[Kitsune]

Well they do except semi-joint bids... its ok to have a venue or two outside of the host country.... some call this the "Finland Rule" because Finland is devoid of mountains. Helsinki's 06 winter bid proposed hosting alpine events in Lillehammer. However any idea of joint bid for summer is ludicrous... and won't happen.

 

[TOperson]

A number of us have already smashed this argument to smithereens. Yes, a city can get those things done - hypothetically - but certainly not cheaper. The lack of a deadline results in the dragging out of construction, as we've seen many times, during which costs continue to escalate. It's always better to get something done quickly than slowly, obviously.

Also, the hypothetical notion that we will secure the same levels of government funding of infrastructure in the absence of an Olympics may be true, but so extremely unlikely as to be untrue. Once again, the deadline and international attention of an olympics pushes funding and progress down the pipeline.

The number one issue in Toronto and the GTA is transit, in terms of quality of life, mobility, sustainability and economic cost, which in turn would be the number one benefit of an Olympics games. On this basis alone I would be inclined to endorse it, all things being equal (concerns about readiness notwithstanding).

Sorry, but no, you haven't smashed the argument that cities can obtain infrastructure improvements without the Olympics. All kinds of stuff has already been built in Toronto despite never having had the games. If we never get the games, do you think there will never be any improvements? Of course not.

As for cheaper, yes, this is obvious. For one thing, the city builds the infrastructure it wants and needs, according to its own specifications, not the IOC's. Does Toronto need a velodrome? A 90K-capacity stadium? Not really. If we don't get the Olympics, we don't have to build those things. Ding! Already saving money. For another thing, there won't be a $1B security budget if we don't host the games. Ding! More savings. For a third thing, the Olympics ALWAYS involve huge cost overruns. More money might get pushed through, but that means more gets wasted too.

I agree that transit is a major issue in the GTA, but I don't trust the IOC to plan it for us. As I've mentioned upthread, the host city contract obliges the host city to do the IOC's bidding. Since when are the IOC transit planners? What kind of white-elephant transit infrastructure might they stick us with? Some direct rail link to a rusted-out volleyball stadium? Ugh. No thanks.

I grant that the Olympics gets things done faster than they might otherwise, but they are often not the right things, and often cost much more. That's not a bargain.

 

[toforumer]

Well they do except semi-joint bids... its ok to have a venue or two outside of the host country.... some call this the "Finland Rule" because Finland is devoid of mountains. Helsinki's 06 winter bid proposed hosting alpine events in Lillehammer. However any idea of joint bid for summer is ludicrous... and won't happen.

I agree. It's totally a non-starter to have a joint bid for a Summer Olympics.

It's different because you need mountains for a Winter Olympics. All skiiing and sliding event takes place outside the major host city. ie. Vancouver-Whistler

 

[nfitz]

However any idea of joint bid for summer is ludicrous... and won't happen.

And yet for the Beijing games, the equestrian was about 2,000 km away in Hong Kong. And for the Melbourne games the equestrian was over 15,000 km away in Sweden.

In the unlikely event, that both the US and Canadian Olympic committees could get behind a joint-bid, and there was a decent venue plan, and the construction of two different Olympic villages - then I can see them going for it. I just don't think it would ever happen.

 

[Tewder]

All kinds of stuff has already been built in Toronto despite never having had the games. If we never get the games, do you think there will never be any improvements? Of course not.

'All kinds of stuff'?

No, it's that we won't get the scale of improvements required as soon as needed and as cost-effectively as possible without the imperative of an Olympic Games. The inadequacy of transit infrastructure in our region didn't happen overnight. We have among the worst gridlock in North America due to the fact that elected officials at all levels and of all parties have neglected/refused to dedicate the necessary funds. I'm not sure I understand why you think that this will magically change??

I know, I know, some money and some improvements are happening, but this is really only the tip of an iceberg in terms of the scope of the problem... and even then the timelines are still too long. Bottom Line: there is no political will to resolve the transit issues in the GTA without the sort of larger visionary mandate an Olympics Games provides.

As for cheaper, yes, this is obvious. For one thing, the city builds the infrastructure it wants and needs, according to its own specifications, not the IOC's. Does Toronto need a velodrome? A 90K-capacity stadium? Not really. If we don't get the Olympics, we don't have to build those things. Ding! Already saving money. For another thing, there won't be a $1B security budget if we don't host the games. Ding! More savings. For a third thing, the Olympics ALWAYS involve huge cost overruns. More money might get pushed through, but that means more gets wasted too.

We're talking about leveraging an olympics games to build transit. I'd gladly pay for a velodrome if it meant making substantial gains in the battle against gridlock... and in terms of quality of life we should be providing athletics facilities for our kids and for all people. Yes money will be spent but money will also be generated in terms of tourism, construction, business, revitalization, and less gridlock which alone cost the region some $6 billion yearly according to the board of trade... Ding! Ding! Ding!!!

I agree that transit is a major issue in the GTA, but I don't trust the IOC to plan it for us. As I've mentioned upthread, the host city contract obliges the host city to do the IOC's bidding. Since when are the IOC transit planners? What kind of white-elephant transit infrastructure might they stick us with? Some direct rail link to a rusted-out volleyball stadium? Ugh. No thanks.

It would be up to the city to put forward a plan that includes improvements to transit, infrastructure and revitalization that are needed and that make sense. If the plan doesn't make sense I wouldn't endorse it. Plain and simple. Let's see the plan first.

 

[Kitsune]

And yet for the Beijing games, the equestrian was about 2,000 km away in Hong Kong. And for the Melbourne games the equestrian was over 15,000 km away in Sweden.

In the unlikely event, that both the US and Canadian Olympic committees could get behind a joint-bid, and there was a decent venue plan, and the construction of two different Olympic villages - then I can see them going for it. I just don't think it would ever happen.

However those are different circumstances - both were because of Quarantines in effect at the time that prevented Horse movements into or near the Host city.

 

[Torontovibe]

If The Olympics would bring in a downtown/central relief subway line, I'd be in favour of it, even though I am against much of what The Olympics is about.

 

[Red October]

What kind of white-elephant transit infrastructure might they stick us with? Some direct rail link to a rusted-out volleyball stadium? Ugh. No thanks.
.

You seem to think that Athens is the average post-Olympics situation, when you couldn't be more wrong. You really think Toronto would build a permanent volleyball stadium then let it rust afterwards? Come on, I know you can't be THAT obtuse.

Out of curiosity, do you know where the volleyball and beach volleyball are being held in London? I'll give you a hint... volleyball is being held at Earls Court, which (surprise surprise) existed before and 110% won't be "rusted-out" after the games, and beach volleyball is being held at a 100% temporary stadium at the Horse Guards Parade, which I doubt would be left to rust afterwards too.

But I guess Toronto couldn't find any existing venues to hold these events, or build temporary ones. No.. we'd be exactly like Athens! (Not to mention nobody should ever use that clusterfuck of a country Greece as an example ever)

In fact, I'd all but guarantee the only permanent venues from a games in Toronto would be an Aquatic Centre (Oh God what would we possibly use that for afterwards! Everyone knows swimming and diving doesn't exist in Toronto), a velodrome (which can be easily converted in many ways, or, you know, used to improve the program), and maybe part of the Olympic Stadium (we have no use for an 80,000 seater stadium, so no doubt it would be semi-temporary like London's).

Other than that we have Rowing/Canoe/Kayak facilities (Welland), many arenas and convention centres for boxing/wrestling/judo/taekwando/badminton/gymnastics/etc. etc., beaches for beach volleyball, stadiums that could host soccer/be expanded to host (I bet you didn't know that Toronto and Ottawa were used for the 1976 games), a lake for sailing, and a hell of a lot of space for temporary facilities. So no, we would not get "some direct link to a rusted0out volleyball stadium". Use common sense.

 

[TOperson]

'All kinds of stuff'?

Yes, look around you. The whole of the TTC, roads, sidewalks, water, hydro, parks, etc - all built with no connection to the Olympics.

No, it's that we won't get the scale of improvements required as soon as needed and as cost-effectively as possible without the imperative of an Olympic Games.

First, it's laughable that you think "cost-effective" and "Olympic Games" even belong in the same sentence. The modern Olympics are never cost-effective. Cost overruns ALWAYS happen. One of the big reasons for that is the mad dash to do so much in a short time. Suppliers know there is a time-crunch and milk it for all its worth (which is a big reason why so many of them support the bids). Also, some of the construction projects require special skills that aren't available locally and must be imported, adding to costs.

Second, you seem to assume that the ONLY way to ever get improvements is through the Olympics. This makes no sense given that we already have infrastructure that was built without the Olympic imperative.

The inadequacy of transit infrastructure in our region didn't happen overnight. We have among the worst gridlock in North America due to the fact that elected officials at all levels and of all parties have neglected/refused to dedicate the necessary funds. I'm not sure I understand why you think that this will magically change??

I never said I thought it would magically change. I've been saying that the Olympics won't deliver the necessary changes and will cost a great deal more than necessary.

Here's a thought: How about electing officials who WILL release the funds for transit and other improvements?

Why let current officials essentially hand over public money to a body that is TOTALLY unaccountable to us and then just hope for the best?

I know, I know, some money and some improvements are happening, but this is really only the tip of an iceberg in terms of the scope of the problem... and even then the timelines are still too long. Bottom Line: there is no political will to resolve the transit issues in the GTA without the sort of larger visionary mandate an Olympics Games provides.

If there is no political will now (which is debatable, and anyway it could change at any time), what makes you think there will be any when it comes time to say No to IOC demands that make no sense for the people of Toronto? E.g. when the time comes to start "compulsory purchases" of people's homes and kick them out? When parkland is claimed for Olympic facilities?

I don't know where you are getting "larger visionary mandate" from. The IOC doesn't care about host cities or the people who live in them. The real mandate is to make a ton of money and free up land for development by sidestepping the usual legal and planning procesess.

We're talking about leveraging an olympics games to build transit. I'd gladly pay for a velodrome if it meant making substantial gains in the battle against gridlock... and in terms of quality of life we should be providing athletics facilities for our kids and for all people. Yes money will be spent but money will also be generated in terms of tourism, construction, business, revitalization, and less gridlock which alone cost the region some $6 billion yearly according to the board of trade... Ding! Ding! Ding!!!

Have you looked at any of the links I've provided? The games do not deliver those benefits. Well, maybe there is less gridlock during the actual games because 20% of the residents leave town and 50% of the regular tourists stay away. But after that, as we've seen time and again, cities are left with huge debts for few to zero lasting benefits.

I'd be fine with spending $6B directly on transit in the GTA and skipping all the Olympics runaround. It would still be cheaper, and we could do it the way WE want.

It would be up to the city to put forward a plan that includes improvements to transit, infrastructure and revitalization that are needed and that make sense. If the plan doesn't make sense I wouldn't endorse it. Plain and simple. Let's see the plan first.

That's not how bids are won. Bids must please the IOC, who don't care if the plans "make sense" for the host cities. Facilities in Beijing are already rotting, how did they make sense for the city? They didn't, they only made sense for the games.

 

[TOperson]

You seem to think that Athens is the average post-Olympics situation, when you couldn't be more wrong. You really think Toronto would build a permanent volleyball stadium then let it rust afterwards? Come on, I know you can't be THAT obtuse.

Out of curiosity, do you know where the volleyball and beach volleyball are being held in London? I'll give you a hint... volleyball is being held at Earls Court, which (surprise surprise) existed before and 110% won't be "rusted-out" after the games, and beach volleyball is being held at a 100% temporary stadium at the Horse Guards Parade, which I doubt would be left to rust afterwards too.

But I guess Toronto couldn't find any existing venues to hold these events, or build temporary ones. No.. we'd be exactly like Athens! (Not to mention nobody should ever use that clusterfuck of a country Greece as an example ever)

In fact, I'd all but guarantee the only permanent venues from a games in Toronto would be an Aquatic Centre (Oh God what would we possibly use that for afterwards! Everyone knows swimming and diving doesn't exist in Toronto), a velodrome (which can be easily converted in many ways, or, you know, used to improve the program), and maybe part of the Olympic Stadium (we have no use for an 80,000 seater stadium, so no doubt it would be semi-temporary like London's).

Other than that we have Rowing/Canoe/Kayak facilities (Welland), many arenas and convention centres for boxing/wrestling/judo/taekwando/badminton/gymnastics/etc. etc., beaches for beach volleyball, stadiums that could host soccer/be expanded to host (I bet you didn't know that Toronto and Ottawa were used for the 1976 games), a lake for sailing, and a hell of a lot of space for temporary facilities. So no, we would not get "some direct link to a rusted0out volleyball stadium". Use common sense.

I haven't really been commenting on Athens in this thread, because I haven't just been looking at Athens. I've looked at a range of materials that discuss the host cities going back 30-odd years. Plus, I lived in NSW before, during and after the Sydney games. I saw what that city went through, I heard the complaints of the people who lived there. I watched "The Games" every week (which is quite funny, and dangerously accurate for a supposedly fictional show, here's an interview with its creator: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG0evrAftE4).

The worry isn't that Athens didn't benefit from the games. The worry is that none of the host cities benefited enough to justify the cost.

 

[TOperson]

This is the kind of thing I worry about. Of all places, England would already have excellent facilities for equestrian events. So there was no real need to build them in Greenwich Park. But LOCOG did it anyway, because the usual rules and laws for the park were suspended for the Olympics.

http://www.nogoe2012.com/index.html

Who really benefited from this and why did their desires trump those of the local residents and park users?

 

[Tewder]

... well this is an example of your hyperbole (and the hyperbole of the anti-olympics crusaders in general): The gripe here - or the 'evils' being whined about - is the fact that a small group of selfish individuals are being inconvenienced for a couple of weeks during which they have to share the peace and quiet of a local park with an olympic event. Cry me a river!

... and this isn't just some little local park. We're talking Greenwich here! I mean, the nerve that the British might choose to display some of its heritage to the world while hosting an olympics! The travesty! I suppose the evil IOC forced them to, right?

 

[TOperson]

... well this is an example of your hyperbole (and the hyperbole of the anti-olympics crusaders in general): The gripe here - or the 'evils' being whined about - is the fact that a small group of selfish individuals are being inconvenienced for a couple of weeks during which they have to share the peace and quiet of a local park with an olympic event. Cry me a river!

... and this isn't just some little local park. We're talking Greenwich here! I mean, the nerve that the British might choose to display some of its heritage to the world while hosting an olympics! The travesty! I suppose the evil IOC forced them to, right?

So you obviously didn't take a good look at that website and see what their complaints really are.

Anyway, how much of which Toronto parks are you willing to give up for the games? While we're at it, which neighbourhoods are you willing to displace?

 

[Hipster Duck]

' We have among the worst gridlock in North America due to the fact that elected officials at all levels and of all parties have neglected/refused to dedicate the necessary funds...I know, I know, some money and some improvements are happening, but this is really only the tip of an iceberg in terms of the scope of the problem...We're talking about leveraging an olympics games to build transit. I'd gladly pay for a velodrome if it meant making substantial gains in the battle against gridlock.

Tewder,

Toronto is already the recipient of well over $10 billion (maybe closer to $12B?) in public transit expansion money. This includes the ongoing Spadina subway extension, the various transit city LRT lines, the airport rail link, the Mississauga transitway and the upgrades to Union Station.

This is a significant chunk of change. There is a bigger problem here: all this money is being spent, and the results aren't exactly earth shattering. The projects I listed above aren't going to revolutionize the way Torontonians get around the same way that, say, the RER did for Paris when all of a sudden there was a second metro network that catapulted you across the city in several different directions in just fifteen minutes. For the price we are paying for transit expansion, we'd better be getting the kinds of improvements that will transform our city's travel experience for a century. Before we go looking for the Olympics to help us with our transit problems, perhaps we should take a deeper look at what money we already have earmarked and ask ourselves if we could have spent it more wisely. After all, $12 billion is a lot to play around with.

 

[Hanlansboy]

I think the only advantage of getting the Olympics would be improved transportation. With the world watching, one would hope city council would want everyone to see extensive and effective both public transportation and improved streets and highways. This city is growing faster then it can keep up with. All these new towers hold a lot of people, and urban sprawl is simply amazing. When I was a kid places like Pickering, Brampton, Mississauga, etc were the boonies, now they are bursting at the seams, with no new additional roadwork! We are literally living in a city designed for about 2.5 million (metro area included) with many of our major arteries being built in the 40's and 50's, some much older (particularly in the downtown core), but our population is now over 6 million! I'd love to see where this $12 billion is going, we desperately need upgrading. If they don't act now, it's only going to get worse with an ever increasing population. One good thing is most of the new condo sales in the South Core are people who don't have a car and can walk or cycle to work, it's the people in the burbs I pity! Has anyone heard of how they plan on making our traffic faster?