7 ms·

"The London Olympics cost $19 billion, three times the original $6.5 billion budget, while the Tokyo Olympics are estimated to cost over $25 billion, four times

by galonk 7y ago

"The London Olympics cost $19 billion, three times the original $6.5 billion budget, while the Tokyo Olympics are estimated to cost over $25 billion, four times the originally announced budget. There are similar stories from the Games in Athens, Montreal, and Sochi." -- Deadspin The budget will definitely keep multiplying until it's at least double digits. The initial budget was a fantasy.

gamblor956 7y ago
The budget estimates for LA have increased because of estimated inflation between now and 2028. There are no new additional/unforeseen costs in this budget. LA has hosted the Olympics several times and there members of the last organizing committee on the 2028 committee. They know what costs to anticipate and plan for...
- rapsey 7y ago
  >There are no new additional/unforeseen costs. And why would anyone expect those on government contracts.
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics twice already and has enough infrastructure to do the job. Sure there will be some expenses, like painting over graffiti and busing homeless out of main areas. But, it is not like they are building major infrastructure like Athens or Rio. There are some LA Metro improvements being done but they were planned and tax introduced before the Olympic win, I believe.
    - popz41 7y ago
      I would disagree on "having enough infrastructure", after moving to SoCal a few years back. LAX is a complete nightmare. One can easily spend 20-30 mins trying to drive from the airport entrance to the terminal. The horseshoe design cannot handle capacity.
      - jupp0r 7y ago
        In the scheme of things, it's not that bad. Ever been to IAD or JFK?
      - dv_dt 7y ago
        Socal also has a network of regional airports to get in and out of besides LAX. Ontario, Long beach, OC, Burbank, even San Diego if needed.
      - mturmon 7y ago
        This comment is, sadly, on-point. However, LAX is being redone, both terminal-by-terminal, and with a connector to transit and car rentals. One place to go for a summary is: https://www.lawa.org/en/connectinglax/lamp-news https://www.lawa.org/en/connectinglax/lamp-news -- the current round of modernization is expected to be done by 2023.
      - HillaryBriss 7y ago
        IMHO, this highlights the main pain point: transportation. The city of LA's population was about 3 million in 1984 and now it's about 4 million. The surrounding cities (which are often hard to distinguish from LA itself) have grown too. Road and freeway expansion have not kept pace. Car traffic has become far heavier. In 1984, the events were spread all over the place. They'll probably do something similar in 2028. Will people be able to drive their rental cars and take their Ubers in a timely manner to the drop-off points for these dispersed events? Will the city and county governments and the MTA add public transport in an intelligent and sufficient way to eliminate the need or desire for large amounts of private transportation? (Answer: no)
        dv_dt 7y ago
        The MTA has plans to expand, and having the focusing timeline of the 2028 Olympics is, imho, helpful for large projects. https://la.curbed.com/2017/8/4/16098474/olympics-transit-future-subway-rail https://la.curbed.com/2017/8/4/16098474/olympics-transit-fut...
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - zanny 7y ago
      > busing homeless out of main areas Something is really wrong with the world when a city throwing around billions of dollars for a sports competition thinks just moving homeless people out of the way is an ethical answer to the problem. If there was anyone in the decision making process with empathy they might run "slightly overbudget" by a few hundred million to build a hospital, rehab center, and public housing development to get those homeless off the streets permanently.
      - gamblor956 7y ago
        For starters, the city is not spending billions of dollars on the Games, the funding is private sources and corporate sponsorships. Second, the 2028 Committee is a private, non-governmental organization... That being said, LA's homeless problem is largely due to the homeless rejecting housing, rehab, drug treatment, etc. In CA, a person cannot be committed to rehab or treatment against their will. This is the single largest factor behind why CA's homeless problem is so much worse than comparable locations. Empathy won't solve anything until you convince the homeless "advocates" that rehab and housing is more important than the "freedom" of the homeless to do drugs and wreck their lives.
        mixmastamyk 7y ago
        Knew that sentence would hit a nerve, but it is a reality, and unfortunately I didn't take the time to soften it. You are correct, though I'd shift the focus slightly to mental illness. Mentally ill homeless in LA are deemed competent to decide their own welfare, but not face criminal charges. Logically both or neither of those must be true. Leaving a giant gaping hole of "nothing can be done" in any long-term solution.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    For starters, its not a government contract... It's a private organization that contracted with another private organization with the support of the local governments and populace.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    The previous LA hosting of the Olympics was one of the few to be on budget and schedule. It helps to look at actual history instead of projecting tropes.
    - tzs 7y ago
      With the number of concerts and pro and college sporting events that are held in the Los Angeles area, they already had enough venues to handle most Olympic events. They only had to build something like two new venues (a swim center and a velodrome, I think). They used student housing at a UCLA (and USC?) for Olympic Village. That had plenty of capacity because a lot of students go home during the summer break. Basically, the Olympics wasn't a lot more than Los Angeles normally handles, so I'm not surprised it went off well.
- gist 7y ago
  > LA has hosted the Olympics several times One time in 1932 (as if that matters at all today) and another time in 1984. Just security wise 1984 is vastly different than today. As are all sorts of employment issues and things that are done differently today than in the 1980's. I owned a company in the 80's and the things that you could 'get away with' (for lack of a better way to put it) have no resemblance to a company today. Sure tech has greatly advanced but it's an entirely different 'plan with zero failure' than it was back then (and honestly 1930's does not even count back then people dying in construction was a cost of doing business/construction).
  - mturmon 7y ago
    The LA Coliseum was built in the 1920s and expanded for the 1932 Olympics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum#Planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum#...), and will no doubt be used for 2028.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
rhizome 7y ago
Frankly I'm not sure where the scam has a greater effect: at the estimate or the implementation. Probably a little bit of each, of course, but I think intentionally deflated estimates are the worse crime because they are the ideas upon which reality is built. That is, construction and production costs can be renegotiated, clawed back, or otherwise affected by things people can actually do, while estimates are made-up, set in stone, then used to calibrate everything else down the line. This process is not a great human achievement.
- Gpetrium 7y ago
  To be fair, a company doesn't need to be doing a scam to fall outside the expected budget. There are many causes for budget fluctuation, for example: Inflation rates, wage changes, cost of materials, disruptions, operational errors, overtime, change requests, etc. Besides, it may not necessarily be a scam in some cases since all parties expect the cost to increase, it becomes a matter of how much of variance is acceptable to stakeholders. Another problem in public policy is that a lot of major infrastructure/work would never be implemented if the public knew the end price tag at the start.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    The politics of project cost are immaterial and only assuage egos. The fact appears to be that lowest-cost bidding invites this course of events. Contractors simply lie to get the gig.
908087 7y ago
More than NASA's annual budget... so that people can show off their running abilities. What an incredible waste.
- dmos62 7y ago
  This comment might be snarky, but it does sum up my concerns pretty accurately. I would like to hear a veritable answer to it.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    NASA doesn't make $2.5 billion a year from sponsors and ads like the Olympics is planning to. They're not even allowed to. Brindenstine has talked about having corporations sponsor missions before (e.g. the Doritos® ISS Crew Resupply Mission or the Mars Candy Company Rover). However there hasn't been much movement on that front, and I doubt that NASA's sponsorships would be as profitable. Imagine if IBM sponsors a rocket that self destructs after a computer glitch— it would be awkward for them and not good marketing for Watson. The Olympics are also planning on making a billion dollars or so from ticket sales. I think NASA charges $50 or so for tickets to watch a launch at the cape. At the Olympics, some tickets may be that cheap or cheaper (e.g. the Slovenia vs South Sudan handball match, no offense to either of those countries). However tickets for more popular events like the opening ceremonies are going to exceed $1000. The Olympics also has more events within a single year than NASA. There may be a few dozen launches a year, and they're hard to sell tickets for since most launch attempts get scrubbed/rescheduled at least once and they're not always in accessible locations. Meanwhile, the Olympics will have hundreds of events and you can be reasonably confident that they will happen on the same day that's on your ticket.
    - tastygreenapple 7y ago
      I think you've just explained why the olympics has a better business model than a Government agency that's charged with atmospheric research and space exploration, however, the parent comment is about how it seems like a waste to put effort into the olympics that could be invested in expanding the frontiers of our knowledge.
Tsubasachan 7y ago
And this is why Amsterdam said fuck no to the Olympics. If your country is already obscenely rich and you're literally reduced to begging tourists to please stay away what is the point of hosting the Olympics?
- RandallBrown 7y ago
  It's fun and good for the businesses in the area?
- hellot848 7y ago
  Misplaced sense of prestige.
benj111 7y ago
Agreed. I'd like to know how much security alone ends up costing. London 2012 security ended up costing over £1 billion. I can't see a US city spending less.

by galonk 7y ago

gamblor956 7y ago

The budget estimates for LA have increased because of estimated inflation between now and 2028. There are no new additional/unforeseen costs in this budget. LA has hosted the Olympics several times and there members of the last organizing committee on the 2028 committee. They know what costs to anticipate and plan for...

rapsey 7y ago
>There are no new additional/unforeseen costs. And why would anyone expect those on government contracts.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics twice already and has enough infrastructure to do the job. Sure there will be some expenses, like painting over graffiti and busing homeless out of main areas. But, it is not like they are building major infrastructure like Athens or Rio. There are some LA Metro improvements being done but they were planned and tax introduced before the Olympic win, I believe.
  - popz41 7y ago
    I would disagree on "having enough infrastructure", after moving to SoCal a few years back. LAX is a complete nightmare. One can easily spend 20-30 mins trying to drive from the airport entrance to the terminal. The horseshoe design cannot handle capacity.
    - jupp0r 7y ago
      In the scheme of things, it's not that bad. Ever been to IAD or JFK?
    - dv_dt 7y ago
      Socal also has a network of regional airports to get in and out of besides LAX. Ontario, Long beach, OC, Burbank, even San Diego if needed.
    - mturmon 7y ago
      This comment is, sadly, on-point. However, LAX is being redone, both terminal-by-terminal, and with a connector to transit and car rentals. One place to go for a summary is: https://www.lawa.org/en/connectinglax/lamp-news https://www.lawa.org/en/connectinglax/lamp-news -- the current round of modernization is expected to be done by 2023.
    - HillaryBriss 7y ago
      IMHO, this highlights the main pain point: transportation. The city of LA's population was about 3 million in 1984 and now it's about 4 million. The surrounding cities (which are often hard to distinguish from LA itself) have grown too. Road and freeway expansion have not kept pace. Car traffic has become far heavier. In 1984, the events were spread all over the place. They'll probably do something similar in 2028. Will people be able to drive their rental cars and take their Ubers in a timely manner to the drop-off points for these dispersed events? Will the city and county governments and the MTA add public transport in an intelligent and sufficient way to eliminate the need or desire for large amounts of private transportation? (Answer: no)
      - dv_dt 7y ago
        The MTA has plans to expand, and having the focusing timeline of the 2028 Olympics is, imho, helpful for large projects. https://la.curbed.com/2017/8/4/16098474/olympics-transit-future-subway-rail https://la.curbed.com/2017/8/4/16098474/olympics-transit-fut...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - zanny 7y ago
    > busing homeless out of main areas Something is really wrong with the world when a city throwing around billions of dollars for a sports competition thinks just moving homeless people out of the way is an ethical answer to the problem. If there was anyone in the decision making process with empathy they might run "slightly overbudget" by a few hundred million to build a hospital, rehab center, and public housing development to get those homeless off the streets permanently.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      For starters, the city is not spending billions of dollars on the Games, the funding is private sources and corporate sponsorships. Second, the 2028 Committee is a private, non-governmental organization... That being said, LA's homeless problem is largely due to the homeless rejecting housing, rehab, drug treatment, etc. In CA, a person cannot be committed to rehab or treatment against their will. This is the single largest factor behind why CA's homeless problem is so much worse than comparable locations. Empathy won't solve anything until you convince the homeless "advocates" that rehab and housing is more important than the "freedom" of the homeless to do drugs and wreck their lives.
      - mixmastamyk 7y ago
        Knew that sentence would hit a nerve, but it is a reality, and unfortunately I didn't take the time to soften it. You are correct, though I'd shift the focus slightly to mental illness. Mentally ill homeless in LA are deemed competent to decide their own welfare, but not face criminal charges. Logically both or neither of those must be true. Leaving a giant gaping hole of "nothing can be done" in any long-term solution.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  For starters, its not a government contract... It's a private organization that contracted with another private organization with the support of the local governments and populace.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  The previous LA hosting of the Olympics was one of the few to be on budget and schedule. It helps to look at actual history instead of projecting tropes.
  - tzs 7y ago
    With the number of concerts and pro and college sporting events that are held in the Los Angeles area, they already had enough venues to handle most Olympic events. They only had to build something like two new venues (a swim center and a velodrome, I think). They used student housing at a UCLA (and USC?) for Olympic Village. That had plenty of capacity because a lot of students go home during the summer break. Basically, the Olympics wasn't a lot more than Los Angeles normally handles, so I'm not surprised it went off well.
gist 7y ago
> LA has hosted the Olympics several times One time in 1932 (as if that matters at all today) and another time in 1984. Just security wise 1984 is vastly different than today. As are all sorts of employment issues and things that are done differently today than in the 1980's. I owned a company in the 80's and the things that you could 'get away with' (for lack of a better way to put it) have no resemblance to a company today. Sure tech has greatly advanced but it's an entirely different 'plan with zero failure' than it was back then (and honestly 1930's does not even count back then people dying in construction was a cost of doing business/construction).
- mturmon 7y ago
  The LA Coliseum was built in the 1920s and expanded for the 1932 Olympics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum#Planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum#...), and will no doubt be used for 2028.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

rhizome 7y ago

Frankly I'm not sure where the scam has a greater effect: at the estimate or the implementation. Probably a little bit of each, of course, but I think intentionally deflated estimates are the worse crime because they are the ideas upon which reality is built. That is, construction and production costs can be renegotiated, clawed back, or otherwise affected by things people can actually do, while estimates are made-up, set in stone, then used to calibrate everything else down the line. This process is not a great human achievement.

Gpetrium 7y ago
To be fair, a company doesn't need to be doing a scam to fall outside the expected budget. There are many causes for budget fluctuation, for example: Inflation rates, wage changes, cost of materials, disruptions, operational errors, overtime, change requests, etc. Besides, it may not necessarily be a scam in some cases since all parties expect the cost to increase, it becomes a matter of how much of variance is acceptable to stakeholders. Another problem in public policy is that a lot of major infrastructure/work would never be implemented if the public knew the end price tag at the start.
- rhizome 7y ago
  The politics of project cost are immaterial and only assuage egos. The fact appears to be that lowest-cost bidding invites this course of events. Contractors simply lie to get the gig.

908087 7y ago

More than NASA's annual budget... so that people can show off their running abilities. What an incredible waste.

dmos62 7y ago
This comment might be snarky, but it does sum up my concerns pretty accurately. I would like to hear a veritable answer to it.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  NASA doesn't make $2.5 billion a year from sponsors and ads like the Olympics is planning to. They're not even allowed to. Brindenstine has talked about having corporations sponsor missions before (e.g. the Doritos® ISS Crew Resupply Mission or the Mars Candy Company Rover). However there hasn't been much movement on that front, and I doubt that NASA's sponsorships would be as profitable. Imagine if IBM sponsors a rocket that self destructs after a computer glitch— it would be awkward for them and not good marketing for Watson. The Olympics are also planning on making a billion dollars or so from ticket sales. I think NASA charges $50 or so for tickets to watch a launch at the cape. At the Olympics, some tickets may be that cheap or cheaper (e.g. the Slovenia vs South Sudan handball match, no offense to either of those countries). However tickets for more popular events like the opening ceremonies are going to exceed $1000. The Olympics also has more events within a single year than NASA. There may be a few dozen launches a year, and they're hard to sell tickets for since most launch attempts get scrubbed/rescheduled at least once and they're not always in accessible locations. Meanwhile, the Olympics will have hundreds of events and you can be reasonably confident that they will happen on the same day that's on your ticket.
  - tastygreenapple 7y ago
    I think you've just explained why the olympics has a better business model than a Government agency that's charged with atmospheric research and space exploration, however, the parent comment is about how it seems like a waste to put effort into the olympics that could be invested in expanding the frontiers of our knowledge.

Tsubasachan 7y ago

And this is why Amsterdam said fuck no to the Olympics. If your country is already obscenely rich and you're literally reduced to begging tourists to please stay away what is the point of hosting the Olympics?

RandallBrown 7y ago
It's fun and good for the businesses in the area?
hellot848 7y ago
Misplaced sense of prestige.

benj111 7y ago

Agreed. I'd like to know how much security alone ends up costing. London 2012 security ended up costing over £1 billion. I can't see a US city spending less.