10 Years After Rio Olympics: The Persistence of Structural Disinvestment in Rio’s Majority Working-Class Suburbs [OPINION]

Ten years after the 2016 Rio Olympics, a profound structural inequity persists in the city's majority working-class suburbs. This article, part of a series examining the lasting impacts of mega-events on Rio de Janeiro, delves into the unequal distribution of investment and neglect that has left these areas behind. When the author first reported on the loss of a recreational area in Ramos, a formal working-class neighborhood in Rio's North Zone, they believed they were unveiling a single incident.

However, this investigation evolved into a broader exploration of the exclusion of these communities from the city's Olympic legacy.

During the Games, the author hosted journalists from around the world, who sought to uncover a side of Rio beyond the usual tourist attractions. These journalists discovered a vibrant, diverse city with working-class neighborhoods that had developed along the railway, complete with bustling local businesses, century-old clubs, hospitals, universities, schools, churches, train stations, and former industrial areas.

Yet, despite the existence of this vibrant urban life, these neighborhoods remained invisible to most international observers.

The author's own experience of witnessing the destruction of public recreational areas, such as Professor Mourão Filho Square, in Ramos, fueled their investigation. They found that while other regions received sustained public investment, this part of the city aged without drawing similar attention from political or media circles.

The author's belief that neglect was merely the result of inadequate municipal administration evolved into a deeper understanding of the underlying logic that guided the planning of the Olympic Games.

This logic resulted in working-class neighborhoods in Rio's subúrbios, such as Ramos, Bonsucesso, Olaria, and Penha, being virtually absent from the official narrative of the Olympic legacy. These areas experienced the impacts of construction projects and urban interventions but were rarely mentioned among the areas set to receive lasting benefits. As a result, the author concluded that these neighborhoods faced a slow, almost silent process of neglect that coincided with their invisibility.