Olympics 2026 Potential Bid Thread

MalcolmTucker · #1 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 8:05 PM**

[del]

MalcolmTucker · #2 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 8:06 PM**

Holding post for 2026 Bid Details

MalcolmTucker · #3 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 8:08 PM**

[del]

Link to 2010 Bid Book

Calgarian · #4 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 8:16 PM**

I'd like to see another Olympic bid as the legacy from '88 is still going strong, but we could definitely use an upgrade to lots of our facilities. That being said, the Olympics are massively expensive so we would need to have a very organized and coordinated plan (keep Ken King the hell away! haha) so as not to end up losing a massive amount of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

artvandelay · #5 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 8:26 PM**

I would fully support a bid. It's time to upgrade our 88' legacy facilities and I'd would be a heck of a lot cheaper to host here than to start from scratch somewhere else.

Fuzz · #6 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 9:06 PM**

Winter Olympics aren't as big of scale compared to summer, but they have grown massively since Calgary last held them. We would require lots of new facilities, probably the most major being what to do about Alpine events. Didn't we have a discussion about this 6 or 8 months ago?

Calgarian · #7 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I would fully support a bid. It's time to upgrade our 88' legacy facilities and I'd would be a heck of a lot cheaper to host here than to start from scratch somewhere else.

A lot of our facilities would need to be rebuilt as they are old or don't meet current requirements (ski jump and bobsled track come to mind).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Winter Olympics aren't as big of scale compared to summer, but they have grown massively since Calgary last held them. We would require lots of new facilities, probably the most major being what to do about Alpine events. Didn't we have a discussion about this 6 or 8 months ago?

I think these would all move to Lake Louise. A future bid in Calgary would probably include Banff like Vancouver did with Whistler.

Fuzz · #8 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 10:17 PM**

Last time Parks Canada wouldn't allow it. I'm sure there would be lots of resistance to that. Whistler isn't in a National Park.

MalcolmTucker · #9 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 10:20 PM**

[del]

artvandelay · #10 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

A lot of our facilities would need to be rebuilt as they are old or don't meet current requirements (ski jump and bobsled track come to mind).

Yup, which is exactly why it would be a good idea to host. Adding several turns to the bobsled track and renovating the Oval is going to be much cheaper than building new.

The ski jump might need to be moved to elsewhere - I heard there are wind issues with the COP location. If that's not the case, I'm sure the existing structure could be used as a starting point.

MalcolmTucker · #11 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 11:04 PM**

[del]

Calgarian · #12 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 11:08 PM**

Isn't the tall ski jump not big enough anymore?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Last time Parks Canada wouldn't allow it. I'm sure there would be lots of resistance to that. Whistler isn't in a National Park.

That's too bad, hopefully they would change their mind. That being said, dealing with the ridiculous bureaucracy to get anything built or approved would be like pulling teeth, so I'm not sure there would be the stomach to deal with that...

milomilo · #13 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 11:09 PM**

Will Nakiska even get any snow in ten years time? I think if we are forever banned from developing around Banff then any Olympic bid is a non starter.

MalcolmTucker · #14 Posted **Jun 20, 2016, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Isn't the tall ski jump not big enough anymore?

Not really sure if new jumps are taller, or if jumpers are a lot better and can fly further. Probably a bit of both. The write up in the bid book seemed to be trying to make the point of something like 'who cares, this will be the most consistent facility in the world'.

bt04ku · #15 Posted **Jun 21, 2016, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Isn't the tall ski jump not big enough anymore?

It's kind of the opposite. The landing area wasn't big enough for what jumpers could do which was a major catalyst for why it got converted to the zipline. There was also a major safety issue because even if it were graded to the desired specs the chance of wind gusts taking people off course is too big of a risk as well.

Wooster · #16 Posted **Jun 21, 2016, 5:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Not really sure if new jumps are taller, or if jumpers are a lot better and can fly further. Probably a bit of both. The write up in the bid book seemed to be trying to make the point of something like 'who cares, this will be the most consistent facility in the world'.

No, it's a different jump. The ski-jumps would need to be totally revamped or more likely moved to a different venue - maybe Fortress Mountain as part of a re-opening (which I know is in the works).

McMurph · #17 Posted **Jun 21, 2016, 2:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

maybe Fortress Mountain as part of a re-opening (which I know is in the works).

Tell me more...

Fuzz · #18 Posted **Jun 21, 2016, 2:44 PM**

It's been "in the works" for a good decade. Are there more concrete plans?

It was nice to have some events at COP in the city, so hopefully they could keep things like moguls here. Ski jump and aerials might be more difficult with the wind issues. Not sure if you could do slalom as well.

MalcolmTucker · #19 Posted **Jun 21, 2016, 2:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMurph

Tell me more...

More concrete than before:

Quote:

Fortress Resort in Alberta Slowly Catching Its Breath
By IAN AUSTEN DEC. 9, 2015

Unlike its competitors in Banff National Park, Fortress Mountain Resort is little known as a skiing destination outside of Alberta. But despite that, it is still familiar to much of the world, for a quite a different reason.

It has hosted a dramatic ski chase in “Inception,” stood in for Alaska in “The Bourne Legacy” and was a snowy campsite in “Brokeback Mountain.” Television producers and ad agencies seeking a mountain backdrop are also regular visitors.

But the success Fortress Mountain has enjoyed as a film production location hasn’t been matched in recent years by its main business. In 2007, it became a ghost resort after the province withdrew the lease from the owner at that time after it failed to fix an unsafe bridge, maintain the buildings properly and pay rent and taxes.

Now a new group, funded by an oil industry investor from nearby Calgary, is slowly reviving Fortress Mountain. This month marks the start of the fifth season of what may be Canada’s most bare-bones, yet exclusive, ski resort.

With the resort’s lifts out of operation and, in many cases, beyond redemption, Fortress Mountain Holdings, the current owner, now relies on a single tracked snowcat to give no more than 14 skiers the full run of the resort’s 3,300 acres four days a week.

The cat skiing is the first step in a plan to restart lift skiing, build a new lodge and eventually add accommodations to the resort for the first time. But before any of that, the owners need approval from the Province of Alberta, which leases the land to the resort, and deal with the economic downturn that the collapse of oil prices has brought to Alberta.

WhipperSnapper · #20 Posted **Jun 21, 2016, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by artvandelay

Yup, which is exactly why it would be a good idea to host. Adding several turns to the bobsled track and renovating the Oval is going to be much cheaper than building new.

The ski jump might need to be moved to elsewhere - I heard there are wind issues with the COP location. If that's not the case, I'm sure the existing structure could be used as a starting point.

Considering the age of the facilities, it's probably a lot cheaper to start over. Renovation costs tend to be higher with usually hidden surprises.

The savings would be not having to assemble the land.