[CodeMonkey]

Wait, who ever said those benefits aren't valid for the olympics? Promoting and investing in sport and athletics is much like investing in the arts: it's good for us. Do we really need to 'debate' this? Yeah it's not really been a focus of discussion here. The people here who are pro-games have been arguing mostly from a UT perspective of city investment, revitalization and infrastructure development. This doesn't diminish any of the so-called 'intangible' benefits of hosting.

My point of it was the hypocrisy of it all. It wasn't just UT, it was media outlets that pushed this rhetoric of why we should host and then embrace the Pan Am games, only to turn around and admit that hosting the Pan Am's where really nothing, and its benefits where far and few and as a result why we shouldn't host the Olympics. It's the same event, but with a larger audience, and more countries.

 

[junctionist]

The Pan Am Games leaves a legacy of better sports facilities to increase the athletic opportunities for residents of our region. That isn't an intangible benefit. It means that more youth can take up interesting sports that they otherwise would have no opportunity to try because there were no facilities. It promotes active lifestyles. The end result is a better quality of life that's available to us and our children.

The Olympics will have more benefits but are considerably more expensive. The higher costs change the nature of the discussion. Olympic money could be spent on infrastructure, daycare programs, social housing, government prescription plans or a variety of other public initiatives that would improve our quality of life and economic competitiveness.

 

[salsa]

Don Peat ‏@reporterdonpeat 17m17 minutes ago

John Tory announcement on Sunday? "Mayor Tory will make an announcement at Toronto City Hall's 50th anniversary celebration" #TOpoli

 

[Euphoria]

Only certain kinds of places can pull off an Olympics, and I don't even mean financially. For me, the level of cost overruns isn't how I measure the worth of an Olympics. It's an opportunity to showcase the best that a city and country have on offer in athletics, urban design, healthy living, quality of life. There are only a handful of major cities -- for example, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, Barcelona -- who can live that large. I'm not sure that TO is one of those. It takes balls, over the top confidence and optimism. It's a bit of a Don Quixote flop, but the attempt at heroics is pretty heroic. People here complain about hosting the Olympics as though it's someone else's show. It's up to the city to make it a success. Throwing a successful international competition that benefits other countries doesn't have to be a mutually exclusive goal from achieving the city building dreams most people on this forum share. But I question whether enough people here agree that this is achievable. There's real skepticism, which I think means either we're not ready now and need to wait on it, maybe to 2028, or maybe we'll never be ready, because that longstanding city project has been dropped. Not sure the people buy in. The only way to win this puppy is to be all in with a bid, as unanimous in our support as possible, and design a truly visionary Olympics. I'm not sure that's possible prior to the Tuesday deadline or after it. If there's faint support, the bid will lose, if we even get to a bid. Seems like a shame, because holding the Pan Am's really was a trial run. We used the same tactic as Rio, hosting a Pan Am's prior to bidding for an Olympics. I always secretly hoped I'd see an Olympics and maybe even a World's Fair in Toronto in my lifetime. As far as benefits to infrastructure go, I think they'd be big. I hope a bid goes forth just to see the design proposals. I hope it's bold and attempts one or two major projects (revamped Gardner, subways, tree-lined canals, beautiful mixed use waterfront).

 

[animatronic]

Only certain kinds of places can pull off an Olympics, and I don't even mean financially. For me, the level of cost overruns isn't how I measure the worth of an Olympics. It's an opportunity to showcase the best that a city and country have on offer in athletics, urban design, healthy living, quality of life. There are only a handful of major cities -- for example, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, Barcelona -- who can live that large. I'm not sure that TO is one of those. It takes balls, over the top confidence and optimism. It's a bit of a Don Quixote flop, but the attempt at heroics is pretty heroic. People here complain about hosting the Olympics as though it's someone else's show. It's up to the city to make it a success. Throwing a successful international competition that benefits other countries doesn't have to be a mutually exclusive goal from achieving the city building dreams most people on this forum share. But I question whether enough people here agree that this is achievable. There's real skepticism, which I think means either we're not ready now and need to wait on it, maybe to 2028, or maybe we'll never be ready, because that longstanding city project has been dropped. Not sure the people buy in. The only way to win this puppy is to be all in with a bid, as unanimous in our support as possible, and design a truly visionary Olympics. I'm not sure that's possible prior to the Tuesday deadline or after it. If there's faint support, the bid will lose, if we even get to a bid. Seems like a shame, because holding the Pan Am's really was a trial run. We used the same tactic as Rio, hosting a Pan Am's prior to bidding for an Olympics. I always secretly hoped I'd see an Olympics and maybe even a World's Fair in Toronto in my lifetime. As far as benefits to infrastructure go, I think they'd be big. I hope a bid goes forth just to see the design proposals. I hope it's bold and attempts one or two major projects (revamped Gardner, subways, tree-lined canals, beautiful mixed use waterfront).

The big myth is that the Olympics are about global prestige. They aren't. Even when hosting they are always produced purely for domestic consumption.

 

[Euphoria]

Prestige is a perception, an idea, whether international or domestic. People experience it differently. Some see the Olympics as a prestige brand. Others don't. There are many other descriptors I'd think about before prestigious. But sure, that's part of it.

 

[sixrings]

Mercedes and BMW make unreliable vehicles. Yet real estate agents and Lawyers use them to appear successful. Perception is reality.

 

[pman]

Only certain kinds of places can pull off an Olympics, and I don't even mean financially. For me, the level of cost overruns isn't how I measure the worth of an Olympics. It's an opportunity to showcase the best that a city and country have on offer in athletics, urban design, healthy living, quality of life. There are only a handful of major cities -- for example, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, Barcelona -- who can live that large. I'm not sure that TO is one of those. It takes balls, over the top confidence and optimism. It's a bit of a Don Quixote flop, but the attempt at heroics is pretty heroic. People here complain about hosting the Olympics as though it's someone else's show. It's up to the city to make it a success. Throwing a successful international competition that benefits other countries doesn't have to be a mutually exclusive goal from achieving the city building dreams most people on this forum share. But I question whether enough people here agree that this is achievable. There's real skepticism, which I think means either we're not ready now and need to wait on it, maybe to 2028, or maybe we'll never be ready, because that longstanding city project has been dropped. Not sure the people buy in. The only way to win this puppy is to be all in with a bid, as unanimous in our support as possible, and design a truly visionary Olympics. I'm not sure that's possible prior to the Tuesday deadline or after it. If there's faint support, the bid will lose, if we even get to a bid. Seems like a shame, because holding the Pan Am's really was a trial run. We used the same tactic as Rio, hosting a Pan Am's prior to bidding for an Olympics. I always secretly hoped I'd see an Olympics and maybe even a World's Fair in Toronto in my lifetime. As far as benefits to infrastructure go, I think they'd be big. I hope a bid goes forth just to see the design proposals. I hope it's bold and attempts one or two major projects (revamped Gardner, subways, tree-lined canals, beautiful mixed use waterfront).

Euphoria's post is an honest statement of the pro-Games argument. To support the Games, as he says, you have to forget about a calculation of costs and benefits, and ignore the likelihood of cost overruns. The Games can only be justified by the sheer heroism of the attempt and the opportunity to have the world notice Toronto for two or three weeks.

Euphoria also makes a valid point for Games opponents: if Tory unilaterally decides to submit a letter of interest, we ought to be able to ensure Toronto will lose by mobilizing a noisy no-Games campaign. Even if support is only faint, a bid from a democratic country will lose. When I say lose, I mean of course avoid a catastrophic mistake, even by Toronto standards.

 

[Tewder]

The big myth is that the Olympics are about global prestige. They aren't. Even when hosting they are always produced purely for domestic consumption.

Oh come on, this is a ridiculous statement. I can respect being against the games for financial reasons but to claim there is no prestige to an Olympics is blatant posturing. For starters, international ratings would suggest otherwise, averaging between 3 to 4billion viewers for summer games: http://www.statista.com/statistics/287966/olympic-games-tv-viewership-worldwide/ Last time I checked Canada's domestic market wasn't this high, where even the biggest national televised events such as a Stanley Cup will only draw a little over 2 million viewers.

No, the olympics are historic events, cultural ones as well as athletic ones. The final gold medal hockey game in Vancouver was watched by 16million Canadians. It is a shared collective historic moment for the nation, and one of the rare ones that is resoundingly positive and unifying... and this phenomenon isn't unique to Canada and Canadians. To suggest otherwise is to be blinded by one's agenda.

... all this said, i'm still not suggesting any of this is why we should or shouldn't seek to host. As a long term UT member my interests revolve around city development and investments in revitalization and infrastructure. I view the Olympics as a massive opportunity on these issues, one with flaws and costs but a massive net opportunity nonetheless.

My point of it was the hypocrisy of it all. It wasn't just UT, it was media outlets that pushed this rhetoric of why we should host and then embrace the Pan Am games, only to turn around and admit that hosting the Pan Am's where really nothing, and its benefits where far and few and as a result why we shouldn't host the Olympics. It's the same event, but with a larger audience, and more countries.

I don't know that it's hypocrisy per se. On the one hand it's the fickle media age we live in, on the other hand it's about subjective personal perspective (for or against). I only hope public policy is driven by wider and more long term strategy.

Euphoria also makes a valid point for Games opponents: if Tory unilaterally decides to submit a letter of interest, we ought to be able to ensure Toronto will lose by mobilizing a noisy no-Games campaign. Even if support is only faint, a bid from a democratic country will lose. When I say lose, I mean of course avoid a catastrophic mistake, even by Toronto standards.

'Catastrophic'? Hyperbole much?

In short, you are advocating for tyranny of the minority, otherwise known as 'tail wagging the dog'-type public policy. It's about taking advantage of an apathetic population to see who can manipulate politicians the most to their niche cause. Nice. Isn't this in a nutshell everything that is wrong with policy in Toronto? That you advocate for more of this is rather telling.

For the rational among us Tory has promised a vote in council once the bigger picture is understood... and he is reacting to the fact that the vast majority of people in the city want the games. I just don't see how this is anti-democratic, 'sour grapes' more like it.

 

[animatronic]

Oh come on, this is a ridiculous statement. I can respect being against the games for financial reasons but to claim there is no prestige to an Olympics is blatant posturing. For starters, international ratings would suggest otherwise, averaging between 3 to 4billion viewers for summer games: http://www.statista.com/statistics/287966/olympic-games-tv-viewership-worldwide/ Last time I checked Canada's domestic market wasn't this high, where even the biggest national televised events such as a Stanley Cup will only draw a little over 2 million viewers.

No, the olympics are historic events, cultural ones as well as athletic ones. The final gold medal hockey game in Vancouver was watched by 16million Canadians. It is a shared collective historic moment for the nation, and one of the rare ones that is resoundingly positive and unifying... and this phenomenon isn't unique to Canada and Canadians. To suggest otherwise is to be blinded by one's agenda.

Thank you for so eloquently proving my point! Sure there are billions watching, but with few exceptions the Canadians are watching Canadian athletes, the Dutch are watching Dutch athletes etc... Nobody other than us cares that we are the defending Olympic trampoline champions. Nobody other than us cares that we just won bronze in the men's 4x100 (quick - who came 2nd?). Hosting is the same. Vancouver was this big national pride thing, but for the rest of the world it was just a backdrop for their athletes. The Olympics exist purely for each country's domestic consumption.

It's as if the Olympics are billed as the world's largest orgy, but in reality it's just a room full of people jerking off.

 

[Euphoria]

While I think your last paragraph is hilarious, animatronic, a lot of creativity and hard work go into bidding for and hosting an Olympics. It's a big ambition, and should be. Who wants to do a lousy job?

 

[animatronic]

Metroman - care to update your bid prediction?

 

[animatronic]

So the sign announcement was clearly timed to remind everyone about the Pan am games ahead of the bid announcement.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

The Pan Am Games leaves a legacy of better sports facilities to increase the athletic opportunities for residents of our region. That isn't an intangible benefit. It means that more youth can take up interesting sports that they otherwise would have no opportunity to try because there were no facilities. It promotes active lifestyles. The end result is a better quality of life that's available to us and our children.

The Olympics will have more benefits but are considerably more expensive. The higher costs change the nature of the discussion. Olympic money could be spent on infrastructure, daycare programs, social housing, government prescription plans or a variety of other public initiatives that would improve our quality of life and economic competitiveness.

Which sports benefitted from new facilities? Be specific, please. And don't say 'round & round cycling', which no kid does. Diving? Really?

 

[diminutive]

The Pan Am Games leaves a legacy of better sports facilities to increase the athletic opportunities for residents of our region. That isn't an intangible benefit. It means that more youth can take up interesting sports that they otherwise would have no opportunity to try because there were no facilities. It promotes active lifestyles. The end result is a better quality of life that's available to us and our children.

This is never true. Facilities are almost never the bottleneck on sports development. The 'legacy' of mega events, if anything, is to divert funding stable athletics funding towards splashy stadiums. That's the big difference between, say, Canada and Australia.

In so far as facilities are an issue, they're even more rarely an issue in terms of 'Olympic-class' facilities. The pool of athletes that actually need those facilities is so small that there's almost never a capacity shortage. Arguably there is a shortage of 'recreational' facilities that foster athletic development in a broader part of the population. But that kinda development gets directly poached by mega events. It makes no sense that Toronto cries poor to build an 85,000,000$ community hockey rink in the Portlands but can scrounge together three times that for a 6,000 seat aquatics facility in Scarborough.

PS: IF Toronto got 2024 and had to build a new aquatic centre (which seems likely) the situation would be completely ridiculous. The City of Toronto would have 4-5 Olympic pools. The United Kingdom, a country of 65 million people, only has 10 such pools. We simply don't need that many pools!