Why Would Anyone Want To Host The Olympics?(economist.com) |
Why Would Anyone Want To Host The Olympics?(economist.com) |
Lets not forget that in developing countries, massive investments are often sped up just to get the opportunity to bid - in 1999, the Beijing subway was almost nonexistent. Today it's one of the largest systems in the world, and was largely constructed prior to the Olympics. Other improvements included the Beijing airport. Of course, you could say that I'm cherry picking the Chinese olympics as one of the few examples, and maybe there aren't many advantages for a city like Tokyo or London, but even here in the UK, many people were inspired and proud of how their country handled the events. That may not be worth what it cost, but it is worth something, and I think it's a bit bizarre that the Economist seems to be puzzled as to why these events poll well with voters.
Stratford was recently named as the countries worst crime hotspot[0].
According to the FT, "the bounce" has failed to materialise [1].
I would not recommend a walk around the outskirts of the Olympic stadium for all but the very brave, it's still an area in much poverty with many social issues completely unresolved, notably violent crime (3.5 for every 1,000 people) [2].
[0] - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/westfield-stratfords-po...
[1] - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/543cabaa-8a41-11e2-9da4-00144feabd...
[2] - http://crimeinlondon.com/newham/stratford-and-new-town/viole...
London has been re-developing brown fields since the mid-80s and shows no sign of slowing down. The Olympics may have accelerated it, but I'm not sure anyone I know who lives in East London or works in Techcity would buy that this re-development wouldn't have happened anyway. The pressure for space is just too great.
I'm fairly pro-Olympics now, afterall... that velodrome is something beautiful and I'm going to ride it.
a) new builds in the UK are made as cheaply as possible.
b) new builds go down in value as soon as you buy them
c) we in Europe hate soulless man planned cities - a lot of the area around the olympic park feels this way.
I think the government could have just paid for the cleanup of the area and done something like subsidise housing for the poor there with the money, rather than pay the the huge costs of running the games. The opening ceremony was pretty good though :-D
There was also fairly widespread use of compulsory purchase orders [1] to obtain land for the olympic park [2]. A significant number of people lost their homes, and businesses were forced to move, so that private-sector developers could take-over the land.
The problem is that the pride only lasts for a few months. After that I was (and many other people were) back to thinking it was a massive waste of money and the only place that would benefit was London. Basically what I'm trying to get across is that if you had asked me during the Olympics I'd say let's do it again, but before or after? Not a chance
I've been told by a relative, who works for the government to "sell" UK businesses internationally, that the London olympics are widely regarded as a model of how to "do it right". I don't know (and he didn't say) whether this makes it more possible to achieve long-term economic benefits that offset the cost of the event. I'm probably sceptical about that.
Well, you did say "almost," and I'm aware that the subway system in Beijing has been considerably extended, but parts of the system were old in 1987 when I first rode it. I'm not at all sure that I agree that it "is more than worth the 40 billion that was spent" for peasants in a backward region of a still poor country to have the illusion that they live in a developed country.
When Chicago tried to get the Olympics, it was to be the capstone of the legacy of Richard Daley. That's an agency problem, because ultimately the people of the city would need to foot the bills.
I view this similar to corporate M&A. It rarely ever suits the shareholders of the buyers. So why do companies do it? Either there is a psychological reason (overconfidence?) or their stock is overvalued or it might just be in the best interest of the CEO. CEOs of medium companies like to become CEOs of bigger companies. By extension, city officials like to wine and dine with the global elite.
For a country that has endured the world's only recent nuclear disaster and has experienced massive economic stagnation for quite some time, I imagine that the Olympics could present a similar opportunity for building pride and galvanizing the country. Will the investment pay off? Who knows? China's investment isn't paying off in the financial sense that a lot of the Olympic buildings built have no real post-Olympic use. But if we are considering the pride factor alone here, then I imagine Tokyo will have a similar boost.
Realistically, the way to think about almost all government spending is consumption. By spending on health we (hopefully) get to be healthier. By spending on entertainment we are more entertained. The Olympics or any other public prestige projects are like when billionaires and dictators do stuff, but for cities and nations. They get to feel prestigious. Prestige might have some economic benefits but thinking of it that way misses the point. Prestige is an end in itself.
If the Olympics also produces 18 times as much happiness, then that's a worthwhile investment. If not, then maybe that money could have been better spent elsewhere.
Japan in particular is notorious for it's collusive relationship between politicians and businessmen, with regular bid rigging or no bidding at all for public works contracts.
Compared to other megaprojects that we seem to be happy to splurge taxpayers money on (e.g. silly aircraft carriers) it actually seemed pretty good value for money.
In comparison to a few weeks of enabling professional athletes 'perform' , the carriers should give at least 45 years of service life. A tangible contribution to UK security, rather than just a TV event.
I'm not a fan of how the carrier project has been managed but to say it's worse value than the Olympics surprises me.
I wonder how they manage to reproduce.
Basically its like a high school party for cool kids, with an added bonus that some of the cool kids get a lot of money at the expense of others.
Also they will use this excuse for removing poor people, and destroying houses that have much higher real estate value than their residents.
Whereas Montreal is still paying debts from hosting the Olympics in 1976.
I'm really happy for Istanbul to loose and feeling bad for Tokyo to win.
Politicians also win, there's euphoria in Japan right now and those involved will see some benefits, just as those been seen during the opening ceremony, medals etc.
If I'd been given the chance to give my vote on the Olympics I'd have said "no" - but given the fact that it was a done deal I decided to enjoy it.
>Some modesty is in place, but it would be such a shame if we did not have these events anymore.
This might be another reason to do such events (haven't read the article yet). To make people think the city is "happening", to retain people and dissuade them from leaving for seemingly more fertile pastures.
Much of the crime is theft, rather than violent crime that south London sees - the postcode mentioned in the link above is the postcode of two shopping centres and transport interchange - the places you would expect to see high pick pocketing and shoplifting, which is what the majority crime mentioned in the report is.
I think the adjacent areas have changed, Leyton and Leytonstone are both far nicer - and in the last years have had new interesting pubs, cafes and shops open up.
Would this have happened anyway? Maybe - but most people I talk to are pretty happy with the changes the area has seen.
I'm still a little sad the plan to open Google offices in the Olympic park was shelved - that would have brought in a whole heap of jobs and new people to the area.
The setting of the movie 'Ill Manors'?
The whole point of development, especially development pursuant to the Olympics, is to push the poor out of the area. When any mayor says "we will clean up and develop this area," none ever mean "... in order to make a nice place to live for poor people." Indeed, if poor people still live there, the public won't even perceive the area as being nice.
E.g., this is one of the "bad neighborhoods" of Chicago: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=south+halsted+and+west+77+chi...
Like most of the city, it's actually quite well-maintained and pleasant. If lower-income people didn't live there, it wouldn't be considered a bad neighborhood at all.
Here's a bad neighborhood in Chicago:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=west+garfield+park&ie=UTF-8&h...
It is not well-maintained and it isn't pleasant; it's block after block of board-ups and red-X placards.
"Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood made the list twice this year, but the census tract around South Halsted Street and West 77th is ranked highest at No. 4. Within a one-year period, NeighborhoodScout says there is a 1 in 9 chance of being a victim of violent crime here, and per 1,000 residents, the violent crime rate is 116.56.
The average per capita income in this area is lower than 99.4 percent of other U.S. neighborhoods, and 51 percent of children in this section of Chicago are living below the federal poverty line, giving this census tract a rate of childhood poverty that's higher than 93 percent of neighborhoods around the country."
I'll defer to your knowledge of Chicago, though. My point really is that while people talk about "bad neighborhoods" on the south side of Chicago, much (most? at least what I've driven through) is in pretty good shape. Even West Garfield Park isn't so bad in places. E.g. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=west+garfield+park&ll=41.8819...
I wouldn't want to drive down Washington in Garfield Park at night.
All of this is really not super relevant to your point, except to demonstrate that the neighborhoods people think of as "bad" in Chicago aren't pretty tree-lined residential streets that happen to have poor people living in them.