Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes, but Vancouver was probably better for Canada than Toronto would have been. If you're assuming that hosting the summer games is worth it no matter what the cost, then Vancouver was a bad idea. But Vancouver was a great host (except for Nodar's death) and Toronto probably would have struggled with the legacy of the venues.

Toronto is a great city, but it is the same size as Atlanta, and the Canadian Football League is not going to sell out an 80,000 capacity Olympic Stadium.

If the USOC can find an economically responsible bid for the summer games that has a good chance of winning then they should put it forward. But what if they don't?

I disagree, who say's a stadium must stay 80,000? Toronto will host (eventually) and it will be fantastic both during and after the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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....

Los Angeles is the only US city that can realistically be an Olympic host without massive amounts of money being spent. However Los Angeles is also unappealing because it has hosted twice before and the Olympics won't galvanize any long term redevelopment of the city. Los Angeles has blighted satellites, not neighborhoods, so there isn't much of a chance for urban redesign the way there is in North Philadelphia or the South Side of Chicago.

Mass transportation infrastructure? Re-branding? Beautification? Road improvements? More pedestrian friendly streets? More visitors for smaller businesses (especially in areas outside of the LA city limits)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hell do they think they are? PyeongChang?

If you've been to LA, you would know that there really isn't any des

Really isn't any designated down town. Although many people do consider where staples center and that while theater down town it's not really official. La is really a collection if multiple small cities to form LA county

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've been to LA, you would know that there really isn't any des

Really isn't any designated down town. Although many people do consider where staples center and that while theater down town it's not really official. La is really a collection if multiple small cities to form LA county

No, I wouldn't really know that as I don't live there, although I have visited. I apologize as I was unaware that knowing everything about Los Angeles was a requirement for this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is if you're going to be labeling cities that you hardly 'know everything' about then, as "trash cans". Every major city in North America has their 'not so pretty spots'.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with more European games, just means more Euro cities get to show up London :D

No Tony they did not, Barcelona did and every city since then has followed suit. Even then I think the one summer city that still did a better job then London is Sydney, that's a true revitalization story there and it did not require uprooting already established communities.

I beg to differ.

I'm fine with more European games, just means more Euro cities get to show up London :D

No Tony they did not, Barcelona did and every city since then has followed suit. Even then I think the one summer city that still did a better job then London is Sydney, that's a true revitalization story there and it did not require uprooting already established communities.

Your anti-England/London. I take that the wrong way.

I understand. I saw it too. But it's best that we don't feed the troll.

I'm a troll for having a unique point of view? Unbelievable.

Well, the US is the only capable country that could do that.... maybe Canada but it's just too small compared to the United States (by population)... now probably China..

I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ.

Your anti-England/London. I take that the wrong way.

I'm a troll for having a unique point of view? Unbelievable.

I disagree.

Tony I'm not anti England/London I visited last week and I have always loved the nation and city HOWEVER I am against nationalism and people he can not admit their nations shortcomings even when they are staring them in the face. There is a difference between pride and nationalism, Tony 80% of the time you are nationalist.

I hate having to say that because I think deep down your a good kid with good intentions you just do not have a lot of online or social experience that many of the things you say can easily be seen as offensive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony I'm not anti England/London I visited last week and I have always loved the nation and city HOWEVER I am against nationalism and people he can not admit their nations shortcomings even when they are staring them in the face. There is a difference between pride and nationalism, Tony 80% of the time you are nationalist.

I hate having to say that because I think deep down your a good kid with good intentions you just do not have a lot of online or social experience that many of the things you say can easily be seen as offensive.

I love my Country but I love Multiculturalism aswell. I'm honestly not Nationalistic, I just love England.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my Country but I love Multiculturalism aswell. I'm honestly not Nationalistic, I just love England.

I know you do, I love America, but that does not mean I'm going to go and say that everything another nation takes pride in was not fair or that they got it unjustly. Sure I poke fun at London, but never have I said they did not deserve them or they received them unfairly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you do, I love America, but that does not mean I'm going to go and say that everything another nation takes pride in was not fair or that they got it unjustly. Sure I poke fun at London, but never have I said they did not deserve them or they received them unfairly.

Ok. This needs sorting once and for all. Can you PM me please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wouldn't really know that as I don't live there, although I have visited. I apologize as I was unaware that knowing everything about Los Angeles was a requirement for this site.

Well it would help if you knew a bit more, as FYI said, "Every major city in NA has their 'not so pretty spots'". Still I think LA is trashier than others...just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, who say's a stadium must stay 80,000? Toronto will host (eventually) and it will be fantastic both during and after the games.

We have never seen a temporary athletics stadium in the Olympics. (Permanent structures have been remodeled afterwards, but nobody has ever hosted with temporary bleachers.) Until someone hosts with a temporary main stadium I will be dubious the IOC and IAAF will accept one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have never seen a temporary athletics stadium in the Olympics. (Permanent structures have been remodeled afterwards, but nobody has ever hosted with temporary bleachers.) Until someone hosts with a temporary main stadium I will be dubious the IOC and IAAF will accept one.

Tell that to London who planned to downsize, the only thing that changed those plans was the Tory party.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reason's London's plan was changed is that there was no use for a stadium with a track, though. Even if 60% of the bleachers were designed to be removed, they would still have to remodel the stadium for West Ham to get rid of the track.

However I doubt either the IOC or LOCOG were serious about the temporary design. It seems likely that it was a device used to help sell the games to the British public given the fact that it was shelved right after the bid won.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reason's London's plan was changed is that there was no use for a stadium with a track, though. Even if 60% of the bleachers were designed to be removed, they would still have to remodel the stadium for West Ham to get rid of the track.

However I doubt either the IOC or LOCOG were serious about the temporary design. It seems likely that it was a device used to help sell the games to the British public given the fact that it was shelved right after the bid won.

There really are some uninformed opinions on this forum at times. :rolleyes:

Both the ODA and the IOC were serious about the temporary stadium plan and the idea was NOT shelved right after the bid was won. The fact that London actually built a two-thirds temporary stadium proves this!

The ODA tendered for designs for a stadium with 55,000 temporary seats. The winning bid by Populous had exactly that and was built with removable upper tiers. The idea of downsizing the stadium was only "scrapped" when Boris Johnson decided he wanted the stadium off the city's books, which led to two bids from two London football clubs. These two bids were shortlisted in November 2010, five and a half years after London won the bid, and West Ham's eventual winning proposal sees the London Stadium being converted into a 60,000 stadium capable of hosting both athletics and football. We'll never know whether the original idea of downsizing the stadium would've worked or not, and it remains to be seen whether the reworked conversion of the stadium will be effective, but to say London wasn't serious about the temporary stadium idea is demonstrably nonsense.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find most of LA is pretty bad. The cities surrounding it are nice, but LA is a trash can.

So not true. Let me know when you're in town. I'll take you on a tour that will prove it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...