Hosting the Olympics is Broken. Let's Fix It.
video description
Date: 2019-09-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
That Damn Cat
As someone who was born in and lived most of my life in Calgary, I was surprised to find Calgary on your list. I'm currently in Vancouver. However, Calgarians voted against hosting the 2026 games. Too expensive. I was in college during the 88 Winter Olympics and would love to see it return. But I think the concept of hosting the Olympics needs to be rethought to be viable in the 21st Century. Calgary cannot afford the Winter Olympics, but the province of Alberta can not only afford the Winter Games but would also be viable for the Summer Games. But this still likely wouldn't be get approved. In order to be beneficial for Albertans, BOTH the summer and the winter games would need to be awarded to Alberta, but to maximize the benefits to residents, these games should not be successive. Instead, Alberta should host both games within a 10 year period. Spreading both games across the major centres of the province (Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, and Lethbridge) would provide venue benefits for a wider, more diverse selection of the population. This would virtually eliminate the abandonment of venues following the games as local communities would likely be able to make use of one major sports venue, while one city would likely not be able to support long term multiple sports facilities. Plus some summer facilities could be reused for the winter games (or vice-versa) without significant renovation or new construction. Distance between city venues could be tackled by building a high-speed electric rail line between the venue host cities in Alberta. Revenue from both games would go towards building this and the concept isn't new. There has been a lot of discussion about connecting Calgary and Edmonton by high-speed rail. The difference with the Olympics is that not only will more cities benefit from this train, but funds should be available to provide stops and stations between these cities in smaller communities. (A few years ago I outlined a route that connected 22 communities in Alberta with one S-shaped Mag-Lev line from Lethbridge in the south to Edmonton in the North) This rail line would be impossible to build under any other circumstances and would be a priceless asset capable of solving not only Urban Planning issues but would be a beloved legacy asset to the Province for decades by providing low GHG transportation superior to that of the automobile. I think this kind of solutions is superior because the financial benefits, risks, infrastructure, and long term viability of venues would be spread across a much larger portion of the population while dividing the costs and reducing the risk for each of the communities involved.
reply
As someone who was born in and lived most of my life in Calgary, I was surprised to find Calgary on your list. I'm currently in Vancouver. However, Calgarians voted against hosting the 2026 games. Too expensive. I was in college during the 88 Winter Olympics and would love to see it return. But I think the concept of hosting the Olympics needs to be rethought to be viable in the 21st Century. Calgary cannot afford the Winter Olympics, but the province of Alberta can not only afford the Winter Games but would also be viable for the Summer Games. But this still likely wouldn't be get approved. In order to be beneficial for Albertans, BOTH the summer and the winter games would need to be awarded to Alberta, but to maximize the benefits to residents, these games should not be successive. Instead, Alberta should host both games within a 10 year period. Spreading both games across the major centres of the province (Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, and Lethbridge) would provide venue benefits for a wider, more diverse selection of the population. This would virtually eliminate the abandonment of venues following the games as local communities would likely be able to make use of one major sports venue, while one city would likely not be able to support long term multiple sports facilities. Plus some summer facilities could be reused for the winter games (or vice-versa) without significant renovation or new construction. Distance between city venues could be tackled by building a high-speed electric rail line between the venue host cities in Alberta. Revenue from both games would go towards building this and the concept isn't new. There has been a lot of discussion about connecting Calgary and Edmonton by high-speed rail. The difference with the Olympics is that not only will more cities benefit from this train, but funds should be available to provide stops and stations between these cities in smaller communities. (A few years ago I outlined a route that connected 22 communities in Alberta with one S-shaped Mag-Lev line from Lethbridge in the south to Edmonton in the North) This rail line would be impossible to build under any other circumstances and would be a priceless asset capable of solving not only Urban Planning issues but would be a beloved legacy asset to the Province for decades by providing low GHG transportation superior to that of the automobile. I think this kind of solutions is superior because the financial benefits, risks, infrastructure, and long term viability of venues would be spread across a much larger portion of the population while dividing the costs and reducing the risk for each of the communities involved.
reply
Seth Andrzejewski
I think there are other, better ways to fix the problem. You could have a host city host it again in 12 years (and ineligible to bid again for 60 years, bid by the country, or even split up the events into several neighboring countries in the region (as the World Cup allows. I think your choices to put the Summer Games (the true prize) into the Southern Hemisphere is problematic and inequitable. Locking out sizeable countries from ever bidding on them takes away a major opportunity for that country to put it's best foot forward on the world stage. In spite of the negative issues (corruption, waste, degradation of civil rights)- there are still positive aspects that an Olympic bid help bring out of a country. You are locking out regions that may be suitable to host in the future. For example, in the coming decades, I could see India able and willing to host the Games. It represents one of world's great cultures (actually hundreds of them) that also happens to have 1/7th of the world's population. Will you deny them the chance to host the Games permanently just because they aren't currently in a place to do it? The world evolves. And you can't predict where supposedly neutral countries like Canada and South Korea will end up on that spectrum in the future. And what about the other countries that are continentally represented by the likes of Cape Town and Rio? How are you going to explain to an Argentinian that Rio permanently represents their interests? Or the 50+ African countries that South Africa now represents their interests by proxy? South Africa is closer to South America than Arab Africa. If you aren't going to take my suggestions in paragraph 1, I'd recommend just making Athens as the permanent home of the Olympics. They at least have the best historical claim to it. Perhaps there can be a profit sharing schema that funds athletes to represent poorer countries. Or make it cheaper to be a spectator.
reply
I think there are other, better ways to fix the problem. You could have a host city host it again in 12 years (and ineligible to bid again for 60 years, bid by the country, or even split up the events into several neighboring countries in the region (as the World Cup allows. I think your choices to put the Summer Games (the true prize) into the Southern Hemisphere is problematic and inequitable. Locking out sizeable countries from ever bidding on them takes away a major opportunity for that country to put it's best foot forward on the world stage. In spite of the negative issues (corruption, waste, degradation of civil rights)- there are still positive aspects that an Olympic bid help bring out of a country. You are locking out regions that may be suitable to host in the future. For example, in the coming decades, I could see India able and willing to host the Games. It represents one of world's great cultures (actually hundreds of them) that also happens to have 1/7th of the world's population. Will you deny them the chance to host the Games permanently just because they aren't currently in a place to do it? The world evolves. And you can't predict where supposedly neutral countries like Canada and South Korea will end up on that spectrum in the future. And what about the other countries that are continentally represented by the likes of Cape Town and Rio? How are you going to explain to an Argentinian that Rio permanently represents their interests? Or the 50+ African countries that South Africa now represents their interests by proxy? South Africa is closer to South America than Arab Africa. If you aren't going to take my suggestions in paragraph 1, I'd recommend just making Athens as the permanent home of the Olympics. They at least have the best historical claim to it. Perhaps there can be a profit sharing schema that funds athletes to represent poorer countries. Or make it cheaper to be a spectator.
reply
Jan van Diepen
The Summer- and Winter Olympics are not equal. The Winter Olympics have a much smaller pool of nations that can really compete, since all the A-list sports are Alpine sports, so only nations with snowy mountains. Most people out of non-competing countries aren't really interested in it either. Since the majority of people live in the northern hemisphere it doesn't feel right to me they would never be able to host the Summer games. I don't thin dividing it by continent is necessarily fair. Asia has over 3 billion people while Oceania only has 30 million. If it's about accessibility for the common people it seems weird that South Asia never gets to host the Olympics even though it has over 50 times the population count of Australia. If going with permanent host cities it would seems more fair to me to divide the world up in region than in continents, as I think it would do very little for e. g. a Syrian that PyeongChang gets to host the Winter Olympics as it's very far away and Syria probably doesn't even have a participant in these games. By dividing the world in regions more people will have an opportunity to visit an Olympics relatively near them. Perhaps holding the Summer Olympics all the even years and the Winter Olympics all the odd years. That way there can be more permanent hosting city while it still comes around often enough to make the investment in the required infrastructure worthwhile.
reply
The Summer- and Winter Olympics are not equal. The Winter Olympics have a much smaller pool of nations that can really compete, since all the A-list sports are Alpine sports, so only nations with snowy mountains. Most people out of non-competing countries aren't really interested in it either. Since the majority of people live in the northern hemisphere it doesn't feel right to me they would never be able to host the Summer games. I don't thin dividing it by continent is necessarily fair. Asia has over 3 billion people while Oceania only has 30 million. If it's about accessibility for the common people it seems weird that South Asia never gets to host the Olympics even though it has over 50 times the population count of Australia. If going with permanent host cities it would seems more fair to me to divide the world up in region than in continents, as I think it would do very little for e. g. a Syrian that PyeongChang gets to host the Winter Olympics as it's very far away and Syria probably doesn't even have a participant in these games. By dividing the world in regions more people will have an opportunity to visit an Olympics relatively near them. Perhaps holding the Summer Olympics all the even years and the Winter Olympics all the odd years. That way there can be more permanent hosting city while it still comes around often enough to make the investment in the required infrastructure worthwhile.
reply
prickly10000
Yes, Lets avoid the Countries that win all the metals and make up the most viewership of the Olympics because your scared of Politics. That will totally work. I love how you picked Rio again when the first Olympics was a disaster for the City. Even if it did become the permit city, Rio can't pay for take care of the Facilities for a year, let alone 4. It doesn't matter if they exist if they can't find a use for them or take care of them. No other country is going to pay for a Rio Olympics. Cape town and Sydney are horrible options as they are in the worst possible positions for travel. No one is going to go to them and there is a pretty easy answer for why Africa hasn't hosted yet. I can only imagine what a Cape Town games would look like. I'm pretty sure your plan would end the Olympics period. The USA and China would more then likely stop supporting the Olympics if it never came to either of them. I wouldn't watch it. The fact that you want to avoid geopolitics when that is what the Olympics is told me all I need to know about you. The modern Olympics are a spectral show designed by the Nazi Party for the Berlin Olympics. It's not about the sports for small countries, its about showcasing to the world who much money it takes to cover up Problems. That is why they cost so much and the grounds are left abandoned after.
reply
Yes, Lets avoid the Countries that win all the metals and make up the most viewership of the Olympics because your scared of Politics. That will totally work. I love how you picked Rio again when the first Olympics was a disaster for the City. Even if it did become the permit city, Rio can't pay for take care of the Facilities for a year, let alone 4. It doesn't matter if they exist if they can't find a use for them or take care of them. No other country is going to pay for a Rio Olympics. Cape town and Sydney are horrible options as they are in the worst possible positions for travel. No one is going to go to them and there is a pretty easy answer for why Africa hasn't hosted yet. I can only imagine what a Cape Town games would look like. I'm pretty sure your plan would end the Olympics period. The USA and China would more then likely stop supporting the Olympics if it never came to either of them. I wouldn't watch it. The fact that you want to avoid geopolitics when that is what the Olympics is told me all I need to know about you. The modern Olympics are a spectral show designed by the Nazi Party for the Berlin Olympics. It's not about the sports for small countries, its about showcasing to the world who much money it takes to cover up Problems. That is why they cost so much and the grounds are left abandoned after.
reply
ilghiz
I vote for your ideas with all votes I have. I think your idea of permanent hosts could be scaled to other international events like the World Cup. That would allow fans to travel all over the world anyway: Olympics this year, World Cup in a year, another event in between there's still space for diversity. Some cities do benefit from international events, like Kazan, Russia, did during _and_ after a previous universiade (was it 2013. The facilities are still in use for international and domestic events, as well as for daily civil/commercial purposes. We're hosting World Cup this year too using the facilities built for the universiade. The city has been under constant development since it celebrated it's official 1000th anniversary: it has a brand new municipal transport network, redeveloped railway station, new airport facilities, extensive residential development (high-rises though, subway, reconstructed historical center. I. e. Kazan uses all its efforts to benefit from all the events it has hosted since mid 2000s. It doesn't seem to be a rule for other cities. However, Kazan needs some maintenance inside, in the districts where tourists don't normally go. Who knows, would Kazan become better on the non-touristy side.
reply
I vote for your ideas with all votes I have. I think your idea of permanent hosts could be scaled to other international events like the World Cup. That would allow fans to travel all over the world anyway: Olympics this year, World Cup in a year, another event in between there's still space for diversity. Some cities do benefit from international events, like Kazan, Russia, did during _and_ after a previous universiade (was it 2013. The facilities are still in use for international and domestic events, as well as for daily civil/commercial purposes. We're hosting World Cup this year too using the facilities built for the universiade. The city has been under constant development since it celebrated it's official 1000th anniversary: it has a brand new municipal transport network, redeveloped railway station, new airport facilities, extensive residential development (high-rises though, subway, reconstructed historical center. I. e. Kazan uses all its efforts to benefit from all the events it has hosted since mid 2000s. It doesn't seem to be a rule for other cities. However, Kazan needs some maintenance inside, in the districts where tourists don't normally go. Who knows, would Kazan become better on the non-touristy side.
reply
AsellusPrimus
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.
reply
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.
reply
Zeyev
I like the concept but I'm not sure it would ever be accepted by people who matter. I probably would have chosen Sapporo instead of PyeongChang but that's just me. Considering how many people who matter would have those same kinds of basically irrational preferences, it would be hard to finalize the decision. Your solution does get away from the problems of a permanent location even though permanence has a basic appeal. PS Squaw Valley had practically no snow shortly before its games started. Even way back then, the variability of weather was a major problem. One other issue is what month to host summer game south of the equator. Athletes training for hot-weather events in cold-weather climates would be challenged. I was a participant at a spring event in Sydney in November 2002. We flew from the chilly District of Columbia to the very warm (hot on the day of my race - near 40 C) and we were all amateurs. But a true summer event would take place in December or January. Challenging but not impossible, just something to add to the equation.
reply
I like the concept but I'm not sure it would ever be accepted by people who matter. I probably would have chosen Sapporo instead of PyeongChang but that's just me. Considering how many people who matter would have those same kinds of basically irrational preferences, it would be hard to finalize the decision. Your solution does get away from the problems of a permanent location even though permanence has a basic appeal. PS Squaw Valley had practically no snow shortly before its games started. Even way back then, the variability of weather was a major problem. One other issue is what month to host summer game south of the equator. Athletes training for hot-weather events in cold-weather climates would be challenged. I was a participant at a spring event in Sydney in November 2002. We flew from the chilly District of Columbia to the very warm (hot on the day of my race - near 40 C) and we were all amateurs. But a true summer event would take place in December or January. Challenging but not impossible, just something to add to the equation.
reply
crucisnh
Rather than talking about picking a single permanent city or a small rotation of cities, or talking about restructuring the finances of the Olympics, I think that they should start closer to scratch and cut back considerably on the number of events included in the Olympics. And possibly even split the Olympics up into smaller groups that can be spread around a country or the entire world. For example, perhaps have the track and field events in a single city, and the basketball in a completely different city (possibly different country, and swimming and diving in a third, and so on. Yes, perhaps this loses part of the idea of bringing ALL of the athletes from all the countries to a single city to meet and so on, but at some point the failing economics of the situation has to be addressed or the entire Olympics will eventually collapse of its own weight and massive debt, perhaps when no city or country wants to be saddled with the financial burden.
reply
Rather than talking about picking a single permanent city or a small rotation of cities, or talking about restructuring the finances of the Olympics, I think that they should start closer to scratch and cut back considerably on the number of events included in the Olympics. And possibly even split the Olympics up into smaller groups that can be spread around a country or the entire world. For example, perhaps have the track and field events in a single city, and the basketball in a completely different city (possibly different country, and swimming and diving in a third, and so on. Yes, perhaps this loses part of the idea of bringing ALL of the athletes from all the countries to a single city to meet and so on, but at some point the failing economics of the situation has to be addressed or the entire Olympics will eventually collapse of its own weight and massive debt, perhaps when no city or country wants to be saddled with the financial burden.
reply
Bryson Robinson
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.
reply
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.
reply
Azivegu
I like the idea, but think that due to the size of the venue, the Summer games should have double the hosting cities. That would help spread the connection to international sports across the world. Also, your summer games would take place during the coldest months of the year (being south of the equator. And thirdly, there still should be a way for non standard hosting cities to receive the opportunity. Otherwise the Olympics have the chance to become somewhat of an isolated affair, and not the international one it should be. Maybe, for example, the three Winter Olympic cities can bid to host and a fourth city, through strenuous approval processes, can also join in. That way it could be possible for outlier cities to promote themselves to the world, which would be great for the developments of certain areas.
reply
I like the idea, but think that due to the size of the venue, the Summer games should have double the hosting cities. That would help spread the connection to international sports across the world. Also, your summer games would take place during the coldest months of the year (being south of the equator. And thirdly, there still should be a way for non standard hosting cities to receive the opportunity. Otherwise the Olympics have the chance to become somewhat of an isolated affair, and not the international one it should be. Maybe, for example, the three Winter Olympic cities can bid to host and a fourth city, through strenuous approval processes, can also join in. That way it could be possible for outlier cities to promote themselves to the world, which would be great for the developments of certain areas.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
