vote for all the hassles of a bi-national bid if there was any single city alternative bid? Even FIFA is cool on bi-national bids since their hassles with the 2002 Korea-Japan World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 The only way a joint bi-national bid would ever win is if the IOC had no alternative bidder. Why would they vote for all the hassles of a bi-national bid if there was any single city alternative bid? Even FIFA is cool on bi-national bids since their hassles with the 2002 Korea-Japan World Cup. As I've said before, the current IOC "one city rule" is a farce, since most Olympic cities do not hold all the sport events within their boundaries. For example in Beijing 2008, equestrian events are slated in Hong Kong (how many kilometers away is Hong Kong from Beijing?) and there are other cities involved. [Please read the rest of the posts in this forum, we had a healthy discussion on it]. The 2002 FIFA World Cup experience problems because they are hosting a very large competition of soccer in two countries. Of course, with a possible joint bid for the Olympics, it will be different because the organizers will not calendar the prelims of basketball in Manila and then slate the finals in Hiroshima for example, right? The FIFA's woes in 2002 is due to the fact that they are hosting one event scattered over different cities in two countries, and logistical problems surely got into the participants (although I may be mistaken on this, we are not a soccer country and the World Cup is not in our vocabulary). Then, the organizers could slate the opening ceremonies in Manila and then the Closing in Hiroshima, with the same torch (with identical designs) lighted and extinguished in the two Olympic Stadiums situated in the two cities. With the advancement of tehnology nowadays, media coverage would not be a problem. There will also be a fusion of culture within the Olympics, and common things between Manila and Hiroshima could be invoked in the Marketing to achieve dramatic effect. Of course, since the concept is new, there is a big chance that the IOC would be hesitant to "experiment on this bid. But I hope, someday they will. Only then we would truly know if it is a failure or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 As I've said before, the current IOC "one city rule" is a farce, since most Olympic cities do not hold all the sport events within their boundaries. For example in Beijing 2008, equestrian events are slated in Hong Kong (how many kilometers away is Hong Kong from Beijing?) and there are other cities involved. [Please read the rest of the posts in this forum, we had a healthy discussion on it]. The 2002 FIFA World Cup experience problems because they are hosting a very large competition of soccer in two countries. Of course, with a possible joint bid for the Olympics, it will be different because the organizers will not calendar the prelims of basketball in Manila and then slate the finals in Hiroshima for example, right? The FIFA's woes in 2002 is due to the fact that they are hosting one event scattered over different cities in two countries, and logistical problems surely got into the participants (although I may be mistaken on this, we are not a soccer country and the World Cup is not in our vocabulary). Then, the organizers could slate the opening ceremonies in Manila and then the Closing in Hiroshima, with the same torch (with identical designs) lighted and extinguished in the two Olympic Stadiums situated in the two cities. With the advancement of tehnology nowadays, media coverage would not be a problem. There will also be a fusion of culture within the Olympics, and common things between Manila and Hiroshima could be invoked in the Marketing to achieve dramatic effect. Of course, since the concept is new, there is a big chance that the IOC would be hesitant to "experiment on this bid. But I hope, someday they will. Only then we would truly know if it is a failure or not. All well and well, but I still say it'll bound to fail. Manila should just stick on it's own, it will fail if it bid with Hiroshima. As for Beijing, Beijing is the main host city, Hong Kong was probably chosen for Equestrian events due to historical ties with the sport, already existing sporting grounds and quite possibly the pollution factor came into account as well. Either way, this is different in comparison to the proposed Manila-Hiroshima bid as sports would be distributed amongst both cities. Manila would have to end up building a new National Stadium anyways or risk having the athletics events being solely held in Hiroshima. Just stick to Manila on it's own, it's better that way and if Manila were to win a future Asian Games and build a new stadium, that would help boost an Olympic bid as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 As I've said before, the current IOC "one city rule" is a farce, since most Olympic cities do not hold all the sport events within their boundaries. For example in Beijing 2008, equestrian events are slated in Hong Kong (how many kilometers away is Hong Kong from Beijing?) and there are other cities involved. [Please read the rest of the posts in this forum, we had a healthy discussion on it]. The 2002 FIFA World Cup experience problems because they are hosting a very large competition of soccer in two countries. Of course, with a possible joint bid for the Olympics, it will be different because the organizers will not calendar the prelims of basketball in Manila and then slate the finals in Hiroshima for example, right? The FIFA's woes in 2002 is due to the fact that they are hosting one event scattered over different cities in two countries, and logistical problems surely got into the participants (although I may be mistaken on this, we are not a soccer country and the World Cup is not in our vocabulary). Then, the organizers could slate the opening ceremonies in Manila and then the Closing in Hiroshima, with the same torch (with identical designs) lighted and extinguished in the two Olympic Stadiums situated in the two cities. With the advancement of tehnology nowadays, media coverage would not be a problem. There will also be a fusion of culture within the Olympics, and common things between Manila and Hiroshima could be invoked in the Marketing to achieve dramatic effect. Of course, since the concept is new, there is a big chance that the IOC would be hesitant to "experiment on this bid. But I hope, someday they will. Only then we would truly know if it is a failure or not. What makes you think the Japanese National Committee will agree to this scenario? Why are they putting up Tokyo as their immediate Olympic candidate? Methinks this idea is only in some Filipino swimming official's mind WITHOUT (and with all the best intentions in the world) the slightest clue to the real (Olympic) world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 What makes you think the Japanese National Committee will agree to this scenario? Why are they putting up Tokyo as their immediate Olympic candidate? Methinks this idea is only in some Filipino swimming official's mind WITHOUT (and with all the best intentions in the world) the slightest clue to the real (Olympic) world. Yep, I agree, if Manila were to bid, it should be on it's own. As for the One-City rule being a farce, it's not much of a farce really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.