Greece probably wishes it could get back the $15 billion it spent on its summer Olympics. Instead it is stuck with myriad abandoned venues like this canoe and kayak slalom center.
Deep skepticism here about whether taxpayers would be stuck footing the bill for the Olympics has doomed Boston’s bid to host the 2024 Summer Games and raised questions about whether any other major American city might be willing to take on the risk.
The United States Olympic Committee said Monday that it was withdrawing Boston as its proposed bid city because resistance among residents was too great to overcome in the short time that remained before the committee had to formally propose a bid city by Sept. 15.
This has made
some people sad.
Boston’s world-class universities and hospitals make it a globally significant metropolis. But its residents have rejected the cosmopolitan dream of hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics [...]
Other provincial places might aspire to join the first rank of cities, and so covet the Olympic Games -- but not Boston, where support barely got above 50 percent at its highest point. At some fundamental level, Bostonians want to stay provincial [...]
Boston is still great at knowledge. But it isn’t the Athens of America -- and by skipping the Olympics, it’ll assure it doesn’t become the Greece of America, either.
The premise was that Boston was a global favorite to host the games as a response to the Boston Marathon terrorist attack two years ago. Given that the marathon is symbolically key to the Olympics ... choosing the city would represent "a repudiation of the local manifestation of global jihadi terrorism." Honestly, the argument makes no sense. Neither does any comparison with Greece at this moment. What, Boston isn't the Greece of America! Thank heavens!
Head on below the fold.
Of course, the argument here wasn't economic, it was intellectual—as Athens was once the center of learning and culture in the Western world, so is Boston today. It's not, really (no matter how many awesome universities call it home, including my own alma matter), but again, not sure how hosting the Olympics would give Boston anything more than a nightmare headache and destroy its financial security for years to come.
The Beijing Olympics of 2008 cost $44 billion. Athens in 2004 cost $15 billion. London leveraged existing infrastructure to run a lithe Olympics at $10.4 billion. Brazil is reportedly spending $25 billion on their upcoming games, after spending $15 billion for last year's World Cup.
The idea of throwing that much money for a three-week event is patently absurd. Athens is littered with the abandoned remnants of its Olympics a decade ago. London was more efficient in its venue planning, but is still tearing down facilities. In fact, the globe is littered with the abandoned remains of Olympic venues.
In fact, hosting the Olympics has become such a money suck, that only two cities are bidding for the 2022 winter games: Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan. In other words, only despotic regimes are willing to piss away their population's cash for a short-term propaganda boost.
So why do cities spend that money? The fallacious claim that the games spur economic development and generate international prestige. I bet you can't wait to do business in Sochi, right? Of course, I didn't know Sochi existed before Russia spent $50 billion hosting the games there. But now that I know it exists? Who gives a shit.
Such claims are based on the idea that the Games can serve as a tourist attraction, a chance to catch the eye of global business leaders and a way to rally political support for valuable infrastructure projects.
None of that is true. You want "valuable infrastructure projects," then take those billions and use them to build valuable infrastructure projects. Better that than future rotting stadiums and venues. Tourist attraction? Raise your hand if Sochi is on your bucket list. "Catch the eye of global business leaders"? Boston doesn't need to catch anyone's eye. Half of global business leaders likely studied in the area anyway. And Almati would have a better chance of spurring development if it wasn't situated in an oppressive police state.
So why really agitate for an American city to host the Olympics? Well, business interests clearly see dollar signs. Why wouldn't they love a games that forces government to put up all the costs, yet they reap any benefits? It's the same mentality that cons cities into building billion-dollar stadiums for billionaire team owners. It's absurd, particularly when those public dollars could serve the populace in a million better ways. (An aside, Field of Schemes is the best blog tracking this craziness. Seriously, go read the site. It'll burn you up.)
Then there are those who are struck by the "cool factor" of hosting the Olympics. Like the guy above. The whole world is watching! So prestigious! Yeah, screw that shit.
So by rejecting Boston, it can't "aspire to join the first rank of cities"? Seriously? Boston is already a world-class city with world-class culture and the top educational institutions in the world. Yes, it is a provincial place, but so what? No Olympics would change that, or deliver its residents anything of real substance. It is a credit to Boston's citizens that they so utterly rejected this boondoggle.
