Jonny5
Senior Member
Usually the argument given for the tangible benefits of hosting the Olympics is that it will help develop undeveloped areas by bringing in money. Suggesting that we need to leave an area fallow for a possible Olympic bid is exactly backwards. If we already have the money to develop the Portlands, why should we care that the area can't be used for the Olympics?
You are misinterpreting my statement. I do not suggest it be left as is, or that it is even imperative to host the Olympics at all.
I am just curious as to the impact of losing an integral part of the city's past Olympic visions and what the plans would be moving forward. At some point someone will champion a bid again and I want to know how it will work.
EDIT: Perhaps it is better asked in the Olympic thread.
Last edited: