Olympic host city bids...

eugeneeugene
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=577&e=3&cid=577&u=/nm/20030221/sp_nm/olympics_athens_warning_dc"; target="_blank">Athens Handed Severe IOC Reprimand Over Games</a>



My question is:

Should nice vacation cities like Moscow, Athens, Buenos Aires, Istanbul even be taken seriously for Olympic bids when cities in better economic shape are plentiful and also making bids? Can these cities build the required venues, handle the amount of human traffic, and secure themselves in the amount of time they are given?



Hell, even Sarajevo was actively campaigning for the 2010 Winter Olympics not so long ago.



Having diverse locations is nice, but there are plenty of locations in the USA, Canada, western Europe, etc. that are surely more prepared. Sure it's not in the spirit of the games, but nobody wants to be an Olympian in a massive unfinished construction site with sub-standard security protocols in place...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Cities are starting to discover that even a very successful games can leave an urban/economic mess in its wake. Seems to me like evrybody before and after Atlanta has had complaints about debt, or potential debt (as new venues often become irrelevant). The socialist wak job IOC complained about Atlanta putting an advert on every square inch of property, but Atlanta is one of the few cities to make money on an olympiad. I think other cities would also make money if they didn't give away a the plum contracts to their friend in low places (but this is another -- epidemic -- issue with city governments through-out the world.



    Utah's been complaining, Montreal was an economic disaster, the Ausssies were quite happy with their games, but they had a plan to use the olympics to infuse their amatuer sports programs and facilities. Over 8 years they built their games in lock step with these ideas precisely so they would have something relevant left over after the games. A huge success for sport, but still expensive for the city.



    I dunno, it's good thing to think about. Are smaller places better suited? Are larger cities too invested in other areas to make a good effort? Will anybody care if the prevailing rule is a big expensive party with little long term contribution to sport or the civic development of a place?



    As for Athens, the worrying started almost the day after they won the bid. City bureaucracies are either corrupt or inept, as a rule. Athens may be one of the worst, hence the immediate whispering when they were chosen.
  • Reply 2 of 10
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Athens is spending most of its resources on construction and renovation when it should be focusing on the millions of spectators... Part of the problem is the one-upmanship that bascally started after the Barcelona Games in '92. Lillehammer '94 was an exception...they didn't go overboard, they put on a very good example of what an Olympiad should be like...even though the Winter Olympics are definitely much easier to host...



    I think I'm just sore San Francisco lost the 2012 bid. They had it right, IMHO...The plan was to use just $500 million in capital, all privately financed...all the venues were already in place. Compare this to NYC's bid which includes budget of $10 billion. <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
  • Reply 3 of 10
    stagflation stevestagflation steve Posts: 294member
    San Francisco was eliminated from the running because the IOC thought the city was to filthy and wasn't willing to deal with the militant homeless problem.



    My Sister-In-Law was on the SF Committee and she says that the IOC officals were complaining non-stop about the homeless problem and apprently a swiss IOC offical stepping out of a car sliped in some human waste on the sidewalk and broke his nose.



    Apprently he was quoted as saying "why should I have to watch my step... in MY country people don't desecrate public avenues"
  • Reply 4 of 10
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stagflation Steve:

    <strong>San Francisco was eliminated from the running because the IOC thought the city was to filthy and wasn't willing to deal with the militant homeless problem.



    My Sister-In-Law was on the SF Committee and she says that the IOC officals were complaining non-stop about the homeless problem and apprently a swiss IOC offical stepping out of a car sliped in some human waste on the sidewalk and broke his nose.



    Apprently he was quoted as saying "why should I have to watch my step... in MY country people don't desecrate public avenues"</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That is bullcrap of course. I've never seen poop on a San Francisco sidewalk. Plus, hardly any events would have been staged in the actual city of San Francisco. Only 12 events would have actually been held within the San Francisco city limit...



    It's you own damned fault if you wander into slums of any city. San Francisco was elminated because it didn't want to waste money on bulldozing existing venues and building new ones...and because the IOC suddenly had reason to be sympathetic to NYC, another city that has never hosted the Olympics.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Any city that doesn't have long-term planning and urban design exit strategies from the Olympics should not be a host city. The IOC should insist on a more long-term and benefitial role of the Olympics in those venues -- using the Games as a catalyst for growth.



    But the IOC is corrupt, narrow-minded and greedy. They think they are above such pedestrian concerns, and they're more concerned over the pomp and ceremony of two weeks every four years than they are about the ideals of the Games from an athletic, urban or cultural perspective. The Olympics are becoming just another over-budget Hollywood special effects production, with even the sports becoming a sideshow.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    The IOC has a history of inventing "problems" with clearly superior bids in an effort to push through its own favorite -- sometimes ideological, but often a function of who best greases its palms.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    colanderofdeathcolanderofdeath Posts: 1,261member
    If the Vancouverites house the referendum today they are getting 2010 probably. Between the preceding olympics being in North America, the fallout from the SLC scandal impacting the IOC and the current geopolitical situation that 2012 bid wasnt going to go to a US city anyway.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    My wife was in Turin on business about a year ago and thought, "They're having the olympics here?"
  • Reply 9 of 10
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:

    <strong>If the Vancouverites house the referendum today they are getting 2010 probably. Between the preceding olympics being in North America, the fallout from the SLC scandal impacting the IOC and the current geopolitical situation that 2012 bid wasnt going to go to a US city anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    SLC was hugely successful from the IOC's point of view. They sure as hell don't care about what happened before or after in hindsight.



    And what the heck are you talking about? The 2012 host city won't be picked for another 2.5 years. And I can tell you the favorite is NYC, by a mile.
  • Reply 10 of 10
    colanderofdeathcolanderofdeath Posts: 1,261member
    The Olympics were OK but the process was a political disaster. Dragging IOC members in front of congress to testify on how they were bribed did not endear our country to many on the IOC committees.



    As for the rest of what I'm talking about, it is plain as day. We'll see who gets the bid.
Sign In or Register to comment.