2 ms·
Another thing from the article that struck me as good for London is how little it costed compared to the others > The games set back Sochi $51 billion, London
by duiker101 10y ago
Another thing from the article that struck me as good for London is how little it costed compared to the others
> The games set back Sochi $51 billion, London $11.6 billion and Beijing at least $40 billion
That is no small amount, I wonder how much of it was corruption and bad management.
- bane 10y agoCorruption played a big part, but Sochi had zero infrastructure at the start, it all had to be built from wholecloth, and Beijing need to transform large parts of an existing city to become an international showpiece. London already has incredible infrastructure and is already iconic. It seems that the strategy the London Olympics really used was to simply extend off of the existing systems in place and build up in a cheap area bringing new economic development to that area instead of trying to retrofit the city core.
- mixmastamyk 10y agoI believe they purposely "underspent" to not waste money as well, and remember a Chinese friend commenting on how quaint the ceremonies/facilities were. Turns out we should be aiming for London, rather than Beijing.
- praneshp 10y agoMy friends and I were joking before that Olympics that organizing it was just writing a bunch of letters. To Wimbledon for tennis courts, to FA for Wembeley, etc. Others were probably building from scratch.