[kratom_sandwich]

I don't think the argument is valid because it can be applied to nearly every event where people come together, including sporting events and concerts. But like with the Olympic Games, the World's Fair can serve as a catalyst for urban development projects.

Also, the "science showcase" is a thing of the past, the BIE switched to "individual country showcase" a couple of years ago, which makes the whole thing a lot less appealing IMHO, but that's another issue.

[Fordec]

I find this perplexing because the Olympic Games is notorious for draining an urban centers resources for years and the result being a bunch of infrastructure that the majority of the time just slowly decays due to the local community not having the same volume of population to fully utilize the utility. The handling of the 2016 games was an especially bad case.

It's overall a nationalistic country level flex at the expense of the local area. It's part of why only big countries host it, the side affects will only affect one city and you have other places to sustain the nationwide economy despite the hit.

[pharke]

That always confused me about the Olympic Games. I guess it makes sense if you think about it as an opportunity for pork stuffed building contracts. It would make more sense for each country to have 1 or maybe 2 locations that are reused whenever they host the games. They could also host national level sporting events in the interim. That way they can be maintained and upgraded over the years without saddling municipalities with decaying and unwanted facilities.

[chha]

The problem for most countries is that it can be decades between hosting two Olympics, meaning that facilities are either worn out not fulfilling the current Olympic technical requirements.

Also; very few countries has a need for facilities with the capacity the Olympics require, so this would be a huge burden for most of them.

[dstroot]

I came to say this. Well put. Take my vote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/abandon...

[labster]

Speak for yourself. Los Angeles ran a profitable Olympics in 1984 and we look forward to doing so again in 2028. And nationalism is at a low ebb here, given our last four years fighting His Nibs on everything. It’s all about competition and entertainment for us. And infrastructure that can be reused for more entertainment.

[Fordec]

The 1984 Olympics, considered to be the most financially successful Olympics ever, were ran on the basis of renovating existing infrastructure, not building new stuff in a new city because the previous two Olympics were financial disasters. Also, yes, if you mess up LA the United States will still truck on.

Also Nationalism isn't just flags, hate and hands in the air, it's also an outward expression of ideas and ideals raised on a pedestal to say look how great we are. Such as getting to say "we are all about competition and entertainment" as a story to tell the world as a form of soft power.

[gamblor956]

were ran on the basis of renovating existing infrastructure, not building new stuff in a new city because the previous two Olympics were financial disasters.

As with...all...of its Olympic bids, LA was not the first choice for the 1984 Olympics. It basically got those Olympics (and 2028, and the 1932 Olympics), because nobody else wanted to host them. In 1932, the world was in the throes of the Great Depression; in 1984, the previous Olympics had bankrupted their hosts; for 2028, hosts of the 20xx games exuberantly built new facilities only to see them wither into decay from non-use (Brazil, China, even London).

Thus, LA's bids have always focused on fiscally responsible games. As with the previous 2 iterations of the LA Games, LA will not be building many new facilities solely for the games. Indeed, currently, LA plans to build no new facilities for the games, though there will be temporary structures/courses built for the swimming events, the BMX and MTB racing events, and NBC will be paying for a temporary media center. Currently, all $7 billion of the estimated costs are being funded by the private sector.

[riffraff]

> even London

wasn't the London one supposed to have been done cheaply and effectively, in contrast to the splurge of the previous two?

[gamblor956]

Effectively: no. Cheaply: no. The London Olympics had a final budget of roughly $13 billion, or nearly double the original forecast of approximately $6.5 billion. For comparison, Beijing cost $40 billion, Athens cost $11 billion, and Rio cost $13.1 billion. Note that these are just the budgets for the games themselves, not including ancillary spending on other non-game infrastructure.

For comparison, the combined total of LA's three Olympics (adjusted for inflation and including the forthcoming games) is well below $10 billion.

[IgorPartola]

Does the US still have an identity as a country? I certainly would have a very hard time explaining to someone not from here what it is that the United States stand for at this point.

[Rule35]

Maybe ask people not from there what they think it represents. And not in the sense of a slogan, but opportunity or not, openness or not.

Ask those who want to immigrate, and ask the recently immigrated who now want to preserve what they have.

[CoffeeOnWrite]

> profitable

> we look forward to doing so again in 2028

Oligarchs and capitalists benefit, the masses lose though. Especially those most vulnerable socioeconomically.

[xeromal]

The hope for the 2028 olympics in LA is more public transportation which is currently being built. It's exciting to see the new lines currently popping up.

[labster]

Sports is the opiate of the masses — Karl Marx, probably

As long as the government doesn’t lose money, I’m happy. Plus it will be nice to get to LAX without driving a 30 minute loop through the terminals. I’m very excited about that line.

[karaterobot]

I think the argument is valid. Much of the value of attending a live sporting event or concert is that nobody involved knows how it's going to turn out. You get to experience an unfolding spectacle in real time.

That's not what a world's fair is. A modern world's fair would be essentially a bunch of companies showing off their latest inventions, in a highly coordinated and controlled way, for marketing purposes.

A better analogy would be something like E3, a video game convention which is struggling to find its purpose in a world where it's easier and more effective from a marketing standpoint to just release a video of your new game. I think it's no coincidence that world's fairs stopped being as important right around the time mass communication became ubiquitous.

[dehrmann]

> Much of the value of attending a...concert is that nobody involved knows how it's going to turn out

You have a point for sports, but concerts? They have their moments, but for the most part, it will be the same set list and the same performance they did in Cleveland a week ago.