I agree with you 100%. There should be fixed host cities, however, that will never fly with some cities that never hosted or cities that already hosted.
I think that when bids are being voted on the top three should get to host the next three. So say you look at the bids for the 2016 Olympics: Rio would host in 2016, Madrid in 2020 and Tokyo in 2024. That way the later games have more time to work out the cost and building along with figuring what to do with the buildings after.
Over the past 20 years, the IOC has been massively increasing the percentage of profits that they receive for each Olympics. That's a key reason why hosting is unprofitable now.
I remember how the IOC criticize Atlanta 1996 for being too commercialize for corporate sponsorship yet today the IOC are profiting billions of money from the financial methods used by Atlanta. Look at Atlanta now, they are still benefiting from the games. The centennial olympic park still draws crowd and businesses, tho some far flung venues are not used.
I think the only thing currently in use is the olympic stadium, which is mostly used for football games and some sporting events. You can look up pictures of the sites nowadays, it's dreadful.
That is totally inaccurate. There are way more venues in use but some have been converted for other uses. There are certainly some completely abandoned venues but they make up less than half. I don't know where that number came from.
@Athanasios Kountouras Please, explain, what venues are still in use because I'm from Athens and the only venue still in use is the OAKA (Athens Olympic Sports Complex), maybe a couple more of venues (?) but that's about it, most of them are abandoned and full of junkies. I highly doubt you know your shit.
Alexander Sunderland-Bragg Yeah but I would expect the regular African countries that would host the summer games would tend to be South Africa or Egypt. Maybe Kenya and the rest of the North African states excluding Libya too.
I feel like if they went with the World Cup method and chose COUNTRIES, instead of cities, you may be able to solve a lot of problems. Large countries would probably have to limit the games to a particular region (say the US using the Southeast for a summer games), but then you can spread out the costs. Works for the WC, why not the Olympics?
Sal Picataggio Yeah, even without the modern large size of the Olympic games, a host CITY is WAY too limited; a host NATION would be better. For example, the U.K. could hold events all across their four countries' biggest cities like London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff, and Belfast.
Russia: Most of the country is globally known to have a "proper" winter. Also Russia: Hosts winter olympic in its only really warm region. So warm, it needs to artificially add snow. Dooming most of the built winter sports structures by doing so. I won't even go about how it wasn't reasonably affordable for a stagnating country with mostly poor population.
SmitiaS The thing is Russia is an extremely flat country. Sochi, and the Caucasus is probably the only region where building skying infrastructure for the Olympics is possible. The other regions are either too isolated, or too unstable to host Olympics.
@@matthewhemmings2464 I would argue it is not true. There is Ural, Altai and pretty much whole Far East (42% of Russian land btw) is mountains. The most unstable region of Russia is, in fact, Caucasus - right next to where Olympics took place - so this point is just not valid. While some regions of Russia is indeed isolated (most of the Far East), there was plenty of options. I would speculate most realistic options are Ural and Far East at pacific coast. While Ural is better suited for events, investments in Far East would be a major blessing for underdeveloped and shrinking region. Places like Altai are of limits as it would endanger natural preserves and could greatly anger dominant native population.
@@smitias_8474 Far East doesn't have good enough infrastructure/ transportation connections. Ural is better, but the cities there are not very attractive for tourists and the ski resorts are drastically underdeveloped. Sounds ironic, but Russia is not a good country to host winter olympics.
@Anton Taylor I'm russian citizen, LOL atchya. All economic growth was in 00s, 10s is stagnation. And through all this years wealth inequality was steadily increasing. So even though we saw overall growth, poverty still risen lately. And that in part also because our goverment prefer waste money on Olympics for prestige points rather than improving socioeconomic conditions for citizens. P. S. They butchered robust medical system in the last decade. Then COVID came and we have to pay in human lives instead of yesterdays money.
The biggest problem with Olympics is IOC. It is the most greedy sports organization on earth, taking 70%+ of TV rights revenue. As best as I can tell no sports federation does that. Once this graft is resolved half the problem is solved. I like the system of rotating permanent cities, but modify it by adding non-permanent cities to hold it every other one, or maybe every third one.
IOC is greedier than the NCAA? Those people make millions too yet if one of their unpaid "student athletes" gets a bagel for free, they severely punish the school 4 years later.
The NCAA publishes their finances every year publicly. Where the millions you talk about? NCAA is a non-profit organization. You know where any of the profit goes? Any profit they make goes directly into student scholarships for non-sustainable college sports (ie. not football or basketball) It not millions as you say.
"I like the system of rotating permanent cities, but modify it by adding non-permanent cities to hold it every other one, or maybe every third one. " Why? So cities can be fucked every other Olympics instead?
No matter how we choose criteria for cities hosting the Olympics, there will always be countries who will claim that it is unfair that they were not chosen.
Alex and Pedro then let's have each event in a different country. I don't believe there are enough events to completely cover the globe, but we should be able to hit every country that wants to host.
Michael Carnes Seriously? Your saying I have to go to Canada to watch bobsledding, and then fly to China for curling the next day and then back to Oslo for the ski jump?
I would agree. I heard the permanent site idea but I didn't like it. I agree (with the exception of Cape Town) as the permanent continental sites, but I would add Athens since the Olympics date back to Ancient Greece and it would be nice every 16 years for Athens to get the Summer Olympics.
If we were to be the one or one of a number of permanent host venues of the Olympics we would happily take the opportunity.WE ARE THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE OLYMPICS and It would really make us take care of all the sporting venues we currently have left at a state of despair. And they are only at that state because of 2 reasons: 1)knowing that it is a one-off event and we won't need them in the near future 2)we don't have many sporting teams in sports like baseball,softball or other sports like tennis or cycling or even water polo, despite the many medals both the men and women water polo teams have won, don't have the same appeal to the Greek people. And I think the tactic that should be used is to SCRAP the host CITY and have the Olympic Games be organised and take place in a HOST NATION. In a similar way as to how the UEFA Euro or the FIFA World Cup work you could drastically minimise the risk of multiple sporting complexes falling into shambles by assigning different sporting events to different sporting venues around the same country. For instance, the football and basketball tournaments could be host in cities like Athens,Thessaloniki,Patras,Volos,Herakleion etc.,all the field events could all take place in the Ancient Olympia stadium, kanoe kayak could take place in a whole lot different canyons around Greece and so on the case goes.What's more it could encourage host cities to rebuild or redevelop their infrastructure on a national basis, as cities like Patras or Volos have not even half as much or good the infrastructure as the capital Athens has
I like the idea of having permanent olympic cities on each continent. I only have one problem with one city and that is Cape Town and only due to the water crisis it is currently experiencing. I really enjoy your channel and wished you posted more often. Keep up the good work!
1 major point in favour of Sydney (I'm a Sydneysider) is the venues were existing, designed as multi-use venues or had enough demand of use after the games. In the last couple of years the Exhibition Centre has been rebuilt and the main stadium will be rebuilt in the next couple of years. But most other venues are still in use.
I'd chose Sapporo over Pyeongchang, especially because most of their facilities are not permanent ones. Sapporo is also debating to bid for the Winter Olympics 2026 and 2030, so they seem to be willing to update their infrastructure. Furthermore Sapporo is the 5th largest city in Japan and is well connected by train and airport, making travel to the city very easy. Also Switzerland, or rather the city of Sion, are debating about hosting the Winter Olympics 2026 as a joined venture, basically a national event. Switzerland also hosts the IOC, so it might be another candidate to become a permanent host. But the choices you offered all makes sense.
Well, Switzerland indeed is the best option in Europe. Italy isn't that much of a neutral area within Europe and even in the EU. Just see how EU states are reacting to ECB policy or the recent bidding on the EMA, the European FDA. Also the air isn't clean in Turin due to the fact the Alps are blocking the wind. I also have my doubts on Cape Town as Olympic city. Cape Town has serious water problems. On the other hand, Alexandria will get water problems as well if Ethiopia is building too much dams in the river Nile. Although I am fair I have not compared these options to alternatives such as Nigeria.
The only non-permanent facility in Pyeongchang will be the opening/closing ceremony stadium. Pyeongchang has brand new infrastructure, and they've proven to understand how to keep a budget. Rotating between Pyeongchang and Nagano would make much more sense, considering that Sapporo hasn't hosted since the early 70s and is on Hokkaido rather than Honshu.
Honestly don't gey why they are not keeping pyungchang venue. Looks like a perfect winter ski getaway for all the people on souel expecially with the high speed rail.
I think London and LA should be able to host the olympics as they have almost all the infrastructure required to host the olympics already. Also the most powerful country on earth not being able to host the olympics? Really?
Kai H I'm not sure tbh. I don't think it's remotely fair to limit the North to Winter games and only 3 cities. I'm not against any of these cities if others are also included, but if only 6, not these
Michael, your argument seems to be that limiting the Olympics to 3 cities per season is the problem. So how is changing the cities going to solve that? He came up with a great solution to minimize spending and maximize use, all while taking global trends into mind. It might not be perfect, but I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find a more well thought out string of ideas than this video.
The decision for LA to host the 2028 games makes a lot of sense. Most of the venue work they are doing is work that needs doing anyway (e.g. LA Stadium will get a lot of use for the NFL as well as the Olympics and Banc of California Stadium will get use for a Major League Soccer team as well as the games). As a former host they can re-use existing infrastructure as well (e.g. the Coliseum). They have lots of existing infrastructure in general (including transport stuff like BART) so they dont need to build a lot of stuff. Brisbane on the other hand (another city that has talked about hosting the Olympic Games and is about to host the Commonwealth Games down on the Gold Coast) would need a lot more infrastructure (a lot less of which would see use after the Olympics).
Great video! I love the idea of having pre-defined cities. All good picks, too. Though the only issue I could see is continents being upset that they never get to host the summer olympics, since I think they typically have higher viewer counts/are more profitable, no? Anyway, good stuff!
Summer olympics would be hosted by poorer countries then hosts of winter games (excluding Australia) so it would be fair to give Brazil and South Africa chance to get higher profits
A blend of the current system and the pre-defined cities idea could work. A few cities around the globe could regularly host whilst other cities could submit proposals to host the games if they so desired but the legacy and sustainability of new developments in new cities should be the most important part of an Olympic bid.
Londons Olympics was amazing It was actually profitable as London converted terraced housing into London and gave people houses There is a huge shopping mall and a massive park and it's so modern
I second this. I was in the area around February (for an event that was in the area but not in the park itself) and most things that weren't temporary are still being used. They did a great job making sure that everything isn't just being left to rot, unlike some country that's hosted in recent years...
I live in sydney and Sydney Olympic Park is still full of life even after 20 years of the 2000 Olympics, our aquatics centre is a public place and the stadiums get used frequently for sporting events
Great idea! It's a shame that the Olympic venues get such neglect. Even though the ones in Mexico brought a lot of problems, all the venues are still in use, and it did help make the city better connected with roads. So I guess there are ways to plan ahead for usage, maybe? Also, if all the countries are participating, shouldn't all chip in a bit instead of leaving the host city cover all of the expenses? Shouldn't there be some kind of international fund to help hosts? Just wondering...
As my professor of urbanism once told me. Those are extremely huge scale UP (urban protect) with so many variables that maybe planners, architects, investors and officials don't consider. However, it is not imposible to be sustainable and effective after the games. Barcelona 92 and London 2012 are fantastic examples of good planning. Taking into account the needs of the community and the infrastructure they repontenced the city through integrating the real needs of all actors in the community and projecting its proper functioning in the future.
Great video! As a Mexican historian I feel obliged to thank you for making a call about the massacre of the 68 in CDMX (Mexico City), and I'll add a bit of context, because there's also a really important "semiotic" weight to the Olympics; in a certain way the Olympics mean to be O.K. with the global status quo and they work as a extremely important diplomatic event. In this case we had several student revolts across the world and an special situation of left-wing parties taking power in Latin America (which culminated wit the Chilean election and coup d'etat in the 70's), and this meant a drifting of American power (as continent) towards communism, we already had Cuba, so U.S. wasn't eager to add more countries to CCCP's side so it took an extremely aggressive interventionist foreign policy- in the same manner, after Cardenas' government on Mexico, the main party took a pro-US policy which was mutually beneficial at the beginning but soon the US started to "buy" politicians and policy-makers that made one-sided deals to help US development (thus, as today Mexico produces petrol but not gasoline, that's processed on US). By the time Díaz Ordaz was in the presidency Mexico was more of a vassal state, that meant that it would not allow those revolts to take place or to be highlighted in such an important event as the Olympics, that's why even though they could've dispersed the multitude with regular crowd-control tactics they infiltrated people to commit a massacre and kill the leaders of the student movement, this was a response to the petitions and concerns of the US embassy in CDMX. So, the diplomatic implications of the Olympics are another big deal with major geopolitical intentions behind (such as the ones at Nazi Germany) and these outweigh those of the individual urban concerns, that's why I don't think we're gonna see a change any time soon. Sorry for the long comment!
I don't think the summer and winter olympics are created equal. In the most recent winter olympics 2.900 athletes from 92 countries participated in 102 events. In the most recent summer olympics 11.000 athletes from 207 countries participated in 306 events. So to never host a summer olympics again in the northern half of the continents does not really seem like a good tradeoff to me. That being said, the Olympics should definitely come to Africa and reusing host cities is also a good idea. Maybe some of the less fussy events can be moved from the Winter Olympics to the Summer Olympics (I imagine things like diving, judo and gymnastics happen in a heated or cooled hall regardless, so it doesn't much matter in which Olympics set they take place). And maybe there can still be some changes to the host cities? Like: cities apply to be host cities for three editions and after that, a new host city can be chosen?
I think I have another solution for this that would allow any city/country to host the Olympics. Instead of hosting just one Olympic event, why not host 3 consecutive ones? This way, the city/country can use its Olympic infrastructure for 12 years and we can plug that into the design life of the infrastructure and make it profitable. I know 12 years is much lower than the typical design life for well, any engineering project but we can still manage it. This would provide a kind of stability to the events (no need for cities/countries to outbid each other or construct new infrastructure every event) and allow them to occur more frequently (every 3 or even 2 years). The increased frequency would make the event even more profitable. And after 12 years, simply pick another country at random and let them host the events for the next 12 years. I think this system would be much more efficient and profitable than the one we have today while still being fair to the countries. Same goes for the World Cup.
+LagiNaLangAko23 Is it Indonesia? I heard that ASEAN wants to bid for an upcoming World Cup, I don't know which one, but that's what I heard a few years ago.
+Hudaman Singapore and Indonesia have said they'll only do it if all of ASEAN bids as one. However, Singapore wanted it for 2030 (they can't because of a whole continent is excluded for two consecutive bids, once one of its countries are chosen) while Indonesia said it should probably be 2034. However, the earliest year to start bidding for any new World Cups will be 2022.
+sion8 I know but the same problem with the Olympics exists in the World Cup too because the infrastructure is never reused and ends up being a huge economic drag for the country. That's what I wanted to solve.
Brilliant idea! I lived in Vancouver during the 2010 games and by far the best outcome was the light rail. I remember there was a lot of concern there wouldn't be enough snow the weeks leading up to the games.
Amazing video! I love people that love the olympics as much as myself and want to strive for a better games that's not daunting to host cities/countries. You should make a whole channel on this kinda stuff. Really amazing topics!
Why not the concept of a whole continent taking part on the Olympics? For example in Asia, Tokyo will have the opening ceremony while Manila will have the Basketball (you get my point) I think countries will have time to prepare because they're only focusing on a particular sport and not focus on the whole event in general.
the water had sewage in it..... unfiltered sewage, there were many studies done on it, including several that deemed it over a million times worse than what would be legal in the US or similar countries, let alone usable for a sport. there was also a lot of theft and crime, higher than basically all other Olympics. rio wasnt a good host, and many citizens didnt even want it to host due to the costs.
The best solution for the Olympic host city debate is to have 8 cities ( 4 summer and 4 winter) to host the Olympics on a 16 year rotating basis. My 4 summer picks; Sydney, Tokyo, Los Angeles, and London. Winter picks: Lillehammer, St. Moritz, Pyeongchang, and Salt Lake City.
The students in Mexico in 1968 were not just protesting against the Olympic Games, but against the whole political situation in Mexico (poverty, inequality, corruption). The hosting of the Olympic Games was just a small factor that drove this students.
@@emmacat3202 Well you need to be near something, you can't just build in the middle on nowhere, people need to be able to get there easily. You'd have to build roads/rail lines to get people there. Then also you may be displacing nature-destroying habitats. Even the roads/rails could interfere with nature, interfering with migrations/hunting &c. There are consequences no matter what. I don't think the Olympics in their present conceptualization are worth it. It's horribly wasteful to build entire new mini-cities every four years for a one time event.
Honestly, hosting the olympic is a very bad idea... You pay too much and gain basically nothing, the real value comes from changing how other countries see your city (although this can backfire) so yea...
@@aliensinnoh1 okay just because it might hurt their feelings a great city like LA can’t be included even tho it has all the infrastructure, hotels, stadiums, clout etc and will actually turn in a profit unlike most cities...
As part of the Olympic family having worked on 2 Olympics (including the last one to make a profit) you are missing why the Olympics loose money and are a burden to the host. 1st the local organizing committee is usually run by someone who is politically savvy but has no clue how to run this kind of business. Peter Ueberroth was the exception not only being brutally in control but practically inventing selling naming rights. He also got concessions from the IOC so he kept the money instead of sending it to the IOC. As to not having bidding it would solve the infrastructure problem but no one would agree on the locations. The only reasonable choice would be to put the summer games in Athens. The IOC would run the games directly so there isn't two layers of management (no LOC). The alternative is the bidding system, but the IOC only gets money if the LOC has a surplus. LOC must have a plan that does not burden taxpayers.
Several of the London venues no longer exist, or have seen major changes to convert them for other uses and could no longer be used. This applies both to venues built for 2012 and to existing ones which were used. The main stadium has seen major changes to convert it for use by one of London’s major football teams, and the aquatics centre has been much reduced in size; neither could be used for a future Olympics, even if London were to host them again. Several venues in the main Olympic Park were only intended to be temporary and have gone. Of the existing venues which were used Earls Court, built in 1937 and mainly used as an exhibition venue, has been demolished, including the much more recently built Earls Court 2 next to it. Very little remains of either of the previous London Olympic sites, white City (1908) or Wembley (1948). Cycling in 1948 was at Herne Hill, and I think that still exists, but was considered to be at risk some years ago. London would pretty much have to start again. Stratford had a large area of largely disused land, some of it previously in railway use, some used by other industries, and some old sporting facilities, but relatively little had to me moved to make way for the games; it would be difficult to think of any suitable site which would be available in London today, let alone in maybe fifty years time. There is derelict land available elsewhere in the country, ex steelworks sites on Teesside for example which I think are still there, but like Stratford much cleaning up would be needed at high cost and transport infrastructure is poor; upgrading them would be expensive. The cost of hosting the Olympics seems to be totally out of proportion for about a month of sport, including the Paralympics. I have to be honest here, and say that I have absolutely no interest in sport, but I feel that the Games have simply become too large and too expensive.
I would say it’s not profitable enough to host the summer games in this places, the teams of this countrys arent even under the top 10 with their sports results
I think there's only one city that should host the Summer Olympics and it's Los Angeles. Think about it the city has lots of stadiums already built for major events such as the Super Bowl, MLS championship games, NBA Championships, HUGE concerts and more. The city is already in a pretty good shape with downtown being the Wall Street of the west, Beverly Hills with a nice quite environment and shopping and more. For entertainment.....oh.....OHHHH, you're in the entertainment capital of the world for God shake with Los Angeles not only being the movie city where you can find a celeberty around every corner but L.A is also like a mini Orlando with Six Flags, Universal Studios, Santa Monica pier and just 30 miles out of L.A you have the most Magical place on Earth.....Disneyland and you also have Knotts Berry Farm, I would count shows but there's like a billion of those out here so lets movie on. All and all L.A is PERFECT to host the games...
But what if someone in a committee has a temper tantrum and goes “but I wanna host the Summer Olympics in Florida” or “but I wanna host the Winter Olympics in New Zealand”? It’s not fair to have only 6 cities rotate as hosts and have them only host the Summer or Winter Olympic games depending on which hemisphere they’re located at. Variety is key in picking a city to host the games. Keeping it fresh and new is what makes it a big, special deal. And if a city doesn’t match the season (like Sochi didn’t; no offense) or can’t handle maintaining the facilities after the games are over, then they shouldn’t even bother to bid and try to get nominated in the first place.
City Beautiful I agree that there needs to be change. Heck, it wouldn’t hurt the International Olympics Committee to write up a sustainability clause if they haven’t already...
Make Athens the permanent summer host. As the Olympics originated there. Rotate the winter games between a few cities. But in the end someone will always be unhappy.
I think the reason why host cities go down and lose money is because they choose to built brand new facilities when they can use natural structures. I looked at a documentary about the Rome 1960 games and they held events in ancient ruins. All that was need to be built was benches for the audience for most of the events.
Oslo withdrew its bid after the IOC issued a book outlining the requirements for the host city. The requirements were not just expensive, some were downright stupid (including but not limited to providing free luxury accommodations for IOC members).
@@CityBeautiful The history behind the high costs of the Montreal Olympic stadium can boil down to these points: A mayor who wanted a French architect who didn't know Montreal weather, new techniques never used before by workers (prestressed concrete structure), higher steel price (1200$/ton in 1975 instead of 200$/ton in 1972), the redesign of the seismic plans after the discovery of unstable soils, a 6 months worker strike, but mainly corruption and work site mismanagement. It's known that contractors were paid 2-3 times for the same load of concrete. I live next to the Stadium and I like what they are doing to revitalize it. Usually, they host outdoor events on the terrasses. They added outdoor sport installations like rock climbing boulders, a huge skate park, tennis courts, a running track and outdoor gym installations. They completely renovated the indoor gyms and pools to meet newer olympic standards and they added an indoor rock climbing centre. they converted the inside of the tower into office space. Now, they need to find a solution to the roof who keeps breaking. I believe Montreal is learning from its mistakes because the city has decided to decline the proposition to host matches for the 2026 World Cup.
i think a better idea would be to do it more similarly to the FIFA World Cup, in which instead of having a host city, you have a host COUNTRY, you have different cities throughout the country hosting different events, which would not only split the costs between various cities, but also spread out the benefits to multiple cities. looking at the united states for example, you could have part of it in Los Angeles, some in Dallas, some in Miami, some in Seattle, some in Chicago, and some in New York, having one in the biggest metropolitan area of each region of the country
7 лет назад+16
I would like to start by saying I really like this channel. But I don't agree with your suggestion of having only 6 cities as hosts. I think that the whole idea of the olympics is that it is a global event, in more ways than just the competitor lineup. If only a few countries would get to host, the rest of the 190-ish cuntries would most likely start to loose interest in the whole thing rather quickly. I tink a much better solution would be to have the IOC host the games themselves, each time in a new city. They would work together with the chosen host cities to develop the needed infrastructure and the money would come from all the participating countries, pitching in to a collective pool of cash. The "participation-fee" could be based on the BNP of each participating country. And so it would become not just a global sports event but also a global investment and development scheme to permanently enrich one city at a time.
That solution could work. I think you still might have the problem of abandoned venues, but at least the city isn't left paying off the debt on them for years to come.
7 лет назад+4
City Beautiful yes the issue of abandoned venues would still be a problem. But with some planning ahead you could convert many of the venues after the games are over into more permanet installations. Such as schools, libraries, hospitals, officespace, congress centers, shopping complexes etc.
Yes, Vancouver has done an excellent job with converting venues into useful facilities post-games.
7 лет назад+1
City Beautiful yes, so I've heard :) cities like Vancouver and Barcelona could stand as rolemodels for future post game venue conversions. Thank you for the quick replies! Looking forward to your future videos! (Ps. If you ever plan on doing a video on city planning in Sweden/Scandinavia I'd like to offer my help as I work for a local city governement in Sweden.) Cheers!
I believe there are three types of Olympic hosts that would make the games sustainable and give a positive legacy: 1) Have the games be hosted by a previous host city such as LA, London, Paris and Sydney for summer games and Vancouver, Calgary, Salt Lake City and Turin for winter games who had successful impacts hosting and still have the venues needed. 2) Have the games hosted by a new host that has all the infrastructure and at least 80% of the permanent venues needed to host. Cities like Toronto, New York, Chicago, Madrid, and Brisbane have all or most of the venues needed and have permanent tenants. 3) Have the games co-hosted by multiple cities in the same country or a whole country similar to the world cup of soccer. For example, Toronto and Montreal co-hosting the summer games and Calgary and Edmonton (it can be named Alberta 20??) hosting the winter. I remember here in Canada it felt like the whole country was hosting the Vancouver 2010 winter games with all the buzz and there's normally a lot of federal funding that goes into it anyways. By the looks of the current choices by the IOC for future hosts it seems like their going in that direction. Hopefully these hosts will be successful and profitable which will bring back the magic and excitement that the Olympic games use to have.
City Beautiful hopefully but they would have to put billions more into infrastructure to truly connect most of their stadiums located in remote towns that many had the materials boated in bc there were and are no roads to them. I also have huge concerns about their extremely contaminated water ways and bays not to mention the most important water the drinking water. It is ok to tell some countries and even continents NO until they upgrade their own stuff for their own good then the games can come in to add rather than unrealistically creating a first world out of a third world one over night
With the current set up, IOC reps need to be fine with current buildings to host. Pick a time where students are on break and use their dorms for the Olympic village. Use professional and (at least in the US) collegiate facilities for events, and that alone should knock off half the venues, especially for indoor summer events, and to a lesser extent indoor winter venues. That cuts back on costs, eventual decay, and questions on location. Plus these places probably already have the ground work for parking and public transit.
Why not just spread out the Olympics? Instead of having to put the entire games in one city they could put different events across the globe where facilities already exist without significant development.
I'm from Brazil. In the late 2000s we were picked to host the world cup in 2014 and the olympics in 2016. Many were happy, but many also said this was too much a burden to a developing nation. However people mostly thought economic growth would be enough to pay for it. In the early 2010s, however, the economy lost steam because of global stagnation and bad economic policy, billions that could have been used to build essential infrastructure were spent for hosting these games. As it's natural in an underdeveloped country, a lot was sucked by corruption. My country ended up having a deep recession in 2015-2016. Hosting both games did had a negative impact, though I'm not saying it was the main cause. But it was just too much for us. If developing nations are to host them, they should receive financial support.
The money spent on the Olympics by cities and countries should be spent on helping the impoverished and homeless or just building the transportation, infrastructure and fixing existing infrastructure anyway
regular_max The homeless get plenty of money. Those street beggars are either just mentally ill, are young folks romanticizing a hobo lifestyle, or are gritters. P.S. I am a native and resident of New York City.
Each continent is enormous, and billions of people that live in potential host cities would never get an opportunity to see games that they otherwise would. Alexandria and Cape Town, for example, might as well be on the other side of the planet from each other for all travel related intents and purposes.
Salt Lake City is a good choice: a good chunk of the infrastructure is still in use, and if they need to built it quickly, reference the Utah State Motto. (and why not we're also known for the greatest snow on earth)
The Greatest Show on Earth is Calgary and they don't want to host it again. It's Ski jumps and sliding track are slowly becoming abandoned and close to demolition.
I live in Vancouver, I've never cared about the Olympics and I didn't attend when they were here. On the surface I think it had a positive effect. I think a lot of people here gained a new perspective on our own home because we had eyes on us and we got an outsider's perspective on how beautiful it is here. It strengthened my identification with the city as my place on the planet. It felt like the local governments became more conscious of the look and feel of public spaces afterward, especially because our tourism seemed to go up after that (tourists obviously bringing positives and negatives). The Canada Line was definitely NOT an abandoned Olympics investment, in fact they grossly underestimated how many people would use it after that. BUT I won't be able to say the long-term impact was good unless our government reigns in on the ludicrous housing market which is forcing my generation to either live on a precarious budget in make-shift living arrangements or leave the city altogether. I don't want to be evicted from my own city just as the Olympics helped me to feel more connected to it.
Do you mind creating a video about the affects of city adapting to Amazon? It would be great to see how the bidding for it can be detrimental especially considering how is going in the automation direction.
I took an economics in sports class at uni and i remember that the olympics were always a disaster. The short term job market increases unemployment after the event and the new infrastructure (which is a requirement) largely goes unused (on top of displacement, which you mentioned). I think it was London who did the best financially after even tho they still lost money. Most major sports (nfl, nba, etc) are an economic disaster for the communities they are in as the money they make mostly leaves the area.
I think there might be an Architectural solution to this that doesn't necessarily involve limiting the game to specific sites. There are great opportunities to use urban planning wisely to ensure that the athletic facilities are in central locations where they will have use after the games. Build up transit infrastructure to the games... decentralize the park into multiple campuses....Design for a second life....There are precedents for this. So much of the city of Paris is a result of the 1889 Exposition Universelle. Granted, those were exhibition halls and not stadiums, but they have been swallowed up by the urban fabric and are now indistinguishable from the many other museums and galleries in the cities. You also give the example of Barcelona. That is a similar success story. A more radical solution would be to design temporary stadiums as they are: temporary. So much of architecture is built with a misunderstanding of a building's life cycle, what kind of materials and construction are appropriate for the life cycle, and what happens to the materials afterwards. What if the stadiums are designed to only live for 1 year, then are completely destroyed? There is also precedent for this, the 1893 Chicago Columbia Exhibition. The exhibition planners knew the buildings were temporary, and built them practically as skeletons, with cheap plaster facades. They were beautiful, but so barebones that by the time the fair was over, they burned the complex to the ground, and dumped the ashes in Lake Michigan. Today, that site is Jackson Park. What if stadium parks were built knowing they were to be demolished in a year? Would designers use recyclable materials? Could they set up an economy to salvage and sell all the leftover steel, wood and glass? Could it be built from modular parts that could be directly rebuilt into housing or commercial projects on the site?
Yes, London in particular tried to use the modular approach to venues and stadiums, with some success, I think. If the IOC kicked in more money and really vetted the city's infrastructure and venue plan for reusability, it could be feasible for new cities to keep doing it. Unfortunately, the IOC cares about other things like ratings, prestige, etc. and doesn't always choose the city with the most sustainable bid.
Agreed. In an ideal world, the IOC and cities would plan for the future. But with politics and large amounts of money involved, its unlikely to see changes unless people demand it. Which is why it's important people realize this is a problem... so thank you by the way for the video. Great channel, you're doing fantastic work.
I come from Sarajevo, and despite the war in 90's which destroyed most of the venues built for the 1984 Olympics, all of them were used prior to the war. It all had to do with urban planning. So Olympic village, where teams and press were stationed was built as a residential buildings with functioning apartments which were sold or given to the people to live there. People still live there. Skiing centers are still functional and they were built on mountains that surround Sarajevo, so you only need half an hour driving to get there. The ice skating hall was built as an extension for youth sports center and its designed in a way it can be used as a multifunctional hall. It's cost to maintain was not big one, couse it is "given" to the existing management of youth center. Unfortunately, it was destroyed during the war, but prior to it, it held venues such as fairs. The biggest hall was "Zetra", which was built again as a multifunctional hall. Speed skating polygon was given to a bike and go cart club, Nordic skiing polygon was given to a hospital so the can use it to treat patients with disabilities by means of horse riding or nature walking. Unfortunately, ski jumping, bob sleight and other minor venues are now destroyed, but if there weren't war, all of it would still functin as it did prior to 92. Maybe the best insight in this is the fact that all of these venues were scattered throughout the city, so if one of them fails, not all of them will.
They should just pick a host country rather than a host city. Also Los Angeles should host the summer olympics as it has the necessary infrastructure already in place.
i think extending the length of the games could also help. then fewer facilities could be used, hosting multiple events given an extended turnaround time. also i don't think permanent sites would fly politically, but semi permanent sites might. Like hosting 2 games in a row. It would be ideal if a city could host both summer and winter back to back, to minimize the lag time between facility uses, and not delay the demolition or renovation of olympic sites for better use. Also is it technically feasible to build modular facilities that could just be shipped and reused in future olympics?
London used a good idea - temporary buildings. With events televised in HD and soon 4K why the need for so much seating? The track makes the stadium venue difficult for professional sports to use. I like the idea of permanent cities. Some summer events can be moved to the winter games (like basketball and swimming) to make those games interesting to areas of the world that don't have winter sports.
For the Rio olympics, I heard that in order to build the campus of the olympics area, the local government evicted a bunch of low income individuals. Then, when the athletes actually showed up, the government erected barriers along the highways when it was in low income areas. The official reason was that it would tone down noise. However, it didn't hide a school so it's very probable that the local government was just sweeping these people under the rug. When the olympics were over, the structures were basically lifeless.
Hi! I`m Your subscriber from Poland. One of the biggest events we hosted there was Euro 2012 (luckily shared with Ukraine). Like any other international sports events, this one left the country with expensive stadiums that can barely pay for current repairs. It is hard to count return on those huge investments but after few year no one is convinced that this was a really good idea after all. So when next year politicians tried to apply for hosting winter Olympics in Cracow local citizens voted NO on the referendum. It is sad to see how much costs those events especially when is needed to take in considering the current economic situation in some of hosting countries... I think that Olympic movement went the wrong direction at least two decades ago. So there is a deep need for changes and I like Your idea of fixing it!
I am from Turin, and we consider our 2006 Olympics to have been overall successful for this city, especially in the long run, despite the huge economic investment. We first bidded to participate to one of the next games (we still have all the infrastructures working, many of them barely used though). Politicians in the end decided not to go for it unfortunately, letting Milan, our "eternal rival" win the bid. Such a pity, considering how beneficial the first games have been for us internationally.
Judge Dredd what does Edmonton have better than the Windy City we got a diverse community from all over the BLACKHAWKS have won the Stanley cup twice in 2 years we have a iconic lakeshore we have 4 sports teams and are Summers are extremely hot and from time to time mild winters from 30-40 Fahrenheit this year it’s been quite cold but still a way better city with more history than Edmonton would ever have
It's a nice idea and you've given this some thought. However, I think the IOC is roughly as open to "individualized financial stimuli" as FIFA - so the actual decision doesn't really give much consideration to the hosts' or the participants' Wealth.
Summer Olympics are much more profitable than winter, this idea is completely ludacris. Melbourne has WAY more Olympic capable facilities despite not hosting for over 60 years. Cape Town/South Africa held a very poor WC and was considered a logistical failure. Ditto with Rio.
Well no doubt in that, They'd probably also use it for National competitions and stuff too, Though it's hard to imagine that these smalls events and activities would really be able to maintain these buildings or make it worthwhile to maintain. It's interesting to think about cause more frequent Olympic events would make it more feasible, Though for some reason I feel like that would either lower the overall viewership of the games or maybe spread them out more evenly.
No Summer Games in the northern hemisphere? Seeing as 90% of the world's population lives in the northern hemisphere I don't think that plan makes sense. Better would be 10 cities in total, with a 20 year full rotation (summer & winter games) around the cities, ensuring that each continent on the northern hemisphere gets a summer and winter games, while also having 2 host cities on the southern hemisphere. For example: 1) Calgary (Winter) 2) Los Angeles or Mexico City (Summer) 3) Turin (Winter) 4) Sydney (Summer) 5) Pyeongchang, Nagano or Sapporo (Winter) 6) Paris or London (Summer) 7) Beijing (Winter) 8) Rio De Janeiro or Cape Town (Summer) 9) Lillehammer (Winter) 10) Tokyo or Seoul (Summer)
I like your idea but I think an even better one is the one suggested by a guest on a CNN show back in 2016 during the Rio Olympics. Instead of a city bidding for the WHOLE games, a city bids for a SPORT (and their associated disciplines)-and ONE sport alone. For example, say, Moscow, successfully bids for the sport of wrestling, so then all freestyle and Greco-Roman events are held in that city alone. Or, as another example, Los Angeles, successfully bids for gymnastics, they would then host all the artistic and rhythmic gymnastics and (...ugh...) trampoline events. And so on and so forth. I think you get it. The opening and closing ceremonies-at least for the summer games-can be permanently held in Athens, Greece. Maybe good ole neutral Switzerland can have one of their cities permanently host the opening and closing ceremonies for the winter games?
That could be, but then what's the difference from the World Championships most sports host annually anyway? I think there is something to having different sports co-mingling. But are you suggesting that all the sports would happen in the same two weeks, just in different cities? So the broadcast would be cutting from city to city, but otherwise much the same to the viewer?
City Beautiful I suppose there is no practical difference from a world championship tournament now that you mention it but the Olympic prestige alone (with the bonus of having more countries compete) would make people forget about that. And yes, the games could be televised the same but across the globe rather than across a city.
City Beautiful it’d certainly mean you’d get a wider range of cities compete too. In my city we will never be able to host a major multi-sport games but we did consider a bid for the America’s cup race and we might consider event specific bids when we would be competing for that higher level of prestige. The olympics would be truely global.
This could mean Milwaukee could host speed skating, as we have the venue for it here. There would be no other way Milwaukee could host a Winter Olympics, as there are no mountains nearby.
Why didn't you upload this earlier? I did a presentation on this several weeks ago, and nobody agreed to my solution, one summer, and one permanent winter olympic host, so I didn't get a debate off the ground. If I had proposed this, my mark would have probably been higher. Great video, though.
On the merits of the video: Good geopolitical, balanced attention to sites; attention to infrastructure that exists; research on history and future challenges with climate change. Fine assessment. My personal bias: I like these games more! On the demerits of the video: Vast disparity in participation and revenue from summer (high) v. winter (low) Olympic games. To restrict countries with temperate climates to host winter Olympics when they might also host the more widely attended and lucrative is, perhaps unfair. I would posit that the global north, as an aggregate has more wealth, and could use this as an opportunity to share with the developing world, but I'm too much of a realist to believe in political benevolence. Also, how does one work with history and changing demographics, where a previous host city like Mexico or a new rising city, like Mumbai, might be excluded. The IOC is flawed, but a "permanent" rotation at this point is not a solution.
Good points! Perhaps these cities could all sign a "three Olympics deal" and after they host three times the host cities change? That way the IOC can reevaluate the world's cities in 30-40 years and make changes that could include a Mumbai or Mexico City. The cities still get to use the facilities three times, so even if they go abandoned after that they still saw some good use.
Marc Rugani (scoffs) The 'global north' has shared enough with developing nations. I do agree that permanent host cities (but NOT continents) are too limiting.
Marc Rugani do you not have any idea the hundreds of billion of dollars and pounds and Euros sent to Africa and South America in aid? The North has been more than generous to the point that we are actually harming African development by undercutting local industry.
Doug, I am aware of the aggregate figures of the aid sent. That's a different point than the Olympic movement and the ideal of highlighting "emerging" countries. Having lived in two Central American countries, working for over two years as a volunteer in private U.S. development projects, I recognize that the undercutting of the industry occurs on a day-to-day basis without the spotlight on any of the treasures of the cultural patrimony of those locations. Your point about the undercutting of industry in locations, like those where I've lived, is well-taken. When bidding for the Olympics occurs, it is the aristocrats and the political elites that determine the viability and the goals of the Games. At the same time, I remain, maybe too optimistically, committed to the values of the spirit of the video and the Olympic movement to highlight different countries and cultures, recognizing the agency, self-determination, and international citizenship of the host nations and their constituents.
I think many people in Europe would be angry that the winter olympics would be hosted in Europe because were i come from in Denmark the summer olympics is seen as the ''real olympics'', because Denmark has zero mountains and therefore don't really win anything at the winter games.
Great points about the added buildings only making sense if you were already going to build them, Olympics or not. Surprised no mention of Los Angeles, though. It's turned a profit on the Olympics twice and humiliated the USSR in 1984 on the world stage. Los Angeles is an ideal city: It's used to overwhelming amounts of media and tourism, can handle the crush load and crowds, and has the infrastructure and spread to make it work.
Get rid of those, that have world championships? So get rid of the Summer Olympics as a whole? Almost every sport there has its championships over the years. The Olympics live from bringing sports of every kind into focus at least every four years. The effect of sb. young watching an event and finding it good to want to perform it, should not be left out of sight.
Floris Hellebrekers true. Love watching sports like rafting in the Olympics but like shown in this video the venues rarely get used after the games making it a waste.
i agree with the idea of limiting the number of host cities but your method means northern hemisphere countries don't experience the summer games plus cape town backed down cos they couldn't afford the commonwealth games. what hope do they have for the Olympics? I think it should be London, Paris, Sydney, Los Angeles and Tokyo for example. As London and Sydney put on good Olympic games recently and Tokyo, Paris and LA are the next 3 host cities. Yes I know those 5 hosts are very Northern but they put on good Olympics do you really think Cape Town and Rio can put on a games every 12 years? Look at Rio's venues after only 1 year. England can host a World Cup or an Olympics next year if they needed to.
To be fair having a few more in the Northern hemisphere could even be fairer remember that the halfway line of the population distribution is around 27 degrees North as 88% of the global population lives in the Northern hemisphere. Also the population distribution is very uneven the other way too mostly because 86% of the worlds population is still concentrated in the Old World (Afro-Eurasia and it's neighbouring islands). Given that though I would suggest that moving one of those two European hosts would be fairer especially as they are only 212 miles apart. Though they have never hosted Dubai has bid for it and could potentially be a good candidate quite close to South East Asia, Africa and still easily accessible from Europe also has the 5th busiest airport in the world so well connected for all the visitors.
How would you fix hosting the Olympics? And what do you think of my city picks?
I agree with you 100 percent actually.
I agree with you 100%. There should be fixed host cities, however, that will never fly with some cities that never hosted or cities that already hosted.
City Beautiful o prefer Sochi
Do you live in Sacramento, cause that's where I live.
I think that when bids are being voted on the top three should get to host the next three. So say you look at the bids for the 2016 Olympics:
Rio would host in 2016, Madrid in 2020 and Tokyo in 2024. That way the later games have more time to work out the cost and building along with figuring what to do with the buildings after.
Over the past 20 years, the IOC has been massively increasing the percentage of profits that they receive for each Olympics. That's a key reason why hosting is unprofitable now.
I remember how the IOC criticize Atlanta 1996 for being too commercialize for corporate sponsorship yet today the IOC are profiting billions of money from the financial methods used by Atlanta.
Look at Atlanta now, they are still benefiting from the games. The centennial olympic park still draws crowd and businesses, tho some far flung venues are not used.
Wow. 21 of the 22 sites in Athens are currently abandoned? That's craziness.
Mr. Beat
I did not know that either! What a waste!
And with the debt crisis, I gotta ask: could Greece BE any more fiscally irresponsible???
I think the only thing currently in use is the olympic stadium, which is mostly used for football games and some sporting events. You can look up pictures of the sites nowadays, it's dreadful.
That is totally inaccurate. There are way more venues in use but some have been converted for other uses. There are certainly some completely abandoned venues but they make up less than half. I don't know where that number came from.
@Athanasios Kountouras Please, explain, what venues are still in use because I'm from Athens and the only venue still in use is the OAKA (Athens Olympic Sports Complex), maybe a couple more of venues (?) but that's about it, most of them are abandoned and full of junkies. I highly doubt you know your shit.
Even more crazy is the fact Greece spent 1/5 of it's entire GDP on it!
I'd say Capetown would be a mistake with there current water crisis it would run the city dry!
I know -- I recorded the script for this video after I heard about that!
Alexander Sunderland-Bragg
Yeah but I would expect the regular African countries that would host the summer games would tend to be South Africa or Egypt. Maybe Kenya and the rest of the North African states excluding Libya too.
Maybe instead of cape town they would do Pretoria? Would make sense
Agreed. I think Nairobi would be a better choice.
MythicalRedFox a hell of a lot of socio economic problems in Nairobi I don't think that's a good choice
I feel like if they went with the World Cup method and chose COUNTRIES, instead of cities, you may be able to solve a lot of problems. Large countries would probably have to limit the games to a particular region (say the US using the Southeast for a summer games), but then you can spread out the costs. Works for the WC, why not the Olympics?
True true! I think most of the host cities are really "host regions" at this point already anyway.
Sal Picataggio
Yeah, even without the modern large size of the Olympic games, a host CITY is WAY too limited; a host NATION would be better.
For example, the U.K. could hold events all across their four countries' biggest cities like London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff, and Belfast.
That's my thought as well.
Birmingham too? Since it is the largest populated city besides London. Although, it's kind of a shit place.
If "England" hosted why not.
Russia: Most of the country is globally known to have a "proper" winter.
Also Russia: Hosts winter olympic in its only really warm region. So warm, it needs to artificially add snow. Dooming most of the built winter sports structures by doing so.
I won't even go about how it wasn't reasonably affordable for a stagnating country with mostly poor population.
Every great power needs to be educated in "Reasonably affordable" LMAO
SmitiaS The thing is Russia is an extremely flat country. Sochi, and the Caucasus is probably the only region where building skying infrastructure for the Olympics is possible. The other regions are either too isolated, or too unstable to host Olympics.
@@matthewhemmings2464 I would argue it is not true. There is Ural, Altai and pretty much whole Far East (42% of Russian land btw) is mountains.
The most unstable region of Russia is, in fact, Caucasus - right next to where Olympics took place - so this point is just not valid.
While some regions of Russia is indeed isolated (most of the Far East), there was plenty of options.
I would speculate most realistic options are Ural and Far East at pacific coast. While Ural is better suited for events, investments in Far East would be a major blessing for underdeveloped and shrinking region.
Places like Altai are of limits as it would endanger natural preserves and could greatly anger dominant native population.
@@smitias_8474 Far East doesn't have good enough infrastructure/ transportation connections. Ural is better, but the cities there are not very attractive for tourists and the ski resorts are drastically underdeveloped. Sounds ironic, but Russia is not a good country to host winter olympics.
@Anton Taylor I'm russian citizen, LOL atchya. All economic growth was in 00s, 10s is stagnation. And through all this years wealth inequality was steadily increasing. So even though we saw overall growth, poverty still risen lately. And that in part also because our goverment prefer waste money on Olympics for prestige points rather than improving socioeconomic conditions for citizens.
P. S. They butchered robust medical system in the last decade. Then COVID came and we have to pay in human lives instead of yesterdays money.
They should organize it so more money goes to the city instead of the Olympic committee and reduce the cost of building the games.
You still have a bunch of white elephants though.
@@izdatsumcp ???
The biggest problem with Olympics is IOC. It is the most greedy sports organization on earth, taking 70%+ of TV rights revenue. As best as I can tell no sports federation does that. Once this graft is resolved half the problem is solved.
I like the system of rotating permanent cities, but modify it by adding non-permanent cities to hold it every other one, or maybe every third one.
ikickss
The IOC is even worse than FIFA eh?
Go figure...
IOC is greedier than the NCAA? Those people make millions too yet if one of their unpaid "student athletes" gets a bagel for free, they severely punish the school 4 years later.
The NCAA publishes their finances every year publicly. Where the millions you talk about? NCAA is a non-profit organization. You know where any of the profit goes? Any profit they make goes directly into student scholarships for non-sustainable college sports (ie. not football or basketball) It not millions as you say.
Knightmessenger they can get bagels but not cream cheese
"I like the system of rotating permanent cities, but modify it by adding non-permanent cities to hold it every other one, or maybe every third one.
"
Why? So cities can be fucked every other Olympics instead?
No matter how we choose criteria for cities hosting the Olympics, there will always be countries who will claim that it is unfair that they were not chosen.
Good point!
Alex and Pedro then let's have each event in a different country. I don't believe there are enough events to completely cover the globe, but we should be able to hit every country that wants to host.
Indeed. It's like a Tragedy of the Commons situation.
Michael Carnes Seriously? Your saying I have to go to Canada to watch bobsledding, and then fly to China for curling the next day and then back to Oslo for the ski jump?
Sir Ramen of course not! All the events will be held simultaneously. You pick the event you want to see and go there.
I would agree. I heard the permanent site idea but I didn't like it. I agree (with the exception of Cape Town) as the permanent continental sites, but I would add Athens since the Olympics date back to Ancient Greece and it would be nice every 16 years for Athens to get the Summer Olympics.
the only thing that i and many ppl want to host is the basketball wc or eurobasket
and we have infustructure for baketball
If we were to be the one or one of a number of permanent host venues of the Olympics we would happily take the opportunity.WE ARE THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE OLYMPICS and It would really make us take care of all the sporting venues we currently have left at a state of despair. And they are only at that state because of 2 reasons: 1)knowing that it is a one-off event and we won't need them in the near future 2)we don't have many sporting teams in sports like baseball,softball or other sports like tennis or cycling or even water polo, despite the many medals both the men and women water polo teams have won, don't have the same appeal to the Greek people. And I think the tactic that should be used is to SCRAP the host CITY and have the Olympic Games be organised and take place in a HOST NATION. In a similar way as to how the UEFA Euro or the FIFA World Cup work you could drastically minimise the risk of multiple sporting complexes falling into shambles by assigning different sporting events to different sporting venues around the same country. For instance, the football and basketball tournaments could be host in cities like Athens,Thessaloniki,Patras,Volos,Herakleion etc.,all the field events could all take place in the Ancient Olympia stadium, kanoe kayak could take place in a whole lot different canyons around Greece and so on the case goes.What's more it could encourage host cities to rebuild or redevelop their infrastructure on a national basis, as cities like Patras or Volos have not even half as much or good the infrastructure as the capital Athens has
Every 12 years
Athenians would rather kill before hosting again
Problem with the southern hemisphere is they're in opposite seasons, so summer in America is winter in Australia.
Why not make all Olympic Games in olymp in Greece
I like the idea of having permanent olympic cities on each continent. I only have one problem with one city and that is Cape Town and only due to the water crisis it is currently experiencing. I really enjoy your channel and wished you posted more often. Keep up the good work!
I know, I found out about that after I wrote the video. Maybe in a few years this issue won't be a problem.
@@CityBeautiful You'd hope so.
1 major point in favour of Sydney (I'm a Sydneysider) is the venues were existing, designed as multi-use venues or had enough demand of use after the games. In the last couple of years the Exhibition Centre has been rebuilt and the main stadium will be rebuilt in the next couple of years. But most other venues are still in use.
I'd chose Sapporo over Pyeongchang, especially because most of their facilities are not permanent ones. Sapporo is also debating to bid for the Winter Olympics 2026 and 2030, so they seem to be willing to update their infrastructure. Furthermore Sapporo is the 5th largest city in Japan and is well connected by train and airport, making travel to the city very easy. Also Switzerland, or rather the city of Sion, are debating about hosting the Winter Olympics 2026 as a joined venture, basically a national event. Switzerland also hosts the IOC, so it might be another candidate to become a permanent host. But the choices you offered all makes sense.
I was also considering a Switzerland location due to the proximity of the IOC. And I felt like I was flipping a coin between Sapporo and Pyeongchang.
Well, Switzerland indeed is the best option in Europe. Italy isn't that much of a neutral area within Europe and even in the EU. Just see how EU states are reacting to ECB policy or the recent bidding on the EMA, the European FDA. Also the air isn't clean in Turin due to the fact the Alps are blocking the wind. I also have my doubts on Cape Town as Olympic city. Cape Town has serious water problems. On the other hand, Alexandria will get water problems as well if Ethiopia is building too much dams in the river Nile. Although I am fair I have not compared these options to alternatives such as Nigeria.
The only non-permanent facility in Pyeongchang will be the opening/closing ceremony stadium. Pyeongchang has brand new infrastructure, and they've proven to understand how to keep a budget. Rotating between Pyeongchang and Nagano would make much more sense, considering that Sapporo hasn't hosted since the early 70s and is on Hokkaido rather than Honshu.
Dude, Sapporo is north of North Korea.
Honestly don't gey why they are not keeping pyungchang venue. Looks like a perfect winter ski getaway for all the people on souel expecially with the high speed rail.
This idea is growing but i don't think these cities are necessarily a good pick.
Michael King what city’s would you pick?
I think London and LA should be able to host the olympics as they have almost all the infrastructure required to host the olympics already. Also the most powerful country on earth not being able to host the olympics? Really?
Thomas Roberts this is why we can't restrict it to just 3 cities. That's absurd. LA has awful infrastructure
Kai H I'm not sure tbh. I don't think it's remotely fair to limit the North to Winter games and only 3 cities. I'm not against any of these cities if others are also included, but if only 6, not these
Michael, your argument seems to be that limiting the Olympics to 3 cities per season is the problem. So how is changing the cities going to solve that? He came up with a great solution to minimize spending and maximize use, all while taking global trends into mind. It might not be perfect, but I feel like you'd be hard pressed to find a more well thought out string of ideas than this video.
The decision for LA to host the 2028 games makes a lot of sense. Most of the venue work they are doing is work that needs doing anyway (e.g. LA Stadium will get a lot of use for the NFL as well as the Olympics and Banc of California Stadium will get use for a Major League Soccer team as well as the games). As a former host they can re-use existing infrastructure as well (e.g. the Coliseum). They have lots of existing infrastructure in general (including transport stuff like BART) so they dont need to build a lot of stuff. Brisbane on the other hand (another city that has talked about hosting the Olympic Games and is about to host the Commonwealth Games down on the Gold Coast) would need a lot more infrastructure (a lot less of which would see use after the Olympics).
um..BART is bay area, though some of the soccer matches might be held there
Bart is SF
Gold coast is a separate city to the gold coast, they are more twin cities than one city with 2 cbd's
You do know that BART is in the Bay Area, right?
Great video! I love the idea of having pre-defined cities. All good picks, too. Though the only issue I could see is continents being upset that they never get to host the summer olympics, since I think they typically have higher viewer counts/are more profitable, no? Anyway, good stuff!
Summer olympics would be hosted by poorer countries then hosts of winter games (excluding Australia) so it would be fair to give Brazil and South Africa chance to get higher profits
Neuro Transmissions nah no one wants to host though
tomek10misji I agree
they should have a designated city on each continent and then go in a rotation between the cities.... then people wouldn't be upset
A blend of the current system and the pre-defined cities idea could work. A few cities around the globe could regularly host whilst other cities could submit proposals to host the games if they so desired but the legacy and sustainability of new developments in new cities should be the most important part of an Olympic bid.
I think London should host again. I loved the 2012 Olympics.
London offered to take the 2020/21 Olympics from Tokyo, because it still hasthe infrastructure.
There is one major problem with the three summer sites: their summer isn't the summer in most of the rest of the world (NA, Europe, Asia)...
I think they just held the Rio and Sydney games close-ish to northern hemisphere fall.
I'm from Rio and I was melting in our "winter" games
Why do we have to follow Northern Hemisphere timeline anyway?
Besides going after or before the monsoon season (Nov-Feb) is better anyway.
@@Asharra12 Because more than 75% of the world population live in the northern hemisphere.
Londons Olympics was amazing
It was actually profitable as London converted terraced housing into London and gave people houses
There is a huge shopping mall and a massive park and it's so modern
I second this. I was in the area around February (for an event that was in the area but not in the park itself) and most things that weren't temporary are still being used. They did a great job making sure that everything isn't just being left to rot, unlike some country that's hosted in recent years...
Didn't the London Olympics lead to evictions, gentrification & privatization of much public space?
I live in sydney and Sydney Olympic Park is still full of life even after 20 years of the 2000 Olympics, our aquatics centre is a public place and the stadiums get used frequently for sporting events
I'd choose Los Angeles for the summer Olympics. They've got the infrastructure in place and actually turned a profit last time they hosted.
It'll host in 2028!
Los Angeles turned a profit BOTH times
They are avoiding geopolitics mate.
LA has poor public transportation infrastructure for a developed city.
@@BabsW It's not as bad as people make it out to be. And will be decent in 2028. All the major points for the Olympic games will be connected.
idk man, i just like the charm that comes from getting to know a new area every 2 years too much to go along with just one city per continent.
It's one of my favorite parts of the Olympics too.
one city per season per continent? that's a 24-year cycle, plenty of time for each city to grow and change dramatically.
It's not a 24 year cycle, the olympics take place every 2 years
icannotfly the WC isn't doing any better to the host countries. The problem is how corrupt and greedy the organizers are.
« I don’t care if it doesn’t benefit the people, I wanna see a new country each time»
Great idea! It's a shame that the Olympic venues get such neglect. Even though the ones in Mexico brought a lot of problems, all the venues are still in use, and it did help make the city better connected with roads. So I guess there are ways to plan ahead for usage, maybe? Also, if all the countries are participating, shouldn't all chip in a bit instead of leaving the host city cover all of the expenses? Shouldn't there be some kind of international fund to help hosts? Just wondering...
I think the IOC should probably be that fund.
Neglect? Yikes. You make it seem like the problem is uncaring government and not the hosting of the Games itself.
With Cape Town water crisis, wouldn't you think holding the Olympics would be risky, if the situation of drought was to get worse each year?
I wrote the script after I found out about the water crisis. You're right though, it could be a risky proposition now.
How about the city of Nairobi, Kenya.
That would be appropriate city to host the Olympics.
As my professor of urbanism once told me. Those are extremely huge scale UP (urban protect) with so many variables that maybe planners, architects, investors and officials don't consider. However, it is not imposible to be sustainable and effective after the games. Barcelona 92 and London 2012 are fantastic examples of good planning. Taking into account the needs of the community and the infrastructure they repontenced the city through integrating the real needs of all actors in the community and projecting its proper functioning in the future.
Love your videos! I definitely think this is a perfect solution to a clear problem.
Los Angeles 1984 was profitable. They should be a permanent, North American Summer Games location.
And they're hosting again in 2028. I'm excited!
Exactly! I think LA is a great option. Every time they organize the games, the city’s infrastructure improves. Can’t wait for 2028!
Mirza Ahmed Agreed! Half the town left during them & there was barely any traffic as a result😉👍
kek
Mirza Ahmed or Atlanta it still has great infrastructure and venues.
Great video! As a Mexican historian I feel obliged to thank you for making a call about the massacre of the 68 in CDMX (Mexico City), and I'll add a bit of context, because there's also a really important "semiotic" weight to the Olympics; in a certain way the Olympics mean to be O.K. with the global status quo and they work as a extremely important diplomatic event.
In this case we had several student revolts across the world and an special situation of left-wing parties taking power in Latin America (which culminated wit the Chilean election and coup d'etat in the 70's), and this meant a drifting of American power (as continent) towards communism, we already had Cuba, so U.S. wasn't eager to add more countries to CCCP's side so it took an extremely aggressive interventionist foreign policy- in the same manner, after Cardenas' government on Mexico, the main party took a pro-US policy which was mutually beneficial at the beginning but soon the US started to "buy" politicians and policy-makers that made one-sided deals to help US development (thus, as today Mexico produces petrol but not gasoline, that's processed on US).
By the time Díaz Ordaz was in the presidency Mexico was more of a vassal state, that meant that it would not allow those revolts to take place or to be highlighted in such an important event as the Olympics, that's why even though they could've dispersed the multitude with regular crowd-control tactics they infiltrated people to commit a massacre and kill the leaders of the student movement, this was a response to the petitions and concerns of the US embassy in CDMX. So, the diplomatic implications of the Olympics are another big deal with major geopolitical intentions behind (such as the ones at Nazi Germany) and these outweigh those of the individual urban concerns, that's why I don't think we're gonna see a change any time soon. Sorry for the long comment!
I don't think the summer and winter olympics are created equal. In the most recent winter olympics 2.900 athletes from 92 countries participated in 102 events. In the most recent summer olympics 11.000 athletes from 207 countries participated in 306 events. So to never host a summer olympics again in the northern half of the continents does not really seem like a good tradeoff to me.
That being said, the Olympics should definitely come to Africa and reusing host cities is also a good idea. Maybe some of the less fussy events can be moved from the Winter Olympics to the Summer Olympics (I imagine things like diving, judo and gymnastics happen in a heated or cooled hall regardless, so it doesn't much matter in which Olympics set they take place). And maybe there can still be some changes to the host cities? Like: cities apply to be host cities for three editions and after that, a new host city can be chosen?
I think I have another solution for this that would allow any city/country to host the Olympics. Instead of hosting just one Olympic event, why not host 3 consecutive ones? This way, the city/country can use its Olympic infrastructure for 12 years and we can plug that into the design life of the infrastructure and make it profitable. I know 12 years is much lower than the typical design life for well, any engineering project but we can still manage it. This would provide a kind of stability to the events (no need for cities/countries to outbid each other or construct new infrastructure every event) and allow them to occur more frequently (every 3 or even 2 years). The increased frequency would make the event even more profitable. And after 12 years, simply pick another country at random and let them host the events for the next 12 years. I think this system would be much more efficient and profitable than the one we have today while still being fair to the countries. Same goes for the World Cup.
When a government bids to host the World Cup is actually the whole country that plays as host not just one city!
+LagiNaLangAko23
Is it Indonesia?
I heard that ASEAN wants to bid for an upcoming World Cup, I don't know which one, but that's what I heard a few years ago.
sion8 Maybe Singapore can bid for the 2026 or 2030 FIFA World Cup.
+Hudaman
Singapore and Indonesia have said they'll only do it if all of ASEAN bids as one. However, Singapore wanted it for 2030 (they can't because of a whole continent is excluded for two consecutive bids, once one of its countries are chosen) while Indonesia said it should probably be 2034. However, the earliest year to start bidding for any new World Cups will be 2022.
+sion8 I know but the same problem with the Olympics exists in the World Cup too because the infrastructure is never reused and ends up being a huge economic drag for the country. That's what I wanted to solve.
Brilliant idea! I lived in Vancouver during the 2010 games and by far the best outcome was the light rail. I remember there was a lot of concern there wouldn't be enough snow the weeks leading up to the games.
So, the "Summer Olympics" would occur during the winter months south of the Equator?
Amazing video! I love people that love the olympics as much as myself and want to strive for a better games that's not daunting to host cities/countries. You should make a whole channel on this kinda stuff. Really amazing topics!
Why not the concept of a whole continent taking part on the Olympics? For example in Asia, Tokyo will have the opening ceremony while Manila will have the Basketball (you get my point) I think countries will have time to prepare because they're only focusing on a particular sport and not focus on the whole event in general.
But rio was a terrible host so why would we let them do it again? They had a green pool for god sakes
Oh no water has algae in it like it does in every lake you swim in.. You haven't been to a beach eh?
the water had sewage in it..... unfiltered sewage, there were many studies done on it, including several that deemed it over a million times worse than what would be legal in the US or similar countries, let alone usable for a sport. there was also a lot of theft and crime, higher than basically all other Olympics. rio wasnt a good host, and many citizens didnt even want it to host due to the costs.
The best solution for the Olympic host city debate is to have 8 cities ( 4 summer and 4 winter) to host the Olympics on a 16 year rotating basis. My 4 summer picks; Sydney, Tokyo, Los Angeles, and London. Winter picks: Lillehammer, St. Moritz, Pyeongchang, and Salt Lake City.
6:38 when did Austria adopt the Dutch flag?
The students in Mexico in 1968 were not just protesting against the Olympic Games, but against the whole political situation in Mexico (poverty, inequality, corruption). The hosting of the Olympic Games was just a small factor that drove this students.
Why not build temporairy structures that can be easily taken down, and are less expensive?
stadiums made of legos!
You still need land & infrastructure that displaces people.
@@aodhganmerrimac not all the time. Why not find land where no one lives?
@@emmacat3202 Well you need to be near something, you can't just build in the middle on nowhere, people need to be able to get there easily. You'd have to build roads/rail lines to get people there. Then also you may be displacing nature-destroying habitats. Even the roads/rails could interfere with nature, interfering with migrations/hunting &c. There are consequences no matter what. I don't think the Olympics in their present conceptualization are worth it. It's horribly wasteful to build entire new mini-cities every four years for a one time event.
@@aodhganmerrimac it is stupid. I wish they'd just reuse abandoned buildings
I absolutely love your channel! It's right up my alley, and is exactly what I'm always looking to watch. Keep doing what you do!
Thanks!
What about Wakanda? We can build a Starbucks while we are at it.
If wakanda is so amazing wouldn’t they already have a Starbucks?
Isn't it winter in Australia when it's summer everywhere else? I wouldn't wanna be there in the cold competing in the summer Olympics
Hosting the Winter Olympics doesn't really make sense to me. How often does it generate enough profit?
Honestly, hosting the olympic is a very bad idea... You pay too much and gain basically nothing, the real value comes from changing how other countries see your city (although this can backfire) so yea...
Ya OK....Is there a logical reason Los Angeles wasn' t mentioned at all in this video???
Bec he delegated north america, Europe and Asia to be winter host, LA is hosting summer
@@TheFamousMockingbird Also he wanted to avoid the US, Russia, and China to avoid great power dynamics.
@@aliensinnoh1 okay just because it might hurt their feelings a great city like LA can’t be included even tho it has all the infrastructure, hotels, stadiums, clout etc and will actually turn in a profit unlike most cities...
As part of the Olympic family having worked on 2 Olympics (including the last one to make a profit) you are missing why the Olympics loose money and are a burden to the host. 1st the local organizing committee is usually run by someone who is politically savvy but has no clue how to run this kind of business.
Peter Ueberroth was the exception not only being brutally in control but practically inventing selling naming rights. He also got concessions from the IOC so he kept the money instead of sending it to the IOC. As to not having bidding it would solve the infrastructure problem but no one would agree on the locations. The only reasonable choice would be to put the summer games in Athens. The IOC would run the games directly so there isn't two layers of management (no LOC). The alternative is the bidding system, but the IOC only gets money if the LOC has a surplus. LOC must have a plan that does not burden taxpayers.
London is good because already has the infrastructure
Several of the London venues no longer exist, or have seen major changes to convert them for other uses and could no longer be used. This applies both to venues built for 2012 and to existing ones which were used. The main stadium has seen major changes to convert it for use by one of London’s major football teams, and the aquatics centre has been much reduced in size; neither could be used for a future Olympics, even if London were to host them again. Several venues in the main Olympic Park were only intended to be temporary and have gone. Of the existing venues which were used Earls Court, built in 1937 and mainly used as an exhibition venue, has been demolished, including the much more recently built Earls Court 2 next to it. Very little remains of either of the previous London Olympic sites, white City (1908) or Wembley (1948). Cycling in 1948 was at Herne Hill, and I think that still exists, but was considered to be at risk some years ago. London would pretty much have to start again. Stratford had a large area of largely disused land, some of it previously in railway use, some used by other industries, and some old sporting facilities, but relatively little had to me moved to make way for the games; it would be difficult to think of any suitable site which would be available in London today, let alone in maybe fifty years time. There is derelict land available elsewhere in the country, ex steelworks sites on Teesside for example which I think are still there, but like Stratford much cleaning up would be needed at high cost and transport infrastructure is poor; upgrading them would be expensive.
The cost of hosting the Olympics seems to be totally out of proportion for about a month of sport, including the Paralympics. I have to be honest here, and say that I have absolutely no interest in sport, but I feel that the Games have simply become too large and too expensive.
Los Angeles is expanding light rail because of 2028 Olympics and I’m excited to be able to use it afterwards
Same here! And it's more like they are just speeding up the timeline because of the Olympics. Thankfully.
I would say it’s not profitable enough to host the summer games in this places, the teams of this countrys arent even under the top 10 with their sports results
All the more reason to have them host -- build up their sports culture along with the infrastructure.
I think there's only one city that should host the Summer Olympics and it's Los Angeles. Think about it the city has lots of stadiums already built for major events such as the Super Bowl, MLS championship games, NBA Championships, HUGE concerts and more. The city is already in a pretty good shape with downtown being the Wall Street of the west, Beverly Hills with a nice quite environment and shopping and more. For entertainment.....oh.....OHHHH, you're in the entertainment capital of the world for God shake with Los Angeles not only being the movie city where you can find a celeberty around every corner but L.A is also like a mini Orlando with Six Flags, Universal Studios, Santa Monica pier and just 30 miles out of L.A you have the most Magical place on Earth.....Disneyland and you also have Knotts Berry Farm, I would count shows but there's like a billion of those out here so lets movie on. All and all L.A is PERFECT to host the games...
Sorry but one location MUST be Greece, without it this doesn't make any sense...
But what if someone in a committee has a temper tantrum and goes “but I wanna host the Summer Olympics in Florida” or “but I wanna host the Winter Olympics in New Zealand”? It’s not fair to have only 6 cities rotate as hosts and have them only host the Summer or Winter Olympic games depending on which hemisphere they’re located at. Variety is key in picking a city to host the games. Keeping it fresh and new is what makes it a big, special deal. And if a city doesn’t match the season (like Sochi didn’t; no offense) or can’t handle maintaining the facilities after the games are over, then they shouldn’t even bother to bid and try to get nominated in the first place.
And yet Sochi got picked anyway. The current bidding process is a mess, and any reform (this one or another idea) would be better.
City Beautiful I agree that there needs to be change. Heck, it wouldn’t hurt the International Olympics Committee to write up a sustainability clause if they haven’t already...
Make Athens the permanent summer host. As the Olympics originated there. Rotate the winter games between a few cities. But in the end someone will always be unhappy.
I think the reason why host cities go down and lose money is because they choose to built brand new facilities when they can use natural structures. I looked at a documentary about the Rome 1960 games and they held events in ancient ruins. All that was need to be built was benches for the audience for most of the events.
Rio could barely host the Olympics in 2016.
Oslo withdrew its bid after the IOC issued a book outlining the requirements for the host city. The requirements were not just expensive, some were downright stupid (including but not limited to providing free luxury accommodations for IOC members).
Yeah, I hope the IOC has learned from that mistake.
I am from Montreal and people still say it was a huge waste of money to host the Olympics.
Yeah, Montreal went WAY over budget.
@@CityBeautiful The history behind the high costs of the Montreal Olympic stadium can boil down to these points: A mayor who wanted a French architect who didn't know Montreal weather, new techniques never used before by workers (prestressed concrete structure), higher steel price (1200$/ton in 1975 instead of 200$/ton in 1972), the redesign of the seismic plans after the discovery of unstable soils, a 6 months worker strike, but mainly corruption and work site mismanagement. It's known that contractors were paid 2-3 times for the same load of concrete.
I live next to the Stadium and I like what they are doing to revitalize it. Usually, they host outdoor events on the terrasses. They added outdoor sport installations like rock climbing boulders, a huge skate park, tennis courts, a running track and outdoor gym installations. They completely renovated the indoor gyms and pools to meet newer olympic standards and they added an indoor rock climbing centre. they converted the inside of the tower into office space. Now, they need to find a solution to the roof who keeps breaking.
I believe Montreal is learning from its mistakes because the city has decided to decline the proposition to host matches for the 2026 World Cup.
i think a better idea would be to do it more similarly to the FIFA World Cup, in which instead of having a host city, you have a host COUNTRY,
you have different cities throughout the country hosting different events, which would not only split the costs between various cities, but also spread out the benefits to multiple cities. looking at the united states for example, you could have part of it in Los Angeles, some in Dallas, some in Miami, some in Seattle, some in Chicago, and some in New York, having one in the biggest metropolitan area of each region of the country
I would like to start by saying I really like this channel.
But I don't agree with your suggestion of having only 6 cities as hosts. I think that the whole idea of the olympics is that it is a global event, in more ways than just the competitor lineup. If only a few countries would get to host, the rest of the 190-ish cuntries would most likely start to loose interest in the whole thing rather quickly.
I tink a much better solution would be to have the IOC host the games themselves, each time in a new city. They would work together with the chosen host cities to develop the needed infrastructure and the money would come from all the participating countries, pitching in to a collective pool of cash. The "participation-fee" could be based on the BNP of each participating country. And so it would become not just a global sports event but also a global investment and development scheme to permanently enrich one city at a time.
That solution could work. I think you still might have the problem of abandoned venues, but at least the city isn't left paying off the debt on them for years to come.
City Beautiful yes the issue of abandoned venues would still be a problem. But with some planning ahead you could convert many of the venues after the games are over into more permanet installations. Such as schools, libraries, hospitals, officespace, congress centers, shopping complexes etc.
Yes, Vancouver has done an excellent job with converting venues into useful facilities post-games.
City Beautiful yes, so I've heard :) cities like Vancouver and Barcelona could stand as rolemodels for future post game venue conversions.
Thank you for the quick replies! Looking forward to your future videos!
(Ps. If you ever plan on doing a video on city planning in Sweden/Scandinavia I'd like to offer my help as I work for a local city governement in Sweden.)
Cheers!
I'd love to do a video there! Maybe once this channel grows some more I'll be able to afford the trip.
I believe there are three types of Olympic hosts that would make the games sustainable and give a positive legacy:
1) Have the games be hosted by a previous host city such as LA, London, Paris and Sydney for summer games and Vancouver, Calgary, Salt Lake City and Turin for winter games who had successful impacts hosting and still have the venues needed.
2) Have the games hosted by a new host that has all the infrastructure and at least 80% of the permanent venues needed to host. Cities like Toronto, New York, Chicago, Madrid, and Brisbane have all or most of the venues needed and have permanent tenants.
3) Have the games co-hosted by multiple cities in the same country or a whole country similar to the world cup of soccer. For example, Toronto and Montreal co-hosting the summer games and Calgary and Edmonton (it can be named Alberta 20??) hosting the winter. I remember here in Canada it felt like the whole country was hosting the Vancouver 2010 winter games with all the buzz and there's normally a lot of federal funding that goes into it anyways.
By the looks of the current choices by the IOC for future hosts it seems like their going in that direction. Hopefully these hosts will be successful and profitable which will bring back the magic and excitement that the Olympic games use to have.
The rio games was nothing but problems why would they ever get another Olympics
They may have an incentive to iron out problems if they were hosting multiple games.
City Beautiful hopefully but they would have to put billions more into infrastructure to truly connect most of their stadiums located in remote towns that many had the materials boated in bc there were and are no roads to them. I also have huge concerns about their extremely contaminated water ways and bays not to mention the most important water the drinking water. It is ok to tell some countries and even continents NO until they upgrade their own stuff for their own good then the games can come in to add rather than unrealistically creating a first world out of a third world one over night
With the current set up, IOC reps need to be fine with current buildings to host. Pick a time where students are on break and use their dorms for the Olympic village. Use professional and (at least in the US) collegiate facilities for events, and that alone should knock off half the venues, especially for indoor summer events, and to a lesser extent indoor winter venues. That cuts back on costs, eventual decay, and questions on location. Plus these places probably already have the ground work for parking and public transit.
Why not just spread out the Olympics? Instead of having to put the entire games in one city they could put different events across the globe where facilities already exist without significant development.
Yeah, I like that idea too.
Pyrotechnic
Permanently?
I suggested the same idea too but with rotating cities that bid on one sport each.
I'm from Brazil. In the late 2000s we were picked to host the world cup in 2014 and the olympics in 2016. Many were happy, but many also said this was too much a burden to a developing nation. However people mostly thought economic growth would be enough to pay for it. In the early 2010s, however, the economy lost steam because of global stagnation and bad economic policy, billions that could have been used to build essential infrastructure were spent for hosting these games. As it's natural in an underdeveloped country, a lot was sucked by corruption. My country ended up having a deep recession in 2015-2016. Hosting both games did had a negative impact, though I'm not saying it was the main cause. But it was just too much for us. If developing nations are to host them, they should receive financial support.
The money spent on the Olympics by cities and countries should be spent on helping the impoverished and homeless or just building the transportation, infrastructure and fixing existing infrastructure anyway
regular_max
The homeless get plenty of money. Those street beggars are either just mentally ill, are young folks romanticizing a hobo lifestyle, or are gritters.
P.S. I am a native and resident of New York City.
So we shouldn't be helping mentally ill people?
MTmerm
Yes, we SHOULD be helping the mentally ill BUT regardless of their housing needs.
Each continent is enormous, and billions of people that live in potential host cities would never get an opportunity to see games that they otherwise would. Alexandria and Cape Town, for example, might as well be on the other side of the planet from each other for all travel related intents and purposes.
Salt Lake City is a good choice: a good chunk of the infrastructure is still in use, and if they need to built it quickly, reference the Utah State Motto.
(and why not we're also known for the greatest snow on earth)
The Greatest Show on Earth is Calgary and they don't want to host it again. It's Ski jumps and sliding track are slowly becoming abandoned and close to demolition.
I live in Vancouver, I've never cared about the Olympics and I didn't attend when they were here. On the surface I think it had a positive effect. I think a lot of people here gained a new perspective on our own home because we had eyes on us and we got an outsider's perspective on how beautiful it is here. It strengthened my identification with the city as my place on the planet. It felt like the local governments became more conscious of the look and feel of public spaces afterward, especially because our tourism seemed to go up after that (tourists obviously bringing positives and negatives). The Canada Line was definitely NOT an abandoned Olympics investment, in fact they grossly underestimated how many people would use it after that. BUT I won't be able to say the long-term impact was good unless our government reigns in on the ludicrous housing market which is forcing my generation to either live on a precarious budget in make-shift living arrangements or leave the city altogether. I don't want to be evicted from my own city just as the Olympics helped me to feel more connected to it.
Do you mind creating a video about the affects of city adapting to Amazon? It would be great to see how the bidding for it can be detrimental especially considering how is going in the automation direction.
I took an economics in sports class at uni and i remember that the olympics were always a disaster. The short term job market increases unemployment after the event and the new infrastructure (which is a requirement) largely goes unused (on top of displacement, which you mentioned). I think it was London who did the best financially after even tho they still lost money. Most major sports (nfl, nba, etc) are an economic disaster for the communities they are in as the money they make mostly leaves the area.
I think there might be an Architectural solution to this that doesn't necessarily involve limiting the game to specific sites.
There are great opportunities to use urban planning wisely to ensure that the athletic facilities are in central locations where they will have use after the games. Build up transit infrastructure to the games... decentralize the park into multiple campuses....Design for a second life....There are precedents for this. So much of the city of Paris is a result of the 1889 Exposition Universelle. Granted, those were exhibition halls and not stadiums, but they have been swallowed up by the urban fabric and are now indistinguishable from the many other museums and galleries in the cities. You also give the example of Barcelona. That is a similar success story.
A more radical solution would be to design temporary stadiums as they are: temporary. So much of architecture is built with a misunderstanding of a building's life cycle, what kind of materials and construction are appropriate for the life cycle, and what happens to the materials afterwards. What if the stadiums are designed to only live for 1 year, then are completely destroyed? There is also precedent for this, the 1893 Chicago Columbia Exhibition. The exhibition planners knew the buildings were temporary, and built them practically as skeletons, with cheap plaster facades. They were beautiful, but so barebones that by the time the fair was over, they burned the complex to the ground, and dumped the ashes in Lake Michigan. Today, that site is Jackson Park. What if stadium parks were built knowing they were to be demolished in a year? Would designers use recyclable materials? Could they set up an economy to salvage and sell all the leftover steel, wood and glass? Could it be built from modular parts that could be directly rebuilt into housing or commercial projects on the site?
Yes, London in particular tried to use the modular approach to venues and stadiums, with some success, I think. If the IOC kicked in more money and really vetted the city's infrastructure and venue plan for reusability, it could be feasible for new cities to keep doing it. Unfortunately, the IOC cares about other things like ratings, prestige, etc. and doesn't always choose the city with the most sustainable bid.
Agreed. In an ideal world, the IOC and cities would plan for the future. But with politics and large amounts of money involved, its unlikely to see changes unless people demand it.
Which is why it's important people realize this is a problem... so thank you by the way for the video. Great channel, you're doing fantastic work.
I come from Sarajevo, and despite the war in 90's which destroyed most of the venues built for the 1984 Olympics, all of them were used prior to the war. It all had to do with urban planning. So Olympic village, where teams and press were stationed was built as a residential buildings with functioning apartments which were sold or given to the people to live there. People still live there. Skiing centers are still functional and they were built on mountains that surround Sarajevo, so you only need half an hour driving to get there. The ice skating hall was built as an extension for youth sports center and its designed in a way it can be used as a multifunctional hall. It's cost to maintain was not big one, couse it is "given" to the existing management of youth center. Unfortunately, it was destroyed during the war, but prior to it, it held venues such as fairs. The biggest hall was "Zetra", which was built again as a multifunctional hall. Speed skating polygon was given to a bike and go cart club, Nordic skiing polygon was given to a hospital so the can use it to treat patients with disabilities by means of horse riding or nature walking. Unfortunately, ski jumping, bob sleight and other minor venues are now destroyed, but if there weren't war, all of it would still functin as it did prior to 92. Maybe the best insight in this is the fact that all of these venues were scattered throughout the city, so if one of them fails, not all of them will.
They should just pick a host country rather than a host city. Also Los Angeles should host the summer olympics as it has the necessary infrastructure already in place.
i think extending the length of the games could also help. then fewer facilities could be used, hosting multiple events given an extended turnaround time.
also i don't think permanent sites would fly politically, but semi permanent sites might. Like hosting 2 games in a row. It would be ideal if a city could host both summer and winter back to back, to minimize the lag time between facility uses, and not delay the demolition or renovation of olympic sites for better use.
Also is it technically feasible to build modular facilities that could just be shipped and reused in future olympics?
not a huge amount of the infrastructure can be reused between winter and summer games
London used a good idea - temporary buildings. With events televised in HD and soon 4K why the need for so much seating? The track makes the stadium venue difficult for professional sports to use. I like the idea of permanent cities.
Some summer events can be moved to the winter games (like basketball and swimming) to make those games interesting to areas of the world that don't have winter sports.
For the Rio olympics, I heard that in order to build the campus of the olympics area, the local government evicted a bunch of low income individuals. Then, when the athletes actually showed up, the government erected barriers along the highways when it was in low income areas. The official reason was that it would tone down noise. However, it didn't hide a school so it's very probable that the local government was just sweeping these people under the rug. When the olympics were over, the structures were basically lifeless.
As always, brilliant video. Keep at it.
Thanks man!
Hi!
I`m Your subscriber from Poland. One of the biggest events we hosted there was Euro 2012 (luckily shared with Ukraine). Like any other international sports events, this one left the country with expensive stadiums that can barely pay for current repairs. It is hard to count return on those huge investments but after few year no one is convinced that this was a really good idea after all. So when next year politicians tried to apply for hosting winter Olympics in Cracow local citizens voted NO on the referendum.
It is sad to see how much costs those events especially when is needed to take in considering the current economic situation in some of hosting countries... I think that Olympic movement went the wrong direction at least two decades ago. So there is a deep need for changes and I like Your idea of fixing it!
You inspired me to study city planning! Love your channel! Keep up your great work! 😊
Ps. Not only city beautiful, but you also really beautiful 😋
Wow, thanks!! Glad you're pursuing this very rewarding field.
I am from Turin, and we consider our 2006 Olympics to have been overall successful for this city, especially in the long run, despite the huge economic investment. We first bidded to participate to one of the next games (we still have all the infrastructures working, many of them barely used though). Politicians in the end decided not to go for it unfortunately, letting Milan, our "eternal rival" win the bid. Such a pity, considering how beneficial the first games have been for us internationally.
Calgary is the best city :D
nope Chicago is
haha you both suck, Edmonton for the win
Judge Dredd what does Edmonton have better than the Windy City we got a diverse community from all over the BLACKHAWKS have won the Stanley cup twice in 2 years we have a iconic lakeshore we have 4 sports teams and are Summers are extremely hot and from time to time mild winters from 30-40 Fahrenheit this year it’s been quite cold but still a way better city with more history than Edmonton would ever have
agreed, as a resident of sk regina it would be perfect
Edmonton > calgary
It's a nice idea and you've given this some thought.
However, I think the IOC is roughly as open to "individualized financial stimuli" as FIFA - so the actual decision doesn't really give much consideration to the hosts' or the participants' Wealth.
i'd love to see toronto get one
Summer Olympics are much more profitable than winter, this idea is completely ludacris.
Melbourne has WAY more Olympic capable facilities despite not hosting for over 60 years.
Cape Town/South Africa held a very poor WC and was considered a logistical failure. Ditto with Rio.
I wouldn't want "the last day in September" to be forced into August every few years because of the Olympics of all things.
Cool video!
Thanks!
Though does using the facilities for the Olympic once in 12 years really cover the cost of maintaining those buildings over that time?
I'm sure they'd be used by athletes for training on off years.
Well no doubt in that, They'd probably also use it for National competitions and stuff too, Though it's hard to imagine that these smalls events and activities would really be able to maintain these buildings or make it worthwhile to maintain.
It's interesting to think about cause more frequent Olympic events would make it more feasible, Though for some reason I feel like that would either lower the overall viewership of the games or maybe spread them out more evenly.
I have full support for this plan, especially since you picked Calgary as a semi-permanent host city!
No Summer Games in the northern hemisphere? Seeing as 90% of the world's population lives in the northern hemisphere I don't think that plan makes sense.
Better would be 10 cities in total, with a 20 year full rotation (summer & winter games) around the cities, ensuring that each continent on the northern hemisphere gets a summer and winter games, while also having 2 host cities on the southern hemisphere.
For example:
1) Calgary (Winter)
2) Los Angeles or Mexico City (Summer)
3) Turin (Winter)
4) Sydney (Summer)
5) Pyeongchang, Nagano or Sapporo (Winter)
6) Paris or London (Summer)
7) Beijing (Winter)
8) Rio De Janeiro or Cape Town (Summer)
9) Lillehammer (Winter)
10) Tokyo or Seoul (Summer)
I like your idea but I think an even better one is the one suggested by a guest on a CNN show back in 2016 during the Rio Olympics.
Instead of a city bidding for the WHOLE games, a city bids for a SPORT (and their associated disciplines)-and ONE sport alone.
For example, say, Moscow, successfully bids for the sport of wrestling, so then all freestyle and Greco-Roman events are held in that city alone.
Or, as another example, Los Angeles, successfully bids for gymnastics, they would then host all the artistic and rhythmic gymnastics and (...ugh...) trampoline events.
And so on and so forth. I think you get it.
The opening and closing ceremonies-at least for the summer games-can be permanently held in Athens, Greece.
Maybe good ole neutral Switzerland can have one of their cities permanently host the opening and closing ceremonies for the winter games?
That could be, but then what's the difference from the World Championships most sports host annually anyway? I think there is something to having different sports co-mingling.
But are you suggesting that all the sports would happen in the same two weeks, just in different cities? So the broadcast would be cutting from city to city, but otherwise much the same to the viewer?
City Beautiful
I suppose there is no practical difference from a world championship tournament now that you mention it but the Olympic prestige alone (with the bonus of having more countries compete) would make people forget about that.
And yes, the games could be televised the same but across the globe rather than across a city.
That could work!
City Beautiful it’d certainly mean you’d get a wider range of cities compete too. In my city we will never be able to host a major multi-sport games but we did consider a bid for the America’s cup race and we might consider event specific bids when we would be competing for that higher level of prestige. The olympics would be truely global.
This could mean Milwaukee could host speed skating, as we have the venue for it here. There would be no other way Milwaukee could host a Winter Olympics, as there are no mountains nearby.
Why didn't you upload this earlier? I did a presentation on this several weeks ago, and nobody agreed to my solution, one summer, and one permanent winter olympic host, so I didn't get a debate off the ground. If I had proposed this, my mark would have probably been higher.
Great video, though.
Sorry about the timing, but glad we're thinking the same things.
On the merits of the video: Good geopolitical, balanced attention to sites; attention to infrastructure that exists; research on history and future challenges with climate change. Fine assessment. My personal bias: I like these games more!
On the demerits of the video: Vast disparity in participation and revenue from summer (high) v. winter (low) Olympic games. To restrict countries with temperate climates to host winter Olympics when they might also host the more widely attended and lucrative is, perhaps unfair. I would posit that the global north, as an aggregate has more wealth, and could use this as an opportunity to share with the developing world, but I'm too much of a realist to believe in political benevolence. Also, how does one work with history and changing demographics, where a previous host city like Mexico or a new rising city, like Mumbai, might be excluded. The IOC is flawed, but a "permanent" rotation at this point is not a solution.
Good points! Perhaps these cities could all sign a "three Olympics deal" and after they host three times the host cities change? That way the IOC can reevaluate the world's cities in 30-40 years and make changes that could include a Mumbai or Mexico City. The cities still get to use the facilities three times, so even if they go abandoned after that they still saw some good use.
Marc Rugani
(scoffs) The 'global north' has shared enough with developing nations.
I do agree that permanent host cities (but NOT continents) are too limiting.
Marc Rugani do you not have any idea the hundreds of billion of dollars and pounds and Euros sent to Africa and South America in aid? The North has been more than generous to the point that we are actually harming African development by undercutting local industry.
Doug, I am aware of the aggregate figures of the aid sent. That's a different point than the Olympic movement and the ideal of highlighting "emerging" countries. Having lived in two Central American countries, working for over two years as a volunteer in private U.S. development projects, I recognize that the undercutting of the industry occurs on a day-to-day basis without the spotlight on any of the treasures of the cultural patrimony of those locations. Your point about the undercutting of industry in locations, like those where I've lived, is well-taken. When bidding for the Olympics occurs, it is the aristocrats and the political elites that determine the viability and the goals of the Games. At the same time, I remain, maybe too optimistically, committed to the values of the spirit of the video and the Olympic movement to highlight different countries and cultures, recognizing the agency, self-determination, and international citizenship of the host nations and their constituents.
I think many people in Europe would be angry that the winter olympics would be hosted in Europe because were i come from in Denmark the summer olympics is seen as the ''real olympics'', because Denmark has zero mountains and therefore don't really win anything at the winter games.
Representin' the 403
Great points about the added buildings only making sense if you were already going to build them, Olympics or not. Surprised no mention of Los Angeles, though. It's turned a profit on the Olympics twice and humiliated the USSR in 1984 on the world stage. Los Angeles is an ideal city: It's used to overwhelming amounts of media and tourism, can handle the crush load and crowds, and has the infrastructure and spread to make it work.
Scale the Olympic games down. Less sports (only the most polular). This means less aditional facilities.
That could be a good idea. Many (if not all) of these sports already have "World Championships" separate from the Olympics anyway.
Floris Hellebrekers
Yeah, there should be less sports but these are all good suggestions to avoid white elephant syndrome.
Get rid of those, that have world championships? So get rid of the Summer Olympics as a whole? Almost every sport there has its championships over the years.
The Olympics live from bringing sports of every kind into focus at least every four years. The effect of sb. young watching an event and finding it good to want to perform it, should not be left out of sight.
Floris Hellebrekers true. Love watching sports like rafting in the Olympics but like shown in this video the venues rarely get used after the games making it a waste.
The thing about the olympics is that especially those sports who aren't that popular get a fair part of recognition
i agree with the idea of limiting the number of host cities but your method means northern hemisphere countries don't experience the summer games plus cape town backed down cos they couldn't afford the commonwealth games. what hope do they have for the Olympics? I think it should be London, Paris, Sydney, Los Angeles and Tokyo for example. As London and Sydney put on good Olympic games recently and Tokyo, Paris and LA are the next 3 host cities. Yes I know those 5 hosts are very Northern but they put on good Olympics do you really think Cape Town and Rio can put on a games every 12 years? Look at Rio's venues after only 1 year. England can host a World Cup or an Olympics next year if they needed to.
To be fair having a few more in the Northern hemisphere could even be fairer remember that the halfway line of the population distribution is around 27 degrees North as 88% of the global population lives in the Northern hemisphere. Also the population distribution is very uneven the other way too mostly because 86% of the worlds population is still concentrated in the Old World (Afro-Eurasia and it's neighbouring islands). Given that though I would suggest that moving one of those two European hosts would be fairer especially as they are only 212 miles apart. Though they have never hosted Dubai has bid for it and could potentially be a good candidate quite close to South East Asia, Africa and still easily accessible from Europe also has the 5th busiest airport in the world so well connected for all the visitors.
Love the thought and research you put into this video. Well done!
Thanks!
So if all summer olympics venues were in the southern hemisphere, will the olympics take place in the winter?