We should host the Olympics in the same place every time • Hacker News Board

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#81

Post by acveilleux » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 2:17 AM UTC

caminante wrote: post #66

rospaya wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold. Barcelona was hugely changed by the 1992 Games and was transformed into one of the richest cities in Europe and one of the most visited spots on Earth. It's significance, quality of life and wealth grew because of the event. That's the point of most Olympic events, as former London mayor Ken Livingstone said it: It's not about three weeks o…

> The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold... I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired. Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget. Maybe things worked out ov…

The timing in Barcelona was very special. Spain had only recently become a democracy again when they were awarded the game. There was a lot of political capital available to be spent and a real need to turn a page.

The games in this case were a catalyst but not the reason for most of the expenses. Same as the Expo in Seville which was also in '92.

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#82

Post by javert » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 2:21 AM UTC

tajen wrote: post #68

troymc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When most people think of the olympic games, they don't think about the IOC. They could care less about the IOC. They think about athletes, and sports, and national rivalries. Most people would not give one fat hoot if the whole IOC got left in the dust to whither and die, while a new organization got set up to host similar events in one location.

If the IOC died, the worldwide championships of each sport would gain importance. Such championships are held in different cities every year, which makes me think that the IOC is just inheriting the behavior of moving cities. Probably 70% of the people just want to watch sports and, being a democracy, it's difficult to outweight their choice of spending public money on Olympics.

> If the IOC died, the worldwide championships of each sport would gain importance.

The idea there (in this comment thread) is to replace the IOC with something else and continue the Olympics, not to eliminate the Olympics altogether.

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#83

Post by javert » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 2:25 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #57

Gys wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Greece has an extremely large number of islands, with estimates ranging from somewhere around 1,200 to 6,000, depending on the minimum size to take into account. The number of inhabited islands is variously cited as between 166 and 227.' Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_of_Greece And it would not even have to be uninhabited I guess. Greece is very poor and really needs any investments it can get…

> With a budget of billions it would not be a problem to spend (only once) some money for a new airport (I guess now its spend every four years in some city to modernize their nearest airport). Look at the BER disaster, it was supposed to open 2007 and most likely won't open until way after 2017. I believe building a permanent Olympic site in Greece would bring similar delays...

Put the Germans in charge of that. I think we can all agree on that.

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#84

Post by mmarx » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 2:48 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #83

mschuster91 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With a budget of billions it would not be a problem to spend (only once) some money for a new airport (I guess now its spend every four years in some city to modernize their nearest airport). Look at the BER disaster, it was supposed to open 2007 and most likely won't open until way after 2017. I believe building a permanent Olympic site in Greece would bring similar delays...

Put the Germans in charge of that. I think we can all agree on that.

BER is a german project[0], and so is the Elbe Philharmonic Hall[1]. Both are long overdue and over budget. “Putting the Germans in charge” may very well not help to avoid delays.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Philharmonic_Hall

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#85

Post by maus42 » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

troymc wrote: post #48

briandear wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winter Olympics in Greece? Nonsense. Chamonix vs Greece -- there is just no comparison. Very few people plan world class ski vacations in Greece. That's like having surfing competitions in New Jersey. Sure there's an ocean, but that doesn't make it good.

The article is about the summer olympics.

But the previous commenter suggested winter olympics in Greece, too, and they replied to that. I don't understand the downvoting.

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#86

Post by Urbanxassassin » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 3:11 AM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #51

kiiski wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't having it in the same place every time make it more expensive/difficult for people to go see the games live? When the location changes every time, there will be a different set of people who go watch the games because it's nearby, but who possibly couldn't afford to (or wouldn't want to) travel to the other side of the world for them.

I don't think distance is all that big a deal. Sure, you can't just drive there if it isn't near, but for most people the Olympics is a once-in-a-lifetime experience that they're willing to take a week off to visit. No different from any other trip, eg people will come to Paris from Australia just to see the Eiffel tower and the Notre Dame. Why wouldn't they fly to some other town to see the Olympics? And let's face…

Nope I only went to the one in London because I live there. It's far too expensive otherwise.

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#87

Post by thaumasiotes » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 3:14 AM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #64

Gys wrote: post #2

'How about selling a permanent site in Greece for the Summer Olympics ? An uninhabited island would be ideal, not too far from the coast accessible by ferries as well as planes.' 'The original Olympics was held in Olympia, Greece for 800 years. The changing site is a modern phenomenon used to spread support in the early stages of the modern Olympic movement. Why not return the Games to their real roots?' Good argumen…

The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous monastic stare in Greece. What better place to hold games originally religious in nature from Greece than this region? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos

> The original Olympic games were held in honour of Zeus (God) so really the games should be held in the Mount Athos region of Greece an autonomous monastic stare in Greece.

I don't follow the "logic" here at all. What makes Mount Athos more appropriate than, say, Olympia, the traditional site of the Olympic games?

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#88

Post by hamburglar » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 3:23 AM UTC

tellthetruth1 wrote: post #60

kleer001 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is part of the world. Because it would take the burden off of other countries. A family lives or dies by how they treat their shitty uncle. In the end I believe people are essentially good. Not that they eventually do good things. That's a measure for time and luck.

So the whole "family" has to pay for the uncle's drinking and drug habit? I am not gonna pay for your "belief".

Frankly, the benefit to Greece, whatever it may be, would be a mere side effect in my opinion. The point of moving it to a permanent location is to prevent damage everywhere else. It's an interesting game-theory-ish problem where on one hand, you think, "why should they benefit?" but on the other hand, under the existing system, it's possible that nobody benefits (other than the people directly involved in the corruption).

The thought of the Olympics coming to my town makes me want to start threatening politicians with recall referenda and/or thinking about selling my house and leaving. Most likely I'd just leave town for the duration and rent my house out for an ungodly monthly sum.

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#89

Post by caminante » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 3:40 AM UTC

acveilleux wrote: post #81

caminante wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Olympics are more than the direct cost of infrastructure or tickets sold... I don't think that anyone would argue that Barcelona was a success relative to other Olympics, but it still left much to be desired. Gys is taking issue with the claim that Barcelona was handled "pretty well" in an absolute sense considering the fact that the sports-related infrastructure went WAY over budget. Maybe things worked out ov…

The timing in Barcelona was very special. Spain had only recently become a democracy again when they were awarded the game. There was a lot of political capital available to be spent and a real need to turn a page. The games in this case were a catalyst but not the reason for most of the expenses. Same as the Expo in Seville which was also in '92.

Indeed. Many didn't (and still don't) realize how fractured the Spanish state was, going into recent times (i.e. post Franco ~1975).

Somewhat related...it was interesting to learn how Spain's triumph at the 2010 World Cup became a unifying, transcendent event for the country, politically.

Re: We should host the Olympics in the same place every time

#90

Post by Yhippa » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 3:49 AM UTC

kiiski wrote: post #45

lordnacho wrote: post #5

I'd be all for it. A permanent site can rely on repeat business and a permanent economy can grow around it. A sort of Mecca for sports. The current process is a shambles. It's basically about telling the world how prosperous the host is, and for the IOC members it's all about milking the process for money. You end up building a ghost town someplace every four years at huge cost. I suppose the same arguments apply for…

Wouldn't having it in the same place every time make it more expensive/difficult for people to go see the games live? When the location changes every time, there will be a different set of people who go watch the games because it's nearby, but who possibly couldn't afford to (or wouldn't want to) travel to the other side of the world for them.

What if we hosted it on a ginormous floating barge? If it was that big it could possibly be stable and not be subject to the movement of the ocean. Then to solve the issue of equal average location you just float it around the world. Heck, you could road trip it around the coasts.