Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The sticker shock is high.

But the number needs to be broken down:

• How much revenue?
• How much provincial $?
• How much federal $? (would be nice to get more of our own tax $ back in our community)
• How much for infrastructure that would be attributed to the games, but would be needed without the games?
• How much for one time operating (security) versus long-lasting infrastructure?

That will be the most important aspect of understanding whether we should go for this or not.

Looking at Vanoc as the example

The games broke even on operating cost at 1.8 billion or so. This did not include the federal security bill of 1 billion or provincial infrastructure investment of 900 million. This total of 4ish billion did include things like the Richmond fieldhouse and the sliding center in Whistler.

It did not include the convention center upgrade, the sky train upgrade, or the sea to sky highway upgrade which were somewhere in the 3 billion range.

So if you look at the Olympics they spent 4 billion to make 2 billion to get sports specific venues in Whistler and the Richmond Field House. And promoting tourism.

Then they spent 3 billion on other needed infrastructure.

Looking at the city report what do you feel in the list that the 4.6 billion covers is needed infrastructure? To me the key infrastructures items like Transit are excluded from that estimate.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2695994
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/b...-925m-1.934931

[Clever_Iggy]

I voted no and am strong in that position. My concern is largely costs.

I would potentially change my position if the bid was conditioned on an award of hosting the olympics where the estimate submitted by the city as part of its bid was all that Calgary was bound to (estimate is $6.4B) and the IOC was required to cover any cost overruns for security, inflation, etc.

I’m sure I’m missing details but that would be the frame work and would align the IOC with a host city’s financial concerns.

Ultimately I think the olympics are a ridiculous expense and I would love to see them get to a point where no cities bid. Perhaps that would bring it back to reasonable.

[Red]

88 Olympics put Calgary on the world map.We are still benefiting from it. Tourist activity, all the facilities that were built etc.

Could 2026 put this city on track to being a world class city? Who knows, but it would definitely give this city image a huge boost.

As for cost, who cares? We will all benefit from it in one way or another. The construction projects alone would trickle down to pretty much every corner of business here so we will all get some if not all of that money back.

Biggest downside would be increased traffic jams, construction mess and noise etc.


All in all, I am all for it.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by pylon

No.

It’s a money pit, and a giant ego stroke for Nenshi.

The hypocrisy of funding a guaranteed billion dollar money loser which literally NOBODY gives a crap about a month later, and stonewalling the team that is the face of your city going on 40 years is ludicrous. (Although I’m sure narcissistic Nenshi thinks he’s the face of the city.) Especially hypocritical when the owners of said team actually contribute millions in hard cash to the community, while Mayor McTweets contribution is retweeting lost dogs, and accusing men and women 10x more successful and charitable of being greedy billionaires.

It is pretty humorous to see a lot of people staunchly against public money going towards an arena onboard with the Olympics. They're essentially the same thing, except instead of helping out billionaires from the city you're helping out an international consortium that has its headquarters in a compound in Switzerland.

What happened to all the cries about money for the homeless, or seniors?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

Looking at Vanoc as the example

The games broke even on operating cost at 1.8 billion or so. This did not include the federal security bill of 1 billion or provincial infrastructure investment of 900 million. This total of 4ish billion did include things like the Richmond fieldhouse and the sliding center in Whistler.

It did not include the convention center upgrade, the sky train upgrade, or the sea to sky highway upgrade which were somewhere in the 3 billion range.

So if you look at the Olympics they spent 4 billion to make 2 billion to get sports specific venues in Whistler and the Richmond Field House. And promoting tourism.

Then they spent 3 billion on other needed infrastructure.

Looking at the city report what do you feel in the list that the 4.6 billion covers is needed infrastructure? To me the key infrastructures items like Transit are excluded from that estimate.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.2695994
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/b...-925m-1.934931

Indeed. I want to see what that type of breakdown will be for Calgary 2026 - especially stuff like security, which supposedly is less complex in Calgary including the way they want to concentrate venues. That seems like the most obvious straight forward sunk cost.

Do Vancouverites, British Columbians and Canadians by and large regret that expenditure? Doesn't seem to be.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It is pretty humorous to see a lot of people staunchly against public money going towards an arena onboard with the Olympics. They're essentially the same thing, except instead of helping out billionaires from the city you're helping out an international consortium that has its headquarters in a compound in Switzerland.

What happened to all the cries about money for the homeless, or seniors?

I'm against the arena and I'm more supportive of an Olympic bid. I still don't think we should do the bid though. An Olympic big could inject federal and provincial cash into actual beneficial infrastructure like the LRT. We'd end up with more long term sporting facilities than we do with just the arena. There is a lot more potential benefit to a city with the Olympics.

There are reasons to support one and not the other, even if the one is a lot more money.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Do Vancouverites, British Columbians and Canadians by and large regret that expenditure? Doesn't seem to be.

Biggest complaint so far is the post-games spending on BC Place from the province at $500M.


And that the Canada Line has effectively reached capacity (which is ironic considering people complained at the time that they were significantly inflating potential ridership numbers to justify ramming the project through for the Olympics).

[Superflyer]

For me, one thing that has to be guaranteed is the NHL has to be back on board. If Edmonton is in on the bid then it can be 50\50 but that also includes 50\50 on the Team Canada games.

Lets face it, hockey is the biggest draw in the winter Olympics and if we get them I want the best players in the world. If we get the games and we do not get NHL players it is going to hard to sell most games. Also, most likely, we will not get KHL players as they will not shut down to send players over. So we will be getting players who are 3rd rate border line beer leaguers and that will not fill seats.

[corporatejay]

I flipped on this and the arena a few months ago. I'm sick of doing the right thing. I pay enough in taxes, in large part for programs I barely use.

People want to keep bitching about the 1% paying their "fair share". Well we've paid our fair share and now we want cool things.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

For me, one thing that has to be guaranteed is the NHL has to be back on board. If Edmonton is in on the bid then it can be 50\50 but that also includes 50\50 on the Team Canada games.

Lets face it, hockey is the biggest draw in the winter Olympics and if we get them I want the best players in the world. If we get the games and we do not get NHL players it is going to hard to sell most games. Also, most likely, we will not get KHL players as they will not shut down to send players over. So we will be getting players who are 3rd rate border line beer leaguers and that will not fill seats.

Considering men's hockey is one of the big money makers in the Winter Games, I'd say it's a must from purely a dollar standpoint. As a fan, it's stupid not to have NHL participation in the games.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm against the arena and I'm more supportive of an Olympic bid. I still don't think we should do the bid though. An Olympic big could inject federal and provincial cash into actual beneficial infrastructure like the LRT. We'd end up with more long term sporting facilities than we do with just the arena. There is a lot more potential benefit to a city with the Olympics.

There are reasons to support one and not the other, even if the one is a lot more money.

But just as case for public funds for a new arena is undermined by the reality that average Calgarians can't afford to attend entertainment events that increasingly cater to the wealthy, these sporting facilities will be used almost exclusively by the children of the affluent. Many winter sports today are effectively restricted to the wealthy, who can afford thousands of dollars a year for elite training starting at age nine. Is it really a great public benefit that southern Alberta would have some new ski jumps and slalom courses for a handful of the children of the affluent to train on?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I was too young to remember the 1988 Olympics, but I was around Vancouver for 2010. The infrastructure that went in in the lead-up to those games is incredibly important to the GVRD. The Canada Line was absolutely necessary, they turned the Sea to Sky into an actual highway instead of a two-lane deathtrap (that I didn't mind actually because it was fun to drive but you know, objectively), and tons of other things you don't immediately think about. For example, they put a rink near the river in Richmond for curling. That whole area now is high-density, and apartments there rival the more expensive areas in downtown Vancouver, despite being nowhere near the urban core. Those kinds of injections of development really do push a city forward in a way that doesn't go away when the games leave.

Also, the games themselves were incredibly fun. Some of the best times I've had, those two weeks. Part of that was the good weather and the success of the Canadian athletes, but I think it would have been fantastic regardless. So I'd like to experience that again.

Third, it wasn't a major boondoggle or anything. You can argue whether VANOC's math is right when they said they broke even, but at minimum, you'd have to acknowledge that they did a fairly reasonable job of being smart with their dollars and not creating a massive shortfall. So the residents ended up getting a good deal on their tax dollar because of all the infrastructure they got.

All of this is by way of saying, I'm agnostic about the idea of hosting the Olympics. Will Calgary get the same deal from the Federal and Provincial governments that Vancouver did, get the same benefit returned from a similar investment from city residents? If so, I'm for it. If it doesn't look that way when the numbers are run, then I'll be against it. But comparing it to the arena, which is never going to be a good use of public dollars no matter what the project looks like, makes no sense to me. It's at least possible to do a winter olympics right. We've seen it out on the coast. It's just a question of whether something like that is realistic in the here and now.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But just as case for public funds for a new arena is undermined by the reality that average Calgarians can't afford to attend entertainment events that increasingly cater to the wealthy, these sporting facilities will be used almost exclusively by the children of the affluent. Many winter sports today are effectively restricted to the wealthy, who can afford thousands of dollars a year for elite training starting at age nine. Is it really a great public benefit that southern Alberta would have some new ski jumps and slalom courses for a handful of the children of the affluent to train on?

I didn't say great, I said a lot more potential benefit.

Tax dollars to an arena is a straight public injection to increase asset value for the Flames owners who will thank us all by turning around and charging 25-40% more for tickets. The Olympics, if its cost reasonable (it won't be) can bring infrastructure fast tracking, which is a tangible benefit. It's not about the games itself, they're a waste, it's about what improvements to the city can be negotiated as part of the overall project and what the dollar value it comes in at.

Again, for the record, I'm against hosting. I think the cost will be way too outrageous. However, I can understand why someone would support this and not the arena, even with the cost disparity.

[Joborule]

If the costs aren't too excessive, the IOC is willing to chip in a decent amount, and it's a trigger for multiple infrastructure and sporting facilities to get built and upgraded, I say go for it and do it again.

Calgary is a major sports and recreation HUB for Canada, so we're well position to host it, and amplify our portfolio in being a sporting headquarter in the world. Plus Calgary is awesome and would be great to participate two week global event once again, and boost tourism - even if it's for a short bit.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But just as case for public funds for a new arena is undermined by the reality that average Calgarians can't afford to attend entertainment events that increasingly cater to the wealthy, these sporting facilities will be used almost exclusively by the children of the affluent. Many winter sports today are effectively restricted to the wealthy, who can afford thousands of dollars a year for elite training starting at age nine. Is it really a great public benefit that southern Alberta would have some new ski jumps and slalom courses for a handful of the children of the affluent to train on?

That's a ridiculous argument. Sure, if you want to compete at the top level you need a serious commitment, but that's not different than anything. Are you saying the general population has had no benefit from an expanded COP, the Canmore Nordic Centre(which was basically free to use for a few decades, and still is in the summer), the Oval(I've got 2 step sisters that used it for speed skating for years, and their parents are far from loaded)...you don't have to do elite training to see a big benefit in these facilities, beyond getting kids interested in sport, and being active they also have financial benefits. Canmore has played host to all manner of ski and bike races, bringing millions of dollars in. Same with the Oval.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

For me, one thing that has to be guaranteed is the NHL has to be back on board. If Edmonton is in on the bid then it can be 50\50 but that also includes 50\50 on the Team Canada games.

Lets face it, hockey is the biggest draw in the winter Olympics and if we get them I want the best players in the world. If we get the games and we do not get NHL players it is going to hard to sell most games. Also, most likely, we will not get KHL players as they will not shut down to send players over. So we will be getting players who are 3rd rate border line beer leaguers and that will not fill seats.

I'm in favour of a Calgary bid, but frankly if the idea was a split of hockey with Edmonton, I flip to 100% against it. That's the ultimate event, biggest draw and there is no way I would want to split it with Edmonton. I definitely want NHL players, but a tournament in North America would basically guarantee that I think.

[puckedoff]

I vote NO, unless we get a sequel to Cool Runnings. If there is a Cool Runnings II involved in the deal, my vote could be swayed to a YES.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But just as case for public funds for a new arena is undermined by the reality that average Calgarians can't afford to attend entertainment events that increasingly cater to the wealthy, these sporting facilities will be used almost exclusively by the children of the affluent. Many winter sports today are effectively restricted to the wealthy, who can afford thousands of dollars a year for elite training starting at age nine. Is it really a great public benefit that southern Alberta would have some new ski jumps and slalom courses for a handful of the children of the affluent to train on?

The affluent pay the most in taxes, federally, provincially and probably municipally. They likely pay more in consumption taxes as well. So if it benefits them a bit more than the average Calgarian, so be it.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

I vote NO, unless we get a sequel to Cool Runnings. If there is a Cool Runnings II involved in the deal, my vote could be swayed to a YES.

They should allow average joes to compete, just for laughs and so one can compare Olympic level efforts with random person off the street efforts.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Wormius

They should allow average joes to compete, just for laughs and so one can compare Olympic level efforts with random person off the street efforts.

Women's halfpipe had that this year.