What if Detroit had hosted a Summer Olympics?

[Tuckerman]

It would be hard to find someone visiting the United States especially to go at Atlanta.

I would argue that France may be a little peculiar in this regard. My experience, having worked in Paris, Germany and the UK is that each of these countries has a very different orientation to the USA as well as to Atlanta. Because of the heavy concentration of immigrants to the US from the UK and Germany, there is, IMO. a very different knowledge of the cities in the US and their relative importance. For example, Atlanta is the North American headquarters for Porsche, Mercedes Benz, Thyssen, Siemans to name a few major German companies here.

[Tuckerman]

A final note on International tourists to the US. The website https://www.trade.gov/us-states-citi...seas-travelers is very useful as it provides a very clear picture of international travel to American cities. For what it is worth Boston, Houston and Atlanta are quite similar in international visitors (10th, 11th and 12th). But the reality is that the top five cities (NYC, Miami< LA,Orlando and SF) make up around 3/4 of foreign visitors to the US. (in 2023).

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

The costs and benefits of hosting the Olympic games is very complicated as those of us from Atlanta can well attest. A nice analysis is found at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/eco...-olympic-games .

It is also complicated by the fact that in some cases national financial support by the host country is given to the host cities to defray costs and allow for more spectacular opening ceremonies, etc. This is usually not the case for any American city that hosts the event. Therefore the financial burden has to be handled in a more challenging way.

My wife worked for the Atlanta Olympic Committee and we experienced a lot of the challenges and joys of the event. There is not room enough to explore all the dimensions.

Atlanta was a relatively small city at the time and the financial burden was great. Nonetheless, there was some clever planning that left the city with some tangible structures: an extension of a MARTA line to the northern suburbs; a stadium that continues to serve (first as a home for the Braves and now the football stadium for Georgia State University); an aquatic center for Georgia Tech; housing for Georgia Tech; and of course the development of Centennial Olympic Park in downtown.

How much the Olympics contributed to the extraordinary population growth of the Atlanta Metro over the years since 1996 is probably not knowable in any exact way, but there is general speculation that it was part of the fuel for the growth.

Was it worth it? Is it worth it for a city to put such large resources into the support of professional sports? We do it without much questioning for baseball, football, and basketball.

I don't see Olympics affecting the trajectory of most cities. St Louis in 1902 was already a larger city and per Wiki, its best percentage growth decades were already behind it. Montreal continued to decline relative to Toronto and Vancouver for decades after the Olympics. Rio has not gained on Sao Paolo. Atlanta has started growing, but it is a small city in a large metro area, and the metro area's population growth has slowed since the 1990s. I even suspected that Atlanta metro population would become bigger than Houston's based on the explosive nearly 40% growth in the 1990s, but it does not seem that it will exceed Houston anytime soon. Atlanta is growing and will continue to grow because it is an important hub for business in its own right, even with more competition from NC cities and Nashville. Detroit's challenges included being highly dependent on domestic companies US manufacturing.
The preference for international companies to base their operations elsewhere (I hope we don't start talking about unions and the UAW) hastened its challenges with being highly dependent on a single industry. For example, I think Toyota has over 4000 at its DFW North American HQ and I would guess Nissan has at least 1000 in Nashville, and Atlanta has at least 1000 for Mercedes and Porshe, and who knows how many Souther Calif has for Honda, Kia/Hyundia, and NJ has many hundreds for Subaru. And of course, there are thousands of factory workers elsewhere - I believe over 8000 for Toyota in KY alone. I could image that if international energy companies decided not to locate their operations in Houston, Houston would probably be growing a lot slower. Or image if most of the international auto manufacturers based much of their operations in the Detroit area - I think the metro would be a lot bigger and larger parts of the city would have redeveloped and gentrified by now. But I don't want to get into discussions of causes, as it can get political....

[Centropolis]

I think the Olympics had a little boost (or stymied a slowdown) on St. Louis in some ways (as it was still well into double digit percentage growth inside fixed city limits) - it certainly impacted the architecture and development of and around Forest Park and carried pre-world war I urban development past the city limits.

It would be like Austin hosting the Olympics or something and seeing a little boost to speculative real estate development in an already fast growth market (and without knowledge of a long term curve).

Not seeing the Olympics turning around a city, though, at all.

[mrnyc]

well i was in brisbane this winter and although its growing anyway olympics prep is most definitely bumping infrastructural improvements up many levels over what it would be otherwise. i wouldn’t say hosting the olympics is driving those developments like bridges and metro directly, that is, they would be built eventually, but it is driving them to be built much sooner than later. the construction and the olympics will most definitely boost way up brisbane’s current mostly laid back profile.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Atlanta is globally known as a big corporate center and airport crossroads.

I'm not sure that's even true. People may have heard of Atlanta but most people around the world will draw a complete blank. People usually can't name a single city in a given country. Some times they can name 1-2 cities. In huge countries like the US and China, a few more, but Atlanta won't be one of them.

[Nouvellecosse]

Saying something is "globally known" is pretty vague anyway. In the age of globalism with jet travel and the internet, there are people around the world who know about pretty much every place and topic. But the question is, how many people? Is it handful of top experts and academics in a few countries? Is it people who happened to have visited at some point? Is it the top 5% of most educated people? All but the 5% least educated people? Somewhere in between? How many people outside a given country have to know of a place before the term globally known applies?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

A final note on International tourists to the US. The website https://www.trade.gov/us-states-citi...seas-travelers is very useful as it provides a very clear picture of international travel to American cities. For what it is worth Boston, Houston and Atlanta are quite similar in international visitors (10th, 11th and 12th). But the reality is that the top five cities (NYC, Miami< LA,Orlando and SF) make up around 3/4 of foreign visitors to the US. (in 2023).

"Visitors" is extremely different from "tourists by choice." To illustrate, Boston has areas thronged with non-business tourists in ways Houston and Atlanta don't.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I don't see Olympics affecting the trajectory of most cities. St Louis in 1902 was already a larger city and per Wiki, its best percentage growth decades were already behind it. Montreal continued to decline relative to Toronto and Vancouver for decades after the Olympics. Rio has not gained on Sao Paolo. Atlanta has started growing, but it is a small city in a large metro area, and the metro area's population growth has slowed since the 1990s. I even suspected that Atlanta metro population would become bigger than Houston's based on the explosive nearly 40% growth in the 1990s, but it does not seem that it will exceed Houston anytime soon. Atlanta is growing and will continue to grow because it is an important hub for business in its own right, even with more competition from NC cities and Nashville. Detroit's challenges included being highly dependent on domestic companies US manufacturing.
The preference for international companies to base their operations elsewhere (I hope we don't start talking about unions and the UAW) hastened its challenges with being highly dependent on a single industry. For example, I think Toyota has over 4000 at its DFW North American HQ and I would guess Nissan has at least 1000 in Nashville, and Atlanta has at least 1000 for Mercedes and Porshe, and who knows how many Souther Calif has for Honda, Kia/Hyundia, and NJ has many hundreds for Subaru. And of course, there are thousands of factory workers elsewhere - I believe over 8000 for Toyota in KY alone. I could image that if international energy companies decided not to locate their operations in Houston, Houston would probably be growing a lot slower. Or image if most of the international auto manufacturers based much of their operations in the Detroit area - I think the metro would be a lot bigger and larger parts of the city would have redeveloped and gentrified by now. But I don't want to get into discussions of causes, as it can get political....

To me, the cities that benefited the most globally from hosting the Olympics have been Barcelona and Sydney. Barcelona energized its tourism sector as it transitioned out of industry, and Sydney completed the role reversal with Melbourne, becoming Australia's primary global city.

Maybe Beijing counts, signalling China's coming out party on the global stage. But that reason is not necessarily city-centric.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

well i was in brisbane this winter and although its growing anyway olympics prep is most definitely bumping infrastructural improvements up many levels over what it would be otherwise. i wouldn’t say hosting the olympics is driving those developments like bridges and metro directly, that is, they would be built eventually, but it is driving them to be built much sooner than later. the construction and the olympics will most definitely boost way up brisbane’s current mostly laid back profile.

Brisbane will be the Atlanta of Australia. Just like most people around the world never heard of Atlanta until they hosted the Olympics, most people will find out that Brisbane exists when they host.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm not sure that's even true. People may have heard of Atlanta but most people around the world will draw a complete blank. People usually can't name a single city in a given country. Some times they can name 1-2 cities. In huge countries like the US and China, a few more, but Atlanta won't be one of them.

this is entirely anecdotal but i was surprised when i stumbled across the (closed long ago) detroit bar in london and hotel atlanta in amsterdam. in barcelona and madrid there are a few bars/restaurants/etc named after atlanta as well(bar de tapas atlanta in barcelona; atlanta restauración temática and cafeteria atlanta, and atlanta select real estate in madrid)

if i'm bored one day, i will write some scripts to call the google place search API and pass in various american city names in with the locations of major european cities to see what comes back.

[Tuckerman]

This question of city recognition and the proportion of that recognition attributable to hosting the Olympics remains a matter of conjecture. To begin with, very few cities have hosted the Olympics, so the question is really what global recognition has been added by being a host. Obviously London, Paris, Beijing, Los Angeles and Tokyo for example gain no extra global recognition by hosting the Olympics! So the question is: what added global recognition accrues to less famous cities such as Montreal, Melbourne, St. Louis, Atlanta, Helsinki, and Antwerp when they host the Olympics? The reality is that most Summer Olympics have been held in large well known cities. So they gain nothing in fame or recognition.

The question of “tourists” versus international visitors to cities is also a complicated question. International visitors to a city will basically reflect the size of the city and the proportion of the foreign population in that city. These visitors are not necessarily tourists but reflect people visiting friends and family. They may visit “tourist” sites when visiting, but that is not their primary reason for traveling to the particular city. But some cities attract international visitors primarily for “tourist” attractions. One thinks particularly of Orlando and Las Vegas in the USA or a city like Venice in Italy. In addition there are financial centers that attract international visitors. In that sense, a city like Atlanta has a strong Northern European pull, while Miami a South American pull. In short, international recognition of these “secondary” type of metros (e.g. < 10 million) may be very specific to the characteristics of that particular metro. They may well known in Germany and Brazil, and not very well known in France and Australia.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

This question of city recognition and the proportion of that recognition attributable to hosting the Olympics remains a matter of conjecture. To begin with, very few cities have hosted the Olympics, so the question is really what global recognition has been added by being a host. Obviously London, Paris, Beijing, Los Angeles and Tokyo for example gain no extra global recognition by hosting the Olympics! So the question is: what added global recognition accrues to less famous cities such as Montreal, Melbourne, St. Louis, Atlanta, Helsinki, and Antwerp when they host the Olympics? The reality is that most Summer Olympics have been held in large well known cities. So they gain nothing in fame or recognition.

Los Angeles first hosted the Olympics in 1932, and it was still smaller than Detroit at the time. That city almost certainly received a ton of global name recognition just for hosting those games.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Los Angeles first hosted the Olympics in 1932, and it was still smaller than Detroit at the time. That city almost certainly received a ton of global name recognition just for hosting those games.

Funny you should say that, because as the story goes, Billy May Garland, leader of the LAOC in the 1920s as Los Angeles was bidding to host Summer 1932, was asked by an IOC member (and the IOC tends to be Euro-centric), "Is Los Angeles anywhere near Hollywood?" Garland's answer was, jokingly, "Oh yes, Los Angeles is a suburb of Hollywood." I realize in a lot of old movies, in the credits, you'll see "Made in HOLLYWOOD, U.S.A."

Flash forward to the late 1980s, when Atlanta was bidding for Summer '96, as the story goes, an IOC member asked Billy Payne, who led Atlanta's bid, something like "Apart from the boardwalk and casino gambling, what other amenities does Atlanta have?" Apparently, that IOC member was confusing Atlanta with Atlantic City, NJ.

So, maybe the Olympics does give a little global recognition to a host city. At least with the IOC.

[mhays]

"Atlanta" comes from Greek mythology. That might be the source of some naming in other countries.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by cabasse

this is entirely anecdotal but i was surprised when i stumbled across the (closed long ago) detroit bar in london and hotel atlanta in amsterdam. in barcelona and madrid there are a few bars/restaurants/etc named after atlanta as well(bar de tapas atlanta in barcelona; atlanta restauración temática and cafeteria atlanta, and atlanta select real estate in madrid)

if i'm bored one day, i will write some scripts to call the google place search API and pass in various american city names in with the locations of major european cities to see what comes back.

The tapas bar in Barcelona appears to be named after a soccer team that is not Atlanta United of the MLS. I don't think the team its named after has a relation to the city of Atlanta, but I could be wrong. Also not entirely sure that the real estate firm in Madrid is directly named after the city of Atlanta. Cafeteria Atlanta does seem to be named for Atlanta, Georgia. The Coca Cola picture plastered on it seems to be an obvious connection.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Los Angeles first hosted the Olympics in 1932, and it was still smaller than Detroit at the time. That city almost certainly received a ton of global name recognition just for hosting those games.

Maybe, but Hollywood was already world-famous by 1932.

[Minato Ku]

I don't think that the Olympics is what made Los Angeles famous. As written before its Hollywood and its importance in the United States of America.

I don't think that the Olympics Games in Detroit would have prevented the collapse of the automobile industry nor it would have prevented the white flight to the suburbs.

By the 1950s, Detroit was destroying large portion of its urban fabrics for urban renewal and Olympics would not have stopped.
It might even have accelerated the desire to "modernize" the city.

This is the Olympic Village of Rome 1960.
Big empty space, elevated highway, housing blocks, surface parkings. All the modernist trend of the time.

Rome Olympic village by Minato ku, sur Flickr

I don't see what significant Detroit had to offer to become a place that could really thrive on tourism after the Olympics.

A funny though, I think that Detroit is famous and even becoming a worthy place for tourism because of its big decline.
This history with its struggles is what make Detroit interesting and what attract people to this city.

[craigs]

I will also note that while it's true that Los Angeles was less populous than Detroit in 1932, LA was already the 5th most populous city in the nation with 1,238,048 residents as of the 1930 census. For comparison, that same population would have ranked #10 in the 2020 census.

[TempleGuy1000]

I like to imagine an alternate world where Philadelphia got the 1904 Olympics which in turn would have increased it's international profile again, leading to a more successful 1926 Fair, leading to the United Nations being located in Center City like it was intended to be. The ripples in time and it's eventual effects on the political landscape of the US are large. If PA was solidly blue and more liberal because Philadelphia still had 2M people, it probably would have changed a lot of things.

[iheartthed]

The NY Times published another story about excessive tourism in Barcelona. They attribute the explosion in tourism to Barcelona's hosting of the 1992 Summer Games:

In Barcelona, there is a new sense of urgency to solving a problem whose origins there can be largely traced to the 1992 Olympic Games, which introduced legions of travelers to the charms of the city, and transformed its fortunes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/t...barcelona.html