News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.6K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 460     0 

Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

Thanos said:
And how do you define "distracting spectacle"? Who decides on what is a "distracting spectacle"? To me and millions others the Olympics are far from a "distracting spectacle".
There are many events that are large and expensive. Once we get rid of the Olympics another event will be considered the largest and most expensive. Do we get rid of that event? And then continue until there's not a single event left?
Click to expand...

In the original context, I used "distracting spectacle" re: a general agenda to maintain social control by focusing the populace's attention elsewhere to keep them from noticing their own oppression. That's what "bread and circuses" is shorthand for, and the idea has been around since at least Roman times.

This bit about "how to define a distracting spectacle" is essentially the same argument of "If you say no to the Olympics, where does it end? We'll never have fun again!" as if there is some slippery slope of event-hosting. Notice the many - in fact the majority - cities that do just fine without ever having hosted an Olympics. More cities play with idea of bidding than ever actually bid, and more cities "lose" the bid than "win" it, and life goes on. They don't fall down the slippery slope or get hooked on the gateway drug of not-hosting.

Anyway, the distracting spectacle still goes on whether it's in your city or not. It's on your TV. You don't think they go to all that trouble just for the fans in the host city, do you?

ETA: The question of defining a distracting spectacle isn't quite right. It's actually "will this spectacle be profitable enough?" The Olympics are extremely profitable, since the public pays the cost and a relatively small group collects the profits. Before the sponsorships became the norm, the Olympics were struggling financially and in some danger of folding altogether (this is back in the 1970s, the financials of the Montreal games were one of the big turning points). Since the Olympics are all about getting eyeballs on those ads and product placements, they also serve the distraction agenda.

And as I've said repeatedly, the Olympics are not just another large, expensive event. It's the largest and most expensive.
 
Last edited:
Thanos said:
And how do you define "distracting spectacle"? Who decides on what is a "distracting spectacle"? To me and millions others the Olympics are far from a "distracting spectacle".
There are many events that are large and expensive. Once we get rid of the Olympics another event will be considered the largest and most expensive. Do we get rid of that event? And then continue until there's not a single event left?
Click to expand...

The thing about the Olympics is that it's the most expensive sporting event by an order of magnitude. The Beijing Olympics cost $43 billion. What two week sporting event other than the Olympics costs even $4.3 billion?

Comparably watched events like the World Cup are considerably cheaper because they usually use existing venues, and since it's a one sport event, you only have to work out the logistics around one stadium in each city. You don't have to build a self-contained Olympic village or weird facilities for esoteric sports nobody pays attention to outside of the Olympics.
 
Putting all financials aside, I just wanted to get people's opinions here. Do you think we could win a 2024 bid?

We definitely didn't have a chance up against Beijing for 2008, the emotional appeal behind their campaign (ie.First games for China; over 1 billion in pop.,etc.) was too much for Toronto's superior bid to overcome.
 
Yes Torotno could, but you really really REALLY need to ask whether you want what amounts to 2 weeks of fame and then 10+ years of hangover thereafter.

It's been 12 years since Sydney, and its only really just starting to get its mojo back - this being the supposed financial/banking/"GLOBAL" capital of Australia.

edit: Population growth since 2001: Melbourne 650k, Sydney 450k, international flight growth sinze 2001 (you know, what everyone expects an olympics to do - bring more tourists in) - Sydney airport 8%, Melbourne airport 12%, Brisbane airport 18% and the list goes on. All an Olympics does is solidifies a brand/image - you actually have to do a lot more to exploit it, a fact NSW/Sydney has really only come to realise in the past 5 years.
 
Last edited:
tayser said:
Yes Torotno could, but you really really REALLY need to ask whether you want what amounts to 2 weeks of fame and then 10+ years of hangover thereafter.

It's been 12 years since Sydney, and its only really just starting to get its mojo back - this being the supposed financial/banking/"GLOBAL" capital of Australia.

edit: Population growth since 2001: Melbourne 650k, Sydney 450k, international flight growth sinze 2001 (you know, what everyone expects an olympics to do - bring more tourists in) - Sydney airport 8%, Melbourne airport 12%, Brisbane airport 18% and the list goes on. All an Olympics does is solidifies a brand/image - you actually have to do a lot more to exploit it, a fact NSW/Sydney has really only come to realise in the past 5 years.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can draw parallels between hosting the Olympics and growth rates in Australian cities. Lots of other factors are at play there. Besides, a city/country should never bid if its primary goal is a tourism boost. It has to be about the investment in infrastructure that is sure to result (transit, sports facilities, improvements to the public realm), entertainment (love of sports, welcoming the world), and encouraging a culture of sport (both recreational and at the elite level) in the host city/country.

If these things aren't enough alone, one shouldn't bid. Exposure is fleeting and a tourism boost isn't assured. If we get that great, but it should never be the reason to bid for an Olympics.
 
It has to be about the investment in infrastructure that is sure to result (transit, sports facilities, improvements to the public realm), entertainment (love of sports, welcoming the world), and encouraging a culture of sport (both recreational and at the elite level) in the host city/country.
Click to expand...

A city could get all of those things for a fraction of what it costs to host the Olympics.
 
As much as I feel the Olympics would net more positives than negatives, for Toronto at least, I do not feel the city is ready for it, quite honestly. I look at the leadership and vision required and I just do not see the city measuring up... and if part of the idea is to export a brand/image onto the world stage just what would that be in Toronto's case? I'm not sure that anybody really knows (contrasted with Montreal and even Vancouver for example). Toronto is dynamic and prosperous, yes, but it still has somewhat of a frontier town mentality/inferiority. This is not to criticize the city but simply to suggest that maybe we need to grow and mature a bit more first before undertaking a conversation about whether an investment of this scale is one we should be making. Thanks to Beijing and London the bar has been raised quite high.
 
The only way a Toronto-Buffalo bid can ever work is if a HSR line is built to connect the two cities.
 
My guess is that a joint bid wouldn't succeed because it would mean two host city contracts, and reaching agreements re: cost burdens, etc with SIX governments (2 municipal, 2 state/provincial and 2 federal), and heaven knows how the event would be branded. There would have to be two organizing committees, as well.

Too many headaches.

That said, I love this idea if it helps derail the Toronto bid.
 
... and let's face it, there would only be rivalry as to who gets the main events (Men's 100 meters for example) vs the lesser known events.
 
TOperson said:
A city could get all of those things for a fraction of what it costs to host the Olympics.
Click to expand...

A number of us have already smashed this argument to smithereens. Yes, a city can get those things done - hypothetically - but certainly not cheaper. The lack of a deadline results in the dragging out of construction, as we've seen many times, during which costs continue to escalate. It's always better to get something done quickly than slowly, obviously.

Also, the hypothetical notion that we will secure the same levels of government funding of infrastructure in the absence of an Olympics may be true, but so extremely unlikely as to be untrue. Once again, the deadline and international attention of an olympics pushes funding and progress down the pipeline.

The number one issue in Toronto and the GTA is transit, in terms of quality of life, mobility, sustainability and economic cost, which in turn would be the number one benefit of an Olympics games. On this basis alone I would be inclined to endorse it, all things being equal (concerns about readiness notwithstanding).
 
It will not happen though because the IOC does not accept joint bids especially from cities in different countries. This ain't going far.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top