Rachael S

So is there scope to make most sports open air maybe? It would slash costs and add a new experience for visitors. I think that for events like the olympics, people are there for sports tourism rather than tourism sport so they probably wouldn't mind a stripped back setting - they are there for the spectacle. Plus it would be a new and interesting way of hosting. In my studies, I have been looking at something called the Dutch Approach. It is a proposal from the Netherlands aimed at showing how the legacy of a mega sporting event can be leveraged. They apply it to the context of bidding for the 2028 olympic games and put emphasis early planning. Preparations for it started in 2006! So yes, Rio may have only had 3 years, but if it was something they knew they wanted then they should've started as soon as - before even bidding. If you want to, you can look up the Dutch Approach article: The future of mega sport events: examining the "Dutch Approach" to legacy planning - Stefan Hartman and Tjeerd Zandberg. Modular venues do sound like a great idea. This would especially help the argument that money should be spent on things like hospitals and schools rather than these big events.

It is easy to cut costs with outdoor sports but don't you think they will struggle to cut costs in other areas? What do you think can be done to cut costs?

How would accepting location as the distinctive factor benefit the planning or legacy of the games? And how would other sports adopt this approach? Wouldn't this only work with beach or water sports? I agree that it wasn't extremely successful, but it was more successful than previous games. Despite the Basketball Arena having to be dismantled, wasn't it better that that happened rather than having buildings without use and draining money? All materials used for the basketball arena were recyclable so at least it has been put to use somehow. The article I've attached says that it couldn't be used in Brazil because it worked out cheaper to build a new one. And as you said, it had a distinctive design. Do you think that the best way to deal with this in future games is to ensure a building has a simple design and negotiate costs with another country before going ahead and building it? https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/plans-to-re-use-olympic-basketball-arena-in-rio-shelved/8632974.article

This may be true but temporary infrastructure is gaining favour. The last 3 Olympic games have used it. Rio used 7 temporary facilities and one of the reasons London 2012 was successful was because of this. And I'm sure Quatar will do the same. They are cost effective and limits the possibility of white elephants. https://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/rethinking-olympic-infrastructure/en-gb/ "location as the distinctive factor" - can you explain this further please?

Will it really make a huge difference to the cost though? All host countries in the past years have had cost overruns when hosting the Olympics. Surely, if they can't keep costs down, its better to have re-useable, temporary infrastructure. it would be impossible to cut costs

Was London really that Successful though?