Admiral Beez
Superstar
What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComplanMan do some people just love to complan!
What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComplanMan do some people just love to complan!
There are abandoned sports stadiums there in T.O. right? Like one down King St. in Liberty Village; others like Varsity Stadium or BMO Field could use some upgrade...
They are currently working on a conversion to put a dome on Lamport from November through April. As most of the community usage at BMO Field is being moved to Lamport now that grass is being installed at BMO, Lamport will be very heavily used in the coming years.Lamport Stadium isn't used much.
There are abandoned sports stadiums there in T.O. right? Like one down King St. in Liberty Village; others like Varsity Stadium or BMO Field could use some upgrade...
Varsity is a terrible example for anti-sports facility types. As ROM members, we often park beside Varsity on our way to the museum. I've never once seen it empty.
Good point, but I think a bunch of people would be happy to get rid of the ROM just so that stupid, cancerous glass growth can disappear as well.I guess the question I would ask is "which would have the greater impact on this city: the disappearance of the ROM or the disappearance of the Leafs?"
No kidding.... seating capacity is around 4000-5000, by today's standards its considered a mini-facility.
Well, to quote Richard Florida: "“The real question is what these expensive, publicly bankrolled behemoths add to their local economies. The consensus across every, single serious study ever done of the economic impact of sports stadia is ‘absolutely nothing.†As the old song goes, ’say it again.’"
That sounds extreme, but it's actually a fair summary of the research consensus on the purported economics impact of mega sporting events. The Olympics are a common example of that, but there are dozens of time series analysis focusing on the economic impact of events like the Superbowl, FIFA World Cup and any number of other professional sports. And yes, that does include the economic witchdoctory of accounting for "intangible" benefits like improved tourism, which are almost universally agreed to be zero. At best, the consensus is, mega-sporting has mild benefits with extreme risk and generally negative returns. Really, it's not that hard to understand. I think most Torontonians would think Glendale was stupid to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to bring hockey to the desert, were basically just as stupid trying to bring competitive bicycling or field hockey here.
Montreal isn't even such an extreme case. Almost all of Beijing's Olympic facilities are sitting empty because no local sports teams can afford the rent, leaving the Chinese government with an annual bill of several million dollars in addition to the debt and opportunity cost of sinking 500m into something which will eventually be turned into a mall. Greece spent 5% of its GDP on the 2004 games and now 21/22 of the facilities are derelict. Sydney, despite being considered a "success," still ended up as a net loss of over a billion dollars. The main arena is also derelict pending redevelopment and post-Olympics tourism in New South Wales lagged Australian averages. London doesn't look to be in any better shape, the budget has quadrupled, private backing for the athlete's village has evaporated and even minor attempts to shave costs (like using existing facilities, of which London has many) are berated.
It's not like Toronto has had no experiences with idiotic public spending on sports behemoths. At least David Miller learned from the idiocy of spending public money on the Skydome then selling it off for pennies on the dollar. The amount of similar stories elsewhere is truly mind boggling. In nearly every case, local economies have spent upwards of a hundred million dollars in various kinds of corporate welfare (almost exclusively to the richest 1% of society that has enough disposable income to buy mutli-million dollar sports franchises, no less) and rarely ever received anything of quantifiable benefit in return. I'm trying to be charitable here, but public funding of sports mega projects is one of those rare issues, like rent control or nuclear warfare, that just about any economist will tell you has a negative return. It's almost like evolution for economists. Hell, there's even evidence that mega sports spending harms long term athletic participation by sapping funds from amateur sports and encouraging people to watch sports as opposed to doing sports.
I never said there were funds allocated to Yonge. There is no need for you to go to drastic lengths by putting words in my mouth.No funds have been allocated to the Yonge extension, beyond the EA and the signalling upgrade.
I'll have to deduct marks for the use of the tired phrase world-class city, but one thing I like about the Pan Ams is that Hamilton will finally get a replacement for Ivor Wynne out of this (assuming that's done properly).I don't understand for the life of me why there are SO many people against something that IS GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH YOU BITCH!
Everyone in Hamilton is ESTATIC about these games. Not only b/c we've tried twice for the Commonwealth Games (and lost) in the last 7 years, but because of all the AMAZING CHANGES that this event will bring!
This is URBANtoronto...
Can't you support Public Transit (LRTs all around), Affordable Housing (in a region devestated by Job Loss), JOB CREATION (a good 5 years of construction jobs, not to mention the spin-offs afterwards, ESPECIALLY in Hamilton), Athletic Advancement (can't Canadians want a couple more medals in Summer Games?), etc etc
For all the NIMBYs, Nay-Sayers, and general Trolls, JUST SIT BACK AND RELAX!
Then watch our Cities (and region) be showcased to the World as a modern, advanced, enviro-friendly World-Class City that is ready!
ENJOY IT, TORONTO! It's Already Happening!!!
Which renovations -- 67 or 99? I find it hard to believe the 67 renos spurred them to bid on a Cup more than 20 years later. And the 99 renos could only have fully affected 2006.my apologies for the typo. Must have been thinking of 2006 and then typed 96.
Yes they had to add seating in 91, but do you really think adding seating was what got them the Grey Cup? if that was the case, why hadn't they hosted one before? That stadium had been in place for nearly half a century at that point. The renovations from the Pan Ams created much better conditions and it made it much more attractive to host the event.
Bolt is now such a huge star that he would only show if the "incentives" were right.Let's say Bolt is still running and is enticed to come here. Would his competitors follow? Perhaps.
Well Wiki buys it, and you cited them first.Who said that was a goal? if you've noticed I don't think I've mentioned anywhere Winnipeg's $6million profit. Mostly because (and we've had this argument before) I don't buy it. What I mean by a higher echelon is that we're an internationally renown city. Winnipeg is not. Would you expect similar quality facilities in London compared to Portsmouth? How about Paris to Bordeaux?