New Olympic Bid for Calgary?

[Joborule]

There's so many things we could get funded that we need government/money support for. Green Line to North Pointe, connection with airport, Airport to Banff rail, McMahon upgrades, as well renovation/upgrades to Olympic Oval/U of C's Kines complex, Winsport, investment into Nakiska and Canmore recreation areas.

If they're aiming for 2034 (or maybe even 2030?), lots of the grunt from the 2026 bid exploration probably provides an advantage no? We already know what we need, and what the rough costs for it should be. Now it's the case of getting more of a solidified estimate, and buy in from the public and all levels of government.

Calgary is so well position to run the Winter Olympic again. There's still infrastructure from the 88 Olympics that can be used for these games, and provide much needed renewal to them. It will help in accelerating funding for infrastructure that's already trying to get funding anyway. It was a good idea I feel back for the 2026 games, and my mind hasn't changed for it.

Let's go for it.

[timun]

Someone else much earlier in this thread put it best (too lazy to look for the particular post): pro-olympics partisans will spin the financials to make it look like a great idea, and anti-olympics skeptics will spin the financials to make it look like a disastrously bad idea. The truth is somewhere in between.






That said, if I'm honest, I think the truth is much closer to "disastrously bad idea"... One man's $1.562B of "Legacy Investments" is another man's "long-term liabilities".

[getbak]

I'd think 2034 is the earliest possible at this point.

The IOC is set to award 2030 next summer. It looks like SLC, Vancouver, and Sapporo are the interested cities, but as we saw with 2026, who knows who will actually make it to the finish line.

It sounds like support isn't strong in Vancouver, but if they got 2030, that would likely push Calgary out of the picture for at least 3 or 4 games.


2038 might be a better option than 2034 since it would be the 50th anniversary of 88.

[chemgear]

I'm not against hosting the Olympics. But the bid corporation budgeting was a hilarious gongshow of incompetence, half lies and full lies. At the end of the day I had no faith in their claims and their "work" led to the negative vote.

I'll be up for coming back to the city after retirement to run up the bill on this "free party" in 2034(?) Hopefully they'll do a proper job presenting the realistic costs to the tax payers that go around.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by timun

Someone else much earlier in this thread put it best (too lazy to look for the particular post): pro-olympics partisans will spin the financials to make it look like a great idea, and anti-olympics skeptics will spin the financials to make it look like a disastrously bad idea. The truth is somewhere in between.

Well, considering that literally EVERY single Olympics since 1960 have gone over budget, most of them significantly so without a single one coming at or under budget . . .

[you&me]

Originally Posted by getbak

I'd think 2034 is the earliest possible at this point.

The IOC is set to award 2030 next summer. It looks like SLC, Vancouver, and Sapporo are the interested cities, but as we saw with 2026, who knows who will actually make it to the finish line.

It sounds like support isn't strong in Vancouver, but if they got 2030, that would likely push Calgary out of the picture for at least 3 or 4 games.


2038 might be a better option than 2034 since it would be the 50th anniversary of 88.

I would imagine that the further out it gets pushed, the more capital intensive the bid becomes. The facilities at Winsport may be salvageable now, but do they have another 16 years in them to get to 2038 / the 50th anniversary?

As noted before, there are few limited options when it comes to adequate hosts for the winter games. Maybe there's some merit to the idea of having a handful of host cities that rotate duties?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Well, considering that literally EVERY single Olympics since 1960 have gone over budget, most of them significantly so without a single one coming at or under budget . . .

Wasn't Calgary 88 on budget?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wasn't Calgary 88 on budget?

65% overrun apparently

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Okay, let's agree and say we toss out all the other data points and just use Calgary in 1988 at 65%. (Which I would suggest is conservative given inflation these days and the wild insanity of how the bid budgeting hand waving when questions were bring raised in the waning days before the vote).

So call it an extra $3+ billion as an overrun.

Again, I'd say that we would be eating that. Not the federal government and we agree the private sectors are going to be helping. And going back to reading the news at the time, the IOC explicitly said they would not be helping on any overruns either.

If that’s the case then I don’t want it. My condition is net benefit to Calgarians exceeds net cost. I don’t give a flying **** about an Edmontonian’s share of Alberta’s contribution, nor a Torontonian’s share of the Fed’s contribution.

[activeStick]

I've heard before that the Calgary Winter Olympics was one of the few that came out in the black after all was said and done. Is that accurate?

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I've heard before that the Calgary Winter Olympics was one of the few that came out in the black after all was said and done. Is that accurate?

Only because they lucked out on broadcast revenues.

[chemgear]

Huh, this discussion lead me to reading up on Montreal 1976. I guess they finally paid off their Olympic debt in 2006.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I've heard before that the Calgary Winter Olympics was one of the few that came out in the black after all was said and done. Is that accurate?

I think it was the operating costs of the Olympics were paid by the games themselves which is rare. The capital costs were paid by various layers of government and left infrastructure.

I think that’s how it worked. That’s really the best case outcome. Mostly useable infrastructure

Here is Tombes breakdown.
https://calgary.citynews.ca/2016/08/...-a-profit/amp/

That’s the best the Olympics ever did.

[browna]

I still think that the smarter thing logistically is for a city to host two Olympics back to back.

Of course loses the romanticism of jetting off to far away lands every 4 years, but for host cities, hosting two Games in a row means the facilities, the infrastructure, security protocols, in addition to that city's planning and budget, can better be utilized and justified.

The 4 years between those games would make that city a training ground for athletes as well, at the venues where two Olympics will be held.

In addition, some serious investment can be taken by the city and province and country becuase they are essentially hosting the world twice, so costs around tourism budgets and creation of businesses within the city can be more justified because that investment isn't for 10 days, it's for 20, and again also encompasses the 4 years in between as well.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If it’s such a good deal why isn’t everyone clamouring to host it?

Calgary has a convergence of needs here that make it more attractive for the city to host the games.

Many of the big ticket items needed for the games are already needed by Calgary. The games provide an excuse to get money from other levels of government to fund things Calgary needs that otherwise wouldn’t be available.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Calgary has a convergence of needs here that make it more attractive for the city to host the games.

Many of the big ticket items needed for the games are already needed by Calgary. The games provide an excuse to get money from other levels of government to fund things Calgary needs that otherwise wouldn’t be available.

Do you mean things that were specifically not included like a new Saddledome or any transit infrastructure? Agree that existing infrastructure made the is cheaper

[Senator Clay Davis]

So basically the article is something to the effect of...

"Private group who stands to financially benefit from hosting the Olympics, continues to hope we host them. More news at 11..."

Seeing as we've established a standard now, I'm fine with the same cycle again: Plebiscite first, and if it passes, then an actual bid. But it seems like this is much ado about nothing seeing as even the mayor has no idea what this is.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577418195589529600

Wasn't extremely poor communication one of the big downfalls of the last bid? Off to a rousing start if this is another attempt.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So basically the article is something to the effect of...

"Private group who stands to financially benefit from hosting the Olympics, continues to hope we host them. More news at 11..."

Seeing as we've established a standard now, I'm fine with the same cycle again: Plebiscite first, and if it passes, then an actual bid. But it seems like this is much ado about nothing seeing as even the mayor has no idea what this is.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1577418195589529600

Wasn't extremely poor communication one of the big downfalls of the last bid? Off to a rousing start if this is another attempt.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Wasn't extremely poor communication one of the big downfalls of the last bid? Off to a rousing start if this is another attempt.

Sure, but the idea should be judged on its merits for the city, not on the communication skills of some of the politicians

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sure, but the idea should be judged on its merits for the city, not on the communication skills of some of the politicians

Yeah, obviously not how it really works. If the politicians can't sell, the plebs ain't supporting it.