Toronto Strong Contender For Olympic Games - IOC President

[jn_12]

we're pursuing the pan am games right now because it's both economically and politically viable. the price tag for the pan ams is 2 billion or less. the marketing, campaigning and new infrastructure necessary for an enormous world event like the olympics would necessarily be much higher.

also, by some divine miracle, all three levels of government, including several governments across the golden horseshoe, have pledged funding.

perhaps most importantly, as a host for the olympics currently, canada would not be successful in its medal tally. remember, canada is only now becoming a winter athletic power. this has surely been a product of freak-like increased investment and the infrastructure first built in calgary. the infrastructure that would be built in ontario would certainly be "legacy" infrastructure as mr. mcguinty put it.

we all know toronto wants the olympics, and if this bid is successful, a beautiful games compounded with new infrastructure will put toronto in the front running for an olympics.

Sorry for the double post, but this is correct. The plan might be to get the athletic infrastructure in place first, and then make another Olympic bid. Rio did just that. They held the 2007 Pan-ams and are using the infrastructure in this Olympic bid. This strategy at least ensures that the city hosts something, and if they luck out and get the Olympics, some of the costs have already been eaten up.

 

[MisterF]

perhaps most importantly, as a host for the olympics currently, canada would not be successful in its medal tally.

Define successful. Canada won 18 medals in Beijing. While that's not a massive number, we did finish 19th in gold medals, and 14th in overall medals. I'd say a top 10 finish is achievable if we put the same resources into it as we're putting into "owning the podium" in Vancouver next year. Obviously finishing #1 will never happen for the summer Games.

 

[urbanboom]

sigh...
Since when do these rankings have to do with anything? IOC members do not vote based on these results. They never have (otherwise Toronto would have hosted an Olympics by now because we outranked Beijing and Atlanta). In fact, these rankings mean so little that Rio got through to the final four despite being worse than Doha (mind you Doha wanted to host the event in October, but that seems like a strawman if I've ever seen one). For 2012, Paris outranked London and for 2014 Salzberg and PyeongChang outranked Sochi. So if thats the best you've got, keep searching.

Fact is, the IOC is out for money. If they think they can get the best TV ratings and the most sponsorship contracts from an American bid, they're going to pick it. They already gushed over Obama and his support of the bid.

If Tokyo or Rio win it'll be as big of an upset as Sydney was over Beijing.

Why does the host city necessarily effect the ratings? If that we the case the Olympics would always be in either China or the USA. As I said, these ratings were as of June 2008. Things change, as was the case with Sochi and Sydney.

In fact, I think that holding them in the USA (from a June 2008 standpoint) might even decrease the Olympics' popularity, since the US as a whole was one very unpopular country. The thing that really boosts viewership is either firework and cute-little-chinese-girl propaganda or some outrageously good athlete like Michael Phelps or Bolt or even some outrageously good athlete getting caught on steroids.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think it would be great if Toronto won the Pam Am Games, the Olympics and Expo, thus we'd finally be done with this debate about how Toronto will reach its best only if we curry to these international events.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The best things about The Olympics would be the expected huge influx of funding the provs and the feds would inject into the city. The Games have this way of making everything happen FASTER. The infrastructure we'd get out of it alone -- sports facilities, new transit lines, a drastically improved waterfront, would be huge. And it'd all be built in less than 10 years instead of 20+.

The thing that makes Toronto kind of perfect for the Olympics is that the city needs all kinds of new infrastructure as it is. Our athletics facilities are a joke. We've got tons of plans on the books as far as transit and the waterfront are concerned. We're not talking about building a bunch of crap just for the Olympics that will sit empty afterwards -- there's a real need that would be filled.

But then maybe I'm an idealist.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Nothing wrong with idealism, I used to have that...now I'm jaded.

 

[toforumer]

Fact is, the IOC is out for money. If they think they can get the best TV ratings and the most sponsorship contracts from an American bid, they're going to pick it. They already gushed over Obama and his support of the bid.

That's true but you also have to see it from a different perspective. There's a long standing dispute within the IOC, some IOC members resent the large share of revenues taken by the United States Olympic Committee.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

Interesting piece of trivia: Detroit was a bidder for the 1944, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968 and 1972 Summer Olympic Games (and came in second for the 1964 games after Tokyo, and 1968 games after Mexico City).

Talk about optimism!

Today it seems like Doha (Qatar) is a city that is doing just that. Why a city with a population of 500,000 is bidding for the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup all at the same time is beyond me.

Because they can. They've got the facilities (either built or planned), they've got the interest, and they've got a pile of oil barons with more money than brains to make sure the Games don't run at a loss and embarrass the government. Makes you go green with envy sometimes.

 

[syn]

Don't they encourage everyone to bid? I don't see how this comment can be taken as a positive at all. It just seems like the media friendly thing to say.

They've always made positive comments about Toronto and it's never really mattered.

 

[Hydrogen]

syn's right, they encourage many cities to bid.

My suggestion would be that no one bites. City development should not be a by-product of a periodic sporting event.

 

[Tewder]

City development should not be a by-product of a periodic sporting event.

Toronto should be taking 'city development' any way it can get it...

The Olympics would be great for this city. We are in primetime rating zones for huge population areas in North America, many of which are within a day's drive of our beautiful province. The exposure would be enormous and the benefits could be huge, and all the more so if the games mean that Toronto gets a big push to finish its waterfront, infrastructure needs, and 'city beautiful' initiatives. Coordinate the Olympics with an extended Luminato-type cultural festival, bring back Symphony of Fire-type events nightly over the waterfront and get tourist 'partners' in the province to coordinate (Niagara, Stratford etc) and it could be a very strong strategy.

 

[Hydrogen]

We can finish the waterfront, expand cultural events and do all those other things without sinking a ton of cash into this otherwise bloated sports-festival.

The Olympics then become an excuse to do things where otherwise there may be no political will to do them. I find that a poor approach to city-building.

 

[Ummagumma66]

I think Rio could do it, did you know there has NEVER been a South American city to host an Olympic Games?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Don't they encourage everyone to bid? I don't see how this comment can be taken as a positive at all. It just seems like the media friendly thing to say.

They've always made positive comments about Toronto and it's never really mattered.

If Chicago loses 2016, Toronto has a decent chance at 2020, but what if we decide to not bother after winning the Pan Am Games? Hence the gentle and positive nudge.

 

[Urban Shocker]

We're the Istanbul of the western hemisphere - of course they'll encourage us to bid, and of course we'll keep bidding.