5 ms·

Even in the US, cities are catching on that hosting an Olympics is likely a money-losing event, and they'll be saddled with poorly-built large facilities afterw

by chiph 10y ago

Even in the US, cities are catching on that hosting an Olympics is likely a money-losing event, and they'll be saddled with poorly-built large facilities afterwards (why build well when you can build fast?). Permanent facilities, perhaps two or four per continent (for winter & summer games, and two have two host countries), would likely be a good answer.

omegaham 10y ago
In the US at least, this is offset by the fact that large metropolitan areas have excellent D1 college facilities along with multi-use professional sports stadiums. More importantly, those facilities are already being used and will be used in the future. As far as I can tell, the biggest hassle for American cities is traffic. All of the facilities are there, but putting them into use all at once with tens of thousands of foreign tourists would be an utter nightmare, especially with American reliance on cars and lack of public transportation options.
- sethhochberg 10y ago
  Olympic bids often do help encourage public transit development in the US, however - a great recent example here is the extension of the 7-line subway in NYC, which was originally planned as part of the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics. After the city lost the bid, it was decided to go ahead and build the line anyways as part of another redevelopment project.
- jandrese 10y ago
  Or they could do what Romney did and have most of the Olympic facilities out in bumfuck nowhere to avoid inconveniencing the city with traffic.
StavrosK 10y ago
Sounds like the Olympics are the Groupon of sports.
logfromblammo 10y ago
I think Americans have been aware of this for quite a long time. That's why the Lake Placid "Olympic village" was built to be a prison, and we all just pretended it was actually a dormitory for athletes for a few short weeks. After the visitors left, they went back in to finish putting in the bars and fences. Atlanta never would have submitted a bid if they didn't have businesses already lined up to not only take over the facilities after the event, but to participate in the design to ensure they would be fit for purpose after the visitors left. US tax-payers would go into open revolt if their city did not have a post-event plan for all the visitor infrastructure that is at least plausibly non-disastrous. We get angry enough as it is when the city uses our taxes to subsidize just one professional sports team--a team that will probably turn around to charge us $50 per 19-inch (48 cm) seat, $10 for each beer, and just suck in league play for the next 10 seasons. As far as I'm concerned, only publicly-owned teams should even be eligible for public support, and the only "major" team in the US that even qualifies is the NFL's Green Bay Packers. So you're going to have to line up support from a university; Live Nation or some other big concert promoter; a major or minor league sports team or two; perhaps a mall company like Simon Property Group, Westfield Group, or General Growth Properties; and maybe a hotelier like Wyndham, Hyatt, Mariott, Hilton, or Choice. You'll need restaurant franchisees, city planners, and support from the mass transit companies. And then you still have to win the event bid. Even if you do win, a lot of residents will be saying, "Oh, so you'll do actual maintenance and improvements to infrastructure for THEM, who will be here for two months and then leave you with the bill, but you won't do it for US, living here and working and paying taxes for generations? You got some esplainin' to do." Then there is also the issue that even our most corrupt politicians sometimes balk at bribing foreign officials. Sure, they'll take under-the-table lobbying dollars from domestic corporations and casino-operating tribes all day long, and nobody bats an eye, but you get international borders involved, and suddenly they get worried about possible federal criminal charges.
RandallBrown 10y ago
It appears that only the Lake Placid Olympics lost money in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

by chiph 10y ago

omegaham 10y ago

In the US at least, this is offset by the fact that large metropolitan areas have excellent D1 college facilities along with multi-use professional sports stadiums. More importantly, those facilities are already being used and will be used in the future. As far as I can tell, the biggest hassle for American cities is traffic. All of the facilities are there, but putting them into use all at once with tens of thousands of foreign tourists would be an utter nightmare, especially with American reliance on cars and lack of public transportation options.

sethhochberg 10y ago
Olympic bids often do help encourage public transit development in the US, however - a great recent example here is the extension of the 7-line subway in NYC, which was originally planned as part of the city's bid for the 2012 Olympics. After the city lost the bid, it was decided to go ahead and build the line anyways as part of another redevelopment project.
jandrese 10y ago
Or they could do what Romney did and have most of the Olympic facilities out in bumfuck nowhere to avoid inconveniencing the city with traffic.

StavrosK 10y ago

Sounds like the Olympics are the Groupon of sports.

logfromblammo 10y ago

I think Americans have been aware of this for quite a long time. That's why the Lake Placid "Olympic village" was built to be a prison, and we all just pretended it was actually a dormitory for athletes for a few short weeks. After the visitors left, they went back in to finish putting in the bars and fences. Atlanta never would have submitted a bid if they didn't have businesses already lined up to not only take over the facilities after the event, but to participate in the design to ensure they would be fit for purpose after the visitors left. US tax-payers would go into open revolt if their city did not have a post-event plan for all the visitor infrastructure that is at least plausibly non-disastrous. We get angry enough as it is when the city uses our taxes to subsidize just one professional sports team--a team that will probably turn around to charge us $50 per 19-inch (48 cm) seat, $10 for each beer, and just suck in league play for the next 10 seasons. As far as I'm concerned, only publicly-owned teams should even be eligible for public support, and the only "major" team in the US that even qualifies is the NFL's Green Bay Packers. So you're going to have to line up support from a university; Live Nation or some other big concert promoter; a major or minor league sports team or two; perhaps a mall company like Simon Property Group, Westfield Group, or General Growth Properties; and maybe a hotelier like Wyndham, Hyatt, Mariott, Hilton, or Choice. You'll need restaurant franchisees, city planners, and support from the mass transit companies. And then you still have to win the event bid. Even if you do win, a lot of residents will be saying, "Oh, so you'll do actual maintenance and improvements to infrastructure for THEM, who will be here for two months and then leave you with the bill, but you won't do it for US, living here and working and paying taxes for generations? You got some esplainin' to do." Then there is also the issue that even our most corrupt politicians sometimes balk at bribing foreign officials. Sure, they'll take under-the-table lobbying dollars from domestic corporations and casino-operating tribes all day long, and nobody bats an eye, but you get international borders involved, and suddenly they get worried about possible federal criminal charges.

RandallBrown 10y ago

It appears that only the Lake Placid Olympics lost money in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games