The costs keep climbing. The 2004 Olympics in Athens have been estimated to cost anywhere between $7 billion and $14 billion dollars. It is estimated that the 2008 Olympics in Beijing could cost the Chinese people $42 billion dollars between building of the infrastructure and stadiums, cleaning up the city, and the costs of keeping the factories around Beijing closed till the end of the Olympics.
While I believe in the Olympic movement, I am wondering if the costs of hosting the games have begun to outweigh the benefits. In this morning's New York Times there was an article reviewing the architecture of Beijing's National Stadium, which will host the opening and closing ceremonies, track and field events, and soccer (football) finals for the 2008 Summer Games. What struck me in the article is that the Chinese do not know what they are going to do with the stadium after the Olympics and Paralympics. The ideas for redevelopin! g the stadium after the games include turning part of it into a mall, a hotel, leaving it as a relic of hosting the Games that visitors can walk through, and/or putting a fence around the stadium once the Olympic flame is extinguished. I can't help but think that the estimated $500.7 million dollars that was put into the stadium would only be going for a building that would be used for less than a year.
The City of Chicago (Illinois) is bidding to host the 2016 Summer Olympics and the Chicago Tribune published a article today about what has become of the venues from the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. According to the Tribune, many of the venues have fallen into disrepair and await redevelopment 4 years after the Olympics ended. The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom reported that "of the 22 venues in the city [Athens], 21 are in a state of disrepair and under guard to prevent vandalism." Is this the legacy that the Olympic Games should be lea! ving behind?
In a year that has seen taxpayers of t! he City of Chicago and its suburbs face increases in their sales taxes and real estate taxes is it proper that they should be left on the hook for several hundred million dollars in guarantees to back the Olympics from their hard earned tax dollars at the request of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)? As environmental concerns increase is it proper to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on materials to build new stadiums that will be used for less than a year?
It is time for the IOC to put a strong emphasis on the sustainability of the games and encourage hosts to maximize their current infrastructure. My hope is that hosts of future Olympics will not be forced to leave empty buildings, little used infrastructure, and/or mounting bills on their taxpayers to meet the extravagant requirements of the IOC. Maybe it is time that expectations on hosts for new infrastructure and stadiums are scaled back so that the legacy the games leave behind benefit the Olympic movem! ent and the hosts.
While I believe in the Olympic movement, I am wondering if the costs of hosting the games have begun to outweigh the benefits. In this morning's New York Times there was an article reviewing the architecture of Beijing's National Stadium, which will host the opening and closing ceremonies, track and field events, and soccer (football) finals for the 2008 Summer Games. What struck me in the article is that the Chinese do not know what they are going to do with the stadium after the Olympics and Paralympics. The ideas for redevelopin! g the stadium after the games include turning part of it into a mall, a hotel, leaving it as a relic of hosting the Games that visitors can walk through, and/or putting a fence around the stadium once the Olympic flame is extinguished. I can't help but think that the estimated $500.7 million dollars that was put into the stadium would only be going for a building that would be used for less than a year.
The City of Chicago (Illinois) is bidding to host the 2016 Summer Olympics and the Chicago Tribune published a article today about what has become of the venues from the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece. According to the Tribune, many of the venues have fallen into disrepair and await redevelopment 4 years after the Olympics ended. The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom reported that "of the 22 venues in the city [Athens], 21 are in a state of disrepair and under guard to prevent vandalism." Is this the legacy that the Olympic Games should be lea! ving behind?
In a year that has seen taxpayers of t! he City of Chicago and its suburbs face increases in their sales taxes and real estate taxes is it proper that they should be left on the hook for several hundred million dollars in guarantees to back the Olympics from their hard earned tax dollars at the request of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)? As environmental concerns increase is it proper to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on materials to build new stadiums that will be used for less than a year?
It is time for the IOC to put a strong emphasis on the sustainability of the games and encourage hosts to maximize their current infrastructure. My hope is that hosts of future Olympics will not be forced to leave empty buildings, little used infrastructure, and/or mounting bills on their taxpayers to meet the extravagant requirements of the IOC. Maybe it is time that expectations on hosts for new infrastructure and stadiums are scaled back so that the legacy the games leave behind benefit the Olympic movem! ent and the hosts.
