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

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

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.

It shows there is demand from the political class promoting bread and circuses while looking to expand the bureaucracy and give jobs to their buddies. There is definitely not demand from the average tax payer as shown by the 2022 and 2024 Olympics only having 2 final bids.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

It shows there is demand from the political class promoting bread and circuses while looking to expand the bureaucracy and give jobs to their buddies. There is definitely not demand from the average tax payer as shown by the 2022 and 2024 Olympics only having 2 final bids.

It's not like the average tax payer has zero benefits to hosting an Olympics. We've hosted one before and it was by alla accounts, a success. The economic impact could be huge boon for a lot of local businesses, restaurants, hotels, construction and etc. The Olympics can be profitable if done right. This city certainly has the experience and track record of hosting successful large scale 10+ day events.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

It's not like the average tax payer has zero benefits to hosting an Olympics. We've hosted one before and it was by alla accounts, a success. The economic impact could be huge boon for a lot of local businesses, restaurants, hotels, construction and etc. The Olympics can be profitable if done right. This city certainly has the experience and track record of hosting successful large scale 10+ day events.

Wasn't the 1988 Olympics kind of a perfect storm for financial success? There were low construction costs in the 80s, it was just after the Olympics had embraced advertising dollars, and it was just before the crazy security cost increases. 1988 being a success means absolutely nothing in determining if 2026 would be a success.

[CliffFletcher]

People really need to stop bringing up '88. As Senator Clay commented, in terms of what these things cost and how they're run today, '88 may as well have been 100 years ago. There are dozens more events in today's games. Security is massively more expensive. And the public finances of most mature democracies are looking downright scary, for anyone with the stomach to look forward 20 or 30 years.

[Classic_Sniper]

There's been many profitable Olympic games in recent times as well. Calgary and area specifically would have less risk because our facilities are already in place as well. There's no need for money to be spent on arena exploration as well because plans already exist with the Calgary Next Project. This city is already well set up to host another Olympics and if there's any city who could do it "cheaply," it's us.

https://www.google.ca/amp/thechive.c...20-photos/amp/

[Steveyoto]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

There's been many profitable Olympic games in recent times as well. Calgary and area specifically would have less risk because our facilities are already in place as well. There's no need for money to be spent on arena exploration as well because plans already exist with the Calgary Next Project. This city is already well set up to host another Olympics and if there's any city who could do it "cheaply," it's us.

https://www.google.ca/amp/thechive.c...20-photos/amp/

Our ski jump facility needs to be replaced and is no longer international competition friendly. Fortress is closed and was the location for all Freestyle events, The bobsled track needs huge improvement, Nakiska was built for the Olympics and is no longer considered world class (Lake Louise could be an alternative), we need a new hockey arena ( obviously the reason for this whole thing), We need a place to have curling events, Canmore would work for x/c events, COP could work for snowboarding. I am not sure if the Oval is still world class.

All in all, we need a lot of upgrades but it is doable. I personally do no support this endeavour. But I also am cognizant of the difference between 1988 and 2024. Security costs, housing, lack of land to grow, abundance of existing condo's on the market are my logical concerns. My emotional/political views are even stronger.

That being said, I would support the games if they did come. I just do not think they should come here.

[jayswin]

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.

That seems like a poor comparable to use a top 5 city in the world as your example of tourism. Los Angeles, New York, Paris, London have tourist populations the size of small cities on any given day.

It's not surprising at all that a city like London would see no discernable increase in tourism over the course of an entire year because of a two week event, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were there every day that wouldn't have otherwise been there, spending money.

I would highly contest that a slight dip in tourism in 2012 was anything more than coincidence, if you were intending to make a point that the Olympics might actually take away from tourism. Your conclusion that Olympic tourism just replaces other tourism based on London and then applying that to a place like Calgary or any similar sized city is absurd, imo.

If Calgary were to get the Olympics again there wouldn't be thousands upon thousands of Olympic tourists here that would have come anyways.

[4X4]

We could always turn Nose Hill Park into an Olympic complex. Only half kidding.

[Flash Walken]

It is foolish to think that somehow Calgary's 88 infrastructure is in any way satisfactory or enticing to attracting a new bid.

If Calgary bids on the Olympics it will be inclusive of massive renovations to each existing proposed venue.

The renovation of BC place for example spiraled out of control in part due to the necessity of partial repair and replacement for use during the Olympic ceremonies. A project that was originally supposed to cost $100m eventually topped out at over $500m. It's a nice stadium, I really enjoy watching a football game there, but a $500m CFL stadium should not have been a top priority for the province when the busiest hospital in the province is between 50 and 80 years old. The province loses between 7-13 million a year on BC place.

Calgary is going.to have to.do extensive.renovations on each existing venue which will likely cost more than a from scratch build.

In its 2002 evaluation of Vancouver's bid during the bidding process for the 2010 Games, the Evaluation Commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) highlighted the number and quality of existing competition and training facilities as one of the bid's strengths. Of the competition venues that the bid proposed for use during the Games, six required new construction, with the remainder already built in Vancouver and Whistler. The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (VANOC), which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of facilities for the Games, pledged that all new construction of permanent facilities, whether on public or private land, would be funded by the government.[2]

According to CEO John Furlong, VANOC "started our venue construction as early as possible".[3] Construction on Cypress Mountain, the first new competition venue to be completed, began in March 2006 and was completed only eight months later, three years ahead of the start of the Games.[3] By December 2007, all three competition venues at Whistler were completed and open for training and testing.[4] Final construction was completed in February 2009, and sporting events were scheduled at the venues to ensure that they would be adequately tested before hosting the Olympic events. In total, six new competition venues were constructed: Cypress Mountain, Richmond Olympic Oval, UBC Thunderbird Arena, Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre, Whistler Olympic Park, and The Whistler Sliding Centre.[5]

Because of the significant distance between Vancouver and Whistler, Olympic Villages and media facilities were constructed in both locations. In addition, while medals ceremonies for the events held in Vancouver took place at the pre-existing BC Place, an additional venue was constructed in Whistler to award medals there. BC Place is an indoor stadium, so the Olympic torch cauldron, which was lit in the middle of the stadium during the opening ceremony, could not be left there because of safety concerns.[22] A second "external cauldron" was erected on the Coal Harbour waterfront, next to the Main Media Centre.[23]

I was there for the opening ceremonies in Calgary at McMahon. If Calgary hosts again, they are going to have to replace that venue. The oval is still great. I have heard it was recently renovated so I don't know if it meets current IOC standards for seating capacity. Ski jump will have to be constructed elsewhere, luge and bobsled track likely needs huge upgrades for modern events.

There are massive logistical problems for hosting an event in Calgary with Alpine events elsewhere. The existing infrastructure is really not that helpful in terms of cost as it will all need extensive upgrades. It may be more attractive to the IOC for selection but they don't give two farts about how much something costs.

If someone doesn't care about the costs and just wants the Olympics that's one thing but Calgarians need to be realistic about the huge expense and multi year inconvenience this will be for a few weeks of what is admittedly a kick ass party.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Steveyoto

Our ski jump facility needs to be replaced and is no longer international competition friendly. Fortress is closed and was the location for all Freestyle events, The bobsled track needs huge improvement, Nakiska was built for the Olympics and is no longer considered world class (Lake Louise could be an alternative)

COP - Big Air, & Halfpipe. maybe moguls, and ski freestyle
Nakiska - Slopestyle, moguls, ski freestyle
Lake Louise - GS/Downhill - recall, it was single lane/undivided to Lake Louise back in 1988. The highways are much improved since then, although more traffic.
Fortress wasn't involved in the Olympics, and besides it's looking like it'll be re-opening in 2018.
http://alberta.ctvnews.ca/video?clip...ylistPageNum=1

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It is foolish to think that somehow Calgary's 88 infrastructure is in any way satisfactory or enticing to attracting a new bid..

For alpine events, I think they're fine.

[Senator Clay Davis]

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.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, 1988 is 1988. It's not even worth comparing anymore, it's so exceptionally different. There are twice as many events, and twice as many athletes. You're acting like we just hosted a few years ago. The "world class facilities" in place is a bit of red herring, as you are assuming there will be zero cost going into improving those facilities, which isn't remotely true. Upgrades are better than new, sure, but that isn't free and could still end up being a significant cost. The tourism angle is pretty much a bunch of crap, Calgary is not and will never be a destination city. Banff and the Icefields Parkway is why most people come to Alberta, and that's not going to change or increase because of the Olympics. It's a desperate argument really, not one I'd wanna be using as a key argument to wanting to host.

As far as "another city in Canada" who is more prepared to host, I'm kinda thinking the feds should not support any Olympic bids until we see just how much health care is going to take a hit now that the boomers are starting to retire. That's sort of a massive problem on the horizon, one the feds should be deeply focused on, much more than fluff like hosting the Olympics, a 100% vanity event. If the prospective host city and province wants to increase taxes on their citizens with the aim of hosting, go for it. Of course supporting that is a political death sentence, so highly unlikely to happen. I'd love a ballot measure, would you support that? Something tells me given the likelihood it fails, you probably don't.

As to Trump, you missed the point. He doesn't have to be in office to have made North America significantly more susceptible to terrorism. 9/11 sent up Vancouver's security costs, even though it happened nine years before the event. Big terrorism events have lasting impacts. Calgary wouldn't want to global infamy of having a terrorist attack happening at an Olympics it hosts. That would probably crush tourism. End of the day, the Olympics offers far too much risk, for a very small potential of a big reward. Echoing what others have said, we need the infrastructure anyway, no need to whore ourselves out to the IOC to get them. We should just get them because we need them. Getting those without hosting the Olympics would be the greatest legacy of all.

[FireGilbert]

If the idea is to increase tourism wouldn't Calgary be better off spending money on a multi year international ad campaign as opposed to the Olympics, a two week advertising blitz only watched in a handful of winter sporting nations?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

If the idea is to increase tourism wouldn't Calgary be better off spending money on a multi year international ad campaign as opposed to the Olympics, a two week advertising blitz only watched in a handful of winter sporting nations?

lol

Come on now. No ad campaign is ever going to get in front of as many people as the Olympics do.

A 'handful of winter sporting nations' can also be described as a billion people, watching daily. But spin away.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

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

I have always said the best case scenario of the Olympics is that you get infrastructure you need and a marginal discount. The worst case scenario is you get infrastructure you don't need at an inflated cost.

It is disingenuous to argue that the Calgary Olympics made a profit. You can say Calgary spent 350 million on infrastructure to host the Olympics and that was money well spent and we can have a discussion if it was worth it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

Come on now. No ad campaign is ever going to get in front of as many people as the Olympics do.

A 'handful of winter sporting nations' can also be described as a billion people, watching daily. But spin away.

Then show some evidence that Vancouver tourism increased as a result of the Olympics.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

Then show some evidence that Vancouver tourism increased as a result of the Olympics.

Yeah, because that's what I said.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol

Come on now. No ad campaign is ever going to get in front of as many people as the Olympics do.

A 'handful of winter sporting nations' can also be described as a billion people, watching daily. But spin away.

A billion people watch the Winter Olympics daily? Lol. I believe a billion people total watch each summer games. The winter games have far less viewership however as they are only embraced by winter countries.

I'm not denying the Winter Olympics would be s great advertisement, I'm just saying if the goal is to increase tourism there are probably more cost effective ways to do so.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

A billion people watch the Winter Olympics daily? Lol. I believe a billion people total watch each summer games. The winter games have far less viewership however as they are only embraced by winter countries.

I'm not denying the Winter Olympics would be s great advertisement, I'm just saying if the goal is to increase tourism they are probably more cost effective ways to do so.

No, you said a multi-year ad campaign would be more effective. And you tried to suggest not many people watch the Olympics.

Feel free to illustrate an ad campaign that would get in front of as many people.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, because that's what I said.

Well you are arguing that Olympic advertising reaches more people. The only way that argument is any more than useless trivia is if that advertising actually increases tourism.

So given the evidence posted earlier that Vancouver/Whistler did not get an increase in tourism as a result of the advertising it really doesn't matter how many people watch the games. It has no affect. Now I'm not sure how great and add campaign would be but its worst outcome would be no affect

So Fire Gilbert's statement that spending the money on an add campaign would be a better use of funds if tourism is your goal is likely true.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well you are arguing that Olympic advertising reaches more people. The only way that argument is any more than useless trivia is if that advertising actually increases tourism.

So given the evidence posted earlier that Vancouver/Whistler did not get an increase in tourism as a result of the advertising it really doesn't matter how many people watch the games. It has no affect. Now I'm not sure how great and add campaign would be but its worst outcome would be no affect

So Fire Gilbert's statement that spending the money on an add campaign would be a better use of funds if tourism is your goal is likely true.

No, I wasn't. Follow the conversation. FireGilbert made what I thought was a pretty silly claim and I challenged it. You then tried to move the goalposts.

As for your claim that FireGilbert's claim is likely true, based on your claim that Vancouver didn't receive an increase in tourism, that is also very weak logic. There could be all kinds of reasons for what actually transpired.

Lots of people making emotionally charged claims in this thread. Rational discourse has been fighting an uphill battle from the get go.