search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 17th, 2017, 11:51 PM   #1
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 7,897
Likes (Received): 2906

The general Olympic thread

Guys,

I'm creating a catch-all thread for general Olympic discussion. Discussion about general stadium requirements, IOC policies, or other items not pertaining to a specific bid, event or venue should be placed here. The other threads will be reserved for discussion of the specified topic.

As time permits I may move items from other thread to populate this one as needed.

Thanks.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."

CFCman, parcdesprinces liked this post
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 18th, 2017, 03:24 AM   #2
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,542
Likes (Received): 2783

Curious to see if anyone posts here.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:02 AM   #3
BigBiggerBiggest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 30

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
It's a pretty long stretch to blame the Olympics for higher prices for housing and such. Most economists not working for the IOC or local committees believe there isn't much effect either way, excluding a few real disasters which had serious adverse effects due to huge expenditures. After all, it's a two week event with athletes staying in a Village and visitors staying in hotels and short-term rentals.

In any event, escalating prices for housing and such are a worldwide phenomenon in cities large and small.

i wish you were right. but 4 months before and after the Olympics everything pretty much doubled. Now there will be natural inflation of course but that is unheralded. Like i said it wasn't a progressive increase but it was a very fast uptake.
BigBiggerBiggest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 07:22 AM   #4
Nacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
Curious to see if anyone posts here.
I will take a shot with my crazy idea.

The reason the Olympics use a four year cycle is that there used to be four ancient games. We can solve the growth of the Olympics by going back to one games per year, with one event per season.

Spring Olympics: team sports (basketball, football, handball, etc)
Summer Olympics: individual sports (athletics, cycling, gymnastics, swimming, etc)
Fall Olympics: ice events (curling, ice skating, ice hockey, etc)
Winter Olympics: snow events (skiing, ski jumping, etc)

This would . . .
  1. reduce the overall size of each of the summer and winter games by about 40%, and thus dramatically decrease the organizing cost for the host city
  2. increase revenues for the IOC and sporting federations by hosting events every single year and having more broadcasting rights to sell
  3. reduce the construction costs for host cities by roughly 75% (for example if a host city already has 3 arenas, and needs 8 for the summer games and would only need 4 for the spring games the cost would be reduced by 80%)
  4. let cities with unsuitable climate or geography host the spring or fall games (such as Melbourne being too cold for the summer games and Minneapolis not having mountains for the winter games)
  5. open the games up to far more countries; Portugal cannot possibly manage the current summer Olympics but Lisbon could host a slimmed down games with 40% fewer athletes and events
  6. make it easier to accommodate the NHL with a fall event that only pushes back their season a couple of weeks instead of in the middle of the season
  7. let the IOC add cricket and/or baseball in spring without causing much burden on the host city
__________________

Zaschrona liked this post
Nacre no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 01:14 PM   #5
fidalgo
the mitty
 
fidalgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Setuşalmela
Posts: 8,282
Likes (Received): 21518

1- get rid of equestrian "sports" - if you cant supplie the same horse for every rider, the win cannot be given to a horserider. but its due to the horse training
pros - no need for stable for horse accomodation = less expenses

2- no need for football 11 tournment - there are already a lot, and its not pure, with that u23+exceptions rule.
introduce beach football and/or futsal
pros - no venues very far away from olympic city - less expenses on stadiums. these sports can be played on one arena, and in beach case, temporary
beach rugby would also be a nice addition, i think it can be played in the same stadia as beach football

3- introduce cross country running - if cycling have mountain bike, and swimming has open waters, athletics should also have its "obstacles out of stadium" event

4- no canoeing slalom - its a expensive venue event that get very little or none use after OG - same for surf if they have to build an artificial wave machine
fidalgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 04:01 PM   #6
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 7,897
Likes (Received): 2906

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
I will take a shot with my crazy idea.

The reason the Olympics use a four year cycle is that there used to be four ancient games. We can solve the growth of the Olympics by going back to one games per year, with one event per season.

Spring Olympics: team sports (basketball, football, handball, etc)
Summer Olympics: individual sports (athletics, cycling, gymnastics, swimming, etc)
Fall Olympics: ice events (curling, ice skating, ice hockey, etc)
Winter Olympics: snow events (skiing, ski jumping, etc)
Personally I think that would be overkill, especially in a mass media age where even 4 years apart is seeming like a blink of the eye. Further, I'd rather the Olympic reduce the number of events overall and stop trying to be the pinnacle for all sports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fidalgo View Post
1- get rid of equestrian "sports" - if you cant supplie the same horse for every rider, the win cannot be given to a horserider. but its due to the horse training
pros - no need for stable for horse accomodation = less expenses

2- no need for football 11 tournment - there are already a lot, and its not pure, with that u23+exceptions rule.
introduce beach football and/or futsal
pros - no venues very far away from olympic city - less expenses on stadiums. these sports can be played on one arena, and in beach case, temporary
beach rugby would also be a nice addition, i think it can be played in the same stadia as beach football

3- introduce cross country running - if cycling have mountain bike, and swimming has open waters, athletics should also have its "obstacles out of stadium" event

4- no canoeing slalom - its a expensive venue event that get very little or none use after OG - same for surf if they have to build an artificial wave machine
More in line with my thoughts. I'd love to do away with sailing events (Requires ocean/sea front access, isn't a big draw and is costly for nations), equestrian events (expensive, extraneous, limited popularity) and some of these "extreme sports" that are being added simply for TV's sake. Stick with the more pure athletics that are truly global enterprises.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 05:24 PM   #7
Nacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Further, I'd rather the Olympic reduce the number of events overall and stop trying to be the pinnacle for all sports.
This is not politically possible beyond eliminating golf and modern pentathlon because it means giving up revenue and asking the sporting federations to vote themselves out of the Olympics.

We need to find a way to reduce the cost of the Olympics without decreasing the total number of events and athletes. And there are only two ways of doing that: increasing the geographical spread of the event or cutting the games into two.
Nacre no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 05:25 PM   #8
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,542
Likes (Received): 2783

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
I will take a shot with my crazy idea.

The reason the Olympics use a four year cycle is that there used to be four ancient games. We can solve the growth of the Olympics by going back to one games per year, with one event per season.

Spring Olympics: team sports (basketball, football, handball, etc)
Summer Olympics: individual sports (athletics, cycling, gymnastics, swimming, etc)
Fall Olympics: ice events (curling, ice skating, ice hockey, etc)
Winter Olympics: snow events (skiing, ski jumping, etc)

This would . . .
  1. reduce the overall size of each of the summer and winter games by about 40%, and thus dramatically decrease the organizing cost for the host city
  2. increase revenues for the IOC and sporting federations by hosting events every single year and having more broadcasting rights to sell
  3. reduce the construction costs for host cities by roughly 75% (for example if a host city already has 3 arenas, and needs 8 for the summer games and would only need 4 for the spring games the cost would be reduced by 80%)
  4. let cities with unsuitable climate or geography host the spring or fall games (such as Melbourne being too cold for the summer games and Minneapolis not having mountains for the winter games)
  5. open the games up to far more countries; Portugal cannot possibly manage the current summer Olympics but Lisbon could host a slimmed down games with 40% fewer athletes and events
  6. make it easier to accommodate the NHL with a fall event that only pushes back their season a couple of weeks instead of in the middle of the season
  7. let the IOC add cricket and/or baseball in spring without causing much burden on the host city
A great idea! As you say, increases bidders, lessens costs and drama, increases revenues, etc.

But there is no chance the IOC would do this. It shows why archaic institutions like the IOC need to be gotten rid of and replaced by profit driven ones who will jump into better formats when they make sense.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 05:27 PM   #9
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,542
Likes (Received): 2783

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
This is not politically possible beyond eliminating golf and modern pentathlon because it means giving up revenue and asking the sporting federations to vote themselves out of the Olympics.

We need to find a way to reduce the cost of the Olympics without decreasing the total number of events and athletes. And there are only two ways of doing that: increasing the geographical spread of the event or cutting the games into two.
This is not true. I believe that a dozen sports could be removed with only a howl from a tiny group followed by laughter from the rest of the world.

Those sports could organize their own games and get whatever TV contract they can. Some cable station would undoubtedly pick them up.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 05:41 PM   #10
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,542
Likes (Received): 2783

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBiggerBiggest View Post
i wish you were right. but 4 months before and after the Olympics everything pretty much doubled. Now there will be natural inflation of course but that is unheralded. Like i said it wasn't a progressive increase but it was a very fast uptake.
This belongs over in the new thread, but this study tends to disagree with how the Olympics affected Sydney. In general, they are just way too small to have an effect on a large city.

https://dailyreckoning.com/olympics-...n-real-estate/

Last edited by pesto; July 18th, 2017 at 05:58 PM.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:16 PM   #11
Nacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
This is not true. I believe that a dozen sports could be removed with only a howl from a tiny group followed by laughter from the rest of the world.
The IOC is not an independent body. It is made up of National Olympic Committee heads, the leaders of the sporting federations, and some athletes.

For example the reason modern pentathlon is currently in the Olympics at all is due to the former IOC president being head of that sport. Similarly the current president of the IOC is a former fencer, and he is never going to let fencing be removed from the Olympic program.

I don't like the fact that international sports works this way. But it does.
Nacre no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:35 PM   #12
fidalgo
the mitty
 
fidalgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Setuşalmela
Posts: 8,282
Likes (Received): 21518

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
More in line with my thoughts. I'd love to do away with sailing events (Requires ocean/sea front access, isn't a big draw and is costly for nations), equestrian events (expensive, extraneous, limited popularity) and some of these "extreme sports" that are being added simply for TV's sake. Stick with the more pure athletics that are truly global enterprises.
you can make sailing events on a lake. wind is more important than having sea access. and there are very few landlock countries able to host a SOG

i like the concept of the X-Games. too bad is not as international as OG. surf, skating and climbing are more suitable for X-Games concept than Olympics, imo
fidalgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:42 PM   #13
Knitemplar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,637
Likes (Received): 268

So, who wants to trade a 2036 Olympic pin? LOL!!

Seriously,

#1 - Adopt the flexible programme of the Commonwealth Games wherein some sports are chosen by the host city conducive to their existing facilities and popularity with the local citizens.

#2 - Get rid of the sweaty, UGLY sports which look messy on TV; Boxing, weightllifting, cycling, the longer T&F races.

#3 - Get rid of those repetitive "sports" thrown in only so some Asian countries can win medals: judo (BLEEEHHH!!), taekwondo; the ridiculous garage game - ping-pong! Silly Field Hockey and Handball. Also, BORING Triathlon!

#4 - Have at least a mid-Point Ceremony (to sell more tickets for the Organizing Committee)

#5 - Replace the "sweaty" sports with the more "artful" disciplines of old: Song, Dance, Music, Poetry, Painting. And let me be the Chairman of the Judging Committees!! LOL!!

Last edited by Knitemplar; July 18th, 2017 at 06:51 PM.
Knitemplar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:56 PM   #14
Knitemplar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,637
Likes (Received): 268

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post

Those sports could organize their own games and get whatever TV contract they can. Some cable station would undoubtedly pick them up.
There are the World Games, which is IOC-sanctioned, wherein the sports waiting or wanting to get into the Oly slate sort of play/hang out in a holding pattern.

There are just too many fringe sports wanting to gain global spotlight. I say only these should be international Olympic sports (the Magic Seven!!):

- Figure Skating
- Gymnastics (especially Artistic!!)
- Indoor Volleyball
- Rowing
- Equestrian
- Chess; and
- Ballroom Dancing!!

Fuggedabout da rest!!

Last edited by Knitemplar; July 18th, 2017 at 07:15 PM.
Knitemplar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 06:59 PM   #15
californiadreams
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 425
Likes (Received): 91

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
I've created a thread for all general Olympic discussion, which can be found here.
Your work on this thread yesterday makes me think of when someone sees what's going on in a public forum and posts "clean up on aisle 3, clean up on aisle 3." Or something like that.

Another forum, at gamesbid.com - at least the thread about LA 2024 - sure could use the clean-up work provided by someone like you.

Your new thread on the topic of the Olympics in general reminds me that most of my interest in this subject is due largely to how it affects or won't affect this part of the country. If I didn't live in the LA area, and if the city had never hosted a games in the past or wouldn't host a games in the future, my curiosity and interest would drop big time.

I noticed some skepticism in the past from the writer Nick Butler about the idea of a duo-win award. Wasn't sure what exactly was behind it. I wondered if it was because he had long preferred Paris to LA. Or visa versa?

Quote:
Nick Butler: Bach deserves top marks for political skill but less so for transparency after "win-win-win"

By Nick Butler
Monday, 17 July 2017

But, while I have given Bach his fair share of criticism in this column in recent months, I can only bow my head in admiration for the way he bulldozed through plans to jointly award the 2024 and 2028 Olympics to Los Angeles and Paris this year. It was a masterclass in navigating the complex and unique world of sports politics.

Doubts remained at first and, when we contacted IOC members to solicit their views in February, the vast majority, including three of the four vice-presidents, criticised it publicly. The turning point came a few weeks later when Budapest pulled out of 2024 contest. A clear path was beginning to form.

Barring a drastic change in wider circumstances, virtually everyone at the Session seemed to agree that Paris will end up hosting the 2024 edition before Los Angeles follows in 2028. I imagine some sort of agreement in principle is in place already.

Risk, however, does remain.

Paris, I agree, was the bid which makes more sense for 2024, not least because it was generally considered the favourite among the IOC members in a two-horse race. It does, however, contain more risk.

Recently-elected French President Emmanuel Macron is currently riding high on the crest of a wave, but the example of May shows how things can change very quickly in politics these days. There is still the threat of terrorism and the lingering fear of rising opposition and public clamour for a referendum.

That said, given the IOC just about survived the virtual breakdown of Brazilian society in the years before Rio 2016, they will be confident of dealing with most things.
californiadreams no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 07:05 PM   #16
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,542
Likes (Received): 2783

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
The IOC is not an independent body. It is made up of National Olympic Committee heads, the leaders of the sporting federations, and some athletes.

For example the reason modern pentathlon is currently in the Olympics at all is due to the former IOC president being head of that sport. Similarly the current president of the IOC is a former fencer, and he is never going to let fencing be removed from the Olympic program.

I don't like the fact that international sports works this way. But it does.
Another reason that the IOC will either reform or weaken. But fencing and modern pentathlon are harmless enough. Show 5 minutes of highlights, give everyone a chuckle and move on.

Efficiency, in the form of NBC and other for-profit institutions, will lead Bach where he needs to go.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 07:31 PM   #17
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 7,897
Likes (Received): 2906

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
This is not politically possible beyond eliminating golf and modern pentathlon because it means giving up revenue and asking the sporting federations to vote themselves out of the Olympics.

We need to find a way to reduce the cost of the Olympics without decreasing the total number of events and athletes. And there are only two ways of doing that: increasing the geographical spread of the event or cutting the games into two.
Not buying it.

I get your point that certain events are in the games as part of an appeasement to the global masses and smaller federations, but if that's the case then the sports are involved for the completely wrong reason. Adding sport X just so other countries have a shot at a medal makes the whole of the games even more of a sham, even if that's a political necessity.

More over, most of the sports I'm talking about are not the revenue makers for the broadcast partners. Whatever revenue flows in for coverage of sailing in, say, Australia, is not going to be near the profit margin produced by Track and Field. Thus, if the IOC becomes a leaner operation focusing on solely those sports that yield the best profit then they'd have more free cash that can flow to the individual national federations, and then those entities can choose to spend money as they wish.

Otherwise we're left with an event whose lineup of sporting contests reeks of arbitrary and capricious selections that, IMO, will grow less and less vital by the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fidalgo View Post
you can make sailing events on a lake. wind is more important than having sea access. and there are very few landlock countries able to host a SOG
True, but depending on the lake's location and size the more logistically complicated it is to host the event. Bottom line, this sport requires greater travel expense to the teams for marginal returns at IOC and is not as accessible to all member nations.

If sailing were eliminated tomorrow I trust 99% of Olympic fans wouldn't miss it.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 07:59 PM   #18
Nacre
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
More over, most of the sports I'm talking about are not the revenue makers for the broadcast partners. Whatever revenue flows in for coverage of sailing in, say, Australia, is not going to be near the profit margin produced by Track and Field. Thus, if the IOC becomes a leaner operation focusing on solely those sports that yield the best profit then they'd have more free cash that can flow to the individual national federations, and then those entities can choose to spend money as they wish.


Even track and field is not a revenue maker outside of the Olympics. The IAAF Diamond League is the world tour of track and field, and the only meet in the USA that has managed to stay afloat is the one Nike sponsors in Oregon. Even New York could not make its meet work financially.


Broadcasters also don't want the number of sports to be cut dramatically. Fringe sports like triathlon are less popular globally than basketball, but the people who care about it will watch it religiously during the Olympics.


Finally, dramatically reducing the number of sports and athletes requires the Olympic sporting federations and smaller NOC's to voluntarily commit suicide.
Nacre no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 08:38 PM   #19
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,542
Likes (Received): 2783

Quote:
Originally Posted by californiadreams View Post
Your work on this thread yesterday makes me think of when someone sees what's going on in a public forum and posts "clean up on aisle 3, clean up on aisle 3." Or something like that.

I noticed some skepticism in the past from the writer Nick Butler about the idea of a duo-win award. Wasn't sure what exactly was behind it. I wondered if it was because he had long preferred Paris to LA. Or visa versa?
Butler had his head so far up the patoots of the old order that he was utterly blindsided.

He has been pretty useless so far, but he is now getting caught up: Bach is a real CEO; he is not interested in the opinion of his staff, he is interested in them providing the results he is demanding; an agreement is already largely in place; security and political risk remains in Paris. Pretty much what was self-evident 6 months ago.

As far as 2024 and 2028 it's hard to imagine any opposition because what possible scenario would they propose? Open the bidding for 2028 and be forced to review x, y and z, who compare to LA or Paris like LeBron compares to me?

The real issues are how much housecleaning he can do of useless people and useless sports and how quickly.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 09:21 PM   #20
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 7,897
Likes (Received): 2906

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacre View Post
Even track and field is not a revenue maker outside of the Olympics. The IAAF Diamond League is the world tour of track and field, and the only meet in the USA that has managed to stay afloat is the one Nike sponsors in Oregon. Even New York could not make its meet work financially.


Broadcasters also don't want the number of sports to be cut dramatically. Fringe sports like triathlon are less popular globally than basketball, but the people who care about it will watch it religiously during the Olympics.


Finally, dramatically reducing the number of sports and athletes requires the Olympic sporting federations and smaller NOC's to voluntarily commit suicide.
I'm not asking events to be profit makers in general, I'm talking about with regards to what they bring to the Olympics themselves. T&F makes big money for the IOC and the host, even if it's only for that one event. Ditto swimming.

And I'm not wanting to reduce the number of events too greatly, mainly just weed out the fringe stuff that requires excessive investment by the host. Either that or they need to be more serious about trying to be the apex event for all their sports save soccer, in which case they'd better give a lot more money to the local hosts. Or better yet, the IOC should just be responsible for the costs of all these venues that won't be used after the games.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."

Ioannes_ liked this post
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu