Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[Jacks]

Without a deal with the Flames and a new arena the rest doesn't matter because the referendum will be dead in the water so I thought it was obvious they would be putting money in.

[Northendzone]

Not sure it is safe to use logic with respect to the arena discussion between the flames and the city.

If there is as logic, the deal would be moving forward

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

So just some back of napkin numbers.

Public funding $3000M + 300M for 1/2 of new arena = 3.3B
Round it up to 3.5B to get to max fed funding.

- Feds $1.75B
- Province $1B? someone should ask Kenney again now that we have more info

Leaves total city contribution at 750M?
- $xxM? for upkeep of facilities that we have to pay regardless
Guessing that leaves $700M in new spending?

For that we get:
New fieldhouse for which he have already planned $200M
New arena which we are going to have to pay $200-$300M eventually regardless
Upgrades to McMahon which are desperately needed
All existing Olympic venues updated + some new ones
2800? new housing units for low cost / seniors / indigenous / students
The games themselves

Other benefits?

Can someone who isn't entrenched against a bid no matter what fill in any of those blanks?
Doesn't look that bad to me.

80 million for McMahon

The housing number is suspect as to how it ends up. 20% is market housing. Then an unknown amount is near market, student, and indigenous, then something like 600 units of low income. For what should be the focal point of the yes side it’s really ambiguous. I’ve been hoping to see a much better breakdown in terms of what gets left in terms of housing from the games and what it is sold for to determine the real public benefit

The best I can find on the housing side is

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...ntil-2026.html

Athletes’ villages planned for Calgary and Canmore would later be turned into long-term housing, with the Calgary development converted into 70 affordable, 140 attainable or near-market and 500 market units. The Canmore village would become more than 240 affordable housing units.

BidCo says the ultimate result of the investment in housing includes at least 600 units of affordable housing, a 200-unit subsidized housing complex for seniors, and urban Indigenous housing that “may be modelled after successful projects in other cities.”

What is the definition of affordable housing? How does 70+240 add to 600 Any if anyone has seen a good breakdown where the math adds up I’d love to see it because if it were 2800 units of affordable housing then that becomes a pretty significant legacy piece that is not being talked about enough.

This article implies 2800 - 500 market units = 2300 below market with 583 million spent on housing. So what could be up to a 400 million benefit all of the non-market was given away.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theg...re-affordable/

My assumption which could be wrong is that you end up with 800 units of subsidized housing plus the indigenous and student components of a few hundred each and the remainder sold off attainable homes style. The gap between the 800 named units and 2300 non-market number is tough to parse.

300 million new flames arena — if this does get added before the referendum it makes the bid much more compelling
200 million fieldhouse
80 million McMahon
200 million housing???????
40 million Oval
20 million Nordic center
20 million sliding center
??? Million new Nakiska ski hill
???? Million upgrades to BMO center
————————————
For 1.7 billion dollars.

[Mr.Coffee]

So again when this inevitably goes to $7-$10B (the TRUE budget...)

Is the implication Calgary’s on the hook for ~5B?

Vote No.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm going to vote Yes.

[Wormius]

Is there the possibility to proceed in such a way that we would have complete pieces of infrastructure and if it comes to pass that the we will end up being way over budget then we can hit the kill switch on it?

I mean, the other thing is... how do these end up over budget? If you know what the “true” cost of the components are, how can things get so out of control? Is it just these cases where you are trying to build several things in a short span of time that you pay an extra premium on construction or what?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Is there the possibility to proceed in such a way that we would have complete pieces of infrastructure and if it comes to pass that the we will end up being way over budget then we can hit the kill switch on it?

I mean, the other thing is... how do these end up over budget? If you know what the “true” cost of the components are, how can things get so out of control? Is it just these cases where you are trying to build several things in a short span of time that you pay an extra premium on construction or what?

Where things go over budget in games is that bids are often (surprisingly) quite hasty - and then a bunch of things get added by politicians. Lots of places not so good at budgeting infrastructure. I don’t see this as much of a risk here because a) the due dilligence time has been extraordinarily long; b) the contingencies are conservative and c) we actually have an extremely good track record of building infrastructure on time and on budget.

[Wormius]

That’s true. The City has gone through enough of this that it’s estimates should be pretty bang on.

I think what might allay some people’s fears of going too far over budget is to be able to, if it happens that during construction costs start going over by some percentage, then either do an abbreviated games with certain parts left out or given to other cities, or just canceled.

[Manhattanboy]

Voting yes. Calgary has little going for it these days so why not?

[JBR]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So again when this inevitably goes to $7-$10B (the TRUE budget...)

Is the implication Calgary’s on the hook for ~5B?

Vote No.

TRUE budget? Details please. That argument is getting old for me.

Voting YES.

[Snuffleupagus]

Unless there's new stadiums in the deal it's a big no from me, and I took a 29 person poll at work this week and 12 said they were voting yes, from the 17 no votes I asked if new stadiums for the pro teams would make them change their minds? 6 said maybe and 2 said yes. In the end the vote "could" be 20-9 yes

This is such a no brainer.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Voting yes. Calgary has little going for it these days so why not?

Now, I know your mother has had trouble finding regular work since being laid off. And if course my disability means I had to retire early. Caitlin has 30k in debt from university, and Josh still lives at home at 27 because he can't afford a downpayment.

So I've been thinking we need something to cheer us up. How about remodeling the kitchen? Tear out these old cabinets and put some nice oak ones in. Granite countertops. Get that gas stove we've always talked about. Put in some heated tile flooring. Maybe a bay window. Whaddaya say, guys? Let's liven things up around here!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Now, I know your mother has had trouble finding regular work since being laid off. And if course my disability means I had to retire early. Caitlin has 30k in debt from university, and Josh still lives at home at 27 because he can't afford a downpayment.

So I've been thinking we need something to cheer us up. How about remodeling the kitchen? Tear out these old cabinets and put some nice oak ones in. Granite countertops. Get that gas stove we've always talked about. Put in some heated tile flooring. Maybe a bay window. Whaddaya say, guys? Let's liven things up around here!

The question is will it be on time and on budget?

I am undecided at this point. I struggle with agreeing that they city is in time and on budget for their projects though. I look at the 162ave overpass and sure, it was sort of on time. But they kept closing lanes and finishing construction for months after it was “finished”. Is that on time? Apparently. The other thing is a lot of the signs for these projects have dates that seem ambiguous to me. For example “Fall 2018” could mean September 25 or maybe December 18th. I don’t know, but it’s a pretty large window.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm going to vote Yes.

do you own a home?

is there any way to set this up so only impacted people can vote (property owners), or if everybody's voting, if you vote yes you have to agree to garnish your wages to pay your proportionate share for this incoming debacle?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by JBR

TRUE budget? Details please. That argument is getting old for me.

Voting YES.

https://howmuch.net/articles/olympic-costs

Cost overruns by %.

France 181%
Canada 720%
US 324%
Canada 65%
France 137%
Spain 266%
Norway 277%
US 151%
Japan 56%
Australia 90%
US 24%
Greece 49%
Italy 80%
China 2%
Canada 13%
UK 76%
Russia 289%
Brazil 51%

So conservatively let's say 40% overrun. Games will run us ~$7B-$10B. Who is paying for that? Province said no. Was it clear the Feds would be in with us for overruns? That wasn't clear was it?

Right now we're at ~$3B with all governments announcing what they'll contribute. How do you think we get another $4B? And if what everybody wants is a new hockey rink, why not just spend $500MM on a new rink and call it a day?

Oh right... "prestige" and "world class city" or some other total bs nobody actually cares about.

edit: and I should add that by the looks of it, cost overruns are a certainty. Budgets for the Olympics are meant to be blown.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

do you own a home?

is there any way to set this up so only impacted people can vote (property owners), or if everybody's voting, if you vote yes you have to agree to garnish your wages to pay your proportionate share for this incoming debacle?

I own a home in Calgary. I don't see it as a debacle, I see it as great way to experience a huge event for our city that I have been wanting to see come back since I was a kid. And I still believe there is going to be a Flames arena out of this if it goes forward .

I'm going to vote yes.

[Mr.Coffee]

that's a completely reasonable position. What seems weird about this whole process is that a bunch of people who aren't taking financial risk get to go vote in the plebiscite so that the rest of us can pay for their party.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Province says it's not increasing it's contribution in spite of the Feds contribution.

Ottawa has always seemed keener than the province on Calgary’s bid. This cabinet decision is clearly designed to show enthusiasm for the Games, while pressuring the other parties to step up.

The NDP says $700 million is the maximum it can possibly manage. Now, Ottawa is putting the Notley government in the position of appearing to kill the bid if it doesn’t come up with more.

An announcement is expected next week. By then, federal authorities hope, the parties will agree on a total number that works for Calgary’s bid.

But the provincial response was swift and negative on Friday.

“We don’t plan to increase or change the financial commitment we’ve made,” said Cheryl Oates, spokeswoman for Premier Rachel Notley.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...for-2026-games

So with the city's contribution expected to be roughly $500 million, that would make the federal contribution $1.2 billion, which still leaves a shortfall of $600 million on this Value Village bid they've made that we're supposed to believe is guaranteed to be on budget (lol). Assuming we apply Nenshi's "red line" of the province must spend more than the city and the city goes up to $699 million, that still leaves a $200 million shortfall. Will Nenshi cross his own "red line"? That would seem to be an admission it's a bad deal, but he still wants it. Gonna be interesting to see the math gymnastics and deceptions that will come the next two weeks to try and force this across the finish line.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

do you own a home?

is there any way to set this up so only impacted people can vote (property owners), or if everybody's voting, if you vote yes you have to agree to garnish your wages to pay your proportionate share for this incoming debacle?

Seeing as non-residential property tax makes up the majority of the property tax base in the city, shouldn’ the owners of those buildings get a proportion of those votes as well?

[Mr.Coffee]

yeah that's fine, whoever contributes should be allocated votes. I'm talking about the fact that they have opened up voting to people who bear no financial risk. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.