Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[gweed123]

Which is why hosting the games would mean displacing hundreds, possibly thousands, of homes and businesses. Which is exactly what has happened in every host city.

The IOC does not care what kinds of development would be good for the host city. Once the host city contract is signed, the IOC calls the shots. It overrides the laws, ALL of the laws. The local community has no recourse whatsoever to stop unwanted development.

There is literally no point in imagining how the games would be good for Toronto's development. We would get what the IOC decides.

The Sydney Olympic Park was a failed High Tech industrial park and former industrial wasteland. Net improvement there for sure.

The Athens Olympic Park was built for the Mediterranean Games in 1991, and was merely renovated for the 2004 games. Located in a suburb of Athens, but accessible by Metro.

The London Olympic Park (now the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park) was built on a mixture of greenfield and brownfield lands (the greenfield being part of the Hackney Marshes). Located in East London (again, not downtown). Was coordinated with the Stratford City development project. Again, a net plus compared to the brownfield that existed there previously.

Atlanta did not have a formal Olympic Park, but the main Olympic Stadium was built in the parking lot of the old Fulton County Stadium (former home of the Braves). The site of that stadium then became the parking lot for what is now Turner Field.

Rio plans on holding events in 4 smaller clusters around the City, with no formal central Olympic Park. In fact, the Opening and Closing ceremonies will not even be held at the same location. Most of the venues are already existing, with only a few for the specialized sports (cycling, canoe/kayak, etc) being built specifically for the games.

The one real exception on the list in the Beijing Games in 2008. I purposely left them off this list because, well, 'one of these things is not like the other'. A Communist government can do pretty much whatever they want, and it's well-recongnized that China really went over the top for their games. Not really a useful case study for what can reasonably be done in a democratic country.

So in summary, it seems that recent Olympics (1996 onwards), have been quite accommodating for the cities they're hosted in. Most of the locations were in brownfield lands outside of the city centre, yet still accessible by highways and transit. Not located in far-flung suburbs, but not right smack downtown either. Kinda sounds like Downsview to a tee, doesn't it?

 

[TOperson]

The Sydney Olympic Park was a failed High Tech industrial park and former industrial wasteland. Net improvement there for sure.

The Athens Olympic Park was built for the Mediterranean Games in 1991, and was merely renovated for the 2004 games. Located in a suburb of Athens, but accessible by Metro.

The London Olympic Park (now the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park) was built on a mixture of greenfield and brownfield lands (the greenfield being part of the Hackney Marshes). Located in East London (again, not downtown). Was coordinated with the Stratford City development project. Again, a net plus compared to the brownfield that existed there previously.

Atlanta did not have a formal Olympic Park, but the main Olympic Stadium was built in the parking lot of the old Fulton County Stadium (former home of the Braves). The site of that stadium then became the parking lot for what is now Turner Field.

Rio plans on holding events in 4 smaller clusters around the City, with no formal central Olympic Park. In fact, the Opening and Closing ceremonies will not even be held at the same location. Most of the venues are already existing, with only a few for the specialized sports (cycling, canoe/kayak, etc) being built specifically for the games.

The one real exception on the list in the Beijing Games in 2008. I purposely left them off this list because, well, 'one of these things is not like the other'. A Communist government can do pretty much whatever they want, and it's well-recongnized that China really went over the top for their games. Not really a useful case study for what can reasonably be done in a democratic country.

So in summary, it seems that recent Olympics (1996 onwards), have been quite accommodating for the cities they're hosted in. Most of the locations were in brownfield lands outside of the city centre, yet still accessible by highways and transit. Not located in far-flung suburbs, but not right smack downtown either. Kinda sounds like Downsview to a tee, doesn't it?

You are overlooking the community opposition to these developments at the time and the lingering resentment, the displacement of hundreds or thousands of people, the many white elephants in host cities and the massive opportunity costs. Just because something was developed doesn't mean it was the right/optimal development for that place or worth the cost given what could have been developed for the same money.

 

[gweed123]

You are overlooking the community opposition to these developments at the time and the lingering resentment, the displacement of hundreds or thousands of people, the many white elephants in host cities and the massive opportunity costs. Just because something was developed doesn't mean it was the right/optimal development for that place or worth the cost given what could have been developed for the same money.

1) There's community opposition to every development. In Ottawa right now, there's community opposition to the Western LRT extension, with the opponents arguing that the proposed stations will create traffic chaos, while at the same time they're saying the stations will be a waste of money because no one will use them. I've become very skeptical of community opposition to projects, because most of the time it's a vocal minority that has a fear of change, as opposed a legitimate widespread disapproval of a bad project.

2) Most of the case studies I brought up from recent Olympics clearly showed that most of the Olympic Parks were built on brownfield lands or lands that were, at the time, underutilized, such as parking lots. I don't know where these massive protests about people being displaced are, because most of the sites in western countries (ie excluding China) were not built in/replaced existing residential areas.

 

[christiesplits]

Downsview might make some sense, but it really is too far from downtown, and even more problematic, it's by no means a "sexy" site in terms of convincing Olympic delegates - let's face it, the area (and most of North York in general) is still an unappealing, unattractive suburban wasteland.

The Atlanta, Athens and London villages were not in necessarily "sexy" areas either. I would caution against getting too wrapped up on the specific surroundings of the Olympic Village and its effect on the overall branding of the Games. The 2012 London village was 9 kilometers outside of central London, yet consider how abundant the image of the Tower of London, Big Ben and the London Eye were in the branding of the games. There is no reason why Downtown Toronto icons like the skyline and CN Tower would not be as pervasive in the marketing of the games.

Take a look at Downsview Park from the air. Imagine how marketable an Olympic Stadium and village would look with the Toronto tree canopy and skyline in the background.

 

[gweed123]

The Atlanta, Athens and London villages were not in necessarily "sexy" areas either. I would caution against getting too wrapped up on the specific surroundings of the Olympic Village and its effect on the overall branding of the Games. The 2012 London village was 9 kilometers outside of central London, yet consider how abundant the image of the Tower of London, Big Ben and the London Eye were in the branding of the games. There is no reason why Downtown Toronto icons like the skyline and CN Tower would not be as pervasive in the marketing of the games.

Take a look at Downsview Park from the air. Imagine how marketable an Olympic Stadium and village would look with the Toronto tree canopy and skyline in the background.

View attachment 15652

That's exactly the view I was talking about in an earlier post when I was talking about the U shaped stadium with the open south end. That view would be spectacular on a sunny summer day, much like that photo.

There would still be plenty of chances to showcase downtown Toronto. They could have running and cycling on downtown streets or along Lake Shore, and rowing in the inner harbour. Plus I'm sure a fair amount of events could be held at Rogers Centre, BMO Field, and maybe even Varsity Stadium.

 

[TOperson]

1) There's community opposition to every development. In Ottawa right now, there's community opposition to the Western LRT extension, with the opponents arguing that the proposed stations will create traffic chaos, while at the same time they're saying the stations will be a waste of money because no one will use them. I've become very skeptical of community opposition to projects, because most of the time it's a vocal minority that has a fear of change, as opposed a legitimate widespread disapproval of a bad project.

2) Most of the case studies I brought up from recent Olympics clearly showed that most of the Olympic Parks were built on brownfield lands or lands that were, at the time, underutilized, such as parking lots. I don't know where these massive protests about people being displaced are, because most of the sites in western countries (ie excluding China) were not built in/replaced existing residential areas.

1) You're making that up. You have no idea who makes up "most" community opposition or why. With the Olympics, one big clue is that the group preparing the bid never has grassroots origins. It's always led by developers/real estate types. I don't think any neighbourhood in any host city has ever volunteered to be displaced.

2) In the modern Olympics, people and businesses are ALWAYS displaced in host cities. It happened in London, which is about as "western" as it gets. Read back through this thread. I've posted a lot of links about all this. Also, there is the opportunity cost. All kinds of things could be have been built on Olympic sites, things that would have been better for the host city for decades. Whereas the Olympics has a loonnnnggg history of white elephants.

 

[gweed123]

1) You're making that up. You have no idea who makes up "most" community opposition or why. With the Olympics, one big clue is that the group preparing the bid never has grassroots origins. It's always led by developers/real estate types. I don't think any neighbourhood in any host city has ever volunteered to be displaced.

Save Our St. Clair, Friends of Lansdowne (Ottawa case involving the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park), etc. The list goes on and on. NIMBY groups with a tenuous at best grasp on reality opposing a project that would benefit many people. Like I said, there's opposition to any project. You could find people opposed to the DRL, does that make the project unjust? Heck no.

2) In the modern Olympics, people and businesses are ALWAYS displaced in host cities. It happened in London, which is about as "western" as it gets. Read back through this thread. I've posted a lot of links about all this. Also, there is the opportunity cost. All kinds of things could be have been built on Olympic sites, things that would have been better for the host city for decades. Whereas the Olympics has a loonnnnggg history of white elephants.

Were the objections really anything more than would have occurred for another big project (ex: the Crossrail)? My guess is no.

No project is going to be beneficial to everybody. If we listened to the vocal minority on every project, NOTHING would get built.

I've read thru some of these links and I'm not sure I buy into the "IOC as crypto-fascists with an iron grip, holding onto some kind of universal political clout". I'm sceptical of a narrative that has one group, the dreaded IOC, taking control of the fortunes of entire economies just for the sake of holding a sporting event. If the IOC wields that much power, why waste it on sports--why not take full control of the world economy. Unless that sounds like too much of a conspiracy...

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. If these people truly do wield more power than Robert Moses did in NYC in the mid-20th century, you'd think they'd find a better avenue than 1 sporting event in 1 city every 4 years.

 

[TOperson]

I've read thru some of these links and I'm not sure I buy into the "IOC as crypto-fascists with an iron grip, holding onto some kind of universal political clout". I'm sceptical of a narrative that has one group, the dreaded IOC, taking control of the fortunes of entire economies just for the sake of holding a sporting event. If the IOC wields that much power, why waste it on sports--why not take full control of the world economy. Unless that sounds like too much of a conspiracy...

Because sports is a way to sell it to the public. The whole "new developments that will benefit the host city over the long term" pitch is for people who are wary of the sports thing. It's not a coincidence that developing-ish countries with corrupt governments are "winning" the chance to host the games.

 

[TOperson]

Save Our St. Clair, Friends of Lansdowne (Ottawa case involving the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park), etc. The list goes on and on. NIMBY groups with a tenuous at best grasp on reality opposing a project that would benefit many people. Like I said, there's opposition to any project. You could find people opposed to the DRL, does that make the project unjust? Heck no.



Were the objections really anything more than would have occurred for another big project (ex: the Crossrail)? My guess is no.

No project is going to be beneficial to everybody. If we listened to the vocal minority on every project, NOTHING would get built.



Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. If these people truly do wield more power than Robert Moses did in NYC in the mid-20th century, you'd think they'd find a better avenue than 1 sporting event in 1 city every 4 years.

There are at least a couple logical fallacies in your comment. Just because YOU perceive community opposition groups (all of them, everywhere, apparently) as NIMBYs does not make them so. Obviously THEY don't perceive themselves as such, and there are a lot of them. We live in a democracy, supposedly, and that means communities have every right to choose how they develop. Some will not choose to host the Olympics.

"NOTHING will get built" is another logical fallacy. Stuff gets built in cities all the time, especially in Toronto. That's how we became a condo city. So it's not OLYMPICS OR NOTHING EVER.

Since you just popped up on this fairly dormant thread recently, with the City report in the offing, I'm guessing you're here to astroturf?

 

[gweed123]

There are at least a couple logical fallacies in your comment. Just because YOU perceive community opposition groups (all of them, everywhere, apparently) as NIMBYs does not make them so. Obviously THEY don't perceive themselves as such, and there are a lot of them. We live in a democracy, supposedly, and that means communities have every right to choose how they develop. Some will not choose to host the Olympics.

"NOTHING will get built" is another logical fallacy. Stuff gets built in cities all the time, especially in Toronto. That's how we became a condo city. So it's not OLYMPICS OR NOTHING EVER.

There are a few community opposition groups who have a valid argument, but on most of the contentious issues I've seen, the community group is usually on the wrong side. Stuff gets built all the time, but a lot of stuff that should get built gets derailed by a small group of naysayers.

For example, a small group around Leslie and Eglinton just hampered the Eglinton LRT by demanding that a surface stop be re-implemented. A surface stop that will barely see any usage, but in turn kills the ability to run ATC from Mt. Dennis to Don Mills.

Since you just popped up on this fairly dormant thread recently, with the City report in the offing, I'm guessing you're here to astroturf?

That's quite a big assumption to make. I've been posting in the Transportation forum area for years. The Olympic bid is the crossroads between transportation and land use, since a successful bid will profoundly impact both. It's a topic I've been interested in for a while, so I figured I would share my opinion. I don't work for any group that would have any vested interest in seeing a successful bid, so please don't make that assumption.

 

[TOperson]

There are a few community opposition groups who have a valid argument, but on most of the contentious issues I've seen, the community group is usually on the wrong side. Stuff gets built all the time, but a lot of stuff that should get built gets derailed by a small group of naysayers.

For example, a small group around Leslie and Eglinton just hampered the Eglinton LRT by demanding that a surface stop be re-implemented. A surface stop that will barely see any usage, but in turn kills the ability to run ATC from Mt. Dennis to Don Mills.



That's quite a big assumption to make. I've been posting in the Transportation forum area for years. The Olympic bid is the crossroads between transportation and land use, since a successful bid will profoundly impact both. It's a topic I've been interested in for a while, so I figured I would share my opinion. I don't work for any group that would have any vested interest in seeing a successful bid, so please don't make that assumption.

Right, so we're back to your experience of community groups, which is by definition extremely limited, since as one person you can't possibly have encountered all the community groups or know all the issues of whatever they oppose. Plus, "on the wrong side" is usually in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Anyway, we're not talking about bus stops, but about the Olympics, which have HUGE impacts on host cities, not all of them good. You seem to assume that the Olympics will create a net benefit for Toronto, but on what grounds? At most you can speculate on what would happen. London is still coping with the Olympics (waiting to see how many "legacy" benefits actually materialize), so we have that example to go by. Even being extremely generous, the best one can say is that the results are mixed. For $10B+ in public money, I want better than mixed results.

If your interest is in land use and transportation, you must be aware of the nightmares that host cities have had to deal with. It's been well documented.

 

[mistercorporate]

TOperson is a flaming NIMBY...

 

[tiffer24]

Or a failure as an Olympic-qualifying athlete...

 

[TOperson]

Ah, the old ad hominem attack. The last-ditch ploy.

 

[gweed123]

Right, so we're back to your experience of community groups, which is by definition extremely limited, since as one person you can't possibly have encountered all the community groups or know all the issues of whatever they oppose. Plus, "on the wrong side" is usually in the eye of the beholder. Your opinion is just that, an opinion.

Anyway, we're not talking about bus stops, but about the Olympics, which have HUGE impacts on host cities, not all of them good. You seem to assume that the Olympics will create a net benefit for Toronto, but on what grounds? At most you can speculate on what would happen. London is still coping with the Olympics (waiting to see how many "legacy" benefits actually materialize), so we have that example to go by. Even being extremely generous, the best one can say is that the results are mixed. For $10B+ in public money, I want better than mixed results.

If your interest is in land use and transportation, you must be aware of the nightmares that host cities have had to deal with. It's been well documented.

Well yeah, how can I speak about anything other than my personal experiences? There really aren't very many studies about how narrow or not narrow-minded community groups are. All I have to go on are my personal observations. And for that matter, all you have to go on that these groups AREN'T like that is your personal experience as well, unless you've done a peer-reviewed study on the phenomenon.

And my desire for Toronto to host the Olympics is centred around the infrastructure that Toronto would get as a result. It seems the only way to get any substantial money from the Feds for infrastructure in this country is if you host the Olympics. BC had been wanting to twin the Sea to Sky Highway for decades, to no avail. Olympics get awarded, and poof, funding miraculously appears. Ditto for the Canada Line.

If Toronto gets awarded the 2024 games in the next couple years, it would virtually guarantee that all of the first wave of the Big Move, plus all of the next wave projects, get built on a quite aggressive timeline. Suffice to say, that's probably not going to happen at nearly the same pace if the bid isn't successful. The long-term benefits of that infrastructure as a result of that bid are well worth it, in my opinion.

Ah, the old ad hominem attack. The last-ditch ploy.

Is that really any worse than questioning someone's motives for having a position different from yours?