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

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by RM14

My favorite was, "Calgary... is that close to Montreal?? I like Montreal.."

More often than not, when I say I'm from Calgary, I get a blank stare, and then have to follow up with "not too far from Vancouver".

That's the reality of things IMO.

And to be fair, the only thing getting Calgary's name out there right now is being on these "Best Standard of Living" lists that seem to be released every three months by various organizations. But then again, we're muddled right in the middle of other amazing cities so it's kind of moot.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

It would be foolhardy to think that the success of Banff/Lake Louise/Jasper isn't at least partly due to the winter sports culture Calgary fomented with the '88 Olympics.

Colorado has never hosted an Olympics and yet Vail/Aspen/Breck are all thriving.

I don't believe there's much evidence to support that the Olympics puts an area "on the map". It's the wrong reason to want to host it IMO.

[Muta]

I would say Vail, Aspen and Colorado are much more famous / well known that Calgary, Banff and Alberta are. They don't need the Olympic reputation, they already have a well-known reputation outside of that.

[Hockeyguy15]

Aspen really took off when it got hitched to Dumb and Dumber, you can't duplicate that press.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

"Reputation boost" = literal horse####. But since it's legitimately impossible to prove (or disprove in this case), that's why things like that are touted, because true economic benefits don't really exist.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Your opinion against mine then. I believe you need to advertise for these kinds of places; people don't just naturally flow to them like a Wonder of the World - which is why games like '88 Olympics, the movies that were born from it, (and the resulting reputation as a world-class winter sports facility) are so critical to their success.

To contextualize that Calgary didn't make it into pop-culture status because of Olympics and the resulting tourism and international reputation from it would be incorrect.

Looks like you guys agree that it is purely opinion rather than backed up by economic research that you get a tourist Halo.

And you don't bet Billions on opinions not backed with independent research.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Aspen really took off when it got hitched to Dumb and Dumber, you can't duplicate that press.

Calgary is forever linked to the "Jamaican Bobsled Team" - whether we wanted that or not. Same with Eddie the Eagle.

There was a professional piano competition in Calgary recently, and one of the competitors from overseas only knew about Calgary because of Cool Runnings and wanted to see the "Jamacian Bobsled" and the track. That's literally all he knew about the city.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GGG

Looks like you guys agree that it is purely opinion rather than backed up by economic research that you get a tourist Halo.

And you don't bet Billions on opinions not backed with independent research.

I don't think either of claimed to be Mary Moran or the Olympic committee who are responsible for putting the bid together with the correct research. Nor do we have to be.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't think either of claimed to be Mary Moran or the Olympic committee who are responsible for putting the bid together with the correct research. Nor do we have to be.

The Bidco is responsible for selling the games not for a fair evaluation of the benefits. They aren't incentivised to look at the report and say based on a careful evaluation the economic benefits touted are dubious so we shouldn't bid. There role is to gin up support for the games using the most favourable economic analysis possible.

They also don't have independent economic research showing the benefits they are claiming.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't think either of claimed to be Mary Moran or the Olympic committee who are responsible for putting the bid together with the correct research. Nor do we have to be.

Literally the most biased person in the process thinks the opinion that supports their bias is correct. More news at 11. But seriously, you have "hopes and dreams" to back up your claim, no actual evidence at all. Try and sell this "hopes and dreams" package to a board of directors and see how far you go. The Olympics are a purely emotional pitch, because the logic clearly does not support it.

[TheKurgan]

In general I am very pro Olympics, I watch them, enjoy them and would be happy to have them here again in Calgary. I think the investment the City made in the 88 Olympics paid off because we had NEW 'state of the art' facilities that where built (Olympic Oval, Windsport, Nakiska improvements, permanent housing, etc.). Because of those investments we now have Hockey Canada here, and a number of Olympic athletes training here. All positives we are still benefiting from today.

But with this bid I really just don't see any long term positives. Other than a field house (which has been planned forever) I don’t see any NEW infrastructure for our city. I am not counting the NEW 6,000 seat stadium in the NW because that is just a plain stupid idea. All the other planned upgrades just seem like short term band aides that kick the problem down the road and don't fix anything long term.

I would much rather see an 8 billion dollar bid that does it right (new stadiums, affordable housing in Calgary, improvements to public transit, etc.) than a 6 billion dollar bid that is a half-assed effort. And the idea of having events in Whistler and Edmonton and still having Calgary Tax payers foot the bill isn’t going to fly with me.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by RM14

Don't forget Eddie the Eagle..

I have first hand example of Calgary being remembered as an Olympic city. I worked in Connecticut for a few months. I introduced myself and mentioned I was from Clagary. One of the first comments I got was "Oh Calgary! I remember the figure skating in 1988.."

Another was "who's that team..... The Stampeders...???"

My favorite was, "Calgary... is that close to Montreal?? I like Montreal.."

I'm guessing this was not a recent experience (hardly anyone around 30 would know who Eddie the Eagle is) and you're talking about Americans who are consistently clueless with geography compared to normal worldly people from countries around the globe so it's not really a fair sample.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Literally the most biased person in the process thinks the opinion that supports their bias is correct. More news at 11. But seriously, you have "hopes and dreams" to back up your claim, no actual evidence at all. Try and sell this "hopes and dreams" package to a board of directors and see how far you go. The Olympics are a purely emotional pitch, because the logic clearly does not support it.

Not only were the 88 Games part of Calgary's growth in the 80's, but it was a volunteer-driven event that instilled pride in the local community. You can still see its legacy to this day - Olympic Plaza, Calgary Tower, Olympic Oval, Ski Jumps, etc.

Calgary also made $140 million off of those games ($263 million today).

Now all we seem to get is public vitriol about dollars and "two week parties" towards hosting a big event that we have proven to host successfully - and this time the IOC is on-board with re-purposed and upgrade facilities rather than all new venues for everything. Plus, there is a good chance we end up getting a new Flames arena out of this given the window of opportunity for multi-level government support.

I understand the risk of hosting the games, but I would argue that we appear to be in the best spot to actually host them given the circumstances.

I would hate to see the vitriol of being a host city for the World Cup 2026 if Calgary actually had a soccer stadium. God forbid we do something on the international stage other than a yearly rodeo.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Muta

I would say Vail, Aspen and Colorado are much more famous / well known that Calgary, Banff and Alberta are. They don't need the Olympic reputation, they already have a well-known reputation outside of that.

They "need" the Olympic reputation exactly the same amount IMO. Banff's reputation has little to nothing to do with the Olympics.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I'm guessing this was not a recent experience (hardly anyone around 30 would know who Eddie the Eagle is).

There was a recent movie starring Hugh Jackman and Taron Egerton about the whole thing that did fairly well.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Muta

I would say Vail, Aspen and Colorado are much more famous / well known that Calgary, Banff and Alberta are. They don't need the Olympic reputation, they already have a well-known reputation outside of that.

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.

[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.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Not only were the 88 Games part of Calgary's growth in the 80's, but it was a volunteer-driven event that instilled pride in the local community. You can still see its legacy to this day - Olympic Plaza, Calgary Tower, Olympic Oval, Ski Jumps, etc.

Calgary also made $140 million off of those games ($263 million today).

Now all we seem to get is public vitriol about dollars and "two week parties" towards hosting a big event that we have proven to host successfully - and this time the IOC is on-board with re-purposed and upgrade facilities rather than all new venues for everything. Plus, there is a good chance we end up getting a new Flames arena out of this given the window of opportunity for multi-level government support.

I understand the risk of hosting the games, but I would argue that we appear to be in the best spot to actually host them given the circumstances.

I would hate to see the vitriol of being a host city for the World Cup 2026 if Calgary actually had a soccer stadium. God forbid we do something on the international stage other than a yearly rodeo.

1988 is not a valid, relevant comparison to anything anymore. It's like comparing cell phones now with cell phones in 1988. Invoking 1988 is purely emotional bait, there are literally twice as many events and athletes now as there was then. The IOC has to be going with this new approach because there would basically be nothing but dictatorship Olympics from here on out without changing things. But we don't actually know what it's going to be like. We will be the guinea pig Olympics. Do you really want to be the guinea pig for one of the most corrupt organizations on Earth? Doesn't seem wise.

And the biggest difference, unquestionable, is security. When you remember security isn't locked in, and one major terrorist event slightly close to the games could send that cost spiraling out of control, that alone makes it not even remotely worth it. I'm not really a big fan of handing G4S and Securitas a massive welfare handout either.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Not only were the 88 Games part of Calgary's growth in the 80's, but it was a volunteer-driven event that instilled pride in the local community. You can still see its legacy to this day - Olympic Plaza, Calgary Tower, Olympic Oval, Ski Jumps, etc.

Calgary also made $140 million off of those games ($263 million today).

Now all we seem to get is public vitriol about dollars and "two week parties" towards hosting a big event that we have proven to host successfully - and this time the IOC is on-board with re-purposed and upgrade facilities rather than all new venues for everything. Plus, there is a good chance we end up getting a new Flames arena out of this given the window of opportunity for multi-level government support.

I understand the risk of hosting the games, but I would argue that we appear to be in the best spot to actually host them given the circumstances.

I would hate to see the vitriol of being a host city for the World Cup 2026 if Calgary actually had a soccer stadium. God forbid we do something on the international stage other than a yearly rodeo.

The bolded part nails it. It's kind of the same reason you host your own get together. The personal joy you experience in hosting people. Not everything in life has an economic return nor should many things be done to improve how you are perceived by others.

If Calgarians, Albertans, Canadians want to fork out the cash to get to experience this, then they should.

For me, and for this reason, the 88 Games were worth it IMO.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There was a recent movie starring Hugh Jackman and Taron Egerton about the whole thing that did fairly well.

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

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

1988 is not a valid, relevant comparison to anything anymore. It's like comparing cell phones now with cell phones in 1988. Invoking 1988 is purely emotional bait

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.