Are the Olympics Bad for Cities?

[Mark]

Over the next few weeks the Olympics will be in London. Leading up to this we have all been hearing on the news all the different issues that the city has had from its transportation, to stadiums, to security, etc...

With that said, are Olympics bad for cities?

From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, a city has to bid to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over a decade in advance to host the Olympics. Before they can bid, they have to put together this committee and do the studies on the feasibility, etc... all costing some money before the bid is even off the ground. Then there is even more money spent just to make the pitch to the city and those that work and live there that would be affected. Once you have their buy in you need to spend money to convince people on a national level, potential sponsors, etc... And once you get their buy in you have to convince the IOC. At this point I am guessing that there are a few million dollars spent.

Now, if you win the bid you need to build stadiums and more hotels and an Olympic Village for all the atheletes to stay in. You need to upgrade your transportation from the airport to the roads to trains and busses. Now you are into the Billions Of Dollars. Then there is security. Food. Utilities.

After it is all said and done I cannot see where any city comes out of this economic black hole in the good. It seems to me that the benefits are not there to make any city worthwile to host the games. I don't think that in the past 20-30 years there have been any cities that have benefited from the games.

Thoughts?

[longnecker]

The city benefits from a lot of upgrading to get the Olympics. I would hate to live in a city or region that was hosting it. There might be jobs but jammed roads and prices for everything jacked up. No thank you.

[Jessica]

I absolutely love the Olympics. I'm looking forward to watching it for hours on end while I neglect cleaning my house, mowing the grass, and doing other productive things I should be doing. I can almost guarantee that I will tear up several times during the Opening Ceremonies, that I will cry every time I see medals awarded, and that if an American wins I will suddenly become the kind of jingoist nationalist patriot that I normally despise. I can't even begin to fathom why the Games do this to me, but I think it has something to do with the cynical realist in coming to terms with the other part of me that just wants international peace and harmony and thinks that the world needs more Woodrow Wilsons and Jimmy Carters and Nelson Mandelas. And, scenes like Derek Redmond's dad helping him cross the finish line during the 1992 Barcelona Olympics? I can't even think about it without tearing up.

And I know...I KNOW... the Games won't solve any international crises. I know that they're about showmanship as much as sportsmanship and that they're overly produced, overly commercialized, and that the spirit of togetherness that I *think* I see is probably all in my head. The world after the Olympics isn't any less harsh, scary, or peaceful. But, there's that dream, you know? And, I'm a sap. I buy into it hook, line, and sinker. I just love getting to see someone accomplish something amazing that they've been working so hard for.

GL, you're right - hosting the Games is like gambling on the biggest and costliest project that a city could ever fathom. In addition to all the legwork just to get a bid in, the host city has to construct millions of dollars worth of housing, stadiums, and sporting venues. In addition, the city has to undergo an overhaul of its own infrastructure and repair roads and bridges, improve transportation, and generally upgrade it's aesthetic. No one wants to put the Olympic Village smack dab in the middle of a city that's falling apart. This is the problem Beijing had. Homeless people and beggars suddenly disappeared from the city right before tourists flocked in for the Games. There's extra security needed, which I think has been a major issue recently in London. A lot of the improvements help residents, but at a cost. A lot of the construction is reverted into housing, but some things can never be reused.

Hosting is a billion dollar privilege. Fingers get crossed that the money will come back to the city with tourists, but it almost never does. There are short term benefits for sure - honor, pride. Most cities go into debt that takes years to repay. The really unlucky ones, like Athens, spend so much and make so little that their countries end up in financial crisis.

[Joe Walther]

I was talking with a friend of mine who will be leaving for London next week to cover the Olympics. She’s covered several of them over the past 35-years and she has yet to speak to an organizer that’s made a real profit.

I agree with her. The cost (direct and indirect) involves more than the costs associated with the games directly. It can cost upwards of $100-million just to put a bid package together—and this is with absolutely NO guarantee of getting the games.

The consensus I’ve been able to get from the money folks is that monetary gain is not the prime motivator behind submitting the bid. The best analysis I’ve read on the subject is here. It’s long but well done.

Over my career in science research involving astronomy and astrophysics, I’ve lost count of the arguments I’ve had with non-science types who simply can’t understand why we go to all the expense—often with little or no payback—to send probes to places that humans will never be able to reach.

I’ve always given the same answer. It’s like sex. It’s true that something wonderfully useful may come out of it, but it’s generally not the reason we're doing it, assuming you're not a rules-following Catholic, of course.