Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's the other way around. Los Angeles' organizing committee made money, but it's unlikely any city has ever made money.

1) All of the last six summer Olympic hosts have lost tourists the year they hosted.

2) Olympic fans tend to spend less money than the normal tourists and business travelers they displace because they have already been gouged on inflated flight and hotel rates.

3) Most retailers in the host city experience only a moderate if any increase in sales since the Olympic fans spend their money on Olympic merchandise instead of the normal shops.

4) There's no evidence that people go to Olympic host cities simply because they hosted the Olympics. It's not like Atlanta has become a major tourist destination since they hosted. Barcelona is probably the only example of a city using the Olympics to become a tourist hotspot.

1.) You can not look at only the year a city hosted to see if Tourism picks up. The after-glow is always better.

2.) Once again, those inflated prices still mean money and the money that comes in after the games makes up for it

3.) It's still an increase and you still see an increase in exposure

4.) The exposure that comes from hosting the games will put the city on the minds of people around the world. It has been shown to bring in business and in some cases tourism. Barcelona saw it, Atlanta sure as hell saw it, as did Sydney (to smaller extents), and London.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This thread is now unreadable.

Rendering of the Olympic stadium (stade de France) and the aquatic center. 

Because Baron.

4.) The exposure that comes from hosting the games will put the city on the minds of people around the world. It has been shown to bring in business and in some cases tourism. Barcelona saw it, Atlanta sure as hell saw it, as did Sydney (to smaller extents), and London.

While Atlanta did not become a mecca for US tourism like Barcelona, the city itself has grown significantly since the Olympics. So it definitely benefited from the exposure as residents and businesses have moved there in numbers since then.

I visited Barcelona 2 summers ago. Probably my favorite city in Europe. From what I understand, many locals there don't like the fact the city has become such a tourist magnet. To them, the tourists have taken over. As a stereotypical American tourist, that's fine by me, but I see where that would bother some longtime residents.

I visited in the summer of 2012 and I loved the city. But you are right it has become a tourist magnet. And the locals were not fond of it. I went to La Boqueria to have breakfast my last morning there and the woman who served my breakfast was in such a pissy mood. And what surprised me is that I wasn't some "dumb" American who didn't speak the language I spoke Spanish pretty well. Spanish people can be like French people in that they hate speaking anything other than Spanish, even if they can or at least understand it. She seemed even more pissed off when I gave her a tip lol.

But honestly I loved Madrid even more than Barcelona. You felt like you were a part of the city, and you felt a better understanding of Spanish culture there than in Barcelona. You can just walk around for hours getting lost in the city and it was just wonderful. And I was there probably during the most perfect weekend. Gay pride parade was on Saturday and it was jampacked full of people I've never seen anything like it. Sunday was the finals of the Eurocup. There was a huge crowd at the Real Madrid stadium to watch the game on a huge screen, but I didn't go. I did go to the plaza where everyone went nuts in the middle of the night after Spain won. And again they gathered in the same area Monday afternoon when they made it back home. I would totally live there if the economy was better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that may have had more to do that people in Barcelona mainly speak Catalan instead of Spanish. And/or your dialect of Spanish was foreign to her, so she knew you weren't a local. Same goes for the culture too. Different from Castille to Catalonia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that may have had more to do that people in Barcelona mainly speak Catalan instead of Spanish. And/or your dialect of Spanish was foreign to her, so she knew you weren't a local. Same goes for the culture too. Different from Castille to Catalonia.

No one in Lloret De Mar, a city an hour east of Barcelona and still in the state of Catalonia, had any problems with my dialect in Spanish. In fact they loved me because I could speak Spanish in general. The bartenders always treated me well.

Barcelona in some areas gave me a bit of attitude in general. I had a friendlier time speaking with the tourists than the locals. But then again I didn't have to deal with very many locals as I ventured in mostly the touristy spots which they've grown accustomed to us. The other people who gave me some attitude were the employees at the Picasso Museum.

Madrid, everyone was friendly to me, except for one lady which was partly my fault because I flat-out could not understand what the hell she was saying to me lol. But she was patient and finally told me in English. The museum people at the 3 major museums were very pleasant to me, even when one kindly told me I wasn't allowed to drink my bottled water in the area. And the locals were just full of life I loved it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While Atlanta did not become a mecca for US tourism like Barcelona, the city itself has grown significantly since the Olympics. So it definitely benefited from the exposure as residents and businesses have moved there in numbers since then.

Atlanta's growth is due to people moving there from the declining midwestern cities. (Detroit, Cleveland, etc.) It has nothing to do with the Olympics.

There are a number of benefits to hosting the Olympics, but economists are almost unanimous is saying there's little economic benefit and a way bigger cost than people realize. In fact that's what first led me here: I was studying a theoretical Super Bowl bid for Seattle for an economics paper, and that led me to research on other mega events like the Olympics. People who tout the Olympics as a way of making money are simply wrong.

That said, the Olympics DO make people happier and more united in the host country. And that's actually worth some investment for cities like London or Paris that have a solid plan for venue use. Particularly for a country struggling with confidence and/or national unity and identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While Atlanta did not become a mecca for US tourism like Barcelona, the city itself has grown significantly since the Olympics. So it definitely benefited from the exposure as residents and businesses have moved there in numbers since then.

That is literally what I said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

London 2012 has it's positives. We had an Excellent Olympics in 2012 and are a major World City. Atlanta isn't.

Umm...I would argue this. I mean they kind of did pull of an Olympics that made back all the money it spent, had no white elephants, and did not use any tax payer money. Not to mention the city has the busiest airport in the world and nearly 33 Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies headquartered there and a large multi-cultural population. The city is also arguably one of the many cultural centers United States. So I would say that all of those things (beyond hosting the games) would make Atlanta a global city. Sure it is not a London or Paris, but neither is Houston or LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta's growth is due to people moving there from the declining midwestern cities. (Detroit, Cleveland, etc.) It has nothing to do with the Olympics.

There are a number of benefits to hosting the Olympics, but economists are almost unanimous is saying there's little economic benefit and a way bigger cost than people realize. In fact that's what first led me here: I was studying a theoretical Super Bowl bid for Seattle for an economics paper, and that led me to research on other mega events like the Olympics. People who tout the Olympics as a way of making money are simply wrong.

That said, the Olympics DO make people happier and more united in the host country. And that's actually worth some investment for cities like London or Paris that have a solid plan for venue use. Particularly for a country struggling with confidence and/or national unity and identity.

The pride and "lift" a Games gives you is great. It was more than I expected given the grumbling and cynicism that lead up to 2012, but there is more to it than just that.

Economists are economists and their numbers live in ideal worlds where there's always the will to get things done. Could London have developed the Olympic Park area more efficiently and less costly than the cost of an Olympics. Quite probably (actually, almost certainly). Would it have happened within a 7 year time frame with a nice lump of money from the the treasury to smooth its progress and with an incentive and a deadline? No.

The Games, done right, give a quick high followed by short-term economic loss (the costs incurred) but with long-term economic and cultural benefit. As much as I dislike Boris Johnson we've had him in Boston this week sharing Olympic experiences with their bid team, signing off on a deal to get the Washington Smithsonian to open a Museum on the site of the former Water Polo Arena. This knd of thing also makes the Games worth it; it's not just about the quick boost to national unity you get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually London is the first and one of the most powerful cities in the world. Maybe it's just coincidence, but London has consistently ranked as No. 1 since 2012. So to say Paris would not benefit would be false because they are no longer on top. Another thing, the UK has overtaken the French economy since 2012 and I'm sure the Olympics helped with that (aside from better economic policies).

The point I'm trying to make is that the Olympics are by themselves not something that makes money, but the coverage of the Olympics and of the city they are held in put the city on peoples minds. It shows that the cities are still exciting and vibrant places and if the regular, ordinary, person has Paris on their minds you can bet businesses will too. The common people come to tour and see the city they fell in love with on their TV screens, businesses come because they want to capitalize on the new exposure.

It is something that has worked for nearly every Olympic city. Whether it be Barcelona and Sydney, or Atlanta and London all cities have seen some type of economic benefit from hosting. The Olympics provide a month long exposure to 7 billion people around the world, to think that will not help the host city in the slightest way is utterly ridiculous.

Sometimes the first is London sometimes is Paris. I think with or without SoG it would be the same. For 2014 some sources say the first is Paris some others it's London... The both are very close.

If London is one of the most powerful cities in the world is because is a major financial place like New York. And if UK overtaken French is economy it's because they did some economic reforms and because they keep the livre sterling. SoG are for nothing in the economic situation in UK.

Paris doesn't need SoG, everybody knows Paris, Like London or New York.

New York is the most powerful city in the world and they never hosted SoG.

Sydney lost money with SoG... You can find an interesting survey about Sydney 2000. Australian Economy lost 2 Billions with SoG :

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/4833453_The_Sydney_Olympics_seven_years_on_an_ex-post_dynamic_CGE_assessment

Sydney didn't gain something from SoG, excepted some debt, like Athen, Beijing or London.

About Barcelona we don't know if without SoG, it could be the same touristic city. People comes in Barcelona for parties or to visit historical building like Sagrada Familia.

Maybe SoG helped Barcelona but we are not sure.

The only positive point about SoG or WoG : They can accelerate or develop transportation infrastructures, sometimes this infrastructures are a necessity for a city or region.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F**** all the French pessimists, I'm excited about Paris 2024!!

Haha go for it mate.

F*** the naive idiots is more relevant. The idiots who will once more put a whole country to shame and give it another international humiliation.

You'll make a fool of yourself just like the bunch of amateurs in Paris who will be part of it.

Like many French people you don't sound like you even have a clear idea of the the world we live in. You're stuck within your own borders and your idea that your country is the best

Just take a look at your speech..."Boston's weak...Africa's not ready..." We're the best and the others are sh*t right? That's definitely the way you're gonna win...

We'll see you when your teeth are shattered, and your hopes as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ It's not the attitude that will see Paris win, but at the same time as saying he's being parochial and not looking outside France's borders, you're not acknowledging all the posts from people outside France who'd like to see a Paris Games and think it would be a formidable bid if it proceeded. I think you're doing down your own chances and assets to a huge extent here Pixie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris doesn't need SoG, everybody knows Paris, Like London or New York.

New York is the most powerful city in the world and they never hosted SoG.

About Barcelona we don't know if without SoG, it could be the same touristic city. People comes in Barcelona for parties or to visit historical building like Sagrada Familia.

Maybe SoG helped Barcelona but we are not sure.

Of course we are sure. Barcelona's tourists numbers went from virtually nothing post 1992 to being Europe's top three tourist destination today. Before 1986, Barcelona was an old, dirty industrial town. Can't imagine too many "parties" going on there back then. And while the Sagrada Familia has been there for over a century. People weren't exactly flocking to see it like they are now, precisely bcuz of more tourists.

Although I agree that the Olympics wouldn't necessarily give Paris more tourists. I think most can agree that Barcelona was an anomaly. Cities often times try to naively cite their success when it comes to their own Olympic aspirations.

Ones things for sure though, the Olympics seem to be something that even cities like New York, London & Paris have wanted as recent as the last decade, but only one of them got. So apparently, these cities see value in their own ways & needs of try to bring the big circus come to town.

Link to post
Share on other sites
F*** the naive idiots is more relevant. The idiots who will once more put a whole country to shame and give it another international humiliation.

You'll make a fool of yourself just like the bunch of amateurs in Paris who will be part of it.

Like many French people you don't sound like you even have a clear idea of the the world we live in. You're stuck within your own borders and your idea that your country is the best

Just take a look at your speech..."Boston's weak...Africa's not ready..." We're the best and the others are sh*t right? That's definitely the way you're gonna win...

We'll see you when your teeth are shattered, and your hopes as well.

Once again, far be it from me to speak expertly about how the Parisians and the rest of France felt about past Olympic losses. But the 2012 loss put a whole country to shame? International humiliation? Do you not remember the fate of New York in that same vote? Their stadium plan blows up on them a month before the vote. They have to scramble to put something together to replace it. Then they finish 4th out of 5 cities in the voting, and the speculation is that they only beat Moscow based on getting some sympathy votes so that they wouldn't finish last. Then 4 years later, the USOC sends the President of the United States to Copenhagen to advocate for his hometown, and this time Chicago is dead last. To me, those are bigger humiliations than coming up just short in a vote where clearly a couple of tiny factors may have tipping the scales from London to Paris. That was the margin by which Paris lost. They came that close to winning and you make it sound like they got no support then and would get little support now.

Like I said earlier, if you are sour on Paris bidding based on past history and that you think it's not a wise move for the city, I understand that. But this picture you are painting how the same city that came within 4 votes of winning the 2012 bid would be foolish to even make another attempt because they might lose and by shamed or humiliated.. then yes, that is a defeatist attitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If London is one of the most powerful cities in the world is because is a major financial place like New York. And if UK overtaken French is economy it's because they did some economic reforms and because they keep the livre sterling. SoG are for nothing in the economic situation in UK.

Paris doesn't need SoG, everybody knows Paris, Like London or New York.

New York is the most powerful city in the world and they never hosted SoG.

Sydney lost money with SoG... You can find an interesting survey about Sydney 2000. Australian Economy lost 2 Billions with SoG :

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/4833453_The_Sydney_Olympics_seven_years_on_an_ex-post_dynamic_CGE_assessment

Sydney didn't gain something from SoG, excepted some debt, like Athen, Beijing or London.

About Barcelona we don't know if without SoG, it could be the same touristic city. People comes in Barcelona for parties or to visit historical building like Sagrada Familia.

Maybe SoG helped Barcelona but we are not sure.

The only positive point about SoG or WoG : They can accelerate or develop transportation infrastructures, sometimes this infrastructures are a necessity for a city or region.

No city in the history of the world ever NEEDS an Olympics. It's something where if you can put together a sensible plan, there are tangible benefits even if the economics of it seem pretty bleak. And really, the only way to assess the impact of an Olympics is to look long-term. That's why it's never smart to look at the success or failure of an Olympics so soon after it ends. You're right that the Olympics can accelerate infrastructure. Even Athens, for as badly as the country's economy collapsed (and while the Olympics didn't directly cause that, it certainly didn't help) developed a lot as a result of the Olympics, so they did benefit in some ways from the Olympics. Obviously the negatives far out-weighed the benefits.

As for Barcelona.. there's no maybe. The Olympics DID help Barcelona. That's really not something you can question. If you want to argue Barcelona would have had the same transformation without the Olympics, that's still a pretty flimsy argument. The city emerged out of the Franco era with an intention for urban renewal, but a lot of the transformation of Barcelona is directly tied to the `92 Olympics. And that put the city on the map in the eyes of a lot of tourists who may or may not have known about the city if not for the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha go for it mate.

F*** the naive idiots is more relevant. The idiots who will once more put a whole country to shame and give it another international humiliation.

You'll make a fool of yourself just like the bunch of amateurs in Paris who will be part of it.

Like many French people you don't sound like you even have a clear idea of the the world we live in. You're stuck within your own borders and your idea that your country is the best

Just take a look at your speech..."Boston's weak...Africa's not ready..." We're the best and the others are sh*t right? That's definitely the way you're gonna win...

We'll see you when your teeth are shattered, and your hopes as well.

Ahahah, it's quite interesting to read you, and since you're adressing me personnaly, that would be rude not to reply.

First off, 2012 was clearly NOT a humiliation but just a massive despointement. We played, we tried, we lost, that's how things happen. There are winners and there are losers. It's always been that way. If we have to talk about humilation, we should look at Annecy's 2018 bid.

No, France is not the best country in the world. I'm proud to be French, but I've lived 2 years abroad and traveled a lot, so when you're talking about being stuck with my own borders you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about bids here. Could you please tell me why Boston is a good bid? And can you tell me about an African 2024 bid, cause I haven't heard of any so far. Please, I would be really intersted to know which bid is realistically the best.

Oh and don't worry, my theeth will be fine in 2017 just like they were in 2005. Je suis pas mauvais perdant, moi!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please tell me why Boston is a good bid?

I can tell you why. First of all, Boston's bid is extremely compact. More compact than Paris's and any other olympics ever. Second of all , I have noticed that you say Boston will have to build a lot. That really isn't true. Boston's bid depends of existing venues within college campuses, such as Harvard Stadium for hockey.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you why. First of all, Boston's bid is extremely compact. More compact than Paris's and any other olympics ever. Second of all , I have noticed that you say Boston will have to build a lot. That really isn't true. Boston's bid depends of existing venues within college campuses, such as Harvard Stadium for hockey.

Is compact that relevant anymore?? Paris bid will be within a 30 km wide circle, so it's not like this all over France anyway. And I'm sorry, but a university sport venue is NOT an Olympic venue... I read that Boston would use 80% of temporary venues, so I'm honestly a bit confused...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pride and "lift" a Games gives you is great. It was more than I expected given the grumbling and cynicism that lead up to 2012, but there is more to it than just that.

Economists are economists and their numbers live in ideal worlds where there's always the will to get things done. Could London have developed the Olympic Park area more efficiently and less costly than the cost of an Olympics. Quite probably (actually, almost certainly). Would it have happened within a 7 year time frame with a nice lump of money from the the treasury to smooth its progress and with an incentive and a deadline? No.

The Games, done right, give a quick high followed by short-term economic loss (the costs incurred) but with long-term economic and cultural benefit. As much as I dislike Boris Johnson we've had him in Boston this week sharing Olympic experiences with their bid team, signing off on a deal to get the Washington Smithsonian to open a Museum on the site of the former Water Polo Arena. This knd of thing also makes the Games worth it; it's not just about the quick boost to national unity you get.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that national unity is the only benefit; there are lots of benefits. But very few of them are economic.

I agree with all of the benefits you listed. I just don't see them as economic. I doubt London is going to make money directly on the Olympic park, but there are other positives that made London 2012 worth it to the people of the UK.

And I think Paris could host with a relatively small budget and create a very good legacy. If Paris hosting the Olympics with mostly extant venues is not viable then the Olympics are in serious trouble.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is compact that relevant anymore?? Paris bid will be within a 30 km wide circle, so it's not like this all over France anyway. And I'm sorry, but a university sport venue is NOT an Olympic venue... I read that Boston would use 80% of temporary venues, so I'm honestly a bit confused...

What do you mean by a university venue is not a olympic venue?
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by a university venue is not a olympic venue?

Well Olympic venues need to be able to host thousands of people, minimum 6 000 and up to 17 000. Are University venues able to host such massive amount of people? I mean it's gonna need a lot of transformation...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Olympic venues need to be able to host thousands of people, minimum 6 000 and up to 17 000. Are University venues able to host such massive amount of people? I mean it's gonna need a lot of transformation...

American college sports is taken pretty seriously, even at smaller levels like the one boston has. They can easily accomodate figures in that range. Look them up would ya?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is compact that relevant anymore?? Paris bid will be within a 30 km wide circle, so it's not like this all over France anyway. And I'm sorry, but a university sport venue is NOT an Olympic venue... I read that Boston would use 80% of temporary venues, so I'm honestly a bit confused...

Don't be silly, only 10 out of 26 venues in Boston's plan would be temporary, and they haven't revealed which venues are hosting Handball, Basketball prelims, and Football prelims yet.

The college venues are world-class. This isn't the French university system we're talking about. :D

They have a good bid, it's compact and efficient. But Chicago was compact and efficient and the IOC didn't seem to like it. Clearly the number of new vs old venues and the compactness aren't everything.

They plan on building only one new permanent venue (the Velodrome). I think the "legacy" aspect of the bid will be one of Boston's weak points. (But Paris doesn't have a great "legacy" story to tell either, nothing comparable to London's urban regeneration plans. But we're only in the early stages of the process so, that can change)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Olympic venues need to be able to host thousands of people, minimum 6 000 and up to 17 000. Are University venues able to host such massive amount of people? I mean it's gonna need a lot of transformation...

College sports arenas in America range from 8,000-20,000 seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...