|
Originally Posted by Toronto Star
Long-term impact of Olympic Games? Not much
Three-time Olympian studies event's effect on house prices, finds no evidence of boom – or bust
January 26, 2010
EMILY MATHIEU
Nothing brings a flood of people and quick cash into a city like the Olympic Games. But what remains after the last medal has been given out and the flame is extinguished?
Not much, according to a new study.
"There has been a lot of public ambivalence regarding the Games, especially about what the impact will be," said Jake Wetzel, co-author of, Hunting for the Olympics Bounce: Any Evidence in Real Estate?
Wetzel, 33, is a doctoral student in finance and urban land economics with the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia. He's better known as a three-time Olympian who won gold for Canada with an eight-man rowing team at the 2008 Beijing Games.
Why focus on real estate? Despite billion-dollar price tags, the Olympics are "too small relative to the national economy to be picked up in broad national indicators," like total employment, GDP or the stock market, according to the study, to be released Tuesday.
"If the Games were to have a lasting increase on housing it would show up first in rising employment and income and an increase in migration in the host city," said Wetzel.
There is, he said, "no evidence of that." There is also no evidence of a "bust," or decline in housing prices following the Games, he said.
Wetzel and co-author Tsur Somerville, director of the UBC Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate, studied housing markets leading up to, during and after the 1996 Summer Games in Atlanta, the 1984 Games in Los Angeles, the 2000 Sydney Games and the Winter Olympics in Calgary (1988), Salt Lake City (2002) and Vancouver.
They also used quarterly data for 300 metropolitan areas in the U.S., nine major cities in Canada and eight state capitals in Australia. The study showed pre-Games construction employment was up 1.7 per cent in Australia and 4.3 per cent in Canada. The U.S. rose 3.9 per cent leading up to the Games and maintained 2.9 per cent growth for the six years afterwards.
Australia had a 0.7 per cent increase in prices when the Games were announced, but the study showed that matched the growth in cities not hosting Olympics.
Wetzel wants to avoid measuring the Games strictly on a monetary level. "I think the intangible benefits are enormous ... having the opportunity to shore up our sports system and create more opportunities for young athletes has a huge impact, but it is not one that is easily quantified."
Dr. Robert Barney, founding director for the International Centre For Olympic Studies at the University of Western Ontario, said some investments can be a detriment. "The world's cities who have hosted the Games, they are dotted with big grandiose world structures that sit there," he said. But the Games can result in improved infrastructure, public transportation and telecommunications. Not to mention the potential for domestic and foreign investment.
"You get your name out there and all the attributes your city has to a world-wide audience," said Barney. "You never know what that can translate into politically and economically."
Source:Toronto Star
|
Prev
heheh. that said, if pushed, i'd grant burnaby and richmond, toss in the city of north van and the endowment lands, giving us a cool 1.1 million. but if you go that way, i'm pretty sure torino and its environs would still win it.
but you would probably add Richmond and North Van into the mix because they are hosting events as well 
See Salt Lake City 2002 versus the absence of any at Torino 2006.
? It's not like it was behind schedule.
Linear Mode
