FIFA WORLD CUP 2034 - Page 4 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | 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 May 24th, 2018, 12:31 AM   #61
Knitemplar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,459
Likes (Received): 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
But China is so much easier (one country, closer population centers) if you want this part of the world. .
And they would have the necessary bullet-trains connections between the major pop centers up and running by then.
Knitemplar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 24th, 2018, 06:23 AM   #62
nazrey
Registered User
 
nazrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 96,611
Likes (Received): 15728

Quote:
Originally Posted by Леонид View Post
I think it would be lovely, but too expensive not only for the teams traveling from one place to the other but also I think of the fans .. its already expensive to travel to the ASEAN countries if you are from Costa Rica or Argentina, then imagine traveling all over following your team. Dont what do you guys think?
Asean famous for low cost carriers which would bring you safer and faster than bullet train and these carriers are the most extensive in the region as well

1 AirAsia
2 Norwegian
3 jetBlue Airways
4 easyJet
5 Virgin America
6 Jetstar Airways
7 AirAsiaX
8 Azul Linhas Aéreas Brasileiras
9 Southwest Airlines
10 Indigo
11 WestJet
12 Scoot
13 Jetstar Asia

14 Eurowings
15 Ryanair
16 Vueling Airlines
17 Tigerair
18 Peach
19 Air Canada rouge
20 SpiceJet

There are 1/4 of world's best low cost carriers were from ASEAN.
http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Aw..._airlines.html

Last edited by nazrey; May 24th, 2018 at 08:39 AM.
nazrey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2018, 08:55 AM   #63
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by nazrey View Post
Asean famous for low cost carriers which would bring you safer and faster than bullet train and these carriers are the most extensive in the region as well

1 AirAsia
2 Norwegian
3 jetBlue Airways
4 easyJet
5 Virgin America
6 Jetstar Airways
7 AirAsiaX
8 Azul Linhas Aéreas Brasileiras
9 Southwest Airlines
10 Indigo
11 WestJet
12 Scoot
13 Jetstar Asia

14 Eurowings
15 Ryanair
16 Vueling Airlines
17 Tigerair
18 Peach
19 Air Canada rouge
20 SpiceJet

There are 1/4 of world's best low cost carriers were from ASEAN.
http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Aw..._airlines.html
China's advantages:

1. One country, one organization, one government, one currency, consistency, etc.
2. Much closer distances. Most key cities within 1000 miles of each other.
3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.
4. Huge amounts of foreign exchange and willing to spend it.
5. Minimal religious or ethnic tensions (I don't really want to get into this).
6. China does have civil rights and authoritarianism issues, but so does the region generally. Call it a push.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 24th, 2018, 02:35 PM   #64
OnwardsAndUpwards
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 1,328
Likes (Received): 1107

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
China's advantages:


3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.
Train is generally from the centre of the city to the centre of the destination city. So much better than having to get to and from the airport at both ends. Plus much less time taken checking in, waiting around and generally being bored. This assumes you want to be in the centre of the city but generally people do as that is where most good things to do are. London to Paris is the perfect example of this. Unless you live out near the airport the train is much more convenient.

Depending on the speed the train is more convenient up to about 500 miles. Obviously flying is quicker beyond that sort of distance.

Four years ago Rio to Sao Paulo would have been so much better by fast train. Perhaps those two cities to Belo Horizonte as well. Wouldn't ever work with Brasilia though.

The USA either has such vast, low density, car-based cities or they're so far apart that flying is the only real option. There are exceptions such as New York and Philadelphia but that could be quicker. New York to Boston could do with a faster route as that could be done in 2 hours or so. Not going to happen any time soon though. A lot of journeys that people would choose to use the train for in Europe would be driven in the USA.
__________________

Rover030 liked this post
OnwardsAndUpwards no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2018, 06:15 PM   #65
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnwardsAndUpwards View Post
Train is generally from the centre of the city to the centre of the destination city. So much better than having to get to and from the airport at both ends. Plus much less time taken checking in, waiting around and generally being bored. This assumes you want to be in the centre of the city but generally people do as that is where most good things to do are. London to Paris is the perfect example of this. Unless you live out near the airport the train is much more convenient.

Depending on the speed the train is more convenient up to about 500 miles. Obviously flying is quicker beyond that sort of distance.

Four years ago Rio to Sao Paulo would have been so much better by fast train. Perhaps those two cities to Belo Horizonte as well. Wouldn't ever work with Brasilia though.

The USA either has such vast, low density, car-based cities or they're so far apart that flying is the only real option. There are exceptions such as New York and Philadelphia but that could be quicker. New York to Boston could do with a faster route as that could be done in 2 hours or so. Not going to happen any time soon though. A lot of journeys that people would choose to use the train for in Europe would be driven in the USA.
Train has its place and for sure it works better for dense cities under 400 miles apart. But you are a bit optimistic judging the world by Paris/London. Try getting from Berlin to Frankfurt or Paris.

In any event, China will give you a choice and that's always convenient.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2018, 07:11 PM   #66
Knitemplar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,459
Likes (Received): 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
.
3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.
.
Because some people are just deathly afraid to fly. Try booking a seat very late on Amtrak's popular routes in the summer.
Knitemplar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2018, 07:11 AM   #67
BigBiggerBiggest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 770
Likes (Received): 158

Quote:
Originally Posted by nazrey View Post
Asean famous for low cost carriers which would bring you safer and faster than bullet train and these carriers are the most extensive in the region as well

1 AirAsia
2 Norwegian
3 jetBlue Airways
4 easyJet
5 Virgin America
6 Jetstar Airways
7 AirAsiaX
8 Azul Linhas Aéreas Brasileiras
9 Southwest Airlines
10 Indigo
11 WestJet
12 Scoot
13 Jetstar Asia

14 Eurowings
15 Ryanair
16 Vueling Airlines
17 Tigerair
18 Peach
19 Air Canada rouge
20 SpiceJet

There are 1/4 of world's best low cost carriers were from ASEAN.
http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Aw..._airlines.html

Jetstar is good if you dont want to fit in your seat and mash your knees up against the seats in front of you, and Tigerair is good if you want to hold your life in your hands when flying...
BigBiggerBiggest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2018, 05:48 PM   #68
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBiggerBiggest View Post
Jetstar is good if you dont want to fit in your seat and mash your knees up against the seats in front of you, and Tigerair is good if you want to hold your life in your hands when flying...
Train is sounding better all the time!

I know that airports are looked at by FIFA in determining whether a bid is acceptable, but I wonder if airlines are also reviewed, at least tacitly?
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2018, 10:17 PM   #69
Knitemplar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,459
Likes (Received): 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
but I wonder if airlines are also reviewed, at least tacitly?
Well, look at Russia 2018. Aeroflot is one of the WORST airlines in the world, yet Russia was still picked in 2010. And Aeroflot at that time was probably the only choice to connect, say, Kaliningrad with larger Russian territory proper; plus a lot of the other venues.
Knitemplar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 03:14 AM   #70
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knitemplar View Post
Well, look at Russia 2018. Aeroflot is one of the WORST airlines in the world, yet Russia was still picked in 2010. And Aeroflot at that time was probably the only choice to connect, say, Kaliningrad with larger Russian territory proper; plus a lot of the other venues.
Good point. I had only though about Moscow and St. Petersburg where you have some choices as to airlines, but the other cities could be scary.

A couple of additional points: I assume train service is reasonably good in Russia; and Russia was chosen under the old system at FIFA, hopefully now replaced by one that chooses hosts based on technical and economic standards.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 11:40 AM   #71
Rover030
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 1125

The old system was really not that different from the new system. There was a task force that judged the bids based on technical requirements that were determined beforehand. That part still exists. So even though some of requirements have been changed, there is an evaluation of the bids that the voters have to base their choice on.

The only difference is that instead of 24 representatives of the 200 something FAs, now it's the 200 something FAs voting. There will still be questionable interpretation of the technical evaluation, but now because of national interests and vote trading instead of bribery.

As for "Transport and mobility (incl. airports)", as long as you meet the minimum requirements "(with respect to intercity connectivity on a combined basis with general accommodation)", which Morocco supposedly doesn't, that's only 13% of your grade. Source (PDF)

So it's much less important than the extent to which people talk about it. The only way compactness is rewarded is if it reduces organisation costs (10%) or improves accommodation (6%). And if a city is within 90 minutes of a sufficient airport, it gets a passing grade as well. But at that point you're talking about the really compact countries like Qatar or the Netherlands and Belgium.
__________________

CaliforniaJones liked this post
Rover030 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 02:25 PM   #72
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 804
Likes (Received): 943

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rover030 View Post
The old system was really not that different from the new system. There was a task force that judged the bids based on technical requirements that were determined beforehand. That part still exists. So even though some of requirements have been changed, there is an evaluation of the bids that the voters have to base their choice on.

The only difference is that instead of 24 representatives of the 200 something FAs, now it's the 200 something FAs voting. There will still be questionable interpretation of the technical evaluation, but now because of national interests and vote trading instead of bribery.

As for "Transport and mobility (incl. airports)", as long as you meet the minimum requirements "(with respect to intercity connectivity on a combined basis with general accommodation)", which Morocco supposedly doesn't, that's only 13% of your grade. Source (PDF)

So it's much less important than the extent to which people talk about it. The only way compactness is rewarded is if it reduces organisation costs (10%) or improves accommodation (6%). And if a city is within 90 minutes of a sufficient airport, it gets a passing grade as well. But at that point you're talking about the really compact countries like Qatar or the Netherlands and Belgium.
I've made some estimation for the 2026 World Cup and I've found the same observation as yours.

Compactness: strong highway connection between cities also high speed trains, cost reduction for operations, improved accommodation and sufficient airports capacity within 90 minutes.
__________________
My Globe-Trotter network
CaliforniaJones no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 05:54 PM   #73
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rover030 View Post
The old system was really not that different from the new system. There was a task force that judged the bids based on technical requirements that were determined beforehand. That part still exists. So even though some of requirements have been changed, there is an evaluation of the bids that the voters have to base their choice on.

The only difference is that instead of 24 representatives of the 200 something FAs, now it's the 200 something FAs voting. There will still be questionable interpretation of the technical evaluation, but now because of national interests and vote trading instead of bribery.

As for "Transport and mobility (incl. airports)", as long as you meet the minimum requirements "(with respect to intercity connectivity on a combined basis with general accommodation)", which Morocco supposedly doesn't, that's only 13% of your grade. Source (PDF)

So it's much less important than the extent to which people talk about it. The only way compactness is rewarded is if it reduces organisation costs (10%) or improves accommodation (6%). And if a city is within 90 minutes of a sufficient airport, it gets a passing grade as well. But at that point you're talking about the really compact countries like Qatar or the Netherlands and Belgium.
I don't entirely agree. The difference between the old system and the new one is that the review committees take their work seriously and that the final decisions are made based on its input. In the past there were doubts as to the quality of the analysis and whether anyone even looked at it before voting for whoever paid them off.

Of course, if the old system really works like the old one, then we are left with a flawed system.

As for the other criteria, it seems to me that the goal is not to meet a series of technical hurdles; it's to choose a modern city with good facilities (stadium, hotels, airport, roads, etc.). Guidelines are set up give an idea of what is being talked about. But it's one of those things that "you know it when you see it" even if you can't quite define it in a way that works perfectly.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 06:12 PM   #74
Rover030
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 1125

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
I don't entirely agree. The difference between the old system and the new one is that the review committees take their work seriously and that the final decisions are made based on its input. In the past there were doubts as to the quality of the analysis and whether anyone even looked at it before voting for whoever paid them off.

Of course, if the old system really works like the old one, then we are left with a flawed system.

As for the other criteria, it seems to me that the goal is not to meet a series of technical hurdles; it's to choose a modern city with good facilities (stadium, hotels, airport, roads, etc.). Guidelines are set up give an idea of what is being talked about. But it's one of those things that "you know it when you see it" even if you can't quite define it in a way that works perfectly.
What are you basing this (the bolded part) on? There have been lots of signals that decisions will be made based on geopolitical considerations, local interests and even political threats. There has already been controversy around the task force when they were accused of trying to change the bidding criteria last-moment. I don't think I've lately seen anyone who actually believes that this new system will make the decision more based on the input of the review task force, except if a bidding nation is disqualified.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with the latter part of your post. There is a rating system from 1 to 5 that is based on specific criteria (such as amount of passengers an airport can handle) and you can't get a score lower than 2 for certain aspects, for more than a certain amount of cities, or your bid is disqualified, which is rumoured to happen to the Moroccan bid. So I'd say the first goal absolutely is to meet a series of technical hurdles.
Rover030 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 06:37 PM   #75
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rover030 View Post
What are you basing this (the bolded part) on? There have been lots of signals that decisions will be made based on geopolitical considerations, local interests and even political threats. There has already been controversy around the task force when they were accused of trying to change the bidding criteria last-moment. I don't think I've lately seen anyone who actually believes that this new system will make the decision more based on the input of the review task force, except if a bidding nation is disqualified.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with the latter part of your post. There is a rating system from 1 to 5 that is based on specific criteria (such as amount of passengers an airport can handle) and you can't get a score lower than 2 for certain aspects, for more than a certain amount of cities, or your bid is disqualified, which is rumoured to happen to the Moroccan bid. So I'd say the first goal absolutely is to meet a series of technical hurdles.
No doubt there has been a lot of howling in the press from those that will no longer be able to wield their personal power in getting financial benefits from FIFA. And I have discussed on other sites how much political effort is being put into over-riding the work of the technical committees, who obviously have only one legitimate choice for the 2026 games.

The question is whether all of this will work or if the best bid technically and financially will be chosen. If so, the system is working so far. If not, then you are right, the "bad old days" are still here.

As for the latter part of my post, forgive me, English is not my first language. What I meant to say was that the technical and other guidelines are not intended as ends in themselves, but rather as means to arriving at the real goal, which is to choose an attractive, modern city with good amenities for the WC. As such, the rules are purely instrumental for selecting the best cities and should be changed if they are not helpful in reaching that result.

This is why the exact technical detail can (and should) be waived if the city or cities are obviously very desirable. E.g., if Paris were to miss on some technical basis, then the rule would be revised, not Paris.

Last edited by pesto; May 29th, 2018 at 06:58 PM.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 06:57 PM   #76
Rover030
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 1125

If one of the two competitors for 2026 doesn't meet the minimum requirements, then obviously the remaining bid wins. But with everything we've seen around the campaign so far, does that mean the system is good? I think the real and more fair test is when it gets more complicated in 2030 and 2034, with at least 3 different bids, like it used to be. Although the absence of a polarising 1 v 1 battle might also make it easier for the task force to assume a credible neutral position.
__________________

CaliforniaJones liked this post
Rover030 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2018, 07:35 PM   #77
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rover030 View Post
If one of the two competitors for 2026 doesn't meet the minimum requirements, then obviously the remaining bid wins. But with everything we've seen around the campaign so far, does that mean the system is good? I think the real and more fair test is when it gets more complicated in 2030 and 2034, with at least 3 different bids, like it used to be. Although the absence of a polarising 1 v 1 battle might also make it easier for the task force to assume a credible neutral position.
Agree completely. The system needs to prove itself every time it is put to use.

Btw, you have to get rid of the vote by country. It is just ridiculous when St. Vincent, San Marino, and the Cook Is. can outvote China and the US 3 to 2. Over the long run this will lead to the major powers leaving and establishing a new global structure for amateur and professional soccer.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2018, 05:05 AM   #78
Juanpabloangel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Gold coast, buenos aires
Posts: 371
Likes (Received): 164

I was thinking the best way to improve the world cup bidding process would be to lock in the hosts by taking a play off game between the competing nations.... I'd be happy to see the USA as head bidder play v Morocco for the chance to host and then bring the rotation back in! You obviously have to have the plans for the stadia in place and the funding guarantees but the clincher is the game! Imagine the European hosting battle... There would have to be a rule as to minimum hosting times too. You can't host consecutive tournaments within your federation. The North and South American federations being taken as one, as with Asia and Oceania...
Juanpabloangel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2018, 12:02 PM   #79
LPP68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 716
Likes (Received): 280

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto View Post
China's advantages:


3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.
Eh, the environment perhaps?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell
LPP68 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 30th, 2018, 06:12 PM   #80
pesto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,116
Likes (Received): 4093

Quote:
Originally Posted by LPP68 View Post
Eh, the environment perhaps?
I don't think so. I would guess that cost and time of travel are the only significant determinants of which modality to use. I never hear of people asking why type of fuel source a particular modality uses before buying a ticket.

I haven't done a study but I would guess that in some countries even the electric trains are ultimately powered by coal; often the cheapest and dirtiest coal they can find.
pesto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us