4 ms·

Barcelona '92 was handled pretty well. The facilities are still used, the built housing was sold after the games, and tourism augmented significantly. It could

Barcelona '92 was handled pretty well. The facilities are still used, the built housing was sold after the games, and tourism augmented significantly. It could be the exception to the rule.

Gys 11y ago
This article is about the costs involved. How do you mean 'handled pretty well' ?! I think you have no idea what you are talking about and did not bother to spend a few seconds to look for facts ? 'The cost of the Barcelona Summer Olympics was USD11.4 billion (in 2009 dollars). The cost overrun was 417 percent in real terms. This compares with an average cost of USD5.7 billion (in 2009 dollars) for other summer Olympics over the past 50 years for which data are available and an average cost overrun for these Games of 252 per cent. Cost here includes only sports-related costs and thus does not include other public costs, such as road, rail, or airport infrastructure, or private costs, such as hotel upgrades or other business investments incurred in preparation of the Games, which are typically substantial but which vary drastically from city to city and are difficult to compare consistently.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_cost_overrun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_...
- rospaya 11y ago
  The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold. Barcelona was hugely changed by the 1992 Games and was transformed into one of the richest cities in Europe and one of the most visited spots on Earth. It's significance, quality of life and wealth grew because of the event. That's the point of most Olympic events, as former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it: It's not about three weeks of sports, it's about getting funds to rebuild your city. A lot of them don't pull it off, but Barcelona for one did it fine.
  - caminante 11y ago
    > The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold... I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired. Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget. Maybe things worked out overall for the economy, but I submit that incremental value from investments in public infrastructure and what sounds like capable governance made the difference. You have to wonder if these changes could've happened without the burden of financing the sports side or hosting the olympics.
    - acveilleux 11y ago
      The timing in Barcelona was very special. Spain had only recently become a democracy again when they were awarded the game. There was a lot of political capital available to be spent and a real need to turn a page. The games in this case were a catalyst but not the reason for most of the expenses. Same as the Expo in Seville which was also in '92.
      - caminante 11y ago
        Indeed. Many didn't (and still don't) realize how fractured the Spanish state was, going into recent times (i.e. post Franco ~1975). Somewhat related...it was interesting to learn how Spain's triumph at the 2010 World Cup became a unifying, transcendent event for the country, politically.
kuschku 11y ago
There are a lot of cities that handled it well. Los Angeles, Munich, just to name a few. And I fully expect that if Hamburg gets 2024 (which would mean the sailing events would be in the same place for the third time) it would be effective, too. Bad planning is not limited to olympics.
pbreit 11y ago
Making the games pay off for a city definitely seems doable if not easy. Key ingredient: it has to try to make it pay off.

Barcelona '92 was handled pretty well. The facilities are still used, the built housing was sold after the games, and tourism augmented significantly. It could be the exception to the rule.

Gys 11y ago

This article is about the costs involved. How do you mean 'handled pretty well' ?! I think you have no idea what you are talking about and did not bother to spend a few seconds to look for facts ? 'The cost of the Barcelona Summer Olympics was USD11.4 billion (in 2009 dollars). The cost overrun was 417 percent in real terms. This compares with an average cost of USD5.7 billion (in 2009 dollars) for other summer Olympics over the past 50 years for which data are available and an average cost overrun for these Games of 252 per cent. Cost here includes only sports-related costs and thus does not include other public costs, such as road, rail, or airport infrastructure, or private costs, such as hotel upgrades or other business investments incurred in preparation of the Games, which are typically substantial but which vary drastically from city to city and are difficult to compare consistently.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_cost_overrun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Summer_Olympics#Cost_and_...

rospaya 11y ago
The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold. Barcelona was hugely changed by the 1992 Games and was transformed into one of the richest cities in Europe and one of the most visited spots on Earth. It's significance, quality of life and wealth grew because of the event. That's the point of most Olympic events, as former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it: It's not about three weeks of sports, it's about getting funds to rebuild your city. A lot of them don't pull it off, but Barcelona for one did it fine.
- caminante 11y ago
  > The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold... I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired. Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget. Maybe things worked out overall for the economy, but I submit that incremental value from investments in public infrastructure and what sounds like capable governance made the difference. You have to wonder if these changes could've happened without the burden of financing the sports side or hosting the olympics.
  - acveilleux 11y ago
    The timing in Barcelona was very special. Spain had only recently become a democracy again when they were awarded the game. There was a lot of political capital available to be spent and a real need to turn a page. The games in this case were a catalyst but not the reason for most of the expenses. Same as the Expo in Seville which was also in '92.
    - caminante 11y ago
      Indeed. Many didn't (and still don't) realize how fractured the Spanish state was, going into recent times (i.e. post Franco ~1975). Somewhat related...it was interesting to learn how Spain's triumph at the 2010 World Cup became a unifying, transcendent event for the country, politically.

kuschku 11y ago

There are a lot of cities that handled it well. Los Angeles, Munich, just to name a few. And I fully expect that if Hamburg gets 2024 (which would mean the sailing events would be in the same place for the third time) it would be effective, too. Bad planning is not limited to olympics.

pbreit 11y ago

Making the games pay off for a city definitely seems doable if not easy. Key ingredient: it has to try to make it pay off.