Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

here is a chance for you to change my mind on this fiasco - can you summarize the infrastructure gains that we will get for the projected net cost to calgary of $2 billion?

I dont know exactly what would be included in the 2 billion, but i am pretty sure we know what wont be there...

a new stadium nor a new arena.(nonsensical for sure but it is what the IOC have claimed along with some city reps)

So I ask, why would there be any appetite from the public if that is true?

[Muta]

Facilities could include a new arena (with the Olympics being a big catalyst to getting this underway), a large upgrade to McMahon Stadium at worst / a new stadium at best, a badly-needed redevelopment of the Olympic Oval, a new Canmore Nordic Centre and track, support facilities at alpine venues (either Nakiska or Lake Louise), a new curling facility, transit infrastructure to the airport, upgraded municipal roadwork... not to mention private investment including housing for an Olympic Village / residents afterwards, hotels, restaurants, shopping...

... getting these done would be next to impossible in such a quick time if an Olympic bid isn't the engine driving it.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Muta

Facilities could include a new arena (with the Olympics being a big catalyst to getting this underway), a large upgrade to McMahon Stadium at worst / a new stadium at best, a badly-needed redevelopment of the Olympic Oval, a new Canmore Nordic Centre and track, support facilities at alpine venues (either Nakiska or Lake Louise), a new curling facility, transit infrastructure to the airport, upgraded municipal roadwork... not to mention private investment including housing for an Olympic Village / residents afterwards, hotels, restaurants, shopping...

... getting these done would be next to impossible in such a quick time if an Olympic bid isn't the engine driving it.

You are describing my worst fear in a "yes" vote for the Olympics. My vote does not sanction the city/country to spend a bunch of extra infrastructure money in the name of a "citizen mandate" to host the Olympics. My yes vote would be for Calgary to host the Olympics at a pre-described dollar figure and any expectation for planned overruns would require projects to be scrapped in order to meet the original dollar figure.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by tkflames

You are describing my worst fear in a "yes" vote for the Olympics. My vote does not sanction the city/country to spend a bunch of extra infrastructure money in the name of a "citizen mandate" to host the Olympics. My yes vote would be for Calgary to host the Olympics at a pre-described dollar figure and any expectation for planned overruns would require projects to be scrapped in order to meet the original dollar figure.

That's cool. I'm just saying those are the facilities that could get built as a result of an Olympic bid. A bid would push these facilities along faster, and would likely be one of the very few times, if not the only time, we'd see funding available from provincial and federal levels of government for those projects.

A 'worst fear' scenario is a bit sensational, but to each their own. I guess I'm just a lot more pragmatic about what we, as a city, could get out of this from an infrastructure standpoint. I would love to have all those facilities available to us, particularly since we're a winter city where athletes like to train and a citizen base with lots of healthy and active people that would benefit from these facilities - and the ability to host more national and international events for the long-term as well.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Muta

A 'worst fear' scenario is a bit sensational, but to each their own..

Umm?....NO!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

[Muta]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Umm?....NO!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

No what? According to the exact link you posted, more than half of the games broke even, including Vancouver.

[Northendzone]

I was under the impression (and I could be wrong) that the two billion shortfall did not include a new arena or new McMahon stadium.

as for the hotels, restaurants etc, i'd love to see some data on how many new hotels and restuarants open in the lead up to games, and then how many stay open 1 or more years after the games leave.

Originally Posted by Muta

Facilities could include a new arena (with the Olympics being a big catalyst to getting this underway), a large upgrade to McMahon Stadium at worst / a new stadium at best, a badly-needed redevelopment of the Olympic Oval, a new Canmore Nordic Centre and track, support facilities at alpine venues (either Nakiska or Lake Louise), a new curling facility, transit infrastructure to the airport, upgraded municipal roadwork... not to mention private investment including housing for an Olympic Village / residents afterwards, hotels, restaurants, shopping...

... getting these done would be next to impossible in such a quick time if an Olympic bid isn't the engine driving it.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Muta

No what? According to the exact link you posted, more than half of the games broke even, including Vancouver.

Recent history is more relevant.


"Severe cost overruns made the 2014 Winter Olympics the most expensive Olympics in history; with Russian politician Boris Nemtsov citing allegations of corruption among government officials,[1] and Allison Stewart of the Saïd Business School at Oxford citing tight relationships between the government and construction firms.[2] While originally budgeted at US$12 billion, the budget expanded to US$51 billion, surpassing the estimated $44 billion cost of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, making Sochi the most expensive Olympics in history."

[Muta]

You're comparing Calgary's bid to Sochi's? I wouldn't do that, Sochi was an absolute anomaly. Comparing a Calgary bid to Vancouver's is a much, much better and appropriate comparison.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Muta

No what? According to the exact link you posted, more than half of the games broke even, including Vancouver.

That definitely does not include large infrastructure projects...5 billion in Vancouver's case. Typically you don't get a deal on infrastructure building when there is a hard, do or die deadline. I suspect they paid too much just based on the "rush job" pricing.

[Roughneck]

Sochi and Russia are not really relevant comparables to Calgary and Canada. The corruption was pretty overt, even the Quebec construction mafia from the 70s wouldn't be able to get away with the blatant cost overruns that Sochi had.

I knew the head of grounds for one of the big stadiums over there when it was being built, wondering why it cost so much to build. 'Take the number it costs to build the stadium, and double it, because you don't get anything built in Russia without lining people's pockets.' It was was pretty much accepted as a cost of doing business.

[PepsiFree]

I feel like people looking at the Sochi games as a comparable would do well to spend some time learning about Russia, Putin, and his relationship with infrastructure spending (and he types of people it often benefits).

[Muta]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

That definitely does not include large infrastructure projects...5 billion in Vancouver's case. Typically you don't get a deal on infrastructure building when there is a hard, do or die deadline. I suspect they paid too much just based on the "rush job" pricing.

Do you have a source on this? I'd like to know what infrastructure costs were $5B. The Wikipedia article links to a number that said $2.5B for transportation costs; for transportation, I don't see ours being anywhere near that (we aren't building a new super highway like the Sea to Sky, and we aren't building a new subway line virtually from the airport to downtown).

[CliffFletcher]

Then how about PyeongChang?

Estimated cost: $7 billion
Actual cost: $13 billion

It's a mistake to think of the funding as all going to needed infrastructure upgrades. Much of it goes to expenses with no lasting benefits, like security, and to infrastructure that has very little or no utility after an Olympics, such as ski jumps.

There's a reason most democracies are no longer willing to bid on these things anymore.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Muta

Do you have a source on this? I'd like to know what infrastructure costs were $5B. The Wikipedia article links to a number that said $2.5B for transportation costs; for transportation, I don't see ours being anywhere near that (we aren't building a new super highway like the Sea to Sky, and we aren't building a new subway line virtually from the airport to downtown).

Yes the main ones not included were the Sea to Sky, the Sky train and the convention center.

Critics point out that some of the most expensive infrastructure of the Games, including the Sea to Sky Highway, the Vancouver Convention Centre and a rapid transit line to the airport were not included in the final tally.
The expansion of the Vancouver Convention Centre cost $883 million, $388 million over budget. The SkyTrain's Canada Line linking Vancouver to the airport cost $2.1 billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...says-1.2695994

I think the Sea to Sky was 1.2 billion? But there are questions of the real cost there. So all told it was about five billion.

One thing I'm sure of is that even without a new mountain highway, we would also find a way to spend that much...adjusted for inflation of course.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Then how about PyeongChang?

Estimated cost: $7 billion
Actual cost: $13 billion

It's a mistake to think of the funding as all going to needed infrastructure upgrades. Much of it goes to expenses with no lasting benefits, like security, and to infrastructure that has very little or no utility after an Olympics, such as ski jumps.

There's a reason most democracies are no longer willing to bid on these things anymore.

What if the ski jumping events are held at Whistler? I know that's been discussed.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

One thing I'm sure of is that even without a new mountain highway, we would also find a way to spend that much...adjusted for inflation of course.

Regardless of what was included and what wasn't (and I'm sure it's more complex than we possibly know about), this was also right from that article:

But Furlong said all the buildings and infrastructure are currently in use and board chairman Ken Dobell said the Games left a debt-free legacy for the country.

"First of all, it cost what it was supposed to cost," Dobell said.

Significant capital upgrades were made that had to happen sooner or later, and the host communities now have recreation and community facilities for residents.

"Was it a worthwhile endeavour? The way Vancouver did it, for sure," he said.

How is that not a good result for the citizens of Vancouver? They got a ton of development out of it that otherwise would have likely taken years, if not decades longer had they not hosted the Games.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Then how about PyeongChang?

Estimated cost: $7 billion
Actual cost: $13 billion

It's a mistake to think of the funding as all going to needed infrastructure upgrades. Much of it goes to expenses with no lasting benefits, like security, and to infrastructure that has very little or no utility after an Olympics, such as ski jumps.

There's a reason most democracies are no longer willing to bid on these things anymore.

Except the for the other 6 in the running for 2026 I guess?

Obviously there are some costs that are just for the event, but there are also projects that are built that aren't directly related. I think that for the '88 games things such as the C-train have had lasting impact on the city. Then you have the more obvious athletic use facilities. Not everything is spent just on those two weeks, and the impacts can be much longer lasting in a positive way.

[OMG!WTF!]

How is that not a good result for the citizens of Vancouver? They got a ton of development out of it that otherwise would have likely taken years, if not decades longer had they not hosted the Games.

Yeah that's for sure one way to look at it. But why can't we build those projects without the risk of an Olympics and without the extra goodies we already have? When your convention center is almost 50% over budget, you're not getting a great deal. The Sea to Sky is also likely very much over the original 500 million construction estimate.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Except the for the other 6 in the running for 2026 I guess?

Obviously there are some costs that are just for the event, but there are also projects that are built that aren't directly related. I think that for the '88 games things such as the C-train have had lasting impact on the city. Then you have the more obvious athletic use facilities. Not everything is spent just on those two weeks, and the impacts can be much longer lasting in a positive way.

The C-Train was not a result of the Olympics. It was in use before the games were even awarded.