Next Question
RSS
This is strictly objective, but you requested comments from people who have actual with the cities involved, I happen to be across a couple of them.
I was in Atlanta before the Olympics and then after and frankly, I'm disappointed. I don't know how to really describe it, but it feels commercialized to an aggressive extent. Essentially "Built by Coke", contrasting with how China decided to create one of a kind landmarks with it's approach.
Sydney did a little of both, but we've always had solid stadiums and a huge sporting base, so generally sold ourselves over infrastructure. I'd have to say it was a boon for us Aussies, "on the map" was only one benefit, we got the Commonwealth Games just after for Melbourne, and now trying to land the World Cup.
I think it'll be easier for Chicago then it will be for London should they get it. London got into the economic trap. Contracts for building was at the inflated rate before the downturn, and revenue isn't exactly helping currently.
Chicago, on the other hand, has talked about using St. Louis for some events which should spread out some mild event construction concerns. How much is yet to be determined.
If we get it, I sure hope that it isn't as commercially inflated as the Atlanta games, though considering current trends it will be. As far as commercially viable, I'd highly doubt it. The security costs alone have skyrocketed post 9/11 and I don't think it's going to get any better anytime soon. Subjectively speaking of course.
Source(s):
personal - dual citizen
Permalink | Report
philipy
http://thinkcreation.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/chicagologoolimpiadi.png
Contrary to my previous statement, the source provided states that some cities invest a lot in construction before the Olympics. Sometimes this cost is not recovered after the games.
Source(s):
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/does_the_olympics_help_an_economy.p...
Permalink | Report
Throughout history, the Olympics have been used as a symbol of political legitimacy and international political protest. Here are some examples:
-1938 Berlin: The Games were awarded to Germany to show its "repaired" image after WWI. Hitler twisted it to turn it into a platform for his racial superiority theories. He didn't succeed as Jesse Owens stole the show with 4 Gold medals.
-1948 London: Because of their WWII activities, Japan and Germany were not invited to the Games.
-1952 Helsinki: West Germany participated as a separate country for the first time and Cold War tensions caused Eastern Bloc countries to house their athletes in separate facilities.
-1956 Melbourne: China withdrew over the recognition of Taiwan as a separate country. Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt did not participate due to Israel's occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. Switzerland, Netherlands and Spain did not attend as a protest against the Soviet Unions Hungarian invasion.
-1964 Tokyo: South Africa is excluded from the games for apartheid.
-1972 Munich: 11 Israeli athletes are taken hostage and killed by Palestinian terrorists.
-1976 Montreal: 30 African countries boycotted over New Zealand playing rugby in South Africa (still banned for apartheid) and still being allowed to participate in the Olympics. Taiwan pulled out after China tried to get them banned.
-1980 Moscow: 60 nations boycotted the games over to the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan.
-1980 Los Angeles: 14 Socialist nations boycotted the games (including the Soviet Union) over the "profit making" nature of the games.
-1992 Barcelona: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania competed as individual countries for the first time and Germany competed as a unified country. South Africa was able to compete for the first time since 1964 due to the lifting of apartheid rule.
-1996 Atlanta: The Palestinian Authority competed as an individual country for the first time.
-2008 Beijing: Social movement protesting human rights abuses in China followed the torch path around the world. China used the games as a platform to 'introduce' itself to the world as a global power.
So, I would argue the impact of the games historically has been more political than economic.
On the whole, I think the Olympics has the power to unify people from around the world. There is no other forum where the world can see so many people from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds together in one place. Just seeing the beautiful differences in people can open eyes, dispel myths and hopefully leads to more acceptance of human differences.
Source(s):
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/page/0,9067,892902,00.html
Permalink | Report
The fact is that Chicago is a cold city and has very few outdoor sporting events to begin with. If they build for the 2016 summer games then what will they use the extra buildings for after the Olympics has come and gone?
I have also noticed that most cities tend to draw a lot of attention around the games but tend to lose popularity over time.
My 0.02.
Source(s):
Personal Thoughts
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1
September 28, 2009 03:41 PM
Is it really such a great thing to host the Olympics?
It's been announced that President Obama will be attending the IOC meeting to support Chicago's bid to host the Olympics in 2016.
London, which is hosting them in 2012, already has pretty mixed feelings about the great expense involved.
What do you think about hosting the Olympics? Is it a wonderful thing or a pointless waste of money?
I'd esp love to hear from people who live in cities that have hosted the Olympics.
London, which is hosting them in 2012, already has pretty mixed feelings about the great expense involved.
What do you think about hosting the Olympics? Is it a wonderful thing or a pointless waste of money?
I'd esp love to hear from people who live in cities that have hosted the Olympics.
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| September 28, 2009 11:44 PM |
I was in Atlanta before the Olympics and then after and frankly, I'm disappointed. I don't know how to really describe it, but it feels commercialized to an aggressive extent. Essentially "Built by Coke", contrasting with how China decided to create one of a kind landmarks with it's approach.
Sydney did a little of both, but we've always had solid stadiums and a huge sporting base, so generally sold ourselves over infrastructure. I'd have to say it was a boon for us Aussies, "on the map" was only one benefit, we got the Commonwealth Games just after for Melbourne, and now trying to land the World Cup.
I think it'll be easier for Chicago then it will be for London should they get it. London got into the economic trap. Contracts for building was at the inflated rate before the downturn, and revenue isn't exactly helping currently.
Chicago, on the other hand, has talked about using St. Louis for some events which should spread out some mild event construction concerns. How much is yet to be determined.
If we get it, I sure hope that it isn't as commercially inflated as the Atlanta games, though considering current trends it will be. As far as commercially viable, I'd highly doubt it. The security costs alone have skyrocketed post 9/11 and I don't think it's going to get any better anytime soon. Subjectively speaking of course.
Source(s):
personal - dual citizen
| Asker's Rating: |
• Good look at the pros and cons from experience in two different cities! Nice answer.
Permalink | Report
Reply
philipy
September 28, 2009 11:59 PM
Great answer. Yes, wanted to hear real experiences especially!
Tip philipy for this comment
Report
Other Answers (3)
September 28, 2009 03:48 PM
It's economically a good thing for the city that gets to host The Olympics. Hotels get sold out well in advance. Shops and restaurants have a lot more patrons. The city gets a ton of media attention that drives tourism, even after the Olympics have ended. Contrary to my previous statement, the source provided states that some cities invest a lot in construction before the Olympics. Sometimes this cost is not recovered after the games.
Source(s):
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/does_the_olympics_help_an_economy.p...
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 28, 2009 03:59 PM
The very first words in your own source are these:
-- Quote
Matt Yglesias says that even though competition to host the Olympics is fierce, "the reality is that cities only very rarely manage to reap the financial windfall that Olympics-boosters advertise."
-- /Quote
I'm guessing you didn't read the source before you wrote the answer. :)
Report
-- Quote
Matt Yglesias says that even though competition to host the Olympics is fierce, "the reality is that cities only very rarely manage to reap the financial windfall that Olympics-boosters advertise."
-- /Quote
I'm guessing you didn't read the source before you wrote the answer. :)
September 28, 2009 04:28 PM
I didn't. Thats why I challenged my original thoughts with those of the source. I kind of shot myself in the foot with that source but I wanted to provided to help you get the information that you needed. I would say that my answer doesn't fully answer the question and if I had more time I would research it more thoroughly but for now I just provided you with my initial thoughts and a source that is contrary to those thoughts.
I want to see what other people come up with. I'll comment more after I have time to research more.
Report
I want to see what other people come up with. I'll comment more after I have time to research more.
September 28, 2009 04:51 PM
Looking at the value of the Olympics purely through an Economic lense won't illustrate the overall impact of hosting the Olympic Games. Throughout history, the Olympics have been used as a symbol of political legitimacy and international political protest. Here are some examples:
-1938 Berlin: The Games were awarded to Germany to show its "repaired" image after WWI. Hitler twisted it to turn it into a platform for his racial superiority theories. He didn't succeed as Jesse Owens stole the show with 4 Gold medals.
-1948 London: Because of their WWII activities, Japan and Germany were not invited to the Games.
-1952 Helsinki: West Germany participated as a separate country for the first time and Cold War tensions caused Eastern Bloc countries to house their athletes in separate facilities.
-1956 Melbourne: China withdrew over the recognition of Taiwan as a separate country. Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt did not participate due to Israel's occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. Switzerland, Netherlands and Spain did not attend as a protest against the Soviet Unions Hungarian invasion.
-1964 Tokyo: South Africa is excluded from the games for apartheid.
-1972 Munich: 11 Israeli athletes are taken hostage and killed by Palestinian terrorists.
-1976 Montreal: 30 African countries boycotted over New Zealand playing rugby in South Africa (still banned for apartheid) and still being allowed to participate in the Olympics. Taiwan pulled out after China tried to get them banned.
-1980 Moscow: 60 nations boycotted the games over to the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan.
-1980 Los Angeles: 14 Socialist nations boycotted the games (including the Soviet Union) over the "profit making" nature of the games.
-1992 Barcelona: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania competed as individual countries for the first time and Germany competed as a unified country. South Africa was able to compete for the first time since 1964 due to the lifting of apartheid rule.
-1996 Atlanta: The Palestinian Authority competed as an individual country for the first time.
-2008 Beijing: Social movement protesting human rights abuses in China followed the torch path around the world. China used the games as a platform to 'introduce' itself to the world as a global power.
So, I would argue the impact of the games historically has been more political than economic.
On the whole, I think the Olympics has the power to unify people from around the world. There is no other forum where the world can see so many people from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds together in one place. Just seeing the beautiful differences in people can open eyes, dispel myths and hopefully leads to more acceptance of human differences.
Source(s):
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/page/0,9067,892902,00.html
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 28, 2009 05:13 PM
Most of your examples having nothing to do with the benefits or otherwise of hosting the Olympics. They're more about the value of the existence of something like the Olympics, which is a different, albeit important question.
Report
September 28, 2009 05:51 PM
What I was trying to convey is that hosting the games can have a political benefit, not necessarily for the host city, but for the host country. It can be used to present the country as a legitimate and recognized country in the world and it can show it's political clout by restricting specific country's participation. I would say these are pretty strong benefits of hosting the games.
Additionally, participating countries can voice their political will by deciding to participate or by boycotting the Olympics outright.
Report
Additionally, participating countries can voice their political will by deciding to participate or by boycotting the Olympics outright.
September 28, 2009 06:20 PM
Those might be strong benefits to some countries, but I'm not sure that the Olympics in London or Chicago really have much effect on how Britain or the US are seen in the world.
Report
September 28, 2009 09:28 PM
If the US or the UK decides to block a country from attending the Olympics, it could impact the world view and make a political statement. They could decide to block countries who are on the 'state sponsors of terrorists' lists, or ones with nuclear weapons concerns. It is a political tool they could have at their disposal. While I will agree the political impact is greater for smaller countries, the 'benefit' could be available for larger countries as well.
Report
September 28, 2009 06:14 PM
My personal thoughts are that it is a prestigious event to host in the city that win's the bid. However, the prestige is often a farce in that the cost is never recovered, security becomes a concern, and the city that hosts is generally left with a lot of extra stadiums and used up real-estate. The fact is that Chicago is a cold city and has very few outdoor sporting events to begin with. If they build for the 2016 summer games then what will they use the extra buildings for after the Olympics has come and gone?
I have also noticed that most cities tend to draw a lot of attention around the games but tend to lose popularity over time.
My 0.02.
Source(s):
Personal Thoughts
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 28, 2009 06:23 PM
Chicago is rather hot in the summer, and rather cold in winter. Ideal times for outdoor activities are a little bit limited! :)
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- maxbeatty, November 22, 2009 10:12 PM
- delmonico, November 22, 2009 10:12 PM
- mjm, November 22, 2009 10:10 PM
- teachermalak, November 22, 2009 10:09 PM
- bethanyreed, November 22, 2009 10:04 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
