Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Good lord...

TORONTO - Call it synchronized Olympic bidding.

Councillor James Pasternak wants Toronto to offer some hosting help to Boston in its bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics.
“The international Olympic movement is becoming more and more open to bi-national games,” Pasternak told the Toronto Sun. “Boston is the lead city for the United States bid of 2024. My idea was to actually invite the key people up to Toronto during the Pan Am Games, show them around a little bit and then basically say, ‘By the way, is there an opportunity here where you could leverage some of our sports facilities?’
“There are precedents for Olympic bids to cross international boundaries.”
While he stressed it is “just an idea” at this point, Pasternak — the chair of the city’s community development and recreation committee — said having Toronto’s recreational facilities available for the Olympics would be a “boost” for Toronto.
“Nothing ventured, nothing gained,” he said.
“Boston would be the host city and we would simply be a junior partner to potentially host either some early preliminary rounds in various sports or to host some of the key cultural showcase events, maybe be involved in Olympic athlete housing. Boston would be the host city with opening ceremonies, closing ceremonies. They would assume the financial risk.”
The York Centre (Ward 10) councillor argued Hogtown would be ready to lend a hand to Beantown.
“We’ll have Olympic-styled facilities here after the Pan Am Games (this year), also by 2024 the Eglinton Crosstown will be done, the University-Spadina extension will be done, Union Station will be completed, the Scarborough subway should be done,” Pasternak said.
“We don’t want to put any taxpayers’ money at risk, we don’t want to create new, we want to leverage existing.”
On Wednesday, Mayor John Tory ruled out talking about any kind of local Olympic bid until the Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games are over.
“I’m going to get through the Pan Am Games, I think we are as a city, I think we’re going to get through them very successfully but until we’ve done that and made a big success of the Pan Am Games, those topics are not under discussion,” Tory said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord...

Lol...I posted this in the Toronto thread before seeing it here. Why would they need Toronto to be part of their bid. If they want to share hosting rights they have other major US cities much closer to them than Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Exactly - starting with New York City. It's totally a silly suggestion, even if it was "just an idea" on Pasternack's part.

He proposed Toronto and Buffalo submit a co-bid for the 2024 games over a year ago. I'm not surprised this is coming from his mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being located in Quincy, I am excited to hear about beach volleyball coming to Squatum Point Park, lots of benefits for the city in that regards. The negative publicity of it so far is that the announcement was made before any public meeting was set. City councillors who are affected by this decision haven't had any knowledge of this beforehand. On a positive, the mayor has supported this new development (although there is a mayoral election this year, so this could become a huge talking point).
There is a public meeting in Marina Bay (where Squantum Point Park is located), set for Thursday July 9, so we should find out more info then, especially with what public support there is with City residents. I can guarantee that traffic concerns will be the reason people will be against it, along with fear of tax money needed and overruns...all the stuff we've been hearing with the bid on a whole.

Back in 2007, Marina Bay hosted a stop in the AVP World Tour. Temporary infrastructure was built, and it was a huge hit, even with the residents (who are known to be a bit negative towards new events and possible noise...). The players said it was one of the best stops they were on, and the area has a strong volleyball tradition. The final day of volleyball was packed with 4,000 people, and there was no impact on the residents leaving the area. The only people who complained about the Open were businesses who said they didn't make as much as they hoped, and some regulars didn't go because of perceived parking issues.

With a new dock to be built for that area as well it adds the real possibility of ferry service returning the City again which is much needed. Beach Volleyball has traditionally been a very strong spectator sport, among the highest in demand. In London (hardly a volleyball hotbed), they averaged just under 11,000 and filled 75% capacity. Sydney sold out 15 of 18 sessions when they hosted.


While the bid started as a disaster, I think the bid is starting to round out to a more realistic plan. It may not be the most walkable games as envisioned but there is a lot of infrastructure in place. Overcoming the initial promise of no tax payer money will be a difficult hill to climb, but it seems that more people would support the Games if they were more spread out. As a local resident, I am in support as of right now, I feel there is a lot to gain even with overruns inevitable. That's not to say there aren't issues that need to be worked out still, but I think the logistics are starting to fall in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the bid started as a disaster, I think the bid is starting to round out to a more realistic plan. It may not be the most walkable games as envisioned but there is a lot of infrastructure in place.

The bid won't stop sinking until the organizers deal with the 300 lb elephants in the room which are the T&F stadium and the velodrome. Taxpayers don't want to fund temporary venues with no legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bid won't stop sinking until the organizers deal with the 300 lb elephants in the room which are the T&F stadium and the velodrome. Taxpayers don't want to fund temporary venues with no legacy.

But we aren't being asked to pay for venues. We don't know exactly what we are going to be paying for (this uncertainty is a huge part of Boston2024's problem) but one of the few things the organizers have been clear on is that taxpayers would pay a dime for venues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that private individuals have promised to foot the bill, but does the average Bostonian know that? Does the average Bostonian trust these private individuals after so many missteps so far? And unfair as it is, the bid is suffering from a lack of trust in Boston's institutions that stems from previous high profile events such as the 2004 Democratic Party Convention and the Big Dig before that.


One more question: Boston 2024 seems to be pushing the temporary T&F stadium because they believe that IOC rules allow only temporary venues to be funded from games revenue (funds from ticket sales, sponsorships and broadcast rights). I have trouble understanding this claim as it seems to be absent in other bids (past & present).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we aren't being asked to pay for venues. We don't know exactly what we are going to be paying for (this uncertainty is a huge part of Boston2024's problem) but one of the few things the organizers have been clear on is that taxpayers would pay a dime for venues.

And what happens when the inevitable cost overruns rear their ugly head? That would be true of any city, but this is Boston after all. That's where that promise of no taxpayer money being used for the venues is a little scary, because that doesn't sound like a promise they can knowingly keep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what happens when the inevitable cost overruns rear their ugly head? That would be true of any city, but this is Boston after all. That's where that promise of no taxpayer money being used for the venues is a little scary, because that doesn't sound like a promise they can knowingly keep

Actually, Boston has a pretty good track record of privately funded/built sports venues at reasonable prices. Maybe the best in the US.

Not government funded/built transportation projects.... that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Boston has a pretty good track record of privately funded/built sports venues at reasonable prices. Maybe the best in the US.

I'm not certain that isn't simply because because the city doesn't have any of the huge sports venues found in other cities, though. The Garden is the only major modern facility in Boston. Not having to build an NFL or MLB stadium certainly helps avoid construction boondoggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more question: Boston 2024 seems to be pushing the temporary T&F stadium because they believe that IOC rules allow only temporary venues to be funded from games revenue (funds from ticket sales, sponsorships and broadcast rights). I have trouble understanding this claim as it seems to be absent in other bids (past & present).

Not heard that before. Interesting claim.

Anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was reported in Boston's media last fall:

Temporary facilities are a different story. The International Olympic Committee allows revenue from the Games — funds from ticket sales, sponsorships and broadcast rights — to be used for temporary fixtures that are only in place for the Games. Here today. Gone tomorrow. David Manfredi, an architect working with the Partnership to help plan Boston's bid, tells me such a temporary stadium would cost several hundred million dollars to put up, but it would still be eligible for full funding from the Olympics budget. (Boston's budget is estimated to be around $4.5 billion.)

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/10/heres-why-local-olympics-organizers-switched-to-a.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Boston has a pretty good track record of privately funded/built sports venues at reasonable prices. Maybe the best in the US.

Not government funded/built transportation projects.... that's another story.

As Nacre noted, they haven't exactly built a lot of sports venues recently. And the 2 teams that play a significant distance from the city isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for them. Consider..

Boston hasn't replaced their baseball stadium is over 100 years, not for a lack of desire (we saw that play out a while ago) but because there's no place to put it. As opposed to Yankee Stadium where there was open space next door.

We know the history of the Pats. They wanted to move to Boston proper. Couldn't put that together. Then they had 1 foot out the door to move to Connecticut before that fell apart at the 11th hour and they built the new stadium in Foxboro. That's much more about the owner and his wants and desires more than the city.

TD Garden (or whatever it's called now) wasn't without a little bit of political turmoil either. Yes, it was not a super-expensive arena, but that was also 20 years ago. The same construction now would probably cost a lot more money.

Not sure if it's the most recently built arena, but I was just looking up Agganis Arena at BU (built in 2003). It was part of a bigger project on BU's campus, but the cost?.. $225 million.

And of course, this is still the city that gave us the big dig. So if we're applying lessons here to a potential Olympic bid, it's certainly reasonable for there to be some level of concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with most stories on Olympic bidding, take any and all claims with a grain of salt..

Big decision but not difficult — kill Boston 2024

Whoa, LA Could Be Back in the Running For the 2024 Olympics

IMO, it's probably too late to drop Boston and go with Los Angeles. As for Boston, well, this relaunch or 2.0 or whatever they want to call it is their last stand. If the public approval rating doesn't get a significant boost next month (there are still not enough undecideds to swing approval in favor of the bid), then I'd venture to say that it's likely the USOC probably ends the bid sometime around the beginning of September before the application deadline and a few heads roll at the USOC for this disaster. Meanwhile, the USOC sits out 2024 which was a longshot anyway, and tells Los Angeles to be ready for the 2028 race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with most stories on Olympic bidding, take any and all claims with a grain of salt..

Big decision but not difficult kill Boston 2024

Whoa, LA Could Be Back in the Running For the 2024 Olympics

Umm, I think I would take those 'stories' with more than just a grain of salt. I mean, you have several senior IOC members speaking off-record to "pull the plug already!" That's gotta be making the USOC just shaking in their boots!

And did I read the article right? Is the USOC having a "vote" on June 30th whether or not to continue with Boston 2024?! I haven't read/heard anything like that recently. And If so, that's a really big deal, & I can't see this circus continuing if that's the case, judging by the info in those articles. Alan Abramhanson also hits it right on the money.

IMO, it's probably too late to drop Boston and go with Los Angeles.

Did you read the articles? You have one senior IOC member saying off-the-record, "if it's inevitable, then it's 'obvious' it needs to be pulled immediately". Strong words for something that's still 2-1/2 years to be decided, but it's pretty clear some in the IOC aren't pleased with the revelations coming from Boston.

As for whether or not it's 'too late' to get Los Angeles back in the picture, there's still an option for that, I'd say. There's still some cities in other countries debating whether or not they should bid. The USOC may have lost six months in working with Los Angeles, but it's not like they'd have to start from scratch. L.A. had a workable plan, so they could just start back from where they left off. It's not like they took a four-year hiatus or anything of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^The USOC already looks bad, so what different would it make at this point. But they'll look much worse if they continue with this charade & then it totally blows up right in their face (which is basically what some in the IOC are trying to say, in so many words).

*difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...