Opinion / Nic Monisse
Go for gold
In recent years, commentators and community groups in potential Olympic Games host cities have successfully lobbied against holding the event. Citizen activism in Boston and Berlin, for instance, defeated both cities’ plans to stage the world’s biggest sports tournament. Such scepticism about the costs and benefits of hosting means that Queenslanders are now preparing for a fight after the International Olympic Committee selected Brisbane as its “preferred partner” for the 2032 Games.
But the naysayers' often cost-driven criticisms shouldn’t be bought into. Sure, some cities have botched it over the years – Athens and Rio both spent significant sums building white elephants – but many have been left in better shape. Take Seoul, where the Han River got a major clean-up in 1988, and Vancouver, which since 2010 has a transit line that connects downtown, its airport, and a host of neighbourhoods in between. The formula for success is straightforward enough: focus on improving infrastructure that needs a fix and fast track what’s already planned, rather than building anew. Brisbane is already tapping into this approach: almost all sports will take place in existing venues in the city and in nearby regions including Carrara Stadium on the Gold Coast (pictured). The state government claims that 80 per cent of venues are already built. The funding will instead focus on planned infrastructure projects – including, finally, the city’s metro.
From an Australian’s perspective (albeit one from Perth, where parochial attitudes mean that hosting even the Commonwealth Games would be ambitious), having the Olympics at home would be great to see. And perhaps Brisbane could transform its reputation as a big tropical country town into a global force, or at least a city with global-standard infrastructure. For pessimists who complain that the Olympics are expensive: so are the big infrastructure spends that can make a city better. Pegging these to the games is a surefire way to fast-track them.