4 ms·

Los Angeles is treating this like an infrastructure project - it gained numerous benefits from the last two times it hosted, and will likely gain more of the sa

• ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  From the article. >The bid contains nothing in the way of improved infrastructure, relying instead on public transportation projects already in the works. But LA 2028 faces challenges. And they're planning on reusing buildings. >Local organizers plan to use existing venues such as Staples Center, Pauley Pavilion and the Rose Bowl. Only a few temporary facilities will be needed at relatively little cost. And they don't know what they're spending the money on. >Organizers have been talking with City Council members about where to spend the money and are expected to present a plan next fall.
• lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Olympics facilities are not infrastructure.
  • 123jay7 8y ago
    Trains to airports are though.
• Eric_WVGG 8y ago
  Although I am somewhat "anti-Olympics," my acquaintances in Salt Lake City say the 2002 Olympics were very successful in sort of modernizing the entire city. There is apparently a very clear before-and-after with regards to infrastructure, public spaces, transit, etc., all for the better. But that was a rare exception, as far as I can tell. Most Olympic cities appear to have that kind of effect as a goal and fall short. I read a proposal a while back that the summer Olympics just get permanently moved to Greece and that sounds like a great idea to me.
  • Rebelgecko 8y ago
    Not to mention a loosening of alcohol laws
  • gamblor956 8y ago
    SLC's Olympics (at least, on the organizational side and after Romney took over from the previous organizers) were modeled after the LA 84 Olympics run by Peter Ueberroth. Prior to Romney's coup, the SLC Olympics were hemorrhaging money and deeply in the red. Atlanta also used its Olympics to modernize the city, and much of that infrastructure still remains. Surprisingly, LA in the past did not use the Olympics to modernize the city. Its bids were submitted on the basis of largely not building anything for the Games, because every time LA's bid on the Olympics, the Games have been out of favor due to the enormous costs of hosting. (For the 1932 games, LA was unopposed.) LA's success in hosting profitable Olympics without much building is, quite ironically, one of the biggest factors in other cities thinking that they could also host the Games.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  • RandallBrown 8y ago
    It's not uncommon for the olympics to be profitable, especially when hosted in a city that mostly has the infrastructure in place already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games LA, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Vancouver, Calgary, London, Beijing, etc. all did quite well with the olympics in the past.
    • mc32 8y ago
      I see where Sochi and Beijing are listed as having made money. With the amounts spent on holding those events (dozens of billions) I’m skeptical of those claims.
• maxxxxx 8y ago
  Let’s hope they do it this way. Munich in 1972 did a very good job building up infrastructure that is still In use.