Holding the Olympics in Canada, again

[FFX-ME]

The main issue withe le Massif is not the height, the height meets the requirements, but rather the shape of the mountain. The mountain is simply not steep enough. You can't change its shape. The only way to make it work would be if the IOC becomes more lenient is no one applies.

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/vi...maire-labeaume

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

You're right. There was a study done by SCN about Le Massif concluding that the vertical drop and slopes (26%) were meeting the requirements at Mont Liguori. However, we would have to build a 20 m. slide on the top of the hill in order to get at 808 m. downhill, since the arrival would be 12 m. above the water.

That doesn't sound too difficult from an engineering point of view.

You should watch the delightful film "The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill But Came Down A Mountain". It can be done........

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

That doesn't sound too difficult from an engineering point of view.

You should watch the delightful film "The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill But Came Down A Mountain". It can be done........

But still, that isn't what the problem is... The problem is that there is a very long flat stretch.

[le calmar]

I think the proposed track that is tailored for an eventual Olympic bid would avoid the flat stretch. However the addition of a costly new bridge over the river would be required. (that's right, part of the track would be on a bridge).

[bikegypsy]

There's no way the Olympics will ever come back to Montreal. Those games were a prime example of horrendous management and their memory still lingers on with montrealers 40 years after like a shit stain that won't wash off. Furthermore, the city is now too small to host these games.

I think that it's just a matter of time before Toronto hosts the summer games. Canada also has a shot at future Winter Olympics in either Quebec City, Vancouver and Calgary. QC would be a fantastic host for this.

[Loco101]

I've always thought that Quebec City would be an awesome host. I've been to the Charlevoix region and have seen Le Massif. I didn't think it would be adequate for the Olympics but if it is then that would be wonderful.

I've been to Quebec City many times in both Winter and Summer and enjoyed the city every time. There is an amazing Winter charm in the old town areas that you don't see anywhere else in North America.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'd like to see the winter games come to Quebec City, Montreal, or Ottawa, and summer games come to Vancouver. I'm surprised there aren't taller skiing mountains within range of Montreal and Ottawa. I'm surprised Mont-Tremblant,doesn't have the required elevation...

[le calmar]

Whiteface is within driving range from Montreal and Ottawa, but that would imply Canada and the US would be co-hosting the games. And Lake Placid would end up getting half the events, they are hungry for another olympic bid.

[WhipperSnapper]

Have the games in Quebec and the skiing in BC. done.

[le calmar]

It has never been done before, having the events so far apart. I think the tolerance is usually a few hundred kms from the host city. But things are about to change now that the Olympic committee is in desperate need of candidate cities. It could probably be done. The FIFA World Cup has been doing it for over 15 years now.

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'd like to see the winter games come to Quebec City, Montreal, or Ottawa, and summer games come to Vancouver. I'm surprised there aren't taller skiing mountains within range of Montreal and Ottawa. I'm surprised Mont-Tremblant,doesn't have the required elevation...

Mont-Tremblant meets the requirements for downhill competitions (~800 m. drop, ~25% slope). The rest could be held in various sites in the Laurentian hills (St-Sauveur, etc.) But as many said, for now, the mayor has no interest. He's more focused on baseball

[JHikka]

If the 2008 Olympics could be based in Beijing with the Equestrian events in Hong Kong I don't see why we couldn't have the downhill ski events elsewhere with the remainder of the events in Quebec City.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

Mont-Tremblant meets the requirements for downhill competitions (~800 m. drop, ~25% slope).

FWIW, the vertical at Tremblant is 619m (2031 ft). Significantly less than what is required.

The Olympic movement is at an interesting moment in its history. The winter Olympics are not that appealing and the summer Olympics are a bit of a gong show. As LA will be hosting 2028, the soonest time North America would likely get the next Olympics would be 2040. (Note this was based on the old rotate through the 3 time zone "regions" model). With South America (BA or Montevideo??) and Africa now in play, it may be even longer until the summer Olympics are in NA. So likely the soonest Toronto could be up for consideration is 2040 - and so much while change by then.

As for the winter Olympics - Calgary is likely the best placed Canadian city for the 2026 games (yes, even in better shape than Vancouver) yet it is still targeted at $4.6 Billion.

Would I like to see the Olympics in Canada again? Most likely yes - but not at any cost.

FYI, IMHO the best hill in Canada for the Olympics would be Lake Louise and not Whistler. While I am not an Olympic level skier having skied the World Cup run at Louise and the DH runs at Whistler I think those at Louise are better suited for this event.

[swimmer_spe]

Thinking that we should have it spread between 2 countries is a little far fetched. Then we would ahve to ensure all athletes could go to 2 countries, not one.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by shreddog

FWIW, the vertical at Tremblant is 619m (2031 ft). Significantly less than what is required.

The Olympic movement is at an interesting moment in its history. The winter Olympics are not that appealing and the summer Olympics are a bit of a gong show. As LA will be hosting 2028, the soonest time North America would likely get the next Olympics would be 2040. (Note this was based on the old rotate through the 3 time zone "regions" model). With South America (BA or Montevideo??) and Africa now in play, it may be even longer until the summer Olympics are in NA. So likely the soonest Toronto could be up for consideration is 2040 - and so much while change by then.

As for the winter Olympics - Calgary is likely the best placed Canadian city for the 2026 games (yes, even in better shape than Vancouver) yet it is still targeted at $4.6 Billion.

Would I like to see the Olympics in Canada again? Most likely yes - but not at any cost.

FYI, IMHO the best hill in Canada for the Olympics would be Lake Louise and not Whistler. While I am not an Olympic level skier having skied the World Cup run at Louise and the DH runs at Whistler I think those at Louise are better suited for this event.

As I have said before, no way any Olympic events will be held in a national park.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

As I have said before, no way any Olympic events will be held in a national park.

Why?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

As I have said before, no way any Olympic events will be held in a national park.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why?

Because if people want to do something, Parks Canada doesn't want you to do it. They are also entirely opposed to any new development within the Banff National park, which means that despite clear demand for new housing, facilities, hotels, transportation etc in the park, we aren't going to get any. At least without a change of attitude.

This could make things interesting if Calgary does decide to host the Olympics. In 9 years time I'm not sure Nakiska will have enough snow to stay open, but maybe Kicking Horse would be an option for the downhill as it is big and steep.

[b31den]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because if people want to do something, Parks Canada doesn't want you to do it. They are also entirely opposed to any new development within the Banff National park, which means that despite clear demand for new housing, facilities, hotels, transportation etc in the park, we aren't going to get any. At least without a change

Building permanent infrastructure is totally different than what would be needed to host olympic alpine events. All that would be required is temporary stands set up at the base of the resort, and busses to transport people up to the hill from town. People would either get to lake louise by train or bus from calgary.

From what I've heard the plan so far is to build two athlete villages. One in calgary (u of c again?) and another in Canmore that would be converted to badly needed affordable housing after.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because if people want to do something, Parks Canada doesn't want you to do it. They are also entirely opposed to any new development within the Banff National park, which means that despite clear demand for new housing, facilities, hotels, transportation etc in the park, we aren't going to get any. At least without a change of attitude.

This could make things interesting if Calgary does decide to host the Olympics. In 9 years time I'm not sure Nakiska will have enough snow to stay open, but maybe Kicking Horse would be an option for the downhill as it is big and steep.

Are you aware that there is a legislated cap on development within national park communities? So it is not just a change of attitude that is required, but also a change in an Act of Parliament.

Re the Olympics, that will be a political decision, and the Minister for Parks Canada listens to the environmental groups, who would (and are) lobbying against Olympic event in national parks.

Have you read the Minister's mandate letter?

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-environ...mandate-letter

.....Develop Canada’s National Parks system, as well as manage and expand National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries.
Develop Parks Canada programs and services so that more Canadians can experience our National Parks and learn more about our environment and heritage.
Make admission for all visitors to National Parks free in 2017, the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Beginning in 2018, ensure that admission for children under 18 is free, and provide any adult who has become a Canadian citizen in the previous 12 months one year’s free admission.
Through an expanded Learn to Camp program, ensure that more low- and middle-income families have an opportunity to experience Canada’s outdoors.
Protect our National Parks by limiting development within them, and where possible, work with nearby communities to help grow local eco-tourism industries and create jobs.
Work with the Ontario government to enhance the country’s first urban National Park – Rouge National Urban Park – including improved legislation to protect this important ecosystem and guide how the park will be managed......

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

Are you aware that there is a legislated cap on development within national park communities? So it is not just a change of attitude that is required, but also a change in an Act of Parliament.

Re the Olympics, that will be a political decision, and the Minister for Parks Canada listens to the environmental groups, who would (and are) lobbying against Olympic event in national parks.

Have you read the Minister's mandate letter?

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-environ...mandate-letter

.....Develop Canada’s National Parks system, as well as manage and expand National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries.
Develop Parks Canada programs and services so that more Canadians can experience our National Parks and learn more about our environment and heritage.
Make admission for all visitors to National Parks free in 2017, the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Beginning in 2018, ensure that admission for children under 18 is free, and provide any adult who has become a Canadian citizen in the previous 12 months one year’s free admission.
Through an expanded Learn to Camp program, ensure that more low- and middle-income families have an opportunity to experience Canada’s outdoors.
Protect our National Parks by limiting development within them, and where possible, work with nearby communities to help grow local eco-tourism industries and create jobs.
Work with the Ontario government to enhance the country’s first urban National Park – Rouge National Urban Park – including improved legislation to protect this important ecosystem and guide how the park will be managed......

The various policies run counter to each other - it's stated they want more people to experience the parks, but they also do not want to put in any new infrastructure to handle these extra guests. This is nonsensical, as was the braindead decision to make the pass free this year.

Many places in the park are mess because of these policies, Lake Louise and Moraine Lake being good examples. In the summer, the parking lots are full and the roads clogged with parked cars. Their solution to this? The typical Canadian non-solution, ban parking on the roads. There is a refusal to accept that if you want more people in the park, you are going to have to put them somewhere and transport them, which would involve park and rides away from the main attractions with buses to them.

There's a little progress being made to do this in Banff, but everyone's a NIMBY/BANANA so nothing will get done.