Link
Rio spent over $6 billion on the summer Olympics and 6 months later much of the facilities are abandoned. I know Huffington Post isn't the best source but there have been lots of articles like this recently. The London Olympics may be an exception but I remember reading about Russia spending a ton of money to revive an abandoned mining town only to abandon it again 2 weeks later when the Olympics finished.
The quick answer is no. It has become nothing more than a money grab just like the world cup.
Only if you have the infrastructure more or less in place. If not, then no.
(03-27-2017 12:13 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Only if you have the infrastructure more or less in place. If not, then no.
This post is very true.
I don't see the money grab. Maybe for the IOC. I don't see it for the host country.
On top of the money they already spent, Rio will probably spend a couple more cleaning up/tearing down. There was a ton of negative publicity - corruption, shoddy construction. One athlete said the diving venue smelled like farts. The Olympic stadium and other facilities in China are falling down because they don't use them.
Not in its current form. You have to build too much.
If I were king of the world, I'd require that host cities/nations have the stadium infrastructure built and in steady use for at least 4 years before the games. If not we should have a backup. I would say 4 years before the bid if I were really serious.
I'd much rather see an existing mid-size stadium get a facelift than see a billion dollar monstrosity that won't draw 8,000 to a rugby match after the Olympics. It should be about your history and culture more than some architects dream.
They need to host them in one spot, be it Greece or in the US/Canada. The IOC can pay to maintain the facilities. LA, Atlanta, Houston, New York/NJ, Washington/Baltimore, Philadelphia and Chicago either have all of the facilities necessary or in planning.
And most importantly, they're all in close proximity of each other for people on foot.
(03-27-2017 12:21 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]They need to host them in one spot, be it Greece or in the US/Canada. The IOC can pay to maintain the facilities. LA, Atlanta, Houston, New York/NJ, Washington/Baltimore, Philadelphia and Chicago either have all of the facilities necessary or in planning.
Just think of the bribe money the IOC could get for THAT bid!
To answer the OP...maybe? Several of the games held in the last 30 years or so have made a profit. Some of those required significant taxpayer contributions - not sure how or if those were reconciled - and it's really hard to believe that China made money after spending $44B, but they're making that claim. I suspect it's easier to claim a profit when you classify lots of your infrastructure improvements as not related to the Olympics.
I think if the games can come in the ballpark of a break even (overrun by no more than a few million dollars) it probably IS worth it for the exposure of the city and indirect economic boost. But I agree that handing games to cities totally unprepared to host is a recipe for disaster. Sochi and Rio are terrible examples, but what the hell was Nagano doing spending $10B on winter games?
On the other hand, why did Sydney spend $5BB? That's a major metropolis. They didn't have facilities that could be used/adapted?
(03-26-2017 09:53 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Link
Rio spent over $6 billion on the summer Olympics and 6 months later much of the facilities are abandoned. I know Huffington Post isn't the best source but there have been lots of articles like this recently. The London Olympics may be an exception but I remember reading about Russia spending a ton of money to revive an abandoned mining town only to abandon it again 2 weeks later when the Olympics finished.
I'm leaning towards a NO in the aftermath....
But I wonder what the actual economic impact is for those cities...
IN other words... are most of the bidding cities in need of infrastructure upgrades--even non-event traffic? Do they need new arenas to replace outdated ones? Are they willing to rent them out for post-Olympic things like concerts, office spaces, ect... Do the athletic villages get converted over to housing for residents after the Olympics are over?
It's clear these countries can't afford nor have any use for these facilities whenever the games are done. Like I said, just hold it in Greece every time and be done with it or the US since we're the only country that has them in place already and in constant use before and after the games.
(03-27-2017 05:06 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2017 09:53 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Link
Rio spent over $6 billion on the summer Olympics and 6 months later much of the facilities are abandoned. I know Huffington Post isn't the best source but there have been lots of articles like this recently. The London Olympics may be an exception but I remember reading about Russia spending a ton of money to revive an abandoned mining town only to abandon it again 2 weeks later when the Olympics finished.
I'm leaning towards a NO in the aftermath....
But I wonder what the actual economic impact is for those cities...
IN other words... are most of the bidding cities in need of infrastructure upgrades--even non-event traffic? Do they need new arenas to replace outdated ones? Are they willing to rent them out for post-Olympic things like concerts, office spaces, ect... Do the athletic villages get converted over to housing for residents after the Olympics are over?
The article doesn't address infrastructure upgrades. I can see how that would be hard to access. Rio metro has a population of 12 million. I doubt much infrastructure was changed.
The article did address the stadium and Olympic village - both unused since the Olympics. I've read similar articles bout China. The venues are falling down because they are not being used or even maintained.
(03-27-2017 08:56 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]It's clear these countries can't afford nor have any use for these facilities whenever the games are done. Like I said, just hold in Greece every time and be done with it or the US since we're the only country that has them in place already and in constant use before and after the games.
Greece is an interesting option but can they afford it? Every year or two they are on the verge of bankruptcy. The EU comes in at the 11th hour and bails them out. As a country, their population is smaller than Rio metro.
Even if the IOC paid all the construction, maintenance, and operating costs, there is still the security and other government costs that would cripple a small country like Greece.
Then the IOC would have to cover that too.
(03-28-2017 12:57 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ] (03-27-2017 05:06 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2017 09:53 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Link
Rio spent over $6 billion on the summer Olympics and 6 months later much of the facilities are abandoned. I know Huffington Post isn't the best source but there have been lots of articles like this recently. The London Olympics may be an exception but I remember reading about Russia spending a ton of money to revive an abandoned mining town only to abandon it again 2 weeks later when the Olympics finished.
I'm leaning towards a NO in the aftermath....
But I wonder what the actual economic impact is for those cities...
IN other words... are most of the bidding cities in need of infrastructure upgrades--even non-event traffic? Do they need new arenas to replace outdated ones? Are they willing to rent them out for post-Olympic things like concerts, office spaces, ect... Do the athletic villages get converted over to housing for residents after the Olympics are over?
The article doesn't address infrastructure upgrades. I can see how that would be hard to access. Rio metro has a population of 12 million. I doubt much infrastructure was changed.
The article did address the stadium and Olympic village - both unused since the Olympics. I've read similar articles bout China. The venues are falling down because they are not being used or even maintained.
It's almost incomprehensible how these places don't have plans for their venues once the Olympics end, especially outside North America. London built a ton of temporary venues, so at least they knew their venues wouldn't be used but for places like China and Brazil to not have plans them makes little sense.