TOareaFan
Superstar
I see Paul Henderson (the Olympian and not the hockey great) has some comments on the costs of the Pan Am games.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/02/henderson-letter-outlines-skyrocketing-pan-am-games-costs
I agree that:
1) existing venues should be used instead of building new ones.
2) the same venue can be used twice since most events do not last the entire duration of the games,
3) temporary facilities are preferred to white-elephants,
4) it should be scheduled when most top athletes will attend.
I am not sure that combining the Pan Am and Pan Para Games would save money. Is it easier to manage a giant games or a large games followed by a small games?
In general, the public tends to be a bit "schizophrenic" on this sort of topic.
If you produce bare bones games (following the Winnipeg Pan Am model and the Victoria Commnwealth games) the criticism is "that was pointless, all that trouble, no impact and no legacy and we end up with 2nd rate games that should be held in smaller cities (like Victoria and Winnipeg...no disrespect)".
If you spend money and try and make the games big and have them leave behind a legacy of infrastructure (eg Rio Pan Am games...which built Olympic calibre facilities and, guess what, got awarded the Olympics) the public cries foul over the amount of money spent and throws around terms like "whie elephants".
My bigggest criticism of our Pan Am games is that we sit here 3 and a bit years from the event and it is not clear to me what kind of games they are planning for and where the events will be. If we end up making the decision too late, the decision will be made for them and the lack of time could lead to the worst sort of compromise......low impact games/facilities built/prepared in a rush thus costing us as if we planned the big type event.
I do think that the concepts of using venues for more than one event and hosting the Pan and Pan Para games at the same time are mutually exclusive....you can do one of those things but not both.