• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rio, one year after the 2016 Olympics (Spoiler: It's not good.)

Parch

Member
I think Sydney Australia worked out pretty good too.

Accepting Rio was pretty much the IOC wanting South America to get a games. Wanting the Olympic Games to be global and all that. Athens was a history thing, but they weren't really ready and suffered financially.

They gotta get away from that mindset. If they have to stick to Asia, Europe and North America then so be it, even if the same city hosts more than once. Existing facilities in economically healthy cities. Be smart about the choices and the Olympic legacy can go on without cities going bankrupt.
 

Skii

Member
They were fucking fantastic for Salt Lake... What are you even talking about?

Almost all the London venues are still in use. Not sure about Vacouver.

I live in the area of the London olympics and it hasn't been good for the working class at all. The venues have gentrified the area enormously with new apartments being built at a rapid rate that are completely unaffordable for the locals. The actual venues themselves are far too expensive for anyone that was born in the area to use. And finally all this influx of new people are causing increased congestion on the road and in the train stations which are only going to get worse as more housing is built.
 
And when I said I was strongly against the Olympic Games being hosted here, my family and many friends said I was "against my own country". There you go. Great way to burn a ton of money that could have helped the population.
Who am I kidding, they would never spend that money for the good of the people anyway.
 
I live in the area of the London olympics and it hasn't been good for the working class at all. The venues have gentrified the area enormously with new apartments being built at a rapid rate that are completely unaffordable for the locals. The actual venues themselves are far too expensive for anyone that was born in the area to use. And finally all this influx of new people are causing increased congestion on the road and in the train stations which are only going to get worse as more housing is built.

Just an FYI ... economically speaking, gentrification isn't really a bad thing. Most people are talking about economics when they talk about the negatives of hosting the games.
 
This is why I don't want it to come to LA.

I predict LA will be the opposite. It will ignite an economic boom that will gentrify South Central, East LA, Inglewood, and surrounding areas. It will make LA a better place, for those who will be able to afford it.
 
I predict LA will be the opposite. It will ignite an economic boom that will gentrify South Central, East LA, Inglewood, and surrounding areas. It will make LA a better place, for those who will be able to afford it.

We have stadiums and such already. I'm hoping it gets some more public transit projects going.
 
Meh, still better than Sochi:

19erej9yxj2abjpg.jpg


fc1aa4436c446d12e38f5b656811a0b7--winter-olympics-m-photos.jpg
 

Fuchsdh

Member
I'm glad that they've adopted an unofficial "first world cities w/ established infrastructure only" rule for hosts in the wake of this. It sucks that it took a disaster like this to make them see that this wasn't a good idea.

It's still a terrible waste of money even for developed countries, though.
 
I predict LA will be the opposite. It will ignite an economic boom that will gentrify South Central, East LA, Inglewood, and surrounding areas. It will make LA a better place, for those who will be able to afford it.

Emphasized your most important point. A lot of those areas will lose their identity and their culture (like what's happening to Boyle Heights now and what already happened to Echo Park) and longtime residents will be priced out. I'm happy that the Olympics are coming to LA, but I fear for what it will do to the city's already rapidly increasing cost of living.
 
As expected. These events don't magically turn a city around. The only good it might do is get extra funding for some infrastructure like roads and rail or whatever. But all the stadiums and such are a waste. No way it is getting used after.

Either organize this stuff in cities that already have the infrastructure, or pool money together to fund it in other countries. No way a country like Brazil should be on the hook for paying all this stuff, even if it was their government that applied of course. Share the cost with all the countries and distribute the tv rights and such to actually pay for the event.
 

mcfrank

Member
Emphasized your most important point. A lot of those areas will lose their identity and their culture (like what's happening to Boyle Heights now and what already happened to Echo Park) and longtime residents will be priced out. I'm happy that the Olympics are coming to LA, but I fear for what it will do to the city's already rapidly increasing cost of living.

Inglewood is mostly houses. The people who live there now would really benefit from the area improving. Local business who rent may have a bad time, but the existing home owners should make a killing.
 
Montreal used our Olmypic Stadium for baseball and soccer for years, and is now using it to house refugees.

So that's pretty good.
 
It's still a terrible waste of money even for developed countries, though.

A lot of developed countries make money from it, so it isn't a waste of money. You might argue that the money could have been used for other things, but usually the truth of the matter is that without the Olympics, the money either wouldn't have been there at all or gone to something that wasn't public works related.
 

gimmmick

Member
This is why I don't want it to come to LA.

LA won't have to rebuild the whole infrastructure unlike many other counties that have been chooses to host these games. The new Rams stadium, the staples center, even the coliseum has been kept up for hosting huge events in this scale. The difference between us, London and probably Paris is that these cities won't takes years to rebuild and get back on its feet if they operate at a loss. If the the city where Disneyland was born (I know Anaheim...) can't find a way to make a killing with millions of tourist flocking too it's region, someone needs to be fired.
 
I live in the area of the London olympics and it hasn't been good for the working class at all. The venues have gentrified the area enormously with new apartments being built at a rapid rate that are completely unaffordable for the locals. The actual venues themselves are far too expensive for anyone that was born in the area to use. And finally all this influx of new people are causing increased congestion on the road and in the train stations which are only going to get worse as more housing is built.

These are all trends that were going to happen anyways. Terrible argument against the Olympics.
 
I assume it's only corruption that leads cities to even want the games if they don't already have the infrastructure and buildings to support the games (eg Tokyo, Seoul, LA, NYC, etc)
 

Gorillaz

Member
I assume it's only corruption that leads cities to even want the games if they don't already have the infrastructure and buildings to support the games (eg Tokyo, Seoul, LA, NYC, etc)

Nah NYC don't want that shit even if it can accommodate it. Vegas would be a decent spot tho

I love the idea behind it tho giving a country a spotlight that sometimes might not receive at such a high level but holy shit is is fumbled more often then not.
 

nelchaar

Member
They were fucking fantastic for Salt Lake... What are you even talking about?

Almost all the London venues are still in use. Not sure about Vacouver.

As someone that lived in Salt Lake for 7 years, I absolutely agree. In fact, the whole city still lives in the memories of those Winter Olympics.
 
In September, her sponsorship contract ended and was not renewed. Now she pays her team using the $1,000 she receives from the army, her own $4,800 monthly government stipend and money she receives from her club team, Unisanta.

Holy shit, this seems to be a really bad example because for a country like Brazil (no disrepect intended) this seems to be a lot of money. At the moment there's a discussion about government stipends here in Germany and why our track and field athletes do so poorly at the World Athletics Championships. Do you know what german athletes get from the government? 300 Euro. In a wealthy country like Germany.
 

Mohonky

Member
I think Sydney Australia worked out pretty good too.

Thats the thing, you need to be able to make use of the facilities after the fact, which is why Sydney and London did well after the games.

We (Australia) were always going to make use of everything we put in place for the games, we have the interest and capitol to put into it and then maintain and use the facilities, a lot of countries simply dont.

I believe we and London are actually selling off the apartments from the Athletes village etc but a lot of places where the population just cant afford it and then you had places like Delhi and Rio hosting the games and the building were barely able to pass as rooms for a fortnight much less a a piece of real estate that could be auctioned off later.
 

subrock

Member
The olympics disgust me. Such corrupt ass bullshit. Watching that Ocarus documentary on Netflix just cemented that for me
 
Thats the thing, you need to be able to make use of the facilities after the fact, which is why Sydney and London did well after the games.

We (Australia) were always going to make use of everything we put in place for the games, we have the interest and capitol to put into it and then maintain and use the facilities, a lot of countries simply dont.

I believe we and London are actually selling off the apartments from the Athletes village etc but a lot of places where the population just cant afford it and then you had places like Delhi and Rio hosting the games and the building were barely able to pass as rooms for a fortnight much less a a piece of real estate that could be auctioned off later.


Developed nations are better at obfuscating the costs, but it's not like London doesn't need more money spent on funding social housing rather than a sporting summer party.
 
Just an FYI ... economically speaking, gentrification isn't really a bad thing. Most people are talking about economics when they talk about the negatives of hosting the games.

I apologize, I'm not gonna add anything to the olympics related discussion as I was really more trying to learn and not add my input since I am ignorant about it in specific. But I do know a lot about urban economies. And this is the dumbest thing I've ever read, like ever. The poster you replied to knows a lot more about economics than your patronizing, ignorant post shows you do. This statement has no actual meaning and just shows that you only see advancement in terms of things benefitting a small group of rich people, which is not the only thing "economics" is about.
 
I went to Sydney olympics as a spectator. They were great fun and the city had an awesome vibe.

But Australia is a true first world country and not only could afford it, the population wanted it and were happy to pay for it.

Not many countries are in the same predicament as Australia, hence why some fail like Rio has.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Meh, still better than Sochi:
19erej9yxj2abjpg.jpg

fc1aa4436c446d12e38f5b656811a0b7--winter-olympics-m-photos.jpg
I don't know what you
mean. These are perfectly acceptable poop relay and synchronized pooping arenas.

Edit: I guess the technical term in the sport is smelodrome, not arenas. Apologies to the crap and fields enthusiasts.
 

xrnzaaas

Member
I don't know if this was posted already, but here's a video from Business Insider showing the current state of the Olympics venues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMgPEz29abI

What's crazy is that the (corrupt) government doesn't even care about sustaining the Maracana football stadium and they just let the unpaid bills rise and lead to its closure.
 

Nictel

Member
Well they look nice next to the empty soccer stadiums..

OK instead of ruining a country every other year (Olympics, Soccer World Cup) and waste tons of resources.
How about we build one complex on every continent and keep using that?
(Even better would be to just build one world sport complex where all Olympic and other world sporting events will be held but I understand that's reaching too far)
 

Phased

Member
Well they look nice next to the empty soccer stadiums..

OK instead of ruining a country every other year (Olympics, Soccer World Cup) and waste tons of resources.
How about we build one complex on every continent and keep using that?
(Even better would be to just build one world sport complex where all Olympic and other world sporting events will be held but I understand that's reaching too far)

That's kind of the idea going forward I think.

Bring them to cities where the infrastructure is already there. Most major first world cities will already have these buildings in place and have means to pay for the upkeep that they cost over time, which it feels like a lot of bidding cities forget or are short sighted about. You'd need to do some updating to them but that is a hell of a lot cheaper than building them from scratch.

As messed up as it is, it's kind of a "rich get richer" scenario here when you host the Olympics. Los Angeles hosts it in 2028 and they are probably going to make serious bank on it because they have everything they need already, and they are a relatively rich city able to afford the expenses that come AFTER the event.
 
Top Bottom