How London laid the groundwork for sustainable sporting architecture | CNBC Reports 

However it seems as that only the wealthiest very large cities like Paris, London or LA can afford it. New York would be the best option for a new host in my view

@@pawl23 that's why no relatively poor nation has ever mad a bid for the olympics

@@johnpijano4786 rio, athens? And new delhi was in the bid for 2032,tho it was recently awarded to Brisbane.

2022: Beijing 2024: Paris 2028: Milan 2032: Brisbane All in high GDP/GDP per capita countries.

@@yourneighbour304 New Delhi withdrew because of the pandemic while Brisbane has perfected their bid as it was planned as earlybas 2012.

I think the Olympics facilities that can be utilized will be within already wealthy countries where its citizens have the time and means to use it after the Olympics. Sadly but true poorer countries should not host the Olympics.

@@johnl.7754 umm no true, you can use the Olympic as a turning point to improve the community

Pretty sure Sydney set the best example but ok

@@kurthalbauer7676 nah london is better

@@organizedchaos4559 not true, the Olympics always cost more to the country than the money they can make from it, poorer countries will be less likely to spend more money on building better reusable venues. After the Olympics and the World cup were hosted in Brazil, the country lost a lot of money. Trying to reuse those venues would mean spending more money, sports in general are used as a means to show other countries how wealthy you are, whoever tells you anything else is likely wrong.

The tenants of council housing should have an union to oppose the forced evacuation right? I mean 17% of Brit's live in them. And won't they ensure that the current tenants have the same/ upgraded standard of house once the development is completed? They will be building >4X floor space in the current land space. I'm just wondering about that. Please feel free to correct me. I'm totally an ameature in the topic. Thank you.

@@raakeshgr397 I really hope you’re wrong with the 17% figure. It’s scary. Where I live it’s no more than 1%. Our NHS is so bad and we put so much taxpayer money into it (£140bn!!). DWP’s budget is £150bn!!! (And that’s after massive cuts - used to be over £200bn). It’s not fair and unsustainable

@@ems7623 what about a solution where the local government only gives approval to the private firms on the condition that they rehouse the council property tenatants?

@@raakeshgr397 What typically happens is the local council request a certain proportion of the new build development be "affordable", but then the developer, once planning permission has been secured and the existing housing demolished, claims they've recalculated and including the requested proportion of affordable housing wouldn't make the development financially viable, so negotiate it down to typically under 5%. When built, those homes (which likely will still cost more than a five bedroom executive home in the Midlands) will have separate entrances and be denied access to communal facilities in the rest of the development. As London gentrifies, lower income families are pushed further away from the centre, while many new apartments are sold to overseas investors who often deliberately leave them empty, counting on the ever increasing land prices to give them a healthy return when they eventually sell them on, without needing to spend any money on maintenance or procuring the services of a letting agent to rent it out.

@@Alto53 It sounds like a nice policy proposal. But, without knowing what all the finances and financial predictions of those local governments and those private firms, it is really difficult for either you to me to know exactly how feasible it would be. I don't like it any more than you (and believe me when I say I don't like it!), but this is the nature of how a capitalist real estate market works. In reality, something like that might be practical at some times, in some places more than others. I saw something similar to what you describe put into practice once in New Haven in the United States. The developers building new housing blocks in a run-down corner of the center city were required to have a certain number of affordable housing units in the new buildings. Low-income locals on public support were given preference in rental applications. (Not quite the guarantee you propose, but close). It seemed to work *reasonably* well. However, because it was a difficult "sell" to developers, the city only ever managed to build about three of these buildings. You see the problem ...

Legacy, not affordable housing and services?

@@andredeketeleastutecomplex can you elaborate

@@yourneighbour304 lots of people where displaced from their cheap council homes, which were demolished and replaced by expensive high end apartments. Some argue that this just adds to the current housing crisis. Gentrifying the area does make it look "prettier" but as much as they say the park is for the "locals", the "locals" they talk about aren't the locals that where there before 2012...

Do as little building as needed and only use what is there for most of it and not build a ton of places just in the hope they'll be useful

Yes, but Tokyo in 2020-21 is hardly a normal situation. It isn't the example I would choose.

The shopping centre is a bit of a cheat- plans for that were already approved (on the back of the neighbouring Stratford International station development) before the Olympic bid succeeded in 2005

Westfield noooo! My then 13 year old daughter and I got separated from my wife and 18 year old daughter for FIVE HOURS whilst dress shopping for a wedding. Wife’s phone left in car, daughters phone battery flat, younger daughter hates shopping and fed up, me 😡

Yes , London is certainly moving east . Incredible transformation of the former Temple Mills industrial area.

Quite right to highlight the importance of Stratford Station - made the entire area much more accessible to get to, not just in London, but from other parts of the UK too. I think a lot of people assume London is all the same but it has very different vibes and architecture in various locations. East and West London are almost polar opposites in same things. The Olympics and the development it created in Stratford had a huge impact on the value of housing for example.

Thank you. That's really interesting.

I presume it was relatively symbiotic... Stratford station and Westfield probably wouldn't have been built without the knowledge that the Olympic park would be regenerating the area?

@@ross_burnage Stratford station has been there since the 1800s. The land of the Olympic Park was a massive rail yard. Lines to it have been progressively added though. The Jubliee line being extended there in the 90s was probably the biggest kickstarter for regeneration, supporting the Docklands/Canary Wharf and Greenwich Peninsula re-developments. Stratford I think was begining to the planned since then. If you're refering to Stratford International though, then yeah you're right. They added it with the redevelopment in mind, although the Olympics wasn't guaranteed when it was approved (station opened 2007, Olympics awarded 2006). I'm not too sure whether Westfield was planned before the Olympics was announced.

London has to use very creative designs for its major buildings because of ancient rules and having to mix the very old with the very new. London being one of the world's two Global++ cities means it was capable of absorbing the infrastructure built for the Olympics. Some host cities can't do that so things are left to rot.

Oh yes, it's really an eyesore. You should check it out here on RU-vid.

London could host again because we planned it properly.

@@dolapokosebinu5274 what’s it called ?

Yes, I think few countries actually able to retain the glory of the Olympics venues. I have been to Korea, and they reserve the facilities very well, either for sporting events or entertainment events or just for pleasure/picnic places.

The Barcelona Olympic park is super nice - great views of the city too

Don’t forget Sydney too, they still use their venues regularly and the area of all the stadiums have become a living space for thousands

Barcelona 92 was a great Olympics (I'll never forget the city view behind the divers) although i'd personally put London and Sydney just a notch higher. They're certainly by far the best 3 games in my lifetime (since the late 70s). Atlanta 96 being the worst by some considerable distance.

@@prappsy3028 Atlanta was basically a scramble to find a venue since they had mostly poor choices, like Saudi Arabia and another country with just as bad of laws for women, that the athletes would not get relief from the laws from, and another spot in USA Chicago (who has seemed to since 1980 to always bid for the next open slot for Olympics) that still has one of the highest death by gang murder rates in the USA, and some odd smog that was produced until the mid 2000's in Garry that seems to be stuck around the lower east side of the Chicago and in Gary forever.

Atalanta game?

It's costing Money because the Football club dont pay for anywhere near enough . The tax payer still pays for the floodlights goal nets & corner flags . WHIFC pay a measly amount for what they have .

But where are the students going, who were otherwise staying in those damn dorms?

@@ankanmaiti9864 it's summer Olympics, most students will be with family or in other accommodations some may be on campus but would be in another dorm building. UCLA's dorms consist of 17 high rise towers plus another 5 complexes I'm sure there will be enough room.

@@AmberKingmusic Exactly. Los Angeles 1984 was the most successful Olympics. For 2028, they'll basically follow the same plan. The lucky thing LA has are all of the colleges and universities in and around the city. LA doesn't have to build anything new - at all.

@Mick&Rorty definitely especially if the wild fires aren't under control.

@@AmberKingmusic some dorms at UCLA were originally built in '84 for athlete housing with the plan for them being student dorms.

It doesn't help that Brazil also hosted the World Cup in 2014. It was a double the headache for them as they needed not only to built the facilities for the Olympics but also building the stadiums for the World Cup around Brazil. The one in Brasilia was actually finished AFTER the world cup which is a waste as Brasilia doesn't even have a football team.

It doesn't help that Brazil also hosted the World Cup in 2014. It was a double the headache for them as they needed not only to built the facilities for the Olympics but also building the stadiums for the World Cup around Brazil. The one in Brasilia was actually finished AFTER the world cup which is a waste as Brasilia doesn't even have a football team.

In many ways Manchester also benefitted from Sheffields experience with the 1991 World Student Games where it got world class facilities like Ponds Forge, but didn't think enough about what would happen after (Don Valley Stadium being the biggest legacy problem).

Manchester lol. You wouldn't have had it without Sheffield in 1991.

How many other Olympics have you seen ?

@@Q_QQ_Q it's his only one.

You may be misusing the word "ordinary" there

This is a very interesting viewpoint. The self funding philosophy is taken to a hypocritical extreme in America, where basic public services are considered failures if they aren't self sustainable (a notable example is the postal service, which is no longer self sustainable due to an irresponsible change in petition funding policy in 2006). But this is also true to some basic infrastructure and maintenance of old infrastructure. The idea that nice things be available as a public service is absolutely out of the question, which I think is a shame.

@@mikeE997 Watch John Oliver's episode about stadiums. Many US sports stadia receive huge amounts of public funding, which is essentially just supporting corporate profit rather than anything in the local community. All extorted by the threat of "Well, if you don't give us nice things, we'll leave and set up in a city that will."

Well said, most of my taxes go to shit, I’m happy that some of them make some people happy.

As an East Londoner, I was HYPED when I heard that Stratford was gonna become an Olympic Village

'success story' at a cost of 1bn to the taxpayer.

Money well spent.

Totally different calibre of people running the show...

We get a lot right really...long as the government stay out of it. We just dont acknowledge it very often, choosing to listen to negativity and nay sayers. A bit of positivity and optimism from the Aussies and the Yanks would do us Brits some good.

The report does gloss over the London Stadium though.... The entire Olympic Park was a triumph but....the stadium itself was a disaster. The arguments that the spokeswoman from the LLDC mentioned around the legacy use of the stadium were never resolved, as a result they ended up building a great stadium for the Olympics but it needed near total rebuilding to make it suitable as a football venue. Given that the stadium had been built for c£700 million for 80,000 seats, but then needed a further £280 million spent to make it suitable for its post games role as a 66,000 seat capacity stadium despite the fact that it was billed as being capable of easy conversion illustrates how much of a cock-up it was...all because its use afterwards had not been defined correctly (mainly due to arguments about its use as an athletics venue).

We get a lot right 🇬🇧

Funny how London is almost entirely held by Labour MPs.

remember that brazil was and is still in an economic crisis, they do not have the funding to spend

@@lnisme0295 Obviously they’re in a pretty bad situation right now, and it wasn’t a priority if theirs to make the Olympic stadiums last long term. However, it can be argued that they should have used the money spent on the Olympics to better their own situation and improve the lives of their citizens in the first place 🤷‍♀️

The biggest downside is that viewers in part of the world, get used to never seeing major Olympic events live. For example, when it's primetime, 8pm, in Athens, Greece, it's the middle of the working day in Athens, Georgia, USA, and it's the middle of the night in Tokyo & Beijing

The Olympics is a global event and therefore, it cannot remain exclusive to one nation. Tokyo cannot host 2024, 2028, and 2032 because those years have been awarded to Paris, Los Angeles, and Brisbane. The contracts have been signed.

@@RaymondHng But it's a reasonable question. Already, fewer and fewer cities are even bidding for the Olympics. That's why Paris and Los Angeles were awarded at the same time - they were the only ones who were still interested for 2024. To offset the cost of hosting, future Olympics could be awarded for two (I think 3 would be too many) consecutive Olympics competitions. But that would cause its own problems. What would cities do with the venues in the intervening years? They can't convert them for their legacy purposes. They can't start to move people into those areas because that space would be needed for the next games. Unfortunately the single Olympics may be the only reasonable way to allow the venues to have a legacy.

​@@ganonk79 Holding the Olympics solely in one location would be a violation of the Olympic Charter. The Olympic Charter is the codification of the fundamental principles of Olympism, and the rules and bye-laws adopted by the International Olympic Committee. It governs the organization, actions, and functioning of the Olympic Movement and establishes the conditions for the celebration of the Olympic Games. In other words, it's the organization's constitution. The Olympic Charter states in the 3rd principle of Olympism: _The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. _*_It covers the five continents._*_ It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings._ In Rule 1.2 The Olympic Movement, Mission and role of the IOC: _The mission of the IOC is to promote Olympism _*_throughout the world_*_ and to lead the Olympic Movement._ The new IOC bidding process was approved at the 134th IOC Session on 24 June 2019 in Lausanne, Switzerland. The key proposals, driven by the relevant recommendations from Olympic Agenda 2020, are: Establish a permanent, ongoing dialogue to explore and create interest among cities/regions/countries and National Olympic Committees for any Olympic event Create two Future Host Commissions (Summer and Winter Games) to oversee interest in future Olympic events and report to the IOC executive board Give the IOC Session more influence by having non-executive board members form part of the Future Host Commissions. The IOC also modified the Olympic Charter to increase its flexibility by removing the date of election from 7 years before the games and changing the host as a city from a single city/region/country to multiple cities, regions, or countries. In Rule 32 Celebration of the Olympic Games: _Where deemed appropriate, the IOC may elect several cities, or other entities, such as regions, states or countries, as host of the Olympic Games._

But how are the corrupt IOC going to make their money?! Shame on you! lol

And it had to go ahead to please the IOC and their TV partners

I agree. Having spent a lot of time in Vancouver and towns up the Sea to Sky (i90), since 2010, it was clear to me just how much these communities benefited from the new infrastructure.

That's thanks in the main to the National Lottery, for years British athletics was seriously underfunded or Athlete's worked full time jobs and trained at night or weekends, and the occasional medal was the result of extreme hard work, now our Olympic teams are funded to live and train free from having to work etc, centres of excellence around the UK encourage kids from a very young age to train for a sport they like, and from this we are reaping whole generations of exceptional young sportsmen and woman.

@@alisonsmith4801 most nations don't have funding. I am a boxing fan and was shocked that boxers had to get their own sponsorship and funding other than flights. I'm not sure how it was for Tokyo mind you.

@@UnseenSpirit The British Boxing team received over £ 12 million for this Olympic cycle and walked away with 6 medals 2 of them gold, in British athletic you need to constantly be successful and achive the plan of the projected medals in order to have your funding.

I hope so to

Paris will use mostly existing or temporary venues. I think the only venues to build are the Olympic Village and the swimming pool.

Paris doesnt have to build much as they got most of facilty already ,only few of them and some upgrade on some older one unlike the UK who concentrate only few event after the game are over , france compete in most of them, so many of venue of most event already exist before of Olympic was awarded

Whilst the taxpayer was shafted with a near 1bn bill. transformation, my ass.

@@recruitmentch Why do you suggest we were shafted? Don’t you think there were any benefits from the Olympics?

@@JoshWaller If I write down all of the facts, would you actually read them?

@@recruitmentch I would and I’d give a detailed response. Genuinely interested since imo the economic and social benefits that came from hosting the games outweighed the negatives.

I remember it, it was another great games, well ran, well organised and well thought out, the only minor problem was the altitude and there’s nothing you can do about that, it’s also got the best climate I’ve ever lived in.

I've bee to a few Olympic games and London was so far the friendliest, best organised, best crowds and support for all the competitors. It was very special. I do feel sorry for the Japanese though. Hopefully they have got the legacy right and they can enjoy the facilities and support up and coming Japanese sports people for years to come

Completely agree! London was incredible and the whole country came together, if Covid didn’t happen Tokyo would’ve been just as great

In normal times great cities like London, Paris and Tokyo would always put on a wonderful show.

London itself has hosted the Games after gaps of 40 and 64 years -- both well within a lifetime, and the 40-year gap would have been 36 if it hadn't been for the war. The closest that's actually happened was that Innsbruck hosted the winter games in 1964 and then again in 1976 after Denver decided not to host. Innsbruck is only 60 miles (100km) from Cortina d'Ampezzo, which hosted in 1956. Then, you have Garmisch-Partenkirchen, which hosted in 1936 and was rescheduled as host again in 1940 after war between Japan and China meant the games couldn't be in Sapporo as planned. Cortina was scheduled to host in 1944, and is only 80 miles (130km) from Garmisch-Partenkirchen. So you have the 1936, 1940, 1944, 1956, 1964 and 1976 all supposed to happen within about a 40-mile radius of the Brenner Pass on the Italian-Austrian border. Of course, a lot of those examples were cities that got the games at the last minute because the intended host was unavailable -- even London 1908 was supposed to be in Rome, until Vesuvius erupted. In that situation, it's very likely that a host from the recent past will be chosen, as they still have the facilities. Also, most of the examples I gave are for the winter Olympics, which are much more constrained for location. Well, they were in the 20th century. :cough: BeijingartificialsnowFFS :cough:

Everyone in Britain actually.

​@@B-A-L Exactly, but change that to everyone on Earth. It's a given.

That's a bit mean and actually untrue. I'm guessing you must be a self deprecating Brit lol

@@yedis1750 I think "self deprecating" and "Brits" are pretty much synonymous.

A permanent city is a great idea, but it goes again the 7th value of Olympics. Equality. Equal chances for everyone. In host's case, chance to flex their soft power, construction might, management skills, logistics and so one. But always in loss amounting to billions soon after. So is the FIFA World Cup.

Not true. The past two LA Olympics was profitable. For LA 2028 is extremely cost-effective. Unlike other games in other countries, the US government is paying $0 for the LA games. Everything is coming from the private sector and LA2028 is set to be profitable. They only have to construct the temporary swimming venue and the UCLA campus will serve as the Olympics village.

All good but I did say "of this millennium". Which doesn't cover 1984, clearly.

Not to nitpick but Tokyo would prolly be too in the long term, tournament might have been a loss but Japan can reutilize those stadiums

@@darreldennis7115 they weren’t in this millennium though

That was part of the original plan. To reduce capacity and use for smaller athletic events. Then West Ham wanted it and plans changed

Nobody is forcing host countries to bid for it.