The International Olympic Committee (IOC) says there is 'no need to panic' over the stadium debate ahead of the 2032 Brisbane Games.
However, it seems everyone has an opinion on the Gabba redevelopment or purpose-driven precinct debate and the Queensland Premier's decision to reject the Victoria Park proposal.
The various options' estimated costs and perceived merits vary widely, and I wonder how these experts arrive at their estimates without full briefing and design documentation.
I also wonder if the discussion around constructing a centrepiece, the stadium, distracts from the concept of a host city delivering an experience.
The precinct in Rio was purpose-driven, and eight years later, does it add to the experience of visiting Rio? Possibly, I don't know. But I would not prioritise a trip to the former Olympic Village ahead of a trip to see the statue of Christ the Redeemer or the Copacabana Beach.
It's fun to master plan and build, and figuring out what to do with these structures after an Olympic Games can result in some ingenious (if costly) schemes. Note: Some structures were transported and converted into schools or regional sports facilities.
However, the focus on the stadium puzzles me, as the staging of the games is an opportunity to showcase the City and promote the experience of visiting Brisbane not only in 2032 but for decades to come. In this respect, the exemplar would not be Rio but Atlanta.
The Atlanta Games worked exceptionally well because they were part of what Atlanta naturally became.
I occasionally visit Brisbane for work or pleasure, and the City has transformed since my first visit in 2003. The potential is fascinating, but I don't live there, so I defer to others to decide what experience they want visitors and viewers to take away from the games.
However, I doubt that the stadiums figure as prominently in the imagination as this commentary would lead us to believe. How many seats were in the stadium when Muhammad Ali emerged to light the Olympic flame? Does anyone care?
コメント