Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content count

    6223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    115

Quaker2001 last won the day on August 20

Quaker2001 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1156 Excellent

1 Follower

About Quaker2001

  • Rank
    Flag Bearer Level 6
  • Birthday November 25

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NYC

Recent Profile Visitors

20666 profile views
  1. Where does the IOC go from here?

    France as a country just got something that has eluded them for a century. Why do they add to that as if they have something left to prove? Let them focus their efforts on making Paris 2024 a success. No need to pile on a Winter Olympics on top of that. Let France get through 2024. Then if they really want to go after a Winter Olympics then, they can. Not their responsibility to throw a bid out there because the IOC may or may not have a solid field of bidders for 2026.
  2. Los Angeles 2028

    What baron said. USC has a multi-million dollar aquatics facility that was just renovated a few years ago. Why let that all go to waste to replace it with a new venue?
  3. Los Angeles 2028

    Easier said than done just to tear down a building like that. Maybe they don't want to lose that rec center. Again though, this is perhaps the advantage of having an extra 4 years to work with. Now there's time to re-evaluate those plans. Not that we haven't seen venue changes on the normal timetable, but I'm with you that they can come up with something better and hopefully get USC on board with it.
  4. Los Angeles 2028

    Agreed. I get that it's a necessary evil with the Coliseum, but you'd think they'd be able to come up with something more creative than this. I have a strange feeling we might see a change with this plan at some point between now and 2028. It gets lost in translation sometimes.. building venues from scratch is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem comes in with there's no legacy plan. This is LA we're talking about, with 2 major universities and other smaller ones. I have to imagine someone can come up with a better idea than this where there's some sort of legacy left beyond the shell of a baseball stadium. I understand there are technical limitations here that make this all easier said than done, but look at Atlanta or Sydney or London. They built new venues, but none of those are white elephants as all of them had a proper legacy plan. I don't see why Atlanta can't do the same. And it's neither here nor there as a point of comparison anymore, but between LA's temporary venue and Paris's permanent one, which of those 2 will look better in the long-term?
  5. Los Angeles 2028

    Fair point about Utygensu but compare the rendering to what's there now (I was searching through Google images and actually found something I had posted here awhile back, but here's a fresh image).. You would never know there's a baseball field there now and I'm not sure how they would put one back in afterwards. Not the biggest problem in the world, but again, saying that Dedeaux Field is serving as the venue is almost to pretend there's nothing there now and who knows what will be there afterwards.
  6. Los Angeles 2028

    I'm still mystified by the plan for the swimming venue. There's next to nothing about the existing venue which seems to play a part in creating the temporary structure. It's almost like "here's a big open space of land, that's where we'll put up the temporary structure for the pool." Not sure how easily (or even if) they could have re-purposed the `84 venue. The big ticket item will always be the Coliseum. Not sure how much money they could save by changing around some of the venue plans. IMO, money is the least of the concerns when it comes to the swimming venue.
  7. Where does the IOC go from here?

    Doesn't work that way. If Salt Lake is interested in bidding, they can bid. The IOC is not in a position to ask for them to bid, not to mention that they need to go through the USOC through that. They have enough to deal with to plan LA. If they want to throw their hat in the ring for a Winter bid, they can. But they can't expect that a last minute phone call would mean Salt Lake could jump right in. They'd need time to plan, so they'd put the IOC in a holding pattern for months, if not longer than that. Let's remember about Almaty.. 40 of 84 voters were ready to award them the 2022 Olympics over Beijing. I would have to imagine all of them would therefore be okay with awarding Almaty an Olympics over no one. Not an ideal situation, but what choice would they have in that scenario?
  8. Los Angeles 2028

    Not going to happen. Look at LA, which probably has more infrastructure in place to host an Olympics than any other city and they're still spending over a billion dollars on venues alone. And a lot of that is for temporary overlays. Then, as jtrevino noted, you have the matter of the villages. Even if all the competition venues are there, where are you going to house tens of thousands of athletes, coaches, media memebers, and everyone else you need to take care of. LA has a unique solution for that, but that quantity of housing is rarely going to be available more than once. The idea of permanent hosts sounds nice in theory, but in practice, it wouldn't work so well.
  9. Los Angeles 2028

    Beijing on it's own may not have been an issue. Have Sochi follow that up a few years later and we know the fallout from that. I agree it's something of a slippery slope to not exclude these countries or tell them what they can or can't spend. But the cause and effect can often be that the IOC will get excess and then they'll expected excess. Kudos to London for not trying to out-do Beijing (not that they could have if they tried), but the IOC still needs to get out of a culture where they can expect the biggest and the best from any host city. Some can deliver that, and in the case of Beijing, no surprise they wanted to put on a show for the world. In a scenario where the IOC has to choose between Oslo and Beijing though, that's where they'll get themselves into trouble.
  10. Los Angeles 2028

    And no other country has done it that way since. LA's financial model for the Olympics didn't create a revolution. It was largely a one-off that worked well for them, but not necessarily something others could replicate. That's what I think will happen again here.
  11. Los Angeles 2028

    It's been discussed here before.. back in the 60's and 70's, the problem was with the host cities. Mexico City dealt with protests and social unrest. Munich had infamously lax security and we all know what happened as a result. Montreal had financial woes that were largely self-imposed. So when Los Angeles came in in 1984, they got the reputation as the savior of the Olympic movement which was largely well-deserved. These days, the problem isn't so much the host cities as it is with the IOC and their desire for excess. They're responsible for an Olympics in Beijing (soon to be 2 Olympics in Beijing) and in Sochi. So that has scared off a number of cities. When Paris and LA come into the picture, that may or may not lead to an increase in the number of interested cities. What will make the difference though IMO is less about how successful Paris and LA pull off their Olympics and more about the IOC and their reputation. If they were true to their Agenda 2020 philosophy, they're supposed to be doing right by their potential host cities. The so-called "rulebook" should be flexible to make it work for whomever is bidding. We're at a point in time where maybe only the biggest of big cities can hope to host an Olympics, but those cities need to be drawn in first, not pushed away. And yes, for all the rhetoric about things that LA is doing differently - and they're in a position to do better than other bids because of the economics of Olympic bidding in the United States - it's not necessarily something other cities can follow any more than Barcelona created some sort of new model, unless we can find another city/country emerging from decades of political strife. There are lessons to be learned there for sure, but I agree, it's not going to be anything revolutionary. LA `84 wasn't that either. They simply didn't repeat the mistakes of prior hosts, some of which could have been foreseen and others which were a matter of circumstance. Bottom line is this.. bidding for and hosting an Olympics is an expensive proposition. It's not going to get any cheaper. Paris and LA feel confident they can pull it off. But it all needs to start with the responsibility of the IOC where they do right by potential host cities rather than for themselves.
  12. Los Angeles 2028

    As indicated by the headline.. Don’t Look Now, But Alt-Right Demonstrations Are Scheduled for Nine Cities Next Weekend So I don't think there's an immediate concern that there will be a focus on Los Angeles, even if this hadn't been called off in light of what happened in Charlottesville
  13. FIFA World Cup 2026

    Yea, this is a preliminary list. At least half of those stadiums won't make the final cut and there's a few there that clearly will be the first to go.
  14. FIFA World Cup 2026

    2026 World Cup bid: The 49 stadiums being considered across USA, Mexico, Canada United States (34 cities, 37 stadiums): Metropolitan Market Stadium Capacity Atlanta, GA Mercedes-Benz Stadium 75,000 Baltimore, MD M&T Bank Stadium 71,008 Birmingham, AL Legion Field 71,594 Boston, MA (Foxborough) Gillette Stadium 65,892 Charlotte, NC Bank of America Stadium 75,400 Chicago, IL Soldier Field 61,500 Cincinnati, OH Paul Brown Stadium 65,515 Cleveland, OH FirstEnergy Stadium 68,710 Dallas, TX Cotton Bowl 92,100 Dallas, TX (Arlington) AT&T Stadium 105,000 Denver, CO Sports Authority Field at Mile High 76,125 Detroit, MI Ford Field 65,000 Green Bay, WI Lambeau Field 81,441 Houston, TX NRG Stadium 71,500 Indianapolis, IN Lucas Oil Stadium 65,700 Jacksonville, FL EverBank Field 64,000 Kansas City, MO Arrowhead Stadium 76,416 Las Vegas, NV Raiders Stadium 72,000 Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 78,500 Los Angeles, CA (Inglewood) L.A. Stadium at Hollywood Park TBD Los Angeles, CA (Pasadena) Rose Bowl 87,527 Miami Gardens, FL Hard Rock Stadium 65,767 Minneapolis, MN U.S. Bank Stadium 63,000 Nashville, TN Nissan Stadium 69,143 New Orleans, LA Mercedes-Benz Superdome 72,000 New York/New Jersey (East Rutherford) MetLife Stadium 82,500 Orlando, FL Camping World Stadium 65,000 Philadelphia, PA Lincoln Financial Field 69,328 Phoenix, AZ (Glendale) University of Phoenix Stadium 73,000 Pittsburgh, PA Heinz Field 68,400 Sal Lake City, UT Rice-Eccles Stadium 45,807 San Antonio, TX Alamodome 72,000 San Diego, CA Qualcomm Stadium 71,500 San Francisco/San Jose, CA (Santa Clara) Levi's Stadium 72,000 Seattle, WA CenturyLink Field 69,000 Tampa, FL Raymond James Stadium 73,309 Washington, DC (Landover) FedEx Field 82,000 Canada (seven cities, nine stadiums): Metropolitan Market Stadium Capacity Calgary, Alberta McMahon Stadium 35,650 Edmonton, Alberta Commonwealth Stadium 56,335 Montreal, Quebec Stade Olympique 61,004 Montreal, Quebec Stade Saputo 20,801 Ottawa, Ontario TD Place Stadium 24,341 Regina Saskatchewan Mosaic Stadium 30,048 Toronto, Ontario Rogers Centre 53,506 Toronto, Ontario BMO Field 28,026 Vancouver, British Columbia BC Place 55,165 Mexico (three cities, three stadiums): Metropolitan Market Stadium Capacity Guadalajara, Jalisco Estadio Chivas 45,364 Mexico City Estadio Azteca 87,000 Monterrey, Nuevo Leon Estadio Rayados 52,237
  15. Los Angeles 2028

    Thought I was missing something interesting that there were a bunch of new replies here. Should have known better than the real reason was because it has returned. Too bad, was kinda hoping it was gone for good. Not worth trying to rationalize with it though, especially since there's no longer a Paris versus LA comeptition going on. Yet it still is trying to make a case against Paris, as if that makes a difference at this point. 1 point though that needs to be fact-checked.. No, you can't say that, because it's not true. The plans for what will become the village were going ahead anyway, which is why they said only 2024 would work for an Olympic bid. That said, don't see why that needs to be brought up. The Olympics are happening in Paris. So whether or not the village would have been built is moot at this point. But whatever. This is why it's no longer worth replying to it. I digress to less ignorant posts (which precludes replying to paul as well).. I've hit on this before because until I had read a couple of articles like this, I wouldn't have thought to draw parallels between the `84 Olympics and the civil unrest in LA in the early 90s. Don't know how much the 2 are connected, but it does bring up a point that anti-Olympics folks may not be wrong about. Even with all the private funding and the investments from wealthy corporations and individuals, who stands to benefit from a successful Olympics? No one would dispute the positive legacies that the `84 games left LA and Southern California that still continue to be felt these days. But at a time in this country where there's a divide between the haves and the have nots, the argument can be made that something like the Olympics will increase that divide. No one here would dispute the non-Olympic dependent infrastructure projects going on in LA that are in place to benefit the population (although to be fair, now there is an Olympics on the calendar, so that element of any long-term project could become a consideration), but then what are the citizens of Los Angeles getting out of the $5 billion being spent? Is that the best use of their time and money? A lot of good would come out of an Olympics, but for whom? Still a fair question to ask if there will be people who don't benefit from the Olympics and the answer is probably a resounding yes. So yea, maybe I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit here. Assessing the situation, 2028 and Los Angeles are about as good a bet to host an Olympics in this country as we're likely to get in the foreseeable future, so it not then, than when. In the interests of being fair and balanced, it's not unfair to bring both the potential positives and the negatives to the table. And yea, we can - and likely will - do the same thing with Paris. But fortunately, there's another thread devoted to that. There's no longer a competition where 1 has to be chosen over the other, so comparing 1 to the other almost seems like a self-defeating prophecy at this point. Time will tell what history says about their respective Olympics.
×