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

[Tyler]

Hey, remember when this thread was about Calgary getting the Olympics?

[polak]

Well hey, Nakiska is dinky and it sucks!

Where would we hold the Alpine events? Louise or is that too far.

[powderjunkie]

True - my rink-a-dink comment is more around the fact that many of their smaller resorts are likely groomers only (which is appealing in Europe, but close to my idea of frozen hell). Of course, their small hills are going to be bigger and with natural snow, but for me, the experience wouldn't be that much better than Rabbit Hill or Drumheller or Powderkeg.

I may be totally mistaken though. And I'd still enjoy a lame day of groomer skiing more than just about anything else. Austria sounds awesome.

[Flames0910]

It's hard to compare because we have ski cultures that have developed so differently.

Europeans resorts tend to feature on-piste skiing (groomers). Whitehorn at Louise, most of the stuff worth skiing at Kicking Horse or Revy, and huge sections of Whistler would all be out-of-bounds and uncontrolled at a European resort. On the other hand, they don't frown on ducking the fence and those who do are prepared with appropriate avy gear.

Resort size, lifts + apres ski options go to Europe.
Terrain quality & in-bounds run difficulty both go to Canada.
Powder's probably a split (but the snow lasts for days in their off-piste areas).
Quantity of resorts goes to Europe (way more developed).
All-around skier skill goes to Canada (no groups of 12 yr olds ripping up the entire mountain over there)

Also, it seemed to me that Europeans look at the Rockies the same way that we look at the Alps (i.e. bucket list). We're very lucky to have such great skiing in our backyard, and accessible without having to take a weeklong vacation.

TLDR:
Europe has huge ski resorts, but the terrain is predominantly groomed runs.
Canada has less ski resorts, which are smaller than in Europe — but much better off-piste skiing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

True - my rink-a-dink comment is more around the fact that many of their smaller resorts are likely groomers only (which is appealing in Europe, but close to my idea of frozen hell). Of course, their small hills are going to be bigger and with natural snow, but for me, the experience wouldn't be that much better than Rabbit Hill or Drumheller or Powderkeg.

I may be totally mistaken though. And I'd still enjoy a lame day of groomer skiing more than just about anything else. Austria sounds awesome.

I think you have touched upon something that very helpfully explains exactly what sparked this comparison in the first place. That is that the type of skiing promoted by so many of the mountains in Austria is precisely of the sort featured in FIS competition.

[RW99]

I would be all on board for an Olympics bid, infrastructure, costs, the mayhem around Calgary, etc. all included. But I can't get past the shadiness of the IOC. There are the brib.. err incentives from the bidding process, to the winning city paying quite a bit to host IOC members and their families during the games, everything paid for, tickets to all events, etc. One of their senior members was arrested the other day in his bath robe for scalping high value tickets. I'd rather we not spend any money on them

[Bandwagon In Flames]

I skied at a resort in Norway a few years back. Closest comparable would be COP...

There's a damn good reason they are all into cross country skiing instead of downhill.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

It's hard to compare because we have ski cultures that have developed so differently.

Europeans resorts tend to feature on-piste skiing (groomers). Whitehorn at Louise, most of the stuff worth skiing at Kicking Horse or Revy, and huge sections of Whistler would all be out-of-bounds and uncontrolled at a European resort. On the other hand, they don't frown on ducking the fence and those who do are prepared with appropriate avy gear.

Resort size, lifts + apres ski options go to Europe.
Terrain quality & in-bounds run difficulty both go to Canada.
Powder's probably a split (but the snow lasts for days in their off-piste areas).
Quantity of resorts goes to Europe (way more developed).
All-around skier skill goes to Canada (no groups of 12 yr olds ripping up the entire mountain over there)

Also, it seemed to me that Europeans look at the Rockies the same way that we look at the Alps (i.e. bucket list). We're very lucky to have such great skiing in our backyard, and accessible without having to take a weeklong vacation.

TLDR:
Europe has huge ski resorts, but the terrain is predominantly groomed runs.
Canada has less ski resorts, which are smaller than in Europe — but much better off-piste skiing.

I can second this. I spent a year living in the alps trying many of the resorts in Switzerland and Austria (I can't comment on Italian or French Alp resorts but my understanding is they are similar) and Skiing there is very much a social activity so the resorts while huge dedicate their resources to the groomers. Which was fine by me because there was always fresh powder that lasted to the end of the day.

That said the difficulty of their terrain does not even get close to what we see here in Western Canada. There is a reason that our skier's got the nicknames of the Crazy Canucks. What we consider a blue run can easily be classified as a black diamond or more difficult over there.

Not saying that this is a bad thing by any means, I had one hell of a time riding over there, its just different. Also they dont like glades nearly as much, probably has to do with the whole dangerous aspect of it.

[Yanda]

If the city isnt going to support Calgary Next then I dont see any reason to support an Olympic bid.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Yanda

If the city isnt going to support Calgary Next then I dont see any reason to support an Olympic bid.

The Olympics are an event that will bring the world to Calgary and will showcase our city. Calgary Next is a private venue for a for-profit corporation which won't have much benefit to the people of Calgary. The Olympics could generate millions in revenue to all sorts of industries in Calgary and area not to mention the future venues for junior athletes.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Olympics are an event that will bring the world to Calgary and will showcase our city. Calgary Next is a private venue for a for-profit corporation which won't have much benefit to the people of Calgary. The Olympics could generate millions in revenue to all sorts of industries in Calgary and area not to mention the future venues for junior athletes.

LOL okay. I get that some hate the idea of tax money going to millionaires but to say CalgaryNEXT wouldn't have much benefit to the people of Calgary is totally ignorant. I have a tin foil hat autographed by Rod Pedersen for you sport.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Yanda

If the city isnt going to support Calgary Next then I dont see any reason to support an Olympic bid.

An Olympic bid is the best chance to get the funding for CalgaryNext (or something better) to be built.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

LOL okay. I get that some hate the idea of tax money going to millionaires but to say CalgaryNEXT wouldn't have much benefit to the people of Calgary is totally ignorant. I have a tin foil hat autographed by Rod Pedersen for you sport.

The clean up and development of WV and the associated infrastructure upgrades will have an overall positive impact but CalgaryNext itself won't provide much benefit.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The clean up and development of WV and the associated infrastructure upgrades will have an overall positive impact but CalgaryNext itself won't provide much benefit.

Okay talk to the hand.

[Yanda]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

CalgaryNext itself won't provide much benefit.

Thats a pretty arrogant point of view. It would have major impacts on a number of things such as amateur sports, youth sports, track and field, factility quality, entertainment, concerts, culture...

McMahon stadium is a complete dump, and the Saddledome isnt much better.. the next generation would benefit greatly from the project as well as create jobs to help stimulate the economy.

The project's cost wouldnt be lost money, it would also pay the wages of many out of work construction workers and help people from losing there homes.

We shouldnt need to goto vancouver to see concerts because our venues are ####.. im proud to be from this city, and we should have everything we need at our fingertips. Not stuck with a flooded building with a gimmicky roof, were plebs, not a bunch of hicks.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Thats a pretty arrogant point of view. It would have major impacts on a number of things such as amateur sports, youth sports, track and field, factility quality

I would prefer the city build/fund a standalone, purpose build fieldhouse instead of funding some repurposed football stadium. I'm concerned that fieldhouse as proposed by CalgaryNext will have limitations, shortcomings and barriers that will negatively impact amateur athletes.

[jayswin]

^^^^^

Umm, I believe you were told to talk to the hand.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I would prefer the city build/fund a standalone, purpose build fieldhouse instead of funding some repurposed football stadium. I'm concerned that fieldhouse as proposed by CalgaryNext will have limitations, shortcomings and barriers that will negatively impact amateur athletes.

There is a very big difference between "negatively" and "less positively".

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I know people love the idea of hosting an olympics, I do in a lot of ways, but am I the only one who thinks it should only be pursued if the IOC gets really desperate?

I don't want the city/province/feds to have to pumps hundreds of millions into this for infrastructure and security etc without getting a sweet deal from the IOC.

I get that there is some trade off with exposure and money spent but I would want the terms to be very favorable for it to make sense.

[Table 5]

I don't even mind if money is pumped into infrastructure or security, because those are realistic costs of hosting any big event like this. What I do mind is money being pumped into the pockets of corrupt IOC officials or private interests.