2026 Olympics- Calgary votes no- 56%

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Bunk

For me it comes down to basically this: Is this something in March 2026 we're likely to regret? Or in March 2036? Although there are some risks, I just think we will not regret it. It'll be phenomenal for our city in many ways.

This is what helped me come to my decision as well. Even if the original cost projections for whatever reason don't pan out as predicted now, and the city has to put in more coin for the overruns (which should be at a reasonable amount. Nothing like BILLIONS is gonna happen here), I foresee the city coming out of this better than it does without it once the games as over.

We get funding for stuff that will have to be done anyway, rather than us having to find ways to pay for them mostly by ourselves - like the fieldhouse. This is a deal that saves the city money in the long run, and it's not too much upfront costs in the short term.

[GaiJin]

Yay Olympic games, but can't get good enough snow removal to get out of my own community to get to the venues.
Come budget time, if Nenshi starts talking about budget shortfalls, he should hand in his parking pass and GTFO.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by getbak

The Vancouver games had a 13% cost overrun. As far as I can tell, their budget didn't include any contingencies for cost overruns.

The Calgary 2026 bid plan includes 25% of contingencies. If the Vancouver budget had included similar contingencies, it would have come in 9.5% under budget.

Yup...and should it go forward (which i do believe will happen) I hope they are bang on with their predictions, though I question some of them.


And there is just this flat out fact....

We find the following averages and medians for cost overrun in real terms:
 All Games: average cost overrun is 156 percent (median 90 percent).
 Summer Games: average cost overrun is 176 percent (median 83 percent).
 Winter Games: average cost overrun is 142 percent (median 118 percent).

https://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/6195/1/2016-20.pdf

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

The Vancouver games had a 13% cost overrun. As far as I can tell, their budget didn't include any contingencies for cost overruns.

The Calgary 2026 bid plan includes 25% of contingencies. If the Vancouver budget had included similar contingencies, it would have come in 9.5% under budget.

Is that the budget that Hostco was given or the budget at the time of plebiscite. Is that the Opex or Capex or both?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Yay Olympic games, but can't get good enough snow removal to get out of my own community to get to the venues.
Come budget time, if Nenshi starts talking about budget shortfalls, he should hand in his parking pass and GTFO.

Put some winter tires on your car. Snow removal is adequate for our weather conditions.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yup...and should it go forward (which i do believe will happen) I hope they are bang on with their predictions, though I question some of them.


And there is just this flat out fact....



https://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/6195/1/2016-20.pdf

Maybe take a look at some of the numbers skewing those averages...

Originally Posted by transplant99

You have no idea how large cost over runs can go, so that statement is false.

It could be nothing and it could be massive...both are equally possible.

Have you not seen some of them with past Olympics?

Sure I do, and based on the cost of the games currently and the projected work they could go 100% over and it still would be neither paralyzing nor a massive tax burden. And it won’t go 100% over.

So yeah, I suppose if you mean “real risk” as in, a risk that exists no matter how insignificant. If you mean a risk that we should actually consider, then no, it’s not real. It will be neither paralzying, nor massive, period.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe take a look at some of the numbers skewing those averages...

You mean like Calgary 88?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

You mean like Calgary 88?

... no?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

... no?

OK...so lets hear which ones are OK to go by and which ones are not.

Or should we just ignore researched papers dealing specifically with the issue being discussed altogether, because it doesn't line up with a certain narrative?

[Fire]

Vote Yes! This city needs something to look forward too.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

OK...so lets hear which ones are OK to go by and which ones are not.

Or should we just ignore researched papers dealing specifically with the issue being discussed altogether, because it doesn't line up with a certain narrative?

I’m not saying ignore the researched paper, I’m saying read the paper and look at the data! Do the work!

Instead of just going “hey cool, an average, don’t need to read the rest!” look at the actual overruns, see what numbers contribute to it, look at the difference between the last two decades and the decades before that.

Do the work and read the paper.

[transplant99]

LOL...so in other words, no real answer.

I read that thing start to finish some time ago though thanks. Have you?

Quite the condescending remarks though, but no one is surprised by that.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Anyone get the Nenshi robocall tonight? Echoing what Locke said earlier, but I've really never seen quite as intense a push for an electoral issue quite like the push from the Yes side in the last week.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Anyone get the Nenshi robocall tonight? Echoing what Locke said earlier, but I've really never seen quite as intense a push for an electoral issue quite like the push from the Yes side in the last week.

A lot of people and businesses stand to make a lot of money off a successful bid so it’s not too surprising.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I expected a push, I guess just not to be this intense. I certainly hope it won't be this bad come April, but I guess we'll see.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I expected a push, I guess just not to be this intense. I certainly hope it won't be this bad come April, but I guess we'll see.

There has definitely been a push for this, beyond the normal realms. So it seems. For now, i haven't changed my mind, unless something dramatic happens, it'll be a no from my vote. Was trying to keep an open mind however I'm still not convinced enough to say yes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

LOL...so in other words, no real answer.

I read that thing start to finish some time ago though thanks. Have you?

Quite the condescending remarks though, but no one is surprised by that.

Then you should know that some facts have more significance in a discussion than others, and would’ve known exactly what I was talking about referencing which cities skew the numbers. Trotting out the overall average doesn’t really provide anything.

I’m not even sure what the point was in mentioning Calgary, their overrun was in line (but on the lower end) of the middle. Why would that be a number that skewed results?

Also, no, there’s no “real answer” as to which cities to go by and which not to because the point wasn’t to ignore cities, it’s to actually look at the numbers and the cities instead of “HERE’S THE AVERAGE.”

[T-Dog]

I haven't read through all 31 pages of this thread, so apologies if it's been discussed elsewhere - I'm wondering what the likelihood is that the money earmarked for "upgrades" to the Saddledome and McMahon Stadium could be used towards hammering out a deal with the Flames to build new? Really seems like a waste to spend money upgrading facilities that could potentially been torn down in a few years. Would hosting the Olympics be a catalyst to actually build a new stadium and arena? If we had some sense that this would be the case, I'd be more inclined to get on board with an Olympic bid.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by T-Dog

I haven't read through all 31 pages of this thread, so apologies if it's been discussed elsewhere - I'm wondering what the likelihood is that the money earmarked for "upgrades" to the Saddledome and McMahon Stadium could be used towards hammering out a deal with the Flames to build new? Really seems like a waste to spend money upgrading facilities that could potentially been torn down in a few years. Would hosting the Olympics be a catalyst to actually build a new stadium and arena? If we had some sense that this would be the case, I'd be more inclined to get onboard with an Olympic bid.

McMahon - No
New Arena - maybe

[Locke]

I'll be voting tomorrow on my way home from work but I am still very much undecided.