London Olympics budget: now with 3 times extra flavor!!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DanS
LA made $200 million. Atlanta also is said to have made money as well, although I do wonder...

LA did do well. Although there have been financial success stories they are not the norm, particularly when funding from different levels of government is combined. Vancouver is preparing for an olympic games. We'll see how they do.

I agree with the poster that said it is the prestige factor.

[DanS]

As stated, there are a number of factors that are weighted differently by each host city. It seems that those cities that have a clear idea of their objectives are the ones that put on a good Olympics.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
£9.35bn seems to be kinda expensive for a collection of white elephants though.

Well yeah, but I suppose Versailles and the Pyramids were also white elephants. How to quantify a durable ego-boost?

Originally posted by DanS
LA made $200 million. Atlanta also is said to have made money as well, although I do wonder...

Though it would seem a lot of the costs got frontloaded in LA if most of the infrastructure was already place. It's nice some make an immediate profit, but I think it makes more sense to see the Olympics as a feel-good consumption rather than a financial investment.

Originally posted by DanS
It appears that the central government is leading and funding London in order to revitalize parts of the city. In this respect, the cost and frequency of use for big crowds in the future is a paramount consideration and white elephants are the exact opposite of what is intended.

Holding the Olympics as a matter of urban renewal or upgrading transport infrastructure doesn't make sense regardless. If such investments are justified on their own merits there's no need to accompany it with a huge sports event.
Asher stated the infrastructure built for Calgary '88 is still beneficial to the city. If it's so beneficial then why need the Olympics as an excuse for the investment?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
How to quantify a durable ego-boost?

Money pit? Boondoggle?

[Provost Harrison]

This is the reason why Ken lost my vote...the lunacy that is the Olympic games...what an utter waste of money - and many hundreds, if not thousands of pounds of my own money will be squandered. And what benefit do I derive from it? Even more f**ling tourists for a fortnight? Well thanks!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Holding the Olympics as a matter of urban renewal or upgrading transport infrastructure doesn't make sense regardless. If such investments are justified on their own merits there's no need to accompany it with a huge sports event.
Asher stated the infrastructure built for Calgary '88 is still beneficial to the city. If it's so beneficial then why need the Olympics as an excuse for the investment?

Unfortunately, political inertia often requires a kick in the ass like the Olympics to get infrastructure improvement going. I have no doubt the Vancouver Games are going to lose money, but I have serious doubts whether many of the road and transit improvements that are accompanying the Olympics (and are desperately needed) would have been undertaken without them. It doesn't necessarily make it a good or rational reason, though, I'll give you that.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Holding the Olympics as a matter of urban renewal or upgrading transport infrastructure doesn't make sense regardless. If such investments are justified on their own merits there's no need to accompany it with a huge sports event.
Asher stated the infrastructure built for Calgary '88 is still beneficial to the city. If it's so beneficial then why need the Olympics as an excuse for the investment?

What's wrong with sponsors paying for a little bit of infrastructure or redevelopment?

[MarkG]

sponsors probably cover only part of the additional millions demanded by contractors in order to finish the works before that start of the games, and not any of the actual costs...

[Sandman]

This aquatic centre sounds like it could be a rival to the Scottish Parliament...

...what is an aquatics centre? Is it New Labour managementspeak for 'swimming pool'?

[Colonâ„¢]

Now that Scotland has been mentioned, they're apparently planning to build a 2km cable stayed bridge that'll cost between £3.2 and £4.2 billion. At least that was the estimate late 2007. I think the insanity-factor of that is still easily beating the Olympics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7152186.stm

[Krill]

If they want it they can pay it, I sure as hell won't bank role it for them.

[DanS]

Indeed, that bridge cost is impressive. And it will only be two-lanes each way. Do they just make these numbers up or is there a particular reason for this high cost?

[Dinner]

Probably all the union labor. One pollock to do the work and four Scots to watch him.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DanS
Indeed, that bridge cost is impressive. And it will only be two-lanes each way. Do they just make these numbers up or is there a particular reason for this high cost?

Knowledge economy.

[Dauphin]

The East of London is and has been a complete dump for a long time. Whilst there may be no quantifiable cost benefit I do think that the Olympic redevelopment is a good thing.

Doing the redevelopment without the pretense would have been better and cheaper, but then that would have had no political mileage.