Olympics 2026 Potential Bid Thread

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The need for a field house, new arena and new stadium has never had anything to do with the Olympics other in the manipulative minds of Yes supporters. I fully expect that group of people to go out of their way to sabotage any efforts to build those badly needed facilities.

I think the vote was clear. No extra tax dollars for new and/or enhanced sports facilities. There is no need to load up debt in this difficult economy. We really need to accept the view of Calgarians.

That all being said, if you want to continue your advocacy for greatly increased debt for a stadium and arena for the Flames Billionaires, please do that in the appropriate thread.

[patm]

This city is going to be dead in 20 years anyways.

What's 500 million in savings really going to help with? Build a couple interchanges to help everyone moving out of the city for greener pastures?

Interest rates are going up. Taxes are going to sky rocket. Young people will be leaving en masse after high school. The city has used property owners equity to subsidize housing development that there is no demand for and there is no solution on the horizon for any of this.

This is truly it for this city. At least hosting the olympics would have given us a platform for a month on the world stage to do our best to shift our fortunes. Now the city has nothing left up it's sleeves besides desperately sending out their economic development teams hoping and hoping for something to change (4 years without a single success story).

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ there’s a misconception that Vancouverites hate Calgary. But the truth is that Calgary is inconsequential to most Vancouverites so they really just don’t care about Calgary.

Edmonton has the same complex about Calgary as Calgary has about Vancouver.

Maybe 10 years ago.





...also, what the shit Calgary? Missed opportunity.

[White Pine]

It was a bit too soon after Vancouver anyways. Let Europe get this one, then apply later. Plus, infrastructure improvements would have been a headache, with the south leg of LRT due for (likely late) completion that year. Bidding into the 2030s would probably be more logistically sound, plus it gives Toronto a chance for summer games, which are probably more overdue (assuming the public likes the idea, of course).

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

what the shit Calgary? Missed opportunity.

The perfect storm was on the one hand, people not wanting to invest a little for a potential massive payoff because they were scared of risks no matter how well mitigated, plus the right-wingers who, under the guise of don't spend tax dollars, were actually dismayed the Olympics couldn't be the avenue by which to enrich their business partners, specifically, developers and Flames billionaires. If the right is able to, with smoke and mirrors, keep these two opposed views together against a construed fictitious centrist monster, it could be a seat change for Alberta as a whole. On the other hand, if these inside workings are exposed, it could backfire on the Jay Westman / Flames Billionaires slate.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I think the vote was clear. No extra tax dollars for new and/or enhanced sports facilities. There is no need to load up debt in this difficult economy. We really need to accept the view of Calgarians.

That all being said, if you want to continue your advocacy for greatly increased debt for a stadium and arena for the Flames Billionaires, please do that in the appropriate thread.

That's not what the vote said at all. Also, you should be the last person to tell people where they should be posting.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by White Pine

It was a bit too soon after Vancouver anyways. Let Europe get this one, then apply later. Plus, infrastructure improvements would have been a headache, with the south leg of LRT due for (likely late) completion that year. Bidding into the 2030s would probably be more logistically sound, plus it gives Toronto a chance for summer games, which are probably more overdue (assuming the public likes the idea, of course).

I think we really need to listen to the electorate. They don't want public money for the great dinosaur called the Olympics. The Oxford report explaining how every Olympics in history had cost overruns is not going to change before 2030. The only way that was going to happen is if Calgary was allowed to show how it could be done IE by not spending on ridiculous facilities which are the pieces that feed Olympics cost overruns. The Olympics are a lost cause for Calgary in the near to mid-term. Maybe 2038 or 2042, at which point a high-speed line between Calgary and Edmonton could be considered given the increased population. Very little appetite to shovel even more money into anything before that.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The perfect storm was on the one hand, people not wanting to invest a little for a potential massive payoff because they were scared of risks no matter how well mitigated, plus the right-wingers who, under the guise of don't spend tax dollars, were actually dismayed the Olympics couldn't be the avenue by which to enrich their business partners, specifically, developers and Flames billionaires. If the right is able to, with smoke and mirrors, keep these two opposed views together against a construed fictitious centrist monster, it could be a seat change for Alberta as a whole. On the other hand, if these inside workings are exposed, it could backfire on the Jay Westman / Flames Billionaires slate.

Classic ploy of the left!

[McBoo]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Maybe 10 years ago.





...also, what the shit Calgary? Missed opportunity.

He, 240GLT and I are all from Edmonton, so take our comments with a grain of salt.

Sorry Ian, err Cold. we have a perverse obsession with everything Calgary. It's a bit better than ten years ago, but still unhealthy.

As for the topic at hand - not sure what to think. Even as an Edmontonian, I loved the 88 games in YYC.

But this time, seemed to be a growing division that may have even ended life-long friendships - business relationships.

Not me personally, but that happened here during the great (municipal) airport debate and it was U-G-L-Y.

So, no comment other than - heal folks. Get back to being the annoying twin brother you used to be!!

[X_ting_on]

Actually you can do 1000 affordable units far cheaper than $400 million... and that doesn’t include the cost overruns which would’ve probably made more like $600 million. the rest of the so called value adds weren’t really of value.

Originally Posted by suburbia

To say the $390M was just sports facilities is disingenuous. The legacy included over 1,000 low income housing units.

Given that Calgary has backed out from the deal, we won't be able to leverage in this fashion, so the low income housing units are off the table. Calgarians voted against them. C'est la vie.



Can't really do it cheaper as once you work in all of the value adds that were on the table and look at our proposed investment, it would be costing 10 cents to the dollar with all the funds coming in. As I mentioned, Calgarians voted against the low income housing units (as well as facilities and jobs and economic spinoffs). C'est la vie.

[Fatcat loser]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Maybe 10 years ago.


...also, what the shit Calgary? Missed opportunity.

No it's still there. Not as bad as 10 years ago, but still quite noticaeble.

Missed opportunity? more like dodging a bullet.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Actually you can do 1000 affordable units far cheaper than $400 million.

I think you misunderstood the subtlety of my post.
http://bfy.tw/AafE

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

the rest of the so called value adds weren’t really of value.

So all of the items Calgary would have received that you are saying don't really have value include:
1. Top notch year-round fieldhouse for the city
2. New mid-sized arena for the University of Calgary area
3. $1B in salaries translating to 15,400 jobs for Calgarians
4. Over 1,200 low income housing units
5. $4B injected into the Calgary economy
6. Upgraded facilities across the board, ensuring the city's leadership position for winter sports for decades into the future

I get that people place different value on things, but to say that 15,000 jobs for Calgarians and a new fieldhouse "weren't really of value" is a little bit tainted of a comment.

[Fatcat loser]

15,000 temporary jobs. Not near as important as you think. $4Billion injected into the economy? You're not buying that baloney are you? Oh...I guess you are. New field house? Nobody cares about that.

Originally Posted by suburbia

I think you misunderstood the subtlety of my post.
http://bfy.tw/AafE


So all of the items Calgary would have received that you are saying don't really have value include:
1. Top notch year-round fieldhouse for the city
2. New mid-sized arena for the University of Calgary area
3. $1B in salaries translating to 15,400 jobs for Calgarians
4. Over 1,200 low income housing units
5. $4B injected into the Calgary economy
6. Upgraded facilities across the board, ensuring the city's leadership position for winter sports for decades into the future

I get that people place different value on things, but to say that 15,000 jobs for Calgarians and a new fieldhouse "weren't really of value" is a little bit tainted of a comment.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Fatcat loser

15,000 temporary jobs. Not near as important as you think. $4Billion injected into the economy? You're not buying that baloney are you? Oh...I guess you are. New field house? Nobody cares about that.

Even if you just count $390M for $1B in salaries for Calgarians it is an exceptional deal.

Originally Posted by Fatcat loser

New field house? Nobody cares about that.

I actually don't mind that opinion, because I think with the no vote, we should halt on any tax funds towards sports facilities. That being said, I included it because people like Corndogger have been pushin' up the need for a fieldhouse rather regularly (which I'm surprised you don't see or respond to).

[DizzyEdge]

I liked this thread on Twitter by Peter Schryvers.
Although he starts it off by "Why I voted No" I think it has a lot of truths regardless

https://twitter.com/PeterSchryvers/status/1062752479987658752

The key points:

Calgary is a city that is struggling with a transition. Office vacancies and unemployment are at historic highs & the energy industry shows no signs of a quick rebound.

Many are looking for a single solution. Getting Amazon or the 2026 games. But these are misguided.

A single big event, or attracting a large company, is often too expensive and too risky. When you fail, you fail big. Cities need to learn to fail small. What we need, instead, is to create a city where ideas can grow. That is a different strategy than having one big thing.

We need to create a city where people want to live, and where they can create businesses. I would rather have 1000 small companies started than to attract an Amazon, because that strategy allows us to fail small.

----------------------------------------

My big concern with Calgary, especially now, is that we've been like a giant sized turn of the century mining town. One main industry, boom years, then it dries up.

If you think about it, for decades we've had one primary industry (oil & gas) and one primary tourism play (Calgary Stampede). No those aren't the only industries or tourism attractions, but I wonder if having such major ones have caused us to forget how to not rely on them, or perhaps a better way to put it is it's trained us to try to find "one big thing" to replace the previous "one big thing".
To paraphrase Peter, we need 1000 industries and 1000 tourist attractions.

[patm]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I liked this thread on Twitter by Peter Schryvers.
Although he starts it off by "Why I voted No" I think it has a lot of truths regardless

https://twitter.com/PeterSchryvers/status/1062752479987658752

The key points:

Calgary is a city that is struggling with a transition. Office vacancies and unemployment are at historic highs & the energy industry shows no signs of a quick rebound.

Many are looking for a single solution. Getting Amazon or the 2026 games. But these are misguided.

A single big event, or attracting a large company, is often too expensive and too risky. When you fail, you fail big. Cities need to learn to fail small. What we need, instead, is to create a city where ideas can grow. That is a different strategy than having one big thing.

We need to create a city where people want to live, and where they can create businesses. I would rather have 1000 small companies started than to attract an Amazon, because that strategy allows us to fail small.

----------------------------------------

My big concern with Calgary, especially now, is that we've been like a giant sized turn of the century mining town. One main industry, boom years, then it dries up.

If you think about it, for decades we've had one primary industry (oil & gas) and one primary tourism play (Calgary Stampede). No those aren't the only industries or tourism attractions, but I wonder if having such major ones have caused us to forget how to not rely on them, or perhaps a better way to put it is it's trained us to try to find "one big thing" to replace the previous "one big thing".
To paraphrase Peter, we need 1000 industries and 1000 tourist attractions.

The issue is they have been trying this strategy for at least four years now, sending economic development teams around the world with fancy power points, promising low rent, new digs, low taxes, educated and young workforce in a vibrant city close to the mountains. It hasn't worked. Not a single time.

There is simply little interest in anyone setting up shop here and little plays and little plans aren't making any difference in that.

The city, today, has accepted it's fate. They will desperately cling on to the hope that some magical, miracle will happen and our economy will evolve without any major spend of our own. We are a mining town and our resource is almost not worth taking out of the ground at this point.

We're fucked.

My best suggestion at this point is sink all of that money into the university. Make Calgary the best at something other than spitting out thousands of engineers that can't find work here.

[BlaineN]

I would say the opposite actually. While I think it would be a great opportunity for Calgary to host the games...some day, this bid never really got off on the right foot.
Going forward I'm confident Calgary will host the games in the future, as enough people want to do it - even many who voted no said they want to do it, but wanted the bid done differently. Right now it's an opportunity to take another run at it later with lessons learned, and do a better bid.

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

...also, what the shit Calgary? Missed opportunity.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by patm

The issue is they have been trying this strategy for at least four years now, sending economic development teams around the world with fancy power points, promising low rent, new digs, low taxes, educated and young workforce in a vibrant city close to the mountains. It hasn't worked. Not a single time.

There is simply little interest in anyone setting up shop here and little plays and little plans aren't making any difference in that.

The city, today, has accepted it's fate. They will desperately cling on to the hope that some magical, miracle will happen and our economy will evolve without any major spend of our own. We are a mining town and our resource is almost not worth taking out of the ground at this point.

We're fucked.

My best suggestion at this point is sink all of that money into the university. Make Calgary the best at something other than spitting out thousands of engineers that can't find work here.

I think Peter was more aiming for creating the right conditions for home-grown business and such, but maybe your U of C comment is actually the path for that. I'm curious if there's any major field where Canada does not have a world-class school?

[s211]

Might a more positive way to see this is that Calgary has elected to not participate in the Olympics as it's currently structured, i.e. massively bloated, surely corrupt, and far far too full of itself. The Olympic governing body itself operates seemingly like separate level of government, or government-state. The way they railroaded existing companies in Canada during the Vancouver/Whistler Olympics was unconscionable (e.g. forcing companies to remove "Sea to Sky" from their corporate names, companies in business long long before the Olympics came to BC being one such example, because the Olympic governing body went and copyrighted a bunch of non-Olympic phrases).

I think we would all win from an Olympics that really just focused on the sports, avoiding much of the bloated expenses, infrastructure fails and attendant false promises. In that regard, I look back at the Universiade that Edmonton hosted in the early 80s (going from memory, the second largest sporting event next to the Olympics), with a huge focus on just the sports without all the hollow Olympic trappings.

I'd take that kind of sporting event all day long over an Olympic one (in the form that the Olympics presently inhabits).

[MalcolmTucker]

I find the: lets do other things comments disingenuous as they over estimate what the investment was going to be from Calgary - it wasn't big enough in the all eggs in one basket way. It was 1.5 airport tunnels. Especially from certain councillors who in the same thought talk about things which were explicitly part of the Olympic Bid, that they now think we should focus on outside of the Olympics.

But what can we do now about that? Nothing. We will just have to see if the anti-spenders now pivot to oppose just about every investment proposed in One City, and whether the investor faction on council can keep getting things through the process.