TOareaFan
Superstar
What you get out of the games (any games) is relative to what you put into them.
My guess is that Winnipeg knew, both times, that they would still be Winnipeg after the games so they invested modestly/conservatively. Rio, on the other hand, had Olympic aspirations and invested in over the top (relative to Pan Ams) and took the gamble that they would land the Olympics.....it worked but it could backfire.
Victoria took a "Winnipeg" type approach to the Commonwealth Games and built, mostly, temporary facilities and hosted nice games but with little legacy. Compare that to Edmonton who have Canada's largest outdoor stadium (30 years over) left over after their experience with the same games.
There are tons of examples of, both, modestly hosted games and more extravgently.....there is no set one way to do any of these things.
My guess is that Winnipeg knew, both times, that they would still be Winnipeg after the games so they invested modestly/conservatively. Rio, on the other hand, had Olympic aspirations and invested in over the top (relative to Pan Ams) and took the gamble that they would land the Olympics.....it worked but it could backfire.
Victoria took a "Winnipeg" type approach to the Commonwealth Games and built, mostly, temporary facilities and hosted nice games but with little legacy. Compare that to Edmonton who have Canada's largest outdoor stadium (30 years over) left over after their experience with the same games.
There are tons of examples of, both, modestly hosted games and more extravgently.....there is no set one way to do any of these things.