Should Calgary bid for another Olympics?

[You Need a Thneed]

Spending money to try and get the 2022 games is futile, and thus, I'm against it. 2026 or 2030 are better bets. But the Canadian selection for a city would probably go to Quebec City, if they wanted it anyway.

[Locke]

I would say no. One of the major detractors is the enormous cost, as well as the lingering financial burden, most host cities dont make a profit on the games overall due to massive overruns.

I think its better, for now, to just remember the incredible success of '88, its not like there is any significant rush, most, if not all, of the facilities would have to be effectively re-built anyways so its not like there is a marginal window of opportunity there.

[Tron_fdc]

I'd imagine the games will go to whoever ponies up the most "gifts" to IOC members. I'd be factoring those into any olympic bid if I were you guys....

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I'd imagine the games will go to whoever ponies up the most "gifts" to IOC members. I'd be factoring those into any olympic bid if I were you guys....

Not allowed any more.

[mykalberta]

Summer is out of the question.

Winter is the only option and would be an obtainable option in say 2030 IMO unless of course QC wants it. It would be hellishly expensive for QC.

The benefit of having it in Calgary/Edmonton combo is that you dont need alot of new facilities. By that time both cities will have new NHL arenas and it would be a perfect opportunity to sell the cost of the Edmonton to Calgary train.

[GreenLantern]

Good luck finding volunteers in the draft dodging capital of Canada.

[Tyler]

Does Quebec City even have Olympic sized mountain courses to even run a proper ski event?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Does Quebec City even have Olympic sized mountain courses to even run a proper ski event?

Mont Tremblant is the highest resort in the Laurentians:

http://www.tremblant.ca/tickets/index-e.htm

• Elevation at the summit: 875 meters / 2871 feet
• Vertical drop of the south side: 645 meters / 2116 feet
• Number of trails: 95

Skiing area

• Skiable ground: 654 acres
• Artificial snow coverage: 465 acres
• Total trail length: 78.9 km / 49 miles
• Longest trail: Nansen (6 km /3.75 miles)
• Undergrowth: 79.8 acres
• Incline: up to 42°

[The Goon]

I'm content with the legacy of the '88 games as well as hosting the Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth every summer.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by troutman

Mont Tremblant is the highest resort in the Laurentians:

http://www.tremblant.ca/tickets/index-e.htm

Google tells me that it's 4+ hours between Quebec City and that resort.

That may be just a bit too far, no?

Whistler and Vancouver are MUCH closer, and there were still some complaints about the distance between those two venues.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Google tells me that it's 4+ hours between Quebec City and that resort.

That may be just a bit too far, no?

Whistler and Vancouver are MUCH closer, and there were still some complaints about the distance between those two venues.

Montreal/Quebec could be co-hosts.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by troutman

Montreal/Quebec could be co-hosts.

You're going to sell another Olympic games to the people of Montreal? Good luck with that.

I haven't read one single article claiming that Quebec City would ever share the Olympics with Montreal, and even then - you're looking at a 3hr+ drive between the two venues. Not likely.

Quebec City will likely be going at this alone if they do proceed (like they did with 2002).

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by troutman

Montreal/Quebec could be co-hosts.

Since only once city can host the Olympic games at a time (Vancouver Olympic Committee found this out when they submitted a Vancouver/Whistler joint bid and had to refile) I wonder which city would take the Marquee for the bid. Montreal for the international notariety or Quebec City for the increased Nordic focus?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Since only once city can host the Olympic games at a time (Vancouver Olympic Committee found this out when they submitted a Vancouver/Whistler joint bid and had to refile) I wonder which city would take the Marquee for the bid. Montreal for the international notariety or Quebec City for the increased Nordic focus?

Wow, didnt know that.

I still think an Edmonton bid with a Calgary assistant is the more logical choice of course the high speed rail between the two would be the key.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Since only once city can host the Olympic games at a time (Vancouver Olympic Committee found this out when they submitted a Vancouver/Whistler joint bid and had to refile) I wonder which city would take the Marquee for the bid. Montreal for the international notariety or Quebec City for the increased Nordic focus?

I did not know that. What is the rationale? Japan/South Korea co-hosted a World Cup.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Wow, didnt know that.

I still think an Edmonton bid with a Calgary assistant is the more logical choice of course the high speed rail between the two would be the key.

I don't see why Calgary would need/want to co-host with Edmonton. What would Edmonton bring to the table that Calgary can't provide? I guess it could encourage more political support, and thereby more funding, but outside of that there's really no point. If it came down to requiring joint hosting in order to get funding I'd say that the bid was rather weak to begin with.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't see why Calgary would need/want to co-host with Edmonton. What would Edmonton bring to the table that Calgary can't provide? I guess it could encourage more political support, and thereby more funding, but outside of that there's really no point. If it came down to requiring joint hosting in order to get funding I'd say that the bid was rather weak to begin with.

I think Calgary alone getting it a second time isnt likely unless no one actually wants it other than Calgary.

A combo pick reduces the cost of facilities and would give the reason for a high speed rail, the IOC is like any other big international organization, big supporter of green tech and legacy type things. What is better legacy than a high speed rail between to oil cities in evil oil sands alberta.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

But infrastructure and major events go hand in hand right? If we didn't have the Olympics, would we have a C-Train? If Calgary had won the bid for EXPO 2005 we would have had a full ring-road 10 years ago. Even the WEST LRT might have been done already.

If Vancouver didn't get the Olympics, would the road to Whister have ever been expanded?

Major events speeds up everything!

To the bolded, yes, but likely not much of one. Hack off one or maybe even two of the existing three lines. The south line was planned, constructed, and opened prior to winning the bid. It would still exist if there were no Olympics, and probably one other line, but not 3.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by troutman

I did not know that. What is the rationale? Japan/South Korea co-hosted a World Cup.

FIFA will likely not repeat that experiment, and the IOC wants no part of a co-hosted Olympics between two countries.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I think Calgary alone getting it a second time isnt likely unless no one actually wants it other than Calgary.

A combo pick reduces the cost of facilities and would give the reason for a high speed rail, the IOC is like any other big international organization, big supporter of green tech and legacy type things. What is better legacy than a high speed rail between to oil cities in evil oil sands alberta.

Combo bids are not allowed, so you're left with one city playing second fiddle, and I see no benefit to either from that. The IOC doesn't give damn about building a train in Alberta, it's not a revolutionary project by a long shot. It wouldn't be something for them to hang their hat on. And really, what would Edmonton bring to the table? Facilities would still cost the same, the funding would just be more spread out (assuming you could get municipal funding from Edmonton). And really there aren't going to be very many municipal facilities to be developed anyways. Both cities will have new arenas between now and then, and whichever is the actual host would need to fund stadium upgrades for the ceremonies. Otherwise the vast majority of the venues are either temporary or not city based. What would you ship up to Edmonton to defer costs for a Calgary bid? Adding a third city would result in a massively spread out bid between Calgary, Edmonton and the mountains. The games would lose any identity being held in such a thinly spread manner. There's really no upside beyond getting more provincial voters to support the bid.

Plenty of places have been repeat hosts, and as I said before there are a limited number of options. The IOC likes coming to North America, but they aren't going to give the games to the US over and over again. Canada will be in the mix, and when they are there are really only 3 options, Calgary, Quebec and Vancouver. If Quebec can't handle it, or chooses not to, Calgary rises to the top of the heap. It doesn't mean that Calgary should host again, but if the effort is put forth to do so it will likely happen.