Calgary should be asking ‘why’ host Olympics
City must do better job of defining its priorities,
Considerable attention has been given to the questions of “can” we host the Olympics, and more recently, “should” we host the Olympics.
What has been missing is a discussion about “why” we are even considering this question.
The question of Calgary hosting the 2026 Olympics is an important matter to debate. The bid exploration committee has put considerable time and energy into assessing hosting requirements, facilities reviews and upgrading needs, potential budgets, and other logistical issues.
The result was a document that concluded that Calgary could bid (“feasible”), but left open the question about whether Calgary should bid (“prudent”).
Much of the public debate has focused on costs and potential financial shortfalls. Not unexpectedly, these questions have taken on even greater importance in light of the current economic climate in Alberta and the massive budget-deficit spending of the provincial and federal governments.
If this is the essence of the debate, then the case for Calgary bidding is surely questionable, not only for fiscal conservatives, but also for those who prefer other priorities such as education, health care and housing for government spending.
The question that has been missing in all the discussions to date is “why” Calgary is even considering mounting a bid.
Perhaps this question has been discussed among movers and shakers, but it has not been a significant part of public discourse.
Ask most Calgarians why the city is considering a bid and few can give you any answer, other than to say, “Well, we’ve done it before and it was wonderful.”
Residents of any city have a right to ask why their leaders propose to undertake any course of action, and in this case, the answer is not obvious.
Conceivably, any major initiative a city undertakes needs to fit into a strategic plan, and it is not clear in this instance what that plan is, or even if there is such a plan. The city should not be in the business of accommodating the needs of external organizations, but to look after its own interests first.
The question should not be what does the International Olympic Committee require of Calgary as a potential host city, but what are Calgary’s objectives and priorities. And only then should it ask the question of how and whether hosting the Games fit those goals.
To answer the question of “why,” the city of Calgary needs to identify and visualize its future and develop a strategy to get there. What does the city want to become? What are its biggest needs? What initiatives might help it to get there?
Once these questions have been addressed, then it becomes appropriate to consider whether the Olympics would help us reach those objectives.
The recent untimely death of Frank King has provided an opportunity for us to review his legacy.
It is clear that the 1988 Games were a transformative moment in the history of the city.
It could easily be argued that the uncertainty and change within the energy industry and the need for an employment and technological makeover has brought the city to a new transformative moment.
Would it not be wise to think of first developing a plan of what that transformation might involve, and only after that plan is in place, asking how and whether hosting the Olympics could play a catalyst role in helping the city attain these objectives?
If the question of “why” can be articulated in a rational manner, with passionate leadership, only then will city residents be able to have an informed discussion about whether Calgary should bid.
Harry Hiller is a professor of urban sociology and director of the Cities and the Olympics Project at the University of Calgary. He has visited many Olympic cities and spoken globally and written extensively on the impact of the Olympics.