Toronto 2015 Pan American Games

[EnviroTO]

Do the Olympics really help tourism? From everything I've read it's quite the opposite. Do you have any facts to back up that claim? From what I've heard about Sydney, Atlanta and Beijing, tourism went down. Maybe you've read something I didn't. Care to share your sources?

The Olympics puts a spotlight on the city for three weeks. If done right it is big advertisement with a captive audience. It is up to the organizing commitee and Toronto Tourism to take advantage of this. For example one of the great ideas of the 2008 bid was to have a medal podium at the base of the tower and a large lit olympic rings floating rings in the harbour thus making it guaranteed that people know Toronto has an incredibly large urban core and a beautiful waterfront. By planning the games, not just to hold sports but to place olympics events and activities in places that showcase the city can make it an advertisement unlike any other.

In Atlanta there isn't much tourism draw post Olympics and that shouldn't be a surprise considering the media focus was on disorganization and a pipe bomber and there were no attractions highlighted by the games, however in the years prior to the Olympics the city had a substantial boom which grew the city and brought in business. In Beijing the focus was on pollution and fear of crackdowns which isn't going to drive up tourism either. I would have a very hard time believing that Sydney has not seen an increase in tourism post games outside the immediate post-911 and current recession periods. Sydney unfortunately is far away from potential international markets is probably greatly impacted by fuel prices and recession... more so than Toronto would be.

 

[TO City of Light]

Ultimately, I think it's impossible to tell if an Olympics is a good or bad thing. Every Olympics seems to be different and have a different effect on their city.

So true. I have been lucky enough to have been to a few Olympics over the years.

Athens suffered from the continuing barrage of "bad" news before the event. The media had no end of stories on how the facilities and infrastructure would not be ready, how the organization would be "Greek-style", by which it was meant chaotic, how terrorism would target the event, how security concerns would bring about gridlock in Athens, etc. As a result, many potential spectators stayed away and many tourists who would normally have gone to the Greek islands also avoided the country. Overall, Greece had fewer tourists that year than the previous year. No amount of advertising can overcome fears engendered by a global media campaign.

In the case of Montreal, one needs to remember when it took place. Expo and the Olympics took place within five years of each other - 1967 and 1972 - and anyone who lived in those years and those immediately before will remember it as a time when Canadians suffered a lack of identity and a sense of inferiority that would be unrecognizable today. The general belief was that Canada could not organize a world class event. There was an incredible swelling of pride when Canadians attended these events and realized we really could do something global in a way that was truly first class.

Another outcome of Montreal that benefitted Toronto was seeing how Canadians could drink and dine in outdoor cafes and enjoy themselves in public. Toronto was never the same afterwards. One forgets the Toronto blue laws of the 60s and while these major international events in Montreal did not alone change Toronto's strict morality codes, they were an important part of it.

Both Athens and Montreal showed the effect that Olympics could have when a country was ready to emerge on a world stage as an equal and serious player. Athens, although Greece is a member of the EU, is located in a pretty dodgy part of that region. Athens Olympics allowed the Greeks to show that Greeks are as capable at running a major event as any other European country. There was an incredible energy in Athens that summer as the Olympics came right after the Greek national team won the UEFA Cup. Canada also became a different country as a result of Expo and the Olympics.

The coming out to the world aspect of the Olympics was a major part of the Games in Tokyo, Korea, Australia, Mexico and no doubt a few others. In some cases the effect was sustained. In others, eg Mexico City, it was unfortunately not. This aspect is also a major driving force behind South Africa's hosting of the World Cup of soccer.

Right now Toronto has no credibility in organizing a major international sporting event.

Interesting also is the parsimony of Torontonians, and most of the rest of Canada - the habit of looking at everything strictly in terms of money expended. Whether it is a global event, human rights, refugee policy, public transport, etc., the number one issue of Canadian seems to be the financial costs. Since many benefits are future, social and/or unquantified, we are unwilling to look at much other than cost.

The other unfortunate tendency is the inability to see the world in any other terms than our own personal views. There is very little sense of larger community. So, if I am not interested in Olympic sports, it must mean that no one could or should be interested in them and we should not have them.

 

[isaidso]

I pretty much agree, although I think you're overstating things slightly. (In English we usually say "the Americas" -- by "America" we usually mean the U.S.)

In English? I'm from England and been a Canadian now for over 20 years. The use of the word America to mean the US is not supposed to be taken literally. America has historically meant the New World. 'America' in reference to the United States of (the continent of) America is a colloquial expression. It's usage has become rampant in the United States, and by extension Canada, but it's not formal or factual.

The evidence is all around if you do a little digging. Panama means Pan America, the nation that joins America together. Our version of the European Union is the Organization of American States. Nova Scotia was England's 14th colony in America. There were English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies in America. That 13 of the English ones gained independence doesn't change the fact that the other colonies are still where they were before that happened. You can even find old maps that clearly refer to the continent simply as 'America'.

America has always meant from Alaska to Chile. That Americans have taken the name of a continent for themselves due to ignorance, doesn't negate that fact. Usage to mean the US is common, but it's actually far more dubious than its usage to mean the continent. If anything, usage to mean the US should be questioned, not the other way around.

I'd rather learn proper usage from academia than Oprah and NBC. 95% of people in the US and Canada have no idea that it's an improper use of the word. Go to latin America, and they surely do. The US has a perfectly good name for their country already: the United States. I will continue to get 'corrected', but I'm not going to start using the word improperly just because most people don't know the difference.

I realize I'm being particular, but what's the point of an education if I don't use it?

 

[adma]

In the case of Montreal, one needs to remember when it took place. Expo and the Olympics took place within five years of each other - 1967 and 1972 -

Actually, the Montreal Olympics were in 1976. Lest we students of international terrorism forget, Munich was 1972...

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I'm all about checking in on those unfortunate 'cost' things

Canada also became a different country as a result of Expo and the Olympics.

Interesting also is the parsimony of Torontonians, and most of the rest of Canada - the habit of looking at everything strictly in terms of money expended. Whether it is a global event, human rights, refugee policy, public transport, etc., the number one issue of Canadian seems to be the financial costs. Since many benefits are future, social and/or unquantified, we are unwilling to look at much other than cost.

The other unfortunate tendency is the inability to see the world in any other terms than our own personal views. There is very little sense of larger community. So, if I am not interested in Olympic sports, it must mean that no one could or should be interested in them and we should not have them.

1. As you say, I don't think we need to host an amateur athletic event to burnish civic or national pride. I'm very happy with both Canada and Toronto, thanks.

2. Given that Montreal hamstrung itself for 20+ years due to the cost of the Olys, yes, I do believe that cost is a prominent factor that should be more than carefully considered.

3. I'm a big fan of a number of Olympic sports, and my favorite sport by far (rugby) has just joined the roster. However, if I'm not a fan of Oly sports, why do I want an Olympics in my town? To generate a huge party. To boost the economy. To provide infrastructure that would otherwise not be built. To say that I should not scrutinize costs versus revenues, if I'm not a fan of the sports, is simply ludicrous.

4. And, in the end, sorry, but I'm not willing to just trust governments to spend a whack of cash without some guarantee that we'll get it back.

 

[jn_12]

1. That's fine, but many people think that an Olympics or a grand event is what we need. Looking at just about every major city in the world, they've all hosted large scale events. Toronto has never done it. You might be fine with that, but some people believe its the stepping stone we need to move into that next echelon of global cities. It'd be like saying you're abstaining from sex because all the cool kids have done it and that you don't need it to be cool. Who wants recklessness when we can play it safe and never have any significant experiences?

2. Just because Montreal had trouble with its Olympic Stadium, doesn't mean it will happen every time. It's basically one of the (if not THE) most extreme example one could come up with when looking at Olympic infrastructure.

3 & 4. Like I said, cost vs revenue is impossible to measure. There is so much that gets counted and not counted and a whole other level of things that can't be counted, which makes it impossible to figure out if you came out of it in a better position or not.

 

[afransen]

A big difference between when Montreal hosted and these days, is that the IOC will write the host city a cheque for over a billion dollars to host, from TV, sponsorship and merchandise sales.

 

[nfitz]

A big difference between when Montreal hosted and these days, is that the IOC will write the host city a cheque for over a billion dollars to host, from TV, sponsorship and merchandise sales.

Isn't another difference that back in Montreal's day, the host city handled the income from TV, sponsership, and TV ... and now it's in the hands (and likely pockets) of the IOC?

 

[Mystic Point]

Contesting the Pan Am Games bid

Real Bust

Kelly McParland, National Post

A golden sun dropping over the rushing waters of Niagara Falls (which last time I looked weren't in Toronto). A passel of cute kids in "Pan Am Toronto 2015" T-shirts hold up the corners of a Canadian flag. Another group of tots --happy, healthy and energetic--beat it across a field in some good old-fashioned outdoor fun.

Marvellous views of the city skyline from Toronto Island (accessible only by ferry because the Mayor objects to any easier form of access).

Plenty of shots of multicultural faces cementing the nature of the city as a big cheerful mix of black, white and brown, everyone presumably authentic this time, rather than Photoshopped into place by image-obsessed bureaucrats, as Toronto has done in the past.

That's the official view. It's what the six Pan-Am delegates got when they swanned into town a week or so ago for two days of being fawned over by municipal officials intent on winning the Games. It's what they got when bid officials commandeered a rush-hour GO train, forcing 1,600 commuters to rearrange their schedules so the VIPs could coast along the lakeshore in isolated splendour. Bid advisor Bob Richardson told the Toronto Star it was necessary to spotlight Toronto's transportation facilities, and guessed that "99.9% of the population will be supportive."

Um, Bob -- did you talk to those 1,600 steaming commuters? No, huh? Just check out Vancouver and the police state organizers are planning to impose during the 2010 Games. Security costs have ballooned to $900-million, five times the original budget. Much of the city will be a no-go area for anyone without tickets. Major roads and bridges will be closed. Traffic capacity will be cut by half.

Regional flights could get grounded because the prohibitive cost of diverting them for heightened security checks makes it easier to just cancel them, meaning travellers from dozens of communities are out of luck. Forget about visiting Whistler. Canada's spy agency, CSIS, is budgeting $11-million just for "intelligence" activities. Like what, secret cameras to spy on all the other cops?

Why would anyone want this? They probably don't, but they're not likely to get a chance to express that opinion, because the city, provincial and federal governments are already besotted by the notion of winning the Games, and not about to be diverted.

Something seems to infect politicians when they get within range of the kind of mammoth sporting extravaganzas that end in the word "Games." Olympic, Pan-An, Commonwealth ... it's all the same. Their eyes light up, their limbs get twitchy, visions of photo ops dance in their head. Any fealty to sound economics evaporates like the morning dew.

They promise miracles. Bob says the Pan-Am Games would bring the city $1.4-billion. Where's that number come from? Who knows -- maybe the same economic experts who predicted the recession (which just ended) would last for years. The politicians don't care, they just need the number for their brochures. So, OK -- Toronto gets $1.4-billion. After you spend a billion of that on security (and Toronto is bigger than Vancouver, so the bill would have to be larger) what's the big deal?

Toronto has come down with a bad case more than once. It made the short list for the 2008 Olympics but lost out to Beijing. It tried for the 1996 Olympics but lost to Atlanta It bid for the 1999 Pan Am Games that went to Winnipeg. It sought a World's Fair and didn't get that either.

Now it wants the 2015 Games, and Torontonians can go suck an egg if they don't like it. Organizers promise a successful bid will enhance infrastructure, promote youth development and lead to something called "social inclusion."

Hmmmm, social inclusion. I wonder if that's what they call kicking 1,600 commuters off the GO train during morning rush hour.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Maybe instead of seeing it as an opportunity, we should look at events like this as a responsibility. Seeing's how it does nothing for the cities it's held in, we should be doing our duty for the good of the rest of the world and for the athletes that are competing. Toronto hasn't had it's turn around, and now is the time for it to do it's duty.

 

[GenerationW]

It's also impossible to measure profits and losses with Olympics. Anyone that tries to talk about that stuff has no clue and for me it raises a flag. The intangibles are impossible to measure.

If you mean the effects post-Olympics, I agree. The profitability of the Olympics themselves is much easier to measure. The revenues and expenses are tangible.

Just because Montreal had trouble with its Olympic Stadium, doesn't mean it will happen every time. It's basically one of the (if not THE) most extreme example one could come up with when looking at Olympic infrastructure.

That's far from reassuring. If it happened here once...

You can guarantee that Rogers and/or MLSE, in their unbridled lust to get an NFL team, will lobby the government (successfully I predict) to build as fancy a stadium as possible with as many bells and whistles as they can shoehorn in. No doubt there will be other pressures in the building of other venues. And as Vancouver clearly proves, original cost estimates are worthless, but at least the exposure of a Winter Olympics is far more limited.

I can tolerate a Pan-Am Games in and of itself, but as a bridge to an Olympic bid -- forget it! The only justification for the expense of a Summer Olympics would be if cities were allowed to host consecutive Games. That guarantees profitability. But that will never happen, so I emphatically vote no, and, if our politicians insist on another exercise in self-glorification, I had better get the chance to vote via referendum should a third bid ever get considered.

 

[jn_12]

If you mean the effects post-Olympics, I agree. The profitability of the Olympics themselves is much easier to measure. The revenues and expenses are tangible.

Sure you can add up all the bills and add up all of the ticket sales and sponsorships and get a result that won't tell you anything. If that's okay with you, then you're missing the more important big picture and that's the problem.

That's far from reassuring. If it happened here once...

You can guarantee that Rogers and/or MLSE, in their unbridled lust to get an NFL team, will lobby the government (successfully I predict) to build as fancy a stadium as possible with as many bells and whistles as they can shoehorn in. No doubt there will be other pressures in the building of other venues. And as Vancouver clearly proves, original cost estimates are worthless, but at least the exposure of a Winter Olympics is far more limited.

A couple points to make about this. First, just because something happened somewhere the first time around, doesn't mean it will happen the next time around. By that logic Munich better not ever host another Olympics. Second, I agree that there would be pressure to build a nice stadium. Nothing wrong with it if Toronto is guaranteed an NFL team though. I'd rather that than building a fancy stadium that would go unused afterwards. I guess it depends on how much money an NFL team would be able to generate in tax revenue. I'm sure over time those taxes would pay for the stadium. Third, considering the roller coaster of an economy that Vancouver and London have faced while building their infrastructure its no wonder the costs of these games have inflated. In 2003 no one thought oil would jump to $150 within a few years. That's 4 or 5 times the price when the bids were made. Cost of materials would of course rise. Ya, there should be some margins for error that should have been taken into consideration, but the fluctuation in oil might be one of the most significant price increases of any one product in our generation and its understandable why those weren't accounted for.

I can tolerate a Pan-Am Games in and of itself, but as a bridge to an Olympic bid -- forget it! The only justification for the expense of a Summer Olympics would be if cities were allowed to host consecutive Games. That guarantees profitability. But that will never happen, so I emphatically vote no, and, if our politicians insist on another exercise in self-glorification, I had better get the chance to vote via referendum should a third bid ever get considered.

I agree. I don't think the Pan-Ams are the bridge here. They would have been if we built things in a village format, but we're spreading it around and most of it could never be used for an Olympics. It's unfortunate, but those choices have been made for a reason. Personally, I don't think the Pan-Ams was the right way to go, so I'll completely agree with you there. However, it looks like we're going to get them so we should probably try and figure out how to use it to our benefit.

 

[afransen]

Isn't another difference that back in Montreal's day, the host city handled the income from TV, sponsership, and TV ... and now it's in the hands (and likely pockets) of the IOC?

The IOC 'pockets' the TV revenues (and by pockets, I mean, gives most of the money to host cities). It's not like the IOC is the Vatican with a golden palace to pay for.

I believe sponsorship of the event goes to the host, but the IOC licenses the use of their logo. Same with merchandise and ticket sales.

The point being, back in the days on Montreal, none of this stuff was worth much, which is a big reason they were nearly bankrupted.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Hey, I'm all for other people spending money on me.

I do have an issue, the unfortunate result of my Scottish heritage, of spending money on other people. So, speeding up West Don Lands by building a $1bn athlete's village is fine by me, as it will make my neighbourhood better and house more valuable. How in God's name it is OK with Bramptonites or residents of the Ottawa Valley is beyond me, but what the hell, eh?

1. That's fine, but many people think that an Olympics or a grand event is what we need. Looking at just about every major city in the world, they've all hosted large scale events. Toronto has never done it. You might be fine with that, but some people believe its the stepping stone we need to move into that next echelon of global cities. It'd be like saying you're abstaining from sex because all the cool kids have done it and that you don't need it to be cool. Who wants recklessness when we can play it safe and never have any significant experiences?

2. Just because Montreal had trouble with its Olympic Stadium, doesn't mean it will happen every time. It's basically one of the (if not THE) most extreme example one could come up with when looking at Olympic infrastructure.

3 & 4. Like I said, cost vs revenue is impossible to measure. There is so much that gets counted and not counted and a whole other level of things that can't be counted, which makes it impossible to figure out if you came out of it in a better position or not.

As to your specific points:

1. Comparing the Pan Am games to sex is the absolute dumbest thing I've ever read. That includes Ayn Rand's turgid novels and research reports about junior resource companies with zero prospects. Sex is a basic urge with innumerable possibilities and consequences, but no way of projecting the costs. The Pan Am games have a narrow set of possibilities and an easily projectable set of consequences. You might disagree with my opinion that the Pan Am games will be a negative to Toronto, but at least try to make sense when you're doing so. The Pan Am games are not a particularly significant experience. You want to spend $1.5bn on Toronto? Give it to TIFF, the ROM, the AGO, and Caribana. Build West Don Lands earlier than projected, as a residential neighbourhood. Drop it from frickin' helicoptors. I bet the multiplier effect is in the stratosphere compared to improving Hardwood Hills for the mountain bike races.

2. I've lauded the Calgary games in this thread. But the Pan Am games are not a Winter Oly. They're not a Summer Oly, either. However, if you were to go through the list of Pan Am Games sites in the past, or Summer Oly sites in the recent past, I think you will find the did SFA for the host city, with few exceptions. Particularly the Pan Ams.

3&4. Bullshit. The Calgary, Salt Lake, and Lillehammer games were revenue positive and great for their communities. The Atlanta and Athens games were complete disasters. The Montreal games was such a complete disaster that they weren't filling potholes in the frickin' 90s because of it. To say you can't figure out costs and revenues is saying you can't figure out the costs & revenues of the federal government. Sure, it ain't an audited business, but you might be able to figure it out if you squint hard and put on a green eyeshade.

 

[jn_12]

1. I would argue its a natural urge for cities to want to host big events. So it very much is like sex if you ask me, and has both good and bad consequences. Sometimes you find you're a lot sexier than you thought, another time you might end up with an expensive concrete baby. Sorry you didn't see the analogy, but its not important really.

I agree though that we shouldn't be going for the Pan-Ams. You originally said:

As you say, I don't think we need to host an amateur athletic event to burnish civic or national pride. I'm very happy with both Canada and Toronto, thanks.

To me, that says you're against holding an Olympics as well. Unless by amateur you meant strictly the Pan-ams and you were acknowledging the sometimes professional aspects of the Olympics, in which case I apologize.

2. Agree, Pan Ams don't do anything for the city long term. During the event the city gets a boost just from the influx of people. As for Olympics, it depends. they worked great for Sydney, but not so good for Athens and Beijing (though for beijing it might be too soon to tell the whole story). Like I said before, it's a case by case basis and one city can flop while another shines.

3&4. Actually, other than Los Angeles in 1984 (which had no public funding), it's near impossible to get realistic revenue numbers. There's a reason why if you go around the internet you can get different figures for every games. Hell, i just found an article saying Atlanta came out about even! It's a shell game. Move money here, get funding from this government, pay for this with that money that was intended for something else. Governments and the Olympic Organizers are going to do whatever they can to make sure its event doesn't look like a huge flop. They'll funnel money through different filters and include or leave out things that might be considered outside the olympics (a subway line for example). Even then, the effects of the olympics can show up in tax dollars or contribution to the economy years (nay, decades) after. it's entirely different from the money government spends and receives because that can be measured annually. At some point they stop measuring the effect of the Olympics.

And actually, not to be a stickler, but Lillehammer really struggled post-olympics. They didn't do enough branding and tourism related spending and something like 40% of the hotels and a couple of the alpine slopes in the area went bankrupt in the years following the games.