gh wrote:we keep trudging over the same tired ground, so I'm off this thread. I can only correct the same misconceptions over and over so many times a year.
My bottom line response to the original subject line: the Eugene bid is a great idea for one reason and one reason alone... it's a quantum leap better than no bid.
And if Eugene doesn't bid, no other American city will (until a Chicago gets back into the Olympic bidding business). End... of... story.
ok, lets see.
ask the athletes. i think they say yes. ask the coaches. i think they say yes ask the fans. i think they say all kinds of things.
at the end of the day, where do you want it? EUGENE. and NOT FRICK'IN DC or some such other apathetic site. go where people care, have passion. it'll be GREAT!
in regard to accommodation and what not, i'm for chaos and mahem myself. chaos and mahem mixed with can-do people is, in my experience, is a lot of fun my friends.
gibson wrote:ask the athletes. i think they say yes. ask the coaches. i think they say yes ask the fans. i think they say all kinds of things.
Unless they're putting up $70 million (not counting facility costs) and are getting the State of Oregon or the US government to agree to any and all shortfalls, it's not up to them.
gh wrote: the Eugene bid is a great idea for one reason and one reason alone... it's a quantum leap better than no bid. And if Eugene doesn't bid, no other American city will (until a Chicago gets back into the Olympic bidding business). End... of... story.
That was my point from the get-go. Everyone understands that Eugene is not the ideal site for a number of reasons, but it sure beats the HELL out of a second site, cuz there ain't none!
gh wrote: the Eugene bid is a great idea for one reason and one reason alone... it's a quantum leap better than no bid. And if Eugene doesn't bid, no other American city will (until a Chicago gets back into the Olympic bidding business). End... of... story.
That was my point from the get-go. Everyone understands that Eugene is not the ideal site for a number of reasons, but it sure beats the HELL out of a second site, cuz there ain't none!
But it appears that some folks on this board feel that in this case, nothing is better than something.
Haven't posted in over two years so I forgot my old name!
Anywho, as a New York City resident, this whole discussion absolutely KILLS me. A few years back there was a proposed West Side Stadium in NYC which would have hosted the Jets and other large events (including being a large part of the 2012 NY olympics bid).
Blocked in substantial part by Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden and would have been forced to actually compete on its merits.
I can still close my eyes and see this beautiful stadium on the water in NYC (closed so wind wouldn't be a factor)...
The whole idea of Eugene, is ridiculous. Forget wrecking Hayward Field for no good reason--why not put a track in Autzen--the town is just not big enough for such an onslaught of visitors. And I suspect most of the folks in Eugene would hate the whole thing. Certainly no one I know who lives there would appreciate the chaos.
As somebody who's lived in Texas for quite awhile, I can tell you you do not want to have a track meet down here in the dead of Summer. The MLB the Texas Rangers play outdoors in North Texas, and people cook when they have a day game, and as we all know baseball is really not a particularly strenuous physical activity. My vote also goes to Seattle and its weather when it comes to a summer-time site for any kind of outdoor athletic event. Plus it's a major-league city with a major-league airport with lots of scheduled international service already in place. And besides what other city can you stand in downtown, look around at the gorgeous vistas, and feel like you are in a National Park ? Of course if you are talking not just the US but North America, Vancouver is even better.
nunusguy wrote:My vote also goes to Seattle and its weather when it comes to a summer-time site for any kind of outdoor athletic event. Plus it's a major-league city with a major-league airport with lots of scheduled international service already in place.
That airport is a good combination of international service and not being as busy as many other major airports.
jazzcyclist wrote:But it appears that some folks on this board feel that in this case, nothing is better than something.
It certainly seems that way, doesn't it?!
What you don't realize is that it's NOT something against nothing, it's NOTHING against NOTHING. Eugene isn't a site, it's a wish! You may as well be betting a Unicorn to win the Kentucky Derby over a field that includes a Clydesdale - neither will happen.
jazzcyclist wrote:But it appears that some folks on this board feel that in this case, nothing is better than something.
It certainly seems that way, doesn't it?!
What you don't realize is that it's NOT something against nothing, it's NOTHING against NOTHING. Eugene isn't a site, it's a wish! You may as well be betting a Unicorn to win the Kentucky Derby over a field that includes a Clydesdale - neither will happen.
Whether Eugene could win a bid is a matter of speculation and conjecture, but it seems that even if you were assured that they could win a bid, you still wouldn't want it to happen.
Dilan Esper wrote:Not to completely doubt you, but enclosing a stadium does not necessarily solve all wind issues. The San Francisco Giants found this out at a facility that I suspect that you have more than a passing familiarity with.
To our left we have water at 50 degrees and air at 52, to our right we have land at 100 degrees and air at 105 rising rapidly. 52 degree air decides to displace 105 degree air that has decided its current environment is getting too dense with that 52 degree air coming in.
In Eugene that 52-degree air is much further away, and the 105 degree stuff is not 105 and often has a mountain range in between (actually two, but one is only several thousand feet high, the one to the east is 10,000. Winds, yes, but Candlestick was a completely different environment. Eugene does not have fog streaming by it at 20 mph in July.
Conor Dary wrote: I suspect most of the folks in Eugene would hate the whole thing. Certainly no one I know who lives there would appreciate the chaos.
I'm sitting here (Eugene) in my sister's living room and we had just talked about this. She says many people would welcome the world and love to host it, but there'd be lots of 'hippies' who would resent the intrusion and the disruption and the hoopla. They protest EVERYTHING here that doesn't fit into their Weltanschauung.
It'll seat 100,000 and have plenty of luxury amenities, track aficionados could only dream of previously.
Lay some temporary Mondo down and all 800m and under races will be straightway races. Everything else starts its distance from the finish line. Every field event will fit right in front of the grandstand.
Yeah, yeah, it's not level, etc, etc., but fuck it the US public only cares about the spectacle not technicalities.
jazzcyclist wrote:Whether Eugene could win a bid is a matter of speculation and conjecture
It is as much a matter of speculation and conjecture as it whether Asmara or São Tomé could put up a winning bid. That's no slight against Eugene, which I enjoy as a host for the Trials, but there are certain key requirements for a world championships that are completely absent.
i lived in eugene for 5 years. there would be a lot of support i think. people with a weak pulse would vote no, even though they would probably benefit from the stimulus.
it is interesting the ideas bandied about. like putting a track in autzen. why not? perhaps the playing field is just a little small, but thinking out of the box, one could raise the track (like a large indoor one) and bring it right up to the edge of the seats. now that would be crazy. i.e. have a bislett effect.
IMAGINE THE SPECTACLE
Michigan coach Lloyd Carr later said that Autzen Stadium was the loudest stadium he'd ever been in.[23]
In 2006, a Sporting News columnist named Autzen the most intimidating college football stadium in the nation.[24]
Lee Corso of ESPN College Gameday frequently says that; "Per person Autzen Stadium is the loudest stadium that I have ever been in my entire life!"[25]
you know that eugene can accommodate 60,000 people for a one of outing for football. now, how can you accommodate those people for a week or so? that is the question.
current resources include.
dorms - for out of country hotels - for out of town motor homes and portable accommodation - americans campsites apartments vacant for summer home-stays
i guess it comes down to - how many out of country folk want to come? 5,000 , 10,000, more? and can the organizers free up the 10,000 dorm, hotel and apartment spaces to accommodate these numbers?
from a friend in the bid business, who was a member of the LA Organizing Committee
<<your posters should know that as regards football stadia, a minimum IAAF configuration for an eight-lane track is 194 yards length by 102 yards wide (a regulation U.S. football field is 120 yards long by 53 yards wide). Even the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and the new Cowboys Stadium in Dallas cannot handle these dimensions without tearing seats out (I checked).>>
OK; I have a suggestion. Why don't we all start a petition/letter to the Government of the United States of America, the richest country in the world and the number one country in the world in the sport of track and field. Ask the government if they could please provide some million of dollars (like 0.0001% we spend on space exploration or fighting wars on various parts of the planet) to build a state of the art stadium that can accommodate the sport of track and field according to the international standards. Stadium can eventually be used for the Olympic games, World championships, Pan american games, world juniors, world youth, USA championships, NCAA championships, international meetings etc... Stadium could also accommodate soccer games, as well as cultural events like concerts. Or even political rallies. Stadium should be built in a big metropolitan area that can accommodate for the thousands that will come for the international meetings. In a place with or near an international airport. In a place of historical and cultural significance and international fame (like Chicago, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco just to mention some). Maybe stress the fact that track and field is one of the if not the oldest sport in the world (2700 years old), respected and admired by the rest of the world. Bring up the USA success in the sport in the last 150 years! and what a shame it is for this country not to have a place for this amazing and historical sport that has brought so much fame and world respect to this country.
I'm not from Texas so I don't know the condition or anything, but here is a stadium that doesn't list a current occupant. Yeah, distance runners might bitch, but so what, it's not like they're going to set a WR at a WC anyway.
preston wrote:I'm not from Texas so I don't know the condition or anything, but here is a stadium that doesn't list a current occupant. Yeah, distance runners might bitch, but so what, it's not like they're going to set a WR at a WC anyway.
North Texas recently built or is building a new football stadium. I don't know if they're dismantling that one. It would have some suites on the home side. However, the turn are probably tight.
North Texas moved into Apogee Stadium in 2011. Unless this one has been dismantled (I don't think it has, based upon what I've read so far) it has 30,500 seats. Also, it seems that it would be much easier to take out seats here if that was what was needed to put in a proper Mondo track.
preston wrote:I'm not from Texas so I don't know the condition or anything, but here is a stadium that doesn't list a current occupant. Yeah, distance runners might bitch, but so what, it's not like they're going to set a WR at a WC anyway.
The multis would also be hammered, especially since they would be out in the daytime for large numbers of hours at a time and dehydration is an issue under normal circumstances. So now we are up to 12 events that are heavily impacted (or 10 if you think the 1500 is not affected by such conditions. And are you going to run the marathon at 4 in the morning?
Who are you going to get to sit in the stands for 6 hours or whatever under those conditions. Two years ago when the Regionals were there they had temperatures ten degrees lower and it was pretty hot even though I did only two hours at a time and was there mostly late in the day.
People were worried (unnecessarily, in my view) about the weather in Daegu and Austin could be 15 degrees hotter, with higher dew points. How are you going to get a European who may have never seen a temperature of 40C to vote for a place that last year had the temperature for the 10th percentile (i.e., 90% of the days had temperatures that were higher). And that stadium is not very nice, it might be better to build a new one and it needs a warmup track near by, and you are probably not going to build one on campus and the expressway is on the other side and the other side of the expressway is unacceptable by IAAF requirements.
preston wrote:North Texas moved into Apogee Stadium in 2011. Unless this one has been dismantled (I don't think it has, based upon what I've read so far) it has 30,500 seats. Also, it seems that it would be much easier to take out seats here if that was what was needed to put in a proper Mondo track.
The stadium question is an easy one after you figure out how to get the money to put on the meet and how to get the government to financial back it. Any bid is a non-starter until you get those two checked off.
gh wrote:from a friend in the bid business, who was a member of the LA Organizing Committee
<<your posters should know that as regards football stadia, a minimum IAAF configuration for an eight-lane track is 194 yards length by 102 yards wide (a regulation U.S. football field is 120 yards long by 53 yards wide). Even the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and the new Cowboys Stadium in Dallas cannot handle these dimensions without tearing seats out (I checked).>>
Well obviously if you put a track in Autzen you would have to rip out some seats, a far better idea than destroying Hayward. And a hell of alot cheaper. Also Autzen has parking and is far more accessible.
gh wrote:from a friend in the bid business, who was a member of the LA Organizing Committee
<<your posters should know that as regards football stadia, a minimum IAAF configuration for an eight-lane track is 194 yards length by 102 yards wide (a regulation U.S. football field is 120 yards long by 53 yards wide). Even the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and the new Cowboys Stadium in Dallas cannot handle these dimensions without tearing seats out (I checked).>>
Well obviously if you put a track in Autzen you would have to rip out some seats, a far better idea than destroying Hayward. And a hell of alot cheaper. Also Autzen has parking and is far more accessible.
But Eugene is still a dumb idea.
Based on the measurements that GH's friend references (194y long & 102y wide), you'd pretty much have to rip out ALL of the seats at Autzen to fit an acceptable track. If you have GoogleEarth you can do a rough measurement of the stadium using the satellite image. You have to remember, as well, that the upper-deck seats in most football stadiums don't have sight-lines for the track. That's something that most people who refer to the UW (Seattle) stadium as an option don't consider - you can't/couldn't see the closer side of the track from the upper-deck.
gh wrote:from a friend in the bid business, who was a member of the LA Organizing Committee
<<your posters should know that as regards football stadia, a minimum IAAF configuration for an eight-lane track is 194 yards length by 102 yards wide (a regulation U.S. football field is 120 yards long by 53 yards wide). Even the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and the new Cowboys Stadium in Dallas cannot handle these dimensions without tearing seats out (I checked).>>
Well obviously if you put a track in Autzen you would have to rip out some seats, a far better idea than destroying Hayward. And a hell of alot cheaper. Also Autzen has parking and is far more accessible.
But Eugene is still a dumb idea.
Based on the measurements that GH's friend references (194y long & 102y wide), you'd pretty much have to rip out ALL of the seats at Autzen to fit an acceptable track. If you have GoogleEarth you can do a rough measurement of the stadium using the satellite image. You have to remember, as well, that the upper-deck seats in most football stadiums don't have sight-lines for the track. That's something that most people who refer to the UW (Seattle) stadium as an option don't consider - you can't/couldn't see the closer side of the track from the upper-deck.
Well, that settles that. 102y is a lot.
Eugene is still a dumb idea. It would be like having the Super Bowl at South Eugene High School. I wonder what the locals would think of that.
let's look at bislett. certification while desirable, is it really necessary? i.e. examine the statement below that only a handful of stadiums are certified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bislett_Stadion
The New Bislett Stadium meets international requirements for track and field events. The running track now has eight lanes with a 37,5 m turning radius (the previous stadium only had six lanes, forcing the Bislett Games organizers to install temporary lanes on the long stretch for the 100 m event). The track has received a 1st class certification by the IAAF, shared by only a handful other stadiums in Northern Europe. In addition, there is an indoor running track beneath the stands for warming up and for indoor workouts during the winter, and the construction of an underground sports hall is under consideration. The new turning radius has provided space for a 105 x 68 m football pitch, and the stadium currently meets national requirements for hosting football matches in the Norwegian Premier League.
ok, after a big bottle of beer, i think that the plan might be to do yet another reno of hayward. a very preliminary finding is that autzen might be more expensive to renovate, at the cost of how many seats? 10k?
someone take it from here.
edit: i see not that the plan is to modify hayward (lananna june 17)
IF IT GOES AHEAD - DO NOT MAKE THE FIELD TOO BIG. KEEP IT INTIMATE.
Last edited by gibson on Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
gh wrote:from a friend in the bid business, who was a member of the LA Organizing Committee
<<your posters should know that as regards football stadia, a minimum IAAF configuration for an eight-lane track is 194 yards length by 102 yards wide (a regulation U.S. football field is 120 yards long by 53 yards wide). Even the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and the new Cowboys Stadium in Dallas cannot handle these dimensions without tearing seats out (I checked).>>
Honestly, of all of our problems, this is probably the least serious one. Those dimensions are what are required for the typical modern track configuration, with the jump runways outside the track.
However, it's pretty clear the IAAF isn't wedded to those dimensions. Helsinki's Olympic Stadium has hosted two worlds and doesn't meet it. Edmonton didn't meet it either. Heck, your friend worked on LA '84 and the Coliseum didn't meet it! (It was long enough but not wide enough.)
If the IAAF actually wanted to award the WC's to a US bidder, they would not insist on the gigantic field.
gh wrote:from a friend in the bid business, who was a member of the LA Organizing Committee
<<your posters should know that as regards football stadia, a minimum IAAF configuration for an eight-lane track is 194 yards length by 102 yards wide (a regulation U.S. football field is 120 yards long by 53 yards wide). Even the University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and the new Cowboys Stadium in Dallas cannot handle these dimensions without tearing seats out (I checked).>>
And Jerry Jones has no desire to rip out the seats of Cowboys Stadium. He would rather add more seats.
Oh I know... Seattle is the perfect location on so many levels. But the lack of a facility is almost certainly insurmountable. As mentioned before, UW is in the middle of a major renovation of Husky Stadium and has removed the track. They are building a new track, but I doubt it's laid out in a way that would work for Worlds, and I doubt sufficient seating could be added.
The city of Seattle owns West Seattle Stadium, but there are historic issues with that facility, and you couldn't make any real changes without carving significant space out of the golf course next to it. Even if someone was willing to pay for a new track there, I can't imagine the city being willing to lose a golf course.
I think Seattle Public Schools own the rest of the rubber tracks in the city limits. The best one is at Chief Sealth, that's what we use for JOs, but you'd have to sacrifice the FieldTurf infield and nearby baseball or whatever fields for a sufficient renovation, and there's no benefit to the school district.
Just barely north of the city limits is Shoreline Stadium, but it also has a FieldTurf infield and it sits on the edge of a big hill on one side, and a complex of buildings on the other, so a major renovation there would pretty much be impossible.
South of the city, I don't think there is anything noteworthy until you get to the colleges in Tacoma: UPS and PLU. I haven't spent much time at either track, but from the looks of things on Google, I think they both have grass infields. A big investor might be able to convince one of those schools to let them come in and build a stadium.
Being in Tacoma doesn't quite have the appeal of being in Seattle, but it's not terribly far away and the airport sits between the two cities. Traffic between Seattle and Tacoma can be bad. Overall good location to draw fans from Oregon and BC, and there are ample hotels in the region. Dorms would be an option at the colleges, though I don't think there are many (any?) hotels within walking distance. Most of the colleges around here are on the quarter system, with fall quarter not starting until late September, so the timing would probably work with the schools.
What Seattle has that most of the major cities like Chicago and DC don't is an outstanding USATF Association that, combined with someone like Vin Lanana, could actually pull off an event like this. It's not Portland, but it's not _that_ far from Nike HQ either.
But I can definitely say that the local governments would not be willing to put any significant amount of money into it. The locals are VERY hostile toward tax dollars going toward stadium building, it's been a hot HOT issue for the past 15 years, with much drama about the Mariners, Seahawks, Sonics and their facilities.
