Why not use the same venues more than once? For example, why not let a city, like Torino, host the next Olympics also? That way they might get a better return on their investment and give the next host city more time to prepare. Is there a reason this wouldn't work, besides the possibility of the host city getting fed up with the Olympics?
2010 Games In Crisis
- Thread starter R.D.
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Reading the article again, it looks to me like there is a lot of politics going on (big surprise). Now they are claiming that they need 2.5 billion dollars (instead of a paltry 580 million) because they have to build a new highway and a new railroad.
But they were going to build the new highway and improve the railroad anyway. As far as I can see the only extra Olympics related expense is to run a little railroad spur down to the Olympic village.
There is always a lot of moaning about big projects like this, and huge cost overruns are par for the course (the taxpayers would never approve anything if the politicians told them the actual cost up front).
What would be cool is if Speedy stood up for himself and insisted on a regulation sized rink, as per the original contract. (I guess he is too busy laying down the law about Skating With Celebrities shows.)
But they were going to build the new highway and improve the railroad anyway. As far as I can see the only extra Olympics related expense is to run a little railroad spur down to the Olympic village.
There is always a lot of moaning about big projects like this, and huge cost overruns are par for the course (the taxpayers would never approve anything if the politicians told them the actual cost up front).
What would be cool is if Speedy stood up for himself and insisted on a regulation sized rink, as per the original contract. (I guess he is too busy laying down the law about Skating With Celebrities shows.)
Whenever you have public projects going on there will always be politics involved SOMEHOW- that's how I look at it.
The exact context of the article when talking about the railroad was that the only difference with the Olympics coming to town was that they needed to add an extra *STOP* along the way. I don't know whether to take this literally or not (was the railroad originally planned to pass by the area which will become the olympic village in 2010?) but my impression is it's all about cost, budget and POLITICS (in that order).
Has there ever been a Winter Games where the ice events were held on the smaller NHL sized rink? Or will this be a first? (And on that topic, is the decision final or will they extend the size of the rink if they can?)
The exact context of the article when talking about the railroad was that the only difference with the Olympics coming to town was that they needed to add an extra *STOP* along the way. I don't know whether to take this literally or not (was the railroad originally planned to pass by the area which will become the olympic village in 2010?) but my impression is it's all about cost, budget and POLITICS (in that order).
Has there ever been a Winter Games where the ice events were held on the smaller NHL sized rink? Or will this be a first? (And on that topic, is the decision final or will they extend the size of the rink if they can?)
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
I also thought that this would be a good idea, but I think that the IOC wants to spread the Games over as many places as possible (within reason). For example, they encourage South American cities to bid for the Summer Games because the Olympics have been held there only once iirc. I don't think that, in principle, the IOC would explicitly say that its plan is to rotate the Games between, say, 7 or 8 cities but when Athens 2004 didn't look like it was going to be finished on time, there was talk in the media that the Games should be reassigned to another city. Maybe in the future this will actually happen and so basically the same cities will keep hosting the Olympics.
Another possibility: let whole countries or regions bid for the Games, rather than just a city - much like the World Cup of soccer. This way, the costs and venues could be spread out more evenly and already-existing infrastructure and buildings could be used.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
The problem with the 'whole country' approach is that it dilutes the 'olympic experience', ie the skiers and skaters and sledders all rubbing elbows in the opening ceremonies and olympic village and attending each others' events. If figure skating is in Calgary and hockey's in Vancouver, what you have is a bunch of discrete competitions rather than the olympics and the excellent question of 'why are we doing this?' arises.
The competitions themselves are secondary to that in a sense. Actually, as competitions in and of themselves, olympic figure skating is usually no more than a C+ (due to extra hype-pressure and lousy training schedules).
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
The other countries can always cone off the extra space so that their skaters get use to the size of the rinks. In North America most skaters are stuck training in NHL or smaller size rinks. Yet for years they had to make the transition to the Olympic size ice. Anyway, elite skaters skate in all size rinks for competition and for shows and this really shouldn't matter much for them.
singerskates
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
ITA!!!!To cut back now, I would think, is cutting back on their contract... and shouldn't be allowed... period.
Don't worry about this too much. Vancouver will not be "cutting back." We who live here in Lotus land are used to this kind of press. They like to keep us on our toes. If anything most everyone here is prepared for the games to go over cost. The majority of Vancouverites wanted the games and won the bid, they will carry on and I am sure be successful. The news media likes to get a hold of any kind of inside info they can and run with it. They said the same thing about Expo 86 and it turned out to be the best event to ever hit Vancouver - pretty much put us on the map. It was overbudget as well, but hey we all had a blast.
Most of our venues - skating rinks, etc. are already built so we don't have to provide new rinks unlike Torino did. I am sure the folks in Italy were having negative press before the games hit. Don't worry Vancouver will deliver.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
That I think is where the concern came from in the first place - that they weren't going to build a new one....so the question arises......
Are there any venues that already have the 99ft / 30m width rinks? Or are they all NHL? - which I think is kinda bogus to start with that NHL cut it 15 feet / over 4.5 m in the first place from hockey. I guess they want more fans to fit or it was too hard on the hockey players, but if it was left alone to begin with there would be an extra foot / .3m to skate on. OH well.
This has already been tried on a regional level, but the bid was eliminated in October 2001.
http://www.gamesbids.com/english/bids/usa.shtml
I think regional bids are a good idea. It's seems to be too costly for one city.
Lynn