[diminutive]

I agree that the Olympics themselves don't provide any real net-benefit, and itself is a waste of money, but the net benefit in our case is the few times the Province and Federal government open the wallet for funding big ticket infrastructure items that we desperately need. Look at the Pan Am Games, it was sold over and over again that only hosting the Pan Am Games gave us "A rail link to the airport" that we've need for some thirty odd years, that only the Pan Am Games brought about "revitalizing the West Don Lands" and you start seeing a picture that hosting these overblown events is the rare times that we can funding for infrastructure.

There is no infrastructure boom though. It's just not true that Toronto is SOOO starved for infrastructure funds. We all agree that more could be done, and things could be done better, but we still do invest tons in transit without the Olympics. We don't need to lie to ourselves to fund transit. Look at the Scarborough Subway Extensions; there's no problem getting senior levels of government to open their wallets when that's politically beneficial. We've also built just about all of the projects we had tied to our 2008 bid as well.

Moreover, we can see that Olympic host cities don't ever have better infrastructure than comparable cities in the same jurisdiction. Toronto isn't worse than Montreal, Calgary or Vancouver. LA and Atlanta aren't better than similar cities. Beijing isn't better than Shanghai. Sydney isn't better than Melbourne. Barcelona isn't better than Madrid. So on and so forth. If the Olympics did produce some kind of funding bonus we'd expect host cities to have better infrastructure than comparable non host cities and that's simply not the case.

And your examples show how these events can skew transit investment. UPx should have been WAY down the priority list given its paltry ridership. We're not lining up to spend hundreds of millions on the Glencairn bus for a reason. Likewise, the projects discussed around 2024 are hardly #1 (e.g. QQELRT).

 

[Tewder]

Lots of cities have grand visions but have not hosted the Olympics. Lots of cities with no vision have hosted the Olympics.

But that argument itself means the Olympics don't cause and aren't necessary for whatever metric you're using for urban success.

You are both still missing the point. The olympics are just an opportunity, they just happen to be a rare one in terms of scale and potential. Absolutely some cities have squandered this opportunity, not identifying the right goals and/or failing to keep them front and centre in the planning. Fair enough. These are the examples you will point to and say 'see, olympics are bad'.

The opportunity isn't free either. No argument here. They cost big bucks and not every expenditure may be an ideal expenditure in a perfect world, which is why you can point to a stadium and its price tag and be outraged that we would contemplate such a thing. Fair enough.

What we are looking for in a bid though is the potential for a net benefit, which from an urban planning/city building point of view is not the same thing as a net profit. A net profit or loss being a short term result, relatively speaking, whereas a net benefit, in its wider and broader sense, is a more long term return. This is what requires vision to identify, plan for and execute successfully. No, not all cities do this effectively, the results varying from one host city to another... but it is the reason that cities do bid, so can we please take the whole 'we just want a big multi-billion party' nonsense off of the table? In non-autocratic societies at least this just doesn't fly.

For a Toronto games the price tag is going to be upwards of $15 to $20billion (give or take) when all is said and done... and there's no point squabbling about it, it's going to be expensive! This will not be paid by Toronto, however. It will come from corporate sponsorship and joint funding between our municipal, provincial and federal governments. This is to say that a big chunk of this cost will be spread out across the province and across the nation, which is exactly how all grand projects such as infrastructure etc are funded. This is how we can afford to build expensive needed infrastructure in smaller populated areas where a profit will never be realized. This is how Canada has been funded and built since day one.

... but here's the opportunity: though the cost will be shared the benefits will all be for Toronto (with many spin off benefits for the region as a whole, and for the nation given Toronto's economic status)... including the benefit of an investment in Toronto's infrastructure, Toronto's urban revitalization, Toronto's beautification, Toronto's tourist and commerce sectors, Toronto's global branding, etc. The municipal investment - the municipal share in that big price tag above - gets leveraged out to achieve a far bigger return for Toronto than would be possible spending the same amount directly for something. Again, the costs are spread (even that stadium) but the benefits are not.

So yes, from a Toronto perspective and in a cost/benefit way the olympics are an opportunity. They are not the only opportunity out there but they have enormous potential because they require prompt deadlines (relatively speaking) and government underwriting, which in a Toronto context is particularly meaningful given, a) Toronto's funding problem ( its inability to levy a tax the way other major urban cities do, combined with b) political/funding stalemate across an entrenched urban and suburban divide, and c) a lack of healthy funding levels from the federal government in particular (across decades and political parties).

We can debate until the end of time just what particular infrastructure, revitalization, economic etc benefits Toronto will receive but the tangible benefits at least just won't be understood until an actual bid is seen.

 

[rbt]

Look at the Scarborough Subway Extensions; there's no problem getting senior levels of government to open their wallets when that's politically beneficial.

To be fair, for SSE we have a pledge that they *will* open their wallets. It hasn't actually happened yet and any kind of recession or change in government could remove that pledge. The amount the city has collected isn't enough, yet, to cover the EA and engineering work.

I recall Spadina extension funding sitting in a trust account type of thing (provinces contribution) a long time before construction actually started. Did they fund it during the EA? I know the feds took a few years after the EA to agree to fund their portion (pledge came quickly, nailing down exactly which pieces they'd pay for took a long time).

Eglinton seems to be the smoothest running transit project in a long time. Georgetown was a complete muck-up; GO hates committing to running actual service.

 

[animatronic]

You are both still missing the point. The olympics are just an opportunity, they just happen to be a rare one in terms of scale and potential. Absolutely some cities have squandered this opportunity, not identifying the right goals and/or failing to keep them front and centre in the planning. Fair enough. These are the examples you will point to and say 'see, olympics are bad'.

The opportunity isn't free either. No argument here. They cost big bucks and not every expenditure may be an ideal expenditure in a perfect world, which is why you can point to a stadium and its price tag and be outraged that we would contemplate such a thing. Fair enough.

What we are looking for in a bid though is the potential for a net benefit, which from an urban planning/city building point of view is not the same thing as a net profit. A net profit or loss being a short term result, relatively speaking, whereas a net benefit, in its wider and broader sense, is a more long term return. This is what requires vision to identify, plan for and execute successfully. No, not all cities do this effectively, the results varying from one host city to another... but it is the reason that cities do bid, so can we please take the whole 'we just want a big multi-billion party' nonsense off of the table? In non-autocratic societies at least this just doesn't fly.

For a Toronto games the price tag is going to be upwards of $15 to $20billion (give or take) when all is said and done... and there's no point squabbling about it, it's going to be expensive! This will not be paid by Toronto, however. It will come from corporate sponsorship and joint funding between our municipal, provincial and federal governments. This is to say that a big chunk of this cost will be spread out across the province and across the nation, which is exactly how all grand projects such as infrastructure etc are funded. This is how we can afford to build expensive needed infrastructure in smaller populated areas where a profit will never be realized. This is how Canada has been funded and built since day one.

... but here's the opportunity: though the cost will be shared the benefits will all be for Toronto (with many spin off benefits for the region as a whole, and for the nation given Toronto's economic status)... including the benefit of an investment in Toronto's infrastructure, Toronto's urban revitalization, Toronto's beautification, Toronto's tourist and commerce sectors, Toronto's global branding, etc. The municipal investment - the municipal share in that big price tag above - gets leveraged out to achieve a far bigger return for Toronto than would be possible spending the same amount directly for something. Again, the costs are spread (even that stadium) but the benefits are not.

So yes, from a Toronto perspective and in a cost/benefit way the olympics are an opportunity. They are not the only opportunity out there but they have enormous potential because they require prompt deadlines (relatively speaking) and government underwriting, which in a Toronto context is particularly meaningful given, a) Toronto's funding problem ( its inability to levy a tax the way other major urban cities do, combined with b) political/funding stalemate across an entrenched urban and suburban divide, and c) a lack of healthy funding levels from the federal government in particular (across decades and political parties).

We can debate until the end of time just what particular infrastructure, revitalization, economic etc benefits Toronto will receive but the tangible benefits at least just won't be understood until an actual bid is seen.

That's all fine except that there is no evidence from past Olympic Games to support your theory that intangibles make up for the massive sucking sound of games related expenses.

Take your argument and swap out the Olympics in favour of Ford's Ferris wheel, a dome covering the city, a massive casino development, a monorail, whatever. It's always the same emotion + intangibles pitch for fantasies that don't add up.

City building is hard. There aren't any shortcuts.

 

[Tewder]

That's all fine except that there is no evidence from past Olympic Games to support your theory that intangibles make up for the massive sucking sound of games related expenses.

The benefits are both tangible and intangible. The tangible benefits are revitalization, urban development, infrastructure, city beautification and improvements etc. These would be part of a bid and so fairly quantifiable. Sure, the intangibles are less easy to measure, and take years to assess besides, i.e. long term boost to tourism, commerce and how a higher profile from the games impacts the city, if at all etc.

Take your argument and swap out the Olympics in favour of Ford's Ferris wheel, a dome covering the city, a massive casino development, a monorail, whatever. It's always the same emotion + intangibles pitch for fantasies that don't add up.

Well that's not quite an analogy. The analogy would be a ferris wheel as part of a required package in order to achieve some much needed infrastructure, i.e. an arguably questionable item leveraged for the bigger desired item... and the Ferris Wheel idea was just derivative, bad by anyone's measure. If Ford had developed the whole concept, pre-London Eye for example, it might have been an interesting and innovative idea, as the Eye turned out to be (one of London's biggest tourist draws too).

City building is hard. There aren't any shortcuts.

There are definitely leaps. The PanAms were a mini leap that achieved quite a bit for Toronto, at a time when the condo boom was too preoccupied with returns for specu-vesters than city building per se. They kick-started plans that had already been conceived of, to one degree or another, for the lost 08 bid, for Waterfront Toronto or for the PanAms bid themselves.

Anyway, my point is that the olympics are really just an opportunity, that ultimately it's about what we do with it. I feel we should at least see what a bid looks like.

 

[diminutive]

The benefits are both tangible and intangible. The tangible benefits are revitalization, urban development, infrastructure, city beautification and improvements etc. These would be part of a bid and so fairly quantifiable. Sure, the intangibles are less easy to measure, and take years to assess besides, i.e. long term boost to tourism, commerce and how a higher profile from the games impacts the city, if at all etc.

We're not doubting that the Olympics, or any event, produce a mix of intangible and tangible benefits. We've been saying that they almost never outweigh the costs. There's really no clear evidence for instance that the Olympics produce any long term positive tourism impacts, for instance. Academic studies show this time and time again, and they show it for similar events like Expo, the World Cup, the Super Bowl and other mega events as well.
From a policy perspective, if no other city is using the 'opportunity' of the Olympics in a way that produces a clear long or short run positive impact, it's a strong sign that they're simply not a good opportunity. The Games are run in such a way that host cities are forced to blow tens of billions on spurious event venues, security costs and hosting expenses; it's almost impossible for any benefits to outweigh the costs. Maybe if the Olympics were run differently this tradeoff wouldn't be so bad, but if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

Anyway, my point is that the olympics are really just an opportunity, that ultimately it's about what we do with it. I feel we should at least see what a bid looks like.

They're a BAD opportunity. We're literally talking about accepting many billions of waste in order to have the 'opportunity' to do things we already do. You don't need to blow billions on a party for an opportunity we already have. It's a very, very bad tradeoff.

And we don't stand still outside of the Olympics. Toronto's never had an Olympic games and yet we've built a respectable, if not perfect, City. We've built one of the best and most extensive transit networks in North America. We're literally investing 10s of billions of dollars every decade now to modernize and expand even more.

To be fair, for SSE we have a pledge that they *will* open their wallets. It hasn't actually happened yet and any kind of recession or change in government could remove that pledge. The amount the city has collected isn't enough, yet, to cover the EA and engineering work.

Fair enough, but my point was that senior levels of government haven't exactly been playing the evil stepmother role. They've generally been pretty supportive of municipal priorities. I actually can't think of a single transit project in the GTA where QP has said 'no, that's too expensive, you should have this cheaper option, but maybe we'd have a different opinion if you were hosting the Olympics.' Even on massive projects like ECLRT they've seemed remarkably sanguine about project cost effectiveness.

 

[Euphoria]

I agree with all of the points in Tewder's last posting. One more point about attitude. I just got back from Disney World and Cape Canaveral. I know Disney conjures up theme parks, but I came away from both places with the same feeling I had leaving Trafalgar Square or The Mall in London, England; the Louvre Palace in Paris; the Kremlin in Moscow; and other places that have given me a sense of awe at humanity's achievements. Other than a few projects in Canada's history, such as Expo '67, there isn't a lot in the built environment in this country to look at and say, 'Wow, people built that!' (I know we make a big deal about the Trans National Railway, but let's face it, similar projects have been done across the developed world and it's no Panama Canal. Same goes for the St. Lawrence Seaway.) It's weak that we're splitting hairs over whether we can afford infrastructure that is basic in most major cities in developed countries. There's nothing in the complaints from the NoTO2024 crowd to inspire. The constant 'No we daren't do it' refrain is depressing. We should be asking, How great a vision can we create for a city that has the potential to be one of the world's most influential cities? The seeds we plant now will set the course. Some of Toronto's older public works, such as R.C. Harris's Bloor Viaduct (built with the capacity to carry a subway before the Bloor-Danforth line was conceived) or Union Station, which we still admire today, were built with a sense of confidence and vision. An Olympics, in the right hands, is about dreaming big. After the success of the Pan Am's and the outpouring of volunteer support, I trust that an Olympics in Toronto would be a huge success. The anti-Olympics complaints haven't taught me anything I don't already know about the cost considerations. They have reminded me just how petty and second rate we can be. I really hope that in this debate we focus on dreaming big and doing all we can to live up to those dreams. Have a look at the IOC's legacy fact sheet: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwiLurLaxMLHAhVTBZIKHSR_CrA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.olympic.org%2FDocuments%2FReference_documents_Factsheets%2FLegacy.pdf&ei=o3vbVcvcAtOKyASk_qmACw&usg=AFQjCNFU1mq-MNKgUp_JAS3r_wuRj0RakQ&sig2=-qKbKBqHl_SkbQThEnVNPQ

*I look forward to your venomous criticism. Yes, I cited a document from the evil IOC.

 

[Tewder]

We're not doubting that the Olympics, or any event, produce a mix of intangible and tangible benefits. We've been saying that they almost never outweigh the costs. There's really no clear evidence for instance that the Olympics produce any long term positive tourism impacts, for instance. Academic studies show this time and time again, and they show it for similar events like Expo, the World Cup, the Super Bowl and other mega events as well.
From a policy perspective, if no other city is using the 'opportunity' of the Olympics in a way that produces a clear long or short run positive impact, it's a strong sign that they're simply not a good opportunity. The Games are run in such a way that host cities are forced to blow tens of billions on spurious event venues, security costs and hosting expenses; it's almost impossible for any benefits to outweigh the costs. Maybe if the Olympics were run differently this tradeoff wouldn't be so bad, but if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

I don't believe we are ever going to agree on this, Diminutive. That's ok, I've put my rationale out there for anybody who is on the fence about it. They can look into some of the successes I've discussed a little closer themselves to make up their own minds about it and about whether there is any credible opportunity in it for Toronto. In the end a bid will tell us everything we need to know, so I would urge strongly for this.

And we don't stand still outside of the Olympics. Toronto's never had an Olympic games and yet we've built a respectable, if not perfect, City. We've built one of the best and most extensive transit networks in North America. We're literally investing 10s of billions of dollars every decade now to modernize and expand even more.

Fair enough, but my point was that senior levels of government haven't exactly been playing the evil stepmother role. They've generally been pretty supportive of municipal priorities. I actually can't think of a single transit project in the GTA where QP has said 'no, that's too expensive, you should have this cheaper option, but maybe we'd have a different opinion if you were hosting the Olympics.' Even on massive projects like ECLRT they've seemed remarkably sanguine about project cost effectiveness.

I will signal out that I do disagree vehemently with your characterization that a) upper levels of government have shown themselves supportive of municipal priorities and b) that ongoing investments in infrastructure have been acceptable for a city of Toronto's size and growth. The opposite has been true, in fact. I would argue that our network is about 20 to 30 years behind where it needs to be, resulting in among the worst traffic gridlock in North America and in an inadequate transit system that is already fast surpassing peak. We didn't get here overnight. Governments have cut back on funding, transit visions have been aborted and replaced, over and over again (going back to the Harris Conservatives) and Toronto's issues have largely been ignored at the federal level by Libs and Conservatives alike. I agree with you that this is a great city, but it is limping along and broken in many ways, despite the fact that we've just gone through an unprecedented era of growth and development. Your optimistic assessment just doesn't add up.

Besides which, the few strides we have made over the past 7 to 8 years were in fact motivated by and urged through due to the PanAms, a smaller analogue to Olympic opportunity.

 

[animatronic]

The constant 'No we daren't do it' refrain is depressing. We should be asking, How great a vision can we create for a city that has the potential to be one of the world's most influential cities?

This is where I think you are mis-reading the opposition. It isn't about pulling the Ford Nation "No" stamp out of the drawer - though there is some of that for sure. Absolutely dream big. Absolutely get the tax dollars out of the three levels of government. But don't pay the 50% Games tax on infrastructure (games operating losses + false deadline inefficiencies), and don't hand urban planning over to the OCOG and IOC. This is absolutely critical. If we win the IOC will have full contractual approval over all games-related spending (and in Toronto, a lot spending will be games-related). We will be subsuming the power of Council to an unelected Organizing Committee that answers to Lausanne. In any conflict of goals you know which side will win. We will then go an orgy of spending that will tie our hands for the next 20 years.

The current run-up to a 2024 bid is terrible governance. We don't even know why we should bid because nobody has a plan to debate. We haven't as a city figured out if sewer improvements are more important to our civic vision than track stadiums. We haven't assessed whether funding another half dozen Pride/TIFF events will have a better return on tourism investment. We've just decided to bid on the games and backed into benefits like 10,000 units of affordable housing. Sure that's a nice goal, but you don't need a mega-event to build that.

Meanwhile, Tory pops around telling everyone that the Sep 15th letter is a simple way to hedge our bets, while the IOC calls it a firm commitment to bid. Which one is it? Every other city has spent the last three years figuring out how the Olympics fit into the big picture (even LA) while we've been content to let the Bid Team rag the puck so there isn't any public debate. We're just setting ourselves up to lose - the only questions is whether we lose small (Paris or LA beat us) or lose big (we get the Games).

So yes, think big for Toronto. Think huge. We should be the best at whatever it is that we decide we should be. But don't be under any illusions that the Games are going to help us get there.

 

[animatronic]

Besides which, the few strides we have made over the past 7 to 8 years were in fact motivated by and urged through due to the PanAms, a smaller analogue to Olympic opportunity.

It would be more accurate to say that any infrastructure investments made in the past 7-8 years have been retconned back into the Pan Am story so that the Games seem like less of a boondoggle than they actually are.

 

[pman]

I agree with all of the points in Tewder's last posting. One more point about attitude. I just got back from Disney World and Cape Canaveral. I know Disney conjures up theme parks, but I came away from both places with the same feeling I had leaving Trafalgar Square or The Mall in London, England; the Louvre Palace in Paris; the Kremlin in Moscow; and other places that have given me a sense of awe at humanity's achievements. Other than a few projects in Canada's history, such as Expo '67, there isn't a lot in the built environment in this country to look at and say, 'Wow, people built that!' (I know we make a big deal about the Trans National Railway, but let's face it, similar projects have been done across the developed world and it's no Panama Canal. Same goes for the St. Lawrence Seaway.) It's weak that we're splitting hairs over whether we can afford infrastructure that is basic in most major cities in developed countries. There's nothing in the complaints from the NoTO2024 crowd to inspire. The constant 'No we daren't do it' refrain is depressing. We should be asking, How great a vision can we create for a city that has the potential to be one of the world's most influential cities? The seeds we plant now will set the course. Some of Toronto's older public works, such as R.C. Harris's Bloor Viaduct (built with the capacity to carry a subway before the Bloor-Danforth line was conceived) or Union Station, which we still admire today, were built with a sense of confidence and vision. An Olympics, in the right hands, is about dreaming big. After the success of the Pan Am's and the outpouring of volunteer support, I trust that an Olympics in Toronto would be a huge success. The anti-Olympics complaints haven't taught me anything I don't already know about the cost considerations. They have reminded me just how petty and second rate we can be. I really hope that in this debate we focus on dreaming big and doing all we can to live up to those dreams. Have a look at the IOC's legacy fact sheet: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwiLurLaxMLHAhVTBZIKHSR_CrA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.olympic.org%2FDocuments%2FReference_documents_Factsheets%2FLegacy.pdf&ei=o3vbVcvcAtOKyASk_qmACw&usg=AFQjCNFU1mq-MNKgUp_JAS3r_wuRj0RakQ&sig2=-qKbKBqHl_SkbQThEnVNPQ

*I look forward to your venomous criticism. Yes, I cited a document from the evil IOC.

I'm not sure that the Olympic infrastructure you want us to pay for is really "basic in most developed cities in most countries." A lot of what we would have to build would simply be over the top. For example, a 70,000 seat stadium with - let's be honest - absolutely no economic value after the Games. Or aquatic facilities with far too much spectator seating than we would ever need.

I agree that Toronto did produce some iconic and inspiring public works in the past. You mention the Harris filtration plant, the Bloor Viaduct and Union Station, all of which were built without being appended to an entirely tangential sporting event. I also agree that the honest, though I believe insane, rationale for hosting the Games is the feel good buzz you cite.

As for the great things we'll build, let's remember that all three governments that would fund this extravaganza have a history of mostly paying for exactly the wrong infrastructure in the wrong place. Given our dysfunctional politics, it's easy to conceive of an Olympic site in Downsview Park, with subway lines across Finch and Sheppard, and an Allen Road extended north to 407 and tunnelled south to somewhere around DuPont and Davenport. The assumption that the Olympics will magically result in the right infrastructure in the right place would not appear to be supported by Toronto's particular facts on the ground.

I couldn't agree more that Toronto needs to create a vision, perhaps not to be one of the world's most influential cities - please, let's get real - but at least to be able to compete globally as a struggling beta city with a collapsing hinterland. I would suggest the experience of Montreal, Atlanta and Athens demonstrates the Olympics don't necessarily produce the miraculous results you assume will follow. But suppose I'm wrong, Euphoria. How exactly will hosting the Olympics turn Toronto into one of the world's most influential cities, as you claim?

 

[TheDudeInToronto]

I think bidding for the Olympic games in 2024 has both many pros and cons. The pros are that toronto would receive lots of international attention and many tourists would come to Toronto during this time, it will be the greatest event in Toronto's history to be hosted by it, one that will never happen again , however, it would come at a high cost for Toronto tax payers, many people will have to pay a large amount of taxes, for the city to bid, and to be able to host the games, not to mention the many renovations the city would require, toronto would have to look really clean, and nice for the games, not to mention many projects that would be delayed by the city, to bid for the games, however, overall i think it would be worth it, it would be the one chance to have the olympics in toronto, a once in a lifetime event

 

[Euphoria]

I think there's a distinct lack of imagination at play. How can you say a 70,000 seat stadium would have no economic value when all of our major stadiums and arenas have extremely low vacancy rates and a new stadium can be leased or sold? You've got to remember that when you increase the sports venue capacity, you also increase your eligibility to host events. I've made the point before about the ability to host international presentations and athletic events such as the World Cup (of soccer, track and field, etc.), and to add new sports franchises such as NFL. We can create a waterfront icon and park. Australia became dominant in swimming largely because it build elite-level aquatics facilities, so there's a health and athletics dividend from sporting facilities for sure. You want local world class training centres. As for the vision of the bid itself, that would come from a bid team that would be mostly local and involve architectural design teams, likely selected through a competition. While dated in a few places due to changes in recent development patterns, the 2008 Toronto bid would've brought phenomenal changes for the better, from burying the Gardner to remediating the Portlands and providing key transit access from QQE and south of the Canary District. That's all been said. What concerns me most about many of the NoTO comments is that there's no recognition of the intrinsic value of the Olympics itself, as though the games are just an excuse to build needed infrastructure. No doubt, the games would fast track valuable infrastructure and give us the opportunity to bring better macro planning to a city that has let developers wreak havoc. Yes, WT has brought development in line with a better broader vision, but only at the edge of the waterfront. The Portlands is a different animal. Don't forget that WT was created during the 2008 Olympic bid because the Port Authority, Harbour Commission, and other stakeholders were working at cross purposes. The Olympic vision can and should be a home grown vision. If the new bid is anything like the old, assuming it goes forward, it will serve Toronto's long term interests. Yes there will be costs, but these will be shared with private interests and higher levels of government. One more thing that is VERY concerning about Pman's remarks about TO's so called 'beta city' status. Toronto is the fourth largest city in North America behind Mexico, New York, and LA. It's bigger and growing faster than Chicago. The GTA takes in 7 out of 10 of our immigrants and is growing at approx. 100,000 people a year. We need to start living up to this status in our built form: transit infrastructure, cultural and sporting venues, planning and design, parks and recreation. Read about the legacy of the Olympics in Sydney. It's phenomenal. London is shooting for Expo 2025 after just hosting the Olympics. Think big, take some risks, and you will see the floor boards shift. Our expectations of ourselves will change. If we plan right and act with confidence, I believe Toronto will be a much more influential city than it is. But we'll get what we deserve, whether we rise to the occasion or scurry to the sidelines.

 

[animatronic]

I think there's a distinct lack of imagination at play. How can you say a 70,000 seat stadium would have no economic value when all of our major stadiums and arenas have extremely low vacancy rates and a new stadium can be leased or sold? You've got to remember that when you increase the sports venue capacity, you also increase your eligibility to host events. I've made the point before about the ability to host international presentations and athletic events such as the World Cup (of soccer, track and field, etc.), and to add new sports franchises such as NFL. We can create a waterfront icon and park. Australia became dominant in swimming largely because it build elite-level aquatics facilities, so there's a health and athletics dividend from sporting facilities for sure. You want local world class training centres. As for the vision of the bid itself, that would come from a bid team that would be mostly local and involve architectural design teams, likely selected through a competition. While dated in a few places due to changes in recent development patterns, the 2008 Toronto bid would've brought phenomenal changes for the better, from burying the Gardner to remediating the Portlands and providing key transit access from QQE and south of the Canary District. That's all been said. What concerns me most about many of the NoTO comments is that there's no recognition of the intrinsic value of the Olympics itself, as though the games are just an excuse to build needed infrastructure. No doubt, the games would fast track valuable infrastructure and give us the opportunity to bring better macro planning to a city that has let developers wreak havoc. Yes, WT has brought development in line with a better broader vision, but only at the edge of the waterfront. The Portlands is a different animal. Don't forget that WT was created during the 2008 Olympic bid because the Port Authority, Harbour Commission, and other stakeholders were working at cross purposes. The Olympic vision can and should be a home grown vision. If the new bid is anything like the old, assuming it goes forward, it will serve Toronto's long term interests. Yes there will be costs, but these will be shared with private interests and higher levels of government. One more thing that is VERY concerning about Pman's remarks about TO's so called 'beta city' status. Toronto is the fourth largest city in North America behind Mexico, New York, and LA. It's bigger and growing faster than Chicago. The GTA takes in 7 out of 10 of our immigrants and is growing at approx. 100,000 people a year. We need to start living up to this status in our built form: transit infrastructure, cultural and sporting venues, planning and design, parks and recreation. Read about the legacy of the Olympics in Sydney. It's phenomenal. London is shooting for Expo 2025 after just hosting the Olympics. Think big, take some risks, and you will see the floor boards shift. Our expectations of ourselves will change. If we plan right and act with confidence, I believe Toronto will be a much more influential city than it is. But we'll get what we deserve, whether we rise to the occasion or scurry to the sidelines.

A 70,000+ seat stadium has absolutely no economic value in Toronto. It's not even close. You need 200 events a year to cover operating and capital costs. This isn't the fucking field of dreams. If you build it nobody will come. The fact you even think that's a possibility just shows how far from reality your argument sits.

 

[Euphoria]

Well I think you're dead wrong, animatronic. The stadium won't be a white elephant. Do I think we'll get 100% cost recovery on the stadium? Maybe not. It doesn't matter, because if a loss on the stadium and security costs are the prices we pay for hosting an Olympics with all of its attendant benefits, and these will be more than offset by about $3.7 billion in sponsorships and ticket sales, the project was well worth it. Just admit it, you don't like the Olympics or similar events. For you it's strictly a money in, money out cost benefit analysis that can't really be done, because there is no clear way of calculating all of the benefits. It gets back to people placing different values on different things. We've been down this road before, so just subsume your identity in the royal we of the NoTO2024, so that you can make hosting the Olympics about some dubious political agenda.