Uh ? Excuse me ?Plain and simple. Albertville as i read wasn't fondly remembered and wouldn't have hosted if Samaranch hasn't interfered to ensure victory for Barcelona over Paris. Falun, Sweden was the favorite to win the 1992 Winter Games after it placed second to Calgary but that didn't happen. You can read Andre Jennings' the great olympic swindle and you can paint a clearer picture.
Albertville was great, with a new kind of opening ceremony, that has been copied since then.
On the political aspects, Samaranch made sure Barcelona won, and instead France got 1992 Albertville and the 98 world soccer cup. That was a deal, and a good one IMHO.
Paris lost 2012 (THANK GOD FOR THAT !!) because it was felt London had a better chance of building the premises. From all accounts I have in the business of building, it's not working the way they thought, and indeed, the costs had to be cut short...
It's all a political game. You never know what deals are really going on.
And I am all for Munich !! go Munich !!
To date the spend has been going up not down (although that may change) and work on the venues is actually progressing surprisingly well imho (as someone who drives past the main park site every week). Not sure about venues outside London... As someone who knows a fair bit about construction in the UK I'm very pleasantly surprised so far.
Yes there have been some re-thinks on location and how to host some of the events (eg whether to actually build new buildings, moving some events away from the main site) but generally I think it was right for them to rethink how they did things. Trying to do so much in the area they were targeting would have been a logistical issue in my opinion - not in the building stage but in the hosting stage.
I think Munich would be a great location... I could be easily convinced to come to another Winter Games if Munich or Annency were hosting!
Last edited by mella; 06-23-2010 at 01:51 PM.
Also too much politicking robs us of the wrong cities. PyeongChang was just 3 votes shy of winning in the first round for 2010. Vancouver was the better bid and better proposal and nearly lost. Also, even though FIFA is a member of the IOC as one of the IF's its a different vote and different politicking involved. Samaranch got his way a lot of times. in 2000 he wanted Beijing to win but good thing sydney won. In 2008 better bids from Paris and Toronto lost because "El Presidente" wanted Beijing to finally get the Olympics despite China's human rights and environemental record which hasn't improved leading to the Olympics and after the Olympics. Also, during the 1996 Olympic bid per Mr. Jennings' book The Great Olympic Swindle, Samarch ordered the evaluation report re-written when Athens came out lowly. Instead of saying what the real score was it was rated excellent (Atlanta, Toronto and Mebourne) and good (Athens, Machester, Belgrade) when it wasn't the case. to the point that he abused his power.
interesting read about albertville 1993:
The Albertville Winter Olympics: Unexpected Legacies - Failed Expectations for Regional Economic Development
Last edited by lexeoe; 06-23-2010 at 01:23 PM.
I am for Korea. Despite being German. And I don't really see the similarities between Brazil and Korea.
Korea (and Japan) have proven again and again that they can organise very well, that they can handle their budgets (so that the country isn't bankrupt after the games à la Grèce), that they can provide amazing and hugely enthusiastic audiences and that they are very hospitable. I am sure they will rock it.
Exactly my point. These infrastructures had been needed for 20 years. And thanks to the game, it came alive.Savoie has resolved its infrastructure problems and, even if the Olympic Games did not pay for this investment, they clearly constituted the pretext needed for the region to obtain state funding. At the end of the day, was not that the most important ambition of the first initiators of this adventure, back in 1981?
there are several big project in the alps, to help with the traffic, but it never happens. At least, with any Olympic games, the real benefit is known : you can build the things you need and that you can't because it's too expansive.
the only real loser of albertville is "La Plagne". But it's not true anymore as of 2004.
Last edited by lexeoe; 06-23-2010 at 02:47 PM.
I have no opinion, but anyway, Annecy is a beautiful city !
Olys are supposed to be all about sports IMHO. What do you mean by "exclusivity" ? It's not supposed to be "all about the money".
That's one thing I am mad about. The games were not supposed to become what they are now : just a giant business.
And Savoie IS french, and part Swiss due to history. It's part of France to be regional, with each region having its own specialities in all, like it's part of the USA to be a federation. History is what it is, it's what defines each separate region of France. Same could be said about the regions in Spain and Italy or any other european country.
Part of what was great with Albertville is that they didn't destroy the nature around those games for the sake of money. That's the best in all that, it helped them increase the size of the national park "des Ecrins".
Most of the venues used the revenues to build infrastructures in accord with what is traditionnal building. They redid most of the ugly buildings you could see, copying in that courchevel 1800 who was already at that time a mini swiss station.
The games made no benefits true, but the things they did build to last for the station were the best part of it, and 20 years later (not 20 I know) those infrastructures hold and are part of what attracts people there.
I am from that Region, I have been skiing in La Plagne and Courchevel since I could ski so I know very well what was going on in those "cities".
My parents had a friend who was on the city council of La Plagne until his death, and he always showed us the loss of the city because of the bob track. I said it : they found a way not to lose money anymore, or just what the municipality can afford.
And I'm sorry, what I liked the best about Vancouver was that they showed their first nation's involvement and were all about their region.
the games are exclusive to a city. and the IOC has stressed that a lot.Concerning the first point, the lack of conviviality was systematically linked to the separation of the sites. In Britain, Michael Calvin remarked ironically in The Daily Telegraph: 'Juan Antonio Samaranch, President of the IOC, called the youth of the world to south-east France, and then scattered them over 650 square miles. The spirit he was supposed to nurture was lost on the wind. Competitors, from Switzerland to Senegal, complained about the lack of atmosphere. [ … ]. Athletes were made to feel that they were merely ratings fodder.' It was the same in Switzerland, where Michel Busset denounced, in Le Matin, the lack of atmosphere of the games due to their diffusion,  and even in France, where journalists had to admit that, for spectators and participants alike, the spreading out of the games over 11 sites, combined with the length of the games, destroyed the Olympic spirit and the special feeling of everyone being in one place.  The British and Americans were, moreover, particularly upset by the excesses of commercialism and the economy-first attitude, which they denounced as contrary to the spirit of the games. 
"it doesn't matter if you love what you do, but that you do what you love"
a quote Tomas Verner () gave me to think about...
the albertville report is very objective. i know you feel passionate about this.
Munich is a fantastic city with so many transportation options.
"This, after all, is opera, opera in New York, not some dainty pastime like professional hockey..." -- Chip Brown, NYT Magazine 24 Mar 13
Most of these resorts are less than 20 kms apart
Most of them can be called joined facilities like Méribel / Courchevel in one valley or La Plagne / Les Arcs / Tignes in the opposite one. There are even "téléphériques" between some of them.
There were indeed three different areas for different sports, it was a collective effort from "La Tarentaise" as we say. A way to spread the goods and limit the ill effects we had in Grenoble due to the 68 games.
Just about the same as Vancouver no ?
The only thing most of the environnementalist will beg to differ is due to the traffic inconvenience. Thanks to the game, there is more traffic, less (well sort of) jam. When I was a kid, it used to take us up to 6 hours to go to courchevel because of traffic jam, when it's supposed to be a 2 hours drive. Now it takes 1h30 min.
And environnementalists never thanked the games for helping closing one of the most atrocious plant ever in Moutiers, one that stinks so bad
Like they never thanked them for helping rebuild nearly all buildings in a way that doesn't make those resorts look like the "Côte d'Azur", a big cement block along the Méditerranée !
As for lack of conviviality, I will be blunt : Savoie (add Haute Savoir, Isère and probably Ain to that) isn't a very convivial place at all Or Grenoble either. They never smile, sometimes it feels like you are disturbing them. It's their home, their place, not those crazy tourists. What they hate the most are those arrogant parisians who pollute the mountains
The spreading of the games was more in terms of lodging for the athletes, as I was working as a volunteer I know the problem. Fact is the choice was made to lodge everyone on their competition site, and never reserve too much place in albertville. A choice you like or not.
They made a veeeerrrrrrrrryyyy big effort during those games to go against their natural trait. Some even discovered you could sell more when smiling