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

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Locke

Heres the thing: If we were to be approved for an Olympics then Parks Canada will do as they're told.

Probably, but as of now, they've got a powerful voice in this.

Also, the idea of having the ski jump events at a new facility in Canmore has been tossed around, although I'm sure all the environmentalists would hate that to the nth degree.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Muta

Rumour has it Nakiska is still tall enough to hold the ski events, although certain parties are pushing for Lake Louise or nothing. Parks Canada, so far, is giving it a hard 'no', but who knows what the future holds.

Does Parks Canada have a veto if one of the privately owned resorts wanted to do it? I mean, maybe they do but do they have a practical veto? If LL, for example, decided, "Yep, we'd be totally down to host all downhill, freestyle, ski and boarder X events", would they really have the political capital to say "No chance, you're not doing that"?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Does Parks Canada have a veto if one of the privately owned resorts wanted to do it? I mean, maybe they do but do they have a practical veto? If LL, for example, decided, "Yep, we'd be totally down to host all downhill, freestyle, ski and boarder X events", would they really have the political capital to say "No chance, you're not doing that"?

It would be more of "you can't build more accommodations or more structures" then they will basically tell them "good luck".

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Probably, but as of now, they've got a powerful voice in this.

Also, the idea of having the ski jump events at a new facility in Canmore has been tossed around, although I'm sure all the environmentalists would hate that to the nth degree.

Honestly I think ski jump facilities are an eye sore. That sort of seems like something that can be done on a temporary basis, and then keep the ones here in Calgary for practice facilities.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Does Parks Canada have a veto if one of the privately owned resorts wanted to do it? I mean, maybe they do but do they have a practical veto? If LL, for example, decided, "Yep, we'd be totally down to host all downhill, freestyle, ski and boarder X events", would they really have the political capital to say "No chance, you're not doing that"?

That's a good question; I don't have the answer to this. I'm assuming LL would be totally down (and why wouldn't they be, they get exposure on a global stage), but I think the concern lies in the amount of traffic entering the national park and the environmental impact that would have. Great question though.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Muta

Another benefit to upgrading all winter sports infrastructure in and around Calgary is the ability to attract future non-Olympic international competitions, tournaments and events, which contributes to the local economy in the long term. I do know that the Nordic Centre has to be upgraded if they have any hope of hosting the major biathalon events in the future. This is just one example, as well.

Muta, you and I have been on the same pro-Olympics side of this thread all along. This latest update plus the Macleans assessment is the first time I've started thinking it might just be too expensive for what we'll get out of it. Although I still need to understand the ~$2.5B of economic activity benefit a bit more.

Are you still solidly in the "this is a good idea camp" after the latest update? If so, why? ...you think the infrastructure is worth that price? ...you think the economic activity numbers are genuine and tangible? ...you think the legacy sports complex upgrades will pay off? ...you just want tha partay? ...etc

[Zarley]

I'd suggest not putting much stock into Markusoff's slanted article. Wait for the final report to come out.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Muta, you and I have been on the same pro-Olympics side of this thread all along. This latest update plus the Macleans assessment is the first time I've started thinking it might just be too expensive for what we'll get out of it. Although I still need to understand the ~$2.5B of economic activity benefit a bit more.

Are you still solidly in the "this is a good idea camp" after the latest update? If so, why? ...you think the infrastructure is worth that price? ...you think the economic activity numbers are genuine and tangible? ...you just want tha partay? ...etc

Honestly, I'm probably supportive for selfish reasons. I love sports, I love the Olympics (not necessarily the IOC), and I believe there isn't a better opportunity to massively upgrade our outdated facilities (including transportation infrastructure) at once than doing it in this manner. I am a big fan of development and seeing the potential for our great city take its place on the world stage once again. Sometimes that costs money, but I think for the long-term. I see this as a long-term economic, social, health and wellness benefit. I don't think the price tag is outrageous, either, versus other hosting cities and what they've spent. We can learn from their mistakes during the process and avoid them where possible.

The price tag is definitely a concern to me, like it is to everybody... but I do believe there's so many other benefits to doing this than just looking at the numbers. These upgraded facilities will benefit Calgarians and Albertans for future generations to come for sports, athletic, leisure, recreation and social purposes. I do completely understand I'm in the minority on this though.

[NiklasSundblad]

Originally Posted by Muta

Honestly, I'm probably supportive for selfish reasons. I love sports, I love the Olympics (not necessarily the IOC), and I believe there isn't a better opportunity to massively upgrade our outdated facilities (including transportation infrastructure) at once than doing it in this manner. I am a big fan of development and seeing the potential for our great city take its place on the world stage once again. Sometimes that costs money, but I think for the long-term. I see this as a long-term economic, social, health and wellness benefit. I don't think the price tag is outrageous, either, versus other hosting cities and what they've spent. We can learn from their mistakes during the process and avoid them where possible.

The price tag is definitely a concern to me, like it is to everybody... but I do believe there's so many other benefits to doing this than just looking at the numbers. These upgraded facilities will benefit Calgarians and Albertans for future generations to come for sports, athletic, leisure, recreation and social purposes. I do completely understand I'm in the minority on this though.

Actually, I agree almost entirely with you on this, and I have the same sentiment towards the games and the way they would shine a spotlight on Calgary. The thing is, the operating cost alone seems to be spinning out of control these days. The fact that they've already basically precluded LRT expansion for the games, and not included the cost of an arena, a fieldhouse or stadium in this amount is a huge red flag for me.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad

I am a little curious why the fieldhouse would be needed for the winter olympics.

It's a toss in since it's needed right now. So government funding from all levels would be more willing to contribute if it was for an Olympic venue.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by NiklasSundblad

I am a little curious why the fieldhouse would be needed for the winter olympics.

Pretty simple. We don't have a facility big enough to host curling that isn't already pegged for events like short track, figure skating, and overflow hockey. It's not really a toss in. It's actually needed.

[Flash Walken]

Vancouver winter olympics were a 17% cost overrun vs projections.

Interesting to note, only 2 olympics ever have had a cost overrun of less than 29%.

The last time Calgary hosted the olympics the costs were 59% higher than the original bid.

Notably, every Games, without exception, has experienced cost overruns. While
it is not unusual for observers to suggest that this is ‘obvious’, it is worth considering
this point carefully. A budget is typically established as the maximum –
or, alternatively, the expected – value to be spent on a project. However, in the
Games the budget is more like a fictitious minimum that is consistently overspent.
Further, even more than in other megaprojects, each budget is established
with a legal requirement for the host city and country government to guarantee
that they will cover the cost overruns of the Games. These data suggest that this
guarantee is akin to writing a blank cheque for a purchase, with the certainty that
the cost will be more than what has been quoted.

2. With an average cost overrun of 179 per cent in real terms, the extent of cost
overruns in the Olympic Games appear to be substantially higher than in other
types of megaprojects. In comparison, Flyvbjerg et al (2002) found average cost
overruns in major transportation projects of between 20 and 45 per cent, and
similar studies on major IT projects found average overruns of 27 per cent, both
in real terms (Budzier and Flyvbjerg, 2011). The high average overrun for the
Olympic Games, combined with the existence of extreme outliers, should be
cause for caution for anyone considering hosting the Games, and especially
small or troubled economies with little capacity to absorb escalating costs and
related debts. Even a small risk of an 800 per cent overrun on a multi-billion
dollar project should be cause for concern when a guarantee to cover cost overruns
is issued, because such overrun may have fiscal implications for decades to
come, as happened with Montreal, where it took 30 years to pay off the debt incurred
by cost overruns on the 1976 summer Games (Vigor, Mean and Tims,
2004: 18), and Athens where Olympic cost overruns and debt have exacerbated
the 2007-12 financial and economic crises, as mentioned above (Flyvbjerg,
2011).

http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4943/1/SS...382612_(2).pdf

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's a good question; I don't have the answer to this. I'm assuming LL would be totally down (and why wouldn't they be, they get exposure on a global stage), but I think the concern lies in the amount of traffic entering the national park and the environmental impact that would have. Great question though.

LL already hosts an annual event where it's part of the downhill circuit tour. So if Parks has a problem with them doing the Olympics, doesn't it kinda fall on deaf ears since the precedent has already been establish in hosting major sporting events there?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Depends how much expansion needs to happen. Would new venues have to be built? How about housing nearby? A new structure for spectators? Media infrastructure so that they can cover the games? What about the stuff like concerts that tend to accompany the games? It's a far larger undertaking than a WC downhill race, and just go ahead and try to build so much as an outhouse in BNP without having to submit a bunch of paperwork demonstrating that doing so won't harm any chipmunks.

The cost overrun vs projection is only a serious issue for me if it causes costs to significantly blow past revenues. Of course, I'd prefer an accurate budget, but the dollars and cents at the end of the day is what truly matters. Vancouver being 17% over budget is actually not that alarming to me.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The cost overrun vs projection is only a serious issue for me if it causes costs to significantly blow past revenues. Of course, I'd prefer an accurate budget, but the dollars and cents at the end of the day is what truly matters. Vancouver being 17% over budget is actually not that alarming to me.

What's your threshold for concern?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think precisely what I said - where it causes a significant shortfall at the end of the day. If you budget $1 billion and it ends up costing $10 bn, but you take in $10bn in effective revenue, the 1000% over budget isn't a huge deal to me. In Vancouver, I don't think that 17% was enough to wipe out the benefit to the city.

[GGG]

An estimate at this stage is likely a +30/-15 given the amount of information available at this stage. The question will be how much contingency has been included in the number. If it has a 15% contingency included in the budget number than it's probably a fair number to use. If contingency has not been included tacking a 15% adder is prudent.

[Tyler]

What isn't getting talk about much is Canada co-bidding for the 2026 World Cup.

Are we certain we're gonna get our 50% share from the Feds if we're also co-bidding on the biggest sporting event on the planet? Even though we're not hosting the whole thing, the cost could easily be equal.

Remember when Brazil hosted the World Cup and Olympics back to back? How'd that work out..

[GreenLantern2814]

I just want a train that goes to the airport.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Tyler

What isn't getting talk about much is Canada co-bidding for the 2026 World Cup.

Are we certain we're gonna get our 50% share from the Feds if we're also co-bidding on the biggest sporting event on the planet? Even though we're not hosting the whole thing, the cost could easily be equal.

Remember when Brazil hosted the World Cup and Olympics back to back? How'd that work out..

On a side note, I doubt Calgary hosts a World Cup game if that joint bid wins. Calgary is a non-factor. Edmonton likely gets used as a venue, though.