Should Calgary Bid on the 2026 Olympics

[RM14]

It's looking like the US will be going for 2030 in either Denver or Salt Lake. Any US bid would dominate ours head to head.

[getbak]

This is a pet peeve of mine, so let me transgress for a moment and point out that the only reason we can say that Edmonton has 3 field houses while Calgary has none is because the term "field house" is being used to describe certain facilities in Edmonton but not used to describe equivalent facilities in Calgary.

Let's look at the Calgary Multisport Fieldhouse Society's website, where this claim comes from: http://www.calgaryfieldhouse.ca/mission/

Currently Calgary is the fourth largest city in Canada by population, yet it doesn’t have a multisport fieldhouse. Many much smaller centres do.

• Kamloops | pop. 92,000 | Kamloops Fieldhouse
• Lethbridge | pop. 95,000 | 1st Choice Savings Centre
• Thunder Bay | pop. 123,000 | Fitness Centre Confederation College and Fieldhouse Lakeland University
• Regina | pop. 195,000 | Regina Fieldhouse
• Saskatoon | pop. 234,000 | Saskatoon Fieldhouse
• Edmonton | pop. 1,035,000 | University Pavilion, Kinsmen Fieldhouse and a soon-to-be built third fieldhouse

If you actually look up the facilities listed, Calgary absolutely has equivalent facilities to all of them. Most are nothing more than glorified Leisure Centres and most don't have any kind of indoor turf field.

None have a full 400m indoor running track.


If we look at just the three buildings listed from Edmonton (the list is out of date because the third fieldhouse has been open for a couple of years now)...

1. University (sic) Pavilion is actually the Universiade Pavilion, which is more-commonly known as the Butterdome. It has a 200m running track and no indoor turf. It has essentially the same facilities as the Jack Simpson Gym at the UofC.
   
   
2. Kinsmen Fieldhouse has both swimming pools and dryland facilities. It has a 200m running track and no indoor turf. It has the same facilities as you will find at the Repsol Centre (Lindsay Park).
   
   
3. Commonwealth Fieldhouse is the one facility that Calgary doesn't have an equivalent for. It does have an indoor turf field, but it's only a half-size field (64 x 64 m).

One thing that also gets ignored when talking about Calgary's lack of a field house is that the Foothills Soccer Club recently opened its own field house: http://calgaryfoothillssoccer.com/de...fieldhouse&l=1

This facility is quite basic compared to what is planned for the Multisport Fieldhouse, but if we're going to give other cities credit for naming a leisure centre a "Fieldhouse", then we should also count a facility that has a full indoor turf field.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by RM14

It's looking like the US will be going for 2030 in either Denver or Salt Lake. Any US bid would dominate ours head to head.

It's widely believed if Calgary backs out, SLC will step in (some think the IOC already has a handshake deal, hence why they won't contribute more money to Calgary). So 2030 will be wide open again, the issues plaguing prospective 2026 bids will be the same for 2030.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's widely believed if Calgary backs out, SLC will step in (some think the IOC already has a handshake deal, hence why they won't contribute more money to Calgary). So 2030 will be wide open again, the issues plaguing prospective 2026 bids will be the same for 2030.

That's true. No guarantee the Federal money will still be available, and the budget for Calgary facility upgrades will likely have increased more meaning an even less attractive bid for Calgarians.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm not trying to help. I'm just sick of the Yes side using absurd arguments to hide the real reason they want the Olympics, the party. I honestly wish they'd just go with that, I respect that opinion far more than the "benefits" opinion.

This is an incorrect assessment of the reason why the yes side wants the games. But I’m sure you know that.

We want other people’s money spent here for once, we want the infrastructure proposed, we believe in the economic multiplier benefits, we believe in the intangible benefits, and we want to party and have a slack 2 weeks of work. And we think that’s worth $500M.

Your attempt to characterize us as frivolous partygoers is cute though, even if it is extremely condescending.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by RM14

That's true. No guarantee the Federal money will still be available, and the budget for Calgary facility upgrades will likely have increased more meaning an even less attractive bid for Calgarians.

Or maybe oil turns around and there's more money to contribute to a more robust hosting plan where we get some bigger, better, more meaningful infrastructure projects. And maybe the IOC realizes the Olympics are too bloated and cuts some events to shorten the games to two weeks instead of 17 days. One thing we can say for sure is the bid would be different.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

This is an incorrect assessment of the reason why the yes side wants the games. But I’m sure you know that.

We want other people’s money spent here for once, we want the infrastructure proposed, we believe in the economic multiplier benefits, we believe in the intangible benefits, and we want to party and have a slack 2 weeks of work. And we think that’s worth $500M.

Your attempt to characterize us as frivolous partygoers is cute though, even if it is extremely condescending.

Yet the Yes side mostly brushes aside all the evidence that suggests this is extremely dubious at best, and outright false at worst. The biggest, most undeniable benefit will be the party. The rest? Will come down to who does the books, and how people interpret it. Which is kind of the point, the "benefits" are often impossible to calculate....except how much fun you had at the party, that's pretty easy to calculate.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

For infrastructure the bid includes 2 new venues (Fieldhouse and a 5-6,000 seat arena), updates to 11 existing venues (McMahon, Oval, Big 4, BMO, Winsport, Canmore Nordic Centre, Nakiska, and the Saddledome), and also includes over 2,800 new housing units.

From the condensed bid.

1800 new units, They cut 1000 in the last minute scope changes.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

This is an incorrect assessment of the reason why the yes side wants the games. But I’m sure you know that.

We want other people’s money spent here for once, we want the infrastructure proposed, we believe in the economic multiplier benefits, we believe in the intangible benefits, and we want to party and have a slack 2 weeks of work. And we think that’s worth $500M.

Your attempt to characterize us as frivolous partygoers is cute though, even if it is extremely condescending.

it's obviously not everyone but there is a portion of the yes side that say it's only for the two week party. just like there are people who are only yes if there's a new hockey arena. not all the yes side cares about economic multipliers or elevated city profile.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Or maybe oil turns around and there's more money to contribute to a more robust hosting plan where we get some bigger, better, more meaningful infrastructure projects. And maybe the IOC realizes the Olympics are too bloated and cuts some events to shorten the games to two weeks instead of 17 days. One thing we can say for sure is the bid would be different.

How does this current bid stack for efficiency compared to bids in the past 30-40 years? Have any other Cities proposed to use 85% of facilities used in a previous Olympics. In my opinion the IOC has already allowed Calgary to avoid a bloated bid by cutting many stadium requirements. That's why the Calgary bid is not comparable to any other modern bid.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by RM14

How does this current bid stack for efficiency compared to bids in the past 30-40 years? Have any other Cities proposed to use 85% of facilities used in a previous Olympics. In my opinion the IOC has already allowed Calgary to avoid a bloated bid by cutting many stadium requirements. That's why the Calgary bid is not comparable to any other modern bid.

The IOC has exactly one city bidding for 2026 that has support from all levels of government, and at this point that bid is probably more likely to not happen than it is, but we'll see. And let's face it, the fact this is a poverty games is actually hurting it just as much as helping, because while it is financially reasonable (by Olympics standards), it's not exactly wowing people. The fact the arena appears to be the deal breaker for so many tells you this bid is just not moving the needle.

The IOC had to change its ways or it won't have anyone else bidding anymore. And if whoever hosts in 2026 under the new "2020 vision" approach still faces financial issues after hosting, perhaps the Olympics (winter specifically) are destined to die out.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by troutman

We had a chinook that week - people were walking around without jackets downtown. Very windy too IIRC.

That is is problem with Calgary in February - it can be -30 C, or it could be +10 C with gusting winds.

Winds were too high at Nakiska so it was deemed unsafe to hold some alpine events on some days. They had to be rescheduled.

I believe most of the snow in Calgary had melted by the end of the games and they had to haul white gravel or something similar to McMahon stadium for the closing ceremonies...to mimic snow for the viewing audience.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

So you want them to spend more? Not less. There is a lot of this going around, how the bid is so expensive but then they should add this, that, and the other thing.

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I think this is because of the sunk cost of hosing the Olympics.

Operating the Olympics costs something around 3 billion (warning just using rough numbers for illustration). You get 1 billion from the IOC and 700 million or so in revenues leaving the host city to come up with 1.3 billion dollars or so to operate the games. So if you spend 1.4 billion on infrastructure all levels of government pay 2:1 for the infrastructure.

Instead if you add a 5 billion dollar infrastructure program to the Olympics you spend 6.3 billion for 5 billion dollars worth of infrastructure and if the feds matched half of the cost through the sport fund you could argue the province is getting 5 billion in infrastructure for 3 billion dollars. So the bid would be a very big positive cash flow through Alberta.

So by thinking small but not getting the Olympics to pay for themselves we backed ourselves into a corner where there are large risks. A doubling of the City contribution is very possible within reasonable estimating practices.

So we have a high risk bid to the city with limited benefits vs a high risk bid with tons of benefits.

I would have more of an appetite for an 8 billion dollar Olympics with 5 billion in infrastructure.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's widely believed if Calgary backs out, SLC will step in (some think the IOC already has a handshake deal, hence why they won't contribute more money to Calgary). So 2030 will be wide open again, the issues plaguing prospective 2026 bids will be the same for 2030.

I've heard this also, but would the IOC do USA then Canada in consecutive Olympics? I though they rotate continents/hemispheres? I suppose not, if they don't have any entrants...

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I've heard this also, but would the IOC do USA then Canada in consecutive Olympics? I though they rotate continents/hemispheres? I suppose not, if they don't have any entrants...

The next Winter Games are in Beijing, so the precedent has already been set. Especially as you say if there are no better options.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by GGG

1800 new units, They cut 1000 in the last minute scope changes.

They cut 500 units (1,000 beds).

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Why can't we secure this funding without the Olympics? There is truly no good reason other than lack of political will and cowardice.

Because there are more important things than sports facilities. Such as paying down debt, health care, education and the tens of billions of dollars of crumbling infrastructure across the country. Some will say the government will just pi$$ it away anyway so why not, but I’d prefer those resources be used to get more teachers into classrooms and more hospitals than arenas, if that’s my choice.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yet the Yes side mostly brushes aside all the evidence that suggests this is extremely dubious at best, and outright false at worst. The biggest, most undeniable benefit will be the party. The rest? Will come down to who does the books, and how people interpret it. Which is kind of the point, the "benefits" are often impossible to calculate....except how much fun you had at the party, that's pretty easy to calculate.

No they don’t. There isn’t much saying from a Calgary only perspective that this is a bad idea. Are the olympics as a whole poor spending? Yup. But that’s an entirely different debate. Do not confuse the two. We don’t.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Muta

You have to be the most rude and condescending poster on this board. ...

I am sure this title will be hotly contested. I could name at least three more candidates...

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

There is definitely such a thing as intangible benefits from having events like this, putting Calgary in the news and relevant on the world stage would have some positive effects. The downside of that though is you're assuming all we would get is positive attention and accolades, which doesn't always happen. Before the Vancouver games even started they were getting ripped by foreign reporters, there was a lot of negative attention at the start. The reports from Rio in 2016 make me never want to go there after having it be on travel list previously. When Edmonton hosted the commonwealth games it was branded "Deadmonton" by a British reporter. To me the negative attention risk is high for the following reasons:

-According to the Bidco McMahon and the Saddledome will be the main venues. It won't be ideal to host an opening ceremony in a nearly 70 year old stadium and there's high potential of embarrasment from that.
-40 year old Saddledome won't be great either
-Real threat of no snow in the City due to Chinook, Vancouver was getting crushed for Grouse mtn having no snow
-And the single biggest: Threat of disruption by eco nazi's eagerly seeking a platform. I could easily see some Green Peace assclowns rapelling down from the Calgary Tower with a TAR SANDS=MURDER banner or something.

Maybe you're of the mind that any publicity is good publicity but foreign reporters seem to make a blood sport out of poking out host city's faults and given our terrible infrastructure that will be hosting and our pariah status even in our own "country" I think they'll have no shortage of ammo. That can't be discounted when discussing intangible visibility benefits.

Oh I have no doubt in my mind there will be some forms of negative publicity, but I'm of the thinking that cities/countries with major issues like Rio/Brazil (murder capital of the world) have their issues exacerbated when the rest of the world arrives, sees and experiences those issues first hand. Calgary/Canada doesn't really have those same types of issues which is why we're rated in the top 5 of the World in most livable/cleanest cities. I believe tourists will actually have the exact opposite reaction to Rio.

Calgary has already hosted the Olympics before and received glowing reviews on how friendly and accommodating this town can be. Now the World can see how much the city has grown since the last time the city hosted in 88. I'm sure the city will receive it's fair share of backlash over oil/tarsands and etc, but these types of environmental protests aren't unique just to this city. Most countries have their own wrinkles to deal with and I doubt this one will carry much weight with the average viewer. The warm weather plagued 88 as well so that's been reported.

The facilities will for sure be older and perhaps receive some critical reaction. However, I would hope it won't be lost on media and patrons alike that this was a budget Olympics and with the few bidders that were available, should be appreciative that someone actually stepped up to the plate to host or there could've very well been no Olympics at all in 2026.

I think the thing I like the most about hosting the Olympics from a marketing standpoint is how on global scale, Calgary's name and city will be shown around the world for the next 7-8 years as a byproduct of hosting. This city already spends millions of dollars per year in marketing campaigns and there's no chance they could ever match the marketing machine that the Olympics offers. We'll be passed/pass Flames from world renowned cities like Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028. It gives this city some extra credibility as perhaps a world class city. It's hard to pay for this kind of publicity/advertising.