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

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by GGG

THe 6.4 billion did not include the transit line or the sea to sky highway upgrade. The Vanoc number is closer to 10 when including all Olympic spending.

Also for everyone bemoaning the fact that the announcement does not include transit to the airport or Banff etc:

The Vancouver bid book did not mention a Canada Line Skytrain either and it only brought up the Sea to Sky highway in the context that the federal govt had committed to making improvements.

Like the Green Line and Airport CTrain line - the Canada Line was just an nice to have, possible idea that had been floating around for a bit. But it wasn't part of the bid presentation at the time.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I think you have an expectation for how much money anyone would want to invest into a CFL stadium, which gives you a broader range of what's possible, than what's realistic. Comparing to soldier's field is comparing apples to oranges. The Bears, and the city as a whole, is willing, and most importantly, can afford to invest large sums of money into renovating the stadium. But with that said, it's does prove that it's a viable option over a new stadium as a whole. Even Lambeau Field for the Packers, they're still using the same old building, but have done upgrades to it to bring it up to more modern standards.

The CFL is not a big money league, and Calgary isn't a giant metro that has money readily available as Toronto does. So when even a city like Toronto opts for moving the team into a soccer stadium, rather than building a new stadium for them, then how is Calgary going to afford a new stadium as well, on top of spending money for a new arena? Plus money still needs to go towards the fieldhouse that's long overdue, and now it has to put lots of money down on the olympics if that goes through? There's just no financial appetite for a brand new stadium.

And even if one was to be built, chances are with the money that could be put down on it, you'll be looking at what Hamilton's got then, and practically get what McMahon Stadium is already. So if McMahon is structurally sound still, and can last a few more decades, then why not work with what's already in place? The renderings didn't show off too much, but did provides some images that truly does change the persona of the stadium. It looks a lot more modern, and fan friendly, and what you would be aiming for in building a new stadium nowadays.

Actually, i was just being a realist wrt to what renovations get you - granted having only gleaned that extent from what was read here and not through additional information.

the Chicago example was brought up simply as a result of historical value providing a basis for keeping the building.... if we limit it to looking at CFL, none of the new stadiums (winnipeg, regina, toronto, hamilton) elected to renovate existing structure, despite some economies it would provide.

at a certain point, the dollars going into renovation are better spent with a new building based on what the design team discovers on their reviews....Having worked on a number of building renovations, i've learned that the best rule to keep in mind is 'you don't know what you don't know'...until one really does a deep dive into a existing building review, its hard to determine what exactly can be done...

again, don't really have a dog in the fight, but with that price tag, i was expecting more for both McMahon and the arena

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

In the grand scheme of things how much benefit is there for "the little guy"? Impossible to accurately quantify it I would imagine.

Although there are a few things about the bid itself I don't love I'm leaning towards a yes vote because I think an Olympics would be great for poor people in and around Calgary.

should this have been green text? how is spending 5.3B plus cost overruns going to benefit poor people in and around Calgary?
the vast majority of the money is going to things only well off people can afford.

there are a heck of a lot of better ways you can help poor people with 5-8 billion dollars than spending it on an Olympics.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by New Era

Calgary established a new standard for the Olympics when they hosted in 1988. The community embraced the games and a number of new facilities provided a legacy that has paid dividends for the past 30 years.

With this bid, Calgary will again set a new standard for an Olympic bid, just for different reasons. The recycling of old venues are really not going to look good on the world stage. Where the venues and the design/engineering are part of the spectacle, this has potential to be a tragically bad idea. When the city should be trying to project that it is still a vibrant flourishing modern jewel, they'll be projecting that they don't have the capacity to build new and rely on buildings from the 1960s and 1980s. Edmonton gets a metric tonne of #### around here for living in the past, but this bid is just that. This is an attempt to make a trip down memory lane on the biggest stage in the world. Everyone break out those 30 year old Sun Ice jackets! In 2026, its 1988 all over again! This has debacle written all over it.

I was on the fence with this up until yesterday's announcement but this just about seals it for me. An embarrassing attempt by the majority of council to pass this off as a good thing for Calgary. If we're going to sign away our souls via tax dollars for decades we better at least be getting new facilities out of it - not simply smear lipstick on a pig with venues like McMahon. Are we seriously proposing to hold the opening/closing ceremonies in the same building we did in 19 freaking 88......nearly 40 years later? I don't really care what other cities have done with their bids either, but to have no mention of any other improvements to our LRT transit or roadways is inexcusable. This entire thing is starting to smell like nothing more than a tragically flawed legacy project for Nenshi the further it is pushed through.

I really hope the masses actually consider how bad this could look on the global stage before voting but that's asking a lot these days.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by New Era

Calgary established a new standard for the Olympics when they hosted in 1988. The community embraced the games and a number of new facilities provided a legacy that has paid dividends for the past 30 years.

With this bid, Calgary will again set a new standard for an Olympic bid, just for different reasons. The recycling of old venues are really not going to look good on the world stage. Where the venues and the design/engineering are part of the spectacle, this has potential to be a tragically bad idea. When the city should be trying to project that it is still a vibrant flourishing modern jewel, they'll be projecting that they don't have the capacity to build new and rely on buildings from the 1960s and 1980s.

The entire purpose of the LA 2028 bid consisted of recycling many old venues.
It's what the IOC is moving towards.
Vancouver used old stadiums and arenas that were refurbished and looked great.

[Joborule]

What's so bad about recycling old venues that still get used today, and can be for the future? They'll need money put into them to ensure they can continued to be used in the future. McMahon and Olympic Oval are great examples of them. And COP/Winsport would get investment that'll keep it thriving in the long term. The perk of the Olympics is that it's a easy way to gather funding for all these at once, rather than trying to fight for each one individual over a long period of time.

[craigwd]

Plus our fitness enthusiasts, young competitors and high performance athletes finally get our Multisport Fieldhouse.
Yes, we can all say that "it's already been planned and budgeted for" and would have been built anyways - but I've been hearing the same argument for 15 years. It's all well and good to say that it's a priority for the city but actions speak louder.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Vancouver used old stadiums and arenas that were refurbished and looked great.

Vancouver Olympics - 2010


Legacy sites used



Rogers Arena - Built in 1995.
Pacific Coliseum - Built in 1968.

BC Place - Built in 1981, renovated in 2009 at a cost of $150M.


New Sites


Richmond Olympic Oval
UBC Thunderbird Arena
Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Center (Hillcrest Arena)
Whistler Olympic Park
Whistler Sliding Center


For comparison sake.


Calgary Olympics 2026


Legacy Sites


Rogers Arena (1995) vs. Olympic Saddledome - Built in 1981. Renovated in 1994.

Pacific Coliseum (1968) vs. nothing in Calgary.

BC Place (1981/2009) vs. McMahon Stadium - Built in 1960



So we'll be using a hockey arena built 45 years earlier. We'll be using a dilapidated football stadium built 65 years earlier.


And lets not compare Calgary's facilities to Los Angeles'. The LA Coliseum, just using one example, has been renovated a number of times to keep it up to date and usable, including a $300M upgrade in 2009. The two are just not even in the same ball park.

[DiracSpike]

Wouldn't a better use of the conservatively pegged 1B+ City contributions be to use a portion of that to partner with CSEC on a new stadium and arena? That way we get a new arena and stadium, desperately needed buildings for sports people actually like and watch, instead of nebulous upgrades to fringe sports people care about for two weeks at a time.

Also, if we're giving corporate welfare to someone I'd rather it be CSEC. You can chirp them but it's undeniable they give at least half a fack about the city as opposed to the elite European sporting agency that gives precisely zero facks.

[Ducay]

McMahon is a dump, but beyond the renovations proposed, there is no demand or need to spend real money on a replacement. Current space is far more than enough for the existing demand for CFL.

[Manhattanboy]

How and why are people supposed to "read between the lines"?

Only way I vote in favour is if CSEC come out in support of the bid.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

How and why are people supposed to "read between the lines"?

Only way I vote in favour is if CSEC come out in support of the bid.

Because they clearly have the best interests of the citizenry in mind.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because they clearly have the best interests of the citizenry in mind.

Just like how Nenshi has the best interests of Calgarians in mind when he repeatedly trashes the premier of Ontario.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Just like how Nenshi has the best interests of Calgarians in mind when he repeatedly trashes the premier of Ontario.

But his emails?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Wouldn't a better use of the conservatively pegged 1B+ City contributions be to use a portion of that to partner with CSEC on a new stadium and arena? That way we get a new arena and stadium, desperately needed buildings for sports people actually like and watch, instead of nebulous upgrades to fringe sports people care about for two weeks at a time.

Also, if we're giving corporate welfare to someone I'd rather it be CSEC. You can chirp them but it's undeniable they give at least half a fack about the city as opposed to the elite European sporting agency that gives precisely zero facks.

This.

[marsplasticeraser]

I have a question about the Saddledome and a smaller reno.

Why aren't the city/flames simply looking at building two large, multi-level concourses on either side of the arena? They could locate copious washrooms and food services there (and move the cars and other junk from the main concourse there).

Thinking to other arenas, what the flames use for food/drink/washrooms is usually seems to be allocated mainly for people movement, with all services farther out.

This smaller project would keep a building that is still structurally sound and greatly improve the main issue for us as fans: that it's hard to get some food, a drink or a pee. I'm sure this would cost significantly less, and also generate additional sales for whoever operates it.

You could further fund this by allowing a hotel to build above one or both of these extensions.

As a fan, the rest of the saddledome reno doesn't really help me, it just increases ticket prices (which are already too high for a family) and generates more money for an already profitable team.

The main downside of solving only the concourse issue is it doesn't address the issue of mega music acts coming to Calgary. But as a taxpayer, I question whether it is worth $350 million to get to hear Despacito live?

Maybe somebody can explain what I'm missing.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by craigwd

Also for everyone bemoaning the fact that the announcement does not include transit to the airport or Banff etc:

The Vancouver bid book did not mention a Canada Line Skytrain either and it only brought up the Sea to Sky highway in the context that the federal govt had committed to making improvements.

Like the Green Line and Airport CTrain line - the Canada Line was just an nice to have, possible idea that had been floating around for a bit. But it wasn't part of the bid presentation at the time.

True but I don't think VCR had a plebiscite. The Committee risks a massive NO vote by excluding things that people want as part of a bid.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Vancouver did have a plebiscite, and it passed with something like 65%. But 2003 is ages ago and the general public view of the IOC is far more negative now after multiple scandals and the public having a better grasp of just how corrupt they are as an organization. Every recent plebiscite that potential host cities have had, from the US to Europe, has failed. So Calgary would be bucking the trend if they approved.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Vancouver did have a plebiscite, and it passed with something like 65%. But 2003 is ages ago and the general public view of the IOC is far more negative now after multiple scandals and the public having a better grasp of just how corrupt they are as an organization. Every recent plebiscite that potential host cities have had, from the US to Europe, has failed. So Calgary would be bucking the trend if they approved.

And hockey! Vancouver in 2003 pretty much knew that the NHLers were going plus Canada had just won gold in 2002 adding to the euphoria.

We don't even know if the NHLers are going to play in 2026.

[TheKurgan]

I am a big NO at this point. I just don't see the benefit the City gets out of this bid.

On the positive side, I like the new Field House, the city desperately needs one. But everything else seems like lipstick on a pig (reno for McMahon Stadium, Saddledome), not really necessary (upgrades to Olympic Oval, Canmore Nordic Centre, Nakiska Ski Resort, and WinSport), or just plain stupid (6,000 seat hockey arena up by the University)? What is the use of that going to be after the Olympics, Hitman/Roughneck games? Who would pay for the upkeep of that building when it is empty 90% of the time?

There is also some talk of holding events like Curling in Edmonton and Ski Jumping in Whistler, are these cities chipping in on the cost? How would security cost be lower than Vancouver it you hosting events all over Western Canada?

The whole bid just seems half-assed to me.