TOperson
Active Member
It can, if enough people agree with you. You know, democracy.
|
|
|
Toronto 2015 Pan American Games
- Thread starter FutureMayor
- Start date
It can, if enough people agree with you. You know, democracy.
TOperson
Active Member
Just for the heck of it, I googled "fittest country in the world" and found this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/befit/story/0,15652,1385645,00.html
I'd like to see more recent figures but from the looks of things it's the community-based, multi-pronged approach that works best, not so much the sports mega-events.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/befit/story/0,15652,1385645,00.html
I'd like to see more recent figures but from the looks of things it's the community-based, multi-pronged approach that works best, not so much the sports mega-events.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Tewder
Senior Member
Where do you think the high performance/elite - or whatever you want to call them - athletes come from? Out of thin air?? They rise up out of the recreational/community/school programs. They continue to train and get better so they can compete and inspire the next generations.
It's the same with the arts, right? Some of those little ballerinas out there may one day be on stage in Toronto right? Or not, but they will likely eventually support those who are by forming an audience base... and by encouraging/inspiring their kids by exposing them to the best that the art form has to offer.
You like to mock the 'sappy' stories about the Olympic athlete who has sacrificed everything to pursue excellence in their field, and dismiss them as 'elites' who are sponging off of taxpayers because you view it as a corrupt structure that operates from the top down, rather than seeing the positive aspects of it that operate from the bottom up...
... and as for the benefits to society of the arts and athletics (from bottom to top), you are in serious trouble if you need me to quote evidence of this. Truly.
TOperson
Active Member
"Where do you think the high performance/elite - or whatever you want to call them - athletes come from?"
But that wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that investments in elite athletes and facilities 'promote individual growth and therefore the growth of society as a whole'. Where is your evidence for that?
You also said "and as for the benefits to society of the arts and athletics (from bottom to top), you are in serious trouble if you need me to quote evidence of this."
Actually I never said a word about the arts, and I acknowledged that recreational/community sports are worthwhile. YOU made the claim about "athletics … at the very highest of levels" being "an investment in our society, as important as the investments we make in education and research". And that the "spillovers are enormous". So, back it up. Show your evidence.
I'd be very interested to know what you consider reliable sources of such information. So show me one.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
The difference between a ballerina and, say, a ski jumper is that a ballerina can get his/her start in a studio in a suburban strip mall and, if they become good enough, make their way to a studio at the NBS that may have fancy hardwood floors and lighting, but is otherwise something that people can build relatively cheaply. If that ballerina makes it to Karen Kain levels, she'll perform in front of a packed house of 2,000 people every two weeks for a season.
A ski jumper will have to train on some specially constructed concrete superstructure the height of a 20 storey condo built somewhere in the mountains and then compete maybe two or three times a year in an event that's mostly watched by people on TV who have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.
The idea that we should fund esoteric, niche activities like the obscure Olympic sports because it's very meaningful to a handful of people just doesn't wash in a world of finite resources.
Look at it this way: there are about 1,000 of us regular forum contributors and there may be 5,000 people who "compete" in discussions of urban affairs, local condo construction, and transport infrastructure in Toronto on a regular basis. Some of us start off on these forums, but may go on to be planners, developers, architects and civil engineers who can actually effect change. So, based on this logic, maybe the governments should build a bricks and mortar "Urban Toronto" centre somewhere downtown where we would be able to drop in and drink free espresso and debate urban issues in these specially-designed pods with leather couches and then use the biggest, fanciest Macs to render skylines and transit maps for each other's enjoyment. I mean, there's far more of us than there are ski jumpers or luge runners or indoor track cyclists, and some of us do become professionals, so why doesn't the government ante up, and hire Frank Gehry to design us a drop-in centre on the waterfront for $50 million? I mean, why are we sitting here posting from our home computers and working our day jobs when we could be paid to make threads and post about the use of spandrel in some specially-designed facility?
A ski jumper will have to train on some specially constructed concrete superstructure the height of a 20 storey condo built somewhere in the mountains and then compete maybe two or three times a year in an event that's mostly watched by people on TV who have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.
The idea that we should fund esoteric, niche activities like the obscure Olympic sports because it's very meaningful to a handful of people just doesn't wash in a world of finite resources.
Look at it this way: there are about 1,000 of us regular forum contributors and there may be 5,000 people who "compete" in discussions of urban affairs, local condo construction, and transport infrastructure in Toronto on a regular basis. Some of us start off on these forums, but may go on to be planners, developers, architects and civil engineers who can actually effect change. So, based on this logic, maybe the governments should build a bricks and mortar "Urban Toronto" centre somewhere downtown where we would be able to drop in and drink free espresso and debate urban issues in these specially-designed pods with leather couches and then use the biggest, fanciest Macs to render skylines and transit maps for each other's enjoyment. I mean, there's far more of us than there are ski jumpers or luge runners or indoor track cyclists, and some of us do become professionals, so why doesn't the government ante up, and hire Frank Gehry to design us a drop-in centre on the waterfront for $50 million? I mean, why are we sitting here posting from our home computers and working our day jobs when we could be paid to make threads and post about the use of spandrel in some specially-designed facility?
Last edited:
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
+1 Hipster Duck.
Neat analogy.
Neat analogy.
Red October
Senior Member
I feel as though you chose the most obscure and hardest to get into sport the Olympics offers that requires a specific facility (besides bobsled and luge of course). If you look at what I used as an example for elite sport facility funding, I used diving. Toronto's only diving platforms are at D.D. Summerville outdoor pool which are (to be frank) shit. That's something that doesn't require something the size of an apartment building, just a part of any pool, and really would benefit anybody in Toronto who would want to train for diving. If you think about it, if you want to get into diving in the GTA what do you have? 4 months of a pretty meh-quality outdoor pool in West Scarborough and a ton of 1m (and possibly 3m) springboards. This is Canada's largest city and a lot of athletes need to go elsewhere to train.
The Pan Am Aquatics Centre will be great for that specific case, the overall point is that there really aren't that great training facilities in the most populated area of this country.
Tewder
Senior Member
... and will perform in an arts centre funded in large part with public funds, having trained in facilities and programs that are funded too... and have you seen the new NBS?? There are plenty out there who would object to paying for any or all of this too, by the way. Ski jumping might be your particular deal-breaker, and we all have one, but should 'majority rule' always be the litmus test for funding in scociety? It's that slippery slope thing again!
Well again, I don't see that there is an enormous difference between this and the arts. Some things are more 'popular' than others and/or get more exposure than others, I grant you.
I'm not so sure about the esspresos and pods but in essence those 'bricks and mortar' places do exist, in colleges and universities. They are funded too... and thankfully so.
When it comes to the arts and athletics, however, they are inherently of a public nature, which is why we invest more in them and build splashy waterfront venues. The public can participate too, if only as spectators... and the public aspect of these things leads to further development and spin-off, i.e. festivals, competitions and yes the olympics.
Last edited:
TOperson
Active Member
I can't wait to see all the super-fit lithe bodies Torontonians will have after they get inspired to work out by the PanAms.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Excellent stuff - we've resorted to sarcasm now.
Tewder
Senior Member
I can't wait to see all the young girls - and boys for that matter - who will be inspired by the Canadian Olympic soccer team to join a league.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Well, you have to use a 'slippery slope' otherwise we end up funding absolutely everything sparing absolutely no expenses. I mean, why aren't we spending $1 trillion on butterfly collecting?
But university programs aren't free, and the professional programs that we're talking about are some of the most costly, with the expectation that your tuition and lab fees will cover all the expenses of taking that program. My planning school has been on a never-ending quest to raise [private] money for a desperately needed new building, to little avail, and I think that there are more planners than there are ski jumpers and our building would cost less to construct, too.
Secondly, you and the Architect have argued that Olympic facilities enable children who aspire to compete in an obscure sport a venue to begin training, right from the beginning. So, we need to build a facility like this so that an eight year old can learn to jump from the 3 foot diving board, dive from the 6 foot diving board and eventually land a double somersault from ther 10 m board. But universities don't serve to initially spark an interest in a profession or subject. People who don't know a thing about what planning is don't get accepted to do a MUP. Somewhere, someplace the idea of planning had to be planted in our heads, and these online discussion forums are a good place for that. So why aren't we building special facilities for budding, young urban enthusiasts?
They are only of a public nature because we started paying attention to them through clever marketing tactics. Ask yourself how an obscure sport like ski jumping or the luge became a spectator event? People are inventing sports and games all the time for their own enjoyment. I think about all the ones I played as a kid: red ass, tag, cops and robbers, capture the flag, dodgeball, kickball, etc. Why aren't there stadia dedicated to these? And who's to say that watching two guys argue about the choice of cladding on Aura wouldn't be a spectator sport worthy of a stadium? We haven't tried it, after all.
Last edited:
TOperson
Active Member
Tewder's compelling no-evidence arguments have convinced me that the general public always gets more fit as a result of large sporting events being held in their city.
TOperson
Active Member
But there isn't an Olympic soccer facility in every Canadian city or town. Don't kids NEED those facilities to join a league? Is soccer played outside Olympic facilities? How is that possible?