News   Nov 19, 2024
Resubmission Bumps Height, Adds Heritage Component in Church-Wellesley
 764     5 
News   Nov 19, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Developments, Trends, and Forecasts Across the Greater Golden Horseshoe
 432     0 
News   Nov 19, 2024
News Roundup for November 19, 2024
 517     0 

Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

"Is any event really "essential"? By that logic we should ban Nuit Blanche, Caribana, the Ex, Gay Pride, etc."

I already smashed this argument upthread. It's not about banning ALL events. The Olympics is THE MEGA-event. It costs BILLIONS of dollars (plus heartache and hassle for residents of the host city). Nuit Blanche etc are very small potatoes in comparision.

"The entire point of the Olympics is a competition between countries and for people of hundreds of countries to have a good time, which it does very well."

I don't think that is a justification for such a large expenditure of public money. There are lots of other ways to have a good time, and I notice many non-host cities manage to do so. As did host cities long before they ever got the Olympics.

"Which didn't happen. Don't make up lies to try and help your argument. The Olympic Park was a brownfield wasteland and nobody was displaced."

I've already provided links to sources that back up this claim, as I've been doing all along with my other claims. Accusing me of lying just shows that you are not reading carefully.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
TOperson:

Do you even know what they are building in the West Don Lands? It's permanent housing and community facilities (e.g. Y). Kind of like St. Lawrence in scale. A wasteland is what it had been for the past quarter of a century, if not more.

AoD
Click to expand...

I was responding to the comment about what "events like this" can achieve, not the WDL specifically.
 
TOperson:

The post-games wasteland is a planning issue and not necessarily a default outcome. If one build like Beijing does, it is no wonder that it turned out to be a wasteland.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling these (London 2012) will probably be the least watched Olympics in a good long time. Those human interest stories they use to pull in the viewers are more of a turn off and frankly, unless they can really turn the Chinese into super-villains or something, the drama just isn't there.
 
Couple more links re: displacement of poor people:

http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/olympics-opportunity-cleanse-city/

http://tenant.net/alerts/mega-events/Olympics_Media_Release.pdf

I think the Olympics should start re-using venues and spread the events around a bit, not have them all in one city every time. Most of us watch the games on TV anyway. It would be so much cheaper, without all the construction hassle. I would think it would also be less disruptive to the tourism industry. Some extra tourists would come for events, but regular tourists would also come, instead of staying away as they seem to be doing with London.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
TOperson:

Do you even know what they are building in the West Don Lands? It's permanent housing and community facilities (e.g. Y). Kind of like St. Lawrence in scale. A wasteland is what it had been for the past quarter of a century, if not more.

AoD
Click to expand...

TOP -- West Don Lands is not an argument against an Oly.
AOD -- nor is it an argument for.

Y'all need to leave this one lie. It doesn't further the Oly cost/benefit analysis in the slightest.

And if I may try to further that cost/benefit contretemps. The Architect -- why in Sam Hill would an Olympics in Toronto get the DRL built??? QQ LRT to Cherry if that's where the stadium goes, maybe, but what arena/velodrome/whatever will they build at Gerrard Square or OSC to excuse a subway up Pape?
 
RRR:

I wasn't using WDL as an argument for the games (though you do have to admit, in this particular case TO2015 did help to move the project ahead) - I was rebutting the argument that games-related sites would by default turn into wastelands.

re: DRL & Olympics

Actually as a thought exercise - if one is going to site the venues in Portlands, I can see electrification of the entire Lakeshore line happening considering what was proposed back in 2008 (i.e. venues clustering at the Ex, Skydome/ACC/MTCC and Portlands). That, and we probably won't be arguing over whether the Lower Don Plans will have to be subdivided into a zillion phases each waiting for its' own funding. Now of course that's something which will have to be balanced against how the venues will impact the plans we "sort of" have in right now.

AoD
 
Last edited:
"TOP -- West Don Lands is not an argument against an Oly."

What I said was:

I was responding to the comment about what "events like this" can achieve, not the WDL specifically.

And I didn't bring it up in the first place. I've mostly kept my remarks limited to the Olympics.
 
OttoSchloss said:
I have a feeling these (London 2012) will probably be the least watched Olympics in a good long time.
Click to expand...

No. The complete opposite actually. It appears to be the most-watched.

Record ratings in the USA - http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...t-st-olympic-ratings-20120730,0,1565984.story

Best ratings in UK for a decade - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/30/olympics-opening-ceremony-tv-ratings

Highest rated Olympics ever in Canada - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/london-2012-olympics-watch-tv-canada-355625
 
TOperson said:
As much as I enjoy slagging off the Olympics, it really troubles me to see this sort of story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...ey-are-suffering-because-of-the-Olympics.html

I mean, they went to all that trouble and expense, they should at least get the short-term payoff.
Click to expand...

Similar article: Need a vacation? Head to London, where the Games are driving tourists away

We should consider that the Pan Am Games (and possible Olympics) may not have the payoff expected.

"It may go against intuition, but having the Olympics arrive in town has made London a completely different place in every possible sense," Bernard Donoghue of London's Association of Leading Visitor Attractions told the Globe.

"The central London attractions such as the London Zoo, St. Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Abbey and the British Museum are all seeing attendance figures down 30 to 35 per cent last week compared to the same week last year. As a result there are no queues and tickets are easy to get."

Also empty? The famed West End theatres, Covent Gardens, Leicester Square and reams of other now-lonely cultural landmarks.

Hotels that had anticipated a full house have had to slash prices in order to fill beds.
* * *
"There has been a marked fall in restaurant bookings … London restaurants have seen a double-digit fall in takings, sometimes considerably more," Ufi Ibrahim, chief executive of the British Hospitality Association, told the paper.
* * *
Chalk it up to Olympics optimism — the idea that the hosting city will rake in massive sums thanks to the multitudes the Games will attract.

Except the reality nearly always falls short. The Globe notes that Sydney's projected 132,000 tourists ended up in the 97,000-range.

Even more disappointingly, Athens organizers anticipated 105,000 hotel guests each night and had to make do with a paltry 14,000.

In almost every case, the Games failed to boost tourism numbers in subsequent years — even in Vancouver.
Click to expand...
 
So I'm not sure I understand why cities keep vying for the games, developed cities and otherwise, when according to TOperson they are such unmitigated disasters? Explanation please.
 
Tewder said:
So I'm not sure I understand why cities keep vying for the games, developed cities and otherwise, when according to TOperson they are such unmitigated disasters? Explanation please.
Click to expand...

1. Paul Godfrey and his friends will make millions of dollars out of this bid. It's worth their while.
2. Many, many people (e.g. Royston James' column in the Star) are absolutely certain they're getting absolutely screwed on their taxes, all evidence to the contrary rejected summarily. They expect that somehow, this time, they'll screw everybody else. It's kind of like how 99% of billionaires are sure they're paying too much tax. They're wrong, but they feel it in their BONES!
3. An enormous number of people love the spectacle. They couldn't care less about the cost because they will not personally be sent a bill. That it costs them money will no more occur to them than the fact the Canadian army in Afghanistan costs them money.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top