>The bid contains nothing in the way of improved infrastructure, relying instead on public transportation projects already in the works. But LA 2028 faces challenges.
And they're planning on reusing buildings.
>Local organizers plan to use existing venues such as Staples Center, Pauley Pavilion and the Rose Bowl. Only a few temporary facilities will be needed at relatively little cost.
And they don't know what they're spending the money on.
>Organizers have been talking with City Council members about where to spend the money and are expected to present a plan next fall.
But that was a rare exception, as far as I can tell. Most Olympic cities appear to have that kind of effect as a goal and fall short. I read a proposal a while back that the summer Olympics just get permanently moved to Greece and that sounds like a great idea to me.
Atlanta also used its Olympics to modernize the city, and much of that infrastructure still remains.
Surprisingly, LA in the past did not use the Olympics to modernize the city. Its bids were submitted on the basis of largely not building anything for the Games, because every time LA's bid on the Olympics, the Games have been out of favor due to the enormous costs of hosting. (For the 1932 games, LA was unopposed.) LA's success in hosting profitable Olympics without much building is, quite ironically, one of the biggest factors in other cities thinking that they could also host the Games.
LA, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Vancouver, Calgary, London, Beijing, etc. all did quite well with the olympics in the past.
Los Angeles of all cities (based on history) has a good chance of running a profitable Olympics.