Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Canada might not be a power at the Summer Olympics but with increased funding and a top 8 in overall medals being the goal for 2020 it is a reasonable target for a country the size of Canada. Look at GB they won one gold in 1996 and a mere 12 years later 29 gold. Not saying Canada can/will replicate that by hosting the 2024 Games (if given the chance) but hosting the WOG in 2010 did bring the country increased investment and allowed it to win the most gold medals ever at a Winter Olympics. The city needs investment! There is no proper pool in Toronto. Hosting the Olympics = Legacy like pools in the city.

Moreover, as I have said in the past a country shouldn't be handicapped for hosting the WOG. The last summer games in Canada in 2024 would have been 48 years prior a whole generation before that + a third Summer Olympics in North America in the USA? That is over kill in my opinion. Even if 2024 might be too "soon" for Toronto it doesn't hurt to bid.

As for the Toronto legacy, the Portlands were supposed to be developed in the 1970's! But still they haven't been touched. Using that the proposed Toronto bid can propose a 40+ year wait can be over with the Olympics.

======================================

(^) That is in response to points made by posts above.

Now back on topic, what does everyone think will be the timeline into choosing a bid.

Again, this same sentiment rising up from the Toronto camp about "WE NEED THE LEGACY AND VENUES" as a reason for deserving to host the Olympics. I remember it underlining everything in their (great) 2008 bid, but its seriously nauseating and veers close to showing a sentiment of superiority over other (more deserving?) candidates. If Toronto wants world class venues for its Olympic athletes that badly, (like, that badly enough to self-justify bidding for the Olympics), it should be building these venues REGARDLESS of an Olympic bid.

Sydney's International Aquatic Centre was under construction by 1992, a full 12 months before it won the 2000 bid. It would be here regardless of 2000 and our athletes would be benefitting from it as they do now.

Again, bottom line is Canada has hosted the Olympics three (3!) times since 1976. If you want to change perspective, its held the Summer Olympics once, but while 1976 isn't exactly recent, it's still not eons ago, and there are plenty of other more prominent summer Olympic nations that could probably deserve it sooner, not to mention new frontiers. I don't doubt Toronto could host a spectacular Olympics flawlessly, so could Melbourne or Madrid, but like these two it just doesn't disguise the fact that its going back to yet another developed nation within a short amount of time. The idea of Toronto in the next 20-30 years, like Madrid or even my own Australia, is ultimately boring for the Olympic movement.

Sigh, 'overkill' is constantly citing how a mere 48-year is "too long", when important countries like France, Germany N Japan R still waiting their turns after nearly TWO generations, especially France. Not to mention the new compelling countries like Turkey N South Africa that have NEVER hosted. When push comes to shove, those countries would be in a much better position than a smallish country that has hosted quite a bit.

You summarise it well. Also, it might be seen as hypocritical (and unpopular) that I am okay with the US hosting 2024, after 1996 and 2002, and not Toronto for 2024, but ultimately Canada is not the US. I think Atlanta was too soon after 1984, but I think 2024 is palatable.

Edited by greenandblue
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

You summarise it well. Also, it might be seen as hypocritical (and unpopular) that I am okay with the US hosting 2024, after 1996 and 2002, and not Toronto for 2024, but ultimately Canada is not the US. I think Atlanta was too soon after 1984, but I think 2024 is palatable.

No, it's not hypocritical - a few of us struggle with that inconsistency. But at the end of the day, yes, whether people like it or not, the USA is a case of its own with far different dynamics between it and the Olympic movement than many others. And, yes, there is enough regional variations within the US that they can multi-host, yet still offer variety and difference.

... that said, I do think the USA's run of four Games from 1980 to 2022 may have raised American expectations a bit too high. And I do firmly believe the Games mean more to a country when it's a special, once-in-a-lifetime event. They mean more the less you host.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is ramming it down saying Toronto is the best it should host. What I am trying to say is their is a legacy that can arise from it. No one said anything about deserving. At the end of the day all cities have their pros/cons and all cities that do eventually make it to the final vote deserve to host and that ultimately is up to the IOC to choose.

PS I am not lying about the legacy. If the 2015 Games were not coming to Toronto you would have to go back to 1930 and the first British Empire Games to see any sort of investment in amateur sport in this region of Canada. It is sorely lacking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why 2024, if it does go to the US, has to be special, in a special city. It would have to capture that "NATIONAL" Olympics that Moscow, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Sydney and Beijing did. Atlanta didn't. Perhaps it was due to the fact it was a second tier city hosting or that it was obliged to pay dues to the Olympic movement in its 100th year (which it did well), but it didn't feel like it was truly America's Games like 1984 was. It was all about a region, the South, and thats when the Olympics starts to become "less" special to a nation, when the specific event is celebrating a certain region and not the whole host country. Salt Lake did this too in 2002, with the emphasis on Utah. Whereas Russia, with 2014 so long after 1980, will be celebrated on a national scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why 2024, if it does go to the US, has to be special, in a special city. It would have to capture that "NATIONAL" Olympics that Moscow, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Sydney and Beijing did. Atlanta didn't. Perhaps it was due to the fact it was a second tier city hosting or that it was obliged to pay dues to the Olympic movement in its 100th year (which it did well), but it didn't feel like it was truly America's Games like 1984 was. It was all about a region, the South, and thats when the Olympics starts to become "less" special to a nation, when the specific event is celebrating a certain region and not the whole host country. Salt Lake did this too in 2002, with the emphasis on Utah. Whereas Russia, with 2014 so long after 1980, will be celebrated on a national scale.

Agreed. Last 3 Olympics (London, Vancouver and Beijing) were on a national scale. No doubt Chicago or New York could bring that to the IOC same with Paris or Toronto.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is ramming it down saying Toronto is the best it should host. What I am trying to say is their is a legacy that can arise from it. No one said anything about deserving. At the end of the day all cities have their pros/cons and all cities that do eventually make it to the final vote deserve to host and that ultimately is up to the IOC to choose.

PS I am not lying about the legacy. If the 2015 Games were not coming to Toronto you would have to go back to 1930 and the first British Empire Games to see any sort of investment in amateur sport in this region of Canada. It is sorely lacking.

So that's a reason for the Summer Olympics, an event that only happens every four years, to go to Toronto? Because its region lacks facilites? Sorry, thats not exactly compelling, especially after 2010, 1988 and 1976. Canada and Toronto are wealthy, if they are wealthy enough to want to host the Olympics every 10 to 20 years, then they can surely afford to splurge on a few public pools and sporting facilities. There's your legacy.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's a reason for the Summer Olympics, an event that only happens every four years, to go to Toronto? Because its region lacks facilites? Sorry, thats not exactly compelling, especially after 2010, 1988 and 1976. Canada and Toronto are wealthy, if they are wealthy enough to want to host the Olympics every 10 to 20 years, then they can surely afford to splurge on a few public pools and sporting facilities. There's your legacy.

Okay no legacy plans at all will win you the games 100% of the time :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Last 3 Olympics (London, Vancouver and Beijing) were on a national scale. No doubt Chicago or New York could bring that to the IOC same with Paris or Toronto.

Again, I'm sorry but I disagree with Toronto. I'm not in any way anti-Toronto, I admire the city and its planning immensely, but I just don't see how after "Canada's Games" in 2010, it is seen as beneficial to the Olympic movement to go back after only 14 years? More like, Canada's Games (just add water!).

As for the US and a Beijing style National Olympics, I think Chicago and NY are obvious examples, but also Washington DC, Philadelphia, SF and LA shoudn't be ruled out.

I know Philly is random, but its in a population centre between the capital and largest city, and has is an important city in American history, has an almost quintessential American air to it, and the urban renewal potential is immense.

Okay no legacy plans at all will win you the games 100% of the time :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that. It's a weak use of the legacy card as justification of the Olympics coming back to a country of Canada's size after only 14 years. It's transparent. It's boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm sorry but I disagree with Toronto. I'm not in any way anti-Toronto, I admire the city and its planning immensely, but I just don't see how after "Canada's Games" in 2010, it is seen as beneficial to the Olympic movement to go back after only 14 years? More like, Canada's Games (just add water!).

I'm not saying that. It's a weak use of the legacy card as justification of the Olympics coming back to a country of Canada's size after only 14 years. It's transparent. It's boring.

14 years is relatively short but for a continent which has only two viable hosts atm (Canada/USA) its not out of the realm of possibility. If Canada was in Europe forget it about until 2060 at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... that said, I do think the USA's run of four Games from 1980 to 2022 may have raised American expectations a bit too high. And I do firmly believe the Games mean more to a country when it's a special, once-in-a-lifetime event. They mean more the less you host.

They certainly did, and it's easy to forget that the USOC really only won 2 bids there. Lake Placid and Los Angeles were wins by default. Atlanta was a longshot that won by the good fortune of going up against a weak field. And it's hard to argue with Salt Lake since there are only so many countries that can host a Winter Olympics. So yea, it definitely made a lot of folks think it would happen that often, but I think it's been a good reality check that the USOC isn't going to win these things by default and hopefully that serves them well going forward.

That's why 2024, if it does go to the US, has to be special, in a special city. It would have to capture that "NATIONAL" Olympics that Moscow, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Sydney and Beijing did. Atlanta didn't. Perhaps it was due to the fact it was a second tier city hosting or that it was obliged to pay dues to the Olympic movement in its 100th year (which it did well), but it didn't feel like it was truly America's Games like 1984 was. It was all about a region, the South, and thats when the Olympics starts to become "less" special to a nation, when the specific event is celebrating a certain region and not the whole host country. Salt Lake did this too in 2002, with the emphasis on Utah. Whereas Russia, with 2014 so long after 1980, will be celebrated on a national scale.

I'm too young to really remember 1984, but look at the circumstances of those Olympics. 1980 had brought us the Miracle on Ice followed by the boycott of the Moscow Games. It was still the height of the Cold War. The United States hadn't seen a Summer Olympics in more than half a century (not for a lack of trying, certainly). And what resulted in 1984 was truly "America's Games." Then Atlanta (let's be fair.. less than the best this country has to offer, and that's certainly no knock on them) comes along and needs to do it again just 12 years later and offer something up to the world while L.A. was fresh in everyone's minds. It was never destined to happen for something that's supposed to be a once-in-a-generation event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 years is relatively short but for a continent which has only two viable hosts atm (Canada/USA) its not out of the realm of possibility. If Canada was in Europe forget it about until 2060 at least.

Well given that North America is waiting at least 28 years between summer Olympics, I think its fair to say that if NY were to snatch 2024, its not out the question for Toronto to have to wait until 2040, at least. That could be pushed back if somewhere like Calgary or Quebec City staged the Winter Olympics. I'd fully support a Toronto 2040 bid, but I maintain that 2024 is too soon for Canada.

If US television ratings are a concern, consider the growing money in the Asian market and the gradual shift east. The US will still have swagger, but we are only starting to see the huge potential of the Chinese market to add to the existing Asian market. As for the status quo, there is always South America, which falls in NA's timezone. Don't forget, Canada and the US have frontrow seats for 2016.

Edited by greenandblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm sorry but I disagree with Toronto. I'm not in any way anti-Toronto, I admire the city and its planning immensely, but I just don't see how after "Canada's Games" in 2010, it is seen as beneficial to the Olympic movement to go back after only 14 years? More like, Canada's Games (just add water!).

As for the US and a Beijing style National Olympics, I think Chicago and NY are obvious examples, but also Washington DC, Philadelphia, SF and LA shoudn't be ruled out.

I know Philly is random, but its in a population centre between the capital and largest city, and has is an important city in American history, has an almost quintessential American air to it, and the urban renewal potential is immense.

I'm not saying that. It's a weak use of the legacy card as justification of the Olympics coming back to a country of Canada's size after only 14 years. It's transparent. It's boring.

People were happy to consider Rome for 2020 even though we had Turin in 2006, and in many ways Rome was looked on almost as one of the favourites. That is 14years, the same difference that would exist between Vancouver and Toronto.

The legacy would be a similar draw as to the one that took the Olympics to the East End of London. A major run down inner city area where the IOC could be a catalyst for a major revitalisation and redevelopment, not only in the form of stadia and facilities but also in infrastructure, post games housing created from the village etc

From a sporting perspective if Toronto were to replicate the 2008 plan, others would struggle to put something together as compact and there are also suggestions that the major facilities such as the main stadium will have an air of permanence that advocates of American bids are struggling to come up with - the Argonauts of the CFL looking for a home of their own. And no matter how well or poorly 2015 goes, Toronto will have that recent multi event experience to move forward with like Rio 2007 - 2016.

Lets also not forget that Toronto is also the fifth largest city in North America after Mexico City, New York, LA and Chicago and is one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world with 49% of residents having not been born in Canada. It can hardly be Canada's games - more like "the World in one place"

Being the only Canadian city with sports teams (Blue Jays MLB, Raptors NBA) Toronto is almost an American city and the USA could virtually look on it as an Olympic Games in their own back yard minus the costs. Another advantage for Toronto will be funding, where the federal government will provide the guarantes that the IOC gets very nervous about, and which the American cities will struggle to replicate. What is the difference for Coca Cola of Atlanta sponsoring a games in a) San Francisco or B) Toronto?

If Toronto and an unnamed US city go head to head (even NY or LA), the Americans are going to need one hell of a bid to trump Toronto - Toronto offers everything a US city can, but with the budget guarantees the IOC likes, the recent multi-event experience before we even to discuss any residual anti-Americanism which may exist.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^a lacked in legacy though (whether you think so or not), by being dismantled after the Games. Surely the IOC took notice of that plan.

It's funny though, in many meetings with the IOC in my role as an executive member of the Chicago 2016 bid committee, I heard only the highest praise for our stadium concept; that it was the strongest technical point of your bid.

But, maybe you are right. I guess your info comes from a better source, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny though, in many meetings with the IOC in my role as an executive member of the Chicago 2016 bid committee, I heard only the highest praise for our stadium concept; that it was the strongest technical point of your bid.

I gotta say, if the strongest technical point of a bid is spending $366m on a stadium, only to tear it down, something is very wrong.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny though, in many meetings with the IOC in my role as an executive member of the Chicago 2016 bid committee, I heard only the highest praise for our stadium concept; that it was the strongest technical point of your bid.

But, maybe you are right. I guess your info comes from a better source, no?

Sounds pretty clear to me, that perhaps u don't know the difference between "technical N legacy". And/or, sorry to say, suffer from the "hear what you wanna hear" syndrome. I'm also sure that bid committee members from the Toronto & Paris 2008 (N even the Madrid & Tokyo 2016) bid camps heard similar 'praises' about their bids. But the IOC is also a PR organization as much as a sporting one, & so of course they're gonna praise any bid committee that's bidding for the Games. I remember when the IOC Evaluation Committee was visiting the 2008 candidates in early 2001, & Canadian GB members at the time were coming on N saying things like; "they like us, they really, really do" - referring to the evalutaion visit of their city. N look how that one turned out for them in the end.

N did I ever say that Chicago's bid lacked in the technical category? No, I did not. I think that most of us Americans here on these boards have come to the consensus that Chicago's 2016 bid was much better, technically speaking, than New York's 2012 one. Chicago's bid was technically capable & would've served the purpose of hosting the Games. Otherwise, it wouldn't have made it to the short-list phase of the 2016 campaign. But just 'serving the purpose' isn't enough. The the legacy aspect was lacking, whether you want to admit it or not. There wasn't much to be left behind post-Games that made the concept intriguing enough that would make IOC members drool in frenzy, like London's 2012 N Sochi's 2014 Olympic parks. Even Atlanta 1996 had more of a physical legacy than what Chicago 2016 was proposing. N the IOC isn't going to spell that out for you, one should be innovative enough to figure it out on their own was going after something so coveted like the Olympic Games..

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why 2024, if it does go to the US, has to be special, in a special city. It would have to capture that "NATIONAL" Olympics that Moscow, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Sydney and Beijing did. Atlanta didn't. Perhaps it was due to the fact it was a second tier city hosting or that it was obliged to pay dues to the Olympic movement in its 100th year (which it did well), but it didn't feel like it was truly America's Games like 1984 was. It was all about a region, the South, and thats when the Olympics starts to become "less" special to a nation, when the specific event is celebrating a certain region and not the whole host country. Salt Lake did this too in 2002, with the emphasis on Utah. Whereas Russia, with 2014 so long after 1980, will be celebrated on a national scale.

Have them in NYC. The city of dreams will finally host the olympics. The motto could be "the game of dreams", or something like that. It will the 400th year of NYC and that could just give them another reason to bid. To show the world how the greatest city in the world was founded and how it came to be the great city it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why 2024, if it does go to the US, has to be special, in a special city. It would have to capture that "NATIONAL" Olympics that Moscow, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Sydney and Beijing did. Atlanta didn't. Perhaps it was due to the fact it was a second tier city hosting or that it was obliged to pay dues to the Olympic movement in its 100th year (which it did well), but it didn't feel like it was truly America's Games like 1984 was. It was all about a region, the South, and thats when the Olympics starts to become "less" special to a nation, when the specific event is celebrating a certain region and not the whole host country. Salt Lake did this too in 2002, with the emphasis on Utah. Whereas Russia, with 2014 so long after 1980, will be celebrated on a national scale.

As an American, I like that our last two hosting have celebrated the host regions rather than try to emphasize the country at large. I like the fact that we have acknowledged the fact that a Games in Georgia / the South and in Utah / the West gave the Games a distinct flavor that others states and regions could not give them. It's a self-awareness about our country's cultural diversity meaning a lot more than just different races and ethnic cultures living inside our boarders. In the future, the world at large would expect a different flavored Games in Texas than a Games in New York and we shouldn't shy away from that by blanketing all our future hostings with a generic, all-encompassing "American" sheet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have them in NYC. The city of dreams will finally host the olympics. The motto could be "the game of dreams", or something like that. It will the 400th year of NYC and that could just give them another reason to bid. To show the world how the greatest city in the world was founded and how it came to be the great city it is now.

That's all well and good, but what's in it for New York? That's the first question any potential bid city needs to ask themselves before they even think about jumping into the bid waters. You can't just say 'have them in New York' as if they don't require incentive to bid. Not to sound like an arrogant New Yorker here, but we don't need to show the rest of the world how great a city we are. We would love the opportunity, but unless it works for the city (and we know how that turned out in 2005), you can't expect New York to bid simply because the USOC would like them to. You need a much better story than "the game of dreams." (what the heck does that even mean anyway?)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to sound like an arrogant New Yorker here, but we don't need to show the rest of the world how great a city we are.

Many Londoners felt that way before the Olympics. They were wrong. The 2012 games showed that no matter how great your city is, it can be even better. No matter how positively the rest of the world sees you, that can be improved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly ! But end of the day you can't win if you don't bid. Maybe three times is a charm!?

Build a two tier version of the Stade de France, with the top tier modular and dismountable. Have sliding stands like this stadia.

Olympics - 75,000 seats

World Cup Final - 80,000 seats

CFL Argonauts - 40,000 seats -

StdF has good sightlines for Rugby and Union is played on a pitch 100m x 70m and with up to 10 to 22m behind each try line as the ingoal areas so max 120m-144m x 70m .... CFL is 137m x 59m

Regular Track & Field - 35,000 seats

Grey Cup Final - 60,000 seats (add extra seats down the sidelines)

You've got your stadium, your tenant, and your T&F legacy for the IAAF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Londoners felt that way before the Olympics. They were wrong. The 2012 games showed that no matter how great your city is, it can be even better. No matter how positively the rest of the world sees you, that can be improved.

I honestly don't think London 2012 changed London's global image at all. It has always been one of the world's great capitals and the UK has been one of the guiding forces in global culture. We expected very good Games and we got them. When you start in high esteem it's difficult to improve much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...