Tuscani01
Senior Member
Seems like the newspaper commenters AoD refers to above have found their way here sometimes.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Southcore
- Start date
Seems like the newspaper commenters AoD refers to above have found their way here sometimes.
Tewder
Senior Member
ToPerson hasn't contributed to any thread at UT other than this one since October of 2014. Animatronics pretty much only contributes here too. Not an infringement of any rules per se - and we all have our niche interests - but let's view them for the single-note anti-games shills that they are. Their positions are not formed for the good of, or in the interest of, an urban Toronto at all.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Yeah there are plans, but might not all be in your lifetime,
By the way, do you have any idea how large the Portland bounderies are??
there is more than enough room to incorporate a bunch of sports and entertainment venues to the plans, afterall most of it is designated as employment lands,
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Debate the issue and the issues raised (be it consistent and inconsistent) - avoid ad hominem please.
AoD
AoD
animatronic
Senior Member
The thread is about the Olympic bid, so it's a bit rich to get upset at people posting on topic just because they don't agree with you.
Also, at least get my name right if you are going to start pearl-clutching. And maybe search before making assumptions.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Not certain I'm willing to shoulder the burden of being the only anti-Olympics poster on this thread. Please don't ban animatronic, at least. He/she has been fighting the good fight against Games bids for a long time...
My biggest beef is the enormous cost. Y'all can quibble about what should be counted or not, but whether it's multi-billions or multi-multi-billions, it a ridiculous amount of money and the beginning, conservative-yet-mind-boggling estimates will be blown through by multiples, as y'all well know.
My second biggest, however, is the boosters that tie a need for construction to an Olympics. Transit is being built everywhere, and more buildings than any other city in North America. Toronto needs an 'Olympic boost' to construction like it needs a hole in the head. It's all a smokescreen to put up your shiny baubles, guys, so why bother? Just dream about starchitect stadiums that can then be used to... get an NFL team? For Taylor Swift concerts? Maple Leaf outdoor games?
Filip makes a very good point, though. He doesn't care about the cost one bit, he just wants a Toronto Olympics. And that's fair. So maybe I should stop being the 'pros' version of an internet troll and leave you to your dreams. Nahhh...
My biggest beef is the enormous cost. Y'all can quibble about what should be counted or not, but whether it's multi-billions or multi-multi-billions, it a ridiculous amount of money and the beginning, conservative-yet-mind-boggling estimates will be blown through by multiples, as y'all well know.
My second biggest, however, is the boosters that tie a need for construction to an Olympics. Transit is being built everywhere, and more buildings than any other city in North America. Toronto needs an 'Olympic boost' to construction like it needs a hole in the head. It's all a smokescreen to put up your shiny baubles, guys, so why bother? Just dream about starchitect stadiums that can then be used to... get an NFL team? For Taylor Swift concerts? Maple Leaf outdoor games?
Filip makes a very good point, though. He doesn't care about the cost one bit, he just wants a Toronto Olympics. And that's fair. So maybe I should stop being the 'pros' version of an internet troll and leave you to your dreams. Nahhh...
Tewder
Senior Member
Unlike the shills here who target this thread with singularity of purpose, twisting the facts as they go, Riverdale has a track record that demonstrates a broader and more nuanced interest in Toronto issues. I don't agree with his position on this issue but all's fair! So there, that's the last nice thing I'll say about him
For me, in an UT context, the priority in these discussions should always be a better urban Toronto (and region) and this is the point of view I advocate from, as I expect other jurisdictions do theirs. It's how a federation works! And my interest in wanting this sort of mass investment for Toronto, along with masterplanning at this scale - with real funding commitments and timelines - is worth at least some of the negatives that - admittedly - come along with staging an event of this magnitude.
People can whine and navel-gaze all they want about the cost of a new stadium or yet another velodrome but frankly i don't care, if this is the cost we have to pay to leverage a DRL or other vital transit developments (funded and committed within a ten year period) and revitalization of the Portlands and any number of other infrastructure/beautification improvements then so be it. In the meantime all of these things remain the unattainable, politically-divisive and ignored pipe- dreams they have always been, no matter how badly needed... and if counting pennies is your thing, let's not forget to factor in the massive financial and environmental cost of gridlock and pollution that our region pays and will continue to pay until resolved. Yeah, i'd build two more velodromes for that!
... and what an amazing opportunity for our city and region, for the arts and for tourism and long term regional branding/marketing. If organized right we will be involving Luminato and TIFF and our entire cultural community to participate in such an unprecedented international event for this city.
Filip
Senior Member
Yup, this is true - I don't care about the cost, but I want the entire initiative to be well managed, like the Panams.Not certain I'm willing to shoulder the burden of being the only anti-Olympics poster on this thread. Please don't ban animatronic, at least. He/she has been fighting the good fight against Games bids for a long time...
My biggest beef is the enormous cost. Y'all can quibble about what should be counted or not, but whether it's multi-billions or multi-multi-billions, it a ridiculous amount of money and the beginning, conservative-yet-mind-boggling estimates will be blown through by multiples, as y'all well know.
My second biggest, however, is the boosters that tie a need for construction to an Olympics. Transit is being built everywhere, and more buildings than any other city in North America. Toronto needs an 'Olympic boost' to construction like it needs a hole in the head. It's all a smokescreen to put up your shiny baubles, guys, so why bother? Just dream about starchitect stadiums that can then be used to... get an NFL team? For Taylor Swift concerts? Maple Leaf outdoor games?
Filip makes a very good point, though. He doesn't care about the cost one bit, he just wants a Toronto Olympics. And that's fair. So maybe I should stop being the 'pros' version of an internet troll and leave you to your dreams. Nahhh...
I view it as the big metropolis form of splurging on yourself.. We all do it, it keeps us sane. Toronto needs to spend on itself to feel better.
TOperson
Active Member
Like they did in London, Rio, Sochi, Barcelona. Oh, and ancient forest in Pyeongchang. But that's only a forest so who cares, right?
TOperson
Active Member
I've posted links to info about the neighbourhoods that were razed for the Olympics in the recent past. I'm not making it up, these things actually happened. I don't know for sure if it was included in the various bids, but I'm guessing not, because people in those neighbourhoods found it to be a nasty surprise. That's why I don't trust past Toronto bids to be true indicators of how a Toronto Olympics would play out.
Why is it obnoxious to post about the negative aspects of the Olympics? It seems like something we should be looking at very carefully if we are seriously thinking of bringing them here.
TOperson
Active Member
That was possible because it was publicly-owned land. And even then it took years of planning before any construction began.
The Olympics create a legal "state of exception" where private land can be expropriated much faster and cheaper than the usual process would allow. It's a way to snap up smaller parcels to make up one big parcel, do some sports on it for while, then sell it on to a developer. This is the exact process that has played out in multiple host cities.
I know you guys HATE my posting about this. Hate me all you like, hate the info all you like, but don't assume it's all lies. You can look it up for yourself.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Let's compare apples with apples here - i.e. did it happen in Calgary? Vancouver? Please name a neighbourhood that was razed in the Canadian context?
AoD
diminutive
Active Member
That's a bit trite. Everybody here cares about "a better urban Toronto." We like Apple Pie and motherhood too, shockingly! The point of departure isn't that you care about Toronto and anti-Olympic people don't, it's that there's a gap between people who think sporting mega events produce long term positive impacts and those that don't. Given that academic voices consistently find no positive impact from the games despite huge costs, you could at least work from the premise that Olympic opponents do have an interest in "a better urban Toronto."
Don't you find it a tad suspicious that so many cities that haven't hosted the games within our lifetime (NYC, Vienna, Osaka, Hong Kong, Singapore, Melbourne, Madrid, Hamburg, Berlin, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Chicago, SanFran ect...) are every bit as nice as host cities? Do you really think that Athens, Sydney, Beijing, London, Atlanta, Seoul and Barcelona have some kind of leg up on the rest of the world?
Theoretically, if there was some kind of observable and indisputable benefit from hosting the Olympics, why wouldn't cities in the world drive up bidding costs until costs rivalled benefits? How could such an obvious free lunch just dangle in the world for decades without everyone trying to buy it and wiping out the benefit?
I mean, doesn't this strike you as just a tad overblown? Let's parse out the assumptions you're making to conclude that the Olympics will make a noticeable impact to long term infrastructure.
- Hosting the Olympic games results in a marginal boost in infrastructure funding that would not have occured otherwise. This assumption is just not supported by the world. Non-host cities don't have worse infrastructure than host cities (e.g. Madrid vs. Barcelona, Toronto vs. Montreal, Tokyo vs. Osaka, Munich vs. Berlin, Beijing vs. Shanghai, Sydney vs. Melbourne ect..). In the decade in which Toronto was supposed to host the 2008 Games we underwent the biggest infrastructure spending boom in North America. Really, other than the fact that some infrastructure is almost tied into the games, what proof do you have that the Olympics results in infrastructure funding that wouldn't otherwise occur?
- Assuming there is a positive increase in funding due to the Olympics, that increase is substantial: Really, how much do you expect we could incrementally juice out of the Olympics? The OLP has pledged nearly 50billion dollars to transport infrastructure in the next decade. Sure, politicians promise lots, but in light of the tens of billions that have already been spent in the GTA and these promises it simply isn't credible to believe that any marginal Olympic induced funding boost will be super substantial. Vancouver got, maybe, 3 billion gross, very little of which was probably marginally induced by the Olympics. Frankly, in the context of existing and planned funding commitments, we're talking about a very small bump.
- The Olympics will cause induced funds to be spent in the most efficient means: Lots of people like complaining about how politicians are awful at planning transit, yet seem fine having the same politicians planning long term transit around a two week event. There's nothing even close to a guarantee that the Olympics would lead to a DRL. None, at all. Even if there was, it's incredible to believe that planning the DRL around the Olympics is a good idea. Look at where the Olympic venues have historically been proposed: Portlands, Skydome, Exhibition. That's a DRL along Lakeshore, not necessarily Queen or King where it would make more sense. Transit investment won't somehow become more rational due to the Olympics.
TOperson
Active Member
Hang on, since when are we only comparing to other Canadian Olympics? And if we're doing that, we should only compare summer Games to summer Games and so on, since it's widely acknowledged that the two are different. E.g. the winter Games are smaller and largely take place outside of cities because that's where the mountains are, etc.
Anyway, the book Five Ring Circus gets into what happened with land clearances in the Vancouver games. There was an issue with habitat destruction for an eagle species due to Olympic construction, for one example.
Anyway 2, as I've said repeatedly, the host city contract supersedes the laws that normally cover the jurisdiction. That's what is meant by that term I keep using "state of exception". So it's kind of irrelevant what would normally happen in Canada if you wanted to raze a neighbourhood, just like it was irrelevant in London. That's why London is a scary example - it has similar property laws to ours (we basically got ours from the UK to begin with) and yet they didn't stop people from losing their homes and businesses.
animatronic
Senior Member
The reality is that groups such as FIFA and the IOC require certain guarantees that there will be legislative support for number of areas, including sponsor brand protection. Here's the Canadian law passed for Vancouver:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-9.2/FullText.html
In the regular world a copyright infringement case would take place between the two parties (the rights holder and the accused infringer). In the Olympics you could be prosecuted by the Crown.