Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[diminutive]

TrickyRicky, would you elaborate a little on what you are referring to as 'organic growth'? A number of high profile beautification, revitalization, development and infrastructure projects have come to fruition in Toronto recently, which is fantastic, but I feel this may distort the bigger picture. The PanAms were actually the catalyst for much of this and so a lot of what you may perceive as organic really isn't. Yes, we've seen some great private BIA initiatives too but these really just skim the surface of the bigger types of issues the PanAms - or Olympics potentially - would address.[/QUOTE]

No, they're not. You keep repeating this obviously ahistorical point as if it is some kind of fact. The overall impact of the PanAms were modest and contained to the WDL. The bulk of city building in TO has had no connection to the Games.

The point here being that we are looking at a total of $12 billion tax dollars for bad transit plans. This is not good organic growth!

In short, we need saving from ourselves, and a new election won't do it given the political urban/suburban polarization that undermines policy in Toronto, and has for decades now. A mega international event such as an Olympics games would have the opposite effect, generating funding and thereby freeing up the infrastructure plans from the politics given that there are no voters to pander to for the money. Oversight from upper levels of government would ensure the right plans.

So, based on this alone you can subtract $12billion from the cost of the games because this it what we would be saving right off the bat in getting the plans the city needs rather than the plans that our politicians need to get re-elected.

Ohhh good Lord, no! In no universe does hosting one event known for corruption and overbuilding help us avoid wasteful spending in other areas.

There's absolutely no reason to think an event like the Olympics would help us "save ourselves from ourselves." That doesn't make any sense at all; the same processes that produce inefficiencies today will guide infrastructure investment through the Olympics. We can see this through the Pan-Am Games which resulted in likely one of the least important regional projects (UPx) jumping over far more useful projects like a new bus garage.

It's not like "oversight from upper levels of government would ensure the right plans" since, in many cases, its upper levels of government who are encouraging wasteful projects (Sorbara Subway, SSE, UPx).

Politicians could just as easily use the Olympics to fast track SmarTracks, for instance. It would connect nearly all of the City to the games venues as well as the airport. On its surface, there's no reason that couldn't get wrapped into the Olympics.

Which isn't to say that Toronto (or other cities) doesn't have real failings in how it funds transit. We do. But, 1.)those failings aren't especially unique or debilitating (again, we have some of the best infrastructure in the world) and 2.)there's no non-political way to address those failings. A flashy event like the Olympics will never be a short cut to city building. If you want to change our institutional failings you need to change our institutions democratically, not empower the status quo to spend tens of billions with no oversight.
QUOTE="Tewder, post: 1033006, member: 259"]back to a more positive discussion and the idea that 'hallmark events' do drive urban development and revitalization the article, 'Post-Event Outcomes and the Post-Modern Turn: The Olympics and Urban Transformation' http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hiller/pdfs/Urban_Transformations.pdf makes the case that this is even more critical for cities in the post-industrial age, a context in which cities, having lost their prime manufacturing/industrial bases, are having to turn more and more towards a) tourism and the service sectors, and b) the creative and tech' industries.

The article actually suggests the opposite.

On tourism/'brand' considerations, the article writes that "There is evidence that there is some kind of residual benefit to having been a host city, but that this benefit drops off dramatically over time" and "in sum, while there is some name recognition for the city of Calgary as a former host city at the global level, it has largely faded and remains only an historic benchmark."(exactly what I and animatronic have been arguing) (p.325) Tellingly, the only Olympic host i've visited which has any obvious 'memory' of the Games is Sarajevo. The Games' mascots are everywhere in tourist shops along with portraits of Tito, both nostalgic of Bosnia's pre-civil war 'golden years.'

Cities often tout all sorts of benefits from the Olympics like "investing in global brand identity," though i'm pretty sure people had heard of London prior to 2012. The point critics would make is that those benefits rarely materialize to a sufficient extent to justify the outlandish costs.

Politicians, after all, will always justify their projects in the most overblown language. The Iraq War "liberated" the Iraqis! Tax cuts produce more tax revenue! Scarborough deserves a subway to stay competitive!

I think you'd be better served by looking at the actual impacts of the games though rather than repeating these self-serving justifications and empty Richard Florida-isms.

​

 

[diminutive]

It is also capable of building a transit system which is efficient and has full city coverage. We choose not to do this.

Toronto is still afraid of failure, so in many cases we opt not to try.

Only the first half of that is right.

It doesn't make sense to analogize the behaviour of a large political system (several layers of government, millions of voters, thousands of bureaucrats ect...) to individual emotions like fear of failure.

Obviously most people here would agree our system is nowhere near optimal, but that's got more to do with the imperfect nature of our government institutions than any failing of our collective spirit.

It also runs the risk of suggesting that mega events like the Olympics can change outcomes by "inspiring" the (collective) city around some "grand vision." This in turn draws the focus away from the mundane nature of our failings, e.g. a ward and riding system that encourages parochial planning or principal-agent problems in how QP funds municipal transit.

 

[animatronic]

Whoever is behind the fake twitter bid account is having a lot of fun today.

 

[Euphoria]

Okay, you've got good ideas in terms of creating a street presence, animatronic. I agree that we need more of La Rambla type of street experience. The challenge with that is that we can have plans like 'The Avenues' to create pedestrian scale streets with 4-6 storey buildings, but La Rambla's biggest strength is in its built form of having a massively wide pedestrian walkway in the median, as well as wide boulevards. Unless you start tearing down buildings and realigning roads like they did in Paris over a century ago, the only way you can build this is by creating it in an undeveloped brownfield area like the Port Lands. Now, the level of investment required to remediate that section of the city is beyond what an entity like Waterfront Toronto can achieve, because this takes more than building a row of condos with public spaces in between. You might get there with a model like WT alone in a century or so, but larger planning considerations will be neglected. As for your transit plans, I don't see any of them as high impact. Finch? Sure, throw an LRT up there. Fine, it's relatively cheap and doesn't solve much, though it's necessary. We can bring back a form of Transit City, but it will be surface transit. That's fine. The big transit projects that the city needs are major relief, north-south lines. Smart Track is actually an extremely cost effective, rapid line that can be built relatively quickly. It makes great business sense. Is it enough of a DRL? Not really. It's a start and it's realistic. Now, we have budget and a commitment already in place to built Smart Track. There's no business case for the three-station subway extension into Scarborough. Instead, return to the original LRT plan, and apply the cost savings towards a DRL, which could run north south somewhere between the Smart Track line and the University Line. There's not enough money to build it. So, now we have an unfunded DRL plan. That's my rationale for combining its construction with something like an underground toll highway. I also think an underground route could eventually be extended and allow us to tear down the Gardner. There would be some tax and development charge revenues for the City in the lands opened up for development by the Gardner's removal. There are also revenue opportunities for developing above the train tracks. But basically, apart from Smart Track, and sure, a streetcar line along Finch, you won't see additional lines for a long while because there is no funding commitment or tool, unless you can find another impetus to build long term infrastructure. I think an Olympic Games in the Port Lands provides a reasonable justification for running light rail lines from Queens Quay to Cherry St., and from the Distillery and Canary Districts to the southern tip of the Port Lands (not to the end of the Spit, but you get the idea). I think a big project like the Olympics would galvanize a serious reconsideration for how to handle the Gardner east of Jarvis and how to create a green, high-tech, mixed use neighbourhood in the Port Lands with affordable housing and parks, basically a much better St. Lawrence-type neighbourhood. The only feature of this development that would be an Olympics-only facility would be a new stadium, but as we've talked about, the stadium could be leased, sold, and/or repurposed. What's more, it could be that iconic piece of architecture that is missing along our waterfront. Even smaller cities like Bilbao and Cardiff have created this kind of statement along the water, and it helps to boost the city's brand. It can be a beautiful work of art. Basically, three levels of government are brought together to fast-track a number of projects that we want to see, and do it in a way that the piecemeal approach simply cannot. I've said all of this many times, talked about the billions in television rights, private sponsorship, and ticket sales that would defray some of the costs. No matter how you slice it, even with a billion dollars in security costs and a billion dollar stadium, you will not get that kind of injection of planning and infrastructure just taking the incremental approach. As I've said many times, the city will grind along with its lackluster transit and condo construction, but you won't see the implementation of much else in your lifetimes. We shouldn't shy away from finding creative ways to host major events, whether an Olympics, an Expo, a World Cup, a music festival, or anything else. You can back away from these projects and carry on. I hope we have enough bright, confident visionaries to rally the city behind hosting these kinds of events. I won't discuss the inspiration of hosting an Olympics, which I have already waxed poetic about. And pman, once I put forward a price tag for the Games in that 4-10 billion dollar range, animatronic and a few others will talk about overruns and say that it'll be at least $20 billion. It won't be true and no city is putting forward bid budgets like that today. I've already talked about the success of the games in Barcelona, Sydney, and Vancouver. It doesn't matter. They'll talk only about Sochi or Montreal's Olympic stadium. I'm actually wondering whether our best and brightest will be heard in this city. I think we may be too timid. People talk about the IOC as though all of the infrastructure and hosting of the Games happens in some fictional IOC Land. For the last time, the city puts forward its vision and, if it's a powerful enough vision to win over the voting delegates, builds that vision. The costs AND benefits accrue to the host city. No, a scary man in a suit will not abscond with billions of our tax dollars. This is an investment in the city. But yes, you need a strong vision and it needs to be in the interests of the host city (including keeping costs in check and on budget). Even then we may not win. If we can't work this out with all of our brilliant 'creative class' minds, we have no business bidding. The 2008 bid was impressive and would've done a lot for the city. The effort of bidding really launched Waterfront Toronto. Please don't make me give a history lesson.

 

[TOperson]

If the bid proponents are not consulting with the public on whether to bid, why do you think they will consult with the public on what the bid would contain, or what would happen (i.e. actually get built - the host city contract enables the IOC to come up with new demands all the time and the end result is usually NOT what was in the original bid) if the bid were successful? I've never heard of any Olympics where a newly-selected host city then embarks on a big public visioning exercise to find out the kind of Olympics residents want. Council already decided against a 2024 bid in Jan 2014, and now Tory and the bid proponents are trying to bid anyway, with zero public consultation. Very undemocratic. They pretty clearly do not care what Toronto residents want - they're not even asking.

 

[Euphoria]

I think the process is first for the mayor's office to consult with experts and groups about feasibility. If at that point he feels it's worth pursuing, it has to be voted on by Council. The letter due in September doesn't commit us to anything. The bid would have to be fleshed out and debated and can be canceled, even if we put in a letter in September. But no letter means no bid.

 

[animatronic]

I think the process is first for the mayor's office to consult with experts and groups about feasibility. If at that point he feels it's worth pursuing, it has to be voted on by Council. The letter due in September doesn't commit us to anything. The bid would have to be fleshed out and debated and can be canceled, even if we put in a letter in September. But no letter means no bid.

He's not deciding or consulting right now - he's whipping 22 votes. He won't take it to a vote unless he knows he can win it.

 

[TOperson]

There was already a staff report on feasibility and costs, and a Council vote on a bid in Jan 2014. That's the democratic process, and the answer was no.

 

[Euphoria]

What? Council can vote up and down on a bid whenever it's in session, and it makes changes all the time. The mayor actually doesn't have much power.

 

[Tewder]

The article actually suggests the opposite.

On tourism/'brand' considerations, the article writes that "There is evidence that there is some kind of residual benefit to having been a host city, but that this benefit drops off dramatically over time" and "in sum, while there is some name recognition for the city of Calgary as a former host city at the global level, it has largely faded and remains only an historic benchmark."

What is it about 'ongoing' that you don't understand? Nobody has ever said that hosting one mega event cements one's global branding and position for the rest of eternity. Actually, to interpret it in this way is to completely miss the whole point - no surprise here - that cities must be making 'ongoing' investments to maintain their competitive edge.

Further, it's been said here a million times that aside from infrastructure and revitalization - which are benefits that last indefinitely - the business/investment/tourism/brand benefits span a ten-year cycle, i.e. 5 years before, during, and 5 years after a games. After that, you'd better be planning on the next opportunity. It's why cities seek to host multiple times (many of them can now reuse existing games infrastructure to do so) and/or look to other events like Expo, World Cup and so on. All of this is in the article, by the way.

... but let's look now at the NoTO group. 'No' is right. They say 'no' to initiative and progress. No plan. No grand vision. No concerted effort. No investment. No changes to this city. In this sense it behaves like a nimby self-interest group, one that is built on a massive fundamental flaw in logic, that the status quo will somehow miraculously change without doing anything or while continuing to do the same yet expecting a different outcome. They reject and belittle grand vision plans such as the Olympics or PanAms but offer up no other original ideas, no other opportunities and no other strategies other than praying for miracles. Fortunately the public at large isn't buying it because it has twenty to thirty years of recent history lived first hand that undermines the rationale of this nihilistic group. The public has the real daily experience of gridlock, policy stalemate and crumbling public realm - the experience of a public that has been manipulated by politicos and interest groups pursuing their own agendas - as a constant reminder of the NoTO mindset. They understand it is time now to say no to NoTO. Time for a change! Time for something positive, forward thinking and progressive.

First step: rebranding the NoTO group to 'NOhopeTO/NOchangeTO' to better reflect their message and what they stand for.

 

[animatronic]

What is it about 'ongoing' that you don't understand? Nobody has ever said that hosting one mega event cements one's global branding and position for the rest of eternity. Actually, to interpret it in this way is to completely miss the whole point - no surprise here - that cities must be making 'ongoing' investments to maintain their competitive edge.

Further, it's been said here a million times that aside from infrastructure and revitalization - which are benefits that last indefinitely - the business/investment/tourism/brand benefits span a ten-year cycle, i.e. 5 years before, during, and 5 years after a games. After that, you'd better be planning on the next opportunity. It's why cities seek to host multiple times (many of them can now reuse existing games infrastructure to do so) and/or look to other events like Expo, World Cup and so on. All of this is in the article, by the way.

... but let's look now at the NoTO group. 'No' is right. They say 'no' to initiative and progress. No plan. No grand vision. No concerted effort. No investment. No changes to this city. In this sense it behaves like a nimby self-interest group, one that is built on a massive fundamental flaw in logic, that the status quo will somehow miraculously change without doing anything or while continuing to do the same yet expecting a different outcome. They reject and belittle grand vision plans such as the Olympics or PanAms but offer up no other original ideas, no other opportunities and no other strategies other than praying for miracles. Fortunately the public at large isn't buying it because it has twenty to thirty years of recent history lived first hand that undermines the rationale of this nihilistic group. The public has the real daily experience of gridlock, policy stalemate and crumbling public realm - the experience of a public that has been manipulated by politicos and interest groups pursuing their own agendas - as a constant reminder of the NoTO mindset. They understand it is time now to say no to NoTO. Time for a change! Time for something positive, forward thinking and progressive.

First step: rebranding the NoTO group to 'NOhopeTO/NOchangeTO' to better reflect their message and what they stand for.

Let's build an international space port for tourism and inter-planetary exploration at Downsview. I don't care if it's uneconomical or at the wrong latitude or other locations are better suited. If you say no you are a NIMBY loser with no vision for the city and no imagination. Time for something positive, forward thinking and progressive.

 

[TOperson]

What? Council can vote up and down on a bid whenever it's in session, and it makes changes all the time. The mayor actually doesn't have much power.

Right. So we already had a democratic process and research to determine that Toronto should not bid for the 2024 Olympics. Now the mayor is trying an anti-democratic process to get a bid anyway, with no council vote. Not in response to popular support. He isn't even asking the public what they want. So it makes zero sense to expect that a bid will involve public input into how the games should be used to develop the city. (We already have democratic processes for that.) So all this discussion about how the games will develop the city is pointless. The bid proponents are not interested and that is not why they want a bid.

 

[TOperson]

Let's build an international space port for tourism and inter-planetary exploration at Downsview. I don't care if it's uneconomical or at the wrong latitude or other locations are better suited. If you say no you are a NIMBY loser with no vision for the city and no imagination. Time for something positive, forward thinking and progressive.

Hehe. All this stuff about how people opposed to the bid are "listening to the voices of fear" and "lack vision and courage" is what Pick-Up Artists call "negging". IIRC, it's supposed to make the other person eager to prove they're not scared/whatever by doing the thing the negger wants. Reverse psychology or some ish.
It's pretty nuts in this context because there are many reasons to seriously question spending tens of billions on a sports party.

 

[diminutive]

What is it about 'ongoing' that you don't understand? Nobody has ever said that hosting one mega event cements one's global branding and position for the rest of eternity. Actually, to interpret it in this way is to completely miss the whole point - no surprise here - that cities must be making 'ongoing' investments to maintain their competitive edge.

If the 'benefits' of hosting the games only appear in the context of a city making other policy decisions it strongly suggests that the Olympics didn't really contribute very much, which is the relevant issue.

You're argument at this point is almost tautological; the Olympics help cities succeed since cities that succeed and host the Olympics have succeeded.

... but let's look now at the NoTO group. 'No' is right. They say 'no' to initiative and progress. No plan. No grand vision. No concerted effort. No investment. No changes to this city. In this sense it behaves like a nimby self-interest group, one that is built on a massive fundamental flaw in logic, that the status quo will somehow miraculously change without doing anything or while continuing to do the same yet expecting a different outcome. They reject and belittle grand vision plans such as the Olympics or PanAms but offer up no other original ideas, no other opportunities and no other strategies other than praying for miracles. Fortunately the public at large isn't buying it because it has twenty to thirty years of recent history lived first hand that undermines the rationale of this nihilistic group. The public has the real daily experience of gridlock, policy stalemate and crumbling public realm - the experience of a public that has been manipulated by politicos and interest groups pursuing their own agendas - as a constant reminder of the NoTO mindset. They understand it is time now to say no to NoTO. Time for a change! Time for something positive, forward thinking and progressive.

Ok, we get it, you're the sole arbiter of what is progressive and visionary. Everyone who disagrees with your pet projects is a recluse who'd prefer living under a rock.

I would say that it's kind of sad that your grand, original vision is a tacky party held every four years. Like, why not at least try to do this with something unique to Toronto? A massively expanded Caribbana or TIFF or who knows what.

Also, to address your supposed 'massive fundamental flaw in logic,' this is the umpteenth time you've repeated the (totally, 100% unsupported) assumption that the Olympics somehow induce political change. You're the only person here who assumes that entrusting the status quo political machinery, which you readily admit is inefficient, with even less oversight will somehow produce a miraculous outcome.

At this point I can only ask if you've ever even visited an Olympic host city and seen that they have exactly the same problems we have? What good was Vancouver's 'vision' when they keep opposing new transit funding? Why has Sydney continued to underinvest in their massively sclerotic urban rail system? Why was Athens still just as corrupt and inefficient after their games?

Empowering elites and insiders to act with even less oversight and accountability is the absolute worst way to improve policy outcomes, according to just about every political framework from conservatism to social democracy. Again, not to harp on it, but this speaks to the underlying fascism of the IOC and, transitively, Olympic boosters, their constant derision of the 'public' as dragging down their ideal corporatized version of society. We don't need saving from ourselves and, even if we did, the absolute last people anyone should trust to do that saving are the IOC (maybe FIFA is worse?).

 

[christiesplits]

Looks like Tory is thinking more "Atlanta" than "Barcelona."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/09/01/tory-wants-private-sector-to-pay-for-olympic-bid.html