[News] UPD: Calgary City Council approves exploratory bid study for 2026 Olympics

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Itse

Make more money, how exactly?

There's very little evidence that olympics are even good for tourism, which is supposed to be the huge moneymaker locally. For example, Britain actually had 5% less tourists in 2012 than the previous year. London saw a slight increase in tourism, but even that was not a boon for everyone, as for example museums and theaters (both big business in London) saw significant declines in audiences.

In other words, olympic tourism mostly just replaces other tourism instead of adding to it.

Could Calgary be different than London that it may actually increase tourism based on two factors?

One, London is a historic, world class city. It doesn't need the Olympics to bring in tourism as people are fully aware of the place all over the world. Calgary on the other hand isn't as such. There's plenty in the States that don't know this city exists, and even moreso aboard. Calgary at worse, would increase awareness of itself to the world.

Two, Banff. London is cool and has unique features, but in the end it's just a city like any other. Banff and the surrounding areas (including Drumheller/badlands) is a natural oasis that can occupy people for as long as they please. People come to Calgary just to see Banff. Again this is a promotional opportunity to increase awareness of Banff and it's beauty.

I would be interested to see how tourism numbers looked after the '88 games. I think it's fair to assume that tourism did increase afterwards since this area was exposed to the world. I think that it could have the same effect again.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Hosting the olympics is 100% about conforming to any of the IOCs expectations.

It is right now. And that model is failing so we can be the last sucker at at the table or we can be the group that presents the new model of how Olympics need to be done. If we don't win on our terms the Olympics aren't worth hosting in the present commercial arrangement

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Could Calgary be different than London that it may actually increase tourism based on two factors?

One, London is a historic, world class city. It doesn't need the Olympics to bring in tourism as people are fully aware of the place all over the world. Calgary on the other hand isn't as such. There's plenty in the States that don't know this city exists, and even moreso aboard. Calgary at worse, would increase awareness of itself to the world.

Two, Banff. London is cool and has unique features, but in the end it's just a city like any other. Banff and the surrounding areas (including Drumheller/badlands) is a natural oasis that can occupy people for as long as they please. People come to Calgary just to see Banff. Again this is a promotional opportunity to increase awareness of Banff and it's beauty.

I would be interested to see how tourism numbers looked after the '88 games. I think it's fair to assume that tourism did increase afterwards since this area was exposed to the world. I think that it could have the same effect again.

What differentiates whistler from Banff. Whistler did not see gains after Vancouver.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Exposure in 1988, the world without internet, is wholly different than exposure in 2026, when people in theory will be able to take virtual reality trips to Banff. 1988 should be wholly disregarded from the conversation here, the world is a staggeringly different place now. In 1988 you could only learn about Banff through encyclopedias and travel agents. Suffice to say it's a little different now with Google Street View allowing someone to know Banff inside and out without having ever stepped foot in the town. The vast majority of the world that can afford to travel likely already knows about Banff. The level of new exposure will be very, very minimal, certainly not worth being considered a plus to hosting.

[polak]

Do you google random cities of a million people?

Weifang China?
Lodz Poland?
Soweto South Africa?
Jacksonville USA?

No one that isn't already planning a trip to Canada is googling Calgary.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

Do you google random cities of a million people?

Weifang China?
Lodz Poland?
Soweto South Africa?
Jacksonville USA?

No one that isn't already planning a trip to Canada is googling Calgary.

People Google Banff. Calgary is not and will never be a world class tourist destination

[CliffFletcher]

How many people here have made a trip to Sochi? How about Nagano?

[Scrambler]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How many people here have made a trip to Sochi? How about Nagano?

I went to Nagano...

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Itse

Make more money, how exactly?

There's very little evidence that olympics are even good for tourism, which is supposed to be the huge moneymaker locally. For example, Britain actually had 5% less tourists in 2012 than the previous year. London saw a slight increase in tourism, but even that was not a boon for everyone, as for example museums and theaters (both big business in London) saw significant declines in audiences.

In other words, olympic tourism mostly just replaces other tourism instead of adding to it.

The 1988 Calgary Olympics posted a $140,000,000 profit. That's in 1988 money, today with inflation I'm sure the profits could be even higher; especially when you consider that our facilities still exist and are still
World Class.

The unique tourism that Calgary will gain from a new generation of people that otherwise wouldn't have visited Calgary if not for an Olympics makes this venture worth it in my eyes. Calgary already spends a fair bit on marketing tourists? The Olympics can be seen as one big marketing tool. Millions will be watching on television world wide and who knows, maybe the ones who do come to visit may fall in love with banff and lake lousie and etc and may make it an annual trip. Personally, I think the risk is worth it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by HHW

And Bastiat's Glazier may spend his 6 francs in the local tavern on a pint of ale, and the inn keeper may spend the 5 francs he earns on buying new cooking pots from the shopkeeper to improve his business. Not all of the 6 francs are wasted.

Look, I'm not saying that money spent on security is the best use of that money, but it doesn't just vanish. It will still circulate in the economy.

As stated, people should spend their money on "things they actually want and value." Many people consider the overall impact of these events to be of value. I do, and would be willing to support it. You may not and are free to say so.

But, on the whole not much glass will get broken. And perhaps the shopkeeper would spend his saved money on a vacation in Mexico anyway instead of on new shoes or a book. Of value to him but not of any value to his neighbours

it will have an impact on nearby cities too. An event of that magnitude will have a significant impact over the hospitality/tourism industry in cities like Lethbridge and Red Deer. Slightly cheaper hotel rooms with tour busses making daily/nightly trips to and from Calgary would certainly be in order (you already see it a little during Stampede)

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm surprised anyone is surprised by the opposition. Do you read the news? The public opposition to hosting Olympics (and the World Cup) is growing worldwide, as the costs for these things has spiraled out of control in the last 15 years, and the organizations running them have been exposed as deeply corrupt. As was mentioned up-thread, any time hosting has been put to a public vote in recent years, it has lost. There were marches and riots in Brazil. The number of countries that submit bids to host is getting fewer and fewer. Only two countries bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics, neither of them democracies.


'The Olympics are dead': Does anyone want to be a host city any more?


NOBODY WANTS TO HOST THE OLYMPICS

Check the list of 2026 host city hopefuls, there's more than 10 of them. There's definite interest in hosting this particular Olympics which in terms of relevance, is the only thing that matters to us in this instance.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

The 1988 Calgary Olympics posted a $140,000,000 profit. That's in 1988 money, today with inflation I'm sure the profits could be even higher; especially when you consider that our facilities still exist and are still
World Class.

The unique tourism that Calgary will gain from a new generation of people that otherwise wouldn't have visited Calgary if not for an Olympics makes this venture worth it in my eyes. Calgary already spends a fair bit on marketing tourists? The Olympics can be seen as one big marketing tool. Millions will be watching on television world wide and who knows, maybe the ones who do come to visit may fall in love with banff and lake lousie and etc and may make it an annual trip. Personally, I think the risk is worth it.

The Calgary olylympic organizing comitte posted a profit. This does not mean that the games brought in more money than was spent to bring the games here. As the 140 million dollar profit includes roughly half a billion in tax payer subsidies.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Calgary olylympic organizing comitte posted a profit. This does not mean that the games brought in more money than was spent to bring the games here. As the 140 million dollar profit includes roughly half a billion in tax payer subsidies.

Subsides that paid for all of the infrastructure we still have and use to this day.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You sound like you work for the IOC with this post. 1988 is literally 10,000 BC when it comes to the Olympics. It really is that much of a different world than it is now. 2026 will be guaranteed to have at least twice as many athletes as 1988. That alone significantly drives up the cost of hosting. Never mind security in the new Trump world, where he's very likely to bring a big terrorist attack on North America (which to be fair is what he wants). $1.5 billion could be the low end for security. Only creative accounting can make that much of a black hole cost turn into a profit.

The second part is the big lie the IOC hopes everyone falls for. There is not going to be an significant exposure for Calgary that will actually drive any long term growth in tourism. Flash has already posted that nothing was gained from Vancouver, and whether people like this or not, it's true: Calgary is boring. Not Winnipeg level boring, but Calgary's biggest "chip" to lure people to come is....Banff. That's right, come to Calgary and....spend money in Banff! Calgary is not getting the slightest tourism bump in the long term. It's another IOC trick to bait to public, but thankfully the public is waking up to their horse####

I definitely don't work for the IOC, but I sure wouldn't mind a second source of income. Like I said in a previous post, Calgary profited $140,000,000 in 1988. We already have a lot of world class facilities in place. We already spend money on marketing the city to tourists, why not get one of the biggest marketing tools out there. The Olympics garner millions upon millions of viewers and the unique tourism that we would gain can make it worth the trouble.

I don't think there's another city in Canada right now who is more prepared to host another Olympic Games than Calgary. Why not let the next generation of Calgarians experience the pride and sense of community that 1988 brought to us. Plus, I'm pretty sure Trump will be gone by 2026 as I don't see him getting a second term.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I definitely don't work for the IOC, but I sure wouldn't mind a second source of income. Like I said in a previous post, Calgary profited $140,000,000 in 1988. We already have a lot of world class facilities in place. We already spend money on marketing the city to tourists, why not get one of the biggest marketing tools out there. The Olympics garner millions upon millions of viewers and the unique tourism that we would gain can make it worth the trouble.

I don't think there's another city in Canada right now who is more prepared to host another Olympic Games than Calgary. Why not let the next generation of Calgarians experience the pride and sense of community that 1988 brought to us. Plus, I'm pretty sure Trump will be gone by 2026 as I don't see him getting a second term.

Wouldn't Trump be done in 2025 even if he gets a second term?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Wouldn't Trump be done in 2025 even if he gets a second term?

Not when the Constitution is just sort of an idea, not actual rules to follow.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by GGG

The Calgary olylympic organizing comitte posted a profit. This does not mean that the games brought in more money than was spent to bring the games here. As the 140 million dollar profit includes roughly half a billion in tax payer subsidies.

Even if that's true, the city already has a lot of world class facilities in place that don't need to be built from the ground up. Our ski hills already host other events and competitions, so they're already self sufficient and maintained. Calgary is probably the most perpared city to host a future North American Olympic games and I can't see the costs soaring like it did in other host cities. Plus, who wouldn't want the government to help chip in for much needed infrastructure like a potentially new arena or new airport lrt line or Olympic village or etc.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Check the list of 2026 host city hopefuls, there's more than 10 of them. There's definite interest in hosting this particular Olympics which in terms of relevance, is the only thing that matters to us in this instance.

Those lists dwindle quickly. Lots of places can be interested when there's no commitments that need to be made. The 2022 Games had a lot of interested cities as well until all but two pulled out.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Those lists dwindle quickly. Lots of places can be interested when there's no commitments that need to be made. The 2022 Games had a lot of interested cities as well until all but two pulled out.

The fact that cities show some interest at all proves there's demand. After all, the city did commit $5 million just to explore the idea of hosting the Olympics.

[FireGilbert]

I know you can't really compare summer with winter but the 2000 Sydney Olympics cost $6 Billion and had a loss of $2 Billion while actually having a negative impact on tourism and economic stimulation. Also, the Olympic stadium is about to undergo a $250 Million renovation because the stadium built for track and field does not meet the needs of a rugby watching population. There is definitely some talk that Sydney would have been better off 17 years later if the Olympics never happened and money went into road infrastructure and health care instead.