JesseSaenz
-
Posts
451 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by JesseSaenz
-
-
I agree with alphamale86 on how LA can hold its own despite not being a political center.
We tend to forget the immense influence the city has had on a global scale not just from movies, but from the production and design it exports to the world.
Ironically, the hardest act for LA 2024 to follow is itself from 1984. You know that whatever LA is conjuring up is going to have to be much better than 1984, so I am dying to see what tricks they have up their sleeves.
Also, I disagree that LA2024 and the USOC will be treating this as some sort of trial run for 2028. If the organizer felt they didn't stand a chance they would have opted to sit this one out. LA knew that it was up against Paris and Rome when it threw its hat in the ring after the Boston fallout.
They are in it to win it, they don't have a plan B nor do they intend to return to the drawing board.
The state of California unanimously passed a $250 Million Dollar guarantee for the games, so clearly they are not taking this bid very seriously.
-
From the Paris thread:http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/23063-paris-2024/page-179
The difference between now and 1984 and the issue that LA boosters ignore is that Los Angeles cannot dictate terms to the IOC this time. I fully agree that LA has a plan that is good for the city. But the IOC's partners do not care about that. They are only interested in what works for their sport or business.
The last time I checked LA was planning on using a football stadium for the diving events. That has never been done before (swimming yes, diving no), and the governing body for diving (FINA) may very well demand that Los Angeles provide a new aquatics center instead. So at that point you are stuck either spending money on a white elephant or abandoning the Olympic bid.
The Olympics are an auction. In 1984 Los Angeles was able to use an affordable plan because they were the only bidder. That is not the case this time: the IOC does not have to accept LA's plan, and the individual sporting federations will likely try to coerce LA into building better venues. That's what they did to Rio, anyway.
The new stadium in question is being built independent of the games. The old Sports Arena is being demolished and a new Football stadium for the Los Angeles Football Club is taking its place.
They will erect a temporary pool at the stadium since it will cost a fraction of what a new aquatic center would.
Also, with the last 3 Summer Olympics, this years 2016 Rio Olympics, and the Tokyo 2020 seriously going into the red, the IOC's reputation and image is again on very shaky ground.
LA opting out of a new Olympic Village may hurt its chances, or it may be what gives it the upper hand over Paris.
There's all this talk about "The Timing" is not right for LA and all, but the IOC really needs to clean up its image and restore at least partially its reputation. It's become a joke in they eyes of the world.
Oslo pulling out of the Winter 22 games was a black eye to the organization, and Beijing winning is an utter embarrassment.
Where does artificial snow fall into the 2020 Agenda?
-
Based on what exactly??? There are lots of venues to be built. Even many of those that "exist" will need massive retrofits.
Also, there's a lot more in an Olympic budget than the cost of building venues and housing.
Number of stadiums to be built = 0
Number of Olympic Villages to be built = 0
Those two alone usually use up most of the budget.
LA has a temporary beach volleyball venue and pool to assemble inside the new LAFC stadium, but will that really cost nearly $2 Billion???
Security, like with the Salt Lake games of 2002 and every Superbowl are covered by the feds.
I know there are other things that go into a bid, but the big white elephants that usually push a bid into the red are noticeably absent from the LA bid.
-
Support for the Olympics was also terrible in Boston before they cancelled their bid. Los Angeles is simply an aberration because it hosted a financially profitable Olympics within the lifetime of people over 30.
People in Los Angeles live in an Olympic bubble. They genuinely think an Olympics in 2024 will work the same for them as it did in 1984. The rest of the USA is not nearly as enthusiastic.
Provided that it does not use any taxpayer money. If any money from taxpayers from their city were to be used, support immediately drops to 52%.
An LA 2024 cost overruns now seems like a highly unlikely scenario. A profitable games is still questionable, but a game that goes into the red seems every day more unlikely.
Some safeguards have been mentioned by state politicians just in case, but I seriously don't see how they could burn through billions of dollars when there are no stadiums or villages being built.
Two new stadiums will be completed ahead of 2024 (NFL Stadium and LAFC Football Stadium) for non-Olympic reasons, so really it will free up that money to be used elsewhere.
Not to take away from Budapest or Rome, but it seems at least at this point like it will come down to LA or Paris.
-
The should have had Nike make the LA 2024 hype video. They did a remarkable job, even including the 1984 Olympics.
You'll have to view it straight from Vimeo website however. Click on "Watch on Vimeo" below to view. -
Pretty cool gift to Los Angeles from the City of Mexico.
The wings are actually very reminiscent of the LA 2024 Candidature logo.
Here's a link to the article.
http://abc7.com/society/mexico-city-gives-los-angeles-bronze-wings-sculpture/1281791/ -
This certainly does not help Rome's bid.
Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, head of Rome's 2024 bid is cited in the now leaked Panama Papers.
http://sacredheartspectrum.com/2016/04/panama-papers-law-firm-says-hacked-by-servers-abroad/ -
But if there's nothing NEW to build; then you're also ZERO in the legacy column. The IOC always wants something, even a corridor, or a small monument to say that the "Olympics were here on so-and-so." Ideally, if you have 85-90% of the infrastructure in place; and then the remaining 10% would offer some jobs plus be of lasting, permanent value, then that would tick off the Legacy box. So, in that regard, Paris has the edge over "nothing-needs-to-be-built-LA."
It is no secret that LA lacks big landmarks like The Eiffel Tower or Big Ben, but Olympic legacy is definitely part of the city's history.
The Iconic Palm trees that line the streets of LA were planted ahead of the 1932 Games and have now become synonymous with the city
The LA Memorial Coliseum was built for the 1932 games, used again in 1984, and is still used today, and will be home of the LA Rams for the next 3 years.
The LA84 foundation is still using funds from the 1984 games to fund youth programs throughout the city. Venus and Serena Williams benefited greatly from this foundation and have gone on to leave their mark on the Tennis world.
LA's automated traffic system/Lights are also a result of the games. Though it took 30 years to fully install and finish, it too is a result of the 1984 games.
So while the city may not erect a new stadium or park for the games, it already has living legacies from past games still around.
Last I heard was that they want to build a pedestrian promenade from Staples Center to the Coliseum to leave in place after the games, as well as leave the Rowing facilities and Golfing areas to the city park post Olympics.
-
Who says it has to be 1 or the other? This isn't something so black-and-white as to how much weight Agenda 2020 will carry. And again, who's to say a win by Paris isn't influenced by those reforms? Yea, the IOC has made some poor decisions in recent times. Choosing Paris over LA hardly seems like a poor decision to me, nor is it to say that Agenda 2020 is bullshit and it's all politics.
Man, Lima 2017, haha. It seems so distant all the sudden.
-
How do you even know this, though. Do you know for a fact that Paris' 2024 Olympic Village would become a white elephant? The French have absolutely no plans for it post-Games?
And again, the only reason Los Angeles isn't building one, is bcuz they had to revert to a plan B, & not necessarily bcuz they had "agenda 2020" initially in mind.
Just the estimated €2 Billion price tag.
I agree with your second point about it not being part of the original plan.
But, alas, no white elephants for LA. That's $2 Billion + that they could use elsewhere. They emphasized the leaving a "Legacy" behind, and I think that's where the LA2024 people could really make a killing with that money.
-
That's how the game is played. That's largely how the game has always been played. And yes, I think the consensus here is correct. Rio won for 2016 despite having evaluation scores that were lower than their competitors. But at the time, the majority of IOC voters felt it furthered their organization's cause by awarding the Olympics to South America than the other choices. How that decision has played out since then is a different matter altogether.
If Paris wins this one over LA, it's because they feel that's best for the future of their organization. It's not going to damage the reputation of LA or the USOC for them to lose. This isn't going to come down to which city will be the least butthurt by losing. The decision will be which city does the IOC benefit the most from. You can't throw Agenda 2020 out there as an abstract concept and make a decision based on that. As a couple of people have noted, the idea behind the reforms is for cities to figure out how best to make the Olympics work for them, not for the IOC to find some sort of template and pick the city that best follows the guidelines.
I think what SHOULD make the Sept 2017 vote interesting is Agenda 2020.
Rio and Tokyo were both selected pre-Agenda 2020.
2024 will be the first Olympic Games to actually vote with that as part of the process.
So, the IOC really but itself in a really tough spot. Will it be business as usual and brush off the 2020 Agenda???
Everyone says that it's bullshit, and that it carries little to no weight, and given the IOC history, that could very well be true.
Dang, Sept 2017 can't get here soon enough!
Haha.
-
THAT'S the key! You can't necessarily say LA more closely aligns to Agenda 2020 than Paris because LA won't be putting its venue plan in Paris (and visa versa). Agenda 2020 is about making sure cities DON'T bugger up and leave themselves white elephants. It's not about having a starting blueprint and saying "match this".
That said, there are always certain minimum requirements and i find it odd that Bach has said what he's said given that Budapest has only half the required hotel capacity.
LA's white Elephants = 0
Paris' White Elephant = Olympic Village(s)
Again. At least at this point, LA should by technicality be the strongest most responsible and safest bid....and certainly the most easiest to execute of the 4 cities.
However, it could all mean nothing if they are determined to take the games back to Europe.
-
Again, the consensus seems to be that they will vote for political reasons and not really based on Agenda 2020.
We can repackage this however we want, but the general consensus from almost everyone here is that they will vote for Paris for Europe's sake.
It would restore Europe's reputation at the cost of America's.
1 thing to note about here.. there have been more than a few times in the past where a supporter of a city has become a little too "rah rah" and then anyone who disagrees with him is against that city. There is a case to be made for and against a lot of these cities. That someone such as myself thinks that Paris is going to win isn't necessarily doubting LA's potential. It's merely addressing the reality that there are other strong candidates out there.
The IOC is on shaky ground in Europe. They desperately need to restore their reputation there. They can go a long way towards accomplishing that by choosing a nice big, traditional European city and having them host a successful Olympics. Does Paris line up as well with Agenda 2020 as LA does? Maybe, maybe not. The IOC voters are likely to make their pick based on what is best for the future of their organization. Again, a good case can be made for LA in that regard, but I still think it's more important to them to put an Olympics in Europe, especially when they have a city like Paris on offer.
Again, the consensus seems to be that they will vote for political reasons and not really based on Agenda 2020.
We can repackage this however we want, but the general consensus from almost everyone here is that they will vote for Paris for Europe's sake.
It would restore Europe's reputation at the cost of America's.
-
But isn't that your argument, though? That can the U.S. be denied a third time, & L.A. has lost "the most bids" than anybody else & "blah, blah, blah". That's totally contradictory to say the very least. And if that's the case, then Paris (not to mention Rome & Budapest) should all just withdraw now!
I am only bringing that up because, if I understood correctly, the IOC intends to vote based on who more closely aligns with Agenda 2020.
If that change is indeed in effect, then it wouldn't matter how many times LA or Paris have lost in the past, it will matter over who puts out the best bid.
Based on some of the responses I have read here so far, the general consensus from many of the people on this thread is that they will vote based on geopolitical reasons ("Europe has not hosted" "Paris lost twice" "France won't bid again".
Basically, Paris was already the favorite before LA even joined the race for non Agenda 2020 related reasons.
Right now, being able to meet that at every level is LA's strongest point.
SO, with that said, if the IOC will vote based on political reasons and not for who has the strongest bid, then clearly LA is a very weak contender to Paris.
And that only happened when they reverted to plan B after they abondaned the $2 Billion price tag piggyback yard project. So I wouldn't say that it now makes it the most "logical" choice when their initial attempt wasn't the most cost effective.
Even if the IOC votes with agenda 2020 in mind, having an "edge" doesn't necessarily translate into more votes, since by that in terms mean that the two are more or less equal in that aspect.
The timing. Virtually every other continent would have been taken care of by then, & barring South Africa promise that they're not bidding 'til 2032, North America would be ripe for 2028. The only possible threat there could only come from Canada.
Yes, the original bid to the USOC had the piggy back yards to sway the vote away from Boston, SF, DC. When it found itself back in the race it really had no time for modifications.
From a conversation I had with an elected official in LA, they knew Piggy Back yards plan was not a solid one because Pacific Railway had no real desire to sell, at least not for cheap.
Agenda 2020 just made it easier for LA to abandon Piggyback yards with not as much backlash.
-
I don't know why you regard NYC's loss as embarrassing. They were in a stellar field, the US had had fairly recent Summer and Winter Games, and their preferred stadium plan fell through only months before the vote. Going out 2nd was fair enough.
Chicago's loss was harder because of how poorly they did and it shocked even the IOC going by the gasp in the room. But one bid had to lose, and if the IOC didn't "embarrass" Obama they would've had to have embarrassed the Japanese PM, Brazilian President, or the King of Spain. The IOC can't make their decision based on who they don't want to embarrass!
Paris' loss was hard to take because they lost to a big rival who came in and took a Games everyone thought would be there's. Chicago's was hard because it went out first. It's a toss up as to which was worse. But NYC's loss doesn't even factor in the shocks department, because it wasn't one.
It's interesting reading your posts because they directly contradict what another LA supporter says here. Namely that support in LA is so strong that they would control the narrative in a way other cities couldn't. Your insistence that LA is fragile and wouldn't bid again for decades if they lost '24 is the opposite of what RuFF has been saying....Interesting. I wonder which is closer to the truth.
An LA2024 loss would be tough because it finally got the USOC nomination (not by choice) only to lose.
Agenda 2020 may very well make the case that LA should bid again in 2028 should its efforts fail for a 2024 games, but what else can they possibly do to sweeten the deal? What can be offered in 2028 that LA can't already offer in 2024?
Just thinking out loud, haha.
BTW, new here guys, read through some of the past posts on here. RuFF and I seem to be on a similar page, and this thread's healthy dose of doubt for a 2024 games in LA is actually nice to see/read about. It gives me a more well rounded and grounded perspective since I am obviously a LA2024 supporter.
-
Well, LA plays the eager-beaver game only all too well. That has its pitfalls and drawbacks. They're so easy to read.
I think historically it has, but this bid definitely has a different feel/approach to it.
Agenda 2020 almost instantly made LA the most logical and most affordable place.
If the IOC really votes based on the new Agenda 2020, then I really do believe LA has an edge over Paris.
But if they will vote based on the whole "Oh, Paris lost twice, Europe has not hosted blah, blah, blah," then LA should just withdraw now.
-
1. Well, that's a given. However, many of the geopolitics within the IOC point to Europe for 2024 nonetheless.
2. It's far more foolish, though, to think that France in general would even be back for 2028. It took A LOT of convincing for the French politicians to launch this 2024 bid as it was, especially after their stinging 2012 defeat. So in the event that were to happen again, France ain't coming back for 2028.
And considering how many European countries have shied away from wanting to even bid for the Olympics as of late (Munich, Oslo, Stockholm St. Moritz, Kraków 2022 & one directly Involving this race, Hamburg 2024), I don't believe it would be in the best interest of the IOC to shun, yet again, a top quality European bidder that actually wants the Olympics this time around, again, after so much convincing of the French to even bid in the first place.
3. This is pretty mellow dramatic. Especially since the USOC was actually torn between L.A. & Boston. And we saw first-hand what a mistake Boston was as an "initial" choice. So they ain't coming back for 2028. Nor do I see any of the other top-tier U.S. cities coming forth either. At least not for 2028. So that only leaves Los Angeles once again. And I can only see the USOC going again with them for 2028 than trying to find someone else that either A. Is not interested, or B. won't cut the mustard. It'd be foolish for the USOC not to take L.A. up again for another run. But then again, the USOC has a history of making foolish decisions.
4. And how many times has the IOC rejected Paris already? Let's count - 1992, 2008 & 2012. And if we want to get technical & include all French bids, that also includes Lille 2004 & Annecy 2018. So if we want to include the number of "rejections" into the equation here, then France wins this hands down.
5. Again, we can say this about Paris. If the French were to lose this, yet again, they are NOT coming back anytime soon. It would be decades, I'm sure. So someone is going to get butthurt here, whether that'd be France or the U.S. But someone is going to go home from Lima in 2017 with poopy panties. And that all is going to depend on what the IOC deems important to THEM come vote day.
Lost Paris Bids - 1992, 2008, 2012
Lost Los Angeles Bids - 1924 (To Paris), 1928, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1976, 1980 (To Moscow), 2016 (Eliminated by USOC to Chicago)
The only two times LA hosted was because it was the only bidder left 1932, 1984. 1932 was held during the Great Depression and it STILL managed to profit. 1984 almost did not happen and despite a Soviet led boycott went on to be the most successful games in Olympic history.
LA as been defeated way more times than Paris and would have certainly been denied the 1932 and 1984 games if literally anyone else put a bid.
It would be nice to have the IOC just ONCE to not default onto LA. I get it, they always have LA in their back pocket, but I think the stakes are much higher this time.
NY and Chicago were both more embarrasing that Paris losing twice. Hell, President Obama was there to see his own hometown eliminated in the first round of voting.
-
Found another LA2024 bid video that has not been officially released but appears to have been produced by the same group that released the "Where Will You Be in 2024!" clip.
Interestingly enough it was posted on Vimeo on May 2015, well after LA had been eliminated in favor Boston, and several months before the ball was back in LA's court.
Anyway, here's the link, enjoy!
https://vimeo.com/126643764
Let me know if the link is broken or not loading. -
And I'm sure a few wizened heads w/in the USOC and LA24 know that Paris has the edge in this round. (They'd be stupid not to acknowledge that.)
If anything, they're probably treating this as a dry run for 2028...when a couple of other projects in LA would've seen fruition already ...and aren't just blueprints.
The majority of projects in LA have a completion date well before 2024 with the only exception being the Purple Line extension to Westwood.
However, Metro has stated that a winning 2024 bid for the games would green light an acceleration of the project to have it done in time.
-
It's easy to forget LA's storied past as the city itself took a new direction early in its existence. The first LA boasted 1,100 miles of street cars, more than any other city on earth. Via yellow and red cars people reached their homes in what would be its first suburbs. With them came a collection of craftsman, Victorian, and other types of homes spread throughout the region. The movie Changling captured the era well. This era also saw LA break into the 10th most populous city in the US. The second Los Angeles saw the arrival of the Freeway, the jet age ushered in science and aerospace into the region and during that time the 1984 Olympics which brought signal prioritize toon and smart highways into existence. Semi custom to cookie cutter homes arrived in a massive boom that continued LA's population explosion. It saw LA become the nations second most populous city with often predictions that it would overtake New York to become the US's most populous. It brought to the world space shuttles, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, the epicenter of the American automobile engineering and design with nearly every auto manufacturer having a presence in the region. The third LA, arriving now and what I said is reminiscent of 1920's New York, is seeing a global cultural explosion, heavy support and construction of public transportation systems, a renewed interest in its historic features from the first LA, entrepreneurial spirit with new start ups, and growth that is disproportionately moving to the center. There is a strong renewed interest in urbanity, greater civic pride. LA right now could easily be where the next little black dress arrives or as will Farrell puts it, where flying cars will arrive. Policy supports driverless cars, there is a real feel that new culture is taking birth. However, a lot of people outside of LA still don't know this because television has created a solid vision of the second LA. But media outlets are catching on and that vision is rapidly changing. LA2024 is on a clock and to Paris' worst fears they may accomplish that goal... But we'll see come 2024.
I have to agree. LA is becoming an entirely new city at a feverish pitch.
It seems like everywhere you go there's Metro Construction projects, Artwalks, Farmers Markets, Festivals, Breweries, Concerts, Museums, it's pretty freaking exciting to be in LA right now.
And the introduction of Uber/Lyft has probably had a more profound change on LA than any other city on earth. Even those that are not serviced by Metro Rail can now ditch their cars.
It would be pretty awesome if LA created a kind of driverless Uber/Lyft system for the 2024 games. Maybe a joint venture between Uber/Lyft and Tesla??? All California companies, so you know they wouldn't shy away from the idea.
-
Well, only one city can win each time so you'll always "alienate" someplace, and the IOC has some wriggle room now that the US TV deal is signed up to 2032. As long as one of those three Games is on US soil I don't think there will be a major problem.
As far as I can see, the IOC can have its cake and eat it if LA is happy to bid for 2028, which Paris would be unlikely to do. USOC and LA will be acutely aware of this too.
As far as I can see LA's best chance of snagging an Olympics in the 2020s is for Paris to win 2024 giving LA an almost clear run at 2028.*
The second best chance LA has of getting a Games is if they claim during this bid cycle that they won't bid again for 2028. Then the IOC has a real conundrum.
---
* Asia and certainly Europe will be out of the 2028 race if Paris wins 2024. And even if South Africa u-turns and does go for 2028, that bid could well be taken as a warm up for 2032 with the IOC wanting to see how the Commonwealth Games goes in 2022 before awarding them the Big O. c.f. Rio 2012.
It is foolish to think that somehow LA would be a shoe in for 2028. Paris 2028 seems more likely because France really has no other city to put forth. Maybe Marseilles, but that's a stretch.
This is LA's last shot for several decades. As a reminder, IT WAS NOT THE USOC's original choice! As losing LA2024 bid would only reassure the USOC that LA is not fit to represent the US and will look elsewhere for 2028. If a bid as strong as LA's is not a good enough American bid for the IOC, then what is?
LA's story is already more dramatic than anyone else's because of the fact that the US elimination process is already brutal. I mean, it lost to BOSTON!!!
Paris has no other French city to compete with, while LA has at least two (Chicago and NY)
If LA 2024 bid is denied, that means that the IOC has now rejected the United States three summer bids NY2012, Chicago2016, and LA2024.
The people of LA will not rally in the numbers that they do now, and the idea of an LA Olympics will be shelved for at least the rest of my life.
los angeles 2024
in Los Angeles, USA 2024 / 2028 Olympic Games Bid
Posted
I fucking hate the renovation of the Coliseum. I wish they would leave it the way it is and remove the giant screen. It is such an iconic place.
So sad to see what they are going to do with it.