7 ms·

We benefited from it in London, I think we all wanted it too. Even if it kind of was an austerity Olympics compared to before it and after it? Sure we wasted so

We benefited from it in London, I think we all wanted it too. Even if it kind of was an austerity Olympics compared to before it and after it? Sure we wasted some money here and there (was who the fuck needs a giant slide) but overall it turned an industrial wasteland into a useful area for East London.

fomine3 5y ago
Well, Tokyo is most far from wasteland in Japan. It wastes money to most crowded city despite most towns are declining.
darkfirefly 5y ago
Yeah, I'm not quite sure how other countries do it, but for the 2000 Olympics (Sydney) they basically renewed this giant landfill site. There's been a bunch of apartments, etc, built around there since then because it basically became a suburb where you could live.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  I remember a report on how Sydney was the only Olympics for a while that was net positive. Paris might also be, as they have very little new infra to build.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    That's not correct. Sydney lost money, and Atlanta (4 years prior) made money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games
    - makeitdouble 5y ago
      I am a bit split. If I’m reading it correctly, Wiki’s source is a journal’s comparing their simulation of what Sydney’s economy would have been without the Olympics, and the numbers published officially, with a twist on additional costs they think should be added to the official estimates. > We simulated the behaviour of industries, households and government resulting from hosting the Games for each of eight Australian regions over the years from 1997 to 2005. Our results revealed that rather than producing an economic benefit the Sydney Games actually reduced Australian household consumption by $2.1 billion. For comparison there are later reviews of the economics of the town with the 6 years after Olympics, with less simulation apparently, which come to a different conclusion https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/10360 https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/10360 I honestly don’t know which one is more trustworthy
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > but for the 2000 Olympics (Sydney) they basically renewed this giant landfill site. Why would you need the Olympics to have land repurposed. They were waiting for a good excuse? No need to have big expensive party if you could have done that in any other context. But then again you'd need to whole country to accept paying for making new apartments just in Sydney.
Ntrails 5y ago
> I think we all wanted it too Definitely not true. However, post hoc I am forced to admit it was not as colossal a waste of money as I'd expected, and honestly there was an astonishingly positive societal response. So, I was wrong, but I was not alone!
- ColonialOne 5y ago
  An astonishingly positive societal response which lasted how long? Do you think there have been long lasting benefits from that or was it just a nice few weeks? If the latter, which is my impression, I don't think that represents value for money at all.
  - Ntrails 5y ago
    I would argue years, genuinely. I still hear conversations about how great it was etc etc.
JetSetWilly 5y ago
The Olympics in London cost 11.3 Billion and generated revenue of 3.3 billion which doesn't exactly seem hugely beneficial. Of course in the usual London fashion most of the money came out of UK govt coffers, national lottery funding etc - so it was just a form of London sucking cash out of the rest of the UK to build infra, via the handy "Olympics" excuse, so I can see how a londoner might argue it was good as it was a means of extracting resources from the rest of the country. In the aggregate, it was just a giant waste of money especially for the 90% of the UK population that isn't in London.
- smt88 5y ago
  I'm not sure where your jab at London taking govt funds came from. London, like most modern cities, generates a surplus that subsidizes surrounding suburban and rural areas[1]. It was still an awful waste of money, but it wasn't part of any trend. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-d...
  - JetSetWilly 5y ago
    It comes from London frequently having money lavished on it that other areas don’t (eg - check public transport [1]) - and usually accompanied with a self-fulfilling prophecy about how other areas don’t generate tax income (which of course is because they don’t have good infra and investment). And this situation has been very much engineered by the UK government over the last 40 years, it isn’t some state of nature. [1] https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-north-set-to-receive-2-389-less-per-person-than-london-on-transport https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-...
    - dijit 5y ago
      I just want to chime in here and agree with this wholeheartedly. There is a lot of self-fulfilment when it comes to London spending vs London generation of revenues. It's famously the case that London props up almost the entire rest of the country. Scotland itself being a net-loss in terms of GDP. I come from a City called Coventry, "investment" in the city is non-existent; the only investor right now is the University which has essentially bought the entire City over the last 10 years. Why? Because "Coventry doesn't make money". Why does Coventry not make money? -- well, companies would never headquarter there because the infrastructure is not good enough and the networking connections are not compelling; even if you think it will save you money because it's cheaper to hire in Coventry (somewhere in the order of 1/3rd london salaries, 1/5th London commercial rents) it's still awkward because navigating the city requires making use of the awful public transport or buying a car[0] (which the city is close to capacity with already!) Birmingham, Britains "second city" has only moderate investment compared to London (though insanely more than most other UK cities), but also feels destitute in the majority of areas, _especially_ when compared to London, the infrastructure is marginally better than Coventry but the prestige/networking/access is nearly no different. This is many decades in the making, there is absolutely no way to compete with a city like London which is reaping the rewards of many decades of incredible investment which creates network effects which only serve to increase the gravitational pull of the city. [0]: https://youtu.be/Mxvk3KO8p20 https://youtu.be/Mxvk3KO8p20
ekianjo 5y ago
> We benefited from it in London You can never say that for sure because the money spent on organizing Olympics could have been used somewhere else (or not used at all, therefore decreasing taxation). It was certainly a waste for anyone not living in London in any case.
- prashantsengar 5y ago
  Every money that one spends can be spent somewhere else too

fomine3 5y ago

Well, Tokyo is most far from wasteland in Japan. It wastes money to most crowded city despite most towns are declining.

darkfirefly 5y ago

Yeah, I'm not quite sure how other countries do it, but for the 2000 Olympics (Sydney) they basically renewed this giant landfill site. There's been a bunch of apartments, etc, built around there since then because it basically became a suburb where you could live.

makeitdouble 5y ago
I remember a report on how Sydney was the only Olympics for a while that was net positive. Paris might also be, as they have very little new infra to build.
- jedberg 5y ago
  That's not correct. Sydney lost money, and Atlanta (4 years prior) made money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    I am a bit split. If I’m reading it correctly, Wiki’s source is a journal’s comparing their simulation of what Sydney’s economy would have been without the Olympics, and the numbers published officially, with a twist on additional costs they think should be added to the official estimates. > We simulated the behaviour of industries, households and government resulting from hosting the Games for each of eight Australian regions over the years from 1997 to 2005. Our results revealed that rather than producing an economic benefit the Sydney Games actually reduced Australian household consumption by $2.1 billion. For comparison there are later reviews of the economics of the town with the 6 years after Olympics, with less simulation apparently, which come to a different conclusion https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/10360 https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/10360 I honestly don’t know which one is more trustworthy
ekianjo 5y ago
> but for the 2000 Olympics (Sydney) they basically renewed this giant landfill site. Why would you need the Olympics to have land repurposed. They were waiting for a good excuse? No need to have big expensive party if you could have done that in any other context. But then again you'd need to whole country to accept paying for making new apartments just in Sydney.

Ntrails 5y ago

> I think we all wanted it too Definitely not true. However, post hoc I am forced to admit it was not as colossal a waste of money as I'd expected, and honestly there was an astonishingly positive societal response. So, I was wrong, but I was not alone!

ColonialOne 5y ago
An astonishingly positive societal response which lasted how long? Do you think there have been long lasting benefits from that or was it just a nice few weeks? If the latter, which is my impression, I don't think that represents value for money at all.
- Ntrails 5y ago
  I would argue years, genuinely. I still hear conversations about how great it was etc etc.

JetSetWilly 5y ago

The Olympics in London cost 11.3 Billion and generated revenue of 3.3 billion which doesn't exactly seem hugely beneficial. Of course in the usual London fashion most of the money came out of UK govt coffers, national lottery funding etc - so it was just a form of London sucking cash out of the rest of the UK to build infra, via the handy "Olympics" excuse, so I can see how a londoner might argue it was good as it was a means of extracting resources from the rest of the country. In the aggregate, it was just a giant waste of money especially for the 90% of the UK population that isn't in London.

smt88 5y ago
I'm not sure where your jab at London taking govt funds came from. London, like most modern cities, generates a surplus that subsidizes surrounding suburban and rural areas[1]. It was still an awful waste of money, but it wasn't part of any trend. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-d...
- JetSetWilly 5y ago
  It comes from London frequently having money lavished on it that other areas don’t (eg - check public transport [1]) - and usually accompanied with a self-fulfilling prophecy about how other areas don’t generate tax income (which of course is because they don’t have good infra and investment). And this situation has been very much engineered by the UK government over the last 40 years, it isn’t some state of nature. [1] https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-north-set-to-receive-2-389-less-per-person-than-london-on-transport https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/revealed-...
  - dijit 5y ago
    I just want to chime in here and agree with this wholeheartedly. There is a lot of self-fulfilment when it comes to London spending vs London generation of revenues. It's famously the case that London props up almost the entire rest of the country. Scotland itself being a net-loss in terms of GDP. I come from a City called Coventry, "investment" in the city is non-existent; the only investor right now is the University which has essentially bought the entire City over the last 10 years. Why? Because "Coventry doesn't make money". Why does Coventry not make money? -- well, companies would never headquarter there because the infrastructure is not good enough and the networking connections are not compelling; even if you think it will save you money because it's cheaper to hire in Coventry (somewhere in the order of 1/3rd london salaries, 1/5th London commercial rents) it's still awkward because navigating the city requires making use of the awful public transport or buying a car[0] (which the city is close to capacity with already!) Birmingham, Britains "second city" has only moderate investment compared to London (though insanely more than most other UK cities), but also feels destitute in the majority of areas, _especially_ when compared to London, the infrastructure is marginally better than Coventry but the prestige/networking/access is nearly no different. This is many decades in the making, there is absolutely no way to compete with a city like London which is reaping the rewards of many decades of incredible investment which creates network effects which only serve to increase the gravitational pull of the city. [0]: https://youtu.be/Mxvk3KO8p20 https://youtu.be/Mxvk3KO8p20

ekianjo 5y ago

> We benefited from it in London You can never say that for sure because the money spent on organizing Olympics could have been used somewhere else (or not used at all, therefore decreasing taxation). It was certainly a waste for anyone not living in London in any case.

prashantsengar 5y ago
Every money that one spends can be spent somewhere else too