Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

Dynamic revitalization = expense. The United States can stage enormously successful Olympic Games without breaking the bank.

You will still lose money overall, though. Even financially successful games only consider the net balance of the games themselves and not the commerce driven out of the area while normal life in the city is basically shut down for a month. (Even in a huge city like London.) And that's not getting into the balance of trade problem that arises due to so many international corporations taking over revenue from local businesses.

The only way for a city to benefit from the games is to have them leave a strong legacy after the games are over. If there's no American city that is capable of doing it then none of them should bother bidding.

http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/07-08-2012/121856-london_olympics-0/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You will still lose money overall, though. Even financially successful games only consider the net balance of the games themselves and not the commerce driven out of the area while normal life in the city is basically shut down for a month. (Even in a huge city like London.) And that's not getting into the balance of trade problem that arises due to so many international corporations taking over revenue from local businesses.

The only way for a city to benefit from the games is to have them leave a strong legacy after the games are over. If there's no American city that is capable of doing it then none of them should bother bidding.

http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/07-08-2012/121856-london_olympics-0/

I must say.. we've had a lot of newbies come in here and make some pretty ridiculous statements. But this is 1 of the smarter posts I've seen on here in quite some time. Well done.

No city on the planet can justify the cost of an Olympics and claim to have made a profit off of it. It's everything the Olympics does for a city in terms of urban renewal that is the true measure of its success. And that's exactly what the problem is with an Olympics in the United States. How does a city justify building all of the venues in a way that will benefit the city in the long-term. New York thought they had that with 2012 until the stadium deal blew up in their faces. The irony is that a lot of the projects proposed as a part of the Olympic bid, not to mention several new sports complexes that have or will be built in the coming years, happened anyway. That's the type of plan a city needs to come up with.. something where their proposal will benefit the city, but also can work within the city's greater vision knowing that the Olympics may not be awarded to that city, and at best they can wait 4 years and maybe try again.

Especially in the United States where you have multiple sports leagues and numerous universities wanting to improve their infrastructure, it's tough to invest in a long-term plan like an Olympics. Sure, most major cities have a number of stadiums and arenas to work with, but none have a large scale stadium capable of hosting athletics. Most don't have a major aquatics venue. Even Los Angeles would have some questions in that regard. So that's the problem.. can all these effects come together along with everything they need to support them? I know a lot of us here would love to see where the next U.S. Olympic bid will come from, international competition aside, but that's always what the reality of the situation is going to be. And I don't know the city necessarily capable of overcoming that.

Really cause DC has expressed interest, they even have a twitter. San Francisco kind of.

You think they are going to go through this whole thing and not bid.

A 7 year old could go online and create a Twitter account in support of a cause and get people to follow. That alone hardly makes a city capable of an Olympic bid.

And short answer.. absolutely I believe the USOC might go through all the motions, potentially even find a city with work with and still decide they don't think it's worth the trouble of bidding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC wants to host the olympics then they need a city that will work with them. They need a city that the IOC will see the future of the olympics. The city also needs a wow factor. For example a fantastic olympic park with a great olympic stadium. A better looking one than Tokyo's........

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC wants to host the olympics then they need a city that will work with them. They need a city that the IOC will see the future of the olympics. The city also needs a wow factor. For example a fantastic olympic park with a great olympic stadium. A better looking one than Tokyo's........

So, not Tusla?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the USOC wants to host the olympics then they need a city that will work with them. They need a city that the IOC will see the future of the olympics. The city also needs a wow factor. For example a fantastic olympic park with a great olympic stadium. A better looking one than Tokyo's........

That's not what we need, because the current American bidding cities do not hold the movements future. Also as Chicago told us the IOC does not really care about the WOW factor and they could give a rats ass about how a stadium looks.

The IOC wants a city whose bid not only is well planned, capable on terms of transportation and accommodations, a legacy plan that benefits the city greatly, and either a new frontier or distanced enough from a nations previous games. Both NYC and Chicago failed in many of those levels. The cities do not need the games and the games do not need the city, Another problem is that Atlanta '96 is still fairly recent; I don't see the nation getting the games until the 2030's because of this. Next none of the cities at this point have a good legacy plan. One more games for LA either could or couldn't help the city, Dallas will not really benefit, neither would Boston or DC. Philly maybe, but their bid looks so weak right now that Tulsa looks better. So who? who is an appealing city? None of them, the US needs to follow in Canada's footsteps and sit out the next two cycles.

Maybe if they both stayout and comeback in for 2032 they will have a very good and inspirational city that both countries can rally behind and the games will be distanced well enough from '96 that the Americas seem irresistible.

So, not Tusla?

No Tulsa is way out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will still lose money overall, though. Even financially successful games only consider the net balance of the games themselves and not the commerce driven out of the area while normal life in the city is basically shut down for a month. (Even in a huge city like London.) And that's not getting into the balance of trade problem that arises due to so many international corporations taking over revenue from local businesses.

The only way for a city to benefit from the games is to have them leave a strong legacy after the games are over. If there's no American city that is capable of doing it then none of them should bother bidding.

http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/07-08-2012/121856-london_olympics-0/

Totally disagree with this. LA '84 being the prime example to the contrary. The surplus was used to found the Amateur Athletic Foundation.

Show me ANY city that has derived quantifiable economic benefit by "leaving a strong legacy after the Games are over."

The only city to really reap obvious benefits from hosting was Barcelona and that was largely because the timing of the Games coincided with a sweeping revitalization plan that reinvented the city as a major European travel destination. The scale of the Games in 1992 was also much more manageable and did not hinge on the idea of giant Olympic parks.

The way to have financially viable Games is to reduce the demand for new construction and work with existing venues. Additionally, the Games may serve as a catalyst for infrastructure improvements that would be needed anyway. Each host city is going to have slightly different needs. Therefore fiscally responsible bids will take on slightly different forms. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

What is certain is that the likes of Beijing and Sochi, while glamorous in the short-term, have the potential to bring the Olympic Movement to its knees in the long-term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few more:

Descanso Gardens

38-Japanese-Garden-From-Teahouse-3x9x3.j

The Arboretum

2009110680061169.JPG

Point Fermin Park

14035533.jpg


So that was just a few pictures as a start. LA has plenty of parks.

If you're wondering about public gathering places, how about LA Live? Exposition Park? USC? There are plenty of options.

Say what you will about an LA bid, but parks and gathering places are not the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me ANY city that has derived quantifiable economic benefit by "leaving a strong legacy after the Games are over."

My point is that the Olympics will never make sense if you look at them purely from an economic perspective.

Legacy doesn't just mean finding uses for stadiums and arenas after the games (although that is part of it) but also a part of an urban development plan. London is a good example of a city targeting an economically disadvantaged part of itself and trying to gentrify (or "renew") it.

The only city to really reap obvious benefits from hosting was Barcelona and that was largely because the timing of the Games coincided with a sweeping revitalization plan that reinvented the city as a major European travel destination.

That's precisely my point. This is what a city needs to do to be successful.

I'm not suggesting that we do what Russia did in Sochi or China did with Beijing. I'm saying that a city that views the Olympics as if its just a really big version of any other sporting event and prioritizes budgeting is making a mistake. The Olympics only make sense if you have some other plan you want to achieve by hosting them. Such as urban renewal, turning a city into a tourist destination or building a large park in the city.

Totally disagree with this. LA '84 being the prime example to the contrary. The surplus was used to found the Amateur Athletic Foundation. .

The games themselves had an operating surplus, but that doesn't account for what happens to the city as a whole. When a city hosts the Olympics (or the Super Bowl, World Cup or any other such event) it brings in new tourists to see the games but scares off the tourists you would normally get because they want to avoid the chaos. Additionally the locals stay away or indoors.

I was actually born in Los Angeles during the Olympics, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having grown up there I know they have parks. So does every other city in the United States. My point is that Los Angeles' parks are bad compared to those other cities. With the notable exception of Griffith Park, I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one of MacArthur park is so postcard-ish.

I stayed just by MacArthur Park last time I was in LA - the neighbourhood looked like it had seen better days, but it certainly has a lot of potential.

LOVED Griffith and Echo Parks. Los Angeles is a great city, most of the people who criticise it have probably never been beyond Hollywood Blvd or the freeway to Anaheim.

I think Australians tend to have quite an affection for Southern California, the landscape is very much like home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having grown up there I know they have parks. So does every other city in the United States. My point is that Los Angeles' parks are bad compared to those other cities. With the notable exception of Griffith Park, I guess.

My point is that the Olympics will never make sense if you look at them purely from an economic perspective.

Legacy doesn't just mean finding uses for stadiums and arenas after the games (although that is part of it) but also a part of an urban development plan. London is a good example of a city targeting an economically disadvantaged part of itself and trying to gentrify (or "renew") it.

That's precisely my point. This is what a city needs to do to be successful.

I'm not suggesting that we do what Russia did in Sochi or China did with Beijing. I'm saying that a city that views the Olympics as if its just a really big version of any other sporting event and prioritizes budgeting is making a mistake. The Olympics only make sense if you have some other plan you want to achieve by hosting them. Such as urban renewal, turning a city into a tourist destination or building a large park in the city.

The games themselves had an operating surplus, but that doesn't account for what happens to the city as a whole. When a city hosts the Olympics (or the Super Bowl, World Cup or any other such event) it brings in new tourists to see the games but scares off the tourists you would normally get because they want to avoid the chaos. Additionally the locals stay away or indoors.

I was actually born in Los Angeles during the Olympics, by the way.

For starters, I was born in LA as well and, by the sounds of it, before you were. No we don't have Central Park or Hyde Park or Regent's Park, but I have to question how well you know your hometown when you say there's no decent park apart from Griffith Park. Get out more.

Of course economics are not the only reason to host the Games. Far from it. But the Games have to make economic sense for the host and the US has demonstrated a consistent ability to make that work.

You have ZERO evidence that LA took an economic hit due to the 1984 Games. Of course there is a quiet spell before and after the Games. Sure the locals left town to avoid the high traffic periods. No doubt about it. So what? Does that mean that on balance for the year the city ends up in the red? Not at all.

Here's the simple truth: as far as the United States is concerned, if you don't pay attention to the budget you'll never get the public or governmental support necessary to host the Games. It's that simple. The public and the government have to be confident they won't get stuck with a big bill when it's all over. The United States is really the only country that can host the Games without dipping deep into public coffers. That model will be followed into the future.

Of course a city needs to derive some meaningful benefit from hosting, but I do not believe that needs to translate to an East End-style radical revamp -- certainly not in Los Angeles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ioc cares more about the experience of the athelete experience and how the olympic movement will contribute to the world rather than the legacy(which they still do care about).

Do you know anything about the IOC? Istanbul offered a great deal to the movement, but their legacy plan and venue plans sucked so they lost. The IOC DOES care about the legacies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...