[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.

[riffraff]

I see, I must have remembered the forecast budget, thanks.