A Permanent Olympic Site?

[danefan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opini ... ef=opinion

Berkeley, Calif.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Rodrigo Corral and Steve Attardo
THE Winter Olympics are over, and while the Vancouver Games had moments of glory, I couldn’t help but conclude — as the snow refused to fall on the gleaming new walkways of the Olympic Village — that rotating Olympic sites does more harm than good. The tradition ought to be replaced by the creation of a permanent site for both the Summer and Winter Games.

The father of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, thought that rotating Olympic sites would promote peace and understanding and open portals into exciting foreign cultures. But the idea of those portals seems quaint in the Internet age. At the same time, the financial problems plaguing the Games — corruption, recurring cost overruns, decaying former venues and excessively costly bid campaigns — have tarnished the luster of hosting the Olympics. Nonetheless, like lemmings, cities queue up to compete to lose money, only to regret it later.

The poster child of financial calamity remains the 1976 Montreal Olympics, where costs exceeded estimates by some 400 percent, nearly bankrupted the city and took 30 years to pay off. The $14.4 billion cost of the 2004 Athens Games likely contributed to Greece’s financial problems today. And of course there were the extravagant 2008 Beijing Games, with a reported price tag of $40 billion or more. A lack of transparency obscures the full cost of China’s outlays, but already many Olympic structures have been shuttered. And the 2012 London Olympics are already over budget, while plans for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia call for building most venues from scratch.

Few Olympic cities have fared better. The Olympic committee in Sydney reported that the 2000 Games, widely considered a success, had broken even, but the Australian state auditor estimated a long-term cost of over $2 billion. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics made a profit — but only because organizers relied on existing arenas and volunteer labor.

And then there are the political costs of rotating Olympic sites. Boycotts prevented thousands of athletes from competing in the Montreal, Moscow and Los Angeles Games, and it’s impossible to forget the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Most recently, protesters opposed to the awarding of the 2008 Summer Games to China disrupted the Olympic torch relay around the world.

And while many believe that hosting the Olympics pressures countries into improving their human rights records, a number of Games have shown this isn’t true. The president of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, maintained right up to the Beijing Games that they would “have a good effect for the evolution of China” and be “a great catalyst for change.” But in the lead-up to the Games, the government clamped down increasingly on dissidents and restricted travel to Tibet.

The Olympic Games are better than this. And there is one way to restore them to their original glory: create a permanent home for them.

This is not a new proposal. At the end of the 19th century, Greece petitioned to permanently host the Games. The Greeks resurrected the idea in 1980 following the Moscow boycott, and the International Olympic Committee set up a panel to discuss it. In 1984, after the Los Angeles boycott, the United States Senate passed a nonbinding amendment sponsored by Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey and a former Olympic basketball player, calling for future Olympic Games to be held at a permanent site “suitable for insulating the Games” from “unwarranted and disruptive international politics.”

That same year, the president and executive director of the United States Olympic Committee suggested a different solution: five permanent sites (one for each ring in the Olympic logo).

There are advantages to this approach, but I think the best solution to end Olympic waste, promote stability and return the focus to the athletes would be to base all Olympic activities in the traditionally neutral Switzerland, which has the geography, weather, expertise and transportation necessary to host the Winter and Summer Games. The Swiss could reduce and then recoup the costs of building and maintaining venues through recurring use and tourism receipts.

In 1980, I was supposed to compete with the United States rowing team in Moscow, but instead, like 466 other American athletes, I stayed home. Eventually we were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in appreciation for our role in the boycott. Thirty years later, I would still rather have earned the Olympic medal that our team was favored to win.

Charles Banks-Altekruse is a former Olympic rower and runs a consulting company.

Sign in to RecommendNext Article in Opinion (3 of 28) » A version of this article appeared in print on March 1, 2010, on page A27 of the New York edition. .

He's got a point but could you imagine the selection process of the sites?

[ASUG8]

I never really thought about it, but it makes a lot of sense. The Olympics are a money losing proposition for most parties involved except the contractors. The cities lose money, the networks lose money - it makes total sense to amortize the cost of the facilities over a number of Olympic years as opposed to building then mothballing huge single purpose arenas.

[danefan]

I never really thought about it, but it makes a lot of sense. The Olympics are a money losing proposition for most parties involved except the contractors. The cities lose money, the networks lose money - it makes total sense to amortize the cost of the facilities over a number of Olympic years as opposed to building then mothballing huge single purpose arenas.

NBC did a short story on this point and even showed the Bird Cage in Beijing as being completely vacant now and costing $1 billion a year to maintain.

The only location that has really succeeded long term after the Olympics is Lake Placid. They turned the Olympic Venues into the best winter training facility in the US if not the world.

[GannonFan]

I never really thought about it, but it makes a lot of sense. The Olympics are a money losing proposition for most parties involved except the contractors. The cities lose money, the networks lose money - it makes total sense to amortize the cost of the facilities over a number of Olympic years as opposed to building then mothballing huge single purpose arenas.

NBC did a short story on this point and even showed the Bird Cage in Beijing as being completely vacant now and costing $1 billion a year to maintain.

The only location that has really succeeded long term after the Olympics is Lake Placid. They turned the Olympic Venues into the best winter training facility in the US if not the world.

Salt Lake City has been a nice place for the US to train athletes following the '02 Games. The WSJ did a piece showing how the US athletes mostly come from the areas around cities where the US previously hosted Games, since the infrastructure is there.

[89Hen]

The Olympics are a money losing proposition for most parties involved except the contractors. The cities lose money, the networks lose money

Who cares? As long as countries and networks are willing to bid, keep moving it.

[ASUG8]

The Olympics are a money losing proposition for most parties involved except the contractors. The cities lose money, the networks lose money

Who cares? As long as countries and networks are willing to bid, keep moving it.

At the core I'm a finance guy, so I look at these things from a capacity utilization/profit maximization perspective unfortunately It's a buzzkill looking at life that way sometimes - I do kind of enjoy the changing locales so you can get a "Discovery Channel light" version of a local documentary. I doubt I'll ever attend an Olympics, mostly due to the fact that I'd rather do the tourist thing as opposed to watching curling for 3 days........

[SuperHornet]

I never really thought about it, but it makes a lot of sense. The Olympics are a money losing proposition for most parties involved except the contractors. The cities lose money, the networks lose money - it makes total sense to amortize the cost of the facilities over a number of Olympic years as opposed to building then mothballing huge single purpose arenas.

NBC did a short story on this point and even showed the Bird Cage in Beijing as being completely vacant now and costing $1 billion a year to maintain.

The only location that has really succeeded long term after the Olympics is Lake Placid. They turned the Olympic Venues into the best winter training facility in the US if not the world.

Hogwash.

As Gannon just mentioned, SLC is doing quite well. It appears that you've forgotten about Squaw Valley, which is a MAJOR ski facility even 50 years after the Olympics were held there, and even had a good tournament there DURING the Olympics. Sac's Channel 3 hosted an Olympics show during gaps in NBC coverage this year, and there were people all over the place.

Montreal's main Olympic facililty was used for football for years after the Games were held there.

Like many NYT writers, this guy is WAY off base. If we have a permanent site, we'll never get the backstory of varying host sites like we did this year in Canada and two summers ago in Beijing. Those stories are really cool, and it would be a tragedy to lose those.

[93henfan]

As long as the permanent sites are in the US, I'm all for it.

[89Hen]

As long as the permanent sites are in the US, I'm all for it.

I'd settle for North America. Having a permanent site that is 5-20 hours ahead of the US is stoopid. The world revolves around us afterall.

[93henfan]

From the article:

plans for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia call for building most venues from scratch

Whowhat?! Holy hell, if they're going to be building everything from scratch, it better get out of the planning phase pretty damn soon. Methinks the Russian winter games are going to be even more of a cluster than the Canadian ones.

[grizzaholic]

As long as the permanent sites are in the US, I'm all for it.

I'd settle for North America. Having a permanent site that is 5-20 hours ahead of the US is stoopid. The world revolves around the ECB afterall.

FIFY

[93henfan]

Man, I was reading up on Sochi, Russia on Wiki. Here are some nuggets:

On 4 July 2007, Sochi was announced as the host city of the 2014 Winter Olympics, edging out Pyeongchang, South Korea and Salzburg, Austria. This will be the Russian Federation's first time to host the Winter Olympic Games. The site of a training centre for aspiring Olympic athletes, as of 2008, the city has no world-class level athletic facilities fit for international competition. To get the city ready for the Olympics, the Russian government has committed to a $12 billion investment package, shared 60-40 between the government and private sector. By some estimates, the investments necessary to bring the location up to Olympic standards may exceed that of any previous Olympic games.

Sochi has a humid subtropical climate (Koppen climate classification Cfa) at the lower elevations, with an average January temperature of 6 °C (42.8 °F) and winter temperatures rarely falling below freezing.

So, the IOC picks a winter olympics location with no facilities and subtropical climate? Shrewd.

I took a look at some of the pics of Soshi. They're going to have to go way up into the mountains for the snow events. The city itself has palm trees.

[89Hen]

FIFY

Not really. I have no problem with an LA or Vancouver games. London, South Africa, South Korea... no thanks. I got up at 3am for the last World Cup games, and will do so again this go round, but would rather not have to.

[grizzaholic]

FIFY

Not really. I have no problem with an LA or Vancouver games. London, South Africa, South Korea... no thanks. I got up at 3am for the last World Cup games, and will do so again this go round, but would rather not have to.

I find that very hard to believe.

[89Hen]

I find that very hard to believe.

If you can't believe it, that's your problem. West coast Olympics is actually better for most East Coasters to watch anyway. Nothing going on before Noon our time and I'm perfectly fine staying up until 1am to watch.

[Franks Tanks]

Man, I was reading up on Sochi, Russia on Wiki. Here are some nuggets:

On 4 July 2007, Sochi was announced as the host city of the 2014 Winter Olympics, edging out Pyeongchang, South Korea and Salzburg, Austria. This will be the Russian Federation's first time to host the Winter Olympic Games. The site of a training centre for aspiring Olympic athletes, as of 2008, the city has no world-class level athletic facilities fit for international competition. To get the city ready for the Olympics, the Russian government has committed to a $12 billion investment package, shared 60-40 between the government and private sector. By some estimates, the investments necessary to bring the location up to Olympic standards may exceed that of any previous Olympic games.

Sochi has a humid subtropical climate (Koppen climate classification Cfa) at the lower elevations, with an average January temperature of 6 °C (42.8 °F) and winter temperatures rarely falling below freezing.

So, the IOC picks a winter olympics location with no facilities and subtropical climate? Shrewd.

I took a look at some of the pics of Soshi. They're going to have to go way up into the mountains for the snow events. The city itself has palm trees.

Soshi is one of Russia major summer time beach resorts. Its kind like having the Winter Olympics in Daytona beach (provided they had mountains in Florida. Very interesting choice.

[Rob Iola]

Sarajevo's Olympic stadium certainly made it back into the news well after their games were over...

[danefan]

Sarajevo's Olympic stadium certainly made it back into the news well after their games were over...

if Greece's economy does completely implode (pretty likely) then the olympic stadium in Athens may reach the same fate when the Greeks revolt....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... mpics.html

Of the 22 venues in the city, 21 are in a state of disrepair and under guard to prevent vandalism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... glory.html

[CitadelGrad]

Sochi itself is too warm to host the alpine and nordic events, but there is plenty of skiing available within 30 miles of Sochi. That' a lot closer than Whistler is to Vancouver.

The problems pointed out in the article apply mostly to the summer Olypmics. The winter Olympics have been for more successful because relatively few facilities have to be built from the ground up and many of them are routinely used after the Olympics as training and competition sites. For example, Lake Placid and SLC are major training and competition sites.

[bluehenbillk]

A permanent site would be the death of the Olympics. Cmon, if these games were held in Russia versus Vancouver there would've been FAR less interest here, and if anyone did watch, it'd all be delayed programming for the most part.

Keep it rotating.

[kardplayer]

A permanent site would be the death of the Olympics. Cmon, if these games were held in Russia versus Vancouver there would've been FAR less interest here, and if anyone did watch, it'd all be delayed programming for the most part.

Keep it rotating.

I agree, although I would also not be surprised to see it become a de facto rotation at some point if cities stop bidding due to the fact they will lose lots of $$$ on it. Then it would be down to just the cities that have facilities already - most likely ones from previous olympics...

[FargoBison]

Maybe each continent should have a permanent site for summer and winter, then your rotate from there. I agree there is no need to keep building everything in a new city each time, but I would hate to see one city have it forever. That would kill the games.

[Grizo406]

Having been to Chattanooga once, I fell in love with the place!

I think Chattanooga should considered for any/all future Olympics!

In your face, Frisco!

[89Hen]

Maybe each continent should have a permanent site for summer and winter, then your rotate from there. I agree there is no need to keep building everything in a new city each time, but I would hate to see one city have it forever. That would kill the games.

I'm not sure that would work. 12-16 years between hosting... what are the facilities going to be like?

[dbackjon]

Maybe each continent should have a permanent site for summer and winter, then your rotate from there. I agree there is no need to keep building everything in a new city each time, but I would hate to see one city have it forever. That would kill the games.

I'm not sure that would work. 12-16 years between hosting... what are the facilities going to be like?

Some facilities would need updating, but most should be good for a couple of rotations.

And one of the big costs of the Olympics is always the transportation infrastructure, which still should be good