[Tewder]

Nah, you're just trolling. You can follow the thread on this, whether you choose to or not.

Your position is clear though. You would cut funding to the arts and athletics because it involves 'professionals', whether they are being paid directly or not. You would deny Canadians exposure to excellence in all fields, that of opera singers and high jumpers alike... and you would deny Canadians the ability to compete or perform at the highest levels or achieve excellence at the highest levels. This is all gravy to you. Sorry but I reject such a small minded, cynical and philistine view of what our society should be.

 

[animatronic]

Nah, you're just trolling. You can follow the thread on this, whether you choose to or not.

Your position is clear though. You would cut funding to the arts and athletics because it involves 'professionals', whether they are being paid directly or not. You would deny Canadians exposure to excellence in all fields, that of opera singers and high jumpers alike... and you would deny Canadians the ability to compete or perform at the highest levels or achieve excellence at the highest levels. This is all gravy to you. Sorry but I reject such a small minded, cynical and philistine view of what our society should be.

I actually never said any of that. I said we would be morons to bid for the Olympics. The rest of that stuff is just you projecting nonsense.

But it doesn't matter because Toronto will never host the Olympics. And that's a great thing. So if you want to keep fighting imaginary dragons go knock yourself out.

 

[TrickyRicky]

My take on the decision not to bid: good decision.

As I mentioned in my buried opinion earlier on in the this thread, this is not about Toronto not being capable of bidding or being too poor etc. (we would be an excellent host city). I just feel this is not a good time to host especially if city-building is a primary rational. This is at the heart of my feeling on the subject. I feel that there are moments in a cities life where hosting such an event makes sense and when hosting such an event makes little sense. Think of it less as a climb where we must feel not yet worthy, to an oscillating wave where there are peaks and troughs of potential.

Right now in Toronto we are finally emerging from an economic funk and there is a lot of positive momentum in terms of infrastructure and city-building initiatives that would be hampered, not accelerated, by Olympic preparations. I applaud the Mayor for recognizing this and say to those who are disappointed by our failure to bid, let's build up the city now and re-visit this issue 5 or 10 years in the future.

 

[MisterF]

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.

And why specifically does an Olympic stadium downsized after the Games have to be shit? Are stadiums with temporary seating necessarily shit? How about stadiums with retractable seating in the lower bowl to accommodate a football field or running track? Please enlighten me.

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

This has been discussed. The Braves moving has nothing to do with the Olympics or the concept of a stadium with temporary seating.

 

[diminutive]

Your position is clear though. You would cut funding to the arts and athletics because it involves 'professionals', whether they are being paid directly or not. You would deny Canadians exposure to excellence in all fields, that of opera singers and high jumpers alike... and you would deny Canadians the ability to compete or perform at the highest levels or achieve excellence at the highest levels. This is all gravy to you. Sorry but I reject such a small minded, cynical and philistine view of what our society should be.

Tewder your posts are becoming more unhinged. This one is just one straw man after another.

Nobody is against 'funding to the athletics because it involves 'professionals.' The hosting the games is not, and has never been, about funding athletes. It's about building stadiums and security costs. Nobody in this thread has said we should cut back on various athletic development programs.

Nobody is trying to 'deny Canadians exposure to excellence.' This is just ridiculous. Nobody's proposed Canada boycotting World Championships or Olympics, just that Toronto shouldn't waste billions to host the games. Surely the difference is plain. Do you even go to regular events in the Toronto-area, like Henley, that feature world class amateur athletics?

Olympics boosters might have done a better job at convincing the public if they didn't slip into such self obvious hyperbole. Even the IOC wouldn't go so far as to argue that not wanting to host the Games is tantamount to a "small minded, cynical and philistine view of what our society should be." The more people have needled you on the actual wisdom of hosting the Games the more you've slipped into these ridiculous formulations.

 

[animatronic]

And why specifically does an Olympic stadium downsized after the Games have to be shit? Are stadiums with temporary seating necessarily shit? How about stadiums with retractable seating in the lower bowl to accommodate a football field or running track? Please enlighten me.


This has been discussed. The Braves moving has nothing to do with the Olympics or the concept of a stadium with temporary seating.

It boils down to:
1. You can't justify the cost/benefit based on future use
2. You can't justify the cost/benefit based on the Olympics

Multisport stadiums suck. Especially when you include baseball in the mix. This has been proven time and time again. The size of a 400m track forces way too many design compromises, either placing everyone too far from the action, being the wrong dimensions for baseball or requiring retractable seating that sees top ticket holders penalized and precludes revenue-generating add ons like under-stand boxes.

If we go ahead and build a stadium that keeps the track we will use that track maybe twice more in the stadium's lifetime (e.g., to host world athletics championships). Under any other conceivable use we already have Varsity and York stadiums with more than enough seating. Therefore preserving that functionality is a waste of money.

If we convert the stadium afterwards to an NFL stadium (the most plausible and probably doable scenario) the new owners better pick up every penny of construction and conversion costs. Also, the preferred Olympic location (portlands) is not the preferred NFL location (Woodbine). There's also the pesky bit about us not having a team.

As Turner Field shows you can't satisfactorily convert a track stadium for baseball. Given that we would need to end up with a 35-40,000 seat jewel box stadium afterwards there's just no business or design case. Otherwise we would just end up with another Skydome that satisfies nobody.

And there's no point in converting a stadium to CFL or soccer because BMO field will satisfy those needs for a while. Any other dreams are just dreams.

In any scenario we are either left with a Montreal-sized unusable stadium or we build it for post-Games conversion to a 40k stadium that we don't need. And the stadium you do end up with is ridiculously expensive. This isn't cheap scaffolding seating like they could put in the end zones in Hamilton - we're talking about a fully-built structure where 40,000 seats get used maybe 2-6 times over the course of the Games and then destroyed. At a cost of thousands of dollars per seat. And no future tenant will pay for that so it's wasted infrastructure money. Look at London as the perfect example.

That's why the stadium is such a sticking point for a Toronto bid. Given a 40-year track record of stadium construction in North America and Europe the onus is really on the proponents to prove otherwise.

 

[GenerationW]

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

You asked what's more important to Crosby, not to 16 million Canadians. The Cup is what these guys dream about from childhood.

 

[TOareaFan]

In any scenario we are either left with a Montreal-sized unusable stadium or we build it for post-Games conversion to a 40k stadium that we don't need. And the stadium you do end up with is ridiculously expensive.

You can believe anything you want......but it does not matter how many times you repeat that Montreal was an unusable stadium or that it was a white elephant...the facts and history do not say that. It has been used a lot since 1976 and has had millions of people go through its doors.

 

[animatronic]

You can believe anything you want......but it does not matter how many times you repeat that Montreal was an unusable stadium or that it was a white elephant...the facts and history do not say that. It has been used a lot since 1976 and has had millions of people go through its doors.

They used it because they didn't have a choice. And then ditched it as soon as it literally started falling apart. They can't even use it in winter because of snow loads. Meanwhile it's one of the most expensive stadiums ever built. The Big O is a disaster at all levels. And many of the systemic problems are directly attributable to the Olympics and the desire to make a vanity stadium (e.g., changing the shape of the ribs so you couldn't reuse molds). It is a pretty-on-the-outside complete piece of junk.

 

[TOareaFan]

They used it because they didn't have a choice. And then ditched it as soon as it literally started falling apart. They can't even use it in winter because of snow loads. Meanwhile it's one of the most expensive stadiums ever built. The Big O is a disaster at all levels. And many of the systemic problems are directly attributable to the Olympics and the desire to make a vanity stadium (e.g., changing the shape of the ribs so you couldn't reuse molds). It is a pretty-on-the-outside complete piece of junk.

The CFL ditched it after they stopped being a 50k + proposition league.....but they were happy there when they were that. MLB ditched it after 27 seasons and it sorta coincided with, you know, there not being a MLB team in Montreal....but sure, you will believe what you believe.

It cost too much, it had some intriguing but unrealistic architecture and it had some corruption related structural issues....but it was not oversized as you claimed....the top 9 CFL attendances of all time were at that stadium...is the fault of the designers that they built a stadium for that size when both of the post Olympic tenants (accounting for about 100 use days per year....amazing numbrs for a large stadium) were demanding, you know, a stadium of that size?

 

[MisterF]

It boils down to:
1. You can't justify the cost/benefit based on future use
2. You can't justify the cost/benefit based on the Olympics

Multisport stadiums suck. Especially when you include baseball in the mix. This has been proven time and time again. The size of a 400m track forces way too many design compromises, either placing everyone too far from the action, being the wrong dimensions for baseball or requiring retractable seating that sees top ticket holders penalized and precludes revenue-generating add ons like under-stand boxes.

If we go ahead and build a stadium that keeps the track we will use that track maybe twice more in the stadium's lifetime (e.g., to host world athletics championships). Under any other conceivable use we already have Varsity and York stadiums with more than enough seating. Therefore preserving that functionality is a waste of money.

If we convert the stadium afterwards to an NFL stadium (the most plausible and probably doable scenario) the new owners better pick up every penny of construction and conversion costs. Also, the preferred Olympic location (portlands) is not the preferred NFL location (Woodbine). There's also the pesky bit about us not having a team.

As Turner Field shows you can't satisfactorily convert a track stadium for baseball. Given that we would need to end up with a 35-40,000 seat jewel box stadium afterwards there's just no business or design case. Otherwise we would just end up with another Skydome that satisfies nobody.

And there's no point in converting a stadium to CFL or soccer because BMO field will satisfy those needs for a while. Any other dreams are just dreams.

In any scenario we are either left with a Montreal-sized unusable stadium or we build it for post-Games conversion to a 40k stadium that we don't need. And the stadium you do end up with is ridiculously expensive. This isn't cheap scaffolding seating like they could put in the end zones in Hamilton - we're talking about a fully-built structure where 40,000 seats get used maybe 2-6 times over the course of the Games and then destroyed. At a cost of thousands of dollars per seat. And no future tenant will pay for that so it's wasted infrastructure money. Look at London as the perfect example.

That's why the stadium is such a sticking point for a Toronto bid. Given a 40-year track record of stadium construction in North America and Europe the onus is really on the proponents to prove otherwise.

Oh so you think that a stadium with retractable seating will necessarily be a terrible stadium. I do agree that baseball isn't the best sport for later use (Atlanta is a good example of the concept, not baseball specifically), but it's perfectly workable for football, rugby, and soccer. Retractable seating doesn't preclude corporate boxes, especially if it's designed that way from the outset (unlike London). For the NFL, it has the additional problem of the NFL having no interest in Toronto. The NFL looks for cities that support football at all levels and Toronto hasn't exactly done that. Plus any criticism about retractable seating or a track would apply to the NFL as well.

As for cost/benefit, if the stadium is paid for with private money I don't see the issue. Contrary to your assertion, private companies have paid for that kind of thing in the past. Atlanta aside, here in Toronto BMO Field was mostly privately funded including the recent expansion. Obviously any bid would have to be include private partners and a clear plan.

And no, London isn't a perfect example. The only reason the cost is so high is because the plans were changed after construction was well underway. It should have been planned in partnership with an EPL team from the start.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

The bid might be dead but the thread is very much alive

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Oh so you think that a stadium with retractable seating will necessarily be a terrible stadium. I do agree that baseball isn't the best sport for later use (Atlanta is a good example of the concept, not baseball specifically), but it's perfectly workable for football, rugby, and soccer. Retractable seating doesn't preclude corporate boxes, especially if it's designed that way from the outset (unlike London). For the NFL, it has the additional problem of the NFL having no interest in Toronto. The NFL looks for cities that support football at all levels and Toronto hasn't exactly done that. Plus any criticism about retractable seating or a track would apply to the NFL as well.

As for cost/benefit, if the stadium is paid for with private money I don't see the issue. Contrary to your assertion, private companies have paid for that kind of thing in the past. Atlanta aside, here in Toronto BMO Field was mostly privately funded including the recent expansion. Obviously any bid would have to be include private partners and a clear plan.

And no, London isn't a perfect example. The only reason the cost is so high is because the plans were changed after construction was well underway. It should have been planned in partnership with an EPL team from the start.

The difference between an Olympics and BMO field is that, knowing they weren't getting a free stadium, MLSE figured out a way to leverage the public trough as much as possible, then filled the gap to what they wanted. I'd be happy if every sport's teams stadium was built the exact same way -- with the least amount of public money involvement possible. Completely the opposite with an Olympics. The post-Games user is getting a shiny bauble and yet gets to make all kinds of onerous demands to give all the Oly types a fig leaf on their biggest, most useless expenditure.

As for London -- the number of times someone says, "But that's not what was meant" is starting to get weird. They're still spending public money, to the tune of a $1 billion. It's still the Olympic stadium.

Do you actually think that if Toronto had a bid which included a 100% temporary Olympic stadium that would be turned into a running track in a park post-Games, that cost less than $100M, all paid for by Bell through naming rights, that that's what would actually happen? We'd still end up spending a billion dollars. Because that's what happens with these projects.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Ugh....so I'm not getting my giant party. Oh, boo.

Can I then ask instead for certain music festivals to be exempt from silly noise bylaws? The party must go on, my vitality and youthfulness are wasted on my work.

 

[MisterF]

The difference between an Olympics and BMO field is that, knowing they weren't getting a free stadium, MLSE figured out a way to leverage the public trough as much as possible, then filled the gap to what they wanted. I'd be happy if every sport's teams stadium was built the exact same way -- with the least amount of public money involvement possible. Completely the opposite with an Olympics. The post-Games user is getting a shiny bauble and yet gets to make all kinds of onerous demands to give all the Oly types a fig leaf on their biggest, most useless expenditure.

As for London -- the number of times someone says, "But that's not what was meant" is starting to get weird. They're still spending public money, to the tune of a $1 billion. It's still the Olympic stadium.

Do you actually think that if Toronto had a bid which included a 100% temporary Olympic stadium that would be turned into a running track in a park post-Games, that cost less than $100M, all paid for by Bell through naming rights, that that's what would actually happen? We'd still end up spending a billion dollars. Because that's what happens with these projects.

BMO Field was just a local example of a stadium that was mostly privately funded. And you don't have to go back very far to see an example of a profitable Olympics with a privately funded Olympic stadium. You keep insisting that an Olympic stadium has to cost hundreds of millions of public money when that's just not the case. It's already been explained why London doesn't back up your case, so I'll just say that using it as evidence of why all Olympic stadiums are bad is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not sure why you're talking about a 100% temporary stadium, I never said anything about that. Maybe you're getting me mixed up with someone else?