> but for the 2000 Olympics (Sydney) they basically renewed this giant landfill site.

Why would you need the Olympics to have land repurposed. They were waiting for a good excuse? No need to have big expensive party if you could have done that in any other context. But then again you'd need to whole country to accept paying for making new apartments just in Sydney.

I remember a report on how Sydney was the only Olympics for a while that was net positive.

Paris might also be, as they have very little new infra to build.

That's not correct. Sydney lost money, and Atlanta (4 years prior) made money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

I am a bit split. If I’m reading it correctly, Wiki’s source is a journal’s comparing their simulation of what Sydney’s economy would have been without the Olympics, and the numbers published officially, with a twist on additional costs they think should be added to the official estimates.

> We simulated the behaviour of industries, households and government resulting from hosting the Games for each of eight Australian regions over the years from 1997 to 2005. Our results revealed that rather than producing an economic benefit the Sydney Games actually reduced Australian household consumption by $2.1 billion.

For comparison there are later reviews of the economics of the town with the 6 years after Olympics, with less simulation apparently, which come to a different conclusion https://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/10360

I honestly don’t know which one is more trustworthy