IO: Paris was supposed to learn from the mistakes of its predecessors. “These are not the Games we were promised”

The beginning of the 1970s. The competition for who will host the Summer Olympics is ongoing. In the middle of the Cold War, it seems that only two cities that represent opposite sides of the political barricade have a chance: Los Angeles and Moscow. However, the third, (more) neutral competitor wins: Montreal becomes the host city of the 1976 Olympics. Moscow receives this honor in 1980, and LA – four years later. Montreal is the first (and so far the only) Canadian city to host the Summer Games.

But the joy does not last long. It quickly turns out that the costs of organizing the event exceed the initial forecasts – by as much as 720 percent. 6.1 billion dollars were spent, and this figure includes only the costs related to organizing the competition (e.g. building stadiums). It does not include expenses for road, rail, airport infrastructure, hotel modernization and other investments incurred as part of the preparations. After the Games, Montreal got into such debt that the city managed to get out of it only 30 years later, in 2006.

Montreal has exceeded its budget by more than any city before or since. And while it could have won the gold medal in this area, it is not the only host city to fall short of its original budget. No city that has hosted the Olympics since the 1960s has done so.

That is why many countries are not eager to host the Games. In the competition for where this year's Olympics will be held, Hamburg, Rome and Budapest withdrew their bids. Paris and Los Angeles remained in the ring (the latter will host the Games again in four years).

Not only did Paris not withdraw, but the city authorities, together with the IOC, announced that the Games would face major changes.

The rulers of the capital France decided to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. In order not to spend money unnecessarily, they focused on existing infrastructure.

About 95 percent of the facilities designated for Olympic use already existed before the city even began bidding to host the Games. Three were built: the Olympic Village (for €1.47 billion), the Aquatics Center (€174 million) and a gymnastics/badminton facility (€137 million).

“That was the most important decision we made: not to build,” Georgina Grenon, director of environmental improvements at the Paris Games, told the Guardian. “The second most important decision was to build these facilities in a low-carbon way,” she added. So they opted for natural materials, such as wood, and the rubble was transported by river.

Paris had an easier task to some extent, because the city has been organizing major sports events for years and many of the necessary facilities were already in place, such as the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, Roland-Garros in Paris and the National Velodrome in Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. However, it did not go without necessary renovations. The renovations of the Stade de France cost almost 70 million euros.

The budget for sports infrastructure and events is 8.7 billion euros. The city exceeded it by 115 percent.

The authorities also focused on the existing public transport network. For comparison, the authorities of Rio de Janeiro (2016 Olympics) invested in extending the metro line that connected the sports facilities with the city centre. This cost almost 3 billion dollars.

This does not mean, however, that Paris did not (nomen omen) sink a lot of money into the Games. The cleaning of the Seine was supposed to cost 1.4 to 1.6 billion euros. An underground retention tank with a capacity of 50,000 cubic meters was built under the Austerlitz Bridge, and the sewage treatment plant was modernized. Just before the Games, the mayor of the city, Anne Hidalgo, swam in the river to show that the water was suitable for use. At the last minute, he withdrew from the “test” Emmanuel Macron. The French president explained that he was too busy.

It seems he made the right decision. In late July, it was revealed that the triathlete competition had to be postponed because of the contamination of the Seine with e-coli bacteria.

The problems of the cities hosting the Olympic Games have not escaped the attention of the International Olympic Committee. One of the negative examples is GreeceAfter the Games, which Athens hosted in 2004, only 68 percent of the facilities are currently in use. As Tania Braga, head of the IOC's Olympic Impact and Legacy Department, pointed out during a press briefing, this is the lowest result among the Summer Games organized since the 1950s.

The IOC authorities hope that the trend will be reversed. The bids of Paris and Los Angeles were praised for their in-depth consideration of how to use what the cities already have, so as not only not to waste money but also not to have an excessive impact on the environment.

“When the IOC prepared the reforms to the Olympic Agenda 2020, our ambition was to make the Games more sustainable, responsible and useful for the host population,” Braga said. “This translates into reducing the carbon footprint and minimizing the negative impact of the Games.”

“Paris has put a lot of work into making this vision a reality,” she added.

Georgina Grenon, responsible for minimizing the impact of the Paris Games on the environment, emphasized in talks with the press that one of the priorities was to change the way future sports and non-sports events are organized. For example, by connecting sports facilities to the electricity grid, instead of relying on combustion engine generators. “During the London Games, four million liters of diesel were burned just to generate electricity,” Grenon said. She added that the Paris games were to show that there is room for change. “The point is that if the Games – which operate on such a huge scale – can operate differently, other sports and cultural events can too.” She cited Paris Fashion Week as an example.

The Olympic Village was also intended to be a model for future organizers of major sports and cultural events. The apartments for the Olympians were prepared in such a way that they would later be suitable for re-occupancy. At least one third is to be used as municipal housing in the suburbs north of Paris. The newly built estate is to be low-emission – there is a mini-centre for water treatment and a sewage treatment plant.

There are, however, voices that Paris has gone a step too far in its pursuit of ecology. An example of this are the cardboard beds in the Olympic Village. They are to be recycled after the Games. Athletes are unlikely to shed tears over them. They are said to be so uncomfortable that it is difficult to sleep on them. Photographers caught Thomas Ceccon, a gold medalist from Italian swimming, sleeping in the park. He is bothered not only by the uncomfortable bed, but also by the temperature – there is no air conditioning in the village.

“I've been to four Olympics and the Parisian village is the worst I've ever seen. I never fall asleep before 2am, it's too hot. We're the heroes of this event, so I don't understand how we can't have air conditioning in our rooms,” commented Gregorio Paltrinieri, another swimmer from the Italian team.

Other athletes also complained about the lack of air-conditioned transportation to sports venues. To help, some federations hired minibuses to transport Olympians from place to place.

Many cities have benefited from the “Games Effect” – Barcelona is often cited as a prime example. Before 1992, the capital of Catalonia was not very well known. The wave of tourists who came for the Games and the investments partly sponsored by the IOC have made it one of the most popular destinations in Europe today.

According to experts, Paris cannot count on such an effect, because the city already had a global brand before the Games. What is more, there are voices that the capital of France may lose out on tourism this year. It seems that some visitors have canceled their trips, fearing crowds at airports, overcrowded hotels and general high prices. Air-France KLM announced a 15% drop in the number of tourists flying into the city compared to last year. Restaurant owners and hoteliers are also complaining about weaker than usual traffic.

This situation is confirmed by the French press. “Regardless of whether they are located near the Olympic venues, the main museums and parks in the Paris region are seeing a drop in visitors. This trend can be explained by a change in the profile of visitors,” writes Thursday's “Le Monde.” And it quotes Sven, a tourist from Swedenwho can't believe his luck – the Louvre was so empty that he managed to take a selfie with the Mona Lisa.

However, the organizers are convinced that Paris will manage to break even, and that the third Games in the city's history – the city previously hosted the Olympics in 1900 and 1924 – is an investment that will pay off in the future.

The expenditure on the Olympic Games in Paris was analyzed by scientists from the University of Oxford. “The Games remain expensive, and their budget continues to be exceeded to a degree that threatens their profitability,” they write. They emphasized that the IOC needs to work on better estimating possible costs so that more cities are willing to decide on such a large undertaking. Considering that Paris has already spent twice as much as it initially planned, the scientists assessed the IOC's actions as right, but still ineffective. “These are not the economical Games we were promised,” they concluded.