[browna]

Totally random thought, related to the Calgary bid sure but more maybe a general IOC or bid question... With many cities not willing to host given the increased costs of security (which is the big difference over the 80's and 90's hosting of games, tripling (or more) the operating budget) why not give cities back to back games?

That city then, for 8-10 years would be the training ground for all athletes year round, both home country athletes and foreign athletes as well could set up camp here for an extended time. The state of the art facilities would get used for two Olympics, and of course all the training for those games.

Infrastructure,things like the athletes and media village would be better utilized, and the infrastructure would be forced to be better thought out with a longer term plan in mind from the beginning. Logistics and planning could be tweaked after the first games in time for the next games 4 years later.
It just seems that then you'd get more value out of the sports and other facilities and infrastructure by hosting/having them utilized for two Olympics at them rather then a two week shot as well as some training in the year before and the odd event yearly after, and the increased profile of the city as an amateur sport training ground for almost a decade.

Costs would be higher,but not double for hosting two, ,and again,there would be economic benefits such as tourism for having the city as a centre for ametuer sport and top class facilities.

IOC not likely to go for that given the reduce bid amounts that any city going for that,and for some reason they still want to spread it around. But the World Cup bid for Canada the US and Mexico shows that the dynamic is changing for hosting these high profile and high cost events as a one shot type deal.