nextCITY

[People.talking]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Unfortunately most of it is sub par for modern games. The ski jumps won't work, the oval is to small for spectators, we have no downhill facility etc.

I remember something about the Flames wanting to try to link this with a bid to get support and money, I think that was a few years ago, so not a new idea.

I was talking about the olympic oval at the U of C

[Fuzz]

Yes, from what I recall, they have said the Oval isn't going to cut it as there is not enough room for spectators/media. It's design makes it hard to add too.

[People.talking]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, from what I recall, they have said the Oval isn't going to cut it as there is not enough room for spectators/media. It's design makes it hard to add too.

what about the nordic centre in Canmore?

[Fuzz]

I'm sure that would be fine for future events. They just held a world Cup this weekend. It has been redesigned quite a bit to allow a lot more action in the stadium area, which was a bit of an issue before. It would certainly require work for spectator, media and team areas, but I don't think it would be anything to bad. Most of what was there in '88 was temporary.

A bigger issue may be athlete's village, as it was in portables where the new school was built. I'm sure they could find somewhere to build something though, and maybe with the added benefit of it being used as lower income housing, after. Something Canmore really lacks.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because I have zero clue about the rules; what's wrong with using Sunshine or Louise?

Sunshine can only handle a Women's downhill and is too small for Men's downhill, this going by the mid 80s design requirements for FIS downhill event.

By today's standards its highly doubtful Sunshine could host the downhill or Super-G without some major hill contouring and adjustment.

Looking at Goats-Eye (which was not built during the mid 80s when Sunshine tried for World Cup events) It might be possible to install a Men's Downhill to Olympic standards. The start would have to occur above Goat's eye chairlift return station and would then necessitate construction of a second temporary lift to get officials and racers to the start gate. The race would then go through Upper Freefall, Gold Afterburner, Silver Scapegoat, and finish at the bottom of a re-contoured Bronze Scapegoat.

The Super-G might be able to fit onto the old Women's World Cup Downhill run.

Giant Slalom and Slalom would be tough to find additional space that also meets FIS standards at Sunshine.

Looking at Lake Louise, it too might not be able to hold an olympic caliber alpine ski event. IIRC there is a specific reason why Lake Louise holds its World Cup Downhill first in the season and this reason has to do with lack of challenging terrain/course. Additionally even Lake Louise would be hard pressed to find suitable terrain to host all alpine skiing disciplines simultaneously.

Originally Posted by MichaelS

We are discouraging people from using our national parks now? (serious question, in regards to this scenario).

Parks Canada is always discouraging people from using the western Canada National Parks. Granted during the 10 years of Conservative government, Parks Canada was in constant tantrum mode over any proposed development in the western national parks and this was taken advantage of by tourist corporations.

For example, Sunshine is only ever allowed to replace chairlifts at the end of their service life and cannot build new lifts in new locations. For example Goats Eye has the hill capacity for a second quad or six pack lift. This lift was planned to operate from the bottom of Bronze Scapegoat to the top of Gold Afterburner, but Parks Canada refuses to consider any new lift capacity.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think they see it as damaging to the parks. The mandate isn't to encourage use, its for protection. The ski hills have kind of an unwritten rule on how many people the parks want to have as a maximum, which is why they limit development and number of lifts/capacities. So with the crowds, buses, infrastructure, traffic etc that would go with an Olympic event, they see it as a threat to their protection mandate. Had someone proposed Sunshine or Lake Louise today, they would never get permission. I think originally for '88 they wanted it at Lake Louise(as that is where the world cups are) but it was shot down, so Nakiska was built.

The issue Parks Canada has with Olympic style event is that they lose control over every aspect of Alpine events during construction and operation of the Olympics. Parks Canada wants an environmental assessment for every rock or plot of dirt moved to contour the hill to FIS demands. Then there is Olympic demands. For example during 19888 inspection of Nakiska, the Olympic committee was deeply concerned with getting media and nonskiing race officials to the bottom of the Slalom events. Th original solution was a ski-do bus operation from Top of Silver Chair, but this was nixed. Instead the Olympic Chair was quickly designed and constructed to allow for these officials and dignitaries easy non skiing access to the bottom of the race course. Under Parks Canada, there is no chance they would approve construction of the Olympic Chair just to placate the demands of Olympic governing body.

[McMurph]

Lake Louise is a fine downhill. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see it as an Olympic venue in the future. It's a hell of a lot more environmentally friendly than building a new hill.

The original Olympic plan for 88 was for new hills in the Spray Valley (Sparrowhawk for downhill, Tent ridge for technical events). For all of Nakiska's problems, I think it was a good alternate but, yes, the downhill course is not particularly challenging.

For what it's worth, the nordic stuff (XC, biathalon and ski jumping) was all going to go to Bragg Creek.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Cage

Sunshine can only handle a Women's downhill and is too small for Men's downhill, this going by the mid 80s design requirements for FIS downhill event.

By today's standards its highly doubtful Sunshine could host the downhill or Super-G without some major hill contouring and adjustment.

Looking at Goats-Eye (which was not built during the mid 80s when Sunshine tried for World Cup events) It might be possible to install a Men's Downhill to Olympic standards. The start would have to occur above Goat's eye chairlift return station and would then necessitate construction of a second temporary lift to get officials and racers to the start gate. The race would then go through Upper Freefall, Gold Afterburner, Silver Scapegoat, and finish at the bottom of a re-contoured Bronze Scapegoat.

The Super-G might be able to fit onto the old Women's World Cup Downhill run.

Giant Slalom and Slalom would be tough to find additional space that also meets FIS standards at Sunshine.

Looking at Lake Louise, it too might not be able to hold an olympic caliber alpine ski event. IIRC there is a specific reason why Lake Louise holds its World Cup Downhill first in the season and this reason has to do with lack of challenging terrain/course. Additionally even Lake Louise would be hard pressed to find suitable terrain to host all alpine skiing disciplines simultaneously.



Parks Canada is always discouraging people from using the western Canada National Parks. Granted during the 10 years of Conservative government, Parks Canada was in constant tantrum mode over any proposed development in the western national parks and this was taken advantage of by tourist corporations.

For example, Sunshine is only ever allowed to replace chairlifts at the end of their service life and cannot build new lifts in new locations. For example Goats Eye has the hill capacity for a second quad or six pack lift. This lift was planned to operate from the bottom of Bronze Scapegoat to the top of Gold Afterburner, but Parks Canada refuses to consider any new lift capacity.



The issue Parks Canada has with Olympic style event is that they lose control over every aspect of Alpine events during construction and operation of the Olympics. Parks Canada wants an environmental assessment for every rock or plot of dirt moved to contour the hill to FIS demands. Then there is Olympic demands. For example during 19888 inspection of Nakiska, the Olympic committee was deeply concerned with getting media and nonskiing race officials to the bottom of the Slalom events. Th original solution was a ski-do bus operation from Top of Silver Chair, but this was nixed. Instead the Olympic Chair was quickly designed and constructed to allow for these officials and dignitaries easy non skiing access to the bottom of the race course. Under Parks Canada, there is no chance they would approve construction of the Olympic Chair just to placate the demands of Olympic governing body.

Thanks. I don't know if this is blasphemous to say, but I find the attitude of 'no development in the parks ever' to be pretty irritating. You could make Sunshine ten times the size and there'd still be plenty of mountains left - what makes the mountains inside the park boundary more special than those outside?

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thanks. I don't know if this is blasphemous to say, but I find the attitude of 'no development in the parks ever' to be pretty irritating. You could make Sunshine ten times the size and there'd still be plenty of mountains left - what makes the mountains inside the park boundary more special than those outside?

The fact that they're within the park boundary...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Socguy

The fact that they're within the park boundary...

I was hoping for a bit less arbitrary of a reason.

[Socguy]

Why is that an arbitrary reason? The park was created for a purpose, specifically: "....to preserve ecological integrity in the park ecosystems and provide for visitor enjoyment and benefit." (from Parks Canada). If everything within the park is treated exactly the same as everything outside the park then how is the mandate of the park being upheld?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Why is that an arbitrary reason? The park was created for a purpose, specifically: "....to preserve ecological integrity in the park ecosystems and provide for visitor enjoyment and benefit." (from Parks Canada). If everything within the park is treated exactly the same as everything outside the park then how is the mandate of the park being upheld?

Well I guess it's the positioning that's arbitrary then - there are plenty of similar mountainous areas that don't have national park status. Don't get me wrong, I am no way for building all over the Rockies, but having the closest area of the Rockies to Calgary banned from any new ski hill development is a bit excessive, as is putting limits on the size and population of Banff despite the need for workers there.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well I guess it's the positioning that's arbitrary then - there are plenty of similar mountainous areas that don't have national park status. Don't get me wrong, I am no way for building all over the Rockies, but having the closest area of the Rockies to Calgary banned from any new ski hill development is a bit excessive, as is putting limits on the size and population of Banff despite the need for workers there.

The fact that it seems excessive is exactly the reason that it's absolutely necessary. If you want to know what the mountains would be like without the Parks protection just look at everything between the gates and Morley.

The hills we've got are perfectly fine for Albertans and our skiing is limited a hell of a lot more by snow (we are on the dry side of the Rockies) than development limitations. Without the park, what we would have would be huge residential and recreational developments designed to suck money out of rich vacationers and absentee owners. Those kinds of places are a dime a dozen (and they still don't serve workers well). The mountain parks, on the other hand, give us bragging rights worldwide.

But having said that, I think Louise could host the Olympics if Parks Canada and the IOC were willing to cooperate.

[bigcanuck]

http://www.newstalk770.com/2016/03/17/114569/

“But others have now talked more seriously about an alternative and I’ve said ‘let’s put it right beside what we’re doing here’ and let’s evaluate them both,” King said on Thursday. ”We have to have an open mind about Plan B because we’ve asked everyone else to have an open mind about Plan A.”

[christmas]

Ken King on Plan B
http://www.newstalk770.com/2016/03/1...have-a-plan-b/

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Why is that an arbitrary reason? The park was created for a purpose, specifically: "....to preserve ecological integrity in the park ecosystems and provide for visitor enjoyment and benefit." (from Parks Canada). If everything within the park is treated exactly the same as everything outside the park then how is the mandate of the park being upheld?

How exactly would running the Olympic downhill skiing events on probably the exact same existing runs that the World Cup races use harm anything any more than is currently happening?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by McMurph

The fact that it seems excessive is exactly the reason that it's absolutely necessary. If you want to know what the mountains would be like without the Parks protection just look at everything between the gates and Morley.

The hills we've got are perfectly fine for Albertans and our skiing is limited a hell of a lot more by snow (we are on the dry side of the Rockies) than development limitations. Without the park, what we would have would be huge residential and recreational developments designed to suck money out of rich vacationers and absentee owners. Those kinds of places are a dime a dozen (and they still don't serve workers well). The mountain parks, on the other hand, give us bragging rights worldwide.

But having said that, I think Louise could host the Olympics if Parks Canada and the IOC were willing to cooperate.

Still seems like circular reasoning and I'm not sure I agree that Canmore and its surroundings is a huge blight on the landscape. Whistler has been allowed to grow to a much larger size to help meet its high demand and I don't see that as being a blight on the natural environment either.

I can't envisage ski patronage decreasing with a growing population in Calgary and Alberta, and dare I say it, rising temperatures worldwide may make Albertan hills more attractive also. So either the ski hills (and Banff town) get intolerably busy/congested, they raise prices or we build new stuff.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Still seems like circular reasoning and I'm not sure I agree that Canmore and its surroundings is a huge blight on the landscape. Whistler has been allowed to grow to a much larger size to help meet its high demand and I don't see that as being a blight on the natural environment either.

I can't envisage ski patronage decreasing with a growing population in Calgary and Alberta, and dare I say it, rising temperatures worldwide may make Albertan hills more attractive also. So either the ski hills (and Banff town) get intolerably busy/congested, they raise prices or we build new stuff.

Whistler's not in a national or provincial park. Do you honestly not understand the premise of national parks? Or do you not understand the difference between an alpine forest and a ski resort? Or are you trolling?

[artvandelay]

Speaking of Lake Louise, they've been approved for expansion:

Federal environment minister won't revisit Lake Louise expansion guidelines

BANFF — Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna says she won’t revisit a controversial decision that paves the way for growth at the Lake Louise ski resort, but noted no expansion projects have actually been approved.........

.............They reduce the ski area’s leasehold by 669 hectares, returning undeveloped land to wilderness. In exchange, Lake Louise would have an option to develop areas such as West Bowl, Hidden Bowl, Richardson’s Ridge and West Juniper under a licence of occupation.

Each area would still have to go through an approvals process, which includes environmental assessments.

If fully developed under the site guidelines, it would mean more development and ultimately allow Lake Louise to accommodate up to 11,500 visitors daily — almost double its current capacity.

Herald Article

[artvandelay]

I agree that Parks Canada's number one mandate should be protecting the unspoiled landscapes in our national parks. Having said that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with improving upon areas that are already home to development. The lengths that some of these bureaucrats go to in order to obstruct and impede any change within park boundaries are ridiculous and not a productive use of public funds.

Park attendance is only going to increase and we need to continuously improve our infrastructure to accommodate this.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Still seems like circular reasoning and I'm not sure I agree that Canmore and its surroundings is a huge blight on the landscape. Whistler has been allowed to grow to a much larger size to help meet its high demand and I don't see that as being a blight on the natural environment either.

I can't envisage ski patronage decreasing with a growing population in Calgary and Alberta, and dare I say it, rising temperatures worldwide may make Albertan hills more attractive also. So either the ski hills (and Banff town) get intolerably busy/congested, they raise prices or we build new stuff.

You are looking at this through an almost purely anthropocentric lens. However, even anthropocentric environmental sustainability recognizes that the market will not protect the environment and user-demand should not dictate environmental policy.