Jump to content

The Facilites Delusion


Recommended Posts

The Facilities Delusion

It seems that some members of this board have the delusion that having facilities in place means that a bid will be more successful and more financially viable. This is not necessarily the case and in fact pre-existing venues often restrict and limit the growth of the city and the legacy impact of a major event on a city. Take for instance Lillehammer 1994, arguably the best winter Olympic Games. Prior to the 1994 games, Lillehammer had no venues in place. All the venues were constructed for the games and used for them. This allowed for a more inventive games and venue use, including the use of a ski jumping venue for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies. If the pre-existing venue delusion held true there, a stadium for the likes of soccer would have to have been in place, ruining one of the best aspects of the cultural experience that surrounded the games.

Another example on the winter side, is Salt Lake City, other then the downhill skiing facilities little was in place. This allowed for updated venues, including a speed skating oval that most now consider the best in the world.

The legacy both of these games had on their respective cities and regions allowed for the creation of more state-of-the-art facilities and need specific facilities that did not fit into the delusion that venues need to be in place prior to winning the rights to host the games. It should also be noted that both games were financial successes and are now used, along with Calgary as the models for running a successful games.

Also look at Sydney, Atlanta and Barcelona. All three games, no major venues were in place prior to the games. All centre-piece venues were constructed for the games and have allowed for a legacy that has impacted the city with new venues that contain the rich history of the games and competition that took place within their walls. All three were also financial successes.

In the 2012 race, the city that had the most venues in place, the most financially secure venue plan lost out to the venue plan that had the better legacy and impact on the perspective city. London beat Paris, and the venue aspect is considered the crucial aspect to London’s win.

Looking at the race for 2014, the city that has the most venues in place and the most financially secure plan in place is probably going to be eliminated first to plans that have a better lasting legacy in Sochi and Pyeongchang. Sochi in fact has nothing in place and that bill is going to be near the 20 billion mark.

Venues in place, does not mean success. Venues in place do not equal a financially secure and successful game. In fact there are multiple examples that proper planning and trust in the organizers creates a more successful bid, that has in the past 20 years resulted in games that have surpassed any expectations and resulted in multiple benchmark games (Calgary, Barcelona, Lillehammer, Atlanta, Sydney and Salt Lake City).

Get the delusions out of your head and see that your delusions that venues need to be pre-existing to be successful is utter crap! So shut up about it already. Abuja sucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Get the delusions out of your head and see that your delusions that venues need to be pre-existing to be successful is utter crap! So shut up about it already. Abuja sucks.

Right on ? Lol , Interesting report

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another example on the winter side, is Salt Lake City, other then the downhill skiing facilities little was in place. This allowed for updated venues, including a speed skating oval that most now consider the best in the world.

That is simply not true.

Source, IOC Evaluation Commission Report for 2002:

  • "The high quality of the many existing facilities, combined with the projects for the few sites that still need to be built, make the general sport concept excellent"
  • "All the alpine skiing venues, downhill excepted, alreay exist"
  • "The bobsleigh and luge track is already under construction and will be used by the end of 1995"
  • "The Delta Center, which is well suited for ice hockey and figure skating, will need temporary modification"
  • "the IBC and MPC would be housed in the same complex, already partly built"

The Olympic Stadium already existed as well as part of the Olympic Village.

A speed skating oval was also under construction in Oquirch Park.

The fact that Salt Lake was almost ready was one of its major selling points back in 1995.

But I do agree that, based on recent elections, having a lot of venues ready can be a handicap since the legacy is not so great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps. But the 2012 vote, for example, was nearly split right down the middle, 54-50. So is it really that clear-cut that venues in place is that much of a hindrance like many are pointing it out to be? I don't think so. Had only just 2 more IOC members refrained from voting for London (or 3 members, automatically crowning Paris), the vote would've been tied. Therefore, Mr Rogge himself would have had to of declared the final & winning ballot. And I get the impression that he would've cast it in favor of Paris.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Barcelona's (incidently, one of my favouirite stadiums after Munich's) basically a refurb of the original stadium it built for the Worker's Games in 1936? Similar to what LA did with its 30s era colisseum.

Otherwise, I agree with FYI _ 2012 was too close to draw any definitive lesssons from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again. Another Olympic rant that pretends to be the end-all opinion. Could we spare the obscenities and playground rhetoric and have a level debate on the matter? Honestly, I think you're making rather misguided, over-arching assumptions.

First, you're falling into the same trap as those who argue that facilities need to be in place in order to be a successful Games. It has nothing to do with existing or newly built facilities and has everything to do with need. The IOC recognizes whether in fact there is a need for additional sports facilities within a city limits. So you're right that Sydney, Atlanta, Munich all had newly built stadiums and facilities. But it's not a formula, each case is different.

Sydney had a government-owned environment wasteland in need of development. They also lacked international sports facilities. If they wanted to be an global capital, they knew they needed to take that step. In Atlanta, the Olympic stadium was hardly an Olympic stadium at all, but rather the newly built home of the Atlanta Braves. And in Munich, they too lacked major sports facilities. Plus, their two premier soccer clubs were in need of a new home and again, the government owned a desolate area of land within the city limits in need of redevelopment. In this case it was a former dump, filled with the wreckage of WW II.

But then there is the other side as well. Mexico City, Seoul, Barcelona, Athens, and Los Angeles all used previously existing stadiums. While Seoul's was being built for the Asian Games, Mexico City, Barcelona, Athens, and LA opted for renovation.

So which option is better? Neither. The best Games are ones than dully address their city's needs. Where you get into trouble is when cities over-project their needs and favor building new, bigger, better facilities just for spectacle (a problem Sydney has encountered). There is no formula for hosting a successful Games - that is the biggest assumption people make. You have to look at local circumstance - which is why Chicago is bidding with a Olympic Stadium where nearly all the seats will be temporary. Tell me, Faster, where do temporary facilities fit into this "delusion"?

And one more thing that needs to be addressed. You throw out the term "legacy" without any real comprehension. What does it mean? I know how I define it, I've spent the past year studying it. But you seem to insist that legacy only refers to a professional sporting legacy that comes as a result of newly built stadia. Debt, for one, can be a major part of legacy. But legacy is not just tangible, it is also in-tangible. Marinate on that.

www.chasingtheflame.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Gregory that the "legacy" definition is a difficult one.

For example, I consider that LA 84 had one of the greatest legacy in the history of the Olympic Games. The Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles was funded using the surplus of the LAOC. It's mission is "to serve youth through sports and increase public understanding of the role of sports in society".

Amateur Athletic Foundation of LA

I guess every host city has its own legacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...