paulkimo Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Cost of security in London this summer is greater that this so-called 'total' cost estimate... I would not believe that a Denver games or any other winter games anywhere in the USA could be staged for anything less that 3 Billion, minimum. Factoring in accommodation, transport upgrades, venues, security, etc, 1.5 billion is a laughable joke estimate. I guarantee that there is no way that this number is not already being put under intense scrutiny, and that the Tea-party folk in the Denver area are already drafting a ballot initiative stating that no taxpayer money, not once penny, can be spent on the games or even a bid in any way... it will get the signatures needed to go on the ballot and the people of Denver will approve it, I would bet on it... I think that fortunately for Denver, this will almost certainly happen before any IOC voting takes place, sparing Denver the shame of a post-victory rejection again. It saddens me to believe this, as I would love to see a Denver winter games... but the voters there will NEVER agree to pay for it and without taxpayer money it won't happen... Transport upgrades are already being done and they should not have to do any further upgrades just to accommodate the Olympics so that cost element has already been taken care of.Yes, Vancouver's security costs were severely underestimated and that is one area that would have to be carefully scrutinized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulkimo Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Salt Lake used I believe Brigham Young Univ and Sarajevo used the Univ of Sarajevo. Well, univ. campuses are nearly self-sustaining communities...there are dining halls, et., etc., in there. Remember, the Winter Games only attract like 3,500 athletes (if there isn't a satellite village as there was one at Whistler, wasn't there?) You basically just add a few more amenities to a campus and voila!, you have a Village!! It just throws off the student body a little. But then the students are given "Volunteer Preference" and are usually assigned to the campus jobs. Wrong!! Salt Lake City's village was at Fort Douglas on the University of Utah campus which is no where near BYU. They did not have to have a satellite village. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 1.4 seems really low. It's hard for me to imagine that it would be less than 3. I'm not necessarily convinced that taxpayer dollars are the only way to fund the Games. Depends what projects they're paying for too. If we're talking about meaningful infrastructure improvements some public funds might be obtainable.... Actually 5 billion is the number that Gomes to mind.... Aarg. Read "comes to mind"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanisMinor Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 1.4 seems really low. It's hard for me to imagine that it would be less than 3. .... Actually 5 billion is the number that comes to mind.... Canisminor's Rule of Thumb when early estimate for a boondoggle is done by parties in favor of boondoggle: Final boondoggle cost = Early estimate x Three Completely aligned with you hear, Athens. This baby won't cost less than 4.5bn (in today's money) in the very, very unlikely event they get the games. Heck the damn railroad will probably cost over 1.5bn all by itself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Completely aligned with you hear, Athens. This baby won't cost less than 4.5bn (in today's money) in the very, very unlikely event they get the games. Heck the damn railroad will probably cost over 1.5bn all by itself! I agree as well. $1.5 billion seems like way too low of a number that probably doesn't cover everything and excludes costs like infrastructure security which could easily balloon out of control. Good luck with that. By the same token though, whatever the cost for Denver is, I can't imagine the price tag for Reno would be too much lower. So that's still not an easy sell to the residents of Nevada and California in a bad economy either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissO Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 OCOG + Non OCOG (capital investments & Operations) could not be less than USD 5bn nowdays ........ So they are missing something in their calculations.... I would bet it is only the capital investments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm assuming Reno would have to be higher because they have almost no venues for ice sports. Plus there's the issue of a facelift. Make that face transplant.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munichfan Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm assuming Reno would have to be higher because they have almost no venues for ice sports. What about Lawlor Events Center (Capacity: 11,784) and Reno Events Center (Capacity: 7,500)? So they would have to build three new ice venues, which is only one more than Denver would have to. An arena for about 10,000 spectators would cost some $100-150 million. When we're talking about budgets of at least $3 billion (I just can't believe Denver would only spend $1,4 billion...) it's not that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 My understanding is that Reno is more than three venues short and that the existing ones need to be overhauled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 What about Lawlor Events Center (Capacity: 11,784) and Reno Events Center (Capacity: 7,500)? So they would have to build three new ice venues, which is only one more than Denver would have to. An arena for about 10,000 spectators would cost some $100-150 million. When we're talking about budgets of at least $3 billion (I just can't believe Denver would only spend $1,4 billion...) it's not that much. Those capacities are for basketball, so that number is going to drop drastically for an Olympics, and that's assuming they can fit an international sized ice rink in those venue. Those who remember Salt Lake (I do, I was there) will recall how ill-suited the Salt Lake Ice Center was for a full-sized ice rink, so I'm guessing the IOC would like to avoid that situation. What about Lawlor Events Center (Capacity: 11,784) and Reno Events Center (Capacity: 7,500)? So they would have to build three new ice venues, which is only one more than Denver would have to. An arena for about 10,000 spectators would cost some $100-150 million. When we're talking about budgets of at least $3 billion (I just can't believe Denver would only spend $1,4 billion...) it's not that much. Those capacities are for basketball, so that number is going to drop drastically for an Olympics, and that's assuming they can fit an international sized ice rink in those venue. Those who remember Salt Lake (I do, I was there) will recall how ill-suited the Salt Lake Ice Center was for a full-sized ice rink, so I'm guessing the IOC would like to avoid that situation. Denver on the other hand has the Pepsi Center (Capacity for hockey: 18,000), Denver Coliseum (capacity: 10,000) Magness Arena (Capacity for hockey: 6,000). That's no less than Vancouver had in place. An Olympic legacy could be rebuilding 1 of those venues, in addition to other venues. Either way, Denver is always going to have more use of venues of those size than Reno will. You say that "$100-150 million isn't that much? Tell that to a cash-strapped state that may not be so keen on that type of expensive if they can't make it worthwhile to build all these venues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 You say that "$100-150 million isn't that much? Tell that to a cash-strapped state that may not be so keen on that type of expensive if they can't make it worthwhile to build all these venues. Then they have no business even thinking about an Olympics. If an extra 5-10% on a once-in-a-lifetime event, that could transform your community for the better is too much for them, then they need to stop right there. And this goes for Denver as well (& any other U.S. city thinking on bidding for that matter). Temporary arenas could also be the solution. Even smaller communities than Reno have hosted the Winter Olympics, so there has to be a happy-medium somewhere. The Olympics are expensive, no matter what. And if you wanna penny-pinch on something that is suppose to be a first-class, global event like the Olympics, then maybe the county fairs are what these communities should be looking into instead. One can't shop at Bloomingdale's with a Walmart budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Then they have no business even thinking about an Olympics. If an extra 5-10% on a once-in-a-lifetime event, that could transform your community for the better is too much for them, then they need to stop right there. And this goes for Denver as well (& any other U.S. city thinking on bidding for that matter). Temporary arenas could also be the solution. Even smaller communities than Reno have hosted the Winter Olympics, so there has to be a happy-medium somewhere. The Olympics are expensive, no matter what. And if you wanna penny-pinch on something that is suppose to be a first-class, global event like the Olympics, then maybe the county fairs are what these communities should be looking into instead. One can't shop at Bloomingdale's with a Walmart budget. Transforming a community is 1 thing.. being saddled with white elephants is another. For the most part, we all view the Olympics as the ultimate honor a city can get in terms of sports events. But the community at large may not feel the same way, especially knowing how much they're going to have to spend to get it. And remember that the Winter Olympics now are a lot larger than they were when Albertville and Lillehammer hosted, before there was curling and women's hockey. This is also where the size of Denver versus the size of Reno comes into play. Denver can offer up an 18,000 seat arena that will see extensive use post games. What can Reno offer? A temporary arena? Something that would get downsized after the games? Or something smaller that would be more sensible for Reno but less attractive to the IOC. Again, it's easy for us to talk about penny-pinching here, and I agree that it makes a bid less attractive, but that's the reality in a bad economy that pretty much everyone has to be cost-conscious and not spend money like it's no object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulkimo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Those capacities are for basketball, so that number is going to drop drastically for an Olympics, and that's assuming they can fit an international sized ice rink in those venue. Those who remember Salt Lake (I do, I was there) will recall how ill-suited the Salt Lake Ice Center was for a full-sized ice rink, so I'm guessing the IOC would like to avoid that situation. Denver on the other hand has the Pepsi Center (Capacity for hockey: 18,000), Denver Coliseum (capacity: 10,000) Magness Arena (Capacity for hockey: 6,000). That's no less than Vancouver had in place. An Olympic legacy could be rebuilding 1 of those venues, in addition to other venues. Either way, Denver is always going to have more use of venues of those size than Reno will. You say that "$100-150 million isn't that much? Tell that to a cash-strapped state that may not be so keen on that type of expensive if they can't make it worthwhile to build all these venues. Vancouver requested a waiver to use an international sized rink for their hockey tournament so they could use their NHL venue for hockey. It was granted to them and I can't see why anyone who would request it would not be given the same waiver. The waiver was also granted by the IHF not the IOC. It is up to the federations to decide. I guess it was felt that the E Center could accommodate an international rink so they did not think to puruse the waiver. The 1stBank Events Center in Broomfield seats 6,500 and could be a good venue for curling or women's hockey.Capacity at the Coliseum would have to be increased a bit to accommodate figure skating/short track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 This is also where the size of Denver versus the size of Reno comes into play. Denver can offer up an 18,000 seat arena that will see extensive use post games. What can Reno offer? A temporary arena? Something that would get downsized after the games? Or something smaller that would be more sensible for Reno but less attractive to the IOC. Thing is, both bids will have to spend nontheless. Both have their spending cons. Reno on venues & Denver with transportion links to the mountain venues. Either way, whichever bid, big money is going to have to be involved. I guess it would just have to end up as to which bid is seen as the most feasible, legacy driven to spend on. But then again, other tangibles weight in as well. Like which bid could be seen as the one with the best chance in winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 It really depends on what the 1.5 billion price tag is for. Olympic costs are in three categories Capital Investment: venues, infrastructure etc. This is the highest cost, and is not included within the Olympic budget. Mainly because many of these things would be built with or without the Olympics. Security: even in the US this cost will be covered by the federal government Olympic Budget: this is everything associated with actually hosting the event. 1.5 billion is a reason estimate in todays dollars, Vancouver was 1.77. This budget, even in publically funded games usually is almost entirely covered by ticketing, sponsorship and the IOC. In total, Denver already has billions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades in the works (with money already granted from the local, state and federal government) Denver would need to find about 120 million for a sliding center, probably 100 million for the nordic events (I am fairly sure Vail does not have FIS standard cross-country courses) and probably another 150 to 200 million for upgrades to the Coliseum, Pepsi Center, Magness Arena and a new venue at UD. And the final cost would be probably in the range of 200 million for the oval. So 620 million (or roughly what Vancouver spent). Finding private source funding for this shouldn't be too difficult. And the City of Denver could fund a venue or two on their own and use them as community centers. Like Vancouver did. If Denver was reasonable, and produced a games inline with SLC, Torino and Vancouver, total cost (not including the infrastucture that is already underway) would be around 3.2 billion. Almost 2.75 billion of which would have funding from private sources or the federal government (for security). Sochi and their 30 billion is going to be an exception, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Of course Sochi is the exception & not the rule. Even when Beijing spent $60 billion on their big party, typically, summer hosts still spend 1/4 of that amount, between 12-15. But even diving Sochi's numbers by 4, it's still 7.5, which is why most were questioning the low-ball figure of 1.4, 1.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulkimo Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 Of course Sochi is the exception & not the rule. Even when Beijing spent $60 billion on their big party, typically, summer hosts still spend 1/4 of that amount, between 12-15. But even diving Sochi's numbers by 4, it's still 7.5, which is why most were questioning the low-ball figure of 1.4, 1.5. Have you compared this number to the final number provide in the Vancouver report? or even Torino or SLC? The logic that everyone seems to apply is very faulty. yes, the total number will be higher. After all prices are expected to rise over a 7-10 year period. This is by no means a final figure. This is just an order of manitude number that is a starting point for further discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 So comparing figures from an Olympics 16-20 years earlier is less "faulty logic". And 7-10 years is not accurate either. Since even from Vancouver that'll still be 12 years 'til 2022, & that's assuming a U.S. bid wins those Games. Better estimate for a 2026 win, which by then those much older figures would really be obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.