Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[Tewder]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that just because other organizations are corrupt, that's no reason not to welcome the Olympics. You WANT to give money to a corrupt organization when you have the option to totally avoid it? You really believe that a corrupt organization will provide the "great things" you expect from the games?

No, the corrupt organization doesn't provide anything except the opportunity. It's what we do with the opportunity that counts. Again, what organizations aren't corrupt? Show me one that is objectively 'pure' and we'll talk!... and that includes most of the employers out there.

Something I find curious about this discussion (I don't mean you specifically) is the dogged unwillingness to look at the evidence from past host cities. I mean, beyond the mainstream superficial accounts. Like actually reading the many books and studies that have analyzed the impact of the Games in some depth. People really don't want to do that. They'll read reviews before committing 2 hours to a movie, but won't spend a few hours doing research before allowing their government to commit them to paying through the nose for decades for one big event.

Why such reluctance? What is that about?

We can all cherry-pick examples to suit our arguments. We can focus on the disaster of Athens or the successes of Seoul and Barcelona, for example. It's further complicated by the fact that different cities may achieve different objectives and legacies in hosting an olympics, objectives which have ancillary benefits that go beyond the absolute bottom line paid. When you're looking at the 'evidence' you have to consider all these things.

As I alluded to in an earlier post I don't think it is constructive to talk about Athens or cities that are completely unlike Toronto. Instead let's look at the cities that did it right to see how Toronto could do it even better... and not to say that we shouldn't look at the failures closely, which would be foolish of course.

 

[TOperson]

No, the corrupt organization doesn't provide anything except the opportunity.

That's not how it works. The host city contract is essentially an extra-legal agreement. It surpasses the authority of the govt - ALL levels of govt. The host city has to do whatever the IOC wants.

We can all cherry-pick examples to suit our arguments. We can focus on the disaster of Athens or the successes of Seoul and Barcelona, for example. It's further complicated by the fact that different cities may achieve different objectives and legacies in hosting an olympics, objectives which have ancillary benefits that go beyond the absolute bottom line paid. When you're looking at the 'evidence' you have to consider all these things.

I have been looking at the evidence. I've posted links and mentioned books where all of this stuff gets discussed in great detail, and there is plenty more where it came from. Do you think all those academics and economists are, what, just kidding when they criticize the Olympics? Have you read any of this material, yourself?

As I alluded to in an earlier post I don't think it is constructive to talk about Athens or cities that are completely unlike Toronto. Instead let's look at the cities that did it right to see how Toronto could do it even better... and not to say that we shouldn't look at the failures closely, which would be foolish of course.

But are there are no cities that "did it right", whatever that even means. Since the 1970s, every host city has had serious problems with hosting, financial and otherwise. It's never smooth sailing. I didn't even have to look hard to find this:

http://english.caixin.com/2012-07-25/100414963_all.html

What is so special about Toronto that we could host a successful Olympics when so many others have failed? Especially when it's not even really Toronto (or TOCOG or whatever they would call themselves) that would run it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but everyone can google anything - and just to challenge you on this point:

Like the thousands that protested right before the games? And on multiple other occasions? And the anti-Olympic flyers, they were put up by goblins?

Here is an article in a publication - a peer reviewed one at that - has to say about the public opinion over Vancouver 2010:

While the Olympics were the centre of much debate and controversy before the Games, the data show that attitudes towards the Games became much more favorable thereby providing hard evidence that the Olympics had an experiential urban impact.

http://soc.sagepub.com/content/45/5/883.short

It doesn't sound like a suck it up, grin and bear it response.

But are there are no cities that "did it right", whatever that even means. Since the 1970s, every host city has had serious problems with hosting, financial and otherwise. It's never smooth sailing.

By your logic, just because large scale undertakings in general entail problem, we should avoid them. Needless to say, that isn't exactly the way forward on any issue of import.

AoD

 

[TOperson]

t doesn't sound like a suck it up, grin and bear it response.

Um, yeah. That blurb also says "Regression models revealed that attending free unticketed events ...[was] the best predictor of positive attitudes towards the Games." Harry Hiller is also an Olympics insider. The IOC keeps a few academics sweet just for the purpose of having "credible" academic papers published. They fund "Olympics Studies" departments at universities worldwide. And ultimately Hiller's conclusion is "It is concluded that the Olympics represent a form of public policy which generates responses related to socio-political factors while also being an interactional event transforming local attitudes towards the Games." That doesn't mean a whole lot, and I'm certainly not game to spend billions of public money on an "interactional event" that "transforms attitudes" about itself.

By your logic, just because large scale undertakings in general entail problem, we should avoid them. Needless to say, that isn't exactly the way forward on any issue of import.

I haven't commented on any other large-scale undertakings. Your remark is some kind of logical fallacy, I can't remember which. But opposing one large-scale undertaking doesn't mean opposing them all, any more than turning down a date with one person means never dating anyone. And not all large-scale undertakings are equal. $10B on health care or education is something I can get behind. $10B on a party? Nope.

Excellent interview here, by the way:

http://www.evoca.com/everyone_recording.jsp;jsessionid=650E64270AB478A856558FF38F3A95B7?rid=267817

And you know, if Toronto needs a ego boost and a big party will do the job, let's have one. Let's make up our own event that is meaningful to us, rather than shoehorning ourselves into whatever the IOC and its corporate sponsors want. Let's spend, say, $5M on it, which would still be a pretty good party, and then spend the rest on the infrastructure and other stuff we really need. We don't need IOC approval for any of it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Um, yeah. That blurb also says "Regression models revealed that attending free unticketed events ...[was] the best predictor of positive attitudes towards the Games."

So? You asserted that 67Cup's experience is isolated and not reflective of the general populace is false.

Harry Hiller is also an Olympics insider. The IOC keeps a few academics sweet just for the purpose of having "credible" academic papers published. They fund "Olympics Studies" departments at universities worldwide.

Now, unless you have hard evidence, I think you are getting into libel territory.

I haven't commented on any other large-scale undertakings. Your remark is some kind of logical fallacy, I can't remember which. But opposing one large-scale undertaking doesn't mean opposing them all, any more than turning down a date with one person means never dating anyone. And not all large-scale undertakings are equal. $10B on health care or education is something I can get behind. $10B on a party? Nope.

If that is a logical fallacy, then so is associating the experiences of other cities as the default outcome for us (it's called Appeal to probability, BTW). And sorry, spending $10B on the generic "health care" has been the default policy response for the last few decades with precious little to show for - and I certainly won't get behind that.

AoD

 

[Hipster Duck]

Let's spend, say, $5M on it, which would still be a pretty good party, and then spend the rest on the infrastructure and other stuff we really need. We don't need IOC approval for any of it.

That's a great idea (seriously, no sarcasm)! I would be willing to spend up to $500M in taxpayer money on a 10 day event where all the greatest teams in various league sports from all over the world play in our existing sports venues. So, you'd have everything from Eurocup champions to an MLB/NBA/NHL All Star game to the World Cricket championships (1.4 B South Asians would tune into this - how many will watch the Olympics?) with relaxed drinking laws and 24 hour transit. We can finish it off with the TIFF and some sort of art biennale. Boy, would that put us on the map! And we wouldn't be stuck with a $15B bill and some useless venues like an indoor velotrack or beach volleyball stadium.

 

[Red October]

For one thing, those aren't all Britons. I never said the Olympics had zero dupes, er, fans.

For another, that top photo - how do you even know it's from an Olympic event? Maybe it's from the Jubilee. Or some other event altogether. Maybe it's even a protest!

Did you look for any protest photos?

1. They are mostly Britons. And I don't take kindly to you looking down your nose at people who want to have a good time. Not everybody will be miserable and try to make everyone else miserable. Believe it or not, you are the minority, and not by a small margin either.

2. It is from an Olympic event. Source? I was there.

3. The protest groups are so small they would look pathetic.

Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about, despite having the demeanor of someone who thinks they know better than everybody else.

 

[Red October]

And we wouldn't be stuck with a $15B bill and some useless venues like an indoor velotrack or beach volleyball stadium.

Velodromes can be easily converted for a different use and why would we ever be "stuck" with a beach volleyball stadium??
Do you really think this is permanent?

(Hint: It's not.)

 

[diminutive]

I don't think spectators enjoying the Olympics is justification for their price tag. If you gave anyone on this board several billions of dollars to organize a two week party we could also draw out pretty decent crowds. In terms of crowds, the Olympics seem disproportionately costly. Pride Week attracts huge attendance as well but doesn't expect billions of public subsidies.

Tourism benefits usually trend to zero. Even best case scenarios like Barcelona it's questionable how much is attributable to the Olympics versus unrelated factors (Spain's democratization, joining the EEC/Schengen Area, discount Euroairline revolution). Certainly Spain as a whole enjoyed extremely strong tourism growth through the 90s and '00s.

The infrastructure benefits are overhyped. Signing on to billions of dollars in security and unnecessary facility costs just to secure some infrastructure funding is actually idiotic. Does anyone here justify massive home renovations on the basis of their annual Super Bowl/World Cup party? Why should a city? Moreover, Olympic funding is more likely to just replace other forms of infrastructure funding. Had Toronto secured the 2008 Olympics, how enthusiastic do you think Queen's Park would have been to fund projects like the Spadina Subway extension? "You just got x billion to build stuff for the Olympics, now you want a train to Vaughan?" Places with successful infrastructure don't plan on this basis, because it's idiotic.

Worst of all, the Olympics seem super hypocritical. We hardly support even our Olympic level athletes the other 3 years, and give no support to the amateur athletes trying to make it to the Olympic levels. We talk about closing community pools, slashing school sports programs and yet we are talking about hiring Zaha Hadid to build a swanky stadium. I know people going to this Olympics from Canada who were forced to live with their coaches because they have no money. I realize that this is something of a false choice (just because we don't get the Olympics doesn't mean we will fund those other things), but it still seems grossly hypocritical that we would even consider the Olympics when so much of our basic sports infrastructure is absolute crap.

 

[diminutive]

And sorry, spending $10B on the generic "health care" has been the default policy response for the last few decades with precious little to show for - and I certainly won't get behind that.

What do you mean precious little to show? There are very tangible benefits health care spending - and other kinds of social spending - which can been measured very clearly in terms of outcomes like doctors hired, equipment purchased and so forth.. Millions of Canadians benefit every year from these programs. We force 'regular' programs to go through very rigorous cost benefit analyses to get funding amounts which look trivial next to the Olympics.

By contrast, the purported benefits of the Olympics are *extremely* vague, such that most ex-post assessments have been unable to even identify if they exist (see Owens' 2005 study on the topic).

If that is a logical fallacy, then so is associating the experiences of other cities as the default outcome for us (it's called Appeal to probability, BTW).

That's not an appeal to probability fallacy. Appeals to probability relate to arguments relying on outlandish assessments of probabilities. Wiki gives a convenient example of lottery playing; incurring debt doesn't matter since I can play the lottery until I win a jackpot.

Simply stating things like "all Olympics have incurred cost overruns averaging 179% therefore it is likely Toronto will also incur large costs" isn't a logical fallacy, it's simply stating a fact and making a very reasonable conclusion from it. If anything the 'appeal to probability' logical fallacy here resides in the argument that Toronto will somehow avoid all of the errors which have befallen prior games because Barcelona is considered a 'success' (despite incurring cost overruns of >400%).

 

[Tewder]

The host city has to do whatever the IOC wants.

Patently not true, and an unbelievably disingenuous statement. Really, what's the point on having this discussion if you aren't even going to be reasonable?

I have been looking at the evidence. I've posted links and mentioned books where all of this stuff gets discussed in great detail, and there is plenty more where it came from. Do you think all those academics and economists are, what, just kidding when they criticize the Olympics? Have you read any of this material, yourself?

As I've stated before you are cherry picking what you decide to read or believe. This is not balanced in any way, which discredits your point of view. I've acknowledged that there have been failures and that there are issues.

Clearly, you aren't reading in a balanced way to make a statement like this:

But are there are no cities that "did it right",

... and finally,

What is so special about Toronto that we could host a successful Olympics when so many others have failed?

Whoa, stop with the boosterism there! I mean, this is the most troubling of statements you have made yet! It's so sad you believe so little in the abilities of the people of this country, province and city. It is beyond defeatist.

So to summarize TOperson ultimately believes that Toronto is incapable of achieving success where others have failed. Thankfully the Canadian forces at Vimy Ridge weren't as enlightened as him!

He also believes that the Olympics are a complete waste and burden even though cities all across the world, established ones and great ones, vie for them, and repeatedly (London's third time). Obviously he knows something they all don't!

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Quite a chunk of bile there, Tewder, but not a lot of cogent argument, IMO...

Let's cut funding for TIFF and Luminato too. These things are an inconvenience to most real Torontonians and the money could be way better spent, right??

... and for that matter why just stop at annual events? Where's the real tangible and quantifiable payback to the arts or to education? ... and sports?? Heck no! Cut it all!!

>> There's a spectacular difference in scale between TIFF and an Olympics. In my case, I'd much rather see a hundred Ontario Games and TIFFs pour money into the city than one Oly, because it would still be way cheaper and a much greater chance of sustainable economic benefits. (See what I did there? Included a SPORTING EVENT! Just to throw y'all for a loop! For the record, I enjoy sports, including the Olys. I just can't see paying billions to host one being a sound idea.)


Then again, there's always Riverdale Rat's visionary perspective that dismisses the importance of ancillary benefits altogether as 'boring'?

It must be nice to be Riverdale Rat! I mean, everything is booming and we don't have to worry about economic benefits at all... and especially if it means being bored by an unnecessary international sporting event!

... and can somebody please ban TOperson from mentioning anything about Athens ever again? Do we really need to point out that Toronto is simply not Athens, in any way?? I can sympathize that some truly do not want the Olympics but harping on about Athens is over-reaching, pure and simple.

Quite frankly, it is nice to be me! But, thanks for caring... although maybe you could care enough to actually listen to my perspective:

1. Spending billions of dollars on a one-time sporting event makes little to no sense from an economic perspective, unless it is used as a Keynesian kickstart for a moribund economy (e.g. Calgary, Barcelona). Toronto is NOT in need of an economic boost, and in fact most definitely should not be constructing more housing.

2. It's not the 'ancillary benefits' that are boring. It's the ARGUMENT that it's important to have an Olympics so we get a railroad and a condo that's boring. I GET IT -- you think one reason to have an Olympics is to get more subways. I happen to think that we're doing more than OK on the infrastructure and housing front. (as per my multiple posts to that effect). So, I'm bored with that argument -- c'mon, convince me that going to a live female boxing featherweight event will be a blast, and worth the $15 BILLION and two hour trip across town.

3. The knives are out for TOPerson now. That doesn't make him wrong about the cost. What y'all need to do is show the benefits outweigh the cost -- IMHO you have a tough hill to climb, but have at it.

 

[intoronto1125]

Watching the OC made me think about a potential Toronto hosting!!

 

[TOperson]

Heh - I'll have to check back when I have more time to read all the replies that constitute "knives out for me now".

Just picked up on this little tidbit: "Unticketed event" in the Olympic realm does not mean "free to all comers", it means "by invitation only", usually to corporate and media types. So re: that Harry Hiller study that showed that people who attended unticketed Olympics events had a better attitude towards the Olympics, well, yeah, getting one of the special invites to the private events would tend to you keep you onside, wouldn't it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19010407

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...behind-londons-olympic-dreams/article4448011/

Pretty balanced column from Eric Reguly. He reports that the London Oly is pretty much a wash to slight positive from a macroeconomic front, but has been used to take a dilapidated part of London up to modern standards. What's our equivalent burnt-out zone?

BTW, his all-in cost is GBP17bn(!). WOW!!