Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[pman]

That's not how one of the city's chief urban design specialists (and consultant to the city and Waterfront Toronto) is describing it... so is he a liar then? a spin doctor?
http://news.utoronto.ca/miltons-vel...nds-using-pan-amparapan-am-games-build-legacy

He describes the PanAms as the 'catalyst' (his word, not mine) that kick-started plans that had already been conceived of but had no funding, no timeline and no political will behind them. The games provided these. Why would you claim that he is deliberately trying to mislead the people of Toronto? He states that the olympics offer the same potential, i.e. to kick-start further existing plans for the Waterfront, the Portlands and transit... and in fact I quoted the Mayor of Barcelona earlier who describes just the same thing. Why would you deliberately ignore these people?

Look it is abundantly clear that the anti-games group here is focusing exclusively on the olympics-specific costs and willfully ignoring the benefits, other than trying to disprove intangibles. This is to miss half the picture. You cannot make an accurate assessment of anything by throwing on the blinkers and looking at half the equation only.... fortunately our city planners will not approach this with minds made up, it is their job to look objectively at the entire picture.



Pman, those inspiring works were built in an entirely different economic and socio-historic context. The last great era of public works building in Toronto was the post-war era which ended some 40-odd years ago. What have we done lately? Rather, what have we done lately that wasn't pushed through thanks to the PanAms? Not much, and certainly not 40 years worth of consistent ongoing infrastructure funding and development. Just what is going to change this?... and I'm asking sincerely, by the way. If I understood the rationale for the optimism that there is a better way I might buy into it.

Well, I've rarely been accused of optimism, Tewder. Actually I'm not optimistic about this city's ability to get anything right, and I'm not sure anything could change the situation. My concerns about the Olympics are:
1. They would simply give the clowns in Council the resources to make more really stupid infrastructure choices,
2. They would saddle us with sports infrastructure we would never use. In fact didn't London plan to tear down its Olympic stadium, and hasn't the Japanese government quashed plans to spend 2 billion on their stadium? And that in an urban area with a population around the same size as Canada's, and possibly even approaching Toronto in the coveted alpha-dog stakes? Too much money on stuff we don't need to get the stuff we do need (subject to point 1).
3. They would do nothing to address the fundamental problem of Toronto's long-term competitiveness.

So, I hear you, going along the same path, with a professional planning community screaming common sense into the void, and ending up with obscenities like the Scarborough subway doesn't have much appeal. However, there's some hope for change. The Wynne government seems pro-transit, and a federal NDP win might cure her of her terror of Ford Nation. It's entirely possible Mulcair will win, in which case I suspect politics would wed policy and the fruits of their happy Union might be DRL. Even Tory and Council wouldn't look that gift horse in the mouth.

As for our competitive advantage, nobody in this town is serious about discussing it, beyond chanting "We're number one!" No we aren't. But a frenzied push to 2024 isn't going to do anything about that. Just ask Athens.

From a long history of past posts, I think we generally agree about Toronto's deficits. If I could be convinced that hosting the Games would fund useful transit supported by professional planners, i.e. DRL, and that it wouldn't be a financial disaster for the City with 100% certainty (meaning the City does not pick up cost overruns and does not pay for the sports infrastructure), then I could get on the bandwagon. But I sincerely doubt these conditions would be met.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, I've rarely been accused of optimism, Tewder. Actually I'm not optimistic about this city's ability to get anything right, and I'm not sure anything could change the situation. My concerns about the Olympics are:
1. They would simply give the clowns in Council the resources to make more really stupid infrastructure choices,
2. They would saddle us with sports infrastructure we would never use. In fact didn't London plan to tear down its Olympic stadium, and hasn't the Japanese government quashed plans to spend 2 billion on their stadium? And that in an urban area with a population around the same size as Canada's, and possibly even approaching Toronto in the coveted alpha-dog stakes? Too much money on stuff we don't need to get the stuff we do need (subject to point 1).
3. They would do nothing to address the fundamental problem of Toronto's long-term competitiveness.

1. TBH - Council will have next to nothing to do with infrastructural choices given the responsibilities will in all likelihood be wrapped up into IO/some kind of body akin to the London ODA. And in the case of Pan Am - the city paid less than 100M for their part (good chunk of it went to cleaning up the site for the Aquatic Centre)
2. The original plan for London 2012 is significant downscaling of the stadium post-games to about 20K but it turned out that there were private parties interested in keeping the stadium most of the seating and it was reconfigured instead.
3. The ability to execute a complex series of projects (some long-dormant), the need to think outside the box and the marketing is all part of the solution - no one is expecting the games to a magic bullet.

As for our competitive advantage, nobody in this town is serious about discussing it, beyond chanting "We're number one!" No we aren't. But a frenzied push to 2024 isn't going to do anything about that. Just ask Athens.

Given our experience thus far with Pan Am, it would have resembled London more than Athens - there was no excessive amount of delays followed by last-minute frenzied push to anything, it was more quiet, on time delivery instead.

From a long history of past posts, I think we generally agree about Toronto's deficits. If I could be convinced that hosting the Games would fund useful transit supported by professional planners, i.e. DRL, and that it wouldn't be a financial disaster for the City with 100% certainty (meaning the City does not pick up cost overruns and does not pay for the sports infrastructure), then I could get on the bandwagon. But I sincerely doubt these conditions would be met.

Hard to say what the games will bring, considering we don't have any details, but having GO RER, Lower Don Lands in place and perhaps the first phase of DRL would be no small feat at all considering the half-century delays these projects had faced (all were proposed in the early 80s).

AoD

 

[CodeMonkey]

There is no infrastructure boom though. It's just not true that Toronto is SOOO starved for infrastructure funds. We all agree that more could be done, and things could be done better, but we still do invest tons in transit without the Olympics. We don't need to lie to ourselves to fund transit. Look at the Scarborough Subway Extensions; there's no problem getting senior levels of government to open their wallets when that's politically beneficial. We've also built just about all of the projects we had tied to our 2008 bid as well.

But we really don't invest "tons in transit". Transit City was always going to be part of the "Only hosting the Pan Am's can do" mantra, but our four year detour kind of swept that highlight under the rug. The Spadina Subway Extension was always politically beneficial for the Province and Federal governments, why else would we build a subway to Vaughan? And Rob Ford got the Scarborough Subway Extensions with the Ontario Liberals fearing Ford Nation if a snap election would happen and the fact the Ford's had a direct connection the late Jim Flaherty and the PMO.

Moreover, we can see that Olympic host cities don't ever have better infrastructure than comparable cities in the same jurisdiction. Toronto isn't worse than Montreal, Calgary or Vancouver. LA and Atlanta aren't better than similar cities. Beijing isn't better than Shanghai. Sydney isn't better than Melbourne. Barcelona isn't better than Madrid. So on and so forth. If the Olympics did produce some kind of funding bonus we'd expect host cities to have better infrastructure than comparable non host cities and that's simply not the case.

Vancouver did get the Canadian Line as a result of the Olympics. LA has always had bad public transit since the rise of the freeways in the 50's, and like wise with Atlanta; expect in Atlanta's case, every other street is named Peachtree in one way or another, so I doubt public transit expansion would solve their problems.

And your examples show how these events can skew transit investment. UPx should have been WAY down the priority list given its paltry ridership. We're not lining up to spend hundreds of millions on the Glencairn bus for a reason. Likewise, the projects discussed around 2024 are hardly #1 (e.g. QQELRT).

UPX was moved up the list because it was know at the time that the Eglinton Crosstown line original plan with Person Airport link would be too slow of an connection, why it's low ridership was obvious. High costs, plus the fact the only ones who would really benefit from it is people living in the Downtown core, and people who live along the Lakeshore East line who have frequent GO Rail service.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually the whole ARL/UPX affair is illustrative not of "wrong priorities" (I don't call whisking high priority passengers such as those on business in and outbound from the CBD as quickly as possible a wrong priority, but of course it'd be classist to suggest that - nevermind the goldplated subway to the burbs thing), but just how awful we are at implementing what's already been identified as useful. It's a spur line using mostly pre-existing ROW with trainset running on diesel costing what, approx. 500M at today's dollar - it shouldn't have taken a decade and a half to implement what is a normal solution for linking the CBD to the airport elsewhere in the world. It's stupid examples like these that illustrates just how much we need to adopt a "getting sh*t done" attitude instead of wasting time (and therefore, money) on a decadal scale.

AoD

 

[Euphoria]

That 400 mill loss on the dome. Some of the best spent money in Hogtown. Those early Skydome years were some of the most exciting in TO's history. What does 400 mill get you now? A half kilometre of stubway to Malvern. Pitiful.

 

[Tewder]

Not sure there's too much more to be said on the for/against front.... wondering if it might be more interesting now to switch gears and start musing at what an olympic bid for Toronto might look like in terms of venues, infrastructure, revitalization, beautification etc. It may just be helpful for any planners checking out this thread

Any thoughts?

 

[christiesplits]

Not sure there's too much more to be said on the for/against front.... wondering if it might be more interesting now to switch gears and start musing at what an olympic bid for Toronto might look like in terms of venues, infrastructure, revitalization, beautification etc. It may just be helpful for any planners checking out this thread

Any thoughts?

There's been talk of a lot of the Pan Am venues like the track and field centre, aquatics centre, and velodrome not being up to Olympics standard, especially when it comes to seating capacity. Is there any way that these facilities can be re purposed for the events? Perhaps through adding temporary seating, adding new permanent seating, or using them for other sports?

 

[Euphoria]

At minimum, I hope we see SmartTrac completed, with a connection running south to the Portlands (from the Distillery and Canary Districts), complete soil remediation and construction of the athletes' and media villages in the Portlands, extension of the streetcar line/LRT east from QQ to Cherry St., beautification of both the Keating and Shipping Channels (completed restoration of the mouth of the Don River), and a revamped Gardner that reconnects the city to the waterfront east of Jarvis. If the main venue stadium is in the Portlands, it's architecture must be iconic. All planning and design must be coordinated in consultation with WT. What I'd like to see ideally in addition? Bury the Gardner, extend Front Street west of Bathurst, and complete the DRL.

 

[Tewder]

Is it feasible to host the olympics without some combination of RER and DRL, along with LRT connecting to the Portlands/olympic site? Keeping cars off the roads within Toronto and around Toronto will be of paramount concern to the running of successful events. Add into the mix a massive cultural event similar to Luminato to be running at the same time, the arrival of media, athletes and tourists (being optimistic) we cannot rely on just asking people to stay home like we did with the PanAms... and as popular as the PanAms turned out being the Olympics will be a far bigger 'once in a lifetime' draw for locals.

As for SmartTrac and the DRL, is there a better option that combines both - i.e. DRL through the core connecting to RER /suburbs on the outer edges of Toronto? In light of a real timeline and real funding could we achieve a better option than Tory's controversial SmartTrac and the problems/issues it could pose later to other needed transit plans that haven't been funded yet??

 

[Euphoria]

I think it's important to retain some form of SmartTrac because it's so inexpensive relative to constructing new surface and underground lines. It really was the best part of Tory's platform.

 

[animatronic]

Here's a picture of the athletes village a year after the games
https://www.flickr.com/photos/yonderbean/11245126235/in/photostream

 

[animatronic]

Not sure there's too much more to be said on the for/against front.... wondering if it might be more interesting now to switch gears and start musing at what an olympic bid for Toronto might look like in terms of venues, infrastructure, revitalization, beautification etc. It may just be helpful for any planners checking out this thread

Any thoughts?

If they do insist on bidding we should force the conversation towards non-games infrastructure like transit. The reality is we'd be almost certain to lose to Paris or LA so no point getting excited about track stadiums that won't get built. The only potential value of a bid would be to remind all three levels of government that the money needs to be spent regardless.

 

[44 North]

At minimum, I hope we see SmartTrac completed, with a connection running south to the Portlands (from the Distillery and Canary Districts), complete soil remediation and construction of the athletes' and media villages in the Portlands, extension of the streetcar line/LRT east from QQ to Cherry St., beautification of both the Keating and Shipping Channels (completed restoration of the mouth of the Don River), and a revamped Gardner that reconnects the city to the waterfront east of Jarvis. If the main venue stadium is in the Portlands, it's architecture must be iconic. All planning and design must be coordinated in consultation with WT. What I'd like to see ideally in addition? Bury the Gardner, extend Front Street west of Bathurst, and complete the DRL.

Is it feasible to host the olympics without some combination of RER and DRL, along with LRT connecting to the Portlands/olympic site? Keeping cars off the roads within Toronto and around Toronto will be of paramount concern to the running of successful events. Add into the mix a massive cultural event similar to Luminato to be running at the same time, the arrival of media, athletes and tourists (being optimistic) we cannot rely on just asking people to stay home like we did with the PanAms... and as popular as the PanAms turned out being the Olympics will be a far bigger 'once in a lifetime' draw for locals.

As for SmartTrac and the DRL, is there a better option that combines both - i.e. DRL through the core connecting to RER /suburbs on the outer edges of Toronto? In light of a real timeline and real funding could we achieve a better option than Tory's controversial SmartTrac and the problems/issues it could pose later to other needed transit plans that haven't been funded yet??

These are interesting discussions. I'm sure it was discussed somewhere in this thread, but what exactly was our plans for connecting transit to the Port Lands during our previous bid? If we were to plonk an Athelete's Village and Stadium down there for 2024, would the existing (and currently collecting dust) plans for streetcars into the Port Lands suffice, capacity-wise? And if they would suffice, perhaps there's a preference for something faster and more reliable. A branch of SmrtTrack would be interesting, or a DRL branch. Or a standalone elevated light metro line along the eastern waterfront.

 

[christiesplits]

This time, Bay St. joins Toronto’s anti-Olympics team
Opponents make business case against hosting 2024 Games, adding council already ‘voted no on this.’

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/08/28/this-time-bay-st-joins-torontos-anti-olympics-team.html

 

[Euphoria]

I really think the yes crowd has to focus on getting the vision for the bid right. If it's a strong vision, it'll likely win over those who are sitting on the fence. At that point I think we'd have a good shot at hosting, if not in 2024, then definitely in 2028. If it's a lousy vision it doesn't deserve to go forward. The City has to be transparent and open, consulting broadly, to make this work. If it's an inside job like the Boston bid, it won't fly. I actually think Tory is managing this pretty responsibly. Hard to say if he'll get behind a bid. I bet he's gauging public support. I hope he's rethinking the hybrid option for the Gardner when considering proposals.