Skyscraper City Forum banner

Which would most appeal to IOC members for 2030?

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
***EDITED: SORRY SHOULD HAVE SAID 2032, as 2030 IS A WINTER OLYMPICS***


When will Britain next bother putting in a bid for the Olympics? If the next credible window is for the 2030 Olympics, it shouldn't be London again, so we need to look at where.

The costs of staging the games are way too immense to justify just one small city hosting them these days, so I think we need to look at "sister cities" that are close enough to offer what are effectively "twin city" bids and that can develop, as part of their bid, genuinely high quality, rapid inter-city public transport. At the same time, you would presumably want places that are a) genuinely close enough that people can easily get from one of the main sites to another b) offer the combined strenghts of two distinctive cities, ie complementary assets rather than just stringing together places together for a bid.

Which of these options would people consider to have the most potential appeal to the IOC, and why? Even if you don't favour any of them, can you say why?

Are there other potential credible combinations of cities that could co-host the games? For example, could transport be sufficiently improved to make a joint "Glasgow - Edinburgh" bid credible? Liverpool and Manchester are only thiry five miles apart (which is how wide Greater London is), which is just one of many reasons that a joint bid between them might be persuasive, if the trains could be upgraded. I don't think the maglev concepts are worth putting into this disucssion too much, because they won't be built in time.

Please no city bashing, there's loads of threads for anyone who wants to do that, I really want to find out what might be a credible combination and why.
 

·
UK (Eng/Sco/Wal/N.I.) UK
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
I'd rather it was in just ONE city.

I'd like it in:
Birmingham
Liverpool
Glasgow
Cardiff
or Newcastle

but I think it would have the most chance to be in Edinburgh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'd rather it was in just ONE city.

I'd like it in:
Birmingham
Liverpool
Glasgow
Cardiff
or Newcastle

but I think it would have the most chance to be in Edinburgh.
You are right that the IOC currently favours single cities. However, my argument is that the costs have become so great that most national governments cannot justify putting so much investment into just one city, and so need to share the benefits around a number of cities. They can justify London or Paris or other large capitals (despite huge grumbling from the rest of us) because its the capital and its way bigger than any other city in the country, but I don't think politically any Government could now get away with pumping billions into just one regional centre. It wouldn't matter which city it was, even Edinburgh, it's just not going to have the political clout to persuade a national government that billions can go to it and it alone. However, if the investment and benefits were shared across two or three cities, the economics could stack up. And the politics could also stack up, as there would be regional as well as city supporters, many more MPs supporting it, and it would have a chance. Remember, Liverpool and Manchester are roughly as close to each other as Heathrow is from Barking, so in London terms they are very close neighbours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,356 Posts
Twin bids are generally frowned upon by the IOC. Generally because if the transport infrastructure between cities goes down, then large chunks of the games is disrupted.

Plus 2030 will be a winter Olympics, which I don't think the UK can really host.

2032, however, well, who knows. The furthest ahead rumoured bid is Paris 2024, if 2028 went somewhere else I still doubt it could come back to Europe so soon. However, I still feel that in the UK, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Edinburgh have enough of a world city clout to host a Games at some point. I would love a Dublin games as well at some point, but not for a long time.

It really does depend on how the Olympic movement changes over the next few decades. I still feel London will be the last of the 'big' Games like Sydney, Athens and Beijing. Dubai if it ever hosts one will simply be a ridiculous state of affairs which no city will ever be able to match and prove to be the beginning of the end of the Olympic Games.
 

·
UK (Eng/Sco/Wal/N.I.) UK
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
I like your logic and a joint:
Liverpool / Manchest Games would be great.

there is always the fact the IOC like the bids to be single cities though.

I agree with Darjole that if/when we get the Olympic again in the UK after london then it could be a much smaller scale and therefore could be hosted in the likes of Liverpool.

I too think that a Dublin games would be fun. Though, since I'm British I'd rather have the investment in the UK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Twin bids are generally frowned upon by the IOC. Generally because if the transport infrastructure between cities goes down, then large chunks of the games is disrupted.

Plus 2030 will be a winter Olympics, which I don't think the UK can really host.

2032, however, well, who knows. The furthest ahead rumoured bid is Paris 2024, if 2028 went somewhere else I still doubt it could come back to Europe so soon. However, I still feel that in the UK, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and Edinburgh have enough of a world city clout to host a Games at some point. I would love a Dublin games as well at some point, but not for a long time.

It really does depend on how the Olympic movement changes over the next few decades. I still feel London will be the last of the 'big' Games like Sydney, Athens and Beijing. Dubai if it ever hosts one will simply be a ridiculous state of affairs which no city will ever be able to match and prove to be the beginning of the end of the Olympic Games.
Damn, I can't change the poll or thread title - lets call it 2032 then, as I don't think Liverpool is good for skiing.

The IOC needs to reform, and national governments who pick up the tab will hopefully gang up and tell it were to go. They make the Games absurdly and unecessarily expensive to host. It is, after all, just a few weeks when athletes get together to compete. Instead of allowing a temporary media city in tents, they insist on a £100m plus permanent structure media centre! In all sorts of respects, their demands are totally out of control.

The issue about two cities needs to be reconsidered, because the reality of these huge events in huge cities is very very different from the notion of one sporting community coming together, as it was in the 1930s or even the 1950s. Indeed, by clustering events around two smaller cities (which are only 30 miles apart) you would arguably get a better Olympic spirit for competitors.

Again, it's national Governments that pick up the tab, so in the case of Britain (and I think most European countries) we need to make the case. It might not make as much sense to say Canada or Australia or Brasil, where cities are far apart, but in Germany, Italy, England, Holland, where there is a barely a field between some neighbouring cities, there is a compelling logic - and it's the only way that in practical terms we could host the competition outside our capital cities.

There is no way that Government now would support, for example, a Manchester or other single-city bid in the way they supported the 2000 bid, because everyone now realises the vast drain on other projects around the country that the London bid has resulted in. It just won't be politically acceptable, things have changed, so winning for London means we need to change the way this is done in future.

So I think perhaps this is a Euopean-wide issue, although perhaps cities like Baltimore / Washington, however, might be examples from further afield of where cities could jointly bid, or some of the secondary Japanese cities that are very close together.
 

·
Profile of the Rising Sun
Joined
·
2,850 Posts
Have one city as the main host with a few other sports in neighbouring areas/cities.

Such as Glasgow with water sports at Loch Lomond, rugby in Edinburgh etc. etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Have one city as the main host with a few other sports in neighbouring areas/cities.

Such as Glasgow with water sports at Loch Lomond, rugby in Edinburgh etc. etc.

Hmmm, well I think that is pretty much the current model anyway, for example inland cities can't do the boating stuff, so that goes to the nearest suitable coastal location, and I think football also sometimes gets put around a few cities. I'd favour a more significant split in the activities between two neighbouring cities, rather than the current model of most activities in one city, and a few odds and ends elsewhere.

Can anyone remember the Los Angeles Olympics, I think they were in 1984. Would be interesting to know about them, because I'd not be surprised if they were geographically spread around a considerably larger area than say Liverpool and Manchester and the area inbtween. Something that is described as "one city" may in fact be a huge sprawl with no single centre and involve athletes being bussed around long distances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,365 Posts
None, a complete waste of money with no tangeable benefits brought to the area just a load of expensive facilities for minority sports.

The Los Angeles Olympics was not that spread out, the indoor stuff was done in Inglewood at the Forum which is next to Hollywood Park racetrack where the equestrian stuff was done, the main stadium was 4 miles away in Exposition Park on the edge of Downtown whilst the football final was at the Pasedena Rose Bowl about 6 miles north west of downtown.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,908 Posts
This is never going to happen. For one thing, it's only 20 years (5 games) on from London 2012. It will do well to come back to Europe, let alone the UK by then.

There will be dozens of other cities considered before they look at the UK (not least, thanks to the emerging economies of China, India, Russia).

But more than any of that, the IOC will NEVER accept a joint bid by two or more cities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
This is never going to happen. For one thing, it's only 20 years (5 games) on from London 2012. It will do well to come back to Europe, let alone the UK by then.

There will be dozens of other cities considered before they look at the UK (not least, thanks to the emerging economies of China, India, Russia).

But more than any of that, the IOC will NEVER accept a joint bid by two or more cities.
Never say never - one day the IOC will not exist, nor will the current land masses we take for granted. And, before the IOC one days goes out of business, they will change. They will be reformed before too long I think, they are increasingly anacronistic and out of touch with the modern world.

I agree the competition is going to be fierce, and I didn't mean necessarily winning, I meant a credible entry. If not 2032, when, 2040? Remember, our regional cities are getting bigger, stronger and wealthier. They will be pushing harder to play a role internationally, rather than waiting for national Government to decide whose go it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,982 Posts
Why do you say that?
1. There are no summer games in 2030.
2. After Rio, Cape Town and others get their turn between 2020 and 2028, Manchester is the only candidate that stands out that;
1. would be able to convince the IOC to return to the UK in 2032
2. would have the infrastructural and organizational capacity to host the olympic games.

Its all a build up, you dont suddenly host games at your first attempt. Manchester's track record by 2025(year of election of 2032 host) will be impeccable but thats just my opinion.

Birmingham? uhm..maybe..but no
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
1. There are no summer games in 2030.
2. After Rio, Cape Town and others get their turn between 2020 and 2028, Manchester is the only candidate that stands out that;
1. would be able to convince the IOC to return to the UK in 2032
2. would have the infrastructural and organizational capacity to host the olympic games.

Its all a build up, you dont suddenly host games at your first attempt. Manchester's track record by 2025(year of election of 2032 host) will be impeccable but thats just my opinion.

Birmingham? uhm..maybe..but no
Mo, you are reading too fast - we are talking about 2032, read up, and I've asked which year after that.

What is your knowledge of UK regional centres? "Manchester is the ony candidate that stands out"....Why? What do you base this on? It's a bit daft saying it if you don't say why you believe it. Organisational capacity? Do you know the staffing capabilities of the various English local authorities? It's just a really daft thing to say unless you do. Manchester City Council has no greater ability at organising big events than most other big cities, and like all of them it buys in expertise and resource when something big or unexpected comes up. Do you think a small city maintains staff just in case there is a big event to organise? They don't. They hire in consultants, secondees from Government and other agencies, and temporary and contract staff. It's what Liverpool is doing for the European Capital of Culture event, and what Glasgow will be doing if it wins the Commonwealth Games.

Ive explained that politically it's almost certain that no single city (except London) will ever be offered serious Government money for this, so we need to find a new way of looking at this issue. I suspect the same may apply in some other countries as well. It's a major issue as regards the ability of the Olympics to go to non-capital cities in the future.

Where do you stand on the "two city" notion? That is really what this thread is about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
Why Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool suggestion when Sheffield has world class facilites already?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,016 Posts
The trouble with a twin city bid could be deciding if both cities will be equal partners or if one will be leader. Locating the main Olympic stadium could cause problems as it's the main piece of infrustructure, has the cerimonies and will have most of the competitors using it. For example, would Liverpool be happy with Manchester having the staduim if they won a joint bid?

Also, one of the key arguments that London used to win the games was that the Stratford site would allow for a more compact event and reduce costs, in terms of fewer journeys made by competitors and crowds and building transport infrustructure.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top