Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Muta]

An arena deal is very likely, IMO, if an Olympic bid is secured. In fact, it may expedite the process.

[DiracSpike]

Based on what? Is there a clause that Ottawa and Edmonton could chip in even more if the Flames came on board? Because that's the only possibility I can see.

[Poster]

Maybe I don’t know enough but why can’t the city build an arena for the games and then charge Flames rent?

Is it because the Flames will reject that and threaten to move?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Based on what? Is there a clause that Ottawa and Edmonton could chip in even more if the Flames came on board? Because that's the only possibility I can see.

The bid includes about 200-250 million for an arena (depending on how much fieldhouse is) and no spot to house curling. The flames originally offered a combination of 275 million in the form of ticket taxes and cash to build an arena required a 225 million CRL and were missing about 50 million in other costs.

So if you squint a bit and assume the flames are still in for 275 and the city comments about not knowing what to do with a 5k arena are true and that in the First Olympic study they planned to use the field house for curling and you can see that for somewhere im the 50milliom neighbourhood you could upgrade to a flames arena. The agreement in principle will be announce a week or two out before the plebiscite to gin up support.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Poster

Maybe I don’t know enough but why can’t the city build an arena for the games and then charge Flames rent?

Is it because the Flames will reject that and threaten to move?

The Flames don't want to rent anything. CSEC wants to effectively build a new neighborhood on the west side of downtown, and own the facility as well as the lucrative parking monies that come from it. I believe the original proposal was to also build a bunch of restaurants and bars, but not sure if the Flames would own the land and rent to retail.

If they were interested in only renting they would just build it next door to the Saddledome with no fuss, no muss. But they want more revenue and control over their facilities, which the Stampede has a level of control over.

This is where the E for "Entertainment" in CSEC comes into play. It's more than just hockey.

[getbak]

When talking about new construction, one thing that people keep ignoring is the $600 million in the funding plan to be spent on new housing that will serve as the athlete's village for the Games and then become available for low income/affordable and senior housing after the Games.

That accounts for 20% of the public funding budget, so it shouldn't be ignored. It also falls under the category of infrastructure that either will be built over the next decade (as part of the "Rivers District" plan) or if it's not built, in 10 years, we'll be looking around wondering where the money's going to come from to fund it (like we've been doing with the Field House for the last 8 years).

[zhulander]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And where is this narrative that all Calgary will have to show for it is a "field house"? This is falsetto on all fronts. Existing facilities will be upgraded rehabbed to not only handle crowds and usage, but also to meet compliance around venue and facility sizing that has changed since 1988.

If you are talking about "new facilities" then yes, we are getting a new field house (in addition to other things). Thre is the possibility of working in a Flames arena too (depending on how you see the proposed new community arena). But you can't discount all the upgraded facilities and infrastructure that we get. It is short-sighted at best.

And to say that federal funding eight years ago would have gotten funding for those things is a straw-man argument. You're just throwing out major infrastructure projects and hoping they stick without providing any evidence that such projects would have been funded eight years ago (what Calgary-bid committee are you referring to that articulated these would be covered?)

Page 33 of the report, going through each venue:


Saddledome: • Accessibility upgrades for seating and washrooms • Upgrades to power and field-of-play lighting as required • Ice plant re-commissioning • Minor finish upgrades to concourse, club and suite levels • Structural and mechanical capital maintenance


Community Arena: New Build

Multi-Sport Complex: New Build


Olympic Oval: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-bid-1.4652191
Costs about $5 million to upgrade the mechanical system


Winsport Sliding Track: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...lion-1.4056516



Winsport Ski Hill:


Canmore Nordic Centre: Significant upgrades have already occurred to the facility and a major upgrade is under review by the Province, which will support the continued hosting of Biathlon World Cups


Nakiska:

Whistler Olympic Park:


David Bauer / Macphail Centre: As is
Max Bell Arena: Minor upgrades


McMahon Stadium:


Stampede Grandstand: As is


Bmo Centre / Big Four: Modified to suit IBC/MPC requirements


Saddledome renovations are debatable as they would be covered if the Flames were still playing there, or not even needed if they weren't.
So realistically Calgarian's probably would only care about the Multisport Complex, McMahon Stadium and Winsport Ski hill renovations. Nakiska is debatable. Doubt anyone cares for the community arena, Whistler, BMO renovations.


I said the possibilities existed for those projects to be spurred by the Olympic bid, now that most of the those are already on the way, the possibilities for Olympic induced infrastructure needed by Calgary is less nowadays. Vancouver was only considered worth it because of the 3 massive infrastructure projects, Sea to Sky Highway, Canada Line, Convention Center:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle15036916/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

When talking about new construction, one thing that people keep ignoring is the $600 million in the funding plan to be spent on new housing that will serve as the athlete's village for the Games and then become available for low income/affordable and senior housing after the Games.

That accounts for 20% of the public funding budget, so it shouldn't be ignored. It also falls under the category of infrastructure that either will be built over the next decade (as part of the "Rivers District" plan) or if it's not built, in 10 years, we'll be looking around wondering where the money's going to come from to fund it (like we've been doing with the Field House for the last 8 years).

The problem with counting all of the affordable housing investment as an asset is its terribly expensive. We get 800 units of affordable housing for 600 million dollars. So 750k per unit. I suspect that this is becuase their are extensive renovations required between the athlete use for 3000 and the housing use for 800. So while they put 600 million in the infrastructure bin I would say only 200-400 is the actual asset value after the games.

I think a reasonable statement (assuming we get the flames arena) might be we get between 750-1 billion of infrastructure we need for 1.5 billion of provincial and city dollars and 1.5 billion from the federal money fairy.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by GGG

The problem with counting all of the affordable housing investment as an asset is its terribly expensive. We get 800 units of affordable housing for 600 million dollars. So 750k per unit. I suspect that this is becuase their are extensive renovations required between the athlete use for 3000 and the housing use for 800. So while they put 600 million in the infrastructure bin I would say only 200-400 is the actual asset value after the games.

I think a reasonable statement (assuming we get the flames arena) might be we get between 750-1 billion of infrastructure we need for 1.5 billion of provincial and city dollars and 1.5 billion from the federal money fairy.

Affordable housing doesn't go from hosting 3000 athletes to 800 people; it's designed to house 800 low income families so probably would house at least 1600 and more likely closer to 2500.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Affordable housing doesn't go from hosting 3000 athletes to 800 people; it's designed to house 800 low income families so probably would house at least 1600 and more likely closer to 2500.

so instead of spreading out low income housing across the city, you'll instead concentrate it in one area? guess I know what part of town I'd avoid. sounds like the lovely social housing slums in the UK.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

so instead of spreading out low income housing across the city, you'll instead concentrate it in one area? guess I know what part of town I'd avoid. sounds like the lovely social housing slums in the UK.

That's a really myopic view on modern affordable housing solutions.

[getbak]

On the Calgary 2026 website it says there will be 2600 new housing units created as part of this plan.


In the hosting plan document it says:

• Affordable housing projects: three to four development initiatives would yield at least 600 units of affordable housing legacy
• Subsidized seniors housing: a proposed 200-unit seniors complex
• Urban Indigenous peoples housing: housing solutions that may be modeled after successful projects in other cities
• Student housing: expansion in post-secondary institution student accommodation would provide a long-term housing legacy for education

It doesn't specify the amount of Indigenous or Student housing, but if the 2600 unit number is accurate, it must be 1800 total.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by getbak

On the Calgary 2026 website it says there will be 2600 new housing units created as part of this plan.


In the hosting plan document it says:


It doesn't specify the amount of Indigenous or Student housing, but if the 2600 unit number is accurate, it must be 1800 total.

I don't want to go back and look, but this is all East Village and that kind of thing, right? Like the locations are all set and chosen?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't want to go back and look, but this is all East Village and that kind of thing, right? Like the locations are all set and chosen?

Well, nothing is set until construction actually begins, but the recommended site for the Athlete's Village is in East Victoria Park where the Calgary Transit garage is now.

Obviously, that would mean relocating the transit garage. I don't know if the demolition and site clean-up costs are included in the ~$600 million or not. That area is already included for residential redevelopment in the new CMLC Rivers District concept.

One advantage of that space is that the city already owns it, so it wouldn't have to be purchased.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's a really myopic view on modern affordable housing solutions.

I thought the modern approach to affordable housing was to split it up into small complexes in economically diverse neighbourhoods to avoid just the kind of concentration that GordonBlue mentioned.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I thought the modern approach to affordable housing was to split it up into small complexes in economically diverse neighbourhoods to avoid just the kind of concentration that GordonBlue mentioned.

That's one solution, but not the only one. You can have larger complexes of affordable housing that create senses of user comfort, community living, and affordability. A mutually beneficial relationship can be had from integrating architecture and its natural surroundings. There's design competitions dedicated to this sort of thing.

Large complexes don't have to follow traditional, concentrated 'slum' models. There's more to the design of this growing building type that what people think. In fact, just as one example, there's a clever solution right here in our city - Arrive in Bowness.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...ticle37109995/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by getbak

On the Calgary 2026 website it says there will be 2600 new housing units created as part of this plan.


In the hosting plan document it says:


It doesn't specify the amount of Indigenous or Student housing, but if the 2600 unit number is accurate, it must be 1800 total.

It’s very confusing 20% of the units are market housing so will just be resold. So that is at least 500. If you get 2100 units for 600 million than that would be a pretty good value but it’s very unclear if the units listed are mutually exclusive or not.

Best case would be 500 market, 600 affordable, 200 senior, and 1300 other. But they also mention below market purchasable housing which also may or may not be included into the affordable number or not. More detail is required to establish the value. I believe I misread it the first time when I asseumed the 800 was the total number of units.

[getbak]

Yeah, the details are a little confusing there.

The Calgary 2026 group is having a couple of public engagement sessions at the Jack Singer on Thursday (one during the lunch hour and one in the evening). I'm planning on going. That's one of the things I hope to get clarification on.

[zhulander]

It’s very confusing 20% of the units are market housing so will just be resold. So that is at least 500. If you get 2100 units for 600 million than that would be a pretty good value but it’s very unclear if the units listed are mutually exclusive or not.

Best case would be 500 market, 600 affordable, 200 senior, and 1300 other. But they also mention below market purchasable housing which also may or may not be included into the affordable number or not. More detail is required to establish the value. I believe I misread it the first time when I asseumed the 800 was the total number of units.

I don't think you misread, there isn't any real hard numbers in the 2018 draft plan, only stating 600 affordable and 200 senior housing on pg 38. For inclusive housing to be a core legacy of the 2026 games, they really didn't put much details or plans in the report. On Calgary2026.ca is where it states 2600 total housing, with 2000 being a mix of student, Indigenous, affordable, senior. On page 37, this is probably the absolute minimum though from converting athletes village, "The proposed development plan includes 70 affordable housing units, 140 attainable housing units (near market pricing) and 500 market units"



http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis...edirect=1&sf=1
If you look at the CBEC 2017 study on pg 300, it's 800 student units, 130 attainable, 800 affordable, 400 senior. In 1 year they already cut 200 affordable and 200 senior units.


Not sure if I would take the housing numbers to be too reliable as:

London went from 9000 --> 4000 --> 2800
pg 60: https://www.uel.ac.uk/wwwmedia/uelwe...e-finNov27.pdf


Vancouver went from 'thousands' --> 250 ---> 125
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...using-1.882070

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Muta

That's one solution, but not the only one. You can have larger complexes of affordable housing that create senses of user comfort, community living, and affordability. A mutually beneficial relationship can be had from integrating architecture and its natural surroundings. There's design competitions dedicated to this sort of thing.

Large complexes don't have to follow traditional, concentrated 'slum' models. There's more to the design of this growing building type that what people think. In fact, just as one example, there's a clever solution right here in our city - Arrive in Bowness.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...ticle37109995/

Attainable Homes isn't low income housing...

It's a program set up by the city to help median income Calgarians meet the down payment requirements. Those Arrive townhouses were sold for $320-340k. Just about market price.

Nothing about attainable homes helps low income Calgarians. Not unless being able to qualify for a $300k mortgage is now considered low income. All they get is down payment help. They still have to fully qualify for and pay the mortgage. They get no subsidies other than the 5% down payment.

This is low income housing:

http://calgaryhousingcompany.org/