|
|
|
Toronto 2015 Pan American Games
- Thread starter FutureMayor
- Start date
isaidso
Senior Member
Lamport Stadium isn't used much. Varsity Stadium just got 'upgraded' to 5,000 seats from a historical 20,000 seater. I'm not sure how much more upgrading they could do.
toforumer
Active Member
Whoaccio
Senior Member
Well, to quote Richard Florida: "“The real question is what these expensive, publicly bankrolled behemoths add to their local economies. The consensus across every, single serious study ever done of the economic impact of sports stadia is ‘absolutely nothing.” As the old song goes, ’say it again.’"
That sounds extreme, but it's actually a fair summary of the research consensus on the purported economics impact of mega sporting events. The Olympics are a common example of that, but there are dozens of time series analysis focusing on the economic impact of events like the Superbowl, FIFA World Cup and any number of other professional sports. And yes, that does include the economic witchdoctory of accounting for "intangible" benefits like improved tourism, which are almost universally agreed to be zero. At best, the consensus is, mega-sporting has mild benefits with extreme risk and generally negative returns. Really, it's not that hard to understand. I think most Torontonians would think Glendale was stupid to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to bring hockey to the desert, were basically just as stupid trying to bring competitive bicycling or field hockey here.
Montreal isn't even such an extreme case. Almost all of Beijing's Olympic facilities are sitting empty because no local sports teams can afford the rent, leaving the Chinese government with an annual bill of several million dollars in addition to the debt and opportunity cost of sinking 500m into something which will eventually be turned into a mall. Greece spent 5% of its GDP on the 2004 games and now 21/22 of the facilities are derelict. Sydney, despite being considered a "success," still ended up as a net loss of over a billion dollars. The main arena is also derelict pending redevelopment and post-Olympics tourism in New South Wales lagged Australian averages. London doesn't look to be in any better shape, the budget has quadrupled, private backing for the athlete's village has evaporated and even minor attempts to shave costs (like using existing facilities, of which London has many) are berated.
It's not like Toronto has had no experiences with idiotic public spending on sports behemoths. At least David Miller learned from the idiocy of spending public money on the Skydome then selling it off for pennies on the dollar. The amount of similar stories elsewhere is truly mind boggling. In nearly every case, local economies have spent upwards of a hundred million dollars in various kinds of corporate welfare (almost exclusively to the richest 1% of society that has enough disposable income to buy mutli-million dollar sports franchises, no less) and rarely ever received anything of quantifiable benefit in return. I'm trying to be charitable here, but public funding of sports mega projects is one of those rare issues, like rent control or nuclear warfare, that just about any economist will tell you has a negative return. It's almost like evolution for economists. Hell, there's even evidence that mega sports spending harms long term athletic participation by sapping funds from amateur sports and encouraging people to watch sports as opposed to doing sports.
That sounds extreme, but it's actually a fair summary of the research consensus on the purported economics impact of mega sporting events. The Olympics are a common example of that, but there are dozens of time series analysis focusing on the economic impact of events like the Superbowl, FIFA World Cup and any number of other professional sports. And yes, that does include the economic witchdoctory of accounting for "intangible" benefits like improved tourism, which are almost universally agreed to be zero. At best, the consensus is, mega-sporting has mild benefits with extreme risk and generally negative returns. Really, it's not that hard to understand. I think most Torontonians would think Glendale was stupid to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to bring hockey to the desert, were basically just as stupid trying to bring competitive bicycling or field hockey here.
Montreal isn't even such an extreme case. Almost all of Beijing's Olympic facilities are sitting empty because no local sports teams can afford the rent, leaving the Chinese government with an annual bill of several million dollars in addition to the debt and opportunity cost of sinking 500m into something which will eventually be turned into a mall. Greece spent 5% of its GDP on the 2004 games and now 21/22 of the facilities are derelict. Sydney, despite being considered a "success," still ended up as a net loss of over a billion dollars. The main arena is also derelict pending redevelopment and post-Olympics tourism in New South Wales lagged Australian averages. London doesn't look to be in any better shape, the budget has quadrupled, private backing for the athlete's village has evaporated and even minor attempts to shave costs (like using existing facilities, of which London has many) are berated.
It's not like Toronto has had no experiences with idiotic public spending on sports behemoths. At least David Miller learned from the idiocy of spending public money on the Skydome then selling it off for pennies on the dollar. The amount of similar stories elsewhere is truly mind boggling. In nearly every case, local economies have spent upwards of a hundred million dollars in various kinds of corporate welfare (almost exclusively to the richest 1% of society that has enough disposable income to buy mutli-million dollar sports franchises, no less) and rarely ever received anything of quantifiable benefit in return. I'm trying to be charitable here, but public funding of sports mega projects is one of those rare issues, like rent control or nuclear warfare, that just about any economist will tell you has a negative return. It's almost like evolution for economists. Hell, there's even evidence that mega sports spending harms long term athletic participation by sapping funds from amateur sports and encouraging people to watch sports as opposed to doing sports.
jn_12
Senior Member
I won't deny most of what you said. But if you're just looking at economics, these things are never going to look great. Do we only do things because of economic reasons?
I've also never seen a study that reflects the true cost and revenue generation from holding a mega event. It's just impossible to do.
I think Beijing is a rather unique case. I don't think any Olympics will ever compare to theirs. The Chinese government put themselves in that position and I don't think their model can be applied anywhere else.
Sydney's post-Olympic tourism problem correlates pretty closely with the fall of international travel post-9/11. Yes it lagged other regions in Australia, but there have been branding studies that have shown that Sydney's games improved their brand considerably.
I don't think it'd be fair to compare a professional sport franchise (Phoenix) to the building of a field hockey stadium. At least the field hockey stadium can be adapted to other uses (soccer, cricket, etc). Glendale would have no use for that stadium if the Coyotes left since they already have an NBA team playing in their own arena.
Ultimately, I think it's unfair to say "X happened in Y, so X will happen here". I'd also ask Richard Florida how arts and "creativity" are so different from Sports. They both attract high end talent and the supporting foundation that allows it to thrive. I guess the question I would ask is "which would have the greater impact on this city: the disappearance of the ROM or the disappearance of the Leafs?"
I've also never seen a study that reflects the true cost and revenue generation from holding a mega event. It's just impossible to do.
I think Beijing is a rather unique case. I don't think any Olympics will ever compare to theirs. The Chinese government put themselves in that position and I don't think their model can be applied anywhere else.
Sydney's post-Olympic tourism problem correlates pretty closely with the fall of international travel post-9/11. Yes it lagged other regions in Australia, but there have been branding studies that have shown that Sydney's games improved their brand considerably.
I don't think it'd be fair to compare a professional sport franchise (Phoenix) to the building of a field hockey stadium. At least the field hockey stadium can be adapted to other uses (soccer, cricket, etc). Glendale would have no use for that stadium if the Coyotes left since they already have an NBA team playing in their own arena.
Ultimately, I think it's unfair to say "X happened in Y, so X will happen here". I'd also ask Richard Florida how arts and "creativity" are so different from Sports. They both attract high end talent and the supporting foundation that allows it to thrive. I guess the question I would ask is "which would have the greater impact on this city: the disappearance of the ROM or the disappearance of the Leafs?"
nfitz
Superstar
They are currently working on a conversion to put a dome on Lamport from November through April. As most of the community usage at BMO Field is being moved to Lamport now that grass is being installed at BMO, Lamport will be very heavily used in the coming years.
Surely it doesn't meet the criteria for abandoned stadiums!
TOareaFan
Superstar
Lamport is used constantly by community teams, Canadian Soccer League and other sports groups (Field Hockey, amateur football) and is about to get about a $4 million investment by MLSE so that the winter bubble over BMO can be moved there which, in turn, allows BMO to be converted a grass surface.....Lamport, however, is over 25 years old but does show that there is as much peril in underbuilding stadiums as there is overbuilding them. It never was quite professional in quality. That said, in my mind might be adequate for some use during the Pan Ams (if only as a higher quality practice facility).
BMO is practically brand new and, while hardly opulent, does not need any major upgrade although the owners (city) and managers (MLSE) are constantly tweeking and adding bits here and there.
Is the paint even dry yet on the new Varsity?
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 273
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
Pan Am vs. Olys
IMHO, we're lucky to get a second tier event. Almost all the build for this games can be used by community sports after the games are over, while most Olys have a few white elephants.
Varsity is a terrible example for anti-sports facility types. As ROM members, we often park beside Varsity on our way to the museum. I've never once seen it empty.
IMHO, we're lucky to get a second tier event. Almost all the build for this games can be used by community sports after the games are over, while most Olys have a few white elephants.
Varsity is a terrible example for anti-sports facility types. As ROM members, we often park beside Varsity on our way to the museum. I've never once seen it empty.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
No kidding.... seating capacity is around 4000-5000, by today's standards its considered a mini-facility.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Good point, but I think a bunch of people would be happy to get rid of the ROM just so that stupid, cancerous glass growth can disappear as well.
TOareaFan
Superstar
But it is "right sized" for Canadian university sports....which is its main reason for being.
TOareaFan
Superstar
The major problem with the economics of public investment in sports facilities is that there is such a "science" at all. For some reason we expect a financial pay back from sports facilities and if there is not one we expect someone to fabricate one. What is wrong with the idea of building a facility for people to swim in (or watch others swim in) just for the sake of the swimming? Do we expect a financial return from libraries? Will the new opera house pay back the money we invested in it?
Sure, enterprises like MLSE should pay for arenas like the ACC (and we should pay rent on them when we need to use them for public events) but pools, veledromes, field hockey pitches, etc are used by people who do not make millions from sport and their recreation/fitness/enjoyment are valid uses of public funds just as me seeing the nutcracker is.
If, 5 years later, 21 of 22 facilities built in Greece for the Olympics are derelict that is, to me, shocking news and speaks more to how awful their construction industry must operate than their sporting one.
GenerationW
Senior Member
I never said there were funds allocated to Yonge. There is no need for you to go to drastic lengths by putting words in my mouth.
GenerationW
Senior Member
I'll have to deduct marks for the use of the tired phrase world-class city, but one thing I like about the Pan Ams is that Hamilton will finally get a replacement for Ivor Wynne out of this (assuming that's done properly).
GenerationW
Senior Member
Which renovations -- 67 or 99? I find it hard to believe the 67 renos spurred them to bid on a Cup more than 20 years later. And the 99 renos could only have fully affected 2006.
The ability to use economical, temporary seating clearly was the biggest factor that allowed Winnipeg to host all three Cups.
Bolt is now such a huge star that he would only show if the "incentives" were right.
Well Wiki buys it, and you cited them first.
We're much closer to Winnipeg than London is to Portsmouth, and Bordeaux is more well-known worldwide than Toronto. And most of our "internationally renown" status comes from south of the border. We're just another burgh to most people overseas.