Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by LDM

  1. 6 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    Re the change of Lake Perris in place of Lake Casitas, I guess the plan to create a new rowing basin in the Sepulveda area to be run by UCLA, USC and Pepperdine, has fallen through.  Of course, the new Lake Perris location makes the 400-mi rowing venue change for Tokyo 2020, look like heaven.  

    This is the first I have heard this idea. Can you elaborate further on where you heard this or what the idea was? Were they looking to build a new, full spec rowing course in LA?

  2. 9 hours ago, RuFF said:

    I'm struggling to believe that this video went without comment. It's an excellent video and I love the way they put USA house together. Pretty incredible stuff. Wish I could have experienced it first hand but this video did a great job of substituting the real thing. 

    Agree. Great concept and amazing execution. Perfectly reflects the angle they are trying to push LA for as a candidate city: new age, youthful, vibrant, creative and tech savvy. 

    • Like 1
  3. 59 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Interesting that you call it track & field, but then give the distance in kilometers.  Very confusing :D

    The footprint for a regulation athletics track is much larger than a football field, let alone if you included everything that normally surrounds the track (although at the last 2 US-hosted Olympics were all in the infield).  There is no way to renovate or redevelop MetLife into something that could host athletics.  More important.. the stadium is owned and operated by the Jets and Giants.  Can't see them agreeing to give up control of their stadium for the Olympics.

    So that an NYC bid would still need a large scale athletics stadium, that makes MetLife lose some appeal as a potential ceremonies venue.  As zeke noted, when they had the Super Bowl there a couple of years ago, they completely mis-handled the transportation arrangements.  The difference between a big event like that and a regular Sunday afternoon football game is that when it's the Jets or the Giants, more of the people in attendance are local.  They have cars.  They come early and leave late to tailgate.  They know their way around.  To have the ceremonies of the Olympics there means you have 80,000 people coming to the stadium, most of whom are not local and are reliant on public transportation.  And that number doesn't include all the athletes and performers you need to move back and forth.  New Yorkers will not be more engaged with an event located outside the epicenter of the city.  As the Super Bowl proved, if it's not in the heart of the city, it might as well be happening on the other side of the country.  That's both the blessing and the curse of holding a major event in New York, particularly one mostly catered to out-of-town visitors.

    I'm an Aussie (thus the km's), but have strong interest in US college sport (thus the Track & Field reference)!

    Funnily enough I was over in NY for the Super Bowl a couple of years ago, but didn't go to the game and just stuck in Manhattan for the whole week. I didn't know it was such an issue with transport. But all the issues you raise make sense. Back to the drawing board I guess to figure out how to get a games to NYC....

  4. Would it really be a deal breaker for NYC if they actually had to use MetLife Stadium (a redeveloped/renovated one) as the Track & Field/Ceremonies stadium, despite the fact it is technically located in NJ? I mean, it is only 7.5km outside the state boundary.

    If it is fine for NY football teams to call it their home stadium then why can't it be acceptable for an olympics? If anything it ties in with what Agenda 2020 stands for: a more sustainable and responsible venue plan. If football (soccer) can be played in other cities as part of the games schedule, why can't this scenario be acceptable? And New Yorkers may even be more engaged with the idea of the Olympics when one of the main hubs is located outside the epicentre of the city, ensuring less congestion. 


  5. 6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Yes to the sentence in bold.  No to the sentence after it because of the sentence in bold.  It is technologically possible to pull something like that off, but at what cost?  Does it make sense for everyone involved, let alone the aspect of it involving the Olympics.  Soccer and NFL are pretty compatible with each other.  Track and Field is not.  Look what LA 2024 is proposing with the Coliseum.  That's not a simple conversion and if it's going to be done, it'll be for 1 use only.  So what's the purpose of building a stadium capable of holding Olympic track & field in the first place if it's likely going to compromise the stadium for its other uses?  The business aspect of it has to come first.  And especially with respect to the Jets.. right now they own and operate 50% of MetLife Stadium which came at a cost of $1.6 billion to build.  They're not going to settle for less than that, let alone why would they spend more money and leave a place they have so much invested in?  It just doesn't make sense.

    I should have prefaced my post by saying I am perfectly aware of how improbable and unlikely any of these 'solutions' are at actually being implemented. But the topic is about how does NYC get an Olympics with the stadium being the issue. My suggestion was merely how I believe I feel it could in the most realistic form (however unlilkely - obviously).

    In response to your comments about LA and the Coliseum, the difference is that it is a pre-existing structure and has pre-existing constraints, built in a bygone era. These days stadium design and architecture is well advanced and capable of being able to morph into different use cases. Here in Australia we recently had a design proposal for our Olympic stadium in Sydney to be almost completely renovated so that the stands can pivot and move to accommodate the different dimensions of the sports we play - Aussie Rules, League, Rugby and Football (Soccer). So the technical requirements I don't feel are that hard.

    As for the business case, that is obviously not as clear cut, however I do believe there could be value if you had: 1. a partner like the City Football Group and 2. a more central location actually in New York.

  6. If unsuccessful for the 2024 bid I would imagine it would be fait accompli that they decided to double-down and pursue a 2028 bid, for which I would say is completely warranted. Given that the US has multiple cities that would offer compelling or interesting SOGs, I am keen to hear from people who are probably a bit more learned in the bid game and/or US citizens from these areas as to why they may not be a feasible option. The cities I am curious about:

    San Diego
    San Francisco/San Jose
    New York
    Washington, DC

  7. The most likely (however unlikely) way for something plausible to manifest (financially justifiable etc) would be if City Football Group - who own NYCFC, Man City & Melb City - to buy a sizeable minority stake in the Jets to have skin create another revenue stream to offset the costs/risks of building a brand new stadium. 

    Stadium architectural design and capability is at a point where building a stadium that can morph into different use-cases is possible (i.e Soccer, NFL & Olympic T&F layouts). So building a new stadium that works is the easy part. It's having a compelling, sustainable business plan that is the issue. Having City Football Group combine with an NFL team (Jets) would fix that in my eyes.


  8. The issue is not that Los Angeles has hosted twice before (that is probably a negative, actually) but rather that it has most of the venues in place. New York, Chicago and San Francisco would have to build a bunch of the venues, and no American cities are interested in spending $750 million in public money on a track and field stadium, $250 million on an aquatics center, another $250 million on a velodrome, etc. No city in North America is going to do what London did for 2012.

    Understood - thanks! And I got myself muddled when I said LA hosting it twice would be a positive. I meant would SF & Chicago have enough downside that even with LA having already hosted twice that the IOC would view them more favourably still.

  9. Given that OG bids sometimes require a concerted effort to win over a two and even three cycles, if LA was to fail at 2024 and the US probably being a favourite for the 2028 race based off continental rotation, is LA a fait accompli for being the nominated city? Or are cities like SF and Chicago more likely options?

    Is LA legitimately the best candidate city for the US? Or are they merely using 2024 bid to keep the US in the conversation for 2024 before launching 2028 with a more appealing bid (new OG city)?

  • Create New...