Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[Euphoria]

Holy shit. I was there too, throughout the Jays winning run from the first A.L. East Division Title win. Yes, Skydome's construction was part of the ensuing boom period. The construction of Skydome was very much a part of the revitalization of what was then the old textile warehouse district and would become the Entertainment District. The streetscapes were full of gaping holes and there were very few residents south of Queen between University and Spadina. The dome's construction drew fans and allowed the Jays to purchase Molitar and others near or during the post-season. They basically bought a World Series. The reason I'm sparing the details is because I'm sick of having to explain everything. I was in regular correspondence with the Planning Dept. around the time of the 'Kings' plans and later bought a unit in Portland Park Village when Victoria Memorial Park and that whole area was a ghost town. Whatever. No one cares. We all have backstories. Don't say that people are full of hot air unless you have something constructive to say. I'm waiting to be wowed by some words of wisdom here. And stop using hyperbolic statements. Most big budgets aren't underestimated by 200-300 percent. Anyway, I'll leave you to enjoy each other's vitriol.

 

[animatronic]

And stop using hyperbolic statements. Most big budgets aren't underestimated by 200-300 percent. Anyway, I'll leave you to enjoy each other's vitriol.

It's not hyperbolic - it's a fact: http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4943/1/SSRN-id2382612_(2).pdf

We discovered that the Games stand out in two distinct ways compared to other megaprojects: (1) The Games overrun with 100 per cent consistency. No other type of megaproject is this consistent regarding cost overrun. Other project types are typically on budget from time to time, but not the Olympics. (2) With an average cost overrun in real terms of 179 per cent – and 324 per cent in nominal terms – overruns in the Games have historically been significantly larger than for other types of megaprojects, including infrastructure, construction, ICT, and dams. The data thus show that for a city and nation to decide to host the Olympic Games is to take on one of the most financially risky type of megaproject that exists, something that many cities and nations have learned to their peril. For the London 2012 Games, we find that: (1) With sports-related real costs currently estimated at USD14.8 billion, London is on track to become the most costly Olympics ever. (2) With a projected cost overrun of 101 per cent in real terms, overrun for London is below the historical average for the Games, but not significantly so. (3) The London cost overrun is, however, significantly higher than overruns for recent Games since 1999. London therefore is reversing a positive trend of falling cost overruns for the Games.

 

[Euphoria]

Okay, can't help myself. Who doesn't miss WAMCO. And the new lineup may just have it beat. And don't even compare Barcelona to Madrid. Madrid is a dump by comparison.

 

[Tewder]

This is actually a very interesting example. Stade de France doesn't have a permanent tenant. It's too big for anything but national soccer and rugby games. The Paris soccer and rugby teams don't play there, because without 80,000 people in the place, it is patently obvious that the seats are way too far from the field and the temporary seats for the big ticket payers are crap aluminum bleachers. It's a very good track & field stadium that rarely gets used for track & field or anything else.

It's also in the middle of nowhere as Paris has the sense to not site a large stadium in the center of the city when you could have Trocadero and the Jardins de Luxembourg instead.

St. Denis is in the 'middle of nowhere'?

I'm certainly not going to argue that we should be building a Stade de France but I believe that Kitsune was referring to the modularity and versatility of the design rather than its shear monumentality per se. I agree it is underused but there are some political reasons for that. Due to its versatility of design though the Stade can and does host major concerts and many major sporting events etc:

Under the impressive roof are three tiers of seating with capacity depending on event. Lowest of the tiers is retractable, enabling for football/rugby-configuration or an athletic one. Changing from one to another takes about 80 hours and decreases capacity of this level from 25,000 to some 20,000. That means capacity for football stands at 81,338 and around 75,000 for athletics events. Largest crowds gather at concerts, though. Capacity then is at around 90,000, but record for a U2 gig stands at over 96,000.

http://stadiumdb.com/stadiums/fra/stade_de_france
​

Regardless, I do agree that we'd have to be careful about planning olympics-specific infrastructure. If we're smart about it everything would be designed for multi-functionality and masterplanned in advance for post-games repurposing and so on.

I'm pretty sure Atlanta rues its Olympics disaster as much as Athens.

Say what? It is generally agreed that Atlanta broke even on its olympics games, and depending on numbers may in fact have realized a profit like Los Angeles did. What's more they did most of it with corporate and private funding. You may find the stadium ugly, and not all infrastructure legacy there was successful, but many venues are used to this today and they achieved a great deal of urban beautification, infrastructure improvements and urban renewal in Atlanta due to the games. Hardly the unmitigated disaster you would suggest.

 

[Euphoria]

Yes, overruns happened, but Sochi and a few completely mismanaged games skew the results. There's been a lot of learning since Montreal, as recent North American examples illustrate. We can talk about the historic average fuel efficiency of cars and factor in Model T's. Interesting that you cite London's Olympic experience, which was so well received locally that they're chasing the 2025 Expo.

 

[animatronic]

Yes, overruns happened, but Sochi and a few completely mismanaged games skew the results. There's been a lot of learning since Montreal, as recent North American examples illustrate. We can talk about the historic average fuel efficiency of cars and factor in Model T's. Interesting that you cite London's Olympic experience, which was so well received locally that they're chasing the 2025 Expo.

The paper is from 2012 - Sochi makes the numbers even worse.

 

[Tewder]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to parse the numbers just a little?... to adjust based on prevailing political structure (free enterprise democracy vs communist etc) and/or economy (i.e. emerging/developing vs first world) and or historic context of the games. In other words, are we really going to understand possible outcomes for Toronto by looking at Sochi, Beijing or Rio?

 

[animatronic]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to parse the numbers just a little?... to adjust based on prevailing political structure (free enterprise democracy vs communist etc) and/or economy (i.e. emerging/developing vs first world) and or historic context of the games. In other words, are we really going to understand possible outcomes for Toronto by looking at Sochi, Beijing or Rio?

The paper uses Beijing's "official" numbers that only show an 8% overrun.

 

[Euphoria]

Hell, I'll risk an overrun for the tangible benefits of an Olympics over ehealth, ORNGE or the gas powerplant cancelation payout, not to mention the attempts at building superjails as the crime rate drops, purchasing F-35's, you get the idea. Waste happens regardless. At least I'll know what we're getting, and I think it's a lot.

 

[animatronic]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/11/tory-meets-with-olympic-committee-boss-about-possible-bid

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

St. Denis is in the 'middle of nowhere'?

They didn't put it in the Bois de Boulogne or Vincennes, much less Trocadero, which is what advocates here want to do with our billion-dollar stadium: plant it right in the heart of the city, right next to harbour/islands/beaches existing and to be built.

Say what? It is generally agreed that Atlanta broke even on its olympics games, and depending on numbers may in fact have realized a profit like Los Angeles did. What's more they did most of it with corporate and private funding. You may find the stadium ugly, and not all infrastructure legacy there was successful, but many venues are used to this today and they achieved a great deal of urban beautification, infrastructure improvements and urban renewal in Atlanta due to the games. Hardly the unmitigated disaster you would suggest.

Atlanta was -- famously -- the first Games not declared 'the best Games ever' at the closing ceremonies, due to the rampant commercialism (The Coca-Cola Games, remember?), the bomber, the traffic, the fact that some of the events were Beijing-Winter-Olympics levels of driving from Atlanta. I don't think it was an unmitigated disaster from a cost perspective, but from the Oxford study linked above it was a very costly venture and - as with all Olympics - well over its budget.

Also, because I'm too lazy to do the Googling, can you give me a specific example of an 'urban beautification' or 'infrastructure improvement' or 'urban renewal' project that Atlanta did 20 years ago that has stood the test of time? You can't count free stadium gifts to professional sports teams (particularly ones they're about to tear down!)

Finally, on the whole 'But hosting the Olympic Games will be, like, our total Debutante Ball! We'll be announcing ourselves to the World!' front: Have you thought about Atlanta differently since? Have you gone/thought of going (no fair counting a Delta transfer at the airport)? Yeah. Me Neither.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

The Olympic Centennial park is nice. And Marta works well as far as it goes. I haven't been in the basketball arena.

 

[Tewder]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/11/tory-meets-with-olympic-committee-boss-about-possible-bid

Thanks for posting. From the article, "“The new IOC model under Olympic Agenda 2020 encourages — in a financially sustainable way — the use of existing facilities in communities surrounding the host city.” I know you're not a fan but this must be at least a little encouraging?

They didn't put it in the Bois de Boulogne or Vincennes, much less Trocadero, which is what advocates here want to do with our billion-dollar stadium: plant it right in the heart of the city, right next to harbour/islands/beaches existing and to be built.

I don't buy the analogy. You're comparing established historic sites in Paris with vast tracts of contaminated brownfields in Toronto? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't build a stadium in High Park or Allen Gardens either.

Atlanta was -- famously -- the first Games not declared 'the best Games ever' at the closing ceremonies, due to the rampant commercialism (The Coca-Cola Games, remember?), the bomber, the traffic, the fact that some of the events were Beijing-Winter-Olympics levels of driving from Atlanta. I don't think it was an unmitigated disaster from a cost perspective, but from the Oxford study linked above it was a very costly venture and - as with all Olympics - well over its budget.

... but it was the games Canada kicked butt in!

Seriously though, I don't feel that 'rampant commercialism' is a legitimate criticism. Their objective was to fund the games privately, through corporate sponsorship etc, and they achieved this... and overruns aside they still broke even/turned a profit. I just don't see how you can spin this as a negative, imo.

Also, because I'm too lazy to do the Googling, can you give me a specific example of an 'urban beautification' or 'infrastructure improvement' or 'urban renewal' project that Atlanta did 20 years ago that has stood the test of time? You can't count free stadium gifts to professional sports teams (particularly ones they're about to tear down!)

I'm pretty lazy too but a quick google search gave me the following my first result:

Winning the Olympic bid catapulted Atlanta into the big leagues, giving it name recognition around the globe. Atlanta's $1.7 billion private-funded investment in hosting the games helped revitalize its sluggish downtown and poured $5 billion into the metropolitan area's economy during the next decade, according to the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...l-olympic-games-billy-payne-atlanta-committee​

If anything, people criticize Atlanta for not doing more, for relying too much on private funding and for not leveraging the games more through greater use of public funding.

​

Finally, on the whole 'But hosting the Olympic Games will be, like, our total Debutante Ball! We'll be announcing ourselves to the World!' front: Have you thought about Atlanta differently since? Have you gone/thought of going (no fair counting a Delta transfer at the airport)? Yeah. Me Neither.

The reasonable expected impact of any games is over a 10 year period: 5 years before a games, during the games, and five years after, in terms of economic stimulation, tourism and commerce generated. The infrastructure/revitalization benefits last a lot longer... and twenty years for a privately-funded stadium isn't too shabby, by anyone's standards!

 

[torontologist]

Don't take this as a vote in favour of bidding, but has it been suggested that we build the Olympic stadium at Downsview? It would be closer to the subway and highways than in the Portlands, and we wouldn't have to mar the waterfront with another massive stadium.

 

[MetroMan]

That would erase one of the major benefits of hosting the Olympics and frankly the only one we should care about: development potential. The Portlands have been identified as the most valuable development zone in the city and an Olympic Games would become a catalyst for luring government and private investment to that area. Transit (i.e. the DRL and Waterfront LRT), affordable housing and groundwork infrastructure to building out the Portlands would all come from locating the main Olympic venues there.

Building those venues in Downsview Park would not serve this goal and in fact detract from it.