for those who like the idea of hosting a games on the cheap and spending as little as possible.
Are you worried at all that the cheapness of the games will reflect poorly on the host city?
some people seem to almost think that a bit of paint and sprucing up of the 1988 infrastructure will go a long way.
If you're going to host the games, don't do it halfway. present your best image to the world or don't do it at all.
Come on Calgary. you're dressing up for a hot date with the world. don't show up in sweatpants and a stained undershirt.
spend the money. build fancy new stuff.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
for those who like the idea of hosting a games on the cheap and spending as little as possible.
Are you worried at all that the cheapness of the games will reflect poorly on the host city?
some people seem to almost think that a bit of paint and sprucing up of the 1988 infrastructure will go a long way.
If you're going to host the games, don't do it halfway. present your best image to the world or don't do it at all.
Come on Calgary. you're dressing up for a hot date with the world. don't show up in sweatpants and a stained undershirt.
spend the money. build fancy new stuff.
This is true. You don't want to half ass this stuff. You gotta go full ass.
Just as long as the cost for the ass is reasonable, and we continue to make use of it after the game. It doesn't make sense to spend $5B for it, if it can be done for $3B and yield the essentially the same results.
Yeah, I'm all for an efficient games, but if it's going to be some embarrassment where they just gussy up the Stampede Ground venues...I'd rather just not. It still needs to be something we can be proud of, and something that leaves a nice physical legacy (ie. a new Olympic Plaza, a new stadium, etc) and pushes this city forward.
I think the Vancouver games were a pretty good benchmark. Calgary may not need to hit that mark in terms of new venues, but I don't think its unreasonable to expect something similar.
for those who like the idea of hosting a games on the cheap and spending as little as possible.
Are you worried at all that the cheapness of the games will reflect poorly on the host city?
some people seem to almost think that a bit of paint and sprucing up of the 1988 infrastructure will go a long way.
If you're going to host the games, don't do it halfway. present your best image to the world or don't do it at all.
Come on Calgary. you're dressing up for a hot date with the world. don't show up in sweatpants and a stained undershirt.
spend the money. build fancy new stuff.
See, this is the part of it that appeals to me, it isnt about 'being cheap.'
When you're hosting these events theres a lot more on the line and the whole country has irons in the fire so we as a City dont have to be cheap because we're going to get funding from the Province and the Feds.
Yes, it would be nice if they would give us cash for a change.
And the best part is pretty much exactly what happened after 1988.
Everyone went home.
But we were left with things like COP, the Olympic Oval, the Saddledome, etc.
So other people paid for cool stuff that we got to keep.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
for those who like the idea of hosting a games on the cheap and spending as little as possible.
Are you worried at all that the cheapness of the games will reflect poorly on the host city?...
Of course this is on a different scale, but isn't this how London worked things out for the 2012 Summer Games? I seem to remember reading somewhere that they pulled it off on a shoe-string budget—comparatively speaking, of course.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I know I was only 13 when our vice principal announced over the school intercom that there was important news from overseas. Calgary had been selected to host the 1988 Winter Olympics.
But the magic seems to have faded somewhat for a future games.
Yeah, I'm all for an efficient games, but if it's going to be some embarrassment where they just gussy up the Stampede Ground venues...I'd rather just not. It still needs to be something we can be proud of, and something that leaves a nice physical legacy (ie. a new Olympic Plaza, a new stadium, etc) and pushes this city forward.
I think the Vancouver games were a pretty good benchmark. Calgary may not need to hit that mark in terms of new venues, but I don't think its unreasonable to expect something similar.
that's what I'm thinking. you've got all three levels of government contributing to show off Calgary (and Canada) to the world. don't tidy up the old crappy venues.
sure you need to watch your spending but don't just cheap out. sometimes you get more value paying a bit more for something nice. build some decent legacy venues.
saddledome would be a great secondary venue next to a new arena. no way it should be the primary venue, nor should you have to play games in another city 3 hours away because you wanted to sell the games to the taxpayer as affordable.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
This is never happening. Put the bid money into road maintenance so us municipal tax payers can get some value for the ridiculously high amount we pay.
I just don’t see it as a compelling bid. I read in the elevator that the IOC wants to have some events at Whistler? Was I high?
Basically they say they wouldn't have restrictions on where events could be.
Not having to build new ski jumps and just have Ski Jumping and Nordic Combined at Whistler again would be a huge cost savings and not really affect the benefit of the games here.
So it's not that they want them there, they would allow them there are part of the bid process.
