Developers Eye Silver Lining to Brisbane Games Cost Blowout

March 8, 2025—if you haven’t already, mark it down in your calendar.

Without a doubt, the most significant date for Queensland’s property development industry—at least for the next decade.

It’s the day when, finally—let’s hope—the concrete is poured on the planning foundations for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics big build.

Albeit almost four years after the River City winning the right to host the world’s largest multi-sport event.

On that not-too-distant date, the final report of a second independent review—this time ordered by the state’s newly-elected Liberal National Party—is due to be handed down, paving the way forward for the delivery of key venues and infrastructure for the Games.

That’s the plan, anyway.

The smart way forward is simple, according to some prominent Brisbane-based developers. Public-private partnerships.

“If we look at Victoria and see the disaster that state is in with the Covid hangover, the extreme taxation and then walking away from the Commonwealth Games, we’re not that state,” Consolidated Properties Group chief executive Don O’Rorke says.

“We’re Queensland. We can make stuff happen. We’re the growth state in Australia, we should just embrace it … make some decisions and get on with it.”

Certainly, the pressure is on the Games Independent Infrastructure and Co-ordination Authority’s seven-member review board.

No thanks to a false start to the Olympic build preparations under the previous Labor government, which rejected key recommendations from a similar taxpayer-funded Games infrastructure review.

As well, there is the backdrop of a challenging construction landscape and increasing public backlash over skyrocketing costs to stage the event.

▲ The Games experience for Brisbane so far has been torrid, to say the least.

 

Last week, it was alleged a budget analysis had revealed a $3.5-billion funding “black hole” to build four planned athletes’ villages.

But while pointing the finger at its predecessors over the cost blowouts, Queensland’s new conservative political regime is also spruiking the Olympics will bring with it “unmissable opportunities to accelerate development across the state”.

There’s a lot of balls in the air.

Or as former Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk sees it, just one big “political football”.

Chiming into the latest round of Games politicking, she said she was “absolutely shocked” at the state of the Olympics planning, adding: “If I was at the IOC (International Olympic Committee) at the moment, I would be saying, ‘What is going on, Brisbane?’ ”.

Palaszczuk also claims it is “already decided” a new stadium will be built at Victoria Park on the Brisbane CBD’s northern fringe—the preferred option of the original review that her successor Steven Miles rejected along with a proposed rebuild of the city’s iconic Gabba in favour of a revamped Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre.

Property industry veteran Stephen Conry, who chairs the new review board, has remained tightlipped.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt among industry leaders that come March 8 he will table a comprehensive new Games planning blueprint outlining the what, where, why and how in terms of stadiums, other venues, athletes villages, urban infrastructure and legacy outcomes.

The devil, however, will be in the details of its proposed execution.

No matter the best-laid plans, historical data from previous Olympics indicates that one thing is for certain.

There will be cost blowouts—more of them, that is.

▲ The Paris Olympics cost US$9.1 billion, a modest 25 per cent over budget. It was the cheapest games since Sydney 2000, which cost US$8 billion.

 

According to an Oxford University study published last year, the last three summer Games in Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo and Paris cost a combined US$51 billion and overran budgets by 185 per cent in real terms—not including road, rail, airport, hotel, and other infrastructure “which often cost more than the Games themselves”.

“All Games, without exception, have cost overrun,” The Oxford Olympics Study 2024 says.

“For other capital investment types, typically 10 to 60 per cent of investments come in on or under budget.  For the Olympics, it is zero per cent.”

Putting that into further perspective, it adds: “The Olympics have the second highest average cost overrun of any type of megaproject, at 159 per cent in real terms. Only nuclear waste disposal projects have higher overrun at 238 per cent”.

Special mention is given to the “escalating budgets” for Los Angeles 2028 (US$5.3 billion to US$6.8 billion) and Brisbane 2032 (A$4.9 billion to A$7.1 billion).

The study says initial Games budgets are “more like a fictitious minimum that was never sufficient” and in the case of Los Angeles and Brisbane based on “optimistic assumptions” of low future inflation and no further scope changes.

“Overruns follow underestimates as surely as day follows night,” it says.

But it also points out “unlike Los Angeles,  [Brisbane 2032] organisers are still debating venue options and their possible costs…[and] such fundamental uncertainties make it likely Brisbane will see further increases in cost and cost overrun”.

Particularly so, given that there is still more than seven years until the opening ceremony and no end in sight to prevailing economic headwinds, including some very sticky inflation.

But therein, say O’Rorke and other industry leaders, lies the potential opportunity the development sector has been patiently waiting for on the sidelines.

▲ An athletes’ village concept for the Brisbane Olympics: Initial Games budgets are “more like a fictitious minimum that was never sufficient” , the study says.

 

“There is absolutely no doubt that the cost in aggregate for the Games will be more than the $7.1 billion estimated three years ago,” O’Rorke says. “Every single project in Australia is costing much more than it was originally budgeted. So there’s no doubt that it’s going to be more.

“The way forward or the way home, however, is to firstly prioritise the Olympic build ahead of other things so that it gets done. That’s the first thing.

“The second thing is to be really efficient in the way that the build is procured—making sure that things are designed once and designed properly and the best builders with the most available capacity are engaged to do it. Every step of the way has to be best in class.

“And then in terms of the funding—it will cost what it will cost.

“The question is, do we bear the entire cost as taxpayers or, alternatively, do we look at ways of engaging the private sector to assist with the funding?

“If they [the state and federal governments] don’t want to spend beyond the $7.1 billion, then the only way to do that is to bring private sector, institutional grade capital, in … but whether it’s private money or government money, it’ll still require a return.”

Pikos Group chief executive Michelle Wooldridge, who is also vice president of the Property Council’s Queensland division council, agrees.

“If you look at all the super funds and private capital that’s out there at the moment looking to invest into large projects … it’s nonsensical for the government to burden themselves with it 100 per cent.

“The private sector has appetite to play a key role in delivering and funding the Games and its infrastructure but everybody just needs some certainty.”

Wooldridge has spent a big chunk of her career delivering large urban regeneration developments and is familiar with the time as well as complexities of planning and delivering city-shaping projects.

After this review, she says, it’s time some “hard decisions” are made.

▲ Pikos Group chief executive Michelle Wooldridge: The private sector has appetite to play a key role ... but everybody just needs some certainty.

 

“I don’t think we should underestimate what needs to be done,” she says. “We definitely still have time but we’re fast running out of time, too.

“We’re at the point now where we just need to get our skates on…and I think, then, when we’ve got some certainty around all this we’ll see an uptick in business and economic confidence because at the moment everyone is in limbo just waiting for decisions to be made.

“And what we’re starting to miss out on is that opportunity to really leverage the catalytic opportunities that come with where all these Olympic stadiums and villages will be.

“You’ve got various precincts that have been talked about as opportunities and people have got landholdings and they’ll make their moves as to whether they’ll progress development on the back of the decisions that get made out of this 100-day review.”

Wooldridge says that yes, Queensland is “in a hard position because it’s going to be expensive”.

“But at the end of the day we’ve committed to deliver the Olympics and we’ve got to do it well, and make sure we’ve got a legacy that is actually going to drive value for Brisbane once the Games have been and gone.

“Absolutely that has to be driven from public-private partnership…[because] leveraging the private sector obviously will reduce costs in terms of the competitive nature of it and alleviate the pressure on the government’s budget.”

O’Rorke says the most obvious example of how the private sector can be engaged to deliver the infrastructure required for the Olympics is the $550-million Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games athletes village.

It was built in partnership with developer Grocon and the United Arab Emirates-based Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, then subsequently converted into Australia’s first large-scale build-to-rent community.

“And that model would be applicable across really anything that has income attached to it, including stadiums” he says.

Wooldridge says it just makes sense.

“Even build-to-rent is really challenging to get to stack at the moment…so that's where, with a state government commitment on something like an athletes village, will bring that level of confidence and de-risk a component of that project feasibility.

“And we're in a housing crisis, so why would we not be looking at things like that?”

The review board’s initial recommendations are due on February 21, followed by its final report due on March 8.

“We’ve just got to get away from the fact that $7.1 billion estimate is wrong—as is every other estimate that’s been done in the same period,” O’Rorke says.

“We’ve won the right to host the Olympics. We should be really pleased with that intangible. We should be excited about it, and we should be saying it’s going to be great for our city and south-east Queensland, just as it has been great for cities such as Barcelona.

“And we should be confident about our ability to deliver the infrastructure and then run a really good Games in that infrastructure.”

*This post was originally published on https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/articles/brisbane-games-costs-blowout-developers-saviours