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

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, I wasn't. Follow the conversation. FireGilbert made what I thought was a pretty silly claim and I challenged it. You then tried to move the goalposts.

As for your claim that FireGilbert's claim is likely true, based on your claim that Vancouver didn't receive an increase in tourism, that is also very weak logic. There could be all kinds of reasons for what actually transpired.

Lots of people making emotionally charged claims in this thread. Rational discourse has been fighting an uphill battle from the get go.

How about any evidence of tourism improvements from any Olympics

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

There's been many profitable Olympic games in recent times as well. Calgary and area specifically would have less risk because our facilities are already in place as well. There's no need for money to be spent on arena exploration as well because plans already exist with the Calgary Next Project. This city is already well set up to host another Olympics and if there's any city who could do it "cheaply," it's us.

https://www.google.ca/amp/thechive.c...20-photos/amp/

I'm, sorry, you're seriously using that list as a source? Did you look at that list?

It's listing that Sochi made a profit. The games that cost 51.9 billion, you actually believe that those games made a profit?

You know, I've never told this to anyone, but I wasn't actually born in Finland, and there's actually some thing I could really use some help with, PM me for the details. I can't really talk about it, but I promise there's something in it for you too. As a hint, my family used to be royalty in Africa.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, 1988 is 1988. It's not even worth comparing anymore, it's so exceptionally different. There are twice as many events, and twice as many athletes. You're acting like we just hosted a few years ago. The "world class facilities" in place is a bit of red herring, as you are assuming there will be zero cost going into improving those facilities, which isn't remotely true. Upgrades are better than new, sure, but that isn't free and could still end up being a significant cost. The tourism angle is pretty much a bunch of crap, Calgary is not and will never be a destination city. Banff and the Icefields Parkway is why most people come to Alberta, and that's not going to change or increase because of the Olympics. It's a desperate argument really, not one I'd wanna be using as a key argument to wanting to host.

As far as "another city in Canada" who is more prepared to host, I'm kinda thinking the feds should not support any Olympic bids until we see just how much health care is going to take a hit now that the boomers are starting to retire. That's sort of a massive problem on the horizon, one the feds should be deeply focused on, much more than fluff like hosting the Olympics, a 100% vanity event. If the prospective host city and province wants to increase taxes on their citizens with the aim of hosting, go for it. Of course supporting that is a political death sentence, so highly unlikely to happen. I'd love a ballot measure, would you support that? Something tells me given the likelihood it fails, you probably don't.

As to Trump, you missed the point. He doesn't have to be in office to have made North America significantly more susceptible to terrorism. 9/11 sent up Vancouver's security costs, even though it happened nine years before the event. Big terrorism events have lasting impacts. Calgary wouldn't want to global infamy of having a terrorist attack happening at an Olympics it hosts. That would probably crush tourism. End of the day, the Olympics offers far too much risk, for a very small potential of a big reward. Echoing what others have said, we need the infrastructure anyway, no need to whore ourselves out to the IOC to get them. We should just get them because we need them. Getting those without hosting the Olympics would be the greatest legacy of all.

The biggest point I was actually trying to make was that I believe Calgary has the most potential for making a PROFIT from hosting an Olympics as we have a lot of the infrastructure and facilities in place already to lessen the financial burden compared to previous hosts. Of course we'll need to spend money on upgrades and new facilities. But, It's not a guaranteed financial black hole as you're painting it out to be. It's an investment that has a lot of great benefits behind it. The creation of jobs, the economic impact locally, the marketing exposure, the additional federal and provincial funding, the civic pride and legacy of hosting another Olympics.

In terms of timing, the city is going to have a hard time finding funding for things like a new arena, airport lrt, neighborhood revitalization and etc. Personally, I think it would be nice to receive the federal and provincial funding to help fast track the construction of these projects that we will eventually need anyway. It'd also be a great benefit to upgrade all of our current or future facilities to world class standards so that we can attract even more athletes to train and live here permanently.

As for the whole Trump/terrorism issue. It certainly is one, but if everyone was to just avoid setting up big events because of the possibility of terrorism we might as just fold up the Olympics entirely, or fold up the Calgary Stampede while we're at it or never build skyscrapers out of fear. It's a reality to be dealt with, but the inherent costs of security today does not mean you can't turn a profit. There's certainly a lot of pros and a lot of cons both ways, but I'm in favor of hosting the Olympics regardless as I feel the pros ultimately outweighs the cons and the unique legacy it can create is unparalleled.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, you said a multi-year ad campaign would be more effective. And you tried to suggest not many people watch the Olympics.

Feel free to illustrate an ad campaign that would get in front of as many people.

As other posters have said there is a negligible tourism impact from the Olympics so I am arguing pretty much any other tourism ad campaign would have a greater impact.

Now for your comments that the Olympics reaches more viewers than any other ad campaign would, let's have a think about that. According to NBC they averaged 24 million US viewers in prime time during the Vancouver games. Comparing this with other shows on US television it is not much higher than Sunday Night Football and The Big Bang Theory which average close to 20 million viewers per episode. Based on this it is pretty easy to figure out a multi year ad campaign of 30 seconds spots during prime time programming would reach far more viewers than an Olympics ever would. Or how about this, just spend some money on one 30 second Super Bowl ad. Then you would be reaching over 100 million viewers!

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Itse

I'm, sorry, you're seriously using that list as a source? Did you look at that list?

It's listing that Sochi made a profit. The games that cost 51.9 billion, you actually believe that those games made a profit?

You know, I've never told this to anyone, but I wasn't actually born in Finland, and there's actually some thing I could really use some help with, PM me for the details. I can't really talk about it, but I promise there's something in it for you too. As a hint, my family used to be royalty in Africa.

Listen, it's not the perfect list and there's no chance it's 100% accurate. But the point that I was trying to make is that the Olympics can be PROFITABLE.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

How about any evidence of tourism improvements from any Olympics

Are you claiming that the Olympics never generate tourism for the host city/country?

Brazil says hi

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you claiming that the Olympics never generate tourism for the host city/country?

Brazil says hi

Post games tourism halo is a myth from anything I've read. If you have info for the post games tourism halo being true I'd be interested in reading about it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

Post games tourism halo is a myth from anything I've read. If you have info for the post games tourism halo being true I'd be interested in reading about it.

Brazil saw an increase of 157,000 tourists vs the prior year during the summer, and over 300,000 for all of 2016.

First two things on a google search:

https://skift.com/2016/08/24/brazil-...-games-in-rio/

www.voanews.com/a/brazil-olympic-games-boost-record-tourist-numbers/3663838.html

[GGG]

http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_p...ed_wp_1097.pdf

Here's a great analysis of the Vancouver games. I think it values some of the benefits to highly and it states such in its conclusion but it considers infrastructures costs and benefits very fairly.

It's a good read

Net loss of the games is 110 million. So in the end hosting the oloics go Vancouver some infrastructure it needed at an inflated cost.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Brazil saw an increase of 157,000 tourists vs the prior year during the summer, and over 300,000 for all of 2016.

First two things on a google search:

https://skift.com/2016/08/24/brazil-...-games-in-rio/

www.voanews.com/a/brazil-olympic-games-boost-record-tourist-numbers/3663838.html

Part of that is due to the visa waiver for visitors from the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia that was implemented specifically for the Games.

I wonder if just eliminating a visa tax would do on its own.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

I wonder if just eliminating a visa tax would do on its own.

I guess people see what they want to see.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Listen, it's not the perfect list and there's no chance it's 100% accurate. But the point that I was trying to make is that the Olympics can be PROFITABLE.

This may have been true at one point in time, but it's just not anymore. If it were there would still be five or six bids when the IOC holds it's vote, but the last three summer games have seen bid totals going from four to three to two. The winter games haven't had more than three in 20 years. They used to regularly get five bids for both. There's a very, very low chance of profitability, with a high risk of disaster. Cities have figured it out, and better still people have. The only conceivable way it can be profitable is to have it as a rotation as Bunk suggests, and even that's no guarantee. Lots of issues coming up for governments to consider, far more important ones than the Olympics. Gambling in the hopes absolutely everything goes right isn't worth it.

[Gaudfather]

The IOC is probably only second to FIFA in terms of its corruption. Time for more host cities to either dictate their terms or tell the IOC to take a walk.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I guess people see what they want to see.

I'm seriously wondering, also wondering if this is World Cup induced tourism or Olympic tourism and the value of said tourism on the economy. And if the value of the tourism outweighs the loss of general tourism during the games. Probably another 2 to 3 years before we can see the affect of Brazil's games on tourism.

[J79]

First of all, I didn't go through all pages so I'm not sure if it's been discussed already, but what do you guys think of the Olympic Oval?
How many years has it left in it?
After 30 years it's still the fastest track in the world.
Currently the World Sprint Championships take place in Calgary and the times are really fast. Lot's of PR's and NR's. It wouldn't surprise me if there is at least 1 WR broken today.

I know speedskating isn't very popular in Canada and I dont know if the oval had any (major) upgrades over the years, but man that track is still so fast!
Over the years I saw a decline in international competition at the Oval. I can't think of any other reason then that there might be some deferred maintenance at the building. (??)

And to be honest, when I was in Calgary in 2013 and visited the Oval, it almost felt like I was at a small, local track. It would be such a shame is they shut it down.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm seriously wondering, also wondering if this is World Cup induced tourism or Olympic tourism and the value of said tourism on the economy. And if the value of the tourism outweighs the loss of general tourism during the games. Probably another 2 to 3 years before we can see the affect of Brazil's games on tourism.

Difficult to get reliable numbers, and most people reporting on these things have an agenda one way or the other.

Is there cannibalization? Very likely.

But it's important to also remember that the amount spent per person per day is substantially higher than for normal tourist flows.

Anyone suggesting that hosting a major worldwide event would have a negative tourism impact, is simply pumping an agenda.

[powderjunkie]

I don't think very many proponents of hosting are suggesting we bid on 'recent IOC terms'. Any bid should be made with a 'take it or leave it' approach. I would go so far as to negotiate some sort of 'out clause' - if the IOC tries to pull their usual BS, we cut our losses, keep our new (albeit probably overpriced) infrastructure, and skip the $1B security bill. Of course, that is fairly idealistic, but we could work in that direction.

As for facility upgrades, most are nearing the point of needing facelifts as it is. Evaluating/prioritizing will be a nice benefit of the exploratory committee, regardless of the bid outcome.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

You make a lot of good points that I don't have an issue with although I wouldn't call hosting the Olympics and investment, more of a very risky gamble. My problem is your surprise that many posters are against a bid and calling it a no brainier. It is not at all a surprise some people would rather have a hospital than a ski jump and whether or not to host should be a very difficult full brained decision.

All investments are gambles. We are guaranteed to get certain benefits (infrastructure) out of it. Is it exactly what we would want/when we want if the Olympics weren't in question? Probably not in all cases. Would some of these things happen at all (in near-mid future) without some impetus? Probably not in all cases.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It is foolish to think that somehow Calgary's 88 infrastructure is in any way satisfactory or enticing to attracting a new bid.

If Calgary bids on the Olympics it will be inclusive of massive renovations to each existing proposed venue.

Calgary is going.to have to.do extensive.renovations on each existing venue which will likely cost more than a from scratch build.

Most venues are due for upgrades.

Not sure how the wikipedia thing you quoted was supposed to support any of your arguments? We won't (shouldn't) be renovating McMahon. Pretty sure rebuilding BC Place would have been a lot more expensive than renovation. In what situation would a new build be cheaper than renovation?

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

If the idea is to increase tourism wouldn't Calgary be better off spending money on a multi year international ad campaign as opposed to the Olympics, a two week advertising blitz only watched in a handful of winter sporting nations?

Tourism advertising is more art than science, and anyone claiming to have conclusive data is FOS. It is worth noting that almost all winter sporting nations are affluent, developed countries. The value per eyeball is going to be more beneficial than a Brazilian living in a slum that might tune into a World Cup game, etc. I won't claim that the investment is 'worth it', but I think it's a bit asinine to totally discount it.

[polak]

I think its a bit ridiculous to say that if it doesn't turn a profit, its a failure. If it gets us infrastructure upgrades, facility renovations and increased tourism but turns a small loss while giving many struggling Calgary small businesses so much needed help and employs real Canadians in the preparation, but loses 100 million like Vancouver, I wouldn't call that a failure. 100 million across all levels of government isn't that crazy.

[Hack&Lube]

Many people forget a lot of the infrastructure projects for the '88 games actually started in 1980/1981 when the city won the bid. Then you had a furious amount of planning and upgrades across the city - even the C-Train had the Olympics as one of the major catalysts to actually build much of it and cement decisions and funding to do it right away.

They key is to not have a bunch of abandoned Chernobyl type Olympic venues like we've seen in Rio and Sochi, etc. but to have new facilities and infrastructure you can turn around to re-use or have funding to upgrade city transportation and services in light of an event like this. The Vancouver Olympic village condos are super nice! The area is really awesome and the homes that they were turned into are really neat.

http://vancouverolympicvillagecondos.com/