>>Remember that having the Olympics in your city or country is a poor investment?<<
L.A. made money in 1984.
Maybe they can do it again. L.A. has a lot of problems but I had to admit we did a great job with the Olympics.
The biggest concern was the reuse of existing venues, the long distances between venues and of course the traffic.
It ended up being the lightest traffic weeks I had ever seen, before or since, and no one seemed to mind the distances or old facilities like the Coliseum (which was built for the 1932 Olympics, interestingly enough).
L.A. I think was the only place where they didn’t shovel billions into new venues that end up going to waste (Rio’s sites are already crumbling from disuse and disrepair).
I am optimistic for their chances of succeeding.
Agreed. With or without the Olympics, L.A. already has plans to spend many billions on transportation infrastructure. The venues are already for the most part there.
Like I said, being the worst designed city in America weirdly makes it perfect for the Olympics. You have world-class facilities and world class hotels spread out over a vast - yet pretty well connected - area.
And it’s not like the locals will notice an increase in traffic.