Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually, do either of you know anything about the IOC. Istanbul lost moreso bcuz of the political turmoil (with neighboring Syria & mass domestic protestiing) & Turkish doping scandals, etc, than bcuz their venue & legacy plan "sucked". They were willing to invest the most, so I don't see how that wouldn't have left a legacy. And USA has it backwords. The IOC may talk that it's "all about the athletes", but it's really about them & their precious games. And if they're lucky enough, then the athletes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

Actually, do either of you know anything about the IOC. Istanbul lost moreso bcuz of the political turmoil (with neighboring Syria & mass domestic protestiing) & Turkish doping scandals, etc, than bcuz their venue & legacy plan "sucked". They were willing to invest the most, so I don't see how that wouldn't have left a legacy. And USA has it backwords. The IOC may talk that it's "all about the athletes", but it's really about them & their precious games. And if they're lucky enough, then the athletes.

Do you need to take a chill pill

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ioc cares more about the experience of the athelete experience and how the olympic movement will contribute to the world rather than the legacy(which they still do care about).

That's what the IOC says they care about. If they really cared about the athlete experience or how the Olympic movement contributed to the world, they'd probably be a little more aggressive when their upcoming host country passes a law encouraging discrimination (they can say it's about protecting the children, but I'm not sure I buy that theory) and forget about their own ideals. The IOC is still a business that cares about making money and they're more likely to base a decision on what's best for the bigwigs of the sport federations and the NOCs rather than what's going to make the best experience for the athletes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also speaks volumes when FBI agents are going to be among U.S. athletes, & having the presence of two U.S. warships on "stand-by" in the Black Sea near the Sochi coast "just in case" they need to pull out the U.S. 2014 Olympic delegation in an emergency evacuation. Yeah, sounds like a real positive athlete experience to me.

The IOC knew all along what they were getting themselves into when they elected Sochi back in 2007. It's not like the Caucasus' have inflamed unrest overnight. Just think, these Games could've taken place in extremely picturesque (& "practical") Salzburg (the Sound of Music territory). Talk about a mystical & wonderful experience for all. But instead, we have Russian forces looking for "black widows" right now who might blow up the place. Yeah, but it's all about the athletes though. :-/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, I was born in LA as well and, by the sounds of it, before you were. No we don't have Central Park or Hyde Park or Regent's Park, but I have to question how well you know your hometown when you say there's no decent park apart from Griffith Park. Get out more.

I didn't say there were no decent parks. I said that Los Angeles' parks aren't as good as other major North American cities. Admittedly I have not lived in every major American city. But between LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Boston, Cleveland, etc LA is the worst. A big park of that is the water issue, though, which I suppose SoCal can't really help.

I wish I hadn't brought this up, though, since I didn't intend to start an argument about the relative merits of of parks departments of the various cities of the world. Let's move on and pretend I mentioned the issue.

You have ZERO evidence that LA took an economic hit due to the 1984 Games. Of course there is a quiet spell before and after the Games. Sure the locals left town to avoid the high traffic periods. No doubt about it. So what? Does that mean that on balance for the year the city ends up in the red? Not at all.

Numerous studies have been done on the displacement effect with events like the Super Bowl and Olympics. While I admit that I don't have numbers for Los Angeles in 1984, we do have numbers for the Olympics since then. Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London all saw a fall in annual tourists the year of their Olympics.

http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/escape/london-olympic-tourist-figures-disappoints-589656

http://www.offbeatbuzz.com/believe-it-or-not/beijing-tourist-numbers-fell-during-olympics/

http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co.uk/Articles/07/07/2008/321967/Olympics-hosts-see-falls-in-tourist-numbers-after-Games.htm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/30/do-the-olympics-boost-the-economy-studies-show-the-impact-is-likely-negative.html

Here's the simple truth: as far as the United States is concerned, if you don't pay attention to the budget you'll never get the public or governmental support necessary to host the Games. It's that simple. The public and the government have to be confident they won't get stuck with a big bill when it's all over. The United States is really the only country that can host the Games without dipping deep into public coffers. That model will be followed into the future.

Is there any reason we need to host the games? If the economic effects are at least slightly negative, there is no plan to reshape the host city and the public doesn't want to foot the bill then there's no reason to go through the effort of bidding on the games.

I went to the Olympics in Vancouver and would not have enjoyed them any more if they were in Seattle or Denver. But to be honest I have had no desire to go to any more of the games in person; TV is a lot easier even if the games are in your country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Numerous studies have been done on the displacement effect with events like the Super Bowl and Olympics. While I admit that I don't have numbers for Los Angeles in 1984, we do have numbers for the Olympics since then. Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London all saw a fall in annual tourists the year of their Olympics.

http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/escape/london-olympic-tourist-figures-disappoints-589656

http://www.offbeatbuzz.com/believe-it-or-not/beijing-tourist-numbers-fell-during-olympics/

http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co.uk/Articles/07/07/2008/321967/Olympics-hosts-see-falls-in-tourist-numbers-after-Games.htm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/30/do-the-olympics-boost-the-economy-studies-show-the-impact-is-likely-negative.html

Is there any reason we need to host the games? If the economic effects are at least slightly negative, there is no plan to reshape the host city and the public doesn't want to foot the bill then there's no reason to go through the effort of bidding on the games.

I went to the Olympics in Vancouver and would not have enjoyed them any more if they were in Seattle or Denver. But to be honest I have had no desire to go to any more of the games in person; TV is a lot easier even if the games are in your country.

My whole premise was that American Games, because of their reliance on private funds and existing infrastructure, can be trusted to finish in the black. Your statistics for non-American Olympics that have been funded in very different ways and included massive infrastructure projects prove nothing and are irrelevant to the conversation.

Does anyone NEED the Olympic Games? No. Certainly not.

The Olympic Games are a luxury that puts the host city and nation in the international spotlight (for good and ill) during the lead up to the Games and especially during the two weeks of competition. It's a big party and it's fun and exciting. It builds esprit d'corps and a sense of international bonhomie. It is not a "need."

If one can use the Olympics as a catalyst for getting children to be more physically active, for improving mass transportation, for some sort of urban renewal -- so much the better. But that does not mean that all American bids are pointless if they don't include a purpose-built Olympic park a la London -- which I believe was your original assertion about LA.

Let's also be clear that tourism figures are one tiny piece of the puzzle. Looking at them in isolation is very misleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole premise was that American Games, because of their reliance on private funds and existing infrastructure, can be trusted to finish in the black.

SLC could not survive on private funds and needed a Federal bailiout. And the entire cost structure has changed dramatically since Atlanta. There's little reason to belive an American bid could break even (which is one reason might might not see one.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I've no doubt an American host would see a nice profit on its OCOG operations - it ought to be able to raise good sponsorship and sell lots of merchandise and ticketing shouldn't be a problem. LOCOG, with a smaller domestic market, managed a £30m profit on its £2.5bn budget I think.

But to say it can be trusted to end up in the black when you include venue costs, infrastructure etc. too is hard to agree with given how much modern Games cost. Even a conservative bid like Madrid's had costs in the multiple billions. That has to come from somewhere.

I tend to agree with those who say the Olympics should be seen as an investment, because if you see them as an accounting excersise or a profit generator, you're always going to be on the losing side. An American city might come closest to breaking this trend, but it'd still be a big ask I think and there are less stressful ways of boosting your city's coffers than taking an Olympic budget right to the wire to try to squeeze out a small profit.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The NYCFC soccer team is looking for a place to call home within the five boroughs of NYC. The article below tells us that they are looking for a temporary stadium, and than a permanent one down the road. This could work for a bid down the road.

http://www.empireofsoccer.com/finalizing-temporary-stadium-22574/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Donald's MISS UNIVERSE organization only seeks a $12 million downpayment if your city wants to be displayed alongside the global beauties. And you don't need 2 dozen white elephants to stage it. Only a largish auditorium and one 4-star hotel which can set aside some 150 double-rooms and a photogenic swimming pool area!!

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I've no doubt an American host would see a nice profit on its OCOG operations - it ought to be able to raise good sponsorship and sell lots of merchandise and ticketing shouldn't be a problem. LOCOG, with a smaller domestic market, managed a £30m profit on its £2.5bn budget I think.

But to say it can be trusted to end up in the black when you include venue costs, infrastructure etc. too is hard to agree with given how much modern Games cost. Even a conservative bid like Madrid's had costs in the multiple billions. That has to come from somewhere.

I tend to agree with those who say the Olympics should be seen as an investment, because if you see them as an accounting excersise or a profit generator, you're always going to be on the losing side. An American city might come closest to breaking this trend, but it'd still be a big ask I think and there are less stressful ways of boosting your city's coffers than taking an Olympic budget right to the wire to try to squeeze out a small profit.

It would be a big ask, but I don't see any American bid going forward unless the ultimate goal is to at least come out even.

Tell people, "You can host the Olympics, but you're guaranteed to lose money" and they'll say no. That's why I'm arguing the whole model has to change.

There IS a way to finish in the black. It's been done. The fact that the Games have since grown in scale to a point where people say every single edition is guaranteed to finish in the red should set off alarm bells. Due to the cost/benefit analysis, you will see more cities foregoing bids -- as they should.

If anyone can halt this downward spiral, I believe it is the United States. That said, perhaps it's too late. Either way, a guaranteed money-loser will not get off the ground in any American city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say there were no decent parks. I said that Los Angeles' parks aren't as good as other major North American cities. Admittedly I have not lived in every major American city. But between LA, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Boston, Cleveland, etc LA is the worst. A big park of that is the water issue, though, which I suppose SoCal can't really help.

I wish I hadn't brought this up, though, since I didn't intend to start an argument about the relative merits of of parks departments of the various cities of the world. Let's move on and pretend I mentioned the issue.

Numerous studies have been done on the displacement effect with events like the Super Bowl and Olympics. While I admit that I don't have numbers for Los Angeles in 1984, we do have numbers for the Olympics since then. Atlanta, Sydney, Athens, Beijing and London all saw a fall in annual tourists the year of their Olympics.

http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/escape/london-olympic-tourist-figures-disappoints-589656

http://www.offbeatbuzz.com/believe-it-or-not/beijing-tourist-numbers-fell-during-olympics/

http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co.uk/Articles/07/07/2008/321967/Olympics-hosts-see-falls-in-tourist-numbers-after-Games.htm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/30/do-the-olympics-boost-the-economy-studies-show-the-impact-is-likely-negative.html

Is there any reason we need to host the games? If the economic effects are at least slightly negative, there is no plan to reshape the host city and the public doesn't want to foot the bill then there's no reason to go through the effort of bidding on the games.

I went to the Olympics in Vancouver and would not have enjoyed them any more if they were in Seattle or Denver. But to be honest I have had no desire to go to any more of the games in person; TV is a lot easier even if the games are in your country.

Every city will experience a drop and rise in visitors during the year of the games; no one except those who come during the games want to be caught up in the games lead up and aftermath. As for the cities afterwards, I have a bone to pick with them and the many people on this board which relates to that topic.

A major problem modern host cities face is undoubtedly the shifting economy. As our world heads into a Global economy the next few years or decades will be rocky; this is the first risk modern hosts take. The next risk is the recent trend of picking global and international cities which have been very well developed. The risk in this coincides with the economic risk (all of this I will explain further down). The next falls on the IOC; with a rocky political climate the IOC has to be assured that the host nation will be safe from mass-scaled protests, boycotts, or anything that tarnishes the rings (major reason the US and Russia will have to wait a long time until the games return to their shores).

So how does this all click? It all clicks with the legacy; Take Barcelona and Sydney for example. Both cities were not huge international cities like London or Beijing, but their games were focused on revitalizing the entire cites and turning them into world class destinations. After the rings were taken off of Sydney Harbor Bridge and the flame extinguished in Barcelona both cites saw a dramatic economic revitalization and establishment of both cities as international tourist destinations. This happened because of the mass marketing the Olympics bring and the opportunities each city had. Both had available land, a modern Olympic structure, and strong international reputations thanks to the games, this ensured growth that last even 22-14 years later.

Now let’s look at Atlanta, Athens, and Beijing. All three cities were established and very well developed international cities, in a sense that’s where the goods stop as the Olympics were only big merits added to their profile. This level of pre-existing development and reputation can make a modern games nearly pointless. While each city did see an economic return none of them were as big as Barcelona and Sydney and the legacy of the games is not particularly strong. I believe the main reason the cities did not receive a large return is the lack of want, and incentives for people to visit these cities again. In the case of Atlanta the city gained a reputation for bad transportation as a result and in the US there were many other cities attracting businesses taking profit from Atlanta (the bombing also hurt it). Shortly after the Athens games not only was the city heavily developed, but the city fell into economic and political turmoil which lasts to this day. Beijing had a similar problem although it did fare better than the other two, her main downfalls were the Chinese governments lack of redevelopment for the Olympic Park after the games and the 2008 recession which also halted nearly any company moving in until the 2010’s. So as you can see, todays political and economic climate make it hard for top international cities to host the games unless you are like…London.

London is a very different story to all of the more recent host cities because it is a combination of the two types of cities we have seen in recent years. Not only were the London games held right in the middle of the worlds economy slowly getting better, but thanks to pop-culture and the brilliant venue plan London was a success. The first part of their success was situating the Olympic Park and most venues in the cities run-down and underdeveloped East End. Thanks to the games the East End is booming again, much of the boom is credited to the games infrastructure and huge national icon the Olympic park. The games were focused (like Barcelona and Sydney) on revitalizing the city as a whole, this focus has brought business and tourist to the cities East End and the Greater London Area. Now let’s wonder for a second how things could have been different if the games were held in the cities center; the games would have been a waste because the center is already developed extremely well, with no new Olympic Park a tourist destination would not have been made, so essentially it could have been just like Atlanta, Athens, and Beijing. Thankfully London did not follow that path, but instead followed the road less traveled and in the footsteps of Barcelona and Sydney.

The main thing to take away from this is that the games need to go to cities who will use the games as a catalyst for growth in a rundown area or the city as a whole. Instead of bidding with cities who have huge growth and their venue plan is focused on the downtown (cough, Chicago, cough) the city needs to have good growth, huge potential, and a venue plan that focuses on spreading development throughout the entire city. Sadly, Sochi which is probably the best example of what a smaller city can do with the games, will be bogged down by everything Russia did wrong in such a right city. So I leave this rant with the hope that future cities do see that this redevelopment thing is what works best with the modern games and we see far better and many more bids in future cycles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the rings were taken off of Sydney Harbor Bridge and the flame extinguished in Barcelona both cites saw a dramatic economic revitalization and establishment of both cities as international tourist destinations. This happened because of the mass marketing the Olympics bring and the opportunities each city had. Both had available land, a modern Olympic structure, and strong international reputations thanks to the games, this ensured growth that last even 22-14 years later.

As much as I'd like to trumpet the 2000 Games as powering our economy, I have to say the direct evidence was that we didn't get much direct economic or tourist benefit directly from the games themselves. Touristically, less than a year after the cauldron was extinguished we ran slap-bang into 9/11, which pretty well depressed our tourist industry for much of the naughties (I'm not even sure if we've yet regained pre-2000 levels). And arguably, we didn't have to do too much establishment as a tourist destination pre-2000 anyway - we weren't a neglected and forgotten Barcelona waiting for a facelift - I think we were seen as a nice and attractive place to visit, but it takes a bloody long time and expense to get there from most points of the world. The games didn't change or enhance that much, if at all.

Economically, there was lots of criticisms that Sydney didn't capitalise as much as it should have in the post-games glow. Apart from the RWC and the Catholic Church's World Youth Day, Sydney, or the NSW Government, pretty well swore off major events hosting at a time when we probably could have been successful in attracting them.

On the plus side, the Homebush Bay precinct has gradually and quietly evolved to become a good working and residential neighbourhood. And while Olympic Park's not quite one our of our major tourist drawcards, it's got lots of facilities these days such as parks, the aquatic centre etc that do get good use by us locals. In that way it has proved an asset to Sydneysiders. I'd rate the Olympic Park as a modestly success story, but not so much a spectacular example of the benefits of Olympic hosting.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to trumpet the 2000 Games as powering our economy, I have to say the direct evidence was that we didn't get much direct economic or tourist benefit directly from the games themselves. Touristically, less than a year after the cauldron was extinguished we ran slap-bang into 9/11, which pretty well depressed our tourist industry for much of the naughties (I'm not even sure if we've yet regained pre-2000 levels). And arguably, we didn't have to do too much establishment as a tourist destination pre-2000 anyway - we weren't a neglected and forgotten Barcelona waiting for a facelift - I think we were seen as a nice and attractive place to visit, but it takes a bloody long time and expense to get there from most points of the world. The games didn't change or enhance that much, if at all.

Economically, there was lots of criticisms that Sydney didn't capitalise as much as it should have in the post-games glow. Apart from the RWC and the Catholic Church's World Youth Day, Sydney, or the NSW Government, pretty well swore off major events hosting at a time when we probably could have been successful in attracting them.

On the plus side, the Homebush Bay precinct has gradually and quietly evolved to become a good working and residential neighbourhood. And while Olympic Park's not quite one our of our major tourist drawcards, it's got lots of facilities these days such as parks, the aquatic centre etc that do get good use by us locals. In that way it has proved an asset to Sydneysiders. I'd rate the Olympic Park as a modestly success story, but not so much a spectacular example of the benefits of Olympic hosting.

While all are true, I believe that Sydney's international reputation is still very good. And despite the post games sores, Sydney's organizing and running of the event is a model for many bid and host cities today. I would also argue that it's not a spectacular example, I would instead say it's more of a spectacular example of how a high profile event can change a city for the better over many decades creating a lasting legacy until it's time to head back down-under.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While all are true, I believe that Sydney's international reputation is still very good. And despite the post games sores, Sydney's organizing and running of the event is a model for many bid and host cities today. I would also argue that it's not a spectacular example, I would instead say it's more of a spectacular example of how a high profile event can change a city for the better over many decades creating a lasting legacy until it's time to head back down-under.

Why not accept Rols' account? He knows whereof he speaks and is actually an Aussie, whereas you are basing your comments on subjective impressions.

The reality is that the biggest benefit any host derives from the Games is the pomp and ceremony of staging a 2-week party with the world watching. Any other benefits are modest in comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mr. bernham, I don't know where you got that article from, but I do question the logic where Sydney was not a huge international city, but that Atlanta was an established and well-developed international city. That's a load of crap. Now I can tell you from experience of having been in Barcelona recently (and Athens alluded to it earlier) that their revitalization and transformation began long before the Olympics were there. It has as much to do with the end of the Franco regime as anything, The Olympics were merely the icing on the cake where the entire world got to see the new Barcelona, and I'd probably call it my favorite city I've visited in Europe.

Agreed. I've no doubt an American host would see a nice profit on its OCOG operations - it ought to be able to raise good sponsorship and sell lots of merchandise and ticketing shouldn't be a problem. LOCOG, with a smaller domestic market, managed a £30m profit on its £2.5bn budget I think.

But to say it can be trusted to end up in the black when you include venue costs, infrastructure etc. too is hard to agree with given how much modern Games cost. Even a conservative bid like Madrid's had costs in the multiple billions. That has to come from somewhere.

I tend to agree with those who say the Olympics should be seen as an investment, because if you see them as an accounting excersise or a profit generator, you're always going to be on the losing side. An American city might come closest to breaking this trend, but it'd still be a big ask I think and there are less stressful ways of boosting your city's coffers than taking an Olympic budget right to the wire to try to squeeze out a small profit.

I think it all depends on how you look at the finances of it all. I bring this up with American television rights all the time.. take NBC and the London Olympics. They say they broke even on that event. But that's likely based on revenues directly attributable to the Olympics. It doesn't account for the halo effect an Olympics has on NBC's programming. That adds to NBC's bottom line, but it really can't be measured.

So to it is with an Olympics. A city like Atlanta is going to spend a lot of money on venues. But that football stadium is going to keep producing revenue for many years to come, and it's probably a lot less expensive to the city when it's underwritten by the Olympics than if taxpayer dollars are used. That's why an American city needs to look at the long-term effects of an Olympics, not just to look at what happens during those 2 1/2 weeks.

That said, however well Los Angeles and Atlanta may have done financially, things are different now. To sum it up in 1 word.. security. That's something that costs a lot of money and it's not something a city will get a return on. And obviously there are a lot of other 1-time costs associated with an Olympics. I think the sell needs to be, like you said, to look at it as a long-term investment and not to assume they're going to make back all of the money they've spent by the time the flame is extinguished.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mr. bernham, I don't know where you got that article from, but I do question the logic where Sydney was not a huge international city, but that Atlanta was an established and well-developed international city. That's a load of crap. Now I can tell you from experience of having been in Barcelona recently (and Athens alluded to it earlier) that their revitalization and transformation began long before the Olympics were there. It has as much to do with the end of the Franco regime as anything, The Olympics were merely the icing on the cake where the entire world got to see the new Barcelona, and I'd probably call it my favorite city I've visited in Europe.

I think it all depends on how you look at the finances of it all. I bring this up with American television rights all the time.. take NBC and the London Olympics. They say they broke even on that event. But that's likely based on revenues directly attributable to the Olympics. It doesn't account for the halo effect an Olympics has on NBC's programming. That adds to NBC's bottom line, but it really can't be measured.

So to it is with an Olympics. A city like Atlanta is going to spend a lot of money on venues. But that football stadium is going to keep producing revenue for many years to come, and it's probably a lot less expensive to the city when it's underwritten by the Olympics than if taxpayer dollars are used. That's why an American city needs to look at the long-term effects of an Olympics, not just to look at what happens during those 2 1/2 weeks.

That said, however well Los Angeles and Atlanta may have done financially, things are different now. To sum it up in 1 word.. security. That's something that costs a lot of money and it's not something a city will get a return on. And obviously there are a lot of other 1-time costs associated with an Olympics. I think the sell needs to be, like you said, to look at it as a long-term investment and not to assume they're going to make back all of the money they've spent by the time the flame is extinguished.

I agree the security is such a major cost. For example, if a an American city wants to host the olympics anytime soon then they will have to have extremely tight security. There were most likely be a planned terrorist attack if it is hosted in the US

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the sell needs to be, like you said, to look at it as a long-term investment and not to assume they're going to make back all of the money they've spent by the time the flame is extinguished.

But the question is, what is the long-term investment? Ok, so people won't recover every dime by the time the Games end, but what is the long-term payoff? Happy memories?

There is no long-term payoff. Infrastructure improvements would be undertaken with or without the Games, the Olympics just influence the timing of them. I don't believe there is a long-term benefit for the host and that's why the Games need to be modified so to that the host can at least break even.

That can happen in the US without a devastating drop in quality. IF the IOC were to come to the US in 2024, that would be a sensible reason to do so. That said, I'm not at all sure it's in the US' best interests to host in 2024.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit of the Olympics is that it enables you to establish a ton of infrastructure and urban planning improvements in a single campaign. It also provides a lot of publicity politicians and planners can use to sell a plan to the citizens. If Barcelona had not hosted the Olympics it's unlikely it would have gotten the infrastructure improvements it did. An Olympiad held in a blighted city like Baltimore could be used to push through a lot of necessary changes the public might not have the stomach for otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Mr. Bernham and Tony E another pair of secret twins??? :blink:


That can happen in the US without a devastating drop in quality. IF the IOC were to come to the US in 2024, that would be a sensible reason to do so. That said, I'm not at all sure it's in the US' best interests to host in 2024.

I think our federal (sports) interests might also be occupied at that time by World Cup 2026.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit of the Olympics is that it enables you to establish a ton of infrastructure and urban planning improvements in a single campaign. It also provides a lot of publicity politicians and planners can use to sell a plan to the citizens. If Barcelona had not hosted the Olympics it's unlikely it would have gotten the infrastructure improvements it did. An Olympiad held in a blighted city like Baltimore could be used to push through a lot of necessary changes the public might not have the stomach for otherwise.

Precisely why I support a Toronto bid. While I don't want to bring Canadian politics into this, but it's the only time the feds in Ottawa would ever help build something in Toronto. Politicians want the city to look completely awesome for the Olympics and will care so much to make it look better. Vancouver got a brand new rapid transit line which goes to the airport, the aptly named Canada Line (paid for by the Feds no less). Toronto has one of the worst commuting times in the develeoped world, but as I am going on a tangent I'll stop. But it's kinda sad that we have to look at hosting a 2 week event, where people from around the world will show up and compete, we must make our infrastructure top notch. But to hell with the citizens who actually live and pay taxes in the city.

As the dark side of the Olympic Games are being discussed here, it is a wonder, are there still many cities who want to chase the Olympics, or do many nowadays see it as a curse. I mean Sochi must be a lesson and fewer cities probably won't even want to host the Olympics. The citizenry of southern Ontario especially overwhelming vehemently opposed an Olympic Bid. As many here see the Pan American Games as being a financial boondoggle, which it kinda is. Someone here said that SLC needed a bailout, is this true? We are especially in times, in North America at least, where people are very critical of government spending, citizens when they hear about the downfalls of many Olympics won't even want to touch the games at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...