[Tewder]

"Not now, but not never"... some great points here, and really what we've been saying all along:

... it was hard to avoid a sense of letdown when Mr. Tory delivered his Olympic “no” at a press conference on Tuesday morning. The mayor made the announcement from a raised patio in Nathan Phillips Square that gives a postcard view of City Hall. That dramatic edifice, a symbol of the city, just turned 50 years old. The anniversary served to remind Torontonians of the soaring ambition and faith in the future it took for, what was then, a rather provincial town to embrace such a radical design for the home of its civic government.

Where is that ambition now? Where is the can-do spirit, the determination not just to maintain the city, but to build it for the next generation?

Toronto is a thriving 21st-century metropolis with a bustling downtown and growing suburbs. Construction cranes crowd its skyline and thousands of immigrants from around the world are thronging to live here. But, in a sense, it is stalled.

Decades of foot-dragging, poor planning and underinvestment have left it with a transit and transportation system that falls far short of the needs of North America’s fourth-largest city. Its waterfront, despite recent progress, is still an underexploited asset. Its public amenities, from parks to bike paths to ice arenas, are not nearly what they should be.

To achieve its ambition – well within reach – of becoming a true world city, it badly needs a push. That is why Mr. Tory and others were tempted by the idea of putting in a bid. For all the vast expense, hosting an Olympic Games often jump-starts city building, shaking loose the big dollars it takes for a city to move to a new level. Barcelona, mostly famously, used the 1992 Games to remake its rundown waterfront, now a lovely stretch of beaches and promenades, and put itself on the map for international visitors.

A Toronto Olympics offered the possibility of redeveloping the Port Lands, the huge, underdeveloped tract at the east end of the harbour that would have made an ideal site for an Olympic village and other facilities, and at last building a new downtown subway line – called the relief line for good reason – to take the pressure off an overburdened, undersized subway system.

That is why Mr. Tory was right to say: Not now, but not never.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eeds-olympic-sized-ambitions/article26369906/​

 

[diminutive]

The usual argument against government funding of professional sports is millionaire athletes. That's akin to arguing against funding an opera company because of Nickelback. Not all professional athletes are millionaires. Toronto Rock players have to work second jobs just to get by, and even CFL players mostly qualify as middle class.

This comparison to opera singers is completely wrong though since people are opposing overbuilt Olympic facilities, not athletic funding.

I've said this before but the "benefits" of the Olympics aren't really much help to actual athletes. Very, very few Canadian athletes are being held back by a lack of facilities at the moment. Even fewer (probably 0) are being held back by the lack of 20,000 seat aquatics stadiums or velodromes. The Olympics, by their nature, tend to require facilities designed for spectacle whereas athletic training has no such need. Look at Rosie MacLennan's trampoline gym in Markham to see what Olympic training facilities look like.

This is of course very different from an opera company or art gallery which needs a permanent home to exist. And that's the nub with the Olympics. Nothing else requires us to sign on to build massive, overwrought stadiums for a 2 week event.

If you really cared about athletic support the conversation would be around improving income support to developing athletes, not these fever dreams of needless stadiums.

 

[TOareaFan]

overwrought stadiums

I don't think that first word means what you think it does.

 

[diminutive]

I don't think that first word means what you think it does.

Overwrought is an adjective meaning "in a state of nervous excitement or anxiety" or "too elaborate or complicated in design or construction." Olympic stadiums are almost always "too elaborate or complicated in design or construction." Consider Tokyo:

What did you think overwrought means?

 

[Videodrome]

That reminds me of Seaquest DSV.

 

[TOareaFan]

Overwrought is an adjective meaning "in a state of nervous excitement or anxiety" or "too elaborate or complicated in design or construction." Olympic stadiums are almost always "too elaborate or complicated in design or construction." Consider Tokyo:


What did you think overwrought means?

I admit to thinking only of the first definition.....so my bad.....but saying "almost always" too elaborate when we just witnessed a long discussion about a stadium that was, if anything, underwhelming due to its design being for its post olympic use (Atlanta) and I don't think anyone would describe london as too elaborate or complicated....LA has had two olympics using the same main stadium so nothing too complicated or elaborate about that.....sure, Bejing was over the top in cost but was it too elaborate?

So, I guess, you may be correct in the what the word means....but not sure it can be applied universally.

 

[MisterF]

Yeah, Turner field was a shit Olympic Stadium and a shit Baseball Stadium. But nice try.

Whether Turner Field is any good as a baseball stadium or was any good as an Olympic stadium is neither here nor there. Unless of course you're suggesting that the stadium was shit as a direct result of the Olympics, which doesn't make sense at all. Exhibition Stadium was shit for both baseball and football but you can't blame the Olympics for that. My point was simply an Olympic stadium doesn't have to cost a billion dollars, subsidize already rich sports teams, be a white elephant, or be too big for the city. Even if Turner Field is no good for baseball, that doesn't mean that another stadium using the same concept would be the same for whatever sport it's designed for.

This comparison to opera singers is completely wrong though since people are opposing overbuilt Olympic facilities, not athletic funding.

I've said this before but the "benefits" of the Olympics aren't really much help to actual athletes. Very, very few Canadian athletes are being held back by a lack of facilities at the moment. Even fewer (probably 0) are being held back by the lack of 20,000 seat aquatics stadiums or velodromes. The Olympics, by their nature, tend to require facilities designed for spectacle whereas athletic training has no such need. Look at Rosie MacLennan's trampoline gym in Markham to see what Olympic training facilities look like.

This is of course very different from an opera company or art gallery which needs a permanent home to exist. And that's the nub with the Olympics. Nothing else requires us to sign on to build massive, overwrought stadiums for a 2 week event.

If you really cared about athletic support the conversation would be around improving income support to developing athletes, not these fever dreams of needless stadiums.

The comparison with opera singers wasn't about the Olympics specifically (at least in the context I was using it in), but about funding sports in general. There was a distinction being made between professional artists and athletes, and I was merely calling that distinction into question. As for the Olympics, I'm pretty much on the fence. They don't necessarily have to be a boondoggle like Montreal was, and some Olympics have been quite financially successful. At the same time, we don't need them. Transit is being built at a record pace and the city is getting better all the time.

 

[animatronic]

Whether Turner Field is any good as a baseball stadium or was any good as an Olympic stadium is neither here nor there. Unless of course you're suggesting that the stadium was shit as a direct result of the Olympics, which doesn't make sense at all. Exhibition Stadium was shit for both baseball and football but you can't blame the Olympics for that. My point was simply an Olympic stadium doesn't have to cost a billion dollars, subsidize already rich sports teams, be a white elephant, or be too big for the city. Even if Turner Field is no good for baseball, that doesn't mean that another stadium using the same concept would be the same for whatever sport it's designed for.


The comparison with opera singers wasn't about the Olympics specifically (at least in the context I was using it in), but about funding sports in general. There was a distinction being made between professional artists and athletes, and I was merely calling that distinction into question. As for the Olympics, I'm pretty much on the fence. They don't necessarily have to be a boondoggle like Montreal was, and some Olympics have been quite financially successful. At the same time, we don't need them. Transit is being built at a record pace and the city is getting better all the time.

Of course I'm saying Turner Field was shit because of the Olympics. So was Montreal. Both cities built Olympic stadiums that were completely unsuited for their future uses. And anyone is delusional if they think that we should build an 80k track stadium and convert it to a new Jays stadium. Boggles the mind.

 

[Videodrome]

If Turner Field is so great, why are they already building a new stadium in Cobb County?

 

[Johnny Au]

Here are some examples of white elephants (complete with a more comprehensive definition): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant

 

[GenerationW]

correct...the old stadium at the Ex was horrible....but it was no white elephant....we saw a lot of use of that stadium.

For its time, Exhibition Stadium was fine for football.

Then the Jays came, and the city ruined the place.

The allure for the pro is the medal itself, the opportunity to represent one's nation and compete in an historic event... will Crosby ever personally top the Gold medal goal moment in Vancouver? Nah.

Easy question -- yeah, when he won the Stanley Cup. No doubt the Olympics has an allure, but I bet at least 95% of NHL players born here would rather win the Cup than a two-week tournament played every four years. Same with NBA players.

 

[Tewder]

Easy question -- yeah, when he won the Stanley Cup. No doubt the Olympics has an allure, but I bet at least 95% of NHL players born here would rather win the Cup than a two-week tournament played every four years. Same with NBA players.

16 million Canadians watched that goal. It is one of the most famous goals in the history of the sport. You do the math!

 

[animatronic]

16 million Canadians watched that goal. It is one of the most famous goals in the history of the sport. You do the math!

So you're picking the guy who makes more in a game than most of us do in a year to defend the "purity" of amateur sport. No idea what points you are trying to make.

 

[Tewder]

So you're picking the guy who makes more in a game than most of us do in a year to defend the "purity" of amateur sport. No idea what points you are trying to make.

... then don't jump into a conversation you don't understand!

The best Canadian hockey players of the time were competing against the best of the world of the time, and not getting paid to do so. That may turn your stomach but many Canadians, young and old, found this to be inspiring and unifying.

 

[animatronic]

... then don't jump into a conversation you don't understand!

The best Canadian hockey players of the time were competing against the best of the world of the time, and not getting paid to do so. That may turn your stomach but many Canadians, young and old, found this to be inspiring and unifying.

And certainly not because of long term market building in Europe or getting a shot at lucrative sponsorships. For sure many of the athletes were doing it for the honour but don't think for a second it was anything other than a calculated business move by the NHL owners.

Again - no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you saying it's right for tax dollars to be diverted from actual amateur athletes to subsidize for-profit NHL market building because it makes people feel good when we win?