Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I actually think Agenda 2020 supports big cities, with big existing facilities (or quick conversion options) and existing hotels, airports etc..... Smaller cities do not have and do not need all those facilities, so creating them is a waste of money.

So I think Agenda 2020 supports the trend to alpha cities and not the other way around.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bore off.

Well, if Toronto had entered, and you were going to make a list of the minus frtactors for the bids, you cpould say: Madrid - Spain's economy is in really bad shape Japan - Although Pyeongchang shou

MisterSG1 is simply ignorant of the fact that his "Canada" was created by immigrants themselves, much like my "Australia" is. We should be grateful for the immigrant populations from all corners of th

I actually think Agenda 2020 supports big cities, with big existing facilities (or quick conversion options) and existing hotels, airports etc..... Smaller cities do not have and do not need all those facilities, so creating them is a waste of money.

So I think Agenda 2020 supports the trend to alpha cities and not the other way around.

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I don't think that North America is "due" to host again. I simply meant that the IOC clearly favors Europe before the other continents. (For good reasons, of course.) They will likely prefer a European bid to a North American bid (or any other continent other than Africa) if the bids are roughly equal.

And while Toronto may have a bit more in place than Boston for Olympic sports, it doesn't compare to Paris. I think Canada would be better off waiting. Particularly when Toronto can learn from what went well and what went poorly for their Pan-American Games.

I actually think Agenda 2020 supports big cities, with big existing facilities (or quick conversion options) and existing hotels, airports etc..... Smaller cities do not have and do not need all those facilities, so creating them is a waste of money.

So I think Agenda 2020 supports the trend to alpha cities and not the other way around.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. By way of example my own city of Seattle is only about the size of Lisbon or Athens, yet it has:

  • two 70,0000 capacity football stadiums
  • 12,000 capacity football stadium
  • several smaller stadiums
  • 47,000 capacity baseball stadium
  • 12,000 capacity baseball stadium
  • several smaller stadiums
  • 18,000 capacity arena
  • 10,000 capacity arena
  • 8,500 capacity arena
  • 6,500 capacity arena
  • aquatics center
  • outdoor velodrome
  • rowing shellhouse for rowing on Lake Union

Seattle spent $733 million in 2015 dollars on a baseball stadium in 1997. If it really wanted to, it could have spent that money to build almost all of the venues it would need for the Olympics. (Assuming, under this scenario, that the track in Husky Stadium was preserved.) If Athens' economy wasn't in the toilet and it had a sensible legacy plan it could have handled the facilities.

The problem is that no city wants many of the Olympic venues in the first place. An expensive indoor velodrome would be a white elephant in New York just as much as Minneapolis. The New York and London sports teams don't want a huge stadium with a track in it either. Hence the difficulty of reconstructing London's stadium, the convertable stands in Stade de France, the fact that Beijing's football teams refuse to move to the national stadium because they won't be able to sell enough tickets to pay the rent, etc.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here you have it down below, JO. Many, many reasons why the IOC would NOT be sending the "wrong message" with agenda 2020 by continuing to select large cities for their sporting extravanganza. Sounds to me like its still a necessity rather than a burden or sending any kind of wrong messages.

Now, as far as the IOC sending the "wrong message" by selecting another large city like Paris for 2024 & going against agenda 2020, let's keep in mind though, which city would have to build the least. In that aspect, Paris falls right in line with Agenda 2020. I don't believe agenda 2020 was envisioned so that the IOC stay away from large cities. But rather embrace more the cities needs as well. On the contrary, smaller cities St. Louis, Antwerp & Helsinki etc would actually require more work & construction since they wouldn't have all of the necessary, key infrastructures that large cities like Paris, London, Beijing, Rio & Tokyo already have.

<p>

Atlanta, as mentioned before, was an exception than perhaps won't happen again in many years (If it wasn't for the sturborness of the Greeks). Beside if it was for the results of Atlanta, that would be enough reason to not vote for USA or any small city (At difference of your first thought) - Full logistic nightmare.

[*]2020 Agenda isn't exactly as a defense of the small cities. Like the FYI said, it's just an advice to avoid overruling exagerate costs of construction and adapt some necessities to the city host. You have city A and city B to host the events. City A is a global city, which has global recognition but also it has most of the venues and just need budget for security, expand the public transport and adapt some of the venues as Olympic capacity. City B is smaller city, but it doesn't have many of the venues and need to translate many of the security team from the largest city and create more hotels and public transport. Which city is better adapted to the 2020 Agenda? People keep dreaming the Olympics as a small regional event, but they need to see some numbers. London received 10.700 athletes from 207 countries (And that's not including staff -Trainers, doctors, chefs-. which can easily duplicate that number). Then you need to include international press (From the biggest chains of television to newspapers and even independent journalists and magazines), tourists, VIP people, representative of the institutions and others. That means a lot of people (Even a small city in representation) and that's include hotels, transport, translators, police and especially security to avoid a potential thread like terrorist attack. Just for that reason small cities (And perhaps small countries) couldn't receive this type of event. That's the reason big cities were chosed.

I actually think Agenda 2020 supports big cities, with big existing facilities (or quick conversion options) and existing hotels, airports etc..... Smaller cities do not have and do not need all those facilities, so creating them is a waste of money.

So I think Agenda 2020 supports the trend to alpha cities and not the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Torchbearer said. Even though Agenda 2020, on the surface, seems friendlier to smaller cities/countries in terms of encouraging bids, this is still the IOC and the Olympics we're talking about. They're going to want big. To me though, Agenda 2020 is about allowing those cities an easier time at hosting an Olympics. Would be nice if a part of that was the sport federations not demanding top notch, expensive facilities. Building a velodrome isn't a horrible thing. Spending a ton of money on that velodrome to make it world class where its usefulness after the Olympics is minimal is not a smart thing. Nor is it smart to pack all of these facilities into a compact space (hello, Boston) simply to appease the IOC. Again, that's what Agenda 2020 is supposed to help with.

To Rogers's point, the size of a city isn't necessarily proportional to the facilities offered. Again, look at Boston. How many of the venues on that list for Seattle does Boston have. Not a lot. They're ill-suited to bid for an Olympics. As if that's new information to anyone. We always talk about whether or not Los Angeles should be the U.S. bidder by default. They have many of the needed venues (albeit some that would require modifications). Not to mention being ready for the crunch of people coming to town. And the Olympics bring A LOT of people to town, many of whom staying there for the better part of 2 1/2 weeks.

Until we see a trend moving away from big cities for the Summer Olympics, I think it's going to continue like that. We can argue about what is or isn't an alpha city or what exceptions can or can't be made to that theory. Agenda 2020 isn't going to cause a radical shift in the cities that host an Olympics. Doesn't seem like it's going to change the bidders much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can say a Toronto 2024 bid is imminent. The decision to kill the bid in 2014 will be overturned.

Rob Ford was the main reason why the bid was killed, his negativity rubbed off on a majority of the Executive committee members. With John Tory in the mayor seat, the change in atmosphere and perception is a total 180. I can say there are city councillors that were against a bid last year who now have changed their stance on this matter.

The bid has big name support behind it. Preliminary plans have always been in place. Stadium and Athlete's village will still be in the Portlands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Editorial piece from The Star
Why Toronto should bid for the 2024 Olympics: Hepburn
Pan Am Games have been good for GTA, and Olympics could be even better.
  • Share on Facebook
  • spreddit7.gif
thomasbach.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jp

Jean-Christophe Bach / AP

International Olympic Committee president Thomas Bach said last week that Toronto could be a good candidate for the 2024 Games.

By: Bob Hepburn Politics, Published on Sat Jul 11 2015

Once considered a long-shot, Toronto’s chances of hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics are suddenly on the rise.

In fact, the success so far of the 2015 Pan Am Games now underway across the Greater Toronto Area is prompting international Olympic organizers to take a long, hard look at the city again as possible host for the 2024 Games.

That’s great news because, despite the incessant groaning by critics about traffic delays and poor ticket sales for some of the relatively more obscure sports, the Pan Am Games have been good for Toronto.

And the truth is the Olympics could be even better for the city.

Winning an Olympic bid would result in improved transit infrastructure, development of underused parts of the city and the city’s waterfront, a revival in economic development and a showcasing of local arts and culture to the world.

At the same time, the gross overspending and mismanagement that have plagued recent Olympics, most notably at the 2008 Beijing Games and the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, appear to be over. Olympic organizers have learned hard lessons and last December instituted sweeping reforms designed to control costs and make it easier to bid for the Games.

With that in mind, Toronto city council, with help from Queen’s Park and Ottawa, should move quickly to submit a bid for the 2024 Olympics. The deadline for bids is Sept. 15, barely two months away. The International Olympic Committee will select the winning city in the summer of 2017.

Tokyo will host the 2020 Olympics. Already bidding for the 2024 Games are Boston, Paris, Rome, Budapest and Hamburg.

IOC president Thomas Bach told the CBC last week that Toronto could be a good candidate for the 2024 Games, but he wanted to see how the Pan Am Games work. “A successful organization of such a big multi-sport event like the Pan Am Games can give a boost to a candidate,” Bach said.

Preparing a full bid would require a lot of fast work, but it could be done.

The initial step would be for Toronto’s economic development committee to reverse a decision it made in early 2014 against spending money to do a detailed pre-bid analysis of the pros and cons of hosting the Games.

The next move would be to update the formal proposals for the Pan Am Games as well as the city’s failed 2008 and 1996 Olympic bids. Those in-depth documents included details of all the proposed Olympic venues, from basketball at the Air Canada Centre to boxing in Hamilton and skeet shooting in Oshawa.

The biggest expenses would be for a new stadium, likely in the Toronto Port Lands area, a new athletes’ village and the inevitable security costs.

Obviously, though, Toronto should bid for the Olympics only if it makes sense on several levels.

First, the bidding process must be fair. That hasn’t been the case in some past years. When Toronto bid for the 2008 Games, it was clear the IOC was leaning heavily toward Beijing because China had never hosted the Games. The same is true when it came to the 2016 Olympics, with Rio de Janeiro becoming the first South American city to host the Games.

However the bidding for 2024 appears to be truly open. The Summer Olympics haven’t been held in North America since the 1996 Atlanta Games. That could mean either Boston or Toronto, if it decides to join the bidding, could be the top front-runners.

Second, the bid must make economic sense. The easy answer to that can be seen by taking a look at the impact the Pan Am Games have had on southern Ontario.

The Toronto area has never experienced a boom in infrastructure and development as it has over the last five years. A total of 10 new sports facilities have been built and 15 existing sports facilities have been improved or renovated.

In addition, Union Station has been modernized, a rail link has been built to Pearson airport, an athletes’ village built, the waterfront and Queens Quay improved and a subway to York University and Vaughan is nearing completion.

As the Toronto Star said in an editorial on July 10, “the result is an extraordinary legacy that will serve Toronto residents, and those in surrounding regions, for decades to come.”

Indeed, Toronto has accomplished a lot with the Pan Am Games. We can accomplish even more with the 2024 Olympics.

Edited by dave199
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can say a Toronto 2024 bid is imminent. The decision to kill the bid in 2014 will be overturned.

Rob Ford was the main reason why the bid was killed, his negativity rubbed off on a majority of the Executive committee members. With John Tory in the mayor seat, the change in atmosphere and perception is a total 180. I can say there are city councillors that were against a bid last year who now have changed their stance on this matter.

The bid has big name support behind it. Preliminary plans have always been in place. Stadium and Athlete's village will still be in the Portlands.

Yeah, you said all of this last time. I'll believe it when I see it, bud.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1028678/nick-butler-could-toronto-be-north-americas-best-hope-of-hosting-the-2024-olympics

Nick Butler: Could Toronto be North America’s best hope of hosting the 2024 Olympics?

  • By Nick Butler at the Main Press Centre in Toronto
  • Monday, 13 July 2015

When I saw the headline of an article in CBC News last week, entitled: “Pan Am Games could boost a Toronto Olympic bid, IOC President says”, I half-chuckled to myself. With the exception of India, Thomas Bach has spoken positively about every single city of which a theoretical Olympic bid at some point is muted, and as well he might because it is his mission to generate as much interest as possible.

Bach’s response on this occasion was a usual one of cautious optimism. “I think Toronto could be a good candidate but we still have to see now the Pan American Games, how it's working here," he said. "The Pan Am Games can give a boost to a [Olympic] candidate."

Yes, but that is so vague, I thought to myself. And if they are going to bid, it surely won’t be for 2024 but for 2028 or even 2032…

Yet, after attending the subsequent Canada Olympic Excellence Day in Montreal and opening few days of the Games here, it has become increasingly clear how determined many officials are to launch a bid, and how the 2024 race is being targeted, not necessarily just to gain experience for a more concerted future attempt but with a view to mounting a serious challenge.

Marcel Aubut, the ebullient Canadian Olympic Committee President, repeatedly spoke of these ambitions in Montreal, drawing comparisons with Rio de Janeiro's use of the 2007 Pan American Games as a stepping stone to its successful 2016 bid. While this was fairly unsurprising, the fact that Toronto Mayor John Tory was so enthusiastic is more noteworthy, with the politician speaking positively of such an attempt both in public and in his private meeting with Bach.

The city finished second behind Beijing in the race for 2008 and third behind Atlanta and Athens in the battle for 1996, remember, but this revived enthusiasm represents a remarkable change in attitude from just 18 months ago, when an Economic Development Committee voted unanimously to defer a bid for the 2024 Olympics.

Both bidding and preparing for the event was seen as far too expensive, with then Mayor Rob Ford predicting it could be "15 years at least" before the City would realistically consider hosting the Olympics.

So far as I can see, there have been three significant changes since then.

First, the replacement of the controversial Ford - a character best known internationally for being at the centre of a substance abuse scandal - with the much more pro-Olympic Tory as the city’s Mayor.

Second, the completion of development projects associated with the Pan American Games, and positive impact on the local population, something that will undoubtedly have also contributed to the Mayoral change of heart. Ten new sports facilities have been built and 15 existing ones have undergone renovation work, for instance, while there has been widespread improvement to the city’s transport infrastructure, including a new rail link having been developed linking the city centre with Pearson Airport.

Third, the impact of the IOC’s Agenda 2020 reform process, a modernisation drive which had barely begun when the January 2014 red light was given. While we have been necessarily sceptical about just how much change Agenda 2020 has introduced, it has largely achieved its primary objective of reinvigorating interest in the Olympic Movement and destroying old preconceptions about the rigidity of the bidding and organising process.

Key has been the enhanced flexibility introduced as part of the reform drive. While before bids had to be conducted in a certain way to meet pre-determined IOC criteria, now cities are encouraged to shape a bid as they wish. Taking advantage of existing venues outside the city centre, for example, something which would certainly appeal to Ontario officials given the wide spread of venues for the Pan American Games.

With enthusiasm for the bid in place, what chance then does it have?

An editorial in the Toronto Star on Saturday (July 11) was entitled: “Why Toronto should bid for the 2024 Olympics”; listing the many benefits the ongoing Pan American Games have supposedly brought the city before hailing how there has never been a better time to launch a bid.

This in itself is interesting and can be compared with the situation in Boston, where the local press has been mainly strongly opposed to the bid. The same could be said of Oslo’s ill-fated attempt for the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympic last year, where a vocal media was a key arm in assisting opposition groups.

On this occasion, neither the press nor the public would be unanimously supportive of a Toronto bid but I feel they would be largely so. Of course, this is by no means enough to win a race but, rather like the first round of a golfing major, it is a vital pre-requisite of avoiding defeat.

Toronto also boasts other advantages. The city is big, among the largest Pan American Games hosts in history and the third biggest city in North America, meaning it would certainly have the physical capacity to cope with hosting demands. Due to the anti-American sentiments which still prevail in much of the non-Western world - possibly to a greater extent in sport this year following the FBI’s intervention in the FIFA scandal - being in Canada rather than the US could also be an advantage.

A similar sort of bid and part of the world but with less political and historical baggage, perhaps.

Then we have the aforementioned problems with Boston. I had the pleasure of meeting the bid’s new chief Steve Pagliuca last week and was impressed. He seemed comfortable in the Olympic world and was persuasive in arguing how and why public support would turn.

Since then, however, another poll has come out showing support is as low as ever, and however much sugar-coating officials give about superior state-wide support in Massachusetts, the point is that it is not really improving in the city and the opposition is as unified and organised as ever.

Rather like voters in the British General Election not admitting to having opted for the Conservatives in the privacy of the polling booth, you can now barely find a United States Olympic Committee (USOC) official who will privately admit to having chosen Boston, I have been told, and it is clear what many of us thought at the time about the wrong city having been chosen is surely now a view held by many of them as well.

It will not be easy to turn back now to another city like Los Angeles, however, but nor is it advisable to stick with Boston while these problems remain.

Given this dilemma, a race that everyone said was the United States’ to lose is currently being lost and this opens the door for other cities: Paris, Hamburg, Baku, Budapest, Rome…and Toronto?

It remains possible we are getting overly caught up in the early success of the Pan American Games. The US could recover its momentum or Toronto could lose theirs, perhaps, or decide to hold fire until 2028 after all.

But at the moment the Canadian city is on the rise and could just be manoeuvring itself into a position of strength with two months to go until the application deadline

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1028678/nick-butler-could-toronto-be-north-americas-best-hope-of-hosting-the-2024-olympics

Edited by dave199
Link to post
Share on other sites

$1 Billion plans to redevelop the Portlands were announced today. This will undoubtedly be apart of the 2024 bid as the Athlete's village and Olympic stadium will be in this area. If we get the necessary funding from Feds and Provincial it's slated for development in 2017 to be completed in 2024. Hmmm!!! During the press conference John Tory kept comparing the Pan Am Athlete's village in the Donlands to what can happen in the Portlands. He's giving us a generalized hint.

Nice animations http://www.citynews.ca/2015/07/14/video-toronto-waterfront-makeover-gets-1-step-closer-to-reality/

Edited by dave199
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time there was an IOC vote with Paris and Toronto among the contenders, Toronto was clearly ahead of Paris.

Yes, but Paris was bidding on the heels of Athens and Torino. Timing at that point favoured a capable North American SOG should a Beijing bid faulter - plus Toronto put up a great bid, which in sure it will again - I just don't think it'll win against a strong European field. Plus Vancouver has happened - which may have some impact.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hepburn: "first, the bidding process must be fair".

Lmfao! Waiting for that secret handshake & wink, wink! LOL :rolleyes:

Last time there was an IOC vote with Paris and Toronto among the contenders, Toronto was clearly ahead of Paris.

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time there was an IOC vote with Paris and Toronto among the contenders, Toronto was clearly ahead of Paris.

In 2009 Madrid came in second place of the voting (Even if Rio won with a difference of 3/1), so it's great to see 2020 SOG... Oh wait.

Each race is different and it's imperative to analyze the internal or external factors, not making these type of blank "statements". Not only as runningrings said, but also Toronto could "beat" Paris with the big quantity of OMG 4 votes!! :rolleyes: Yeah, clearly ahead (Sarcasm). Meanwhile Beijing almost triplicate the votes of Toronto.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The host of CBC's primetime coverage of the Pan Am's discussed Toronto's 2024 bid with Mark Tewksbury during the broadcast. Basically they think Toronto would be considered one of the favs, that Agenda 2020 will work in its favor, and the city could submit a spread out plan and not be immediately turned down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt in my mind that Toronto will pose a tremendous threat to Paris.

Remember: Not only it's the technical archivement (Which Toronto presented in 1996 and 2008), but also different variables like the tendency per continent, different events, tradition and narrative. Sometimes the balance is against even in a different situation could make a opposite response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The host of CBC's primetime coverage of the Pan Am's discussed Toronto's 2024 bid with Mark Tewksbury during the broadcast. Basically they think Toronto would be considered one of the favs, that Agenda 2020 will work in its favor, and the city could submit a spread out plan and not be immediately turned down.

A Canadian based broadcaster coming to the conclusion that Toronto would be a favourite... That's ground breaking impartiality right there. Paris, Rome and Hamburg - move aside! Canada needs its fourth helping at the Sizzler all-you-can-eat!

There's no doubt in my mind that Toronto will pose a tremendous threat to Paris.

Toronto is about as much a threat to Paris as Osaka was to Beijing for 2008.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Toronto proposed a plan similar to what they have delivered for the Pan American games, they will fail. And while what they have works for the Pan American games, it will not work for the SOGs. Whatever plan they put in place needs to make sure that the majority of the venues will be within walking distance of a subway station, because their streetcar and buses will not handle that much of an influx of people. So a subway line or something way more efficient MUST be created to get to Exhibition Place if it is to host a lot of the events again.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Toronto proposed a plan similar to what they have delivered for the Pan American games, they will fail. And while what they have works for the Pan American games, it will not work for the SOGs. Whatever plan they put in place needs to make sure that the majority of the venues will be within walking distance of a subway station, because their streetcar and buses will not handle that much of an influx of people. So a subway line or something way more efficient MUST be created to get to Exhibition Place if it is to host a lot of the events again.

Well Toronto proposed compact bids previously, but you're right at 100% here. I'm wondering if people are misunderstanding the conception of Agenda 2020. Yes, Agenda 2020 is avoiding expensive costs for white elephants but that doesn't mean it won't be a plan for a proper infrastructure like rapid mass transport or security. So proposing the Pan Am project as as an Olympic bid (Event which only in delegations is comparative in 3/1) without any changements for this big event, especially considering the competition is stronger, it can be a bad omen.

I was nicer with cornisso and it's good supporting your city but even then someone need to take perspective in reality. Some of the old users here saw the worst of fanatism in Madrid bids and it ended. Toronto is a nice city but there are key weaknesses to overcome like proper expansion of infrastructure, especially considering in a race with big European cities, including one of the four largest Global Cities. As I said before, races are different and depends of variables to consider.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if people are misunderstanding the conception of Agenda 2020.

Ya think?! :-P

Really, if some people wanna argue with agenda 2020, there's really only one city that benefits in this case & that's Paris (& not to mention, it's Paris!). Any others would be wishful thinking on their part.

Some of the old users here saw the worst of fanatism in Madrid bids and it ended.

Yep, that is a parallel, isn't. It was the type of tailor-making arguments back in 2001, too. And most of us know how that one ended up as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...