How U.S. Cities Can Build for the Olympics and Win

[M II A II R II K]

How U.S. Cities Can Build for the Olympics and Win


JUNE 5, 2014

BY STEPHEN J. SMITH



Read More: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/us-c...id-win-success

When New York and Philadelphia recently dropped pursuit of the 2024 Olympics, conventional urban wisdom about the games echoed: Hosting is a losing proposition. As cities compete over who gets to pour tens of billions into creating a two-week event, the merits of a winning bid is hotly debated. But assuming a city does decide to throw a hat into the ring — Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Dallas, San Diego and Washington D.C. haven’t given up the 2024 dream yet — this is how to make the most of the games.

- There are three main types of construction that come with holding the Olympics, summer or winter: transportation infrastructure (mainly railways, given that the games are usually held in dense cities), stadiums and housing. Experience shows that investments in the former are most likely to be enjoyed for decades after the closing ceremony, while the latter two types of public works have a tendency to work out less well. The city with the best track record of making short, international events like the Olympics work in its favor is undoubtedly Vancouver. --- Two out of its three lines on its driverless SkyTrain rapid-transit network were built in anticipation for events: the Expo ’86 World’s Fair and the 2010 Winter Olympics. To this day, the SkyTrain system serves as the transit backbone to Canada’s largest West Coast city, serving up to more than 400,000 riders each day. More expansions are planned.

- When it comes to housing, there’s somewhat of a tension between what the units are built for during the games and what they end up as after. By definition, new construction is always fairly high-end; but after the games, most cities don’t want to just sell off the housing units in their Olympic Villages to the highest bidder, instead preferring to designate them for some sort of public purpose. --- In the United States, this often means student housing, at it did for Atlanta’s Summer Games in 1996 (sold off to Georgia Tech and Clark Atlanta), or Salt Lake City’s 2002 Winter Games (given over to the University of Utah). --- This seems preferable to Vancouver’s Olympic Village strategy, which has been nothing short of a disaster — showing that even cities that make out relatively well on infrastructure don’t necessarily get the rest right.

- Finally, there are the stadiums. Purpose-built for the Olympics, these tend to be the most difficult to make viable after the games have ended. Tours of Athens’ Olympic ruins have become a sub-genre all of its own. What use, after all, does Greece have for a massive taekwondo arena, or a beach volleyball or softball stadium? Taking these concerns seriously for the 2020 Summer Games, Tokyo is seeking to avoid a repeat of Athens’ experience. It will reuse a number of venues from the 1964 Games. --- Yoyogi National Gymnasium, known for its eye-catching suspension roof design, was the venue for swimming and basketball in 1964 and will host handball in 2020. Table tennis will be held at Tokyo Metropolitan Gymnasium, home to water polo and gymnastics in 1964. And judo will return to Nippon Budokan.

.....

Athens’ abandoned Olympic beach volleyball venue. (AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis)

[scalziand]

Boston Olympic bid: The motivation we need

By Mike Ross | JUNE 08, 2014

AS WE sit down on our couches to watch the World Cup, we’ll all be paying careful attention to how cities across Brazil manage the logistic, financial, and security challenges before them — some of the reasons Boston could be skeptical about hosting the Olympics in 2024.

But Boston’s path forward works, and not just for the reasons one might think, such as helping us get over our persistent “smaller than New York” Napoleon complex. Our primary reason for doing this is because it will force us to upgrade, well, everything.

To put this in terms that we can all appreciate, the Olympics is analogous to hosting a really important dinner at your home, just on a much grander scale. You use the opportunity to fix things that are broken, make new purchases, and generally clean the place up.

This we could use. To thrive well after the Olympic Games have left, we require a massive expansion of housing, transit, and general infrastructure. A new soccer stadium on the waterfront wouldn’t hurt either. But unless we invite our friends over, we’re likely to remain on our couches and put it off for another day, watching another city bask in Olympic gold instead.

Mike Ross, a former Boston city councilor, writes regularly for the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @mikeforboston.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...GWL/story.html

[Double L]

Good article. The Olympics create a rush of infrastructure development that the city might not need if the Olympics weren't there. Transportation improvements can often work out to benefit cities because most cities plan on getting bigger and the transportation infrastructure will be used at some point. Not necessarily so for hotels and stadiums. A lot of cities are dealing with the empty stadiums quagmire.

[jd3189]

This is the exact thing I was saying in the New York bid thread. The host city should use the Olympics or any large-scale world event to its benefit. Such an event gives the city an excuse to build bigger and attract more people that will stay even after the event for years to come.

[Tuckerman]

Despite all the criticism at the time of the Atlanta 96 Games, the city gained enormously from hosting the event. Unlike most cities, it did not lose money. The Olympic stadium has been used by the Braves for 20 years, a major park was created downtown, a subway line was added, the O village was turned into housing for Georgia Tech and State students and is still being used. The event at the time is one thing, but the long term effects are more important.

On the whole for a city to host the event in the US usually means that the city has to pick everything - this is very different from most other countries and their host cities where the country provides enormous sums of support money. In addition one soon learns about the inherent problems and difficulties with the Olympic organization itself - that is another story.

[M II A II R II K]

Sounds like a formula for a successful post olympics for a host city. Assuming the host country is developed and competent enough to be hosting the olympics in the first place.

[skunkachunks]

After reading this article, it looks like LA has great prospects for having a great post-Olympic plan. They are already investing a lot in metro upgrades and could use even more. LA's population is also increasing enough to absorb Olympic Village units. Most conspicuously, they have the perfect post-Olympic use for a new stadium seeing as they are the biggest media market without an NFL team.

Of course, the likelihood of LA getting it again seems small.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by jd3189

This is the exact thing I was saying in the New York bid thread. The host city should use the Olympics or any large-scale world event to its benefit. Such an event gives the city an excuse to build bigger and attract more people that will stay even after the event for years to come.

The IOC expects the host city to use the Olympics to benefit the IOC and the games themselves, not the host city, and will choose a host that is most willing to set aside their own long-term benefit.

If only it were so simple as having cities think about how to maximize the benefit to the city itself.

[jd3189]

^^^ Yes, the IOC should pick a city that will represent the Olympics very well and benefit them, but the city shouldn't do that in expense to itself. The Olympics only happens for two to three weeks, using up infrastructure that took years to build. Cities like Montreal and Athens suffered tons of debt just to host these events and have many of their facilities lay dormant. It's like a woman preparing herself for months for a one-day marriage ceremony only to witness that after the honeymoon, she hadn't planned well for the new life with her spouse and suffers because of it. A host city has to do what it can to bring out the Olympic spirit as well as plan for the future ahead.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ Yes, the IOC should pick a city that will represent the Olympics very well and benefit them, but the city shouldn't do that in expense to itself. The Olympics only happens for two to three weeks, using up infrastructure that took years to build. Cities like Montreal and Athens suffered tons of debt just to host these events and have many of their facilities lay dormant. It's like a woman preparing herself for months for a one-day marriage ceremony only to witness that after the honeymoon, she hadn't planned well for the new life with her spouse and suffers because of it. A host city has to do what it can to bring out the Olympic spirit as well as plan for the future ahead.

Is the debt the burden of the cities or of the host nation? The U.S. seems to be about the only country that leaves the majority of financing up to host cities.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

Is the debt the burden of the cities or of the host nation? The U.S. seems to be about the only country that leaves the majority of financing up to host cities.

I think the IOC requires some form of government financing or funding for an Olympics. In the US, it can be in the form of city/county/state.

Prior to the Los Angeles 1984 Summer Olympics, the two other Olympics held in California (LA Summer 1932, Squaw Valley Winter 1960) were funded by the state; for 1932, an Olympic bond approved by the voters and for 1960, the California Legislature appropriated money towards the Squaw Valley games.

The LA 1984 Summer Games were the first Olympics that were privately financed through corporate sponsorship, something that the IOC frowned upon at the time, but gave in to because LA was the only candidate city for 1984, so it would be an LA Olympics done the organizers' way, or nothing.

[sopas ej]

Incidentally, today, the USOC officially announced the US candidate city short list for 2024: Boston, LA, San Francisco and Washington DC are still in the running. Dallas and San Diego were cut.

Slightly off-topic, in my opinion, the most recent Olympic host city with the best legacy is Barcelona. The 1992 Summer Olympics basically remade that city, in the way that the 1964 Olympics re-did Tokyo; in the 80s, people in Tokyo were STILL talking about how the 1964 Olympics did a lot for Tokyo's infrastructure. Sydney apparently had a logistically well-run Olympics, but their organizers didn't seem to plan for legacy; wasn't the Olympic park kind of a white elephant for a bit? And then of course Athens and Beijing didn't seem to plan for any legacy at all with their now-abandoned, rundown stadiums.

Also in my opinion, Barcelona was the most tele-genic Olympics I've ever seen; watching the diving competition on TV, with the open-air pool and the great shot of the Sagrada Familia in the background is still very memorable to me, as is the refurbished, neo-classical Olympic stadium.

[jessie_sanchez]

LA 2024 just announced that they will not be building a new village.

They will use the UCLA campus as the LA 2024 Village and the USC Campus as the Media Center.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Double L

Good article. The Olympics create a rush of infrastructure development that the city might not need if the Olympics weren't there. Transportation improvements can often work out to benefit cities because most cities plan on getting bigger and the transportation infrastructure will be used at some point. Not necessarily so for hotels and stadiums. A lot of cities are dealing with the empty stadiums quagmire.

I've proposed making either a permanent host city (logically, Athens) or a permanent host country (logically, the United States) but we know how IOC politics work and Greece is having financial issues.

[Ryanrule]

Man fuck the olympics. Put that money towards schools and actual fitness education.