4 ms·

Lots of stuff built is just a giant money pit and nobody benefit from it after the games. http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?articleId

Lots of stuff built is just a giant money pit and nobody benefit from it after the games. http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?articleId=USRTR30UOB http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?... http://www.businessinsider.com/sochi-olympics-ghost-city-2014-8?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/sochi-olympics-ghost-city-201... http://distractify.com/culture/sports/haunting-images-of-abandoned-olympic-venues/ http://distractify.com/culture/sports/haunting-images-of-aba...

Ntrails 11y ago
Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability? Not really. While there might be some cases where some of the infrastructure is something where the operating/maintenance costs would be justified but which didn't get built because of the up-front capital costs, and where hosting a special event which happened to need the same infrastructure might provide an excuse (or an otherwise-unavailable source of funding) for the capital costs, that's rather exceptional. Normally, the most of the infrastructure needed for the event consists of things for which the operations/maintenance costs would not be justified once the event is over.
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    Vancouver 2010 is a fantastic example of just that. Yes, there were some developments which could have gone better (Olympic Village, for one), but some much needed infrastructure and stadium upgrades came out of it: - Sea to Sky Highway went from being a ridiculously dangerous road between Vancouver and Whistler to being a pretty good road (still twisty, but there's only so much that can be done about that), and sorely needed these improvements for many, many years without budget for it. - Canada Line also received a whole bunch of federal money to get built, probably bringing it ahead of schedule by many years. An airport transit line was badly needed in Vancouver, especially with $40 cab rides to downtown. - BC Place's renovations got a major budget boost from the Olympics, allowing it to be turned into a great venue. The pressurized roof was a huge annoyance (air locks, yay! /s) and collapsed on several occasions, so the new retractable roof probably wouldn't have happened without the Olympic money. - Cypress Mountain finally got off their ass and built a proper lodge with proper facilities to support the Olympics. Vancouver also reused a lot of existing stadiums and infrastructure, opting to upgrade rather than build from scratch. It was honestly an example of a really, really well executed Olympics with a lasting legacy. There have been complainers the entire time, but honestly, it made Vancouver a better city. Closing of Granville for theentirety of the games also allowed the city to experiment with closing off city blocks for events, and that now has become a yearly tradition (along with Robson St). On a more sentimental note, it brought the country together in a unified passion which I had not seen before and have not seen since. It was truly a spectacular experience. I like rewatching the closing comments on CTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_dndXEGHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_dndXEGHI) as well as Stephen Brunt's video essay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8tzP3oeDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8tzP3oeDg) every so often to remember that.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      This is exactly what I’m talking about – Vancouver 2010, or Kiel+Munich 1972 are perfect examples for reusing existing infrastructure and upgrading it. Even London 2012 was a great example – reusing infrastructure, upgrading it, etc is a good way to do it. Another good idea: One of the recent UEFA cups was hosted by two countries together (actually, several of them were). Which is another good idea, several less developed countries working together to still get the profit off of the games, but sharing the costs.
      - lucaspottersky 11y ago
        yeah, nice examples. Now let's talk about the "DEVELOPING COUNTRIES"... what good examples do you have?
      - tripzilch 11y ago
        So that's about .. once or twice per century?
rossng 11y ago
This is sadly common, but not always the case. The London 2012 organising committee appear to have done a pretty good job of avoiding the infrastructure 'money pit'. In fact, the 'legacy' of the Games was one of its main themes[1]. A ton of money was spent redeveloping Stratford, the area surrounding the Olympic Park, and the site itself has been converted into a park. Lots of the venues were temporary, and the major ones - e.g. aquatics, velodrome - are still being used. Many of the venues were also designed with conversion in mind - the aquatics centre was downsized, the stadium is being taken over by a football club. I think a lot of past problems stem from massively oversized venues that nobody can use afterwards, so hopefully that will be avoided. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_2012_Summer_Olympics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_2012_Summer_Olymp...

Ntrails 11y ago

Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability?

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability? Not really. While there might be some cases where some of the infrastructure is something where the operating/maintenance costs would be justified but which didn't get built because of the up-front capital costs, and where hosting a special event which happened to need the same infrastructure might provide an excuse (or an otherwise-unavailable source of funding) for the capital costs, that's rather exceptional. Normally, the most of the infrastructure needed for the event consists of things for which the operations/maintenance costs would not be justified once the event is over.
- mynameisvlad 11y ago
  Vancouver 2010 is a fantastic example of just that. Yes, there were some developments which could have gone better (Olympic Village, for one), but some much needed infrastructure and stadium upgrades came out of it: - Sea to Sky Highway went from being a ridiculously dangerous road between Vancouver and Whistler to being a pretty good road (still twisty, but there's only so much that can be done about that), and sorely needed these improvements for many, many years without budget for it. - Canada Line also received a whole bunch of federal money to get built, probably bringing it ahead of schedule by many years. An airport transit line was badly needed in Vancouver, especially with $40 cab rides to downtown. - BC Place's renovations got a major budget boost from the Olympics, allowing it to be turned into a great venue. The pressurized roof was a huge annoyance (air locks, yay! /s) and collapsed on several occasions, so the new retractable roof probably wouldn't have happened without the Olympic money. - Cypress Mountain finally got off their ass and built a proper lodge with proper facilities to support the Olympics. Vancouver also reused a lot of existing stadiums and infrastructure, opting to upgrade rather than build from scratch. It was honestly an example of a really, really well executed Olympics with a lasting legacy. There have been complainers the entire time, but honestly, it made Vancouver a better city. Closing of Granville for theentirety of the games also allowed the city to experiment with closing off city blocks for events, and that now has become a yearly tradition (along with Robson St). On a more sentimental note, it brought the country together in a unified passion which I had not seen before and have not seen since. It was truly a spectacular experience. I like rewatching the closing comments on CTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_dndXEGHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX_dndXEGHI) as well as Stephen Brunt's video essay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8tzP3oeDg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8tzP3oeDg) every so often to remember that.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    This is exactly what I’m talking about – Vancouver 2010, or Kiel+Munich 1972 are perfect examples for reusing existing infrastructure and upgrading it. Even London 2012 was a great example – reusing infrastructure, upgrading it, etc is a good way to do it. Another good idea: One of the recent UEFA cups was hosted by two countries together (actually, several of them were). Which is another good idea, several less developed countries working together to still get the profit off of the games, but sharing the costs.
    - lucaspottersky 11y ago
      yeah, nice examples. Now let's talk about the "DEVELOPING COUNTRIES"... what good examples do you have?
    - tripzilch 11y ago
      So that's about .. once or twice per century?

rossng 11y ago

This is sadly common, but not always the case. The London 2012 organising committee appear to have done a pretty good job of avoiding the infrastructure 'money pit'. In fact, the 'legacy' of the Games was one of its main themes[1]. A ton of money was spent redeveloping Stratford, the area surrounding the Olympic Park, and the site itself has been converted into a park. Lots of the venues were temporary, and the major ones - e.g. aquatics, velodrome - are still being used. Many of the venues were also designed with conversion in mind - the aquatics centre was downsized, the stadium is being taken over by a football club. I think a lot of past problems stem from massively oversized venues that nobody can use afterwards, so hopefully that will be avoided. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_2012_Summer_Olympics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_2012_Summer_Olymp...