slowguy wrote:
Quote:
I think the IOC should allow consideration to cities that can actually handle the venues with too much more to build and that will be useful to communities afterward.
There is very little use for many of the Olympic venues for communities afterwards. There just isn't lasting interest in velodromes, short white water kayak courses, etc. That's why so many of these cities have Olympic venues that just sit and rot afterwards. That's why picking one place and using the facilities over and over might make more sense.
In general, I think you are right. Maybe not indefinitely, but it would certainly make sense to have them in one place for at least 2 Olympic games, if not 3-4. Over that time scale, between the games themselves and in between wanting to be familiar with the facilities (so they would get used) it would make a lot more sense. So instead of having been an albatross for Greece, it would have actually been an overall economic benefit.
However, back to the corruption and payoff for the IOC, a stable site would eliminate the payoffs/bribes/kickbacks every four years, so yeah, not going to happen.