[AlvinofDiaspar]

You'll note it's a new member that has posted these two posts -- including the second which touches on every positive propaganda point an Olympic bid committee puts forward. I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that, pending lots of other posts on other threads, that this is a single-issue member shilling for an Olympics. DJThomps, please prove me wrong.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-2008-olympics-a-city-that-might-have-been.7135/

And I've noticed a NoTO2014 account set up even before said member - what kind of conclusion should I draw from that? As long as the individual isn't breaking any rules, why should it even be an issue? Are you really going to want to interrogate everyone on that basis?

I'm not certain that I'm playing revisionist Games (see what I did there?), AoD. Mayor Miller put himself on the board of WT and shook up the process to kick-start things from the city side, and he was Mayor from 2003-2010, not 1996.

TWRC (the predecessor of WT) predates Miller (as much as we may like it, history didn't begin with him) - it was established in 2001 as a direct response to the Fung Report, conincident with the 2001 bid. Planning activities took up most of the early years of said orgs' activities - and the city didn't pay for all that much - a lot of it is land contribribution in lieu of cash. Sugar Beach is the work of the Feds; WDL/flood protection is ORC.

On Twitter, someone suggested bidding for the 2021 aquatics championships instead: Infrastructure is now in place, with small further renovations of the Etobicoke pool and the UofT pool as the only infrastructure spend necessary. Absolute top-class swimming & diving, leveraging the Pan-Am spending. Why don't we do that instead?

Sure by all means bid for it, but you and I both know that is intended as a diversion from the elephant in the room. And of course, I wouldn't hesitate to mention that we wouldn't have had the wherewithals to bid for it if not for the Pan Ams in the first place.

AoD

 

[P23]

That makes sense to me. Focus on supporting the sport(s), not the circus.

By 2024 there may be no massive media sponsorships to milk since television may well be dead, and instead free content rules the day. Even today I watch live sports for free on http://agr8tvbox.ca/ By 2024 no one will be willing to pay for any sports coverage.

haha, what? That's a more ridiculous claim than the guy saying we need to raze a bunch of neighbourhoods. You know online content is filled with advertising too right? Not to mention the enormous amount of brands displayed on the playing field, athlete's clothing, food/drink, etc. Sponsorships aren't going anywhere.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

haha, what? That's a more ridiculous claim than the guy saying we need to raze a bunch of neighbourhoods. You know online content is filled with advertising too right? Not to mention the enormous amount of brands displayed on the playing field, athlete's clothing, food/drink, etc. Sponsorships aren't going anywhere.

By that time I wouldn't be surprised if we get some kind of high quality telepresence broadcast using Rift-like technologies with customized ads in FOV.

An aside: as an ex-rower with a keen interest in the sport, I would LOVE to see the 2008 plan for a proper 2K course in the Shipping Channel revived, making one of the few summer sports in which Canada is consistently competitve a centrepiece of thr Olympic park. But considering St-Catherine's has a totally world-class course already it seems unlikely this would happen, and rowing will be relegated to a distant site -- as in London, Beijing, and Athens.

The shipping channel will require significant modifications - notably at the eastern end (though I've heard issues with the width of the channel as well) to accommodate rowing - not sure if it should be done if we already have a site across the lake. Perhaps we should have ferries to and from that site instead?

AoD

 

[allabootmatt]

The Shipping Channel would definitely need very major work to be brought up to spec for international rowing events. Probably would have to be widened and the banks naturalized (instead of the current concrete walls) to reduce chop. Not a minor undertaking at all, and I agree unlikely to happen considering what exists not too far away.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Do we really intend to hold swimming events, one of the two marquee Olympic sports, in a venue at UT-Scarborough that won't be accessible by rapid transit even in 2024? Or to have a velodrome in a field in Milton?

It seems that an Olympic bid with a reasonable chance of success would have to propose new facilities in a central location, IE the Port Lands, per the IOC's well-documented preference for having as many events as possible co-located in an Olympic 'park.' That means duplicating specialized sporting venues which already face non-trivial 'legacy' questions.

I can see the aquatics centre at UT Scarborough (which doesn't have enough seats anyways) used for secondary events. My personal preference, as mentioned previously, would be for them to refit Hearn for aquatics (probably with room to spare for some other events). Someone will have to work out the economics of course, but at least we'd be reusing an existing structure that we have no will to do anything about at this point and would be a tragedy if lost. The only completely new build I see is the stadium - all the rest should be temporary. As to Milton - relative inaccessibility is a minus (though the velodrome is also located away from the central complex in Sydney 2000), but on the bright side there is enough space around it to add temporary seating. We definitely shouldn't build a new facility just because of the issue with the location.

Looking at the Sydney plan - you wouldn't have guessed that it was incredibly suburban - comparing it to TO is like apples and oranges.

AoD

 

[TOperson]

"That's a more ridiculous claim than the guy saying we need to raze a bunch of neighbourhoods."

Hosting the Olympics means displacing neighbourhoods.

http://www.bostonagainstolympics.bid/why-oppose/housing-and-displacement/

You don't think it's coincidence that Olympic bids are backed by the development industry, do you?

 

[animatronic]

I can see the aquatics centre at UT Scarborough (which doesn't have enough seats anyways) used for secondary events. My personal preference, as mentioned previously, would be for them to refit Hearn for aquatics (probably with room to spare for some other events). Someone will have to work out the economics of course, but at least we'd be reusing an existing structure that we have no will to do anything about at this point. The only completely new build I see is the stadium - all the rest should be temporary. As to Milton - relative inaccessibility is a minus (though the velodrome is also located away from the central complex in Sydney 2000), but on the bright side there is enough space around it to add temporary seating. We definitely shouldn't build a new facility just because of the issue with the location.

Looking at the Sydney plan - you wouldn't have guessed that it was incredibly suburban - comparing it to TO is like apples and oranges.

AoD

The hearn building needs to be used for some kind of landmark purpose, but retrofitting an out of commission power plant on brownfield (landfill?) is going to be crazy expensive. Do it because it's the right thing to do, but it won't be cheaper than a new build.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The hearn building needs to be used for some kind of landmark purpose, but retrofitting an out of commission power plant on brownfield (landfill?) is going to be crazy expensive. Do it because it's the right thing to do, but it won't be cheaper than a new build.

Considering the thickness of the slab, you probably wouldn't want to dig down in any case. Like I've said, it's just one of these buildings that had to be reused or it will go to waste (and in that case, you'd still end up with a brownfield site that had to be deal with). I can think of no better use of this than some kind of athletic facility (given the unlikelihood of art gallery or whatnot).

I wish I have the full Behnisch proposal at hand.

AoD

 

[NoTO2024]

And I've noticed a NoTO2014 account set up even before said member - what kind of conclusion should I draw from that? As long as the individual isn't breaking any rules, why should it even be an issue? Are you really going to want to interrogate everyone on that basis?

Here's hoping this account won't be needed, but given recent events we're not sure that's realistic. We are working on the assumption that Tory will sign off by September 15th because "it doesn't cost anything to write a letter and it keeps our options open".

The UT crowd has a relatively nuanced understanding of civic machinery so hoping the debate can be fact-based and respectful.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

And I've noticed a NoTO2014 account set up even before said member - what kind of conclusion should I draw from that? As long as the individual isn't breaking any rules, why should it even be an issue? Are you really going to want to interrogate everyone on that basis?

AoD, I'm simply replying to your contention I was hyperbolic in my language that DJT's dense, pro-Olympics talking points were propaganda. I'm not asking you to interrogate anyone about anything.

TWRC (the predecessor of WT) predates Miller (as much as we may like it, history didn't begin with him) - it was established in 2001 as a direct response to the Fung Report, conincident with the 2001 bid. Planning activities took up most of the early years of said orgs' activities - and the city didn't pay for all that much - a lot of it is land contribribution in lieu of cash. Sugar Beach is the work of the Feds; WDL/flood protection is ORC.

You said that WaterfrontToronto's acceleration was due to the 2008 Olympic bid. I believe the acceleration is due to more focus from Miller, not the debacle that was the Fung report and its non-political acceptance. I don't think 'history begins with Miller' at all, but on this particular file nothing much happened under Lastman, or Rowland or Hall before him, except that Lastman was on board with the Olympic bid. When the bid failed, so did momentum for the waterfront until Miller revived it. I have no issue whatsoever with the idea that the Feds and Province, particularly the flooding protection mandate from TRCA, was of great influence in kickstarting WT as well -- WDL wouldn't have happened without the TRCA flood protection landform mandate.

Sure by all means bid for it, but you and I both know that is intended as a diversion from the elephant in the room. And of course, I wouldn't hesitate to mention that we wouldn't have had the wherewithals to bid for it if not for the Pan Ams in the first place.

AoD

I have been consistent throughout this debate that, now that we've built these facilities, we should leverage them by enjoying the PanAms. The FINA(sp?) championships would be the same. You and the rest of the pro-Olympics crowd are the opposite: You have clearly advocated that we build another shiny new aquatics center for another umpteen million dollars, because the current one needs more seats(!) to be Olympic class. Seriously, W.A.W.O.M.

I get that I get under your skin with my refusal to get onboard the blue sky dreaming for 'an Olympics with no costs, ever' balderdash. But the only elephant in MY room has $10bn+++ written on its side, and it's an Olympic Games. If you should happen to succeed in pushing this stupidity through, I'll enjoy those Games, too, just as I enjoyed this PanAms. But I'll lament the fact that instead of new businesses and new houses and new parks, we'll have a big track and field stadium in the middle of the Portlands so the pro-Olympic crowd can say that 'Toronto had an Olympic Games'. Yeah!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You said that WaterfrontToronto's acceleration was due to the 2008 Olympic bid. I believe the acceleration is due to more focus from Miller, not the debacle that was the Fung report and its non-political acceptance. I don't think 'history begins with Miller' at all, but on this particular file nothing much happened under Lastman, or Rowland or Hall before him, except that Lastman was on board with the Olympic bid. When the bid failed, so did momentum for the waterfront until Miller revived it. I have no issue whatsoever with the idea that the Feds and Province, particularly the flooding protection mandate from TRCA, was of great influence in kickstarting WT as well -- WDL wouldn't have happened without the TRCA flood protection landform mandate.

No, I said that the whole genesis of WT itself - not acceleration - is due to the bid. The three levels of government would not have sat down and hammered out some kind of governance structure if not for it - and that, above all else, was the historical issue that stymied a systematic revival of the waterfront. The TRCA and the associated limitations on development due to Don floodplain has been around even in the pre Ataratiri times - it is not the trigger. WT and the ability to coordinate, plus the P3 village plan is ultimately what kicked the plan into action. Let's not be revisionist about that outcome.

I get that I get under your skin with my refusal to get onboard the blue sky dreaming for 'an Olympics with no costs, ever' balderdash.

Whether you get on board or not is irrelevant. I am not really interested in turning an apple into an orange.

But the only elephant in MY room has $10bn+++ written on its side, and it's an Olympic Games. If you should happen to succeed in pushing this stupidity through, I'll enjoy those Games, too, just as I enjoyed this PanAms. But I'll lament the fact that instead of new businesses and new houses and new parks, we'll have a big track and field stadium in the middle of the Portlands so the pro-Olympic crowd can say that 'Toronto had an Olympic Games'. Yeah!

Funny, it seems that have new parks, businesses and houses with Pan Am - and nothing to show for it when we didn't.

I have been consistent throughout this debate that, now that we've built these facilities, we should leverage them by enjoying the PanAms. The FINA(sp?) championships would be the same. You and the rest of the pro-Olympics crowd are the opposite: You have clearly advocated that we build another shiny new aquatics center for another umpteen million dollars, because the current one needs more seats(!) to be Olympic class. Seriously, W.A.W.O.M.

Except that your initial promise - dont' spend money on it equates to that amount being spent on *whatever* (fill in the favourite blank - social housing, social services, transit, etc) is patently false. I have no problem with spending money judiciously on something like the Hearn, which will have benefit post-games in any form.

AoD

 

[Koolgreen]

give it up.........spend a few bucks and go wherever those Olympics will be and bask in it while we enjoy our Toronto.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

AoD --

Yeah, I'm going to stop. We are clearly not listening to each other's talking points. This is no longer a debate or even an argument. My initial premise was never that the money spent on a two-week sports extravaganza would be spent elsewhere. My premise was that it is a waste of money, period. But you clearly don't believe that, as you enjoy the spectacle and are happy to pay for it from governmental revenue.

I'd be excited if Toronto spent a bunch of money on the Hearn -- museum of Toronto, art gallery, ice hockey rinks, whatever -- as it would also, I'd expect, launch a new and exciting piece of Lake Ontario Park project. I just don't think we need to build a billion dollar stadium beside it.

BTW -- I'm not sure where I lost you, but I know exactly when you lost me. The idiocy of building an entirely new aquatic centre.

 

[TOperson]

Funny, it seems that have new parks, businesses and houses with Pan Am - and nothing to show for it when we didn't.

Logical fallacy. Had the Pan Ams never happened, waterfront development could still have proceeded especially taking into account the concurrent development boom. We'll never know, but even if the Pan Ams were absolutely necessary for that particular development, it doesn't follow that the Olympics would absolutely necessary - or even beneficial - to other developments. From a purely urban development perspective, the experience of past host cities suggests that the results are mixed. That wouldn't be so bad if it didn't cost so much. For $10+B, the results should be indisputably stellar.

 

[animatronic]

Not sure where everyone is getting these sub-$10B cost estimates. All recent summer games have been in the CAD$30-50B range. There's no magic trick that Toronto can use to cut that number by 2/3.