[Tewder]

Thank you for so eloquently proving my point! Sure there are billions watching, but with few exceptions the Canadians are watching Canadian athletes, the Dutch are watching Dutch athletes etc... Nobody other than us cares that we are the defending Olympic trampoline champions. Nobody other than us cares that we just won bronze in the men's 4x100 (quick - who came 2nd?). Hosting is the same. Vancouver was this big national pride thing, but for the rest of the world it was just a backdrop for their athletes. The Olympics exist purely for each country's domestic consumption.

Thank you for proving my point, that the backdrop for the world's viewing and attention becomes the host city. This is a massive opportunity. It creates both domestic national unity and promotes the city abroad.

 

[animatronic]

Thank you for proving my point, that the backdrop for the world's viewing and attention becomes the host city. This is a massive opportunity. It creates both domestic national unity and promotes the city abroad.

You've misread. It may have some transient impact on national unity but the makes very little impact on international attitudes.

 

[Tewder]

You've misread. It may have some transient impact on national unity but the makes very little impact on international attitudes.

It's just not possible to claim that the olympics would have 'very little impact' on 5 billion people viewing Toronto as a backdrop for nation-unifying historic and athletic moments, along with all the 'local colour' profiles that broadcasters feature, the opening and closing ceremonies, the venues of the events themselves etc. This is huge exposure for the period leading up to the games and during the games themselves, with residual benefits lasting for several years after. Even just the exposure and marketing opportunities to surrounding major US markets would be hugely beneficial for years to come (Chicago to NYC/Boston).

I really agree with the last line: "But still, I think my biggest frustration comes back to the fact that this Olympic talk is just part of the same old pattern. Again and again, to the neglect of day-to-day issues like transit service and housing, civic leaders in Toronto insist on taking up the torch for big and vague ideas. And then, almost always, the public gets burned."

Except these arguments are nullified by the recent experience of a so-called 'big and vague idea', namely that of the PanAms, which were the catalyst for most that has been achieved on these portfolios (transit and development etc), along with the failed 2008 olympic bid. No to gripe about investing in grand projects like the PanAms and Olympics is akin to bitching that we lack for the arts in Ontario while advocating that we stop funding and promoting the Stratford and Shaw festivals. Damaged logic!

The 'legacy' of mega events, if anything, is to divert funding stable athletics funding towards splashy stadiums.

Nonsense. Please provide proof.

An investment in the olympics isn't just about facility and training infrastructure it's about increased funding of Canadian athletes and athletic programs and for a whole generation. It's about Own the Podium and all kinds of government programs that would be ramped up now so as to produce athletes at their prime in time for the games. Host cities/countries like to produce medalists, as we just saw in the UK and in Vancouver. This has massive residual benefits in creating athletic heroes and inspiring future generations.

 

[detroitbootybass]

Support for Toronto hosting summer Olympics slides to 50 per cent


http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ng-summer-olympics-slides-to-50-per-cent.html



"Toronto’s support for a Summer Olympic bid has slipped to 50 per cent, according to a newly released poll.


That’s a drop of 8 per cent since the last poll by Mainstreet Research on the issue.


The study by the national public research group found that just half of city residents support the push for the city to host the Summer Games in 2024.

Opposition to the city hosting a Summer Olympic bid has increased by 9 per cent to 47 per cent..."

 

[Tewder]

A year after the London games, "More than two-thirds of the UK public believe the £8.77bn cost of the London 2012 Olympics was worth the money" http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/olympics/23434844

Five years following the Vancouver games, "69 per cent think it was “definitely” or “probably” worth it to hold the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Meanwhile, one in four believe the experience was not worth it." http://globalnews.ca/news/1855351/p...-worth-it-to-hold-2010-olympics-in-vancouver/

Clearly, successful host cities do not regret hosting an olympics games and value the benefits over the costs. Does anything in life come without a cost?

An article describing the success of the olympics in London with respect to revitalization and infrastructure specifically:

The park, which opened to the public in April, has drawn crowds attracted by meadows of wildflowers, a cycle park and the chance to pay 3.50 pounds ($6) to swim in the pool where Michael Phelps broke the Olympic medal record. From 2016, the Olympic stadium will host professional soccer as the new home of West Ham United. Work has started on the building where the Financial Conduct Authority, the U.K. financial-services watchdog, will be based, next to tech firms and Westfield Corp.’s Stratford City shopping center.

It is all a far cry from the one-time railroad yard covered with factories and waste dumps that then-Mayor Ken Livingstone earmarked as the location for the 2012 games. The lure was spending 30 years of development money in less than a decade. Some 2.3 million cubic meters of contaminated soil had to be cleaned before work could begin.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ught-by-ballet-company-carries-london-s-torch​

... and a very similar result for Sydney:

"If London had a spiritual Olympic cousin, the closest would seem to be Sydney in 2000. The two shared popular fervor, a rich cultural attachment to sports, astute planning and a vast Olympic Park built on once-contaminated land: Homebush in the west for Sydney; Stratford in the east for London." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/sports/olympics/14iht-srolwrap14.html?_r=0
​

... and a very similar result for Vancouver:

...the study found there were major benefits in the form of three massive infrastructure projects – the Sea-to-Sky Highway upgrade, which changed a dangerous, winding mountain road into a safer, faster highway; the construction of the Canada Line, which provided rapid transit to Vancouver International Airport and several communities on the route; and the Vancouver Convention Centre, which gave the city a large, modern conference venue overlooking the harbour.

Those projects, along with a flurry of smaller developments including new community centres, the Olympic Village in Whistler and the Richmond Olympic Oval, drove up the cost of the Games, but gave Whistler and Vancouver developments the cities might never have seen.

And those projects were largely paid for by the provincial and federal governments. The report states that for every $12 spent by Ottawa and B.C. on the three big projects, local taxpayers contributed only $1.

“Residents paid little in direct taxes to get great infrastructure … it is a good deal,” said Prof. VanWynsberghe.

He said the findings show how local communities were able to use the Games to get funding from higher levels of government.

“The best way to think about this is in terms of leveraging … and what you are attempting to do is use the vehicle of the event to achieve other public policy objectives,” he said. “Arguably the Sea-to-Sky Highway, the Canada Line, the Convention Centre, the community centres, those are the other public policy objectives that you are trying to achieve – and the Games provided the vehicle for doing that.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...billion-price-tag-study-says/article15036916/​

What could Toronto achieve for the waterfront and the Portlands? For transit??

Clearly these are not merely 'big and vague' ideas as anti-gamers would dismiss them as being. Then again, what ideas do the anti-gamers have? Zilch. Status quo. They actually want to preserve the current state of political and funding gridlock, maintaining a political climate where council can continue to be manipulated by special interest groups. Not good for the city!

 

[Videodrome]

Jonathan Goldsbie ‏@goldsbie 4m4 minutes ago
Mayor Tory's staff confirms: the Olympic announcement will indeed take place upon the roof of Hero Certified Burgers.

Tomorrow at 9:30 AM.

 

[MetroMan]

Sounds like a yes. A no would probably be a press release.

 

[Videodrome]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...lare-interest-in-olympic-bid/article26351964/

The Globe thinks he will say no.

 

[Kitsune]

so does the star : http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...bid-decision-waits-until-the-last-minute.html

 

[animatronic]

And it's a fumble at the goal! Looks like Tory tripped on a religious school question at the 5 yard line...

 

[Videodrome]

Well, to be fair, he did manage to get elected this time!

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Sounds like a yes. A no would probably be a press release.

Going back to the Mayor Rob Ford thread, your predictions always seemed to be off.

 

[picard102]

Looks like we'll escape this disaster after all!

 

[Tewder]

Hepburn says it nicely in the Star:

The decision should be easy because the case in favour of hosting the Olympics is so persuasive — tens of thousands of jobs over a seven-year period, an improved economy, major transit and infrastructure improvements, more affordable housing and a legacy of arts, cultural and sporting facilities.

But Tory also has been bombarded in recent days by a noisy gaggle of near-professional Olympic critics and Toronto bashers who have been dominating airwaves and newspaper opinion pages.

For them, the Olympics are a waste of money, too expensive, too corrupt, filled with traffic chaos, security threats and overfed, pompous bureaucrats.

Rather than seeming to want a great city, these critics appear to want Toronto to be an unambitious city, expressing a negative mentality that holds that Toronto won’t be able to get it right when it comes to staging a successful Games.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comm...-should-say-yes-to-2024-olympics-hepburn.html
​

 

[MetroMan]

Going back to the Mayor Rob Ford thread, your predictions always seemed to be off.

Then you missed the main event where at he height of the scandal, the Rob Ford thread was the source of breaking news, often with media crawling around asking to speak with me about how I was getting info hours or sometimes days before them.

But I digress. I don't have any special access to this Mayor and my guesses are as good as the rumours going around City Hall's corridors. Tory seems to have been going back and forth on this subject, coming close to committing to the Olympics as recently as this weekend when he said that he wanted Nathan Phillips Square to play host to a significant sports celebration.

This is Tory we're talking about. He may flip flop while he's at the podium.