
Why Would Anyone Want To Host The Olympics? - Qtz
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-0?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ee/hostOlympics
======
nemesisj
I think there's an important psychological dimension that's often missed from
these calculations, particularly for countries that have a chip on their
shoulder. It's a way for the entire world to be focused on something that
you're doing well (hopefully) for a few weeks. Before the Beijing olympics
many Chinese would ask you how you liked China, and when you replied, "yes"
they would say China is "luo hou", which means backward. China is still luo
hou to most who don't live in the richest eastern seaboard cities, and being
able to watch China do something amazing for weeks on end is more than worth
the 40 billion that was spent.

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.

~~~
mafribe
The transformation of East London which I believe to have been the main reason
for choosing to host the Olympics in London, has been fairly spectacular. The
Stratford area where the Olympic park was built, used to be a wasteland.
Although I don't know this, I conjecture that the Olympics were used as a
mechanism to force through a substantial number of planning permissions that
would not have been granted otherwise.

~~~
christoph
Visually, it's changed - sure. There's a nice big stadium there that can be
used every so often. It doesn't look as bad as it once did. It's changed very
little of the outside area as far as I can tell though.

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...](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/westfield-stratfords-postcode-is-
the-countrys-worst-crime-hotspot-8756741.html)

[1] -
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/543cabaa-8a41-11e2-9da4-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/543cabaa-8a41-11e2-9da4-00144feabdc0.html)

[2] - [http://crimeinlondon.com/newham/stratford-and-new-
town/viole...](http://crimeinlondon.com/newham/stratford-and-new-town/violent-
crime/)

~~~
ljf
It's rough, but not that bad - I live locally (well in the even 'rougher'
Forest Gate) and in the 15 years I've been in the area I've never personally
had or seen any trouble - the kids who might look scary are well brought up -
there isn't the crippling poverty (or as in other parts of London, poverty
next to excessive wealth) that blights other parts.

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.

~~~
test1235
>in the even 'rougher' Forest Gate

The setting of the movie 'Ill Manors'?

~~~
ljf
Yup, but I'm living in the leafy suburban Victorian bit with a massive park at
the end of my road, I love it here, really culturally diverse but with a real
London history here too, and loads of people that have chosen to make London
there home or grew up in the area.

------
netcan
Current politics seems to demand that everything be an investment. Education,
roads, stadiums. It is supposed to create growth. Stimulate. Save on future
healthcare or welfare costs. etc.

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.

~~~
AndrewDucker
It's a question of how much happiness you generate for the cash. The UK Arts
Council gets about £500million to spend. The Olympics cost the UK 18 times
that much.

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.

~~~
teekert
Flawed logic, that "18 times" depends on the initial 500 million so the cut-
off happiness value is now determined by the initial investment? Nope. The
only way to determine if it makes sense is if there is way to specify
happiness per pound for the olympics. I for one couldn't care less about the
olympics by the way.

------
visakanv
Same reason you'd host any sort of expensive party. To look cool and feel
cool. A lot of international politics make a lot more sense when you remember
we're all in high school.

~~~
arethuza
Actually, I was _very_ skeptical about the London Olympics before the event.
However, I thought the whole thing went splendidly and arguably did give the
whole of the UK a bit of a lift in national morale just when we really needed
it.

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.

~~~
dingaling
Current estimate for the QE Carrier project is £5.5 billion, or about 60% of
what the Olympics cost.

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.

~~~
arethuza
Well, I'm not a fan of the carrier project _or_ the utterly idiotic way it was
managed.

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.

------
tofof
Only an economist could ask a question of the form "why would anyone want to
do <activity without clear economic benefit>?"

I wonder how they manage to reproduce.

~~~
randallsquared
Are you suggesting that hosting the Olympics is a terminal goal, like having
children is?

~~~
netrus
Being entertained is, as feeling a global spirit of humanity, as being proud
to be a good host to the world. That are a lot of positive emotions I connect
with the Olympic Games. It's quite expensive, but you only do it all 20-odd
years (considering also Winter Olympics and Soccer Worldcup). Some modesty is
in place, but it would be such a shame if we did not have these events
anymore.

~~~
3825
I understand that as a community we need children but personally I don't see
myself having kids.

>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.

------
JanezStupar
First prestige and second corruption opportunities.

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.

------
rayiner
If I were a mayor, hosting the olympics would seem like a good way to shove
infrastructure improvements past all the NIMBY assholes that always block
them.

------
codeulike
Its a bit like saying why would anyone want to host a huge dinner party.

~~~
RougeFemme
Except that etiquette would dictate that the individual host foot the bill for
a huge dinner party, whereas the taxpayers foot the bill for the Olympics.

~~~
PeterisP
Anyway, UK taxpayers don't foot the bill for Beijing Olympics - so it's their
(UK as a whole) choice to offer to throw the huge dinner party, or just visit
someone else's party.

------
Lucadg
politicians love big money moving around so they can grab a bit for
themselves. Many big projects in Italy shows this seems to be the main, if not
unique, drive for events like the Olympics.

------
Ueland
Interesting that it got published just now(8th). Oslo,Norway just voted yes to
ask the government for financial guarantee in order to try to get the Vinter
Olympics in 2022.

------
fatihpense
Also for Turkey, It means government gets an excuse for building landmarks to
north Istanbul. Expanding city and continue benefiting from a never-ending
real estate gold rush in Istanbul. Both bidding of big projects and real
estate benefits will go to "friends" of government.

Also they will use this excuse for removing poor people, and destroying houses
that have much higher real estate value than their residents.

------
decasteve
If you have most of the infrastructure already, like Sydney, it makes sense.

Whereas Montreal is still paying debts from hosting the Olympics in 1976.

------
guard-of-terra
Istanbul would be a perfect place for an Olympics, except Erdogan ruined it
for them. Did you know that Istanbul is already third most internationally
traveled city?

~~~
fsniper
Even though I'm very anti Erdoğan I would not be happy If we got the Olympics
with or without Erdoğan. Our Economy is projected as a heaven and Turkey as in
growth but on the contrary it's way too bad and currently sky diving. Putting
one more economic burden as big as the Olympic games would be catastrophic. We
are nearly paying taxes just to breath. (exaggeration yes but not too well
off.) Getting the games would mean more "temprorary but never to be lifted"
taxes to fund the games but in realty just for making more funding for
politicians.

I'm really happy for Istanbul to loose and feeling bad for Tokyo to win.

------
bsullivan01
On top of my head: not all is lost. So if it costs $50 Billion, a lot of it is
recouped via jobs, taxes, infrastructure that would have been built anyway,
tourism etc. Some is lost but that's life. There's the "Made in Japan ...USA,
China" brand and other geopolitical benefits as well. So money might be lost
or it will be lost but so what? Greece has no business in doing them but
Japan, China, USA, Russia and countries alike can afford to lose a
(relatively) little bit of money for indirect benefits. Sometimes people buy a
Lexus when a Toyota does the job just as well, or eat a $100 per head
restaurant instead of a $7 Chinese buffet. Are they dumb?

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.

~~~
psutor
Although economically true these days, I found "Greece has no business in
doing [the Olympics]" ironic.

~~~
bsullivan01
I meant to say that bigger countries can absorb a loss, smaller ones like
Greece might even go down (at least faster) because of Olympic losses.

