Taylor Noakes: you win some, you lose some
Taylor Noakes may have hit one out of the park recently in his polemic on sustaining public schools, but now he’s suggesting Montreal bid for another summer Olympics. He may have some slight point about the city having got some unsung benefits from the 1976 games, but we paid and paid for those and are in some cases still paying.
Let’s see what the 2012 outing does to London before we even think about it.
Beeper 19:52 on 2011/12/11 Permalink
Love the way he writes Montreal with an accent, guess he’s angling for a government job.
Clem 21:36 on 2011/12/11 Permalink
@Beeper: I don’t really see your point. What kind of relationship is this? How does writing Montréal with an accent land me a government job???
(BTW, I just wrote Montréal with an accent, twice, when should I expect a job offer?)
Taylor C. Noakes 22:09 on 2011/12/11 Permalink
Howdy –
I’m pretty sure I read in English language rules proper names with french accents keep the accents.
And despite the WASP name, I’m actually a proud half-breed.
That said I appreciate the shout-out, but there’s nothing left to be paid vis-a-vis the `76 Olympics.
The ultimate point of that article was simply to say (as the title suggests), that just because we weren’t completely successful in the past doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try again.
This city is held hostage by naysayers and so-called realists. We’ll never regain our prominence with attitudes like that. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to stand idly by and watch nothing happen because its chic to shit on ideas. There’s something profoundly disturbing to me about people who can’t or otherwise don’t dream. This city was built on dreams and prayers, at least initially. What happened to our faith in ourselves (not directed at any of y’all per se, just a general sentiment).
Kate 23:00 on 2011/12/11 Permalink
I feel pretty strongly about not writing “Montréal” in English because when I see it I hear it as a French word, and even the most politically correct anglo doesn’t stop and say “monrayal” in the middle of an English sentence. Obviously if I’m writing about the Journal de Montréal or some other entity with only a French name, it gets the accent. But in general use the name of the city is not only a French word.
there’s nothing left to be paid vis-a-vis the `76 Olympics.
That’s simplistic. The stadium still needs a roof. Maintenance on the stadium, which is not used much for anything, is still on the tab.
Taylor C. Noakes 02:38 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
It has a roof, it’s just not retractable the way we’d like.
I would personally love to see new uses for the Olympic Park, I’ve written on it before. It should be much more than what it is; ideally the new Eastern pole of the city.
But that means we need to find a reason to use it.
Advocating for another Summer Olympiad is ideal – that way the city can gather funds through corporate sponsors and major donors to finance limited new construction and major renovations. This is precisely what made LA-84 so successful. We have all the infrastructure we need, and the games could easily supply the revenue necessary to execute repair work to ensure maximum operational efficiency.
Really, when considering another Games, think of what we have already, then think of all we’ve built since. We have more highways now, a larger Métro, considerably more hotel rooms and convention space. The Underground City paled in comparison to our modern Réso, and we have a larger tourism industry that could use the economic stimulus. In countless ways we’re a superior candidate to Toronto, which I believe is vying for the 2028 Games. We should be more bold. If the right people are placed in charge the worst we could do is break even, and I think there’s an entire generation of bright, entrepreneurial young commerce, business and management students who could use the stimulus as well. It’s up to our leadership to use their combined resources to doggedly pursue any and all opportunities of this variety. If they don’t do it, who will?
I remember as a child asking my parents if the Olympics would ever return to Montréal, as I had yet to be born when they occurred. They both said, nearly in unison, that it would never happen. I naturally enquired why and said, simply, ‘because we already had one and it was a failure, we’re still paying for it.’
I was incredulous – I wondered if it was not the mayor’s duty to regain our honour by succeeding where his predecessor had failed. After watching the 88, 92 and 94 games I couldn’t believe it was nearly twenty years since anyone had tried to have another. Perhaps I was naive then, but I think it would be a good use of Mayor Tremblay’s time if he was actively trying to secure an olympiad or universal exposition for our mutual economic benefit.
Kevin 09:22 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
“What happened to our faith in ourselves ”
The Olympics are nothing but a very expensive party, paid for by taxpayers, for the benefit of the construction industry. And we all know how corrupt the construction industry is, right?
Stories about cement trucks driving through the Big O construction site without even stopping to unload, then circling around and getting back in line to be paid a second time are legendary. And that’s just Montreal’s experience.
Look at every Olympic city and you’ll find a web of corruption, graft, and governments being on the hook for the IOC.
And it’s not like there’s any economic spinoff from hosting the games. Tourism actually goes *down* the year of the games, as well as the year before and after (For Vancouver, it was part of the bid that the provincial government would compensate hotels for lower occupancy rates).
I have no problem with people wanting to enjoy a circus. I *do* mind when my money is paying for it when basic infrastructure desperately needs repair.
paul 09:48 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
Taylor,
I think many of us don’t find it chic to shit on ideas of grandeur. it is great to imagine Montreal as a world-class centre for arts, culture, design, etc.
You ask us to dream, while I dream of a city that has a functioning government/bureaucracy, well maintained infrastructure, and a well-managed budget that doesn’t mortgage the future. Until we have these basic necessities, or a strong foundation to build upon, I don’t encourage our City to chase these visions of grandeur. Putting the cart before the horse will only lead to a lack of movement.
-Sincerely,
Naysayer
Chris E 10:04 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
This is completely pointless but the government maintains a style guide for writing in both French and English. Some place names are to be translated and others are not. For example, when writing in English, you should write Saint Laurence River rather than the FrenchFleuve Saint-Laurent and in French, British Columbia is translated to Colombie-Britannique. On the other hand, some names are not to be translated such as Trois-Rivières or Thunder Bay. The GNBC has a list of all these place names that should be translated. According to the government, Montréal is supposed to keep its accent (however, “Quebec” does not unless you’re referring to the city).
That being said, I agree with Kate.
JaneyB 10:30 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
I too am dreaming of basic infrastructure. I know it’s about exciting as conversations about mortgages but I’m focused on ‘flow’ instead of ‘monument’…plus anything that involves construction in this province is just off-limits until..some arrests are made.
I’m daring to dream with non-construction things though like art installations (eg the piano swings by Place des arts), public theatre, the port symphony and all those crazy inventive things that this city does so superbly. If we sunk a few million dollars into that, we could get that joyous feeling of optimism again and maybe even move some buzz from the Olympics to something more sustainable and more fun.
Michael Black 11:53 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
Most of the infrastructure is gone. The Stadium is there, in some condition. The Athletes’ Village is gone, unless one wants to toss out the current residence. The Velodrome is gone, turned into the Biodome. I thought they truncated the Olympic Basin to make room for parking at the Casino.
Back then, there was plenty of space to build the Olympic Park. But having used that space once, and then recycled the other structures, they will have a harder time resting more space away from the park, or end up building somewhere else, which then splits up the events if they want to reuse the Stadium.
Some cities have hosted the Olympics more than once, someone should be looking at how much they were able to reuse. Enough time has passed by since our Olympics as some of the other places that have restaged them.
Michael
Robert H 13:02 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
Some interesting exchanges here:
First: We (I include myself) are all quite touchy about the-language-thing. It’s like race in the United States; everyone’s antennae are raised alert to the faintest frequencies, so all that’s necessary is a parenthetical remark about, say, the motive behind the use of a certain diacritical symbol and a digression ensues. That’s just a part of life in La Belle Province.
Second: I am impressed with the fervor of Mr. Noakes’ concern for the well being of Montréal(!). He seems to me like the reincarnation of that great Chicago architect and planner Daniel Burnham. I wish a formula could be found to fuse his vision and passion with the pragmatism of paul and JaneyB, the caution of Michael Black, and the skeptical outrage of Kevin, because it would take all of those attitudes combined to really move this city forward.
Taylor C. Noakes 22:51 on 2011/12/12 Permalink
@Robert thanks, and to a degree I agree as well – let’s not throw caution to the wind and embark on projects without thoroughly thinking-it-out.
But a key issue is whether a city gov’t believes in the impossible or not. A city which plans with the idea some things cannot (read should not) be done because of past failures is hopelessly myopic. I want a city gov’t that will accomplish its goals, on time, under budget. The way things were done here back in the 1960s. It blows my mind when I hear people say things such as ‘Montreal can’t have trams because of our winters’ when the reality is that we had trams for close to a century prior to 1959. I’m sincerely concerned our multi-generational malaise has left most people incapable of believing growth and development can happen without massive graft and corruption.
I suppose that’s what is going to make me an ideal candidate for mayor one day – absolutely no connections to the political establishment nor business or construction community. I’m a historian, and in all my research I can only seem to find great solutions to problems we’ve already encountered, and then foolishly forgot about.
@Michael Black – like I say in the article, LA-84′s OOC used Montreal and Moscow as models for what not to do. Why can’t we do the same?
There’s still some room at the Olympic Site for new construction, such as on the Pie-IX side, not to mention that ugly industrial park East of Viau. Warehouses can be placed pretty much anywhere, they won’t be missed. But the important thing is that we have a principle venue, numerous secondary facilities (Molson Stadium, CEPSUM, Saputo Stadium, the Bell Ctr, Jarry Park, the Claude Robillard Ctr) and a still fully functioning rowing basin and olympic pool.
In sum, we would not be starting from scratch.
@JaneyB – corruption in our construction industry is not unique to our city, nor are we an exceptionally bad example. The same could be said of construction almost anywhere, whether in Dubai, New York City or Athens. And the same could be said for any time – I would hazard to guess it may very well have been worse back in the 1960s and 1970s given the local mafia was far more powerful back then, as were the unions.
You want to stifle corruption, ensure there’s simply too much work to do – force contractors to low-ball their bids and opt for long-term projects rather than a quick buck. Otherwise, we can import cheaper labour from elsewhere. Why do we assume the mayor’s office has to bow down to the corrupt and greedy? If you’re not willing to work for the city’s benefit, get out of the city.
@Paul the Naysayer: this city wouldn’t exist without perpetual visions of grandeur – they pay off long-run. Drapeau, despite his faults, got our city onto the international stage in a big way, and secured considerable investment and interest in our city. With one vote this could become a city of 2 million people, with a series of votes we could become a city of 4 million (at which point we’d be bigger than Toronto, again); we’ve been thinking small scale and naval-gazing for far too long. We need decisive action now, to secure our global prominence for tomorrow. If we’re not trying to become better than we are, then what are we doing?
Cities are based far more on society and culture than market forces, yet we’ve been led astray to believe the opposite. My society deserves better than the whims of capitalism, we need planning, foresight, and above all else, a war chest for tomorrow. Funny thing about capitalism, they really never teach you to save for tomorrow.
@Kevin, with all due respect your story about the cement trucks is, I believe, an overly simplistic myth. The truth is always more complicated.
And once more, the 84 Summer Games made money – there are plenty of great examples of Olympic failures. I’m saying you can still be successful after either you or someone else has failed. Because we paid too much for our games is not reason enough alone to kibosh any further attempts at a games. Give me the mayoralty and I’ll give you a record-breaking win for our city. All it comes down to is strong leadership and a lot of hard work. Basic core values we often overlook because we assume this is what everyone’s doing, when in fact our society, like most so-called Western democracies, praises cheaters and glorifies criminals. Suffice it to say I don’t think people work nearly hard enough to find solid solutions to difficult problems, unless they work for Apple and/or Google. Back in the 1960s our city was able to assemble one of the finest teams you could ever imagine to execute Expo 67. A more profitable universal exposition hasn’t been seen since. If we could it then, we could do it now.
Kevin 10:39 on 2011/12/13 Permalink
I have no problem with trying to pump up Montreal with big projects, but nobody in their right mind wants to get into bed with the IOC.
Ever since the disastrous Atlanta games, every IOC contract has required that the bid corporation get full financial backing from governments in the event of cost overruns.
What’s more, the IOC requires that the actual details and figures of these bailout packages be censored.
Officially the Vancouver games made a few million dollars for VANOC.
In reality, the province’s taxpayers were soaked for more than $2 billion.