animatronic
Senior Member
One of the hardest parts about growing up is realizing that you need to buy your own presents.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Southcore
- Start date
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
We better bid on the 2024 Summer Olympics before Euphoria and Tewder have heart attacks 
Tewder
Senior Member
That's not how one of the city's chief urban design specialists (and consultant to the city and Waterfront Toronto) is describing it... so is he a liar then? a spin doctor?
http://news.utoronto.ca/miltons-vel...nds-using-pan-amparapan-am-games-build-legacy
He describes the PanAms as the 'catalyst' (his word, not mine) that kick-started plans that had already been conceived of but had no funding, no timeline and no political will behind them. The games provided these. Why would you claim that he is deliberately trying to mislead the people of Toronto? He states that the olympics offer the same potential, i.e. to kick-start further existing plans for the Waterfront, the Portlands and transit... and in fact I quoted the Mayor of Barcelona earlier who describes just the same thing. Why would you deliberately ignore these people?
Look it is abundantly clear that the anti-games group here is focusing exclusively on the olympics-specific costs and willfully ignoring the benefits, other than trying to disprove intangibles. This is to miss half the picture. You cannot make an accurate assessment of anything by throwing on the blinkers and looking at half the equation only.... fortunately our city planners will not approach this with minds made up, it is their job to look objectively at the entire picture.
Pman, those inspiring works were built in an entirely different economic and socio-historic context. The last great era of public works building in Toronto was the post-war era which ended some 40-odd years ago. What have we done lately? Rather, what have we done lately that wasn't pushed through thanks to the PanAms? Not much, and certainly not 40 years worth of consistent ongoing infrastructure funding and development. Just what is going to change this?... and I'm asking sincerely, by the way. If I understood the rationale for the optimism that there is a better way I might buy into it.
animatronic
Senior Member
This is an urban planning forum - so we are discussing the impact of a Games on urban planning and municipal governance, no?
There are tons of other arguments to be made - IOC is hopelessly corrupt, the Games are money funnels for private interests, the needs of athletes are ignored, the citizens of the host city and country are ignored, the whole thing is wrapped in cheap patriotism in order to sell a bad deal, Toronto won't win unless we find increasingly creative ways to bribe the odd princess from Lichtenstein or Saudi Sheik, half the athletes are on PEDs, tourism patterns won't change etc... We can get into those too if you like, but really it all falls apart at the money so why not start there.
If you haven't taken the time to read it, please read the entire Host City Contract we would need to sign in order to host the Games. It isn't even the silly stuff like fresh fruits in the room for IOC members. All risk and reward is skewed completely in favour of the IOC. It's perfectly clear that we are dealing with a for-profit entertainment corporation and not an amateur athletics collective. It's fine to love the idea of the Olympics movement, but that simply doesn't exist.
Last edited:
Euphoria
Active Member
The direct fees paid to the IOC are quite minimal. We don't pay the IOC for the games. We design a plan that has to meet certain criteria and we build the plan if the IOC delegates support our bid in the vote. The process is quite straightforward and the oversight has improved. The only major difference now is Agenda 2020, which has loosened some of the parameters so that more existing facilities can be used.
animatronic
Senior Member
Please read the contract.
Tewder
Senior Member
I appreciate that you've avoided this line of reasoning because it bothers me in the same way that an 'I just want the games for the sake of a big party' argument bothers the anti-games side: It's irrelevant, at least when assessing what's a good or bad opportunity for the city... and in fact it's analogous to Ford-ites wanting to take away funding for Pride because they have an ethical or moral issue with celebrating homosexuality, for instance, or eliminating funding for TIFF because you don't like the Hollywood film industry or prima donna actresses or the messaging in certain movies screened etc. Whatever. If we're smart about it we'll stay focused on the bigger picture.
... and? It's their brand and it's their game. An olympics host city is but a franchisee of sorts. There is still so much that Toronto can do with the platform. As one positive idea only, we can balance out the Sochis of the world, globally celebrating and broadcasting diversity, tolerance, human rights and everything that Toronto has to offer. Why pass up on that?
animatronic
Senior Member
I like the franchise analogy. You want a McDonald's in a box and I say we should build our own restaurant.
Tewder
Senior Member
Show me a credible game plan to make that happen, including realistic funding mechanisms, and i'll help... in the meantime the longer we wait for miracles the longer the city lags behind, as others cities move on. Fie on the 'pie in the sky' dreaming, i say, and let's take the real opportunities where we can find them, warts and all... perfect unblemished opportunities do not happen anyway.
Euphoria
Active Member
Those requirements on p. 12 are reasonable guarantees. Basically the city has to follow through on the commitments in the bid, and any subsequent amendments deemed necessary can be negotiated subject to binding arbitration. Sounds a lot like typical trade law. These are basically assurances not to fuck up the delivery of the games. They need to be there.
Videodrome
Senior Member
Interesting. They aren't spending much compered to China and Russia.
GenerationW
Senior Member
If Skydome is any indication (and that was only a 50,000 seat stadium), definitely not.
animatronic
Senior Member
Government costs aren't included - $2b for security, for example.
Euphoria
Active Member
Do you know anything about the uniqueness of the dome and its technology? It's not comparable to the vast majority of stadiums. The retractable roof was revolutionary. Please research.
animatronic
Senior Member
Who cares if the dome was made from unicorn hide. It's the textbook definition of a white elephant because it never came close to covering capital costs. We (the taxpayers) took a $400m loss on the sale. That's real money we needed to finance. Then those buyers took another $100m loss when they sold it to Rogers for a bag of balls. Public money should be spent on important infrastructure like subways and sewers, not ballparks for teams with $150m payrolls.