Lots of stories in the media lately about 2 years from yesterday being the opening day of the never ending real estate party that is a bunch of athletes contesting to determine who is the best amateur at your winter sport unless you play hockey in which case you get paid and the IOC doesn't care... anyway, you get my drift.
Before I go on, for the record, I like the Olympic$, I'm glad Vancouver won the bid, hindsight being 20/20 I still wouldn't change my mind. Yes, I see the health care before Olympic$ campaign material, but I'm an athlete, and I've also used way more than my fair share of publicly funded health care in my short 30 odd years and I'll likely use more than my fair share in the future. So I get it, I do. But I still think that people get inspired by athletic performances to get off their butts and participate in sports, thus, hopefully, leading to less chronic illnesses that are preventable by exercise. So disclaimer made, I like the Olympic$, glad they'll be in Vancouver.
So think about it. What if all those millions of people who will come to see the games and the half of those millions who are expected to buy a property or four when they are here, get disappointed by the fact that it doesn't snow in Vancouver often, it actually rains, almost the whole two weeks the games are on, and it's so warm up high on Whistler and Cypress, that the moguls and ski jumps start melting thus making the games rather dull and so they don't buy a house or four? Not even a condo? Why does this whole argument hold the traction that it does? Would an Australian trade sunny skies for winter grey? Will a Norwegianer trade a quaint fishing village for an endless stretch of concrete gridlock?
I don't understand why anyone thinks the Olympic$ will boost RE prices higher. If someone out there could point to any other host city where there wasn't a significant decline in RE property prices within 6-12 months of the games ending, I'd sure appreciate it. I can't seem to find one myself.