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

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Cappy

why is it slanted? because his assessment disagrees with yours?

Is it not obvious from the headline: Calgary’s bad 2026 bid?

It's an opinion piece, not an informational article.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

My favourite thing about Olympic discussions is people putting words/policies in the IOC's mouth without any actual source.

If airport LRT is only a spur line (requiring change trains at Saddletowne) then it's totally pointless IMO. I suppose ridership numbers would tell the story between future stop(s) beyond Saddletowne vs. airport, but if a train change is involved, then it would only shave a few minutes off the current 40-50 min bus ride...and it's hardly any different than the current bus shuttle to Saddletowne.

I'd rather just add an express bus service from airport to City Hall station. Use the money to add HOV lanes for the entire north half of Deerfoot (should be relatively straightforward compared to all of the bridges in the south.

It's called the BRT. It already exists.

And the IOC has asked for infrastructure upgrades in the past. They may not have demanded it yet from Calgary, but going by precedent, it likely will be.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

My favourite thing about Olympic discussions is people putting words/policies in the IOC's mouth without any actual source.

If airport LRT is only a spur line (requiring change trains at Saddletowne) then it's totally pointless IMO. I suppose ridership numbers would tell the story between future stop(s) beyond Saddletowne vs. airport, but if a train change is involved, then it would only shave a few minutes off the current 40-50 min bus ride...and it's hardly any different than the current bus shuttle to Saddletowne.

I'd rather just add an express bus service from airport to City Hall station. Use the money to add HOV lanes for the entire north half of Deerfoot (should be relatively straightforward compared to all of the bridges in the south.

The Airport will likely be served from the north central portion of the Green Line.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Is it not obvious from the headline: Calgary’s bad 2026 bid?

It's an opinion piece, not an informational article.

Well no $^$# it's an opinion piece. What does it change from the overall argument in the article:

These are the reported costs, there are few infrastructure adds.

I know you want the olympics at all costs, but im sure you understand the other non-emotional side.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Well no $^$# it's an opinion piece. What does it change from the overall argument in the article:

These are the reported costs, there are few infrastructure adds.

I know you want the olympics at all costs, but im sure you understand the other non-emotional side.

You seemed to be having difficultly understanding why the article is slanted, so I spelled it out for you. Again, I'd encourage you to read the report rather than rely on an article based on what was gleaned from council.

I also don't want the Olympics at all costs, you must have me confused with someone else.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

It's called the BRT. It already exists.

And the IOC has asked for infrastructure upgrades in the past. They may not have demanded it yet from Calgary, but going by precedent, it likely will be.

Doesn't the B"R"T go the entire length of centre street? Not terribly rapid. I'm suggesting a dedicated bus back and forth on the deerfoot; no other stops.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Zarley

You seemed to be having difficultly understanding why the article is slanted, so I spelled it out for you. Again, I'd encourage you to read the report rather than rely on an article based on what was gleaned from council.

I also don't want the Olympics at all costs, you must have me confused with someone else.

All the information from the article was based on the Olympic Exploratory Committee's interim report on the olympics presented to Council.

You actually didn't spell it out. You said it was an opinion piece, not an informational article.

If anything it sums up the information provided to council and provides an opinion on that.

The only person who has actually responded to why it is an opinio piece is GGG:

It's slanted by the way he just brushes off the plan for the athletes village, focuses on the pieces of infrastructure that are not included and the realistic economic spending numbers which are undefined as to whether it only includes the two weeks of the games or the run up and post games. So the definitely presents its stance and cherry picks data to advance an agenda.

So it is slanted, and we really need to see the full report, however even acknowledging the bias in the article the bid package does not look to promising.

I have issues with his statements and whether or not they would appear slanted to one side (for instance, focusing on the pieces of infrastructure into included isn't a slant if that was the general expectation many of us have on what the Olympics would do for the city)

You're argument is the title is slanted - which is fine, but usually writers don't make the title.

In terms of the slant in general, of course the article is talking about all the issues with funding, cost, benefits etc. but why does that mean it should be ignored outright? because you disagree with the premise.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Doesn't the B"R"T go the entire length of centre street? Not terribly rapid. I'm suggesting a dedicated bus back and forth on the deerfoot; no other stops.

The Route 300 bus (BRT) goes from the Airport direct to Downtown and back. Direct. Get your $8 ticket at a local Macs.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The Route 300 bus (BRT) goes from the Airport direct to Downtown and back. Direct. Get your $8 ticket at a local Macs.

Must not be very clear on the website, because I looked recently and could not find a direct option. Google Maps is also unaware of it...

Where is the downtown stop?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Must not be very clear on the website, because I looked recently and could not find a direct option. Google Maps is also unaware of it...

Where is the downtown stop?

Pretty sure it's at the old Imperial Oil building, or at least it used to be.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Cappy

All the information from the article was based on the Olympic Exploratory Committee's interim report on the olympics presented to Council.

You actually didn't spell it out. You said it was an opinion piece, not an informational article.

If anything it sums up the information provided to council and provides an opinion on that.

The only person who has actually responded to why it is an opinio piece is GGG:



I have issues with his statements and whether or not they would appear slanted to one side (for instance, focusing on the pieces of infrastructure into included isn't a slant if that was the general expectation many of us have on what the Olympics would do for the city)

You're argument is the title is slanted - which is fine, but usually writers don't make the title.

In terms of the slant in general, of course the article is talking about all the issues with funding, cost, benefits etc. but why does that mean it should be ignored outright? because you disagree with the premise.

By definition, opinion pieces are slanted to sway the reader to agree with the opinion of the writer. It's extremely self explanatory, even for someone with poor reading comprehension such as yourself.

You'd be a fool to base your opinion on what is a biased summary of a report that will be hundreds of pages in length.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Zarley

By definition, opinion pieces are slanted to sway the reader to agree with the opinion of the writer. It's extremely self explanatory, even for someone with poor reading comprehension such as yourself.

You'd be a fool to base your opinion on what is a biased summary of a report that will be hundreds of pages in length.

just because it's an opinion piece doesn't mean you cannot take stock in the opinion, especially if its reasonable (which his is) It's not outright lies. To immediately disregard analysis because there is an opinion in the analysis is BS. You haven't argued any issue with the article's thesis outside of calling it an opinion. What's wrong with his analysis of the summary presented to council? or did you read it at all?

when the report comes out, i want a detailed analysis of the entire report by you. then you can come back to me and we can compare notes because you seem to be basing your opinion on the entire report. But no, we will agree with your opinion that the Olympics will increase tourism to banff among chinese viewers based on your historical data

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Cappy

just because it's an opinion piece doesn't mean you cannot take stock in the opinion, especially if its reasonable (which his is) It's not outright lies.

when the report comes out, i want a detailed analysis of the entire report by you. then you can come back to me and we can compare notes because you seem to be basing your opinion on the entire report. But no, we will agree with your opinion that the Olympics will increase tourism to banff among chinese viewers based on your historical data

Stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say the article was based on lies. It's simply a based on information cherrypicked from the presentation to support a narrative (for example, why is only the Corral used as an example when it's one of several potential sites being evaluated?). It's financially ignorant of the fact that many of the capital costs are sunk in that they will be required to ensure our venues from '88 remain at a competitive standard, and of the fact that these venues bring international competitions and training to our city year after year.

Also, the research paper he cited to justify the denial of a bump in tourism does not support that view and only mentions Calgary in passing once. In fact, the cited report counters his argument, stating: "Data were collected annually from 1986 through 1989 in some 20 centers in the United States and Europe. The results indicate that, in this particular case, the event dramatically increased levels of awareness and substantially modified the image of the city of Calgary."

I'd by happy to provide you with a detailed analysis. Given your history (where you only post about this topic and the arena with obstinate ignorance) I doubt you'd understand much of it or even read it, but perhaps it will be beneficial for the other posters here.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say the article was based on lies. It's simply a based on information cherrypicked from the presentation to support a narrative (for example, why is only the Corral used as an example when it's one of several potential sites being evaluated?). It's financially ignorant of the fact that many of the capital costs are sunk in that they will be required to ensure our venues from '88 remain at a competitive standard, and of the fact that these venues bring international competitions and training to our city year after year.

Also, the research paper he cited to justify the denial of a bump in tourism does not support that view and only mentions Calgary in passing once. In fact, the cited report counters his argument, stating: "Data were collected annually from 1986 through 1989 in some 20 centers in the United States and Europe. The results indicate that, in this particular case, the event dramatically increased levels of awareness and substantially modified the image of the city of Calgary."

I'd by happy to provide you with a detailed analysis. Given your history (where you only post about this topic and the arena with obstinate ignorance) I doubt you'd understand much of it or even read it, but perhaps it will be beneficial for the other posters here.

If you are going to quote the abstract, you should include the full quote:

The results indicate that, in this particular case, the event dramatically increased levels of awareness and substantially modified the image of the city of Calgary. However, there is also strong evidence that cities considering the staging of such a mega-event must anticipate a significant rate of awareness and image decay, and take steps to counter it, if they wish to remain visible and competitive in the international marketplace.

Pretty much in line with what Markusoff said.

I don't think attacking me personally on my opinions on either the arena or the olympics to be in good taste. I don't think my views are out of line with the majority of the people in both threads (and take a look in the mirror with respect to your obstinateness comment), but hey! question my reading comprehension and intelligence! That always works on the internet!

[Moneyhands23]

Darren Malard seems out of sorts.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Cappy

If you are going to quote the abstract, you should include the full quote:



Pretty much in line with what Markusoff said.

Wrong again. The cited paper is from 1991 and makes no conclusion regarding the impacts of tourism after the 1988 games. There actually hasn't been a study evaluating the impact of the Calgary Olympics on tourism.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Wrong again. The cited paper is from 1991 and makes no conclusion regarding the impacts of tourism after the 1988 games. There actually hasn't been a study evaluating the impact of the Calgary Olympics on tourism.

No but it talks about the relative bump and then decay of tourism experienced elsewhere where lies the problem enunciated in Markusoff's column.

Now, I can't actually access the full report, so if you can that would be awesome. I'm not trying to discount the value of tourism dollars in Calgary/Banff, i just think Markusoff's article, and this abstract, present an argument that should be considered.

Essentially it is potentially folly to rely on a two week bump in tourism and the assorted benefits to continue into the future. I don't understand how that assertion is wrong.

Atleast you didnt attack my intelligence though, so you are getting less dickish .

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Cappy

No but it talks about the relative bump and then decay of tourism experienced elsewhere where lies the problem enunciated in Markusoff's column.

Now, I can't actually access the full report, so if you can that would be awesome. I'm not trying to discount the value of tourism dollars in Calgary/Banff, i just think Markusoff's article, and this abstract, present an argument that should be considered.

Essentially it is potentially folly to rely on a two week bump in tourism and the assorted benefits to continue into the future. I don't understand how that assertion is wrong.

Atleast you didnt attack my intelligence though, so you are getting less dickish .

Here's what Markusoff said:

Calgary did benefit temporarily from its turn on the world stage during the Winter Games three decades ago, but 1988’s tourism bump didn’t last—which is often the case when the Games come to town, one Olympics economic benefits study noted last year.

Here's the journal article he cited for that quote. As I mentioned before, this study does not even examine Calgary other than a line in passing that mentions the Ritchie and Smith study, which does not even evaluate tourism levels. It's simply a study of name recognition of Calgary in foreign markets. Logically, how could a study completed from 1986-1989 assess the post-event impact of the games on tourism? Again, there has never been an academic study of the impact of the 1988 Olympics on tourism levels. From the conclusion of the 1991 study:

There is little doubt that the hosting of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games had a dramatic impact on levels of awareness and knowledge of the city of Calgary in Europe and the United States when compared to other Canadian cities. However, it also appears that this impact on levels of top-of mind awareness decreases measurably after a short period of time. Conversely, total recall (unaided plus prompted) appears to remain relatively constant one year after the event.

For certain well known cities (such as Los Angeles) there may in fact be very little increase in awareness or change in image due to the high degree of exposure it enjoys on a regular basis. For those cities which do experience a marked increase in awareness (such as Calgary), it is not immediately obvious that this will translate into increased visitation levels, tourism receipts, and/or other forms of economic development. While tourism does appear to have increased significantly following the 1988 Winter Games, an ongoing, rigorous test of this hypothesis needs to be made as figures come in over the next several years.

Markusoff either didn't do his research fully on this point or he's deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the study. There's absolutely zero evidence supporting his claim that "1988’s tourism bump didn’t last."

[RatherDashing]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The Route 300 bus (BRT) goes from the Airport direct to Downtown and back. Direct. Get your $8 ticket at a local Macs.

The 300 runs down Centre Street and has a bunch of stops along the route, although quite a bit fewer than a regular line would have. It's also $10 now.

https://www.calgarytransit.com/sched...service-routes

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Here's what Markusoff said:

Here's the journal article he cited for that quote. As I mentioned before, this study does not even examine Calgary other than a line in passing that mentions the Ritchie and Smith study, which does not even evaluate tourism levels. It's simply a study of name recognition of Calgary in foreign markets. Logically, how could a study completed from 1986-1989 assess the post-event impact of the games on tourism? Again, there has never been an academic study of the impact of the 1988 Olympics on tourism levels. From the conclusion of the 1991 study:



Markusoff either didn't do his research fully on this point or he's deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the study. There's absolutely zero evidence supporting his claim that "1988’s tourism bump didn’t last."

I certainly understand where you are coming from. You are saying that there hasn't been a study of about the tourism effects of the olympics in Calgary. Which is fair, I will give you that. It dimishes Markusoff's statement.

Again, I cannot read the Reilly & Smith article so i cannot comment on the actual study or any of its assumptions.

Im assuming Baade and Matheson are inferring that a decrease in international awareness is tied to a decrease in international tourism. There seems to be support for the inference that you cannot count on an continued increase in tourism after the olympics -especially if major infrastructure upgrade aren't made.