[nemesisj]

I think there's an important psychological dimension that's often missed from these calculations, particularly for countries that have a chip on their shoulder. It's a way for the entire world to be focused on something that you're doing well (hopefully) for a few weeks. Before the Beijing olympics many Chinese would ask you how you liked China, and when you replied, "yes" they would say China is "luo hou", which means backward. China is still luo hou to most who don't live in the richest eastern seaboard cities, and being able to watch China do something amazing for weeks on end is more than worth the 40 billion that was spent.

Lets not forget that in developing countries, massive investments are often sped up just to get the opportunity to bid - in 1999, the Beijing subway was almost nonexistent. Today it's one of the largest systems in the world, and was largely constructed prior to the Olympics. Other improvements included the Beijing airport. Of course, you could say that I'm cherry picking the Chinese olympics as one of the few examples, and maybe there aren't many advantages for a city like Tokyo or London, but even here in the UK, many people were inspired and proud of how their country handled the events. That may not be worth what it cost, but it is worth something, and I think it's a bit bizarre that the Economist seems to be puzzled as to why these events poll well with voters.

[mafribe]

The transformation of East London which I believe to have been the main reason for choosing to host the Olympics in London, has been fairly spectacular. The Stratford area where the Olympic park was built, used to be a wasteland. Although I don't know this, I conjecture that the Olympics were used as a mechanism to force through a substantial number of planning permissions that would not have been granted otherwise.

[christoph]

Visually, it's changed - sure. There's a nice big stadium there that can be used every so often. It doesn't look as bad as it once did. It's changed very little of the outside area as far as I can tell though.

Stratford was recently named as the countries worst crime hotspot[0].

According to the FT, "the bounce" has failed to materialise [1].

I would not recommend a walk around the outskirts of the Olympic stadium for all but the very brave, it's still an area in much poverty with many social issues completely unresolved, notably violent crime (3.5 for every 1,000 people) [2].

[0] - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/westfield-stratfords-po...

[1] - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/543cabaa-8a41-11e2-9da4-00144feabd...

[2] - http://crimeinlondon.com/newham/stratford-and-new-town/viole...

[ljf]

It's rough, but not that bad - I live locally (well in the even 'rougher' Forest Gate) and in the 15 years I've been in the area I've never personally had or seen any trouble - the kids who might look scary are well brought up - there isn't the crippling poverty (or as in other parts of London, poverty next to excessive wealth) that blights other parts.

Much of the crime is theft, rather than violent crime that south London sees - the postcode mentioned in the link above is the postcode of two shopping centres and transport interchange - the places you would expect to see high pick pocketing and shoplifting, which is what the majority crime mentioned in the report is.

I think the adjacent areas have changed, Leyton and Leytonstone are both far nicer - and in the last years have had new interesting pubs, cafes and shops open up.

Would this have happened anyway? Maybe - but most people I talk to are pretty happy with the changes the area has seen.

I'm still a little sad the plan to open Google offices in the Olympic park was shelved - that would have brought in a whole heap of jobs and new people to the area.

[test1235]

>in the even 'rougher' Forest Gate

The setting of the movie 'Ill Manors'?

[ljf]

Yup, but I'm living in the leafy suburban Victorian bit with a massive park at the end of my road, I love it here, really culturally diverse but with a real London history here too, and loads of people that have chosen to make London there home or grew up in the area.

[buro9]

The question should be: Would that transformation have happened anyway?

London has been re-developing brown fields since the mid-80s and shows no sign of slowing down. The Olympics may have accelerated it, but I'm not sure anyone I know who lives in East London or works in Techcity would buy that this re-development wouldn't have happened anyway. The pressure for space is just too great.

I'm fairly pro-Olympics now, afterall... that velodrome is something beautiful and I'm going to ride it.

[andy_ppp]

Problem with Straford is that

a) new builds in the UK are made as cheaply as possible.

b) new builds go down in value as soon as you buy them

c) we in Europe hate soulless man planned cities - a lot of the area around the olympic park feels this way.

I think the government could have just paid for the cleanup of the area and done something like subsidise housing for the poor there with the money, rather than pay the the huge costs of running the games. The opening ceremony was pretty good though :-D

[rayiner]

> I think the government could have just paid for the cleanup of the area and done something like subsidise housing for the poor there with the money

The whole point of development, especially development pursuant to the Olympics, is to push the poor out of the area. When any mayor says "we will clean up and develop this area," none ever mean "... in order to make a nice place to live for poor people." Indeed, if poor people still live there, the public won't even perceive the area as being nice.

E.g., this is one of the "bad neighborhoods" of Chicago: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=south+halsted+and+west+77+chi...

Like most of the city, it's actually quite well-maintained and pleasant. If lower-income people didn't live there, it wouldn't be considered a bad neighborhood at all.

[tptacek]

That's Auburn Gresham. It's not a particularly bad neighborhood. It's mostly black, like the rest of the south side, but also middle class and connected to the Metra. Just one neighborhood south is Beverly, one of the safest neighborhoods in the city.

Here's a bad neighborhood in Chicago:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=west+garfield+park&ie=UTF-8&h...

It is not well-maintained and it isn't pleasant; it's block after block of board-ups and red-X placards.

[rayiner]

I guess it depends on where you are in the neighborhood, because: http://news.yahoo.com/four-chicago-neighborhoods-named-list-....

"Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood made the list twice this year, but the census tract around South Halsted Street and West 77th is ranked highest at No. 4. Within a one-year period, NeighborhoodScout says there is a 1 in 9 chance of being a victim of violent crime here, and per 1,000 residents, the violent crime rate is 116.56.

The average per capita income in this area is lower than 99.4 percent of other U.S. neighborhoods, and 51 percent of children in this section of Chicago are living below the federal poverty line, giving this census tract a rate of childhood poverty that's higher than 93 percent of neighborhoods around the country."

I'll defer to your knowledge of Chicago, though. My point really is that while people talk about "bad neighborhoods" on the south side of Chicago, much (most? at least what I've driven through) is in pretty good shape. Even West Garfield Park isn't so bad in places. E.g. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=west+garfield+park&ll=41.8819...

[tptacek]

If you look at what they're reporting, they're analyzing "census tracts" that appear to be 2-3 square blocks; for instance, the really bad Auburn Gresham one is the corner of Ashland (a busy street) and 75th (a busy street). There are (believe it or not) bad corners in Oak Park too (I live kitty corner to one), but you'd be nuts to say Oak Park was unsafe.

I wouldn't want to drive down Washington in Garfield Park at night.

All of this is really not super relevant to your point, except to demonstrate that the neighborhoods people think of as "bad" in Chicago aren't pretty tree-lined residential streets that happen to have poor people living in them.

[andyjohnson0]

"I conjecture that the Olympics were used as a mechanism to force through a substantial number of planning permissions that would not have been granted otherwise"

There was also fairly widespread use of compulsory purchase orders [1] to obtain land for the olympic park [2]. A significant number of people lost their homes, and businesses were forced to move, so that private-sector developers could take-over the land.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_purchase_order

[2] http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/1092

[m0a0t0]

You are right about the pscychology. I thought we did a bloody good job of hosting the Olympics. Leading up to it I thought it was going to be a bit rubbish but when they actually started there was a sense of national pride.

The problem is that the pride only lasts for a few months. After that I was (and many other people were) back to thinking it was a massive waste of money and the only place that would benefit was London. Basically what I'm trying to get across is that if you had asked me during the Olympics I'd say let's do it again, but before or after? Not a chance

[andyjohnson0]

"You are right about the pscychology. I thought we did a bloody good job of hosting the Olympics."

I've been told by a relative, who works for the government to "sell" UK businesses internationally, that the London olympics are widely regarded as a model of how to "do it right". I don't know (and he didn't say) whether this makes it more possible to achieve long-term economic benefits that offset the cost of the event. I'm probably sceptical about that.

[brokenparser]

London 2052 will be awesome!

[tokenadult]

in 1999, the Beijing subway was almost nonexistent

Well, you did say "almost," and I'm aware that the subway system in Beijing has been considerably extended, but parts of the system were old in 1987 when I first rode it. I'm not at all sure that I agree that it "is more than worth the 40 billion that was spent" for peasants in a backward region of a still poor country to have the illusion that they live in a developed country.

[nemesisj]

Yeah, it was installed in the late 60s, but it was really poor during the 80s (and yes, I rode it in the mid 80s as well). There's really no comparison between it then and what it became just prior to the olympics. Same with the highway situation, airport, transport links to Tianjin, and even more minor things like making sure Pinyin was on all street signs. These things matter. The 40 billion didn't just give people an illusion - it transformed Beijing and partner cities and made a lasting contribution to the people who lived there.

[mathattack]

I agree with you that it's part psychological. I think another piece is an Agency problem. It may not be in the best interest of the people paying the bill (taxpayers) but it may still be in the interest of the organizer.

When Chicago tried to get the Olympics, it was to be the capstone of the legacy of Richard Daley. That's an agency problem, because ultimately the people of the city would need to foot the bills.

I view this similar to corporate M&A. It rarely ever suits the shareholders of the buyers. So why do companies do it? Either there is a psychological reason (overconfidence?) or their stock is overvalued or it might just be in the best interest of the CEO. CEOs of medium companies like to become CEOs of bigger companies. By extension, city officials like to wine and dine with the global elite.

[PakG1]

maybe there aren't many advantages for a city like Tokyo or London

For a country that has endured the world's only recent nuclear disaster and has experienced massive economic stagnation for quite some time, I imagine that the Olympics could present a similar opportunity for building pride and galvanizing the country. Will the investment pay off? Who knows? China's investment isn't paying off in the financial sense that a lot of the Olympic buildings built have no real post-Olympic use. But if we are considering the pride factor alone here, then I imagine Tokyo will have a similar boost.