I’m reading lots of headlines saying thst this is an embarrassment. However almost everyone at my work, here & on reddit seem really happy the the commonwealth games have been cancelled.
Before this it was all about how much money was being wasted on the games. Now the goal posts are just moved.
At least we know this is better for the state.
We must be pretty solid in our collective opinion in Victoria considering we keep electing a set of parties the media in this country are obviously and demonstrably biased against, hey.
The difference in coverage compared to what Gladys has gotten (who was found to be corrupt), is startling.
With audio recordings of the corruption.
Official statement was that the promised housing and sports facilities were still going ahead, just not the games themselves so win/win
Yeah, opposition (and parroted by the media) is calling it an ‘embarrassment’ but IMO it’s a great thing. Money better spent elsewhere.
I agree it’s probably the right thing to not host, especially given the ROI is bad (at least according to some other states…)
But even though I think it’s a good thing, it is an embarrassment.
Announcing that you’re going to host, putting money / effort state-wide into preparing, and then dropping it is embarrassing. It sends a message that you can’t adequately plan for large events, and that your commitments aren’t worth much. I can’t really blame the opposition for trying to make some hay from it.
Worth noting that they only looked at it because nobody else would host it for the same reasons they’re dropping it now. Once fully costed figures were in it didn’t make sense.
The Commonwealth Games themselves need to rethink their entire approach if they want to continue to exist entirely.
As a Brisbanite, this makes me wonder…what are the conditions of the contract with the Commonwealth Games, and how do they compare to the Olympic Games? Would it be this simple for a future Brisbane Council/Qld Government to decide to axe the Brisbane Olympics?
Brisbane won the Olympics on an everything-is-already-built-so-no-blow-out-in-cost-likely campaign, and they were basically the only credible bid so got it with no contest. I think the Gabba is being upgraded because it was due for a face-lift anyway. Something like that - bris olympics is different situation.
And I think Bris Olympics only lacks accommodation facilities which will be built, then those apartments will very much help with the housing crisis after Olympics, so it all works and helps the city in the long run.
And pretty large satellite cities share the load, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast, is a point of difference also.
Thats’s my vague understanding, but don’t quote me.
That was definitely how it was sold, for sure. It seems to be rather less true in practice than it actually was stated, though. Among the works being done:
- A complete rebuild of the Gabba. Not a “face-lift”, but a complete demolition and rebuild.
- The school near the Gabba to be completely shut down to make way for an athletics warmup track, with its “replacement” to be located in a completely different catchment area
- The new final form of the planned Victoria Park/Barrambin upgrades to be delayed by essentially half a decade or more to allow for the BMX and cross-country equestrian
- A few other new or upgraded venues that are, at least in my opinion, much less controversial because they’re not big-ticket items and will easily be much-used by their sporting community post-Olympics.
I’m actually pretty pro-Olympics in general, especially compared to the majority of the Brisbane threddiverse, but these specifically are problems that do bug me.
The Olympic Committee specifically asked for bids that emphasized no-budget-blowouts due to many previous Olympics essentially bankrupting cities and the bad rep that was causing to the Olympics brand, and Brisbane’s bid was the only one that stacked up to scrutiny, is what I understand. So at least it wasn’t just politicians by themselves blowing smoke up are collective arses for a change - there was some kind of scrutiny.
I think the Gabba is a special case. They have been wanting to expand/fix the Gabba district for ages - the two 4-lane roads on either side that the back of the stands over-hang has been a problem forever. Olympics has given them a chance to fix the whole thing, link it up with the river better. They put in the bus tunnels to fix access fairly recently. Adelaide Oval had similar growing pains - that stadium put in large sail structures back in the 2000’s that were completely redone only 5 or 10 years later. The Gabba is a signature bit of infrastructure in the inner city worth doing - they will probably use it for big concerts and so on. The whole of the inner Brisbane city is coming along nicely, Southbank and bikeway upgrades and bridges, docks - it’s getting there.
The Olympics aren’t the Commonwealth games, it’s a global audience - think commonwealth games + china, north and south america, the rest of Europe. And Brisbane is an obscure city on the world stage, but has amazing weather and natural tourists attraction, theme parks - I think Brisbane will get value for money, put it on the map.
The Olympic Committee specifically asked for bids that emphasized no-budget-blowouts due to many previous Olympics essentially bankrupting cities and the bad rep that was causing to the Olympics brand
That’s true, but the criticism from people opposed to the Olympics is that this was purely a PR exercise and that in reality there’s no serious effort being made to avoid budget blowouts and huge spectacle just like previous Olympics.
Personally, I think this aspect is somewhere in the middle. It’s not going to blow out as much as past Olympics have, but nor is it being done up to the best hopes people had when hearing the intent of a lower-impact Olympics.
and Brisbane’s bid was the only one that stacked up to scrutiny
I think Brisbane was the only one that really even tried to put in a serious bid. Nobody else really wanted to.
I think the Gabba is a special case. They have been wanting to expand/fix the Gabba district for ages
Definitely true. But I’m not sure people were expecting a complete demolition and rebuild, followed by more major refurbishments post-Olympics. Is the entire rebuild necessary regardless of the Olympics? I don’t know enough about stadia to say.
the two 4-lane roads on either side that the back of the stands over-hang has been a problem forever
True, but I don’t think there are really plans to fix this. The new rail (CRR) and bus (Metro) options are nice, but the whole area could use some major road dieting too, and as far as I’m aware that’s not on the cards.
link it up with the river better
Unfortunately without that road dieting, walking and cycling are still not going to be very appealing options from the Gabba. It’s certainly possible to link up with the river currently, but it’s not pleasant, and none of the proposed changes I’ve heard of will change that. I will be very happy to be wrong there though.
they will probably use it for big concerts and so on
RIP Taylor Swift fans.
and natural tourists attraction
For sure. I could not agree more with former Councillor Jonathan Sriranganathan when he says “we should start by recognising that we are already Australia’s greenest major city. This is a key strength we could build upon as the world’s eyes turn towards us.” (while I disagree with his stance that we should simply not have the Olympics at all). Our greenery and wildlife should be what Brisbane leans into in creating its “brand” for the Olympics.
From the image in this link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-17/gabba-stadium-redevelopment-funding-2032-olympics-infrastructure/101988206
…looks to me like they will be linking the river by sinking the roads surrounding and capping them with pedestrian walking areas, or some of them anyway . $2.7 billion price tag. The walkway links look like they are trying to give access to southbank/ the rocks but also river frontage at Mowbrow Park on other side of Kangaroo point.With the Gabba I think it’s all about increasing the oval size and stand capacity so they can complete with other large stadiums in Australia for events.
Here’s another article: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/17/brisbane-2032-olympics-live-arena-gabba-rebuild-redevelopment-queensland
…which says the proposed new stadium will only add another 8000 seats. There’s also pics of an alternate and cheaper proposal to have demountable stadium then reuse the materials from that after games for other infrastructure. Insteresting.There is a nice pedestrian connection planned over Main St, but I’m not seeing any proposed changes to Stanley St or Vulture St, or anything west of the CRR Gabba station, which would be required to make the connection to Southbank nice.
so they can complete with other large stadiums in Australia for events
Honestly I’m not really sure this is it. Taylor Swift isn’t coming here on this tour, but supposedly if she had come it would have been to Lang Park, not the Gabba. She’s playing at an NRL stadium in Sydney and a cricket/AFL one in Melbourne. I don’t think stadium size is the reason for not coming, and I doubt it is for any other events.
I feel like the Olympics are more complicated. That is a world event and commonwealth is just the British empire
just the British empire
Your main point is still 100% correct, but fun fact: there are a few countries in the Commonwealth that weren’t ever in the British Empire. Rwanda, for example, was colonised by Germany and Belgium, while Togo was French.
So why did they choose to be in the commonwealth? Or are they just in it for the medals?
Some relevant Wikipedia quotes:
New members must “as a general rule” have a direct constitutional link to an existing member. In most cases, this is due to being a former colony of the United Kingdom, but some have links to other countries, either exclusively or more directly (e.g., Samoa to New Zealand, Papua New Guinea to Australia, and Singapore to Malaysia).
Rwanda was permitted to join despite the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) finding that “the state of governance and human rights in Rwanda does not satisfy Commonwealth standards”, and that it “does not therefore qualify for admission”.[70] CHRI commented that: “It does not make sense to admit a state that already does not satisfy Commonwealth standards. This would tarnish the reputation of the Commonwealth and confirm the opinion of many people and civic organisations that the leaders of its governments do not really care for democracy and human rights, and that its periodic, solemn declarations are merely hot air.”
And from an article on The Conversation:
In the case of Rwanda, joining the Commonwealth was also intended as a diplomatic slap in the face to the French government from a Francophone country. Rwanda was a German colony, then a Belgian mandate, and was never under British rule. But the central Africa nation has been viewed as a French enclave in Africa.
Rwanda has been bickering with France for nearly 30 years, over involvement in the 1994 genocide. It’s only since the 2021 visit to Kigali by President Emmanuel Macron that relations seem to have taken a positive turn.
The BBC makes a similar point, albeit phrased a little more diplomatically:
Gabon and Togo have moved to strengthen their diplomatic armoury in a bid to ease their reliance on France.
So a lot of FU to France in that
I’m mildly disappointed but if it’s too expensive let’s not spend money on vanity projects
As someone originally from rural Victoria, I get it if it’s going to be that much more expensive.
