New Downtown Calgary Arena

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

If South Korea and Japan can figure out how to share a World Cup, how can Calgary and Edmonton not figure it out?

World cup as in Soccer? we need several large stadiums for that, currently Alberta has 1.5 large stadiums, and I doubt we are about to get another 5 or so. Canada could host one day, and we could get a few games in Alberta, but we will never host it solo, never!

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

No it wouldn't, it's an incredibly stupid idea. Wounded civic pride for some maybe, but from a financial point of view it would be an complete waste of money for Calgary to host those events in Edmonton. Host all the glory sports, the only ones people care about in Edmonton, while splitting the cost of the Olympics? No thanks.

Alright, let me backtrack a bit. I would expect any such idea to be held to financial analysis before calling it a "good idea". And I never said Edmonton should get allthe glory sports.

All I really care is that we don't instinctively reject Whistler/Vancouver/Edmonton, or any other plausible idea, just out of civic pride, or otherwise being beholden to past ideas that Olympics must be hosted in, or very close to, a single city.

Building an extra stadium/arena just so we have sufficient capacity for the Olympics, and only for the Olympics, is a bad idea. That's my jumping-off point for considering the inclusion of other cities.

[Fishthebow]

I don't see any point in co-hosting the Olympics. It makes sense on paper from a financial point of view, but really doesn't from a logistical point of view, and there isn't a benefit for Calgary in doing it.

World cup soccer can be done between two neighboring countries, because the games are already played in various cities around the host country, and multiple stadiums are needed. Not the case with the Olympics. If we were hosting a world cup of Hockey with 32 teams it would make sense to spread it between cities.

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

If South Korea and Japan can figure out how to share a World Cup, how can Calgary and Edmonton not figure it out?

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

Alright, let me backtrack a bit. I would expect any such idea to be held to financial analysis before calling it a "good idea". And I never said Edmonton should get allthe glory sports.

All I really care is that we don't instinctively reject Whistler/Vancouver/Edmonton, or any other plausible idea, just out of civic pride, or otherwise being beholden to past ideas that Olympics must be hosted in, or very close to, a single city.

Building an extra stadium/arena just so we have sufficient capacity for the Olympics, and only for the Olympics, is a bad idea. That's my jumping-off point for considering the inclusion of other cities.

[Fishthebow]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

No it wouldn't, it's an incredibly stupid idea. Wounded civic pride for some maybe, but from a financial point of view it would be an complete waste of money for Calgary to host those events in Edmonton. Host all the glory sports, the only ones people care about in Edmonton, while splitting the cost of the Olympics? No thanks.

I don't know about incredibly stupid....yeah, never mind, there's no polite way to say it.... it would be incredibly stupid.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Fishthebow

I don't see any point in co-hosting the Olympics. It makes sense on paper from a financial point of view, but really doesn't from a logistical point of view, and there isn't a benefit for Calgary in doing it.

If asking Whistler to host the ski jumping means we don't have to build new ski jumps; or asking Edmonton or Vancouver to host parts of the hockey tournaments means we don't need an extra hockey arena -- that's a benefit to Calgary. It means we spend less money create facilities that aren't needed.

Sure, that isn't all "Calgary money", much of it is "provincial money" or "federal money". But hey, I pay money to all 3 levels of government; I'm not particularly swayed by arguments of "it benefits city XYZ to fleece as much as possible from the feds".

Of course the financial -- and logistical -- calculations are more complicated than that. Yup, the other location(s) would require their own security, press, athlete facilities, etc. Are there situations where this is substantially less than the capital cost of building it in Calgary?

[ST1]

Sharing with Edmonton or Vancouver defeats the purpose of having the Olympics. To be honest there's nothing great about having the Olympics except for raising the profile of your city. Sharing the high profile events with another city is a pointless way to help pay the cost to increase the profile of another city? No thanks.

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

If asking Whistler to host the ski jumping means we don't have to build new ski jumps; or asking Edmonton or Vancouver to host parts of the hockey tournaments means we don't need an extra hockey arena -- that's a benefit to Calgary. It means we spend less money create facilities that aren't needed.

Sure, that isn't all "Calgary money", much of it is "provincial money" or "federal money". But hey, I pay money to all 3 levels of government; I'm not particularly swayed by arguments of "it benefits city XYZ to fleece as much as possible from the feds".

Of course the financial -- and logistical -- calculations are more complicated than that. Yup, the other location(s) would require their own security, press, athlete facilities, etc. Are there situations where this is substantially less than the capital cost of building it in Calgary?

[s211]

Originally Posted by ST1

To be honest there's nothing great about having the Olympics except for raising the profile of your city.

And this is why I've written off both the summer and winter Olympics: there's no point in them any more. They're an embarrassing circus of political games that has lost all perspective and reason to exist.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by s211

And this is why I've written off both the summer and winter Olympics: there's no point in them any more. They're an embarrassing circus of political games that has lost all perspective and reason to exist.

When you have a family member participating it really changes things and makes them very exciting. Really a great experience.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by ST1

Sharing with Edmonton or Vancouver defeats the purpose of having the Olympics.

Beijing Olympics had equestrian in Hong Kong. It worked spectacularly, and with that as a touchstone, I disagree with you.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Beijing Olympics had equestrian in Hong Kong. It worked spectacularly, and with that as a touchstone, I disagree with you.

Not sharing the premier event isn’t the same thing. It would be like hosting track and field to be on par.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Beijing Olympics had equestrian in Hong Kong. It worked spectacularly, and with that as a touchstone, I disagree with you.

But does anyone care about equestrian sports in the summer Olympics? Would Beijing have let Hong Kong host the track and field or the swimming?

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by ST1

Sharing with Edmonton or Vancouver defeats the purpose of having the Olympics. To be honest there's nothing great about having the Olympics except for raising the profile of your city. Sharing the high profile events with another city is a pointless way to help pay the cost to increase the profile of another city? No thanks.

100% agreed. That idea is not good for Calgary at all, unless we are hosting the hockey/figure skating/curling. The problem is that doens't leave anything for Edmonton. So in the end, not a viable idea.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Beijing Olympics had equestrian in Hong Kong. It worked spectacularly, and with that as a touchstone, I disagree with you.

I'm sure if you asked those athletes if they would have preferred to be with all the other athletes in the Olympic Village, I'm sure you'd get a different response.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

When you have a family member participating it really changes things and makes them very exciting. Really a great experience.

So taxpayers should pony up, just so you'd get the warm fuzzies?

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by s211

So taxpayers should pony up, just so you'd get the warm fuzzies?

I’m a tax payer as well and I’m all for hosting the olympics all in Calgary. I was replying to people saying they are no longer interests so they don’t care. My bro participated in 2 winter games and getting to go and watch him and meet athletes was pretty cool.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

But does anyone care about equestrian sports in the summer Olympics? Would Beijing have let Hong Kong host the track and field or the swimming?

It is a good point you make, but I don't think ski jumping and/or one pool in the preliminary round for hockey equates to giving up all of track and field or swimming in the summer Olympics. Another way to see is that these (modest in my book) concessions allow for a cash-flow positive games.

My starting point is I think most will agree that we do not want to host a games that would leave the city in massive long-term debt. So trying to find a middle road, where Calgary maintains the big-dog events, including not only one of the first round pools for hockey but also the entire medal round for hockey, long-track speed skating, short-track speed skating, bobsled, skeleton, luge, the various skiing events within the region including free-style, curling, men's and women's figure skating, women's hockey, the opening ceremonies, closing ceremonies, additional cultural events, etcetera.

Guess we'll see what the committee(s) come up with, but the discussion is interesting none-the-less.

From a Calgary infrastructure perspective, I see an enhanced Olympic Oval (entry / foyer area, so it can host larger events year round, instead of an entry / exit / bathroom bottleneck), expanded multi-function convention / exhibition BMO centre, built out medium/high density residential in victoria park from a re-purposed athletes and media village in victoria park, expedited phase II financing for green line, revitalized stampede area with 17th ave connected to Olympic Way, etc. Those are some significant projects that inspire me to find a way to make an Olympics work!

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

My bro participated in 2 winter games and getting to go and watch him and meet athletes was pretty cool.

Love it!

[sammyd]

I would be surprised if this self serving council didnt bid on the Olympics. Against all rational evidence.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by sammyd

I would be surprised if this self serving council didnt bid on the Olympics. Against all rational evidence.

Why are they self serving?

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I’m all for improving current facilities like the Oval and the ski jumps and not blowing the budget like Sochi did but your proposal is a tad... boring, not to mention short sighted. Vancouver managed to build legacy facilities and also extend the skytrain to the airport. We can too.

If we host an Olympics that looks exactly like our last did in ‘88 I will be embarassed. I’m all for reigning in largesse but the Saddledome does have real issues such as bathrooms and concourse layout to say nothing of terrible accoustics. To not build a new arena to serve in conjunction with the Dome for the games would be a lost opportunity and extremely short sighted. If that happens I can see the Flames actually leaving as it would be a massive middle finger to the entire negotiating process. We have to stop believing our city is so fantastic that we can’t ever give incentives. This zero sum game won’t work long term.

We already have legacy facilities from the 88 Olympics. My point is that we should use the opportunity to upgrade them, not scrap them. It does not concern me if the Olympics look similar to the ones in 88. My concern is that the facilities are safe and effective. As for vision, I can't think of a bigger vision than NOT doing what every other host has done by spending billions on splashy visuals and instead spent the money on improving the CITY for it's citizens.

As for issues with the dome, it's far better to address those issues through renovation rather than throwing the building away. Note that a new arena doesn't always fix those issues you point out. Case in point, Edmonton. Washrooms are still a major sticking point even though they've increased the number of them. Problem being is that more an more washrooms are being locked away from the general public for exclusive use of the patrons who pay for the premium products. Furthermore, washroom space will always compete for concourse space with outlets that actually generate revenue therefore a new arena will always try to build the minimum they think they can get away with.

There is no question that building a new arena WILL allow the Flames to extract more money from the people who can still afford to go, however, unless you can afford to double the amount you spend at a game the benefit to the average Calgarian is minimal at best.

This brings us right back around to argument of who should pay for a new arena. Since the Flames are the ones who stand to benefit, then they should be the ones to pay for it. If the Flames calculate that there is not enough extra revenue in a new arena to justify the investment of a new arena then they are perfectly welcome to stay at the Saddledome and continue to be the top half of league revenue.

[kiwi]

Does anyone know what year Edwards purchased the flames and at what price?