[thaumasiotes]

I thought the main counterexample to that argument was the fact that it has never worked anywhere.

From what I've heard, the Olympics have failed to benefit every city that's hosted them except LA, and the reason they were good for LA was specifically that no new infrastructure was built to accommodate them.

[mdtusz]

Many will disagree with me, but the Vancouver Olympics prompted construction of some things that I would consider vital to the Sea to Sky region - the highway upgrade being the biggest.

[Mvandenbergh]

London as well, or at least broke even. (Although of course this is complicated to assess and contested).

Same reason, all infrastructure was either already there or usable after (the Olympic stadium was sold to a football team).

Generally the larger a city is, the better able it is to host an event like this for obvious reasons.

[rqtwteye]

I think Munich did well in 1972. They got a lot of public transport and most of the sports facilities are used a lot.

[Andrex]

Shame about the security, though.

[mdtusz]

Many will disagree with me, but the Vancouver Olympics prompted construction of some things that I would consider vital to the Sea to Sky region - the highway upgrade being the biggest.