ARTICLE: Toronto twice bid to host the Olympic Games. Missing out was a blessing

[MisterSG1]

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/toronto-twice-bid-to-host-the-olympic-games-missing-out-was-a-blessing/article_4375f030-501c-11ef-9ef4-9b2e75a69974.html

It's worth nothing that this journalist mentions the exact pitfalls of what I think with hosting the Olympics.

What exactly did Paris get out of it this time? Was there any accelerated construction for hosting the five ring circus?

What about Los Angeles, will they have built anything or will those Olympic Lanes do the trick?

[MisterSG1]

Article text here:
 

Quote

The cancellation of Paris Olympic triathlon training events after heavy rain caused pollution in the Seine is a familiar story to Torontonians. After storms caused widespread flooding, many Lake Ontario beaches were unfit for swimming in the following days as bacteria counts were high.

In a perverse way it’s comforting to know Paris suffers what Toronto routinely does after storms, despite spending around $2 billion (Canadian) on mitigation and cleanup efforts for the Olympics. It’s also a comfort that Toronto isn’t hosting them. We tried twice, unsuccessfully bidding for the 1996 and 2008 games. A blessing, really, because Olympic promises don’t always come true for cities.

Toronto’s failed bids are ancient history now. Efforts for the 2008 games occurred more than two decades ago, made memorable by a racist comment by then-mayor Mel Lastman, when in 2001 he said he was worried because, “I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me” before attending an Olympic committee meeting in Mombasa, Kenya. Despite a press conference where Lastman said “sorry” 18 times, it’s likely he helped foil that bid.

 

Watching the games is a thrill, and the efforts and triumphs of athletes a great thing, but hosting is a different story. It puts already-stressed cities through an Olympic test too, one that isn’t much fun or glorious.

Before and during the Olympics, cities no longer feel like they are for residents. Visiting Paris about three weeks before the games I saw how much of the city was being cordoned off, with security everywhere. Friends who visited a week before the opening ceremonies reported they couldn’t get near the Seine for kilometres. The atmosphere, landmarks and neighbourhoods that make Paris the city it is were off limits to most. And for what? 

There’s an increasingly shared view that the Olympics aren’t worth it. New York Times architecture critic Micheal Kimmelman recently described how the promise of legacy infrastructure hasn’t always materialized for host cities, even becoming an albatross, with abandoned venues and severe debt loads. 

An expected boom of tourists in Paris didn’t materialize as expected and hotel operators cut prices in a “last ditch” effort to lure Olympic travellers. In France, in early July, I heard similar laments from people involved in the tourism industry: people were staying away this summer in fear of Olympic disruptions and crowds. 

Toronto had its own semi-Olympic moment in 2015 when it hosted the Pan Am games. Perhaps the right size for a mega event, there is a modest Pan Am legacy of housing and sport facilities, but all of this could have been built without the added cost of the games if we really wanted to. Big events are often justified by building important, long-lasting things, but that suggests an unseriousness about the desire for such things. If we need a piece of infrastructure, why not just build it? Why put on a big production?

 

 

The gaggle of officials, civil society leaders and business people who usually make up Olympic bid committees need shiny prizes it seems, the event itself, to get behind projects that make life better for residents. That’s actually rather perverse too.

The Pan Am games came to Toronto with some regional fanfare but people don’t remember those kinds of games the way they remember the Olympics. Even then, for cities like London, Paris and Rio, or even Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary, the Olympics were arguably a blip in their global reputation. In terms of sport, local professional teams surely offer more long-term reputational renown.

Paris’s games do look exceptional and gorgeous, a showcase of the glories of French culture, architecture and landmark locations: equestrian events at Versailles, skateboarding in Place de la Concorde and volleyball in front of the Eiffel Tower. Paris is using existing or temporary venues in order to lower the carbon footprint of these games, with just athlete housing and an aquatic facility in an underserved neighbourhood as some of the few major new builds.

It’s a smarter way to do things, but the old promise of new infrastructure has been largely removed. That even the Olympian efforts made to reduce Seine pollution weren’t particularly effective, and tourists were evaporating, should have us questioning, as many cities are, the value of mega events.

Toronto will again test some Olympian muscles by hosting six matches during the 2026 World Cup. Ballooning costs and a secret deal forged by then-mayor John Tory, at a time when Toronto is under severe budget constraints and undergoing housing and transportation crises, it may be another cautionary tale. 

Let’s see who gets to enjoy the matches and at what cost, who benefits overall and who doesn’t get much of anything but a hassle and the bill. As more cities balk at the prospect of hosting mega events, the World Cup may well be Toronto’s last attempt at such things. Blessedly so.

 

[Sir Rols]

14 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

It's worth nothing that this journalist mentions the exact pitfalls of what I think with hosting the Olympics.

What exactly did Paris get out of it this time? Was there any accelerated construction for hosting the five ring circus?

What about Los Angeles, will they have built anything or will those Olympic Lanes do the trick?

That was the whole point of their selection - that they did not have to build anything major to do it.

Sems like you‘re positing a catch 22 - damned if they don‘t build and provide legacy, but damned if they do spend big on new structures.

[MisterSG1]

1 minute ago, Sir Rols said:

That was the whole point of their selection - that they did not have to build anything major to do it.

Sems like you‘re positing a catch 22 - damned if they don‘t build and provide legacy, but damned if they do spend big on new structures.

One of the main reasons I support an Olympic bid (in theory), is because of the infrastructure, notably transportation infrastructure.

Ideally, you don't need to host the five ring circus to do it, but it seems like hosting it makes to want governments of all levels build important infrastructure projects.

It's also important to remember that the 2008 bid was in the lens of what were good Olympics since 1984. As it happened just off the heels of Sydney which I always thought went down in history as a positive Olympics, you'd know better than me. Who knows, maybe the Olympics would have been in better shape today if Toronto did take 2008, but that's what if.

[Sir Rols]

Ideally, I‘d agree with you - it CAN work well for an Olympics to spur infrastructural investment.

The trouble comes when some hosts overspend - you‘d know as a Canadian about Montreal‘s example  - or build white elephant facilities with little post-games need or use. The examples of Athens, Rio and, in particular Sochi - fuelled so much backlash against games spending that the IOC is now so much shying away from it.

Personally, I think there should be a happy medium, but that would require strong, responsible and clever oversight from by the OC, the host cities and governments.

[MisterSG1]

8 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Ideally, I‘d agree with you - it CAN work well for an Olympics to spur infrastructural investment.

The trouble comes when some hosts overspend - you‘d know as a Canadian about Montreal‘s example  - or build white elephant facilities with little post-games need or use. The examples of Athens, Rio and, in particular Sochi - fuelled so much backlash against games spending that the IOC is now so much shying away from it.

Personally, I think there should be a happy medium, but that would require strong, responsible and clever oversight from by the OC, the host cities and governments.

Keep in mind that Montreal occurred a whole decade before I was born, but as I recall being 13 back when the 2008 bid was announced, there was optimism and support for the 2008 bid. From what I've been told, Montreal's Olympics nearly killed the modern Olympics, and then LA saved the day in 1984, winning the games unopposed kind of like they will host in 2028. On a side note, from what I understand, LA is a very different place today than it was in Orwell's year. The negativity had blown off by the 2008 bid.

So where does London fit in to all of this, I thought it went down as a positive Olympics, but I"m not sure.

As for Vancouver Olympics......as you know that wrecked any chances of Toronto hosting a summer games beyond that, and then the boondoggle after boondoggle games happened which rightfully made Toronto steer clear of them. Sure, Vancouver is in Canada, but I'm sure you'd feel the same way about a games in Perth, it's way out there compared to where you are.

[Sir Rols]

A fair bit to take in there.

It wasn‘t so much Montreal that almost killed the games, but the cumulative succession of social unrest at Mexico City, terrorism at Munich, Montreal‘s finances and then the climax of Cold War tensions in Moscow.

LA, and then its successors like Barcelona, Lillehammer and Sydney, then fuelled major enthusiasm again.

London was certainly positive - and also left a number of great legacies culminating in its Queen Eliuzabeth II Olympic Park.

Vancouver a boondoggle????? I‘d always thought general consensus was that it was a positive success both domestically and internationally. YMMV… It seems 

I‘m still wary of jumping the gun, but at this stage Paris is shaping up as very successful. IMO it may well reset the high bar for the Olympics.

 

 

[MisterSG1]

8 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

A fair bit to take in there.

It wasn‘t so much Montreal that almost killed the games, but the cumulative succession of social unrest at Mexico City, terrorism at Munich, Montreal‘s finances and then the climax of Cold War tensions in Moscow.

LA, and then its successors like Barcelona, Lillehammer and Sydney, then fuelled major enthusiasm again.

London was certainly positive - and also left a number of great legacies culminating in its Queen Eliuzabeth II Olympic Park.

Vancouver a boondoggle????? I‘d always thought general consensus was that it was a positive success both domestically and internationally. YMMV… It seems 

I‘m still wary of jumping the gun, but at this stage Paris is shaping up as very successful. IMO it may well reset the high bar for the Olympics.

 

 

Vancouver didn’t seem that bad, and Winter Games are generally child’s play to host compared to the summer games, leaving Sochi out of it, the authoritarian extreme spender, Vancouver of course got the aptly named “Canada Line” out of hosting the Olympics, a kind of reminder of how that line was made possible if you get what I mean.

I believe I remember reading that during Toronto 2015, it was a more complicated event supposedly than Vancouver 2010, I tend to believe it even if Vancouver is a much more significant event.

The IOC’s long avoidance of an Olympics on American soil means that Olympics would naturally lose their popularity in North America, I’ve often heard that American games makes a lot of money, and games in Europe have possibly the worst time shift for Olympic viewing for the Eastern Time Zone.

[MisterSG1]

20 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

 

 

 

I made this post because my thread got forked strangely into the Past Bids forum…..the article was focused on where we stand today on the viability of hosting Olympics and mentions very little about Toronto 2008.

I know you may not like what I have to say often, but I have a right to be wary of the demands the IOC pushes on people who host the Olympics. I do have the same issues with US Collegiate Sports and the surprising financial albatross that is to most universities, or when pro sports teams fleece taxpayers after new arenas/stadiums.

The Paris games may look good to us on television, but the real question is, what does the citizenry of Paris feel about the games in their day to day lives? This is the problem that the IOC needs to rectify and they virtually have no plan to rectify it.

I’ve never been to an Olympics but saw multiple events during the Pan American Games, from what I’ve seen on the raw OBS feeds, other than larger crowds, the overall experience seems to mirror the same “no name” approach to presentation. It’s hard to describe what I mean in contrast to the game presentation of the Big 4 North American sports leagues.

[Sir Rols]

You can’t look at a games as a simple balance sheet of what revenues were generated, did it make a profit or what new facilities got built. True intangibles can’t be measured.

‘There are literally girls skating everywhere’: teen Olympians inspire young Australians to hit the skate park

I’m seeing similar headlines coming out of France of s winning centres being deluged with inquiries and applications after Marchand’s wins. What price d you put on fitness and encouraging physical activity in youth?

And then there’s just national well being.Sydney is still remembered as a Golden Age of national mood and spirit. And as I mentioned, was a massive catalyst towards advancing indigenous reconciliation and unity. Brits still look back on 2012 with nostalgia and pride. And France seems to be now in the midst of xperiencing their own summer of joy and goodwill - and they needed it. Sure, that mood will evaporate, but even for a fleeting moment, such unity is priceless.

 

Edited August 8, 2024 by Sir Rols

[FYI]

2 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

And ranch seems to be now in the midst of xperiencing their own summer of joy and goodwill.

Where's that?  lol

Is that one of those new countries that just popped out of nowhere & no one's ever heard of, & most likely never will. 

[Sir Rols]

1 minute ago, FYI said:

Where's that?  lol

Is that one of those new countries that just popped out of nowhere & no one's ever heard of, & most likely never will. 

Frigging autocorrect. Makes me spill thongs I don’t meme.

[intoronto]

Toronto has all the venues except the track, arguably the most expensive venue to build. Can't see a Toronto bid unless the stadium is privately financed or its use changed post games (could work if converted to a baseball field like in 96)

[Nacre]

The irony is that all of the important lessons for the Olympics were also true for the six world's fairs/expositions universelle that Paris hosted back in 1855-1900.

1. The events that were very large and massively overbuilt lost tons of money.
2. The events that were modest and built on existing infrastructure did well.
3. The most important benefit was the infrastructure that got built for the future: le Tour Eiffel, Paris Metro, Grand Palais, etc.

The important legacy of Barcelona 1992 is the reconstruction of Barcelona's beaches and tourist infrastructure, the legacy of London 2012 is the gentrification of the east end around the Olympic Park, etc. Of course, those have downsides too, just as the Haussman era redevelopment of Paris in the late 1800's also caused an increase in cost of living in Paris.