8 ms·

The argument for a permanent Olympic City

• Fricken 5y ago
  One could also break the Olympics up, and host the gymnastics in one city and the swimming events in another etc. Then it wouldn't be such an overwhelming financial/infrastructure burden for any particular host.
  • bertjk 5y ago
    Where you see infrastructure burden, others see opportunities for pork barrel spending, corruption, and graft. It is a feature, not a bug.
  • lastofthemojito 5y ago
    Then we'd have fewer chances to add names to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_athletes_with_Olympic_medals_in_different_sports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_athletes_with_Olympic_... Although to be fair, most of the multi-sport athletes complete in closely-related sports (which would likely be held in the same location) or are from the old days when tug-of-war was an Olympic sport.
    • Ichthypresbyter 5y ago
      Also, I think the old days with tug of war are the last time anyone won medals in unrelated sports (so not something like fencing and modern pentathlon, or cross-country skiing and Nordic combined) at the same Olympics. Usually it's a case of switching sports between Olympics, like Rebecca Romero between rowing and cycling or Roswitha Krause between swimming and handball.
      • lastofthemojito 5y ago
        Ester Ledecká medalled in both snowboarding and skiing in the 2018 Winter Olympics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ester_Ledeck%C3%A1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ester_Ledeck%C3%A1 Obviously those aren't as different as swimming and handball though. Honestly, I don't think the idea of splitting the Olympics over several sites is a bad one. The advantages (less construction at each site, more ideal conditions for each sport) might outweigh the disadvantages (less opportunity for multi-sport athletes, less interaction between athletes from different sports). I always like seeing the USA men's basketball team show up to watch the USA swimmers, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if that tradition doesn't continue.
• sys_64738 5y ago
  This carbon footprint BS is always trotted out. If these folk really cared about that then actually attack the real companies that contribute the most to the carbon footprint. Otherwise it's just a waste of space. This article wasn't proofread as there were no 2021 London Olympics. BTW, the Olympics is meant to showcase the city/country that the event is in for that particular Games. It has knock on effect for tourism, economic impact and the like.
  • cogman10 5y ago
    Right, this sort of thing drives me a bit nuts as well. Yearly global CO2 emissions are at 31Gt. This article is complaining because the Olympics adds 0.0004Gt -> 0.003Gt? I dislike this part of the green movement. Absolutely it's important to cut down CO2 emissions. However, worrying about the emissions of a sporting event, even a really big one, is really just asinine.
    • breuleux 5y ago
      An event only accounting for 1/10,000th of global emissions doesn't mean it is asinine to worry or complain about it. That very much depends on how easy it is to cut it relative to other sources. If it's easy, it's absolutely worth complaining about: if you can find a thousand such events to eliminate, that's 10% of global emissions (I know, there aren't a thousand olympics :P) I'm not saying this particular argument has any merit, mind you. Just that it's legitimate to care about smaller sources of pollution if the effort required to eliminate them is proportionately smaller.
    • voldacar 5y ago
      Basically any complex thing humans do consumes energy and therefore emits carbon dioxide. So you can selectively criticize anything you want by invoking carbon emissions. It's pretty funny actually, especially considering how much sway it seems to have over peoples' minds these days.
      • cogman10 5y ago
        The conspiracy side of my mind says it's likely by design. The fossil fuel industry used solar to attack nuclear back in the day. I'm pretty suspicious that a lot of that is happening today. Distract with minor issues while the big ones go unaddressed.
• kaycebasques 5y ago
  One counterargument is that hosting the Olympics seems to be an important prestige signal for nation states. Think Beijing 2008.
  • bargle0 5y ago
    And Berlin 1936.
  • madcaptenor 5y ago
    Also cities - see for example Atlanta 1996.
  • tolbish 5y ago
    Don't the hosts of every Olympics see them as a sign of prestige and international validation?
  • tomjen3 5y ago
    That is an obstacle, but I am not sure why that would be an issue? Is it because we want to have it as a diplomatic card? I mean getting a favourable mention in the US state of the Union address[0] is also something that would be prestigious for nations, happens every year and is more under US control, so wouldn't that be better? [0]: When American politicians mention smaller countries it becomes national news in those countries. I doubt the US news spend much time talking about a state visit from Denmark, but Danish news does.
• jmull 5y ago
  The article doesn’t even address the reasons different countries want to host the games in the first place. Also, it keeps bringing up the environmental cost of transporting athletes and trainers to the host location, but obviously that’s the same whether the location is reused or not. Just kind of dumb, overall.
• publicola1990 5y ago
  I am thinking there are deep rooted problems with IOC. For example it is not a democratic body with a one country one vote system, rather one in which the member individuals nominate other members. In recent times it has even become less transparent, like how it awarded the 2028 Olympics to Los Angeles without even a proper bid process. Even for 2032, there is no transparent process, IOC already announced Brisbane as its "preferred host city" even though other cities like Jakarta has prepared serious, viable bids.
  • votepaunchy 5y ago
    Note that Paris 2024 was awarded as part of this “without even a proper bid process”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bids_for_the_2024_and_2028_Summer_Olympics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bids_for_the_2024_and_2028_S...
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• jabl 5y ago
  Excellent idea. I suggest Athens, for the historical significance, and which also hosted the summer Olympics not too long ago, so the facilities are already there.
  • runnerup 5y ago
    I enjoy this suggestion and would be reasonably happy with it. However I'd prefer the games be held somewhere with particularly good air quality. Right now Athens air quality is somewhat low, which could negatively affect results. Additionally, I'd worry about Greece's ability to host winter olympics in the future with continued climate/weather trends. While mountain air is often cleaner, I think sea level would be most appropriate, again for the fastest times for most events. Very short sprints (100m dash, for example) are faster at high altitudes. The lower oxygen content negatively affects medium and long distance events but the lower atmospheric drag more than compensates for short sprints. Perhaps you could hold it somewhere like California, Taiwan, Oman, or Alaska, where there are high mountains very close to the coast. That way you could hold events at whatever altitude is most optimal for performance, while minimizing travel distance between the venues. Anchorage seems like a fine choice at first. Great air quality but not so pristine that the infrastructure would ruin an unspoiled area. There are two mountain ranges within a couple-hour drive. However the tallest range (Alaska Range) is in an undeveloped national park so putting infrastructure there could be quite damaging. Also the tallest peak, Denali, is sacred to Native Americans. The Chugach range is much closer to Anchorage and has quite a bit of tourism infrastructure but the peaks are lower - 7,000 to 8,000 ft peaks vs the 11,000 to 20,000 ft of the undeveloped Alaska Range.
    • Ichthypresbyter 5y ago
      Greece couldn't host the Winter Olympics now. While it has ski resorts which currently have fairly reliable snow, the FIS requirements for Olympic competition include a minimum 800m vertical drop for the downhill course. While some ski areas, such as Bjelasnica in Sarajevo, were able to meet this requirement by building a raised start structure, there's nowhere in Greece that even comes close.
  • jfkylymyn6 5y ago
• jmann99999 5y ago
  I live near Salt Lake City, in the US. We hosted the winter games in 2002. Much of the infrastructure required for a Winter Olympics is still available. So, the powers that be are trying to leverage that to host another Olympics in 2030 or 2034. I believe a number of locals are excited about that. Getting to be that intimately involved in everything the Olympics offers is a unique experience. That said, if it came here every four years, the novelty would be gone and the harsh realities would set in. It would be great for tourism-related businesses but quality of life for locals would suffer. Perhaps the Summer Olympics could find a permanent home. I am not sure any one locale would want to perpetually host the Winter Olympics -- outside of those who believe they could build wealth upon it. It would start destroying the very reason you want to live in the mountains.
  • Eric_WVGG 5y ago
    I was about to chime in and say, it makes more sense to give the Winter Olympics a permanent home than the Summer Olympics. The Winter events are more dependent on highly unpredictable weather, it would make more sense to pick a spot that was more or less guaranteed to get reliable snow for the next thirty years (Norway? Canada?) than roll the dice every time Sochi or Colorado wants attention.
    • jmann99999 5y ago
      I agree, the weather is very unpredictable. If the Olympics were next year in Utah it would be a disaster. Because of the drought, there is little water. That makes snow making very difficult. Perhaps they would take water from others “for this higher purpose” but it doesn’t change the fact that there isn’t enough water. I’d love the Olympics in SLC in 2030 or 2034 but would support finding a place where the winter will remain for a while.
    • tomjen3 5y ago
      There is a very obvious place host the summer olympics, which is Greece. That means that the amount of politiking that it takes will just be limiting to if we should do it or not. The amount of politiking about where to host the winter olympics would be insane. And with global warming I am not sure we could guarantee winter weather for the next 30 years anywhere on earth. Svalbard might be a place (and it is very nicely international).
• liquidify 5y ago
  Why not just host olympics in places that already have infrastructure? Yes that would mean limiting the amount of places where the olympics are held, but that doesn't really matter.
  • JohnFen 5y ago
    This makes the most sense to me. But in the end, I don't care much where the Olympics are held, just so long as they aren't held anywhere near me!
• beardyw 5y ago
  The 2012 Olympics was an opportunity to bring Stratford (in London, not upon-avon) a much needed boost. It is now the major hub in the east of London and continues to be a hive of renewal activity even now. The stadiums remain but they seem incidental.
• mynameismon 5y ago
  Late, but in my opinion, cities should bid for multiple Olympics, not a single one. This way, stadiums are also reused, and athletes of the host country get world class facilities which are not thrown into disuse after the Olympics