[Torontovibe]

People don't go to Barcelona just because the Olympic Games were held there once, and of course they go there because of Gaudi, but the thing is, most people didn't even know Gaudi before the Olympics. If done right, the Olympics put a city in people's minds, it enters another league, and cameras from all over the world come and let people see the best a city has to offer. Just look at this table to see precisely what the Olympics did for Barcelona:

It doubled its tourism activity. Hey, even if we get 30% more tourism, and a couple of transit lines out of it, I'm in.

Where did you get the impression that the Olympics is good for tourism? (Oh yeah, the Olympic snake oil salesman/liars) Do a search on tourism of Sydney, Athens, Beijing and you will see articles talking about how tourism did not get the big boost promised. In most cases it fell. So what makes you think Toronto will be any different? The Olympics does NOT give a huge boost to tourism, not even over the long haul. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it.

 

[FNTS]

The link with the table I posted with the example of Barcelona seems to be broken, so you might have missed it, I uploaded it again here:

Oh, I did read a few articles, and since they seemed strangely incomplete or decidedly misleading, I went and searched for papers instead. Here you can find a few:

http://www.tourismnortheast.co.uk/downloads/olympic_impact_on_tourism_study.pdf
http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/files/When-the-Games-Come-to-Town-M-Smith-2008.pdf
http://books.google.ca/books?id=GQz...1&ots=FEg_9_8h3u&dq=olympics&output=html_text

You'll see there's a pattern: tourism grows steadily for about 4 years previous to the Olympics, followed by a big spike the year of the event, then comes a dip in hotel occupancy the next year or two (fueled by the oversupply of hotel rooms left after the olympics, even if in some cases tourist numbers are steady, there are just too many rooms), and then a steady growth for about a decade. The articles that state tourism is negatively impacted by an Olympiad mainly concentrate on the two year slump after the games (the "peak and through" effect), and ignore the previous years of growth and the big rise that comes after a few years in most cases. They also seem to focus on hotel occupancy without explaining the natural oversupply after an event of this magnitude, or they talk about growth expressed in percentages instead of the actual number of tourists (it's more eye-catching to read "there was a 3% dip the next year!!!" than "total numbers went back to previous levels for a year or two before they started to rise again")

And please don't simplify my arguments. First: I said I think the Olympics CAN be a catalyst for tourism if done right. Of course, it's not always the case, but when it works, like with Barcelona, it works big time (and no, Barcelona is not the only Olympic Games that hasn't had a negative economic impact for the host city, it's just the brightest success. In fact, every Olympiad since 1984 has been profitable). Second: I never even said tourism was the main selling point for me, but the regeneration of former derelict areas, the homes that are built (both affordable and at market rates) and the transit infrastructure that's left as a legacy. And I think a city like Toronto can stand to gain a lot more than a city that already has that, like London.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Barcelona, Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto

You'll see there's a pattern: tourism grows steadily for about 4 years previous to the Olympics, followed by a big spike the year of the event, then comes a dip in hotel occupancy the next year or two (fueled by the oversupply of hotel rooms left after the olympics, even if in some cases tourist numbers are steady, there are just too many rooms), and then a steady growth for about a decade. The articles that state tourism is negatively impacted by an Olympiad mainly concentrate on the two year slump after the games (the "peak and through" effect), and ignore the previous years of growth and the big rise that comes after a few years in many cases. They also seem to focus on hotel occupancy without explaining the natural oversupply after an event of this magnitude, or they talk about growth expressed in percentages instead of the actual number of tourists (it's more eye-catching to read "there was a 3% dip the next year!!!" than "total numbers went back to previous levels for a year or two before they started to rise again")

And please don't simplify my arguments. First: I said I think the Olympics CAN be a catalyst for tourism if done right. Of course, it's not always the case, but when it works, like with Barcelona, it works big time. Second: I never even said tourism was the main selling point for me, but the regeneration of former derelict areas, the homes that are built (both affordable and at market rates) and the transit infrastructure that's left as a legacy. And I think a city like Toronto can stand to gain a lot more than a city that already has that, like London.

Barcelona IMHO is the outlier here due to its inherent value from a tourism point of view. The Olys just revealed it. I'm skeptical Toronto has that value, hidden under port and sewage problems, as we don't have a Medi beach in the waiting.

But, quite frankly, what you call your 'main selling point' is not a selling point. Toronto is building out its derelict areas in a condo building craze and new office buildings (e.g. City Place, Bremner, Southcore). The Pan Ams have already accelerated WDL and transit. Where's the need for MORE acceleration?

All we'll get is the biggest white elephant stadium in the history of stadiums, and a destroyed Port Lands.

 

[MisterF]

All we'll get is the biggest white elephant stadium in the history of stadiums, and a destroyed Port Lands.

That's a lot of speculation in one sentence. I don't know how a 20,000 seat stadium could possibly be considered a white elephant (the rest of the seats were temporary). How do you conclude that the port lands would be destroyed?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

That's a lot of speculation in one sentence. I don't know how a 20,000 seat stadium could possibly be considered a white elephant (the rest of the seats were temporary). How do you conclude that the port lands would be destroyed?

The rest of the seats of what were temporary? London or last Toronto bid?

Olys are always touted for new development. The local mayor & his cronies wish to accelerate the Port Lands & have already proposed a stadium there. Sure, it 's speculation, but that's where I think the dots connect. Otherwise, Toronto is the last place in the world that needs to goose development.

 

[FNTS]

The biggest local champion for an Olympic bid right now is Kristyn Wong-Tam, there couldn't be someone more distant from Rob Ford and his entourage.

 

[MisterF]

The rest of the seats of what were temporary? London or last Toronto bid?

Olys are always touted for new development. The local mayor & his cronies wish to accelerate the Port Lands & have already proposed a stadium there. Sure, it 's speculation, but that's where I think the dots connect. Otherwise, Toronto is the last place in the world that needs to goose development.

The last Toronto bid. That's what you were talking about right? As for goosing development, yes the Port Lands are going to get developed anyway, but I don't see how having an Olympics and putting athletic facilities down there would "destroy" the area. It's a massive piece of land, a stadium the size of BMO Field would only take up a small part of it and could easily integrate into a new neighbourhood.

 

[intoronto1125]

Both.

 

[Red October]

Re: "regeneration one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Europe". Yeah, they always say stuff like that. It means that they drove poor people out, god only knows where to, to put in overpriced upmarket housing. The Olympics are largely a development scam.

I was there yesterday. This is absolutely 100% untrue.

And why do past host cities pretty much never bid for the Olympics again?

You mean like Los Angeles, Tokyo, London, Paris, Athens and Moscow?

All we'll get is the biggest white elephant stadium in the history of stadiums, and a destroyed Port Lands.

That already exists about 6 hours away. It would be impossible to eclipse that, especially with Toronto's being mostly temporary.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Maybe the Big Owe does colour my thinking on the matter...

That already exists about 6 hours away. It would be impossible to eclipse that, especially with Toronto's being mostly temporary.

... and it's true I have a (rational, IMO) suspicion of anything touched by a Ford or his cronies, but I just cannot for the life of me get behind a TO bid. It gives so little, costs so much money, time, and disruption.

And, yes, I don't think there's any chance Godfrey, Ford et al don't try to get a stadium built that'll allow them to take another kick at the NFL can. There's way too much money to be made by our current OLG chair and the football-loving Ford is the perfect patsy.

For the record -- I was born and raised in Calgary and LOVED the 1988 Olys, and the fact the Saddledome allowed the Flames to come to town. But for every Nakiska development there's a dead Fortress Mountain. For every Barcelona there's an Athens (see today's Star). Why take a multibillion dollar gamble when Toronto is already booming and already about to host the Pan Ams?

 

[Automation Gallery]

Why take a multibillion dollar gamble when Toronto is already booming and already about to host the Pan Ams?

Exactly why not, are we wimps or a unadventurous town or what

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Exactly why not, are we wimps or a unadventurous town or what

Which syllable of multibillion did you misunderstand?

 

[kardi]

With Toronto hosting the Pan Am games in 2015 and all the new sports arenas were building, it would be great to host the Olympics in 12 years.

 

[TOperson]

Here's the thing, every one of the supposed benefits of hosting the Olympics can be achieved directly, at a much lower cost. Affordable housing, new athletic facilities, infrastructure, more tourists, yadda - you don't need the Olympics for any of that.

That's assuming that those outcomes are actually achieved and we know from the experiences of past host cities that AT BEST it's debatable whether that happens or if it's all worth it in the end. Ever notice that there is ALWAYS some hard-core opposition in every host city, ALWAYS cost overruns, ALWAYS a large number of fed-up residents and business owners who wish they'd never heard of the Olympics in the first place?

Consider all the moaning and complaining about the two-week repair job at Queen & Spadina. You want SEVEN YEARS of that, all over the city? You want to pay for it? What makes you think Toronto can somehow "do it right" when we can't even decide on a transit plan?

I notice there are a bunch of factual errors in some of the replies above. E.g. Kristyn Wong-Tam was interested in hosting an Expo (which I'm not keen on either, but anyway) and at the last minute during the Council/committee meeting (whichever one it was), Minnan-Wong threw out this Olympics thing. So it's not coming out of some carefully reasoned process that involved a lot public consultation.

Another thing: comparing the games from 50+ years ago to the games now is apples and oranges. The games were smaller then, there were no TV rights to be sold, corporate sponsorship and branding deals, etc - there was less money involved all around. I've read that these days the Paralympics are closer to the supposed Olympic ideals since there is so little money involved that most really are just doing it for the love of sports.

 

[sixrings]

Here's the thing, every one of the supposed benefits of hosting the Olympics can be achieved directly, at a much lower cost. Affordable housing, new athletic facilities, infrastructure, more tourists, yadda - you don't need the Olympics for any of that.

That's assuming that those outcomes are actually achieved and we know from the experiences of past host cities that AT BEST it's debatable whether that happens or if it's all worth it in the end. Ever notice that there is ALWAYS some hard-core opposition in every host city, ALWAYS cost overruns, ALWAYS a large number of fed-up residents and business owners who wish they'd never heard of the Olympics in the first place?

Consider all the moaning and complaining about the two-week repair job at Queen & Spadina. You want SEVEN YEARS of that, all over the city? You want to pay for it? What makes you think Toronto can somehow "do it right" when we can't even decide on a transit plan?

I notice there are a bunch of factual errors in some of the replies above. E.g. Kristyn Wong-Tam was interested in hosting an Expo (which I'm not keen on either, but anyway) and at the last minute during the Council/committee meeting (whichever one it was), Minnan-Wong threw out this Olympics thing. So it's not coming out of some carefully reasoned process that involved a lot public consultation.

Another thing: comparing the games from 50+ years ago to the games now is apples and oranges. The games were smaller then, there were no TV rights to be sold, corporate sponsorship and branding deals, etc - there was less money involved all around. I've read that these days the Paralympics are closer to the supposed Olympic ideals since there is so little money involved that most really are just doing it for the love of sports.

I agree with you but unfortunately thats not how people vote... Public transit goes at a snails pace... But if there was an olympic motivator it would move much faster...