[Tewder]

To begin with, the post you were referring to by picard102 clearly stated "on the whole,

What does 'on the whole' mean? It means exactly what I've been saying, that some games were good for host cities and some were less good. Blanket statements of their having no impact/benefits to host city are pointless to any discussion about Toronto.

The rest of your post continues the strategy of saturating with cherry-picked blurbs, it does not offer the unanimous 'peer reviewed' consensus that you and Animatronic insist exists.

It seems to beggar credibility that anybody would expect a long-run tourism impact. Has anyone here based a trip to Beijing, Athens, Sydney, Barcelona, Atlanta or Seoul on their recent history of hosting an Olympic games? Tourism resources very rarely make note of Olympic histories.

You do understand that Barcelona was nigh on an industrial wasteland with zero tourism to speak of until they were awarded the olympic games, right? You do understand that the investment in their games was the catalyst that made Barcelona one of the most important tourist centres in Europe, right? Do I really have to document this for you? Can we move on to a deeper level of debate? If not, I'm out.

2. There is absolutely no discussion about how the ten billion or so (sorry twenty billion) investment will create a long-term, sustainable competitive advantage for Toronto. Or about alternative uses for the money. One possibility would be to follow former NYC Mayor Bloomberg's lead and create a new STEM university in the city, in partnership with one or two leading global universities.

Can we end this fallacy now that if we don't have the olympics we will still get the infrastructure/revitalization injection spending? Can we stop repeating the lie that this is an 'either/or' situation?? No games, no funds. No games, no funds. No games, no funds..... please repeat over and over and over.

3. The notion that our political process is so broken that we can only build needed transit and reacreational infrastructure under the threat of a major world event is disturbing. It's probably true, considering the calibre of the politicians we elect, but it is sad. In any event, Council would probably use the Olympics to fund the stuff they advocate, like subways for folks in super low density areas. There's absolutely no reason to believe the Olympic Fairy would wave her wand and make a suburban-dominated Council allocate associated transit investment to projects supported by hard data and good planning.

Events in the middle east are disturbing too. Unfortunately we have to deal with less than perfect realities in order to affect change and improvements. You can sit around dreaming for an end to political statement on Toronto's infrastructure file but you'll be dead and buried before you ever sit on a DRL.

 

[animatronic]

Can we end this fallacy now that if we don't have the olympics we will still get the infrastructure/revitalization injection spending? Can we stop repeating the lie that this is an 'either/or' situation?? No games, no funds. No games, no funds. No games, no funds..... please repeat over and over and over.

While you are correct that infrastructure spending is too often driven by artificial pressures (hello Cold War), you are seriously overestimating the role of sports in the process.

Examples abound of major spending not tied to one-off events. Madrid lost a few Olympic bids but went ahead and built the infrastructure anyways - because it needed to be done. LA residents voted in favour of a tax increase to build transit - because it needed to be done. Somehow Toronto managed to build almost 70km of subway lines (with another 30km under construction) without needing sports to justify construction. And this may blow your mind, but the most important infrastructure project in Canadian history - the Canadian Pacific Railway - was built before the Olympics even existed.

It's also pretty silly to pretend that the Olympics create infrastructure money out of thin air. It's not like there's a big jar of gold coins in the Mint with a sign saying "Break jar in case of Olympics". The federal government spent about $5.5B/year on provincial/municipal infrastructure and Ontario spends about $10.7B. If we win the Olympics the feds will still spend about $5.5B and Ontario will still spend about $10.7B - but funding will be diverted from other national and provincial priorities that may be more urgent. In fact, we will likely end up behind because someone needs to cover the operating losses, and because we will need to service the debt if any incremental funding is created.

So no, it's not a truism that we need an Olympics to drive spending. We just need politicians with spines and an educated public. And if that fails we can always promise to throw in some nice fireworks off the CN Tower.

 

[picard102]

What does 'on the whole' mean? It means exactly what I've been saying, that some games were good for host cities and some were less good. Blanket statements of their having no impact/benefits to host city are pointless to any discussion about Toronto.

If you can't figure out what it means, then you should step out. The vast majority of Olympic host cities have short term tourism bumps, but no lasting long term effects. Often, tourism flatlines during the games as non games visitors otherwise avoid the city.

Can we end this fallacy now that if we don't have the olympics we will still get the infrastructure/revitalization injection spending? Can we stop repeating the lie that this is an 'either/or' situation?? No games, no funds. No games, no funds. No games, no funds..... please repeat over and over and over.

The government gives the city funds currently. Certainly not billions, but then I'd rather the government didn't throw away billions of dollars just to speed up projects so some idiot could see them in their lifetime.

 

[Tewder]

While you are correct that infrastructure spending is too often driven by artificial pressures (hello Cold War), you are seriously overestimating the role of sports in the process. Examples abound of major spending not tied to one-off events. Madrid lost a few Olympic bids but went ahead and built the infrastructure anyways - because it needed to be done.

"The Impact of the Olympic Games on Tourism. Barcelona: The Legacy of the Games, 1992-2002"
http://ceo.uab.cat/2010/docs/wp083_eng.pdf

Somehow Toronto managed to build almost 70km of subway lines (with another 30km under construction) without needing sports to justify construction. And this may blow your mind, but the most important infrastructure project in Canadian history - the Canadian Pacific Railway - was built before the Olympics even existed.

I believe the pyramids were built before the olympics too right? I mean if we're going to keep the talking points relevant...

The olympics ensure a firm commitment and timeline for infrastructure/revitalization spending... and there's no guess work needed to understand where we will be without such a catalyst - no need for a 'blown mind' - because in the absence of olympic funding the scale/scope/nature of these investments will remain.... wait for it, wait for it.... the same as they always have, which is to say long, slow, inadequate, cobbled-together, incremental improvements, vulnerable to political stalemate, changing administrations and myopic self-interested leaders - a scenario that is the exact opposite of what is needed to implement major projects that take generations to complete.

It's also pretty silly to pretend that the Olympics create infrastructure money out of thin air

A moot point. It's already been established that the opportunity cost of an injection of funding for Toronto is spread across higher jurisdictions. This is how major works get funded, by the way. Nothing new. What is new would be Toronto getting a prioritized slice of it for a change.

So no, it's not a truism that we need an Olympics to drive spending. We just need politicians with spines and an educated public. And if that fails we can always promise to throw in some nice fireworks off the CN Tower.

We need a catalyst that will break political gridlock. The olympics just happens to be one possibility, there are probably better ones (the long-awaited arrival of a political messiah who unites all of the city with one vision and successfully lobbies it to the province and feds for massive long term funding commitments) and worse ones (we could name me supreme emperor and let me demand grands projets in a 'l'état c'est moi' kind of way. Unfortunately, in democratic nations the options are fewer and fewer these days.

If you can't figure out what it means, then you should step out. The vast majority of Olympic host cities have short term tourism bumps, but no lasting long term effects. Often, tourism flatlines during the games as non games visitors otherwise avoid the city.

Here's some reading material for you, don't forget to sound out the words...

"The Impact of the Olympic Games on Tourism. Barcelona: The Legacy of the Games, 1992-2002"
http://ceo.uab.cat/2010/docs/wp083_eng.pdf

The government gives the city funds currently. Certainly not billions, but then I'd rather the government didn't throw away billions of dollars just to speed up projects so some idiot could see them in their lifetime.

So Picard feels everything is hunky dory as is. Ok noted. Next.

 

[animatronic]

"The Impact of the Olympic Games on Tourism. Barcelona: The Legacy of the Games, 1992-2002"
http://ceo.uab.cat/2010/docs/wp083_eng.pdf.

The problem with obsessing over Barcelona is it's pretty much the exception that proves the rule - and it was the product of a very specific set of circumstances. The Olympics were a catalyst to help it escape from decades of indifference under a fascist regime. When you have a city with "good bones" (e.g., functioning transit, warm climate, a port on the Mediterranean Sea) starting from essentially zero it's easy to demonstrate a positive impact.

Toronto is not Barcelona. In 1990 (before the games), Barcelona had 3.8 million overnight stays, and in a decade they doubled it to 7.7m (from your cited paper). Toronto, meanwhile, had 13.7 million overnight stays in 2013. Do you really expect we're going to double that to 27 million overnights as a result of the Olympics? That would put us at the same level as Rome. Even if we assumed that occupancy rates would improve from 69% to 75%-85% (the high end is New York's standard) that would still require us to fill year-round another 20-40 Hilton-sized hotels in the city. Do you think that's realistic?

 

[TOareaFan]

The problem with obsessing over Barcelona is it's pretty much the exception that proves the rule - and it was the product of a very specific set of circumstances. The Olympics were a catalyst to help it escape from decades of indifference under a fascist regime. When you have a city with "good bones" (e.g., functioning transit, warm climate, a port on the Mediterranean Sea) starting from essentially zero it's easy to demonstrate a positive impact.

Toronto is not Barcelona. In 1990 (before the games), Barcelona had 3.8 million overnight stays, and in a decade they doubled it to 7.7m (from your cited paper). Toronto, meanwhile, had 13.7 million overnight stays in 2013. Do you really expect we're going to double that to 27 million overnights as a result of the Olympics? That would put us at the same level as Rome. Even if we assumed that occupancy rates would improve from 69% to 75%-85% (the high end is New York's standard) that would still require us to fill year-round another 20-40 Hilton-sized hotels in the city. Do you think that's realistic?

you're confusing me....why would "success" in Toronto (from a tourism point of view) be measured as getting 13.7 million new visitors while in Barcelona it was successful but only got 3.8 million new visitors?

 

[animatronic]

you're confusing me....why would "success" in Toronto (from a tourism point of view) be measured as getting 13.7 million new visitors while in Barcelona it was successful but only got 3.8 million new visitors?

Because the Olympics are supposed to be about transformational change. We're probably going to add a few million visitors over the next decade organically - so why spend $20B to get what will happen anyways. If the Olympics are supposed to be worth the cost then we need to far exceed the growth that would otherwise occur.

 

[yin_yang]

no more growth. toronto is busy enough as it is. i will bet anyone $500 we won't get the olympics anyhow. it would require some serious bribing.

 

[Lenser]

Whether or not this town gets the Olympics, its population swells by, what, a hundred thousand each year? So "no more growth" is not an option.

 

[Tewder]

The problem with obsessing over Barcelona is it's pretty much the exception that proves the rule - and it was the product of a very specific set of circumstances.

It's not the exception you claim it is. Regardless, every host city has specific circumstances, which has been my point all along. Blanket statements like olympics = bad or olympics = good aren't very constructive. We should be looking at Toronto's specific context to determine whether we could capitalize on a games or not, which if we are realistic about it will mean:

1. looking for a net benefit, not perfection according to any possible metric.

2. Identifying clear objectives, i.e. jump-starting infrastructure gridlock by fast-tracking funding and construction in the city and region.... or promoting brand recognition for Toronto tourism over a ten year period (5 years pre-games, during the games, and five years post games)... and so on.

The Olympics were a catalyst to help it escape from decades of indifference under a fascist regime. When you have a city with "good bones" (e.g., functioning transit, warm climate, a port on the Mediterranean Sea) starting from essentially zero it's easy to demonstrate a positive impact.

The games were identified for the opportunity that they are, the catalyst they used to achieve their objectives. Different host cities have differing objectives. We should be looking at possible objectives for Toronto.

Toronto is not Barcelona. In 1990 (before the games), Barcelona had 3.8 million overnight stays, and in a decade they doubled it to 7.7m (from your cited paper). Toronto, meanwhile, had 13.7 million overnight stays in 2013. Do you really expect we're going to double that to 27 million overnights as a result of the Olympics? That would put us at the same level as Rome. Even if we assumed that occupancy rates would improve from 69% to 75%-85% (the high end is New York's standard) that would still require us to fill year-round another 20-40 Hilton-sized hotels in the city. Do you think that's realistic?

London went from the position of number two most visited city before the games to number one after the games. This is the opposite of massive Barcelona-like growth, which according to your assessment/Barcelona litmus test would imply some sort of failure. The real success for London though is in fact this very marginal growth, the maintaining of position in an increasingly crowded global tourist market - In fact you could argue that no growth/no loss would still be significantly successful in this context...

Like Barcelona London has successfully identified that it takes the catalyst of mass investment to achieve or maintain growth, and it has done this through ongoing promotional campaigns/branding from the 'Cool Britannia' movement of the mid-nineties through to the granddaddy of the 2012 Olympics. Let's not forget that a damaged post-war Britain was not that different an analogue to Barcelona; Britain's 'bones' didn't look all that good from the vantage of 1980s/1990s either!

... but why not look at Toronto's growth potential for tourism? You've identified significant overnight stays perhaps but how many of these are truly for the purposes of tourism, motivated for no other reason but to visit Toronto? How many of these represent travellers connecting through on flights (Toronto is a major hub) or family from overseas coming to visit family (who often don't stay in hotels at all) or business travel, or Americans crossing over for a day here and there (visits that are often at the mercy of the exchange rate/border security)? The numbers you cite for 2013 still only represent about 69% of hotel capacity (http://www.newswire.ca/news-release...toronto-to-new-tourism-records-513804341.html), and don't include new hotels in the market since 2013 or the growth of new options like Air B&B. Parsing the numbers may show there is actually quite a lot of room for growth in this sector, and not just for Toronto but the region as a whole (Niagara/Ottawa/Stratford/Cottage Country etc). We already make massive investments to help grow our positioning (Pride, TIFF, Luminato, Caribana etc), the games may just be the opportunity/catalyst to take us to the next level.

 

[detroitbootybass]

Whether or not this town gets the Olympics, its population swells by, what, a hundred thousand each year?

According to Statistics Canada, Toronto gets about 20,000 - 25,000 new residents each year.

The GTHA (Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area) gets about 100,000 residents per year.

 

[TOareaFan]

Because the Olympics are supposed to be about transformational change. We're probably going to add a few million visitors over the next decade organically - so why spend $20B to get what will happen anyways. If the Olympics are supposed to be worth the cost then we need to far exceed the growth that would otherwise occur.

Aside from the fact that those that support Olympics don't suggest that increased tourism is the only benefit, you are still not answering my question on the tourism aspect....why is Barcelona a success (on that front) by 3.8 million increase in visitors but Toronto's measure of success has to be 13.7 million?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Number of stays is less important than the quality of the stays (LOS, spend/person, etc). There is a reason why you want to aim for international (as opposed to local/regional) tourists.

AoD

 

[Tuscani01]

I changed my vote from 'on the fence' to 'leaning yes'.

Reason: I want Toronto to go for both the Olympics and the 2025 Expo. The Olympics will put Toronto on the world map for sure due to all of the media exposure, and would make for a great launch to Expo 2025. It provides a massive marking opportunity for Expo 2025, where the city can then capitalize on tourism. Combining the infrastructure for both bids will make the money go a lot further than hosting just one event.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I changed my vote from 'on the fence' to 'leaning yes'.

Reason: I want Toronto to go for both the Olympics and the 2025 Expo. The Olympics will put Toronto on the world map for sure due to all of the media exposure, and would make for a great launch to Expo 2025. It provides a massive marking opportunity for Expo 2025, where the city can then capitalize on tourism. Combining the infrastructure for both bids will make the money go a lot further than hosting just one event.

I don't imagine the city can host both - especially with only a gap of one year in between. If they are going to go for the Expo I sure hope they go for themes that are a little more substantial - the ones they came up with for 2015 were rather anemic.

AoD