Nacre

Premium Members
  • Content count

    1009
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Nacre last won the day on March 2

Nacre had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

About Nacre

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    w/ the pygmy rabbits
  • Interests
    Earth

Recent Profile Visitors

4392 profile views
  1. The 2020 Olympic Games are being held in Japan: a country with high speed trains. The 2020 Olympics are supposed to be held under the new plan for Agenda 2020. And yet the sporting federations have done everything they can to force events to be held in Tokyo proper instead of places like Yokohama, Izu and Miyagi.
  2. Rio had a second tier velodrome completed in 2007 much like LA's velodrome and had to build a bigger and better one for the Olympics to satisfy the cycling federation. Rio has an existing tennis center for the Rio Open of similar size to StubHub's but had to build a new one in the Olympic Park to please the tennis federation. Rio built a second tier aquatics center in 2007 but this was not good enough for FINA. (the swimming and diving federation) Rio has the Sambadrome for carnival that would have been perfect for the athletes parade, but the IOC likes a stadium for the ceremonies so they had to waste a lot of money converting Maracana Stadium into the ceremonies venue. The sporting federations and broadcasters want showcase "world class" venues for the Olympics. They do not care about cost effectiveness. No one is disagreeing with you that LA's ideas to save money are good ideas. What we are disputing is the idea that the IOC's voters will also love those ideas. Until the IOC voters and financial contributors accept smaller, cheaper and more distant venues Agenda 2020 is just words on a sheet of (virtual) paper.
  3. But here is the problem that you don't seem capable of understanding. The IOC is only an umbrella organization for a lot of other self-interested organizations: the national olympic associations, the sporting federations and all of the people who give the IOC money. And the reason the Olympics has grown bigger and bigger is that all of those other groups want/need it to. Agenda 202 has already failed for the 2020 Olympics because the interested parties don't want to be downgraded. The cycling and rowing federations do not want to use existing venues that is further away from Tokyo. The volleyball and swimming/diving federations do not want to use a smaller existing venues. All of the national teams want an expensive new village. Los Angeles is not the only city in the world that understands the value of using existing infrastructure. The reason that it was able to use only existing infrastructure in 1984 is that it was the only bidder. The sporting federations and NOC's could take what LA gave them or the Olympics would be cancelled.
  4. The majority of people living in Los Angeles now have Spanish as their first language.
  5. It makes no sense. Canada enjoys being a part of the Commonwealth because it helps them recruit skilled workers from places like India, maintain cultural links with the other former-colonies, offer an avenue for trade, and maintain a separate identity from the USA. None of those things matter to Americans. There are already few barriers to trade between the USA and Australia, Canada and the UK because every country wants to sign a trade agreement with the world's largest economy. And since this is a games forum, it is worth pointing out that other Commonwealth countries likely would not enjoy competing against the USA at the Commonwealth Games.
  6. It's worth noting that track and field meets top out at around 20,000 for attendance. Even if Toronto really wanted a track stadium for national Olympic qualifiers and perhaps one segment of the world tour for track and field (the Diamond League) then it would only need a 15,000 seat stadium. I attended one away game for the Vancouver Whitecaps at a temporary stadium when BC Place was being renovated before the 2012 winter games. It was not particularly nice, but it worked alright and I think a 20,000 seat temporary stadium ought to be permitted for a two week event.
  7. Atlanta was 2/3rds African-American in the 1990's, while Los Angeles was only 1/5th African-American. It is worth noting that demographics have changed dramatically since the last Olympic games in the USA due to the massive waves of Mexican immigrants. English is now technically the minority language in Los Angeles. Since 1984 many African-Americans have left Los Angeles and moved to the American South, so the city is only about 1/10th African-American now.
  8. I thought the Olympic Stadium could no longer host 70,000 seats after the latest reconstruction, but I could be wrong. In any case Canada would need to a build a new stadium for the other semi-finals. BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium are not big enough. For the record I think Canada would be a solid host country, but I seriously question the value for money for Canada compared to hosting the winter games in Calgary. You can argue Canada would only need another two or three stadiums, but three unneeded stadiums is still three too many.
  9. The problem is that I don't think Canadians really want to do it on their own. A national stadium in Toronto for the World Cup finals and Olympics would . . . cost $800 million CAD at a minimum cost a lot of money to maintain leave Toronto with a stadium w/ no obvious sport team as a tenant make people in Quebec really unhappy Canadians are very patriotic, but they are also very smart. Until the stadium issues can be worked out it does not make sense for Canada to bid for the World Cup, and I think the public knows that.
  10. Melbourne (I always want to write "Melburn") is an interesting host city. It would be a fantastic host city and has most of what it needs in place. It is an Australian version of Paris or Los Angeles. Northern hemisphere voters and broadcast companies do not want Melbourne because it would have to host outside of the northern hemisphere summer. I think Melbourne's best chance is for another round of democratic cities dropping like flies. If Melbourne is competing against a city like Berlin I don't think it has much of a chance: there would be too many self-interested voters picking the city that would get them the most money. But if Melbourne is up against Baku and Shanghai it would have a very good chance of picking up most of the "democratic votes."
  11. It seems that the Unites States Soccer Federation made $46 million in profit from this tournament. CONCACAF received $70 million in television revenue, and CONMEBOL got another $70 million. TV ratings for the group stages were higher in Mexico and the USA than they were for the World Cup. For better or for worse, this format is going to come back. There is simply too much money on offer for CONMEBOL and CONCACAF to turn down. Most likely in the following four year rotation: Copa America (CONMEBOL) and Gold Cup (CONCACAF) European Championship new cup (CONMEBOL + CONCACAF) World Cup On the positive side a new cup hosted in the USA would allow smaller countries to host the Gold Cup. That would be great for countries like Guatemala.
  12. For Vancouver it is important to point out that the city itself is a major property developer. Vancouver has made a lot of money in the past on its own building projects; the loss on the Olympic village was due more to economic factors than it being unwise for cities to buy housing. Also, Vancouver is a bit of a weird major city from a business perspective. It has comparatively few big corporations and it is more of an entrepot for western Canadian commerce as a whole. So I think it must have been harder for them to coordinate with a single big corporation or industry to build housing tied to some other nearby commercial development. Meanwhile it should be relatively easy to arrange an agreement to provide housing for some of Air France's 95,000+ employees at a new media village located near Charles de Gaulle airport. For the record I think the same thing would be the case with a new village in Los Angeles. Several of my family members have moved out of Los Angeles simply because they can't afford the rents of LA. Spending public money on housing development would require taxpayer money up front, but it might very well end up making a profit.
  13. That's my point. The biggest selling point for Los Angeles is that it is the center of the film and entertainment industry. Even for productions filmed outside of LA, the people making the film/show/documentary are mostly coming from Los Angeles. LA is where the industry wants to do its stuff. But the film studios will go wherever they think they can make the most money. In the recent past they moved productions to whichever place would give them the best bid for tax breaks. They played one state against another to win good deals. And now that they have won big tax concessions from California they are moving back. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fi-film-tax-brown-20140828-story.html The major film studios only support Los Angeles and California as far as they can make money using them. If LA 2024 can get some money or services out of them then great, but I don't expect a whole lot of selfless volunteerism.
  14. totally biased and bitter gripe: It costs them nothing to release a statement of support, and they can pretend to be loyal Californians while in reality they are moving their productions to other states to take advantage of tax breaks and subsidies they've won from other states/provinces. The film studios are trying to win over California and LA into giving them the same subsidies they get from New Mexico, Louisiana, etc. That way they get to have their cake and eat it too w/ the cheaper costs of Albuquerque and the convenience of LA. I wish they would stay in LA. They hate filming in middle America, and the feeling is mutual. I can honestly say that I enjoyed my time volunteering with prison inmates when I was in university more than working with the reality tv crew I had to deal with this summer in Alaska.
  15. Yes. Not only that, but LA got a minority of the votes from les etats unis. (47%) Although I do not know if they were asked in English or French. This comment seems to express the popular feeling in France, though: