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

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by J79

And to be honest, when I was in Calgary in 2013 and visited the Oval, it almost felt like I was at a small, local track. It would be such a shame is they shut it down.

From a functional perspective the Oval would be just fine for the Olympics, as it did receive a new roof a few years ago, and still has some of the fastest ice in the world (world records are basically all held in Calgary or Utah). The biggest issue for an Olympics seems to be the lack of seating. I think they could probably add some temporary seats to the center of the rink (which currently houses two hockey rinks), because otherwise I don’t see them being able to do so without some major reconstruction.

I think it’s one of those "conditions" that the IOC would have to accept because spending hundreds of millions on a new oval would be silly. Outside of the new Winsport arenas (which could house something like short-track and some pre-lim hockey), I think the Oval is the closest existing venue that one can say is more or less ready to go as-is if you can accept some compromises with crowd size.

Most of the other venues would require some serious upgrades.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

I think its a bit ridiculous to say that if it doesn't turn a profit, its a failure. If it gets us infrastructure upgrades, facility renovations and increased tourism but turns a small loss while giving many struggling Calgary small businesses so much needed help and employs real Canadians in the preparation, but loses 100 million like Vancouver, I wouldn't call that a failure. 100 million across all levels of government isn't that crazy.

The Vancouver games lost 100 million after all best case economic benefits were included. The actual cash loss in terms of dollars spent vs dollars received in revenue is much higher.

That study is saying that if the Olympics didn't happen you would have been 100 million dollars better off even if you still built all of the infrastructure you wanted and accounted for the economic impacts.

[Muta]

The Oval is currently being assessed / evaluated for what upgrades / renovations it would require to become an Olympic venue again.

Also, there is a feasibility study currently underway relating to extending the LRT to the airport, 'coincidentally' in line with an Olympic timeframe.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

The 1988 Calgary Olympics posted a $140,000,000 profit. That's in 1988 money, today with inflation I'm sure the profits could be even higher; especially when you consider that our facilities still exist and are still
World Class.

The unique tourism that Calgary will gain from a new generation of people that otherwise wouldn't have visited Calgary if not for an Olympics makes this venture worth it in my eyes. Calgary already spends a fair bit on marketing tourists? The Olympics can be seen as one big marketing tool. Millions will be watching on television world wide and who knows, maybe the ones who do come to visit may fall in love with banff and lake lousie and etc and may make it an annual trip. Personally, I think the risk is worth it.

The revenues could be higher, but the costs of hosting the games have increased dramatically since then. More events, more athletes, more security, more press.

I think the tourism argument has already been disproved based on the historic data from past games. Also, I don't think Banff and Lake Louise are suffering from a lack of tourism. Last time i checked, it was still pretty tough to find a crap hotel room in either place come the summer season.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Brazil saw an increase of 157,000 tourists vs the prior year during the summer, and over 300,000 for all of 2016.

First two things on a google search:

https://skift.com/2016/08/24/brazil-...-games-in-rio/

www.voanews.com/a/brazil-olympic-games-boost-record-tourist-numbers/3663838.html

You mean Rio?

The place with amazing beaches and weather and all that stuff?

Who wouldn't want to visit there?

If the goal is to increase infrastructure spending and tourism in Calgary, we would be better off bilking the Federal Government for a few billion, then spending that money on making Disneyland North, or Dubai West, than spending it on the olympics.

I don't see why anyone would come to Calgary cause they saw it on TV during the olympics. Or is a new ski jump going to sway their tourist desires?

[Weitz]

Lets not pretend the summer Olympics and Winter Olympics are on the same level either.

[Benched]

it'd be fun. but the cost would be severe.

pretty torn on this, leaning more towards 'pass' than not.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cappy

You mean Rio?

The place with amazing beaches and weather and all that stuff?

Who wouldn't want to visit there?

If the goal is to increase infrastructure spending and tourism in Calgary, we would be better off bilking the Federal Government for a few billion, then spending that money on making Disneyland North, or Dubai West, than spending it on the olympics.

I don't see why anyone would come to Calgary cause they saw it on TV during the olympics. Or is a new ski jump going to sway their tourist desires?

Tourism rose due to the Olympics, which was the point of the conversation.

As for bilking the federal government for infrastructure spending, that argument actually favours doing the Olympics. Ottawa cash rarely makes it out this way, they seem to prefer giving it to Quebec artists. The Olympics is one sure-fire way to get some federal money spent here.

Not saying that's a reason to do it, just responding to the comment I quoted.

[CliffFletcher]

Timely article in today's Guardian:

Olympic bidders face harsh reality of costs heavily outweighing benefits

The IOC may find fewer cities eager to host the Games with experts agreeing that staging the event is economically damaging despite a larger revenue cake

...For more than 30 years the Olympics has been sold not only as a month-long festival of sport but as a wondrous infrastructure programme: a sort of one-stop economic pharmacy that could regenerate run down parts of a city, boost growth, turbo-charge a nation’s fitness and get tourists flocking in.

The International Olympic Committee, and the concentric circles of consultants and advisors that surround bidding cities, will always argue that a sceptical public will see the light once the glory of the event hoves into view. But people increasingly don’t buy it. They know the numbers do not match the rhetoric.

David Forrest, an economics professor at the University of Liverpool, puts it bluntly. “There is an absolute consensus among sports economists that it is economically damaging to host the Games, unless one puts a very high value on the local population enjoying the party,” he says. “The only publications attributing benefits to hosting are by consultancies paid by politicians to validate their vanity projects.”...

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Tourism rose due to the Olympics, which was the point of the conversation.

As for bilking the federal government for infrastructure spending, that argument actually favours doing the Olympics. Ottawa cash rarely makes it out this way, they seem to prefer giving it to Quebec artists. The Olympics is one sure-fire way to get some federal money spent here.

Not saying that's a reason to do it, just responding to the comment I quoted.

You cannot claim it rose due to the olympics. There isn't anything that draws that conclusion (not to mention the numbers they use are for the entire country). It can certainly be assumed, but there are various reasons to visit Brazil in 2016, the recession and declining currency value being one of them.

I'm not saying tourism during the olympics is a myth, i just think it's being touted too much as this potential boon for the city - especially after the games are over.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Cappy

You cannot claim it rose due to the olympics. There isn't anything that draws that conclusion (not to mention the numbers they use are for the entire country). It can certainly be assumed, but there are various reasons to visit Brazil in 2016, the recession and declining currency value being one of them.

I'm not saying tourism during the olympics is a myth, i just think it's being touted too much as this potential boon for the city - especially after the games are over.

If anything most cities that host the Olympics these days end up taking an image hit. China's air pollution, Brazil's crime and polluted waters, Russia and human rights. Don't think that would apply to Calgary, but it does tend to bring attention to issues that aren't often thought about.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Table 5

From a functional perspective the Oval would be just fine for the Olympics, as it did receive a new roof a few years ago, and still has some of the fastest ice in the world (world records are basically all held in Calgary or Utah). The biggest issue for an Olympics seems to be the lack of seating. I think they could probably add some temporary seats to the center of the rink (which currently houses two hockey rinks), because otherwise I don’t see them being able to do so without some major reconstruction.

I think it’s one of those "conditions" that the IOC would have to accept because spending hundreds of millions on a new oval would be silly. Outside of the new Winsport arenas (which could house something like short-track and some pre-lim hockey), I think the Oval is the closest existing venue that one can say is more or less ready to go as-is if you can accept some compromises with crowd size.

Most of the other venues would require some serious upgrades.

The infield is for the use of the athletes and officials. During ISU competitions the hockey and short track rinks are removed for this purpose.

Additional temporary seating would have to be added above the running track between the permanent seating. I believe that's also what was done during the 1988 games.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Table 5

From a functional perspective the Oval would be just fine for the Olympics, as it did receive a new roof a few years ago, and still has some of the fastest ice in the world (world records are basically all held in Calgary or Utah). The biggest issue for an Olympics seems to be the lack of seating. I think they could probably add some temporary seats to the center of the rink (which currently houses two hockey rinks), because otherwise I don’t see them being able to do so without some major reconstruction.

I think it’s one of those "conditions" that the IOC would have to accept because spending hundreds of millions on a new oval would be silly. Outside of the new Winsport arenas (which could house something like short-track and some pre-lim hockey), I think the Oval is the closest existing venue that one can say is more or less ready to go as-is if you can accept some compromises with crowd size.

Most of the other venues would require some serious upgrades.

Originally Posted by craigwd

The infield is for the use of the athletes and officials. During ISU competitions the hockey and short track rinks are removed for this purpose.

Additional temporary seating would have to be added above the running track between the permanent seating. I believe that's also what was done during the 1988 games.

This what they got in the meantime. Some new temporary seats were bought in this summer I believe.

If they did want to make it permanent, the fieldhouse would have to be built so then the running track area can be removed from the Oval.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Brazil saw an increase of 157,000 tourists vs the prior year during the summer, and over 300,000 for all of 2016.

First two things on a google search:

https://skift.com/2016/08/24/brazil-...-games-in-rio/

www.voanews.com/a/brazil-olympic-games-boost-record-tourist-numbers/3663838.html

That is peanuts for a country of that size. Calgary gets that many in 2 days of Stampede.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by GGG

http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_p...ed_wp_1097.pdf

Here's a great analysis of the Vancouver games. I think it values some of the benefits to highly and it states such in its conclusion but it considers infrastructures costs and benefits very fairly.

It's a good read

Net loss of the games is 110 million. So in the end hosting the oloics go Vancouver some infrastructure it needed at an inflated cost.

That probably doesn't include the boondoggle that was the athletes village and the mess that happened when that was being built and the after effects on the city of Vancouver.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.theg...Fservice%3Damp

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.theg...Fservice%3Damp

[Itse]

The campaigning processes alone now cost in the tens of millions. I doubt anybody ever includes that in the cost.

[Cappy]

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/...pense-security

Relevant article from NP today.

A few interesting tidbits:

As for the cost of securing the Games? There’s simply no way for anyone to slap an accurate price tag on what it will cost come 2026. And traditionally, federal funding has covered the costs of security while provincial governments support infrastructure.

Interesting way to look at funding, here. What does the Province consider as infrastructure? just the venues? villages? transportation?

The 2010 Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee declared it broke even with total revenue and expenses just shy of $1.9 billion. But the costs of security were not included in that calculation.

Of course, we know other things were left out of that as well. Article said estimates for security costs were $900 million in Van

“If you look in the rear view mirror now, what made Vancouver so expensive?” Hanson asked. “People tend to forget we were fighting a war back then. And we’re not right now.”

I don't know if ending the Afghanistan War made us any more secure than today/future

The most convincing argument for a Calgary bid is the viability of the legacy facilities that are still up and running from the 1988 Games. The Canmore Nordic Centre is world-class. The Olympic Oval claims to have the fastest ice on the planet. Winsport’s Canada Olympic Park still hosts World Cup luge, skeleton, bobsleigh, snowboard and freestyle skiing events.

The city’s largest ski jump is obsolete, so a new one would be a big-ticket expense. The same goes for the much-ballyhooed hockey arena that would logically become the new home of the Calgary Flames.

“Who cares if it only sits 3,000 people?” Hanson asked. “It’s a great facility … Is Agenda 2020 sincere? The people who talk about Agenda 2020, are they sincere? Do they really now recognize that you can’t drive the cost up at the expense of countries that put a whole lot of money into infrastructure that then decays the day after the event? Our history is not that. So you might like it. And you might not. And I can’t speak for the IOC.”

Love Hansen's thoughts about the Oval here. He is obviously considering how to make the games work in current conditions, and not using this as a way to get "world class" upgrades where none are needed.

[polak]

Looks like they have their head on straight about the whole "take it or leave it" angle towards the IOC.

[Fuzz]

I just had, which, if I don't say so myself, a brilliant idea. Convert one or more office towers downtown to athlete's village. After the Olympics they could be sold as condos.

Now, this of course depends on our continued high vacancy rate by the time the Olympics roll through, but it would be a good use of the space.

[calgaryblood]

Nm