Jump to content

Jesse Saenz

Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Jesse Saenz

  1. On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, RuFF said:

    Yeah, this was going to happen, Olympics or not.

    By 2024, however, electric cars I assume will be the norm with German automakers surely making sexier cars than Tesla that are also fully electric.

    Elon's end game was never to sell cars, it was push carmakers to move to all electric...and he in turn...would supply the batteries and infrastructure to sustain them

    Smart motherfucker.

  2. 12 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    It looks soooooo DATED already.  Can't believe Lucas picked another Zaha Hadid in the making.  I think its design is too "Look-at-me!  Look-at-me!" for Exposition Park.  

    Was really surprised the Chicago plan fell thru considering his wife is supposedly influential in Chicago politics; and it would've been a one-two punch for Chicago, the other being the Barack Obama Presidential Library, I think at the same park.  (Or will his Library be closer to the Univ.of Chicago campus?)

    The SF model is very similar and was designed by the same architecht.

    I actually like the design and feel it would complement the Expo area well. A new stadium AND a new museum? That would be nice.

    It sure beats having those parking lots.

  3. 1 hour ago, RuFF said:

    On another thread there is a discussion about UCLA/USC being used instead of the piggyback yards. Is it a missed opportunity for LA? And on this thread it's been said that UCLA/USC are a plan B. I've assumed that implies that USC/UCLA Athletes Village and Media Centers are a downgrade to the originally proposed village at the Piggyback Yards. Personally, I've felt UCLA/USC are not only an upgrade to the Piggyback Yards, but overall an upgrade to a ground up Athletes Village. I would go even further to say that the Piggyback Yards are a prime opportunity for open recreational space as previously envisioned as part of the LA River Project. I, for one, am thankful no Athletes Village will be built on that site. I feel it's potential is so much greater as open recreational space as more dense areas along the river could easily be accommodated south of this site, in particular the Arts District and industrial areas south. What do you guys think? 

    I agree. 

    The Piggyback yards would have pushed LA's bid well into the red very early on.

    UCLA and the new USC Village is a MUCH better location.

  4. 52 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    I've never disagreed with any of that.  Where you're losing me is that you're trying to set the baseline for how the rest of the world views LA.  How exactly doe Angelinos see themselves?  Did they not have a boost of self-confidence from the effort the Olympics put forth in 1984?  Has it been slipping since then to the point that they are in desperate need of another Olympics to stem the tide?

    LA can and should push their "New LA" narrative.  It is indeed a good sales pitch.  But they need to sell what LA is, not try and fool anyone based on what they want the IOC to believe about LA just so they can replace that message with another.

    I think what makes LA intresting is that its still not an entirely defined city. 

    That in itself is both a weakness and a stenght. A wild card.

  5. 2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    Well, if we are to believe LA2024 according to its boosters Ruffage and Jesse, LA has also re-invented the skyscraper!!  What will LA NOT have re-invented by the time they have closing ceremonies in 2028??  :blink:

    OK Pierre, take a chill pill or two, lol.

    In all seriousness I like that we all disagree and that we are forced to see things through a seperate set of lenses. It expands our understanding and makes for a more interesting forum.

    How boring if we all just agreed and said nothing.

     

  6. 1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

    Nope.  The US is too big and people have so many other priorities that a home-grown Olympic Games is really only going to excite the region it will be in; if at all.  Other parts of the country are simply too busy with their own agendas.  France is a smaller country of 64 million people whose ways are more homogenous.  

    Crucial question: who's doing Ceremonies?  I think the 2024 bid will rise and fall on that!! 

    California alone has 40 Million people.

    Its not wise to underestimate the potential.

    USA's 319 Million vs France's 64 Million, I wouldn't knock em just yet.

     

  7. 2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Ehh.. I'm not sure that's a message that LA should be selling, and definitely not one that Paris should be copying.  This is the IOC we're talking about.  As much as the world knows they need to change their image, I'm not so sure they're going to look favorably at LA trying to tell the IOC how to re-invent their brand.  This is not an organization that wants to be told what to do, as much as someone probably should.  Again, it goes back to the same idea that's been brought up before that what LA is selling is probably going to further the Olympic movement, but the voting members of the IOC can't exactly be counted on to do what's best for them.

    It's a near impossible task to get that to happen.  Paris can stand for the entire country of France.  I don't know how LA can engage with the entire country to the point where they'll feel the effects of an Olympics in LA.  Not sure there's anything that can be done about that.

    It will certainly be difficult as LA is never synonimous with America both at home and abroad, but not impossible.

    This is where LA's creativity can come in to good use.

    Time so shake up that image that La La Land is this far off place lost in its own little world.

     

    • Like 1
  8. I felt both LA and Paris presented very strong bids!!!

    LA's however seems to be trying to steer the Olympic Games in a new direction, I agree. A revamping or rebranding indeed.

    Paris highlighted the unity and backing of the French people, which I felt was very important and noticeably missing from LA's.

    LA highlighted the 88% support from LA area citizens, but did not really expand beyond that. I feel it needs to engage the American public as a whole, LA reisdents are already in the bag....move on to the rest of California and the other 49 states.

    Get all of America behind it, and there will be no stopping it.

     

  9. 1 hour ago, RuFF said:

    Way to go Obama. He's saying IOC host city selection is cooked, which may be true. However, he used the 2016 vote in 2009 as an example and well, I'm not sure that was the best example. 

    http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/obamas-remark-that-ioc-olympic-bid-decisions-are-cooked-is-poorly-timed/

    Well, its the truth. Sucks it had to come out now and the end of his term and with LA 2024 on the line, but oh well. Truth hurts.

  10. On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 5:26 PM, RuFF said:

    LA reaches marketing agreement with USOC.

    http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1041976/usoc-hail-marketing-agreement-with-la-2024-after-failed-new-york-and-chicago-bids

    Something that I have been curious about. Apparently sporting federations are signing off on proposed LA2024 venues and as is obvious LA2024 is making changes to venues to accommodate the federations. As an example, Volleyball will be at the Honda Center should LA be awarded the games. While I don't post to the Paris thread I do read it. Is that something that competing bids are doing?  In the case of Paris specifically, does Paris have the ability to switch to other existing venues?

    As they should. Parisian leaders should also be doing the same, making sure taxpayers are at least somewhat protected.

    The state of California is ready to cover up to $250 Million in overruns if it needz to.

     

     

  11. 6 hours ago, RuFF said:

    LA reaches marketing agreement with USOC.

    http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1041976/usoc-hail-marketing-agreement-with-la-2024-after-failed-new-york-and-chicago-bids

    Something that I have been curious about. Apparently sporting federations are signing off on proposed LA2024 venues and as is obvious LA2024 is making changes to venues to accommodate the federations. As an example, Volleyball will be at the Honda Center should LA be awarded the games. While I don't post to the Paris thread I do read it. Is that something that competing bids are doing?  In the case of Paris specifically, does Paris have the ability to switch to other existing venues?

    Kind of a big deal.

  12. 2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    That's something for the LA 2024 folks to worry about in the event baseball is added to the 2024 program.  Atlanta managed it with Fulton County Stadium in `96 as did the Dodgers in `84.  The Utah Jazz in 2002 spent nearly the entire month of February on the road to accommodate the Olympics.  If they have to do something similar with the Dodgers or Angels, they'll make it work.

    Don't hold out hope for that one.  At this point, the odds of MLB shutting down for the Olympics are probably not as good as Rome landing 2024.  That the NHL is hesitant to commit to 2018 tells you all you need to know about how MLB would look at an Olympics, even in the United States.  It's been a necessary evil for hockey to lose those 2 weeks in February and the revenue they sacrifice to get that spotlight on the world stage in hopes of growing the sport.  They can more easily get away with it because they can still play a full schedule, something baseball wouldn't be able to do unless they moved those 2 weeks elsewhere.  Not to mentioned Olympic baseball wouldn't get the spotlight that Olympic hockey does.  Wouldn't be worth it for them.

    Agreed

  13. SF Bay area is just not prepared to host an Olympics anytime soon.

    LA has been Olympics ready for decades now.

    Paris is still the favorite and many of the polls so far show it as the likely winner, but since LA's bid is shaping up to be a real serious contender, it is going to go down to the wire. My guess is that LA, California, and the US will do their best to pull a London 2012 on the IOC at the last possible minute.

     

     

  14. 2 hours ago, RuFF said:

    This is often over looked. I spoke about this a few months back but the cost overruns argument kept being banged. But if anybody knows California politics they'll know Californians do not pay for sport. The NFL left LA in 1994, had entered markets on the taxpayer buck but LA has held out. The Rams return to LA is all private money. What is astonishing is that not only is it all private money, but it will be the worlds most expensive stadium nearing a cost of $3 billion. More than the proposed and dumped Zaha Hadid Olympic Stadium for Tokyo. That is very unique for Los Angeles and I recently read an article about LA2024 presenting a bid that is loaded with privately financed venues. In some ways it parallels 1984 in that at that time LA84 was able to keep a substantial amount of sponsorship revenue, and private enterprise such as McDonalds financed venues (i.e. McDonald's Swim Stadium). I don't think there is a city on the planet that can make that claim that virtually all venue are being paid for by private money. 

    Granted, the argument that there will be temporary stadiums (swimming/volley ball, etc.) and elevated tracks holds merit. There is a cost associated with that method... but compared to the alternatives I think this temporary method is a substantial amount of savings. We'll see though. 

    All things considered, it is becoming hard to deny that LA will carry with it the least fiscally risky games.

    The temporary venues (pool/vollyball) are a fraction of the cost of permanent arenas or stadiums.

    The worlds most advanced stadium will be built without a cent of IOC's and taxpayers money but will be fully available to the IOC as will the new Banc of California Stadium.

    No other city can come even close to what LA is prepared to deliver on.

    But again. IOC....

  15. LA's bid has a bit of a non conventional approach to venues and post games usage.

    Usually, venues and villages are built for the Olympics first, then with some plan, however ambigious or uncertain, for after the games. 

    In LA, all venues are already being used and the two under construction are being built for non-olympic events first with the plan that they can be used for the Olympics.

    They are being finanaced and paid for independent of the games which is why they shouldn't even be considered part of the budget.

    I know I am being accused of not lumping costs together like other cities, but thats because in this case, they shouldn't.

    Even the Metro system expansion. That was voter approved back in 2008.

    It too should not be considered when tallying up the overall cost of the games.

×
×
  • Create New...