Toronto 2024 Olympic Bid (Dead)

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Was actually genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. If you or anyone were to produce a compelling argument to change the figures we would do so. We clearly stated the methodology used. As it stands we don't believe that the purchasing parity issue is material to the argument, and we don't agree that the figures have been inflated. But we are happy to discuss.

Now you are engaging in public relations-speak, simultaneously expressing interest in "openmindedness" while stonewalling the methodological issue that you claim to have "clearly stated" but was nowhere to be found until questioned, and at the same time dismissing it and putting the onus on others to deal with an issue that you should have addressed instead of sweeping under the rug. As such, I found these figures just as problematical as those put forth by some boosters. Have a great day.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Converted to CAD without recognition of PPP, especially in London?

AoD

Genuinely curious AoD: why would you use PPP currency translation in this case? Why, 'especially in London'? Are you saying that a Toronto bid would be materially cheaper due to our construction costs, land acquisition, etc.? You would normally not use PPP for those kinds of things (or I've never heard it being used like that.) Or are you talking about salaries/wages being a lot lower for our BidCo versus London's? Or you just think the numbers are torqued in an upwards direction and threw out PPP as one reason they should come down?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Genuinely curious AoD: why would you use PPP currency translation in this case? Why, 'especially in London'? Are you saying that a Toronto bid would be materially cheaper due to our construction costs, land acquisition, etc.? You would normally not use PPP for those kinds of things (or I've never heard it being used like that.) Or are you talking about salaries/wages being a lot lower for our BidCo versus London's? Or you just think the numbers are torqued in an upwards direction and threw out PPP as one reason they should come down?

If you want a remotely apples to apples comparison, you need to take into account local costs - the converse example would be pulling out the figures for the Bird's Nest stadium in Beijing, add in the requisite inflation increase and claim that a product of the same quality can be had in Toronto for that price (which you have no hope of ever getting).

AoD

 

[NoTO2024]

Now you are engaging in public relations-speak, simultaneously expressing interest in "openmindedness" while stonewalling the methodological issue that you claim to have "clearly stated" but was nowhere to be found until questioned, and at the same time dismissing it and putting the onus on others to deal with an issue that you should have addressed instead of sweeping under the rug. As such, I found these figures just as problematical as those put forth by some boosters. Have a great day.

AoD

Another point of comparison would be security costs. In Toronto the G20/G8 costs came in at $970m. The security budget for Pan Am was about half that, though final costs have not been released. Vancouver security costs were pegged at $1B. That gives three reference points for a Toronto Olympics security cost - if you extrapolate to 2-3x the G20/Vancouver costs you are in the range provided in the chart. In contrast, the London 2012 security budget was £1.3B - a purchasing parity assumption of CAD$1.3B is clearly unrealistic.

And yes, we are more than happy to discuss these numbers. If we did something to offend you we apologize.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Another point of comparison would be security costs. In Toronto the G20/G8 costs came in at $970m. The security budget for Pan Am was about half that, though final costs have not been released. Vancouver security costs were pegged at $1B. That gives three reference points for a Toronto Olympics security cost - if you extrapolate to 2-3x the G20/Vancouver costs you are in the range provided in the chart. In contrast, the London 2012 security budget was £1.3B - a purchasing parity assumption of CAD$1.3B is clearly unrealistic.

But why would you extrapolate 2-3x G20/G8? Why is the Vancouver figure necessarily a gross underestimation? What's the rationale for that? That's like pulling numbers out of a hat and cherry picking figures until you get to a figure that you like.

Beyond that, notice how the biggest line item, "infrastructure" isn't broken down (let's not mention how it went from 1.82B £ to 7B $Cdn) - it's basically not so much so cost of the games, but for the site. Ditto transportation. It's like arguing that if you do it in Toronto, all the costs for cleaning up and rebuilding the waterfront - from earthworks to roads, rail, hydro, bridges - something that we've been told we're going to do anyways - is suddenly a cost associated with the Olympics. There is a certain intellectual dishonesty in that. Also, what of cost recovery - even if partial, from say the Olympic village?

The best way to get a clue of how the costs of spread out - read the info in the Guardian piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/datablog/2012/jul/26/london-2012-olympics-money

AoD

 

[diminutive]

You can gloss over the facts all you like but London since the games has become the number one most visited city... on earth. They didn't just wave a wand, say 'voila' and it happened magically. London has achieved this by investing in itself consistently over the years, and the olympics is just one instance of this.

?!?!?! London has been the most visited city on Earth for years, if not decades, prior to 2012. I'm surprised you haven't started claiming the Olympics transformed London into the UK's capital.

Why not just go full hog?

Since the Olympics, London has become the UK's biggest city! Take that, Olympic nay-sayers!

Since 2008, Beijing has become the capital of the largest country in the world!

Since 1984, Los Angeles has become the 2nd largest city in the USA!

Since 1988, Seoul has become one of the largest cities in Asia!

It's fun to attribute causality with phenomena that occur decades before their putative causes!

... and you'd be surprised why people are visiting London these days. It's not for mushy peas and a visit to the Tower or Big Ben anymore. It's because London has been forging through an international modern identity for itself, one as a world capital of music, fashion and culture. The olympics were a powerful way to message this to the world, a tool for branding. If you think it was just a big expensive party for the heck of it you're naive.

People visit London because it's a big city with lots of attractions in lots of fields. Coincidentally, London's status also helped it land the Olympics. Nobody is travelling to London because it's got some "Olympic legacy." ("Skyler! Look at this here velodrome! Glad we didn't go to some stupid White Cube Gallery!")

It is a big expensive party for the heck of it, which is why nobody finds actual tourism benefits. Ever. I'm still waiting for you to actually provide a study suggesting Barcelona had a measurable tourism boom from the Olympic Games.

Nonsense. This area was a massive derelict tract of land in central London, not just anywhere. The billions required for revitalization (basic infrastructure alone) are what was preventing development here. The games were leveraged for the financial justification and the political impetus. This area will now become London's third major business node, and it is shifting central London eastward.

Have you ever been to Stratford or London?? Nobody would describe it as central London (sic). It's literally about the distance of the Beaches from downtown Toronto.

Literally everywhere in London, including areas that are heavily derelict and lacking in basic amenities, are seeing untold billions in investment. London didn't need the Olympics to have people invest in London property. There's so much demand to do that there are consistent demands to stop the flow of investment into the city.

The stadium will have a life beyond the games, it is not the white elephant that the anti-progress Olympic nimbys insist it would be. The specifics of the deal are irrelevant to the opportunity the games provided.

They're not irrelevant at all. If a bunch of rich dudes wanted a new stadium, they should have paid for it themselves. Public spending shouldn't be used to funnel money to the wealthiest and most politically connected amongst us.

But you probably think Skydome was a great public investment because it was so visionary.

Riiiiight, so we do nothing then. That's truly brilliant. I'd rather have a tri-level government organization overseeing this and working with Waterfront Toronto to effect change and progress than sit back on our hands in gridlock just because you have trust issues. Oversight by upper levels of government will make sure we don't end up with a subway to some Toronto politician's backyard.

Umm, we're NOT doing nothing. We're literally spending 10s of billions of dollars a decade and have more transit investment than any city in North America save NYC.

Moreover, oversight by upper levels of government is often WHY we have subways running to backyards (e.g. Sorbara subway, Ontario Liberals and the Scarborough Subway ect...)

You keep making up flimsy justifications for why putting a notoriously corrupt organization in charge and diverting billions to hideous stadiums and security will somehow lead to better spending choices.

 

[NoTO2024]

But why would you extrapolate 2-3x G20/G8? Why is the Vancouver figure necessarily a gross underestimation? What's the rationale for that? That's like pulling numbers out of a hat and cherry picking figures until you get to a figure that you like.

Beyond that, notice how the biggest line item, "infrastructure" isn't broken down (let's not mention how it went from 1.82B £ to 7B $Cdn) - it's basically not so much so cost of the games, but for the site. Ditto transportation. It's like arguing that if you do it in Toronto, all the costs for cleaning up and rebuilding the waterfront - from earthworks to roads, rail, hydro, bridges - something that we're going to do anyways - is suddenly a cost associated with the Olympics. There is a certain intellectual dishonesty in that. Also, what of cost recovery - even if partial, from say the Olympic village?

The best way to get a clue of what the costs of spread out - read the info in the Guardian piece:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/datablog/2012/jul/26/london-2012-olympics-money

AoD

Security:
We already have a decent working estimate of how much security costs in a western democracy to hold the summer games - about £1.3B. Barring any 9-11 style shift in the security universe that's about the best estimate we can use. To get a Canadian cost you must convert the amount to Canadian dollars, and we have used the exchange rate. Your contention is that the prevailing exchange rate is not the right number to use. Therefore we bring in secondary sources of data to validate the initial assumption. The G20 security operation was a similar scale for pre-event monitoring, but the duration was much shorter. The Vancouver Olympics were of a similar scale for pre-event monitoring and the duration was similar to a Summer games, but the number of athletes, events, secured sites and exposed sites was much less than in a summer games. A rough doubling of those costs validates the exchange rate assumption, which remains the most evidence-based estimate. Beyond simply raising the parity question you haven't provided any evidence to disqualify the original assumption that Toronto Summer Olympics security = London Summer Olympics security x exchange rate.

Infrastructure:
Various infrastructure costs from the Guardian article were combined for clarity and ease of presentation. If you look at the Guardian's spreadsheet they comprise the following : Site Preparation and Infrastructure, Logistics for site construction, section 106 and masterplanning, Stratford city land and infrastructure, International Broadcast Centre, Olympic/Paralympic village and legacy park transformation. Clearly these are all valid infrastructure costs. Total amount is £4.1B, which converted to 2024 CAD$ is $7.8B. Transit and venues are also largely infrastructure but are listed separately. We can share the working papers if you like.


Nobody is suggesting that these should be considered purely Olympic costs. What the chart does show, however, is that the operating revenue from the games do not cover the operating costs. By forcing the levels of government to make these investments, holding the Olympics actually increases the costs of the infrastructure investments rather than decreasing them (you get an Olympic Games, of course, but whether that justifies the cost is a different question).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Security:
We already have a decent working estimate of how much security costs in a western democracy to hold the summer games - about £1.3B. Barring any 9-11 style shift in the security universe that's about the best estimate we can use. To get a Canadian cost you must convert the amount to Canadian dollars, and we have used the exchange rate. Your contention is that the prevailing exchange rate is not the right number to use. Therefore we bring in secondary sources of data to validate the initial assumption. The G20 security operation was a similar scale for pre-event monitoring, but the duration was much shorter. The Vancouver Olympics were of a similar scale for pre-event monitoring and the duration was similar to a Summer games, but the number of athletes, events, secured sites and exposed sites was much less than in a summer games. A rough doubling of those costs validates the exchange rate assumption, which remains the most evidence-based estimate. Beyond simply raising the parity question you haven't provided any evidence to disqualify the original assumption that Toronto Summer Olympics security = London Summer Olympics security x exchange rate.

That's a mighty lot of assumptions (not backed up by data) regarding the scale and duration of the events and how it translates to an inflation of the costs. So according to you, you have two events with similar levels of pre-event monitoring (what? how?) but dramatically different duration, spread of locations, etc. and ended up with very similar costs - I am not sure how you can, in light of reality, argue it is "evidence" that these so called datapoints can be used to triangulate to your figure.

Infrastructure:

Various infrastructure costs from the Guardian article were combined for clarity and ease of presentation. If you look at the Guardian's spreadsheet they comprise the following : Site Preparation and Infrastructure, Logistics for site construction, section 106 and masterplanning, Stratford city land and infrastructure, International Broadcast Centre, Olympic/Paralympic village and legacy park transformation. Clearly these are all valid infrastructure costs. Total amount is £4.1B, which converted to 2024 CAD$ is $7.8B. Transit and venues are also largely infrastructure but are listed separately. We can share the working papers if you like.

These are valid infrastructure cost for what, exactly? The games? Broader planning goals? What about post-games cost recovery from the line items? I don't see any accounting of that.

Nobody is suggesting that these should be considered purely Olympic costs. What the chart does show, however, is that the operating revenue from the games do not cover the operating costs. By forcing the levels of government to make these investments, holding the Olympics actually increases the costs of the infrastructure investments rather than decreasing them (you get an Olympic Games, of course, but whether that justifies the cost is a different question).

If you are going to compare operating costs, compare operating costs to operating revenue - not mix it in with infrastructure costs that isn't directly attributable to the games and present it in a bar chart and then tell me that nobody is suggesting that these should be considered purely Olympic costs, because that's exactly what the chart would communicate (like seriously, those costs make up what, close to 50% of length of the bar). And if the point is about operating costs, then why throw in the second point regarding infrastructure costs inflation without any supporting information?

Now, having said all that it doesn't mean we should not apply scrutiny to any potential bid and the figures contained therein, but I'd rather see the plans and figures first instead of using the blunt technique of translating London to Toronto without consideration.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

?!?!?! London has been the most visited city on Earth for years, if not decades, prior to 2012. I'm surprised you haven't started claiming the Olympics transformed London into the UK's capital.

Nope, sorry. In 2011 London placed second behind Paris. In its olympic year and since London has consistently placed first in all years but 2013. I've said it before, that the benefits of an olympics start with being awarded the games and run approximately 5 years before the event to 5 years after. A pretty decent return.

... and if you're not impressed with going from second place to first you should be, at this level you are vying with the greatest cities in the world. Increasing or maintaining this status is extremely difficult in an ever crowded tourist market and a city must constantly be investing and creating new ways to remain relevant to visitors.

It is a big expensive party for the heck of it, which is why nobody finds actual tourism benefits. Ever. I'm still waiting for you to actually provide a study suggesting Barcelona had a measurable tourism boom from the Olympic Games.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Seriously? I've posted academic papers on Barcelona already. I know, all that pesky reading gets in the way huh?

And London just wanted a L10 billion party? ROFL!!!!! Hey, I've got some great land in Florida to offer you at a real deal...

Look the rest of your diatribe is pointless, and it's devolved to a childish level. Your perspective is a pretty simplistic, 'black and white' stance that olympics = bad. Check, I get it. Next?

 

[diminutive]

Nope, sorry. In 2011 London placed second behind Paris. In its olympic year and since London has consistently placed first in all years but 2013. I've said it before, that the benefits of an olympics start with being awarded the games and run approximately 5 years before the event to 5 years after. A pretty decent return.

No, you're wrong. London has consistently ranked as the top tourist destination in the world. Curiously, since MasterCard started doing its Global Destination Cities Index, the only in 2012 and 2013 did London drop from top spot. Way to go Olympic Games. London was the top tourist destination in 2006, if you want to insist on some kind of 5 year time frame.

Please, please for the love of god stop acting as if London topping tourism rankings is somehow a product of the Olympics. It's so cringey and obviously wrong. It's been the de facto capital of the world in so many areas since the Industrial Revolution. The Olympics are not why people visit London.

... and if you're not impressed with going from second place to first you should be, at this level you are vying with the greatest cities in the world. Increasing or maintaining this status is extremely difficult in an ever crowded tourist market and a city must constantly be investing and creating new ways to remain relevant to visitors.

None of the cities London competes against have hosted the Olympics in recent memory... Bangkok, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Dubai , Kuala Lumpur, NYC and Seoul rounded up the top 10 for 2015, save the last, obviously. That's not surprising since people are typically drawn to cities because of permanent features that form a municipal image. Nobody is drawn to an anodyne IOC-run corruption fest that leave behind some useless velodromes.

.Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Seriously? I've posted academic papers on Barcelona already. I know, all that pesky reading gets in the way huh?

You posted one paper (not papers) ("The Impact of the Olympic Games on Tourism..." by Pere Duran).That wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, but in a publication by the Center for Olympic Studies. It wasn't written by an academic but by an actual insider who worked on the 1992 Games. It uses ridiculous language like "the magical summer of 1992" (which should have tipped you off that this wasn't academic at all). And, most importantly, it doesn't try to account for alternative explanations for the phenomena it seeks to describe. The conclusion is literally "What other explanation [other than the '92 Games] can there be for the fact that Barcelona’s tourism grew 7.6% in 2001, when the world and European tourist figures underwent historical slumps with drops of the order of 1.3% and 1%, respectively?" It's the most shockingly anti-intellectual comment possible, which isn't surprisings since this isn't an academic paper.

So, no. If you had actually read the article you'd have seen it's not academic at all.

.Look the rest of your diatribe is pointless, and it's devolved to a childish level. Your perspective is a pretty simplistic, 'black and white' stance that olympics = bad. Check, I get it. Next?

You're the one who refuses to deal with academic literature on the subject, insists on ridiculous reasoning (hint, if something happened before your theorized cause, it probably wasn't caused by that) and outright flawed logic. Some would say an adherence to a position without data or reason is childish.

 

[animatronic]

For everyone who is planning to use an operating surplus from the games to fund infrastructure, there's one small problem:

45.ii. unless otherwise approved in writing by the IOC, all OCOG revenues generated through the organisation and staging of the Games (including without limitation revenues derived from the exploitation of its commercial rights, its sale of sponsorship rights, its admission tickets program, and similar sources) and all revenues received by the OCOG pursuant to Section 14 above shall not be used to provide infrastructure.

 

[Tewder]

Please, please for the love of god stop acting as if London topping tourism rankings is somehow a product of the Olympics. It's so cringey and obviously wrong. It's been the de facto capital of the world in so many areas since the Industrial Revolution. The Olympics are not why people visit London.

I've expressed it a hundred different ways but you've still got it backwards. A city that has the vision to host an olympic games is a city that has vision to start with, to stage big events, to leverage for grand planning and infrastructure, to stake opportunities to brand itself globally. That London does this so well, that London has had the vision to host an olympics twice, is part of an ever ongoing long term strategy that keeps it on top as a destination city... as is the case with Barcelona too.

... and by the way, these host cities eschew the sort of parochial, insipid, myopic, dare-I-eat-a-peach viewpoint that you advocate. Thankfully.

You posted one paper (not papers) ("The Impact of the Olympic Games on Tourism..." by Pere Duran).That wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal,

He was the general manager of Tourism Barcelona for crying out loud. Look, maybe you have loads of time in between classes to hunt down academic papers but that's sort of beyond the scope here pal.

Regardless, the 'NoTO' group here is quoting the Guardian so I'll take this as some sort of imprimatur (my highlighting to make things clear to the obstinately blind):

Despite a recession that lasted until the mid-1990s, Barcelona was able to grow, building on its Olympic platform. The city used the Games to implement an imaginative, wide-ranging urban renewal plan that transformed its decaying industrial fabric into the gorgeous seaside city so beloved of British (and other) tourists.

Barcelona's airport handled 2.9 million passengers in 1991; this year that figure had risen to 21 million. Tourism, which accounted for less than 2 per cent of the city's pre-Olympic GDP, is now worth 12.5 per cent, with the increase in hotel beds dictated by the Games generating 12,500 new jobs.

Barcelona estimated it had built 50 years' worth of infrastructure over eight years, investing $8bn (£5bn) in a ring road, a new airport and telecommunications system and an improved sewage system. The filthy harbour and port area were transformed by a $2.4bn waterfront development, with the two tallest towers in Spain, one a luxurious hotel, the other an office building.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/dec/08/athletics.olympics2012

​

... and if my bigger point all along still isn't clear to you (from the same article):

Pasqual Maragall, former mayor of the city, who was re-elected for a fourth term after the Olympic spending spree, saw the Games as 'a pretext. You've got to use it to produce change, otherwise it is a lost opportunity'.

How many different ways can I underline, highlight, underscore or set fireworks off around this quote???? It is the essence of progressive forward thinking, and it epitomizes the bold mindset and dynamism that characterizes cities like London and Barcelona, and that make them the successful great cities they are.... Booyah!

 

[animatronic]

I've expressed it a hundred different ways but you've still got it backwards. A city that has the vision to host an olympic games is a city that has vision to start with, to stage big events, to leverage for grand planning and infrastructure, to stake opportunities to brand itself globally. That London does this so well, that London has had the vision to host an olympics twice, is part of an ever ongoing long term strategy that keeps it on top as a destination city... as is the case with Barcelona too.

Lots of cities have grand visions but have not hosted the Olympics. Lots of cities with no vision have hosted the Olympics.

 

[diminutive]

I've expressed it a hundred different ways but you've still got it backwards. A city that has the vision to host an olympic games is a city that has vision to start with, to stage big events, to leverage for grand planning and infrastructure, to stake opportunities to brand itself globally. That London does this so well, that London has had the vision to host an olympics twice, is part of an ever ongoing long term strategy that keeps it on top as a destination city... as is the case with Barcelona too.

But that argument itself means the Olympics don't cause and aren't necessary for whatever metric you're using for urban success.

All cities that host on the Olympics (Summer, at least) are big, bold, successful cities. Sure, no doubt. We're not talking about East St. Louis 2024. Being big/bold/whatever marketing buzzterm is a necessary condition to hosting the Olympics.

But hosting the Olympics is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being big/bold/successful. There's no relationship there.

From a policy perspective the more relevant question is how the Olympics contribute to a City being big/bold/successful. And the answer is 'not much.'

Even the things you cite say this. "Pasqual Maragall, former mayor of the city, who was re-elected for a fourth term after the Olympic spending spree, saw the Games as 'a pretext. You've got to use it to produce change, otherwise it is a lost opportunity.' A 'pretext' is a "false, contrived, or assumed purpose." Your own heroes are straight up confirming what we've been saying this whole time; the Games do nada.

There's no need to buy into this admitted multi-billion dollar delusion that the Olympics are some kind of investment-of-a-lifetime. They're not. This speaks to the kind of implicit facsism of the IOC that it thinks the public needs to be misled via false and contrived pretences to get things done. Democracy works, man.

He was the general manager of Tourism Barcelona for crying out loud. Look, maybe you have loads of time in between classes to hunt down academic papers but that's sort of beyond the scope here pal.

Like I said, you haven't posted a single academic paper. Yet you're plenty comfortable reiterating you're opinion.

 

[CodeMonkey]

But that argument itself means the Olympics don't cause and aren't necessary for whatever metric you're using for urban success.

All cities that host on the Olympics (Summer, at least) are big, bold, successful cities. Sure, no doubt. We're not talking about East St. Louis 2024. Being big/bold/whatever marketing buzzterm is a necessary condition to hosting the Olympics.

But hosting the Olympics is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being big/bold/successful. There's no relationship there.

From a policy perspective the more relevant question is how the Olympics contribute to a City being big/bold/successful. And the answer is 'not much.'

Even the things you cite say this. "Pasqual Maragall, former mayor of the city, who was re-elected for a fourth term after the Olympic spending spree, saw the Games as 'a pretext. You've got to use it to produce change, otherwise it is a lost opportunity.' A 'pretext' is a "false, contrived, or assumed purpose." Your own heroes are straight up confirming what we've been saying this whole time; the Games do nada.

There's no need to buy into this admitted multi-billion dollar delusion that the Olympics are some kind of investment-of-a-lifetime. They're not. This speaks to the kind of implicit facsism of the IOC that it thinks the public needs to be misled via false and contrived pretences to get things done. Democracy works, man.

I agree that the Olympics themselves don't provide any real net-benefit, and itself is a waste of money, but the net benefit in our case is the few times the Province and Federal government open the wallet for funding big ticket infrastructure items that we desperately need. Look at the Pan Am Games, it was sold over and over again that only hosting the Pan Am Games gave us "A rail link to the airport" that we've need for some thirty odd years, that only the Pan Am Games brought about "revitalizing the West Don Lands" and you start seeing a picture that hosting these overblown events is the rare times that we can funding for infrastructure.