[TOperson]

"Suck it up? Every single athletic activity imaginable?"

If a 10m diving platform is a necessity, why stop there? As it happens, I'm into equestrian sports but it's tough to do them in central Toronto. Where's my publicly funded eventing course and stables and hay barn?

There is no rational, responsible way to provide all the facilities that every athlete at every level would like to have in Toronto. It would cost a fortune. Olympic-level athletes move to where the facilities are. Regular people get by with what's available. (And given most Canadians' fitness levels, they aren't even doing that.)

"So you really don't care about our national athletes then.. got it. As for the second part, this is swimming and diving here, not exactly obscure sports."

"Don't really care about our national athletes" - I'm such a big meanie. How many athletes do we have at the Olympics? A few hundred? How do those numbers compare to, oh, the numbers who need food banks? Who are waiting for surgery? Who have student loans because tuition keeps going up?

Actually I DO care about the Canadian public that would have to pay for a Toronto Olympics and all the opportunity costs they would have to bear as a result. I'd like them to either 1) keep their money and spend it they way they like or 2) get the infrastructure and services they really need and want in exchange for their taxes.

"And yes I've seen that link you posted, very hilarious, and completely objective too. Like going to the Toronto Sun for objective opinions on David Miller."

It's "hilarious" that people got kicked out of their homes, or had missiles put on top of them, or lost their neighbourhood park space? That neighbourhood businesses suffered because construction kept customers away? Gee, you're all heart.

Of course, the IOC and corporate sponsors are all TOTALLY objective and would never, ever lie about the impacts of the Olympics on host cities. Completely trustworthy. No one else's opinion is relevant.

 

[TOperson]

TOperson:
Okay, so LOCOG made the choice to use Greenwich Park and there have been concerns about this amongst locals. As someone who spent time in Grad school researching the impacts of Olympics, and as someone who has worked in heritage planning, I definitely understand the concerns related to Greenwich Park. Yes, NOGOE has some valid concerns but some are more valid than others. I think some of it is very much overblown (such as the complaints that the Park has been privatized, as if it will forever be owned by a for-profit company) in the same way that the Island Airport is an issue for a small vocal group of waterfront dwellers here (I'm a waterfront dweller myself and don't share the sentiment). I think it's unfair to prognosticate that the Park will be ruined for decades to come and to state that as fact. We've had parks in Toronto "privatized" for short periods (such as HTO Park during the Cirque du Soleil performances during Luminato) with large stages and trucks moved in and there was no long term impact of privatization or state of disrepair within the park. That's not to compare HTO to Greenwich in terms of stature, but I'm sure you can see some of the parallels. In the end, LOCOG consulted with groups like English Heritage and The Royal Parks and I doubt that any concerns they may have were ignored.

Now, to answer your question, Zara Phillips trains at Addington Manor which is about an hour and a half outside of London and would have been the farthest venue from London outside of sailing (obviously) and various football venues (again, obviously). LOCOG used Greenwich because it fit their theme of putting events in London's historic locales. When that's the theme, you'll always be stepping on someone's toes.

My question is what does LOCOG's use of Greenwich Park have to do with anything? Simply because LOCOG may or may not have made a mistake, that has little to do with a potential Toronto games. I'd also suggest that simply because something happens in one city during one Olympics, doesn't mean that it will occur in another. Every Olympics is different, face their own issues and some are more successful than others (notice I said "successful" and not "profitable" as you'd be hard pressed to find accurate figures of profitability). Each affects their city in a different way. You seem to be overtly negative about a Games, but I'm always skeptical of people who see these things in black and white (for the record, I'm neither for or against hosting without seeing plans).

This is quite funny, because everything you accuse me of doing, you do yourself.

E.g. You say "don't assume that what happened in London would happen here" and then say "when our parks get used for events it works out OK, so I'm sure that will happen in London"

I never asked where ZP trains. The point is that England already had good equestrian facilities, so it was unnecessary to spend millions on temporary ones in an urban park.

The damage looks Greenwich Park looks pretty serious to me. We'll see how long it takes to restore it, but it's clearly not a two-week job. I grew up around horses and trust me, they make a mess (I don't just mean the manure). Luminato and Cirque de Soleil have much less of an impact.

The park didn't need to get damaged AT ALL, of course. Why should any part of it be harmed to be consistent with a "theme"? How is that a justification? Why not tell the locals they have to dress in period costume then, if the theme is so important? Insist on period food in restaurants too? Can you really blame people for objecting to damaging a park for such a lame reason?

Also, HTO park is very different in terms of amenities etc from Greenwich Park. Not a fair comparison. That said, how would putting a temporary Olympic equestrian facility in a Toronto waterfront park go over with the public? Not very well. The same complaints would arise, and the waterfront isn't even a World Heritage site.

Yes, I am "overtly negative" about the games; I've made no effort to hide it. So what?

The bigger issue is – and it concerns me that few on this thread have picked up on it – is that the needs, desires and opinions of local people are totally ignored once the Olympic steamroller comes to town. THAT has happened again and again. Why would we bring that on ourselves, sign up to watch our city be transformed in ways that we never approved or expected or desired, all at our expense, just for a two-week sports party?

 

[jn_12]

"Suck it up? Every single athletic activity imaginable?"

If a 10m diving platform is a necessity, why stop there? As it happens, I'm into equestrian sports but it's tough to do them in central Toronto. Where's my publicly funded eventing course and stables and hay barn?

There is no rational, responsible way to provide all the facilities that every athlete at every level would like to have in Toronto. It would cost a fortune. Olympic-level athletes move to where the facilities are. Regular people get by with what's available. (And given most Canadians' fitness levels, they aren't even doing that.)

"So you really don't care about our national athletes then.. got it. As for the second part, this is swimming and diving here, not exactly obscure sports."

"Don't really care about our national athletes" - I'm such a big meanie. How many athletes do we have at the Olympics? A few hundred? How do those numbers compare to, oh, the numbers who need food banks? Who are waiting for surgery? Who have student loans because tuition keeps going up?

Actually I DO care about the Canadian public that would have to pay for a Toronto Olympics and all the opportunity costs they would have to bear as a result. I'd like them to either 1) keep their money and spend it they way they like or 2) get the infrastructure and services they really need and want in exchange for their taxes.

"And yes I've seen that link you posted, very hilarious, and completely objective too. Like going to the Toronto Sun for objective opinions on David Miller."

It's "hilarious" that people got kicked out of their homes, or had missiles put on top of them, or lost their neighbourhood park space? That neighbourhood businesses suffered because construction kept customers away? Gee, you're all heart.

Of course, the IOC and corporate sponsors are all TOTALLY objective and would never, ever lie about the impacts of the Olympics on host cities. Completely trustworthy. No one else's opinion is relevant.

The whole "bread not circuses" act ignores the fact that even without Olympics we have homelessness, poverty, student debts (mine's at $40k, how about you?), etc. Would it be awesome if the money used for an Olympics was spent on those things? Of course, but that's not the reality of the situation. In fairness, you can use social issues to argue against the construction of anything. Why renovate the ROM when we can feed people? Why improve the waterfront when we can put that money towards tuition fees? why buy new subway cars when people who are homeless can't afford metropasses? Where does that stop?

As for your athletic facilities argument, the GTA has a number of facilities where you can ride equestrian, including one at the CNE. Torrey Pines is in York Region and is the home of Olympian Eric Lamaze, so obviously we have facilities that allow for national equestrian riders from the GTA to train. But I'm sure you knew that.

The thing is, you have to look at elite-level training facilities as investments for the city. They're no different than opera houses or art galleries or public squares. Optimally, they don't cater to just a select few, but allow for everyone to have access to a sport that maybe they wouldn't have had access to otherwise. The success of that can be seen in the hundreds of Olympians that compete for Canada and the thousands upon thousands more who become inspired by those people and give a sport a try. I also think that they're a great equalizer, and while I don't agree with Rob Ford on much, his use of football as a way to get kids out of trouble is something I've seen work first hand as someone who competed at elite levels of hockey. Sure, you can implement those programs using existing infrastructure, but the availability of elite training facilities in non-traditional sports provides the same type of incentive that Major Junior and NCAA hockey provides many hockey players in this country. If you can see a future, you can do a lot with it, and elite training facilities allow just that.

 

[Tewder]

TOperson is incensed that the English decided to feature some of their historic locations and show them to the world during an Olympics. The outrage! He'd rather that sites be closed off and covered in bubble wrap to protect them from any use whatsoever, the sequestered domains of the priviledged and selfish few. Thankfully the British have adopted a more modern and enlightened view of their heritage infrastructure, viewing it as relevent and evolving rather than treating it like a relic and preserving it in amber...

...and his fanatic point of view is obvious now really: screw athletes, screw the economy, screw the potential of the future, screw the majority of the population that would enjoy the games, screw development and transit, and screw the health and welfare of Canadians who would use the new facilities and be inspired by the games. In the end though he really just hates the olympics, foaming at the mouth at the very mention of them as he pounds his fingers away to the bone looking for more questionable and biased sites to quote to support his shaky agenda. Fortunately, whether it's Pride, TIFF, Luminato, or an Olympics Games, some people in this city understand that it takes vision and an investment of resources and money for communities to grow and flourish. This takes a wider view, however, which you can't get niggling over the outrage of equestrian sites or parks! The forest, TOperson, the forest!!

 

[TOperson]

"The whole "bread not circuses" act ignores the fact that even without Olympics we have homelessness, poverty, student debts (mine's at $40k, how about you?), etc. Would it be awesome if the money used for an Olympics was spent on those things? Of course, but that's not the reality of the situation. In fairness, you can use social issues to argue against the construction of anything. Why renovate the ROM when we can feed people? Why improve the waterfront when we can put that money towards tuition fees? why buy new subway cars when people who are homeless can't afford metropasses? Where does that stop? "

That's not the only way the argument has to go. Yes, it's tough to squeeze more money for social programs etc, but that's not a justification for frittering it away on a big sports event. Doing so only makes it harder to fund the other things. Why make it harder?

"As for your athletic facilities argument, the GTA has a number of facilities where you can ride equestrian, including one at the CNE. Torrey Pines is in York Region and is the home of Olympian Eric Lamaze, so obviously we have facilities that allow for national equestrian riders from the GTA to train. But I'm sure you knew that."

What athletic facilities argument? I haven't made one, certainly not about equestrian facilities here. (BTW, Eric Lamaze's training facility is not necessarily what the IOC would approve for competition. And no way would the CNE be up to scratch. It's not even suited to the TV cameras that would be required.)

"The thing is, you have to look at elite-level training facilities as investments for the city."

No, I don't. We've seen time and again that many of them sit empty post-Olympics and drain resources for maintainence, etc.

"They're no different than opera houses or art galleries or public squares."

Yes, they are. Opera houses etc can be used and enjoyed by people of all ages, fitness levels, etc. Elite athletic facilities are nice, but most regular people don't need them or use them just to keep fit. Which is how they end up being underused.


"Optimally, they don't cater to just a select few, but allow for everyone to have access to a sport that maybe they wouldn't have had access to otherwise. The success of that can be seen in the hundreds of Olympians that compete for Canada and the thousands upon thousands more who become inspired by those people and give a sport a try. "

Don't fall for that malarkey. Studies have shown that the Olympics don't really lead to better fitness outcomes for the general population. (I don't have links handy at the moment, but the research is definitely out there.) E.g. The USA has brilliant Olympic athletes and has done for decades, and has great facilities, but we all know that the average American is woefully unfit. For one thing, the facilities are too localized. It's nice that Vancouver has new stuff, but how does a Maritimer use it on any regular basis?


"I also think that they're a great equalizer"

Elite sports? That doesn't make sense. The Olympics are pretty clearly all about winners and rankings, not equality.


"and while I don't agree with Rob Ford on much, his use of football as a way to get kids out of trouble is something I've seen work first hand as someone who competed at elite levels of hockey. Sure, you can implement those programs using existing infrastructure, but the availability of elite training facilities in non-traditional sports provides the same type of incentive that Major Junior and NCAA hockey provides many hockey players in this country. If you can see a future, you can do a lot with it, and elite training facilities allow just that."

I agree that community sports are important in all kinds of ways, and I have no problem funding those. But I disagree that elite facilities in a few locations, with all the access issues involved, help community sports. Community sports need good-enough facilities that are widely accessible in terms of location, cost, hours of opening and so on. I'd like to see the sports money spread around the country and province, if the goal is activity and fitness for regular people.

I think using the incentive of elite facilities (I assume you mean that kids would dream of one day competing in a big-time venue, so the venue needs to be there in the first place) actually does kids a disservice. Most kids won't play in the big venues, and that's okay. I think it would be better for them to get the fitness, fun and community benefits of sport and ideally translate that into lifelong fitness habits, but NOT to build up unrealistic fantasies of being the next who-ever, only to be let down later. But that's a whole separate issue.

 

[TOperson]

TOperson is incensed that the English decided to feature some of their historic locations and show them to the world during an Olympics. The outrage! He'd rather that sites be closed off and covered in bubble wrap to protect them from any use whatsoever, the sequestered domains of the priviledged and selfish few. Thankfully the British have adopted a more modern and enlightened view of their heritage infrastructure, viewing it as relevent and evolving rather than treating it like a relic and preserving it in amber...

...and his fanatic point of view is obvious now really: screw athletes, screw the economy, screw the potential of the future, screw the majority of the population that would enjoy the games, screw development and transit, and screw the health and welfare of Canadians who would use the new facilities and be inspired by the games. In the end though he really just hates the olympics, foaming at the mouth at the very mention of them as he pounds his fingers away to the bone looking for more questionable and biased sites to quote to support his shaky agenda. Fortunately, whether it's Pride, TIFF, Luminato, or an Olympics Games, some people in this city understand that it takes vision and an investment of resources and money for communities to grow and flourish. This takes a wider view, however, which you can't get niggling over the outrage of equestrian sites or parks! The forest, TOperson, the forest!!

I'll bet some of England's pre-existing equestrian facilities are already pretty historic and would have shown up nicely on TV.

So, again, another one of these "TOperson is against the Olympics, therefore TOperson is against ALL FUN, ALL SPORTS, ALL DREAMS" posts. Can't you do better? Like come up with some solid research that supports your own points? Do you have any points other than slagging me off?

You don't think that the thousands of people behind the "questionable and biased sites" (This is funny because pretty much all the major media outlets, right across the political spectrum, have at one point or another questioned the value of the Olympics. Even people who don't agree on much can agree that something's not right with the games.) might just actually have a point? Or that maybe the pro-Olympic propaganda is just as biased if not more so?

One more thing: Back in March you said Toronto should not bid for the Olympics. Why have you changed your mind?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Actually I was talking about our hilariously shitty aquatics facilities.

Answer me this.. you're a diver, and you want to practice on a 10m platform anywhere between October and May.. Where do you go?
Exactly.

Seriously, WTF? WHO CARES??? If you're anyone involved in a sport no one else in the country cares to fund, fund it yourself, like me and my rugby friends buying a field.

Now I'm spending $25 BILLION so someone can learn how to dive without going to Etobicoke???

 

[nfitz]

So, no, LOCOG did NOT have to touch Greenwich Park.

So they used Greenwich Park. Big deal. I'm sure in 20 years time, you'd be hard-pressed to even figure out where they used it. Surely this is a pretty minor issue compared to some of the other travesties, such as when the Romans built the A2 and all those other roads through it ...

 

[TOperson]

So they used Greenwich Park. Big deal. I'm sure in 20 years time, you'd be hard-pressed to even figure out where they used it. Surely this is a pretty minor issue compared to some of the other travesties, such as when the Romans built the A2 and all those other roads through it ...

Just about anything can be rationalized on the grounds that the people affected by it will move on and eventually die and the whole thing will just be an historical footnote. Including not getting the Olympics in Toronto. People will get over it, life will go on, it'll barely be remembered - so it's no tragedy if it doesn't happen.

 

[nfitz]

Just about anything can be rationalized on the grounds that the people affected by it will move on and eventually die and the whole thing will just be an historical footnote. Including not getting the Olympics in Toronto. People will get over it, life will go on, it'll barely be remembered - so it's no tragedy if it doesn't happen.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[Red October]

Seriously, WTF? WHO CARES??? If you're anyone involved in a sport no one else in the country cares to fund, fund it yourself, like me and my rugby friends buying a field.

Now I'm spending $25 BILLION so someone can learn how to dive without going to Etobicoke???

I care, as do millions of others who have been watching these games and the millions of people involved in sports (do you do anything active?). You're talking about 10 year old kids here who should "fund it themselves"? Yeah, great logic. In fact, why build pools at all? Why build soccer fields? Why build recreation centres? Why build theatres? If I don't like ballet, why should I contribute to a performing arts centre? On the other hand, why should I care if kids in Scarborough have to go to Etobicoke for a library (I know this isn't the case obviously but it's just an example)? I certainly shouldn't pay for it. Why should I care if you have access to any facilities whatsoever? Your opinion is very selfish and NOT the majority. And what Aquatics Centre will cost $25 billion? That's absurd and just sensationalist and wrong.

If you have no interest in promoting health and fitness, choice of interest, and have no pride in our national athletes, than maybe a country such as this isn't for you.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I care, as do millions of others who have been watching these games and the millions of people involved in sports (do you do anything active?). You're talking about 10 year old kids here who should "fund it themselves"? Yeah, great logic. In fact, why build pools at all? Why build soccer fields? Why build recreation centres? Why build theatres? If I don't like ballet, why should I contribute to a performing arts centre? On the other hand, why should I care if kids in Scarborough have to go to Etobicoke for a library (I know this isn't the case obviously but it's just an example)? I certainly shouldn't pay for it. Why should I care if you have access to any facilities whatsoever? Your opinion is very selfish and NOT the majority. And what Aquatics Centre will cost $25 billion? That's absurd and just sensationalist and wrong.

If you have no interest in promoting health and fitness, choice of interest, and have no pride in our national athletes, than maybe a country such as this isn't for you.

Well said............ +1

 

[picard102]

IYou're talking about 10 year old kids here who should "fund it themselves"? Yeah, great logic.

Wont someone please think of the orphan divers!

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I care, as do millions of others who have been watching these games and the millions of people involved in sports (do you do anything active?). You're talking about 10 year old kids here who should "fund it themselves"? Yeah, great logic. In fact, why build pools at all? Why build soccer fields? Why build recreation centres? Why build theatres? If I don't like ballet, why should I contribute to a performing arts centre? On the other hand, why should I care if kids in Scarborough have to go to Etobicoke for a library (I know this isn't the case obviously but it's just an example)? I certainly shouldn't pay for it. Why should I care if you have access to any facilities whatsoever? Your opinion is very selfish and NOT the majority. And what Aquatics Centre will cost $25 billion? That's absurd and just sensationalist and wrong.

If you have no interest in promoting health and fitness, choice of interest, and have no pride in our national athletes, than maybe a country such as this isn't for you.

You are preaching to the choir. Too many people in this country only care about hockey. A sport which only 13 countries play.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

You are preaching to the choir. Too many people in this country only care about hockey. A sport which only 13 countries play.

As an Irish person - I find this remark offensive

We are ranked 41st out of 49 in the world - with our one hockey rink in the country.