If Edmonton and Calgary are to play in the big leagues along such "world-class" cities as Zaragoza, Spain and Yeosu, South Korea, then taxpayers have to be prepared to buck-up! At least that's the view of proponents seeking to have one of Alberta's two great cities host the 2017 Expo.

Since the fall of 2007, the City of Edmonton has been pursuing a bid for the 2017 World Fair (Expo). With only a couple of days to go before cities had to declare their intention to bid, the City of Calgary (who lost the 2005 Expo bid) announced its intention to bid on the same.

The good news is that Calgary has yet to announce a bid committee or do any groundwork for their bid. And since Edmonton has, Calgary should have a look at Edmonton's numbers, count their blessings, and get out while they still can.

The City of Edmonton's "conceptual report" on a potential Expo 2017 bid, reads more like a cautionary tale than a missive designed to convince legislators to get on board.

For starters, it rules out the potential for the city to host a large "registered" Expo similar to the one hosted in 1967 in Montreal or in 1986 in Vancouver. Instead, it advances holding a smaller "recognized" Expo. And the difference isn't minor.

Large Expos are six-month long and have an attendance of between 29 and 70 million. Smaller Expos are three-month long and have an attendance of between four and 20 million.

Edmonton's rosy report pegs the likely attendance at around 4.7 million -- the low end of the smallest Expo. It's also just a fraction of the attendance of both Expo '67 (50 million) or Expo '86 (22 million).

With Edmonton and Calgary's metropolitan areas similar in population, it's unlikely Calgary's attendance estimates would be much higher.

Further, Edmonton's report suggests the daily attendance would be around 52,000 --lower than the daily attendance at Capital Ex (77,000) and less than half of the daily attendance at the Calgary Stampede (125,000).

Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that modern day, smaller expos aren't pulling in the same crowds as they did in '67 or '86. Most of the expos in the 20th century focused on the future and new, exciting technologies. Montreal's centennial expo had the theme of Man and His World. The theme of Vancouver's Expo '86 was Transportation & Communications: World in Motion -- World in Touch.

More recent expos have had themes that sound more like government departments. Zaragoza's Expo in 2008 had the theme of Water and Sustainable Development and Yeosu's 2012 Expo will have the theme of The Living Ocean and Coast: Diversity of Resources and Sustainable Activities. Sounds like fun if you're an ecologist, but not so much if you're a 10-year-old kid.

However, the real kicker is -- surprise surprise -- the cost.

Edmonton's report pegs the cost to put on the 2017 Expo at between $1.6 billion and $3 billion (2008 dollars). And as we have seen from the massive overruns for Vancouver's Olympics, it's very likely the $3 billion figure would be the low-end.

In fact, as the report states: "Many Expos have faced escalating costs and a negative bottom line."

With both the Alberta government and the federal government running the largest deficits in their history, are taxpayers really prepared to borrow billions to put on a three-month ecology trade show?

As for the predictable claims of "economic benefits" trotted out by proponents, these figures are almost always grossly-inflated, as they don't take into account money that would have otherwise been spent on other local entertainment. Nevertheless, the Edmonton Economic Development Corporation pegs it at between $1.8 billion and $2.6 billion. While likely overstated, those figures don't even match the likely understated cost to put the event on.

Of course this may just be the price for Edmonton or Calgary to purchase a "world-class city." Just look at Zaragoza, Spain and Yeosu, South Korea -- by gum they're now on the map along with Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook.

By: Scott Hennig
Posted: June 07, 2009
Topic: Alberta

Contact the regional director Scott Hennig for further information.

Type: Commentary

Join Us   |   Donate