[News] Updated cost for Calgary to host the 2026 Olympic to be $5.23 billion.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Muta

The Nordic Centre and Oval needs upgrades to be able to host world cups and other professional events. The standards from the governing bodies in biathlon and speed skating, respectively, have new requirements since 1988. The IBU has told the CNC they won't hold anymore world cups there unless they upgrade their facilities. The Olympic events would be held there, yes, but there's long term benefit to upgrading those facilities, far past the Olympics.

The Olympics would be an engine to help get these projects done' once completed, these modernized facilities, through their hosting capabilities, would benefit local economies through business, tourism, etc. Locals communities would also benefit from a health / quality of life standard, by being able to use these facilities as well.

The sports industry is another avenue to diversify Calgary and southern's Alberta's economy. It doesn't just have to be sustainable energy or tech, for example.

It's also great for youth in the City to have these kind of facilities to grow up with. Growing up in Canmore, we would use the Nordic Centre as past of our gym class in school. Many kids joined the extra curricular clubs and those clubs have produced some of the worlds best athletes. It's healthy to have and maintain world class amateur sport facilities.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Not so well. Worldwide box office of $46 million.

Kind of hard to do much damage on opening weekend when Deadpool was dominating the box office

That said, the film earned double the cost of production ($23 million), and it's hard to measure how valuable it would have been for home release given that it was available on Netflix (although I'm sure 20th Century Fox made its royalties).

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

In the USA sure, but that is obvious as they probably don't even know what Whistler is.

99% of people I've talked to about skiing/snowboarding/Cross Country/hiking from around the world know about Banff and Calgary and view it as a mecca of snow/outdoor sports. Bucket list type stuff. It's not uncommon at all.

I'm not saying Banff isn't recognized for those things. Talk to people who aren't mountains sports enthusiasts, however. Calgary might be known for the Olympics, simply through a legacy standpoint.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

No, it's not. The bid committee had its own unique challenges for size, scope, number of events, infrastructure upgrades, and IOC demands.

The same situation applies with the 2026 bid, even if the amount of dollars involved and the priorities have shifted.

It's not invoking "emotional bait" unless you're talking about making the sell based on feelie touchies which you seem to think is happening. There is far more to it than that.

This is a chance to building new, upgrade, and take advantage of facilities that have served 30 years to the Calgary public and, with another Olympics in tow, can continue to serve Calgarians for another 30 years with the right level of investment from multiple parties.

The 1988 Olympics will always be inextricably tied to this 2026 bid, but is that a bad thing since those games were considered a success? It would be far more of a fallacy to try and sell the Greece or Brazil games as "success", which this isn't.

Look, there's no point to going back and forth anymore. The question that never gets answered by Olympic supporters that basically proves it's not worth it, in any way, is the following:

"If the benefits of hosting the Olympics were as plentiful as it's supporters think, why are fewer cities bidding? Why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid?"

Because you know it's not worth it, I know it's not worth it, we all know it's not worth it. But the party is pretty sweet (albeit not affordable for the vast majority of the city). The big disgrace in all of this is doing infrastructure improvements for the benefit of citizens is not a good enough reason. Hoping to lure the corrupt IOC? Let's light that money on fire ASAP. Just disgusting, and I'd like to hope even Olympic supporters can acknowledge that.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

No, it's not. The bid committee had its own unique challenges for size, scope, number of events, infrastructure upgrades, and IOC demands.

The same situation applies with the 2026 bid, even if the amount of dollars involved and the priorities have shifted.

It's not invoking "emotional bait" unless you're talking about making the sell based on feelie touchies which you seem to think is happening. There is far more to it than that.

This is a chance to building new, upgrade, and take advantage of facilities that have served 30 years to the Calgary public and, with another Olympics in tow, can continue to serve Calgarians for another 30 years with the right level of investment from multiple parties.

The 1988 Olympics will always be inextricably tied to this 2026 bid, but is that a bad thing since those games were considered a success? It would be far more of a fallacy to try and sell the Greece or Brazil games as "success", which this isn't.

I would be totally onboard with this if we were going to see fast tracked transit (green line, airport line), a new NHL arena, football stadium and improved roadways and parks etc. None of this has been covered and doesn't look to be happening unless something drastic happen in the coming days. Most of these legacy buildings will be renovated, maintained or re-built on their own merit whether there is another Olympics here or not.

What is the benefit to the taxpayer who is going to be bent over for the next 25 years covering the cost of this two week party other than temporarily delaying the demolition of the Saddledome and McMahon? In my opinion farming portions of it out to Edmonton and re-using many old buildings the way it has been proposed is going to look really cheesy and downright stupid when the price tag comes in as not nearly cheap enough to justify compared to going all new and hosting everything here imo.

[Muta]

The massive amount of infrastructure development, with funding from all levels of government, is reason enough for me to support the games. I don't think the draft plan is perfect by any means... but that's why it's a draft. I would anticipate an arena deal, and possibly a stadium too, is done quicker if an Olympic bid goes ahead. I would anticipate a commitment on an Airport LRT connection gets announced at a later date as well. That, to me, is important.

The Olympics, despite people's opinions of them, are an engine to get this stuff built. Yes, this stuff costs money, but without an event like this, those facilities might not get built or considered for another 15-50 years.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Look, there's no point to going back and forth anymore. The question that never gets answered by Olympic supporters that basically proves it's not worth it, in any way, is the following:

"If the benefits of hosting the Olympics were as plentiful as it's supporters think, why are fewer cities bidding? Why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid?"

Because you know it's not worth it, I know it's not worth it, we all know it's not worth it. But the party is pretty sweet (albeit not affordable for the vast majority of the city). The big disgrace in all of this is doing infrastructure improvements for the benefit of citizens is not a good enough reason. Hoping to lure the corrupt IOC? Let's light that money on fire ASAP. Just disgusting, and I'd like to hope even Olympic supporters can acknowledge that.

I think it's worth it. I don't see it as this massive burden unduly levied on Calgarians, Albertans or Canadians, we have multiple levels of government willing to provide funding for needed community infrastructure (including a likely NHL arena arrangement), and we have the potential to attract long-term investment and tourism dollars in the city.

I would love to take my children to these games so they have the opportunity to not only see a world-class event, but be able to use the facilities for their own interests in sports and athletics.

I am also happy to continue building a legacy as one of Canada's premier athletic destinations for sport. I want to be part of that.

For those reasons alone, it is worth it for me. Not everyone sees the world in the same color as you do is treating this as a NIMBY apocalypse scenario.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think it's worth it. I don't see it as this massive burden unduly levied on Calgarians, Albertans or Canadians, we have multiple levels of government willing to provide funding for needed community infrastructure (including a likely NHL arena arrangement), and we have the potential to attract long-term investment and tourism dollars in the city.

I would love to take my children to these games so they have the opportunity to not only see a world-class event, but be able to use the facilities for their own interests in sports and athletics.

I am also happy to continue building a legacy as one of Canada's premier athletic destinations for sport. I want to be part of that.

For those reasons alone, it is worth it for me. Not everyone sees the world in the same color as you do is treating this as a NIMBY apocalypse scenario.

I haven’t seen a single person who is against this who wasn’t against the entire thing for any city. It’s more “Not in anyone’s yard” than anything. If your going to insist on tossing around names instead of just continuing the important discussion being had then you should at least be reading the counter point.

The counter point (for the most part) is that the Olympics are expensive and most cities that have hosted have significant debts and useless facilities. How is this a NIMBY approach to the argument???

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I haven’t seen a single person who is against this who wasn’t against the entire thing for any city. It’s more “Not in anyone’s yard” than anything. If your going to insist on tossing around names instead of just continuing the important discussion being had then you should at least be reading the counter point.

The counter point (for the most part) is that the Olympics are expensive and most cities that have hosted have significant debts and useless facilities. How is this a NIMBY approach to the argument???

The context of this debate - and this entire thread - is related to Calgary bidding for the 2026 games.

This isn't about the Olympics as a concept in general.

This is as much about NIMBY-ism as it is about blind support. You don't want Olympics in Calgary because you don't see the value. I see it opposite, because I do see it providing value, and I want it in my backyard.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

"If the benefits of hosting the Olympics were as plentiful as it's supporters think, why are fewer cities bidding? Why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid?"

Fewer cities aren't bidding. In fact they may actually be increasing. The Calgary 88 Games had 2 other bids. Since then, the average number of non-winning bids per game has been 5.1 (including Beijing), including non-candidate applicant cities. Salt Lake City, Vancouver, Turin and Sochi both produced 6-9 applicant cities. Pyeongchang only had 3 total bids, but Beijing 20222 had 6. Hell, the 2026 games has had seven cities in the dialogue stage, and well north of that previously expressing interest.

Prior to Calgary '88, the average number of bid cities across all previous Winter Games was 4.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

"If the benefits of hosting the Olympics were as plentiful as it's supporters think, why are fewer cities bidding? Why aren't cities tripping over themselves to bid?"

I would argue that the Games have wide support and interest and the proposals outline a lot of benefits regarding the legacy of sport and culture.

Then immediately afterwards we see the extremely loud and vocal opposition trot out the arguments about "not my tax dollars" or the supposed endless "IOC scandals" which frightens the populace to either force and vote down a plebisite or convince the local governments to either back away or get voted out.

As someone who's been following bids for the past 20 years it seems to always be the same story, no matter how the situations change for the better.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by craigwd

the supposed endless "IOC scandals"

Sochi was supposed?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think it's worth it. I don't see it as this massive burden unduly levied on Calgarians, Albertans or Canadians, we have multiple levels of government willing to provide funding for needed community infrastructure (including a likely NHL arena arrangement), and we have the potential to attract long-term investment and tourism dollars in the city.

I would love to take my children to these games so they have the opportunity to not only see a world-class event, but be able to use the facilities for their own interests in sports and athletics.

I am also happy to continue building a legacy as one of Canada's premier athletic destinations for sport. I want to be part of that.

For those reasons alone, it is worth it for me. Not everyone sees the world in the same color as you do is treating this as a NIMBY apocalypse scenario.

so the feds spending 2B on a Calgary games so your kids get cool stuff isn't a burden? the province doesn't have anything better to do with the money? it's a complete waste of money that can be better spent elsewhere.

it's nice you want tons of free stuff for your family and your city.
so you're right in that it's worth it for YOU.

also you say the Olympics have the potential to attract long-term investment and tourism dollars in the city. you can say that about anything.
the NDP being elected has the potential to attract long-term investment and tourism dollars in the city.
I don't think anyone's able to prove that this happens. just mere lip service to further one's justification for spending the money.

[Flamenspiel]

nm

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Muta

The massive amount of infrastructure development, with funding from all levels of government, is reason enough for me to support the games. I don't think the draft plan is perfect by any means... but that's why it's a draft. I would anticipate an arena deal, and possibly a stadium too, is done quicker if an Olympic bid goes ahead. I would anticipate a commitment on an Airport LRT connection gets announced at a later date as well. That, to me, is important.

The Olympics, despite people's opinions of them, are an engine to get this stuff built. Yes, this stuff costs money, but without an event like this, those facilities might not get built or considered for another 15-50 years.

What infrastructure development? No new arena, no stadium, no transit, no roads, nothing.

A new fieldhouse and unnecessary 6000 seat arena is not "massive infrastructure"

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

What infrastructure development? No new arena, no stadium, no transit, no roads, nothing.

A new fieldhouse and unnecessary 6000 seat arena is not "massive infrastructure"

New arena would likely included with CSEC involvement as it's the best vehicle to get funding at multiple levels for it.

Then, you have upgrades / new facilities for the following:

MacMahon Stadium, Olympic Oval, BMO Centre, Big 4 Centre, Saddledome, WinSport Sliding Track, WinSport Ski Hill, Nakiska, Canmore Nordic Centre, Curling Centre, and a new fieldhouse complex and community arena. Then you have affordable housing projects, subsidized seniors housing, indigenous peoples housing, student housing, and the conversion of the Athlete's Village to permanent units (thought to be in the Rivers District if I recall correctly).

That doesn't include Whistler Olympic Park because we don't care about BC in this context.

[Johnny Makarov]

I just want the olympics so i can make a million dollars selling crappy pins.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

New arena would likely included with CSEC involvement as it's the best vehicle to get funding at multiple levels for it.

Then, you have upgrades / new facilities for the following:

MacMahon Stadium, Olympic Oval, BMO Centre, Big 4 Centre, Saddledome, WinSport Sliding Track, WinSport Ski Hill, Nakiska, Canmore Nordic Centre, Curling Centre, and a new fieldhouse complex and community arena. Then you have affordable housing projects, subsidized seniors housing, indigenous peoples housing, student housing, and the conversion of the Athlete's Village to permanent units (thought to be in the Rivers District if I recall correctly).

That doesn't include Whistler Olympic Park because we don't care about BC in this context.

There is no proposal for a new arena now. Until there is you can't include it in your calculus because it's imaginary.

Just again, when people think "massive infrastructure" they think roads, public transport, major projects. Not piecemeal upgrades to half century old buildings that already exist and some affordable housing. On top of all of that, the city could build all of those things and then some for a fraction of the 1B Olympic contribution.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

There is no proposal for a new arena now. Until there is you can't include it in your calculus because it's imaginary.

Just again, when people think "massive infrastructure" they think roads, public transport, major projects. Not piecemeal upgrades to half century old buildings that already exist and some affordable housing. On top of all of that, the city could build all of those things and then some for a fraction of the 1B Olympic contribution.

But the problem is they won't without the federal and provincial funding, which as history has shown, does not often come our way absent something like this.

I feel without the Olympics, we do not get any infrastructure funds from provincial or federal government, or at least nowhere near as much.
Perhaps in a perfect world we get the same amount and can allocate it elsewhere, but I do not believe or see that happening, thus for me, while I am 100% in favour of the Olympics as an event in and of itself, I feel the opportunity to receive provincial and federal funds which I don't believe would otherwise come our way is a large benefit.

I also do believe this can speed up and / or assist the negotiation on a new event centre, as I read Nenshi's comment towards the mid-sized event centre being not a legacy as perhaps those funds could then be contributed to a new, large event centre, and make up the difference between CSEC and the City. I know some are saying that is not in the bid, and it is not, but there is lots of room for movement and amendment within the bid.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

the city could build all of those things and then some for a fraction of the 1B Olympic contribution.

That's quite the bold statement if not conjecture - care to back it up with financials?