Is an Olympic Bid Ever Worth It? What if You Lose?

Via the Atlantic Cities “The would-be BMX track in Douglas Park, from Chicago’s Bid Book.”

In “How (Not) to Host the Olympics,” I suggest that, when it comes to Olympic Planning, there is one Golden Rule: “The best thing to do if you’re bidding for the , Is to Not Get the .”

However, a recent article from The Atlantic Cities’ Emily Badger takes that claim to question.

Badger follows up in Chicago, a city that bid – hard – for the (which will take place in Rio de Janeiro). As she puts it: We often ask what Olympic cities really get in return for all the money, energy, and construction chaos invested in hosting the world’s largest sporting event. But the story of cities that vie for but never win the Games raises a different question.

‘What does putting together a bid that is unsuccessful leave you?’”

In her article, Badger interviews Sean Kinzie, an associate director at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill who worked (for three-and-a-half years) on Chicago’s Olympic plans. He points out that, while the city can now use the plans in the future (should they ever decide to), he’s skeptical they’ll ever need such event-specific venues. In the end, Badger suggests that (despite the design of the Olympic Village, which could potentially inspire a dense, mix-used residential development) the city’s efforts were, ultimately, a waste of time.

And of course, this makes intuitive sense: how could something that takes years of people’s time and money to prepare for, and then doesn’t come to fruition, possibly be good for the city?

However, Badger makes an important point in her article, one which, in my opinion, holds the key to whether an Olympic bid becomes worthwhile (successful or not): Chicago was never planning on infrastructure improvement beyond the scope of the event (as the city already had an intact, functional transit and park network).

South Plaza Proposal via Olympic Park Legacy Company

When planning for the Olympics, it’s key that cities feel the impetus to go forth with their plans – regardless of whether they win or not – because they feel that significant infrastructural/urban improvement is needed (the Olympics is thus seen as a helpful jumpstart to inevitable development). Moreover, it requires a lot of private-public collaboration and cooperation on a long-term plan. Just ask New York, whose Olympic plans, unlike Chicago’s, are mostly still going forward (and without the headache of all the rules, requirements, and scrutiny that comes with the Olympics).

It’s even possible that Chicago’s claim of infrastructural capability may have gone against the city in the eyes of the Olympic Jury. For example, London, who successfully bid for the Olympics in 2012 (beating out New York), emphasized how the Olympic resources could redress the lack of infrastructure in the site where the Olympics would take place (the traditionally poorer East side), and used that as a selling point in their bid. Barcelona, the go-to example for Olympics planning done right, started their urban renewal of their dilapidated docklands two years before their bid was accepted.

The bottom-line of whether an Olympic Bid is worth it (even without a win) is, ironically, what also makes it more likely to win in the first place: the bid doesn’t need the win.

And so I think my claim – ’tis better to not win than win the Olympics – still holds true (assuming it’s done right, of course). What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

Missed our 3-Part Article on How (Not) to Host the Olympics? Start with Part 1 here.

Cite: Quirk, Vanessa. "Is an Olympic Bid Ever Worth It? What if You Lose?" 17 Apr 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 22 May 2015. <>
  • Alex Gore

    I think it is important to dream big, and if cities are going to spend all this time planning for the Olympics, they should make their plans feasible if the Olympics don’t come.

  • Kevin

    Ultimately, what’s the point of any party? You get some great food and drink, tidy the house, and depending on the type of party, maybe have a game or two. You do it to celebrate and share with friends and, perhaps, to show off a bit. A city and a country are like big families and putting on an Olympics is a big party you invite your friends (and others) to. You hope people have a good time and you hope they like the show you’ve put on. I was very proud of my city (Vancouver) when it had the Winter Olympics. We got some great infrastructure, and things we’re tidied but mainly it made us happy. Your city is your home. You need to put art on the walls, have comfy furniture and throw a party every now and again even if it costs something. I do agree though, that if you bid and lose, maybe drop the velodrome plans but go ahead with all that your city can – you still need the comy furniture.

  • Pingback: Is an Olympic Bid Ever Worth It? What if You Lose? - Collector by DesignRulz

  • ppap If you believe that this isn’t happening everywhere, then you are from another planet.

  • Pingback: Is an Olympic Bid Ever Worth It? What if You Lose? | Nick Socrates Contemporary Art

  • Pingback: Is an Olympic Bid Ever Worth It? What if You Lose? | Nick Socrates Contemporary Art

  • Julian Cheyne

    Lack of infrastructure in the east of London? What lack of infrastructure? Stratford had some of the best transport connections in London, the Olympics brought no new transport infrastructure. The Olympic Park hosted 5,000 jobs for local people. It was not a derelict wasteland as often portrayed but included parks, sports facilities, housing estates, gardens and was criss crossed with waterways, a property developer’s dream – which is the whole point about the Olympics, it is an excuse to grab land under compulsory purchase, at knock down prices, under the guise of creating the Olympic Park. That is why cities like Beijing, Barcelona, London, Rio, Sochi, Seoul, etc like the Olympics. Wake up!

  • Pingback: 'Het beste van een Olympisch bid is het uiteindelijk niet krijgen'