los angeles 2024

[FYI]

No, that's actually the BORING & tedious "book" that you posted at 3:37pm.

[Nacre]

Narce, your argument sucks. Like NanC wouldn't know squat about a IBC.

NBC*

Can you provide a source saying that NBC has signed a contract to build a broadcasting center for LA2024?

[Nacre]

It's in the bid book. You can download and review all 218 pages on la24's website.

And just like any other bid it's fluid. Have any of the bids any signed contracts anybody can produce?

I would think having a 1.6 billion expansion underway would be head and shoulders over the competition. You guys can answer that one.

As I have said before, the European bids don't need to have solutions for all of their problems because they are willing to throw government money at any issues that arise. If Paris cannot find a private developer for a new venue or piece of infrastructure they will simply spend government money on it. If Los Angeles cannot find a private sector solution to the broadcasting center or the athletes village that is probably the end of the bid.

Combine that with the geopolitical advantage of European bids and it is hard for neutrals to see Los Angeles as anything more than second place to Paris unless the French bid suffers serious setbacks.

[baron-pierreIV]

/\/\ Can't you be more concise? Less is more, ya know.

[stryker]

I don't think the IOC really cares where the money comes from, as long as the required infrastructure gets paid for. Public or private, makes no difference.

[woohooitsme83]

^^ YES. The important thing is that it works, and it isn't superbly unnecessarily expensive (Which I am sure all reasonable cities aim for.)

[Nacre]

I don't think the IOC really cares where the money comes from, as long as the required infrastructure gets paid for. Public or private, makes no difference.

The challenge is that the needs of the private sector rarely line up exactly with the Olympics.

Athletes Village: Flooding the market with a massive number of apartments in one location all at once is usually a losing proposition for property developers. IE Vancouver and London both had to sell their village housing at a heavy loss. No property developer is going to want to kick in $1 billion for something that will be sold for $750 million.

Broadcasting Center: These are best used as convention centers, but convention centers work best when they are located in a central business district (downtown for American cities) and most cities will struggle to find the land for that. Meanwhile a temporary facility does not offer profit-making opportunities except through overcharging the organizing committee itself.

Sports Venues: The Olympic stadiums and arenas do not align very well with profit-seeking sports events. No professional football and/or soccer team is going to want a track in its stadium. Track cycling, water polo, etc are not sports that routinely sell thousands of tickets.

The Olympics are simply not a money-making business. The only clear way for people involved to make lots of money is to gouge the public. So does that mean that no city should host? Of course not, But the expectation that some Americans have that the contemporary Olympics can be purely privately financed seems highly unrealistic to me.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Nacre

[paul]

its funny to hear people say "if a European capital gets in financial trouble with aspects of their bids the government can just step in and pay for the problems".

I'm so glad it's NOT the case in the US. That just seem absurd and absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable to me, and probably why over time the Olympic movement grinds into problems with support. This organization needs to put on its party without gouging people who are not even involved, such as tax payers of the region and country. Otherwise; pack it up and close them down.

[Nacre]

its funny to hear people say "if a European capital gets in financial trouble with aspects of their bids the government can just step in and pay for the problems".

I'm so glad it's NOT the case in the US. That just seem absurd and absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable to me, and probably why over time the Olympic movement grinds into problems with support. This organization needs to put on its party without gouging people who are not even involved, such as tax payers of the region and country. Otherwise; pack it up and close them down.

The question of "what should Los Angeles do" is separate from "will Los Angeles defeat Paris?"

I agree that spending lots of public money on the Olympics is a bad deal for a city like Los Angeles that does not need the tourism exposure. Not being willing to throw billions of taxpayer dollars into the project will make it difficult for LA to win in a competition against another heavyweight city like Paris, though.

I think some "team USA" boosters are confusing "should" with "will." I would love to have an economically sound Olympics in the USA; right now it is not possible to do that. Los Angeles would not be my choice for a host city but that's simply because I don't see any substantial benefit to either the city or the country for LA hosting the summer games a third time, not because I am actively rooting against it.

So, yeah. I think the USA should "pack it up."

Edited December 23, 2015 by Nacre

[mr.bernham]

The Olympics are simply not a money-making business. The only clear way for people involved to make lots of money is to gouge the public. So does that mean that no city should host? Of course not, But the expectation that some Americans have that the contemporary Olympics can be purely privately financed seems highly unrealistic to me.

We only feel this way because we've never hosted a contemporary Olympics and feel that because we are America, we are immune from the problems of other nations. In 2002, it was completely privately financed (not security), and in 1996 we only spent $2 billion dollars half of which was completely private and the other half from the Feds for security.

The question of "what should Los Angeles do" is separate from "will Los Angeles defeat Paris?"

I agree that spending lots of public money on the Olympics is a bad deal for a city like Los Angeles that does not need the tourism exposure. Not being willing to throw billions of taxpayer dollars into the project will make it difficult for LA to win in a competition against another heavyweight city like Paris, though.

I think some "team USA" boosters are confusing "should" with "will." I would love to have an economically sound Olympics in the USA; right now it is not possible to do that. Los Angeles would not be my choice for a host city but that's simply because I don't see any substantial benefit to either the city or the country for LA hosting the summer games a third time, not because I am actively rooting against it.

So, yeah. I think the USA should "pack it up."

I think LA 2024 has a solid plan, but yeah the city and nation wouldn't really benefit (as far as we can tell).

However, I would much rather us go with LA which is using venues/spaces that will not result in hundreds being displaced than pick a new city simply for sh!ts and giggles.

There are only two cities in this nation that at this point in time could host a fantastic games: Los Angles and Chicago.

It may be important to note that a 2024 study by a California created non profit found that Los Angeles had a severe housong shortage and in order to not allow things to become worse 490,000 new housing units were needed in LA. The same study found that 1 million new housing units are needed in California, aligning the state much to the greater Los Angeles Area, which is home to half of the states population. So any housong in LA, a market with a median home price of about 500k (I'm guessing there but know that figure is quite substantial) would probably not be comparable to either the situation London or Vancouver faced. Personally, I don't know the details of those athletes village so I'm taking that info at face value.

And how may of those who are not housed could actually pay for Athletes Village housing post-games? Or at least pay enough for investors to even break even? Mixed income housing via Athlete Villages is bullshit. There is no massive demand for such highend housing in LA, there is demand for low rise and affordable housing.

[baron-pierreIV]

Athletes Village: Flooding the market with a massive number of apartments in one location all at once is usually a losing proposition for property developers. IE Vancouver and London both had to sell their village housing at a heavy loss. No property developer is going to want to kick in $1 billion for something that will be sold for $750 million.

There was that report, in Rio that for the 3,600 units at the OV, only something like 230 had been sold one year before the Games. That's not even 10%. Is the IOC so clueless??

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/world/americas/in-run-up-to-olympics-rios-property-market-already-looks-hungover.html?_r=0

[zekekelso]

Unfortunately, neither the proposed Rams stadium not the competing proposal in Carson have much use for LA2024.

also, remember when you talk about housing that any Olympic housing won't hit the market until 2025. Hard to match that against to days ends.

[stryker]

Unfortunately, neither the proposed Rams stadium not the competing proposal in Carson have much use for LA2024.

I disagree here. The proposed Rams stadium in Inglewood, known as the City of Champions project, would be a huge asset for any L.A. bid. The stadium will have a glass roof and hold 80,000 - ideal for marquee events such as gymnastics or basketball. I'm sure the IOC would be salivating at the thought of 80,000 spectators watching a gold medal basketball game rather than 20,000. More tickets sold. More money. And it's not like the stadium is being built out in Anaheim or Long Beach. Inglewood isn't that far from downtown. As for the Carson stadium, it will be an open air stadium so it's only option as part of a bid is for football.

[LatinXTC]

I disagree here. The proposed Rams stadium in Inglewood, known as the City of Champions project, would be a huge asset for any L.A. bid. The stadium will have a glass roof and hold 80,000 - ideal for marquee events such as gymnastics or basketball. I'm sure the IOC would be salivating at the thought of 80,000 spectators watching a gold medal basketball game rather than 20,000. More tickets sold. More money. And it's not like the stadium is being built out in Anaheim or Long Beach. Inglewood isn't that far from downtown. As for the Carson stadium, it will be an open air stadium so it's only option as part of a bid is for football.

Damn, if the rams don't plan on moving into that stadium still the 2024-25 season, or better yet the 2025-26 season, might as well make that the opening/closing ceremony stadium and not waste all that money updating Memorial Stadium, except just the bare minimum to reconfigure it back to a t&f stadium.

If I were California and greedy I'd also consider using any and every stadium in the state to hold all the soccer matches. Keep the games profitable not just for LA, but for the entire state. It's one of the few states, other than Texas, Florida, and New York (maybe) fully capable of doing so.

And why is an LA stadium being built with a roof? The weather is hard extreme enough for a fixed roof. Hopefully they change it to a retractable roof.

[neige]

Clearly such a stadium would be a big asset for me.

I think the stadium would be divided in 2 parts (with temporary stands in the middle of the field)

Let's say 1 part for basketball and the other part for gymnastics.

I think it is the configuration that was used in Atlanta.

In that case, it couldn't be used for opening and closing ceremonies.

[Nacre]

I'm not sure what role, if any, an NFL stadium would have on an LA Olympics, but I can say that the argument that LA isn't going to want to spend money it's already spending through public or private investments is lacking in credibility. At the same time there are still expenses such as the Athlete's village, but there is a constant ignoring of what LA is already doing, and what LA already needs. The federal investment in Rail for Metro is yet another example of how LA and the US are already making these infrastructure investments, but it won't be long before someone asks how LA is going to pay for it and then use the argument that LA Taxpayers will never go for that, even though they already have.

I can't tell at this point if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you just can't help yourself. So I will explain this one last time.

The Olympics require specialist infrastructure that is different from the normal needs of cities.

It is wonderful that Los Angeles is getting federal funding for improvements to its metro system. And that will even be useful in hosting the Olympics. Yet that has no impact whatsoever on the challenges of delivering the games specific stuff like the athletes village, the media center, the swimming stadiums, etc. Nor does it somehow reduce the operational costs of the games.

You are basically making the argument:

Premise 1: if A then B (If Los Angeles can get full private funding for the Olympics it won't cost taxpayers money.)

Premise 2: X (Los Angeles is getting public money for something unrelated to the Olympics.)

Conclusion: therefore B (Therefore a Los Angeles Olympics won't cost the taxpayers money.)

This is not a logically valid argument.

[woohooitsme83]

I disagree here. The proposed Rams stadium in Inglewood, known as the City of Champions project, would be a huge asset for any L.A. bid. The stadium will have a glass roof and hold 80,000 - ideal for marquee events such as gymnastics or basketball. I'm sure the IOC would be salivating at the thought of 80,000 spectators watching a gold medal basketball game rather than 20,000. More tickets sold. More money. And it's not like the stadium is being built out in Anaheim or Long Beach. Inglewood isn't that far from downtown. As for the Carson stadium, it will be an open air stadium so it's only option as part of a bid is for football.

Plus there's gonna a new theater built and there's gonna be a new Metro Station to serve the area too.

[LatinXTC]

I'm not sure what role, if any, an NFL stadium would have on an LA Olympics

Well if you can't figure it out from past and upcoming Olympics, then you are beyond ignorant.

Look at Rio. Their opening/closing ceremonies will be held at the Maracana, a soccer/football specific stadium that has a capacity of 80,000. These soccer/football specific stadiums don't vary too much from an NFL stadium, so if this Rio concept works very well, then there is no reason why a US city could not do the exact same thing. The biggest obstacle would be is dealing with the turf. Which is why I think ideally if this route were to ever happen and LA gets an NFL franchise, or two, it's best to have that team start in 2025 so they can utilize the floor of the stadium however they want for 2024. No way in hell will they be able to have props and whatnot come out of the ground and then a month or two later have the floor ready for the first NFL game. I'm not an expert on that matter, but it doesn't seem plausible.

And then you have to consider some of the sports contested at the Olympics that can be held in an NFL stadium. There is of course association football. The final for that event would be ideal in an 80k capacity stadium. And if there were 2 NFL stadiums in the near vicinity, that's probably even better for LA so they don't have to spread it around the country if they don't want to. They probably will though a US bid will always want to include the rest of the US, although the Atlanta games were stingy and kept the majority of the stadiums near the east coast. As I previously mentioned California is fully capable of housing all association football games in the state. An NFL stadium would also alleviate the need for the track and field stadium to host the football finals like some previous Olympic bids have done.

You also could use an NFL stadium for rugby, floor hockey, and maybe even softball if they feel like reconfiguring the stadium for that. Or as previously mentioned, they could split up a stadium so it can host two events provided the stadium has a retractable roof, if not a fixed roof. It worked in Atlanta in 1996 and it sure has hell could work in LA. The less the bid has to build, the better for LA.

[zekekelso]

Yes, an extra stadium is a nice luxury for an Olympic host. But LA already has the Rose Bowl, Dodgers Stadium and if that's not enough, The Big A is only 25 miles away.

One thing LA has in abundance is places to hold events

[LatinXTC]

Yes, an extra stadium is a nice luxury for an Olympic host. But LA already has the Rose Bowl, Dodgers Stadium and if that's not enough, The Big A is only 25 miles away.

One thing LA has in abundance is places to hold events

Oh good, the Big A can serve as the softball stadium, as well as host some smaller baseball games! Since Dodgers stadium has the higher capacity that can host all the major matches.

Oh and don't forget about StubHub/Home Depot Center, which is an MLS stadium in Carson.

[Quaker2001]

I'm not sure what role, if any, an NFL stadium would have on an LA Olympics, but I can say that the argument that LA isn't going to want to spend money it's already spending through public or private investments is lacking in credibility. At the same time there are still expenses such as the Athlete's village, but there is a constant ignoring of what LA is already doing, and what LA already needs. The federal investment in Rail for Metro is yet another example of how LA and the US are already making these infrastructure investments, but it won't be long before someone asks how LA is going to pay for it and then use the argument that LA Taxpayers will never go for that, even though they already have.

It's usually not the operational costs that cause the overruns. And the things that usually have the overruns are infrastructural, and which in large part are existing or already funded in LA, and absent from the budget.

Okay, here's where the disconnect is, and let me preface this by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with Nacre's response to you..

1) Good for LA that they are spending money on making infrastructure improvements, some of which will certainly benefit Olympic plans. But the argument that they are spending money on that and therefore will spend additional money required for the Olympics also lacks in credibility. Maybe they will. 1 does not follow from the other though. To that end..

2) As Nacre noted, even if a lot of infrastructure projects are already on the table, there's going to be billions more that needs to be spent on the Olympics. That money needs to come from somewhere. Having pre-existing plans in place lessens the burden somewhat on the organizing committee, but not by a huge amount. I know you're not trying to argue that budget and money issues are taken care of, but careful where you're arguing about what is absent from the budget. Civic improvements help, but unless they are specific for Olympic needs, those items will not be absent from the budget. That's what the Boston folks tried to sell and citizens saw right through it.

3) Most importantly, if you're talking about what LA taxpayers will or won't go for.. things like investing in public transportation are projects where the tangible benefits are often pretty clear. It's easy to see how that will benefit LA and its citizens. Not so easy when that project is the Olympics. If you're asking Los Angelinos to back that, you need to show where they will benefit from that. That's where a lot of cities are rejecting the Olympics because the perception is that it's a really expensive 2 1/2 week party where only rich folk and not your regular citizen will get anything out of it. And part of the problem with your argument is that if all these infrastructure improvements are already in place, then what do they need the Olympics for? LA needs housing, but is an athletes village for an Olympics going to be a solution to that? Easy to talk about in theory. Not quite so easy in practice.

This is where we need to find balance in these discussions. You can't make the leap to where all these issues have taken care of themselves. There's some middle ground between "LA taxpayers won't go for it" and "LA taxpayers have already gone for it" where the fate of the Olympics lies. As much as some folks here bring up these issues (and they are issues that need to be dealt with.. which can be overcome if the LA committee is good at their jobs and can convince the people that need convincing to come on board), you're not making a rational argument when instead of trying to diminish these issues, you seem to want to dismiss them completely. You talk about what LA needs, but that doesn't necessarily mesh as well with an Olympic bid as you want us to believe. Maybe it'll play out that way. We need to see that in action though before we come to that conclusion.

[Quaker2001]

Look at Rio. Their opening/closing ceremonies will be held at the Maracana, a soccer/football specific stadium that has a capacity of 80,000. These soccer/football specific stadiums don't vary too much from an NFL stadium, so if this Rio concept works very well, then there is no reason why a US city could not do the exact same thing. The biggest obstacle would be is dealing with the turf. Which is why I think ideally if this route were to ever happen and LA gets an NFL franchise, or two, it's best to have that team start in 2025 so they can utilize the floor of the stadium however they want for 2024. No way in hell will they be able to have props and whatnot come out of the ground and then a month or two later have the floor ready for the first NFL game. I'm not an expert on that matter, but it doesn't seem plausible.

While an NFL team in LA is far from a done deal (we've heard these rumblings before with nothing coming from it.. although this seems more serious than past efforts), they're talking about it as soon as next year. Not 10 years from now. The powers that be who are involved with this new stadium will not give 2 shits about the Olympics, nor are they going to delay their efforts to suit an Olympic bid. That's not how it works. Sure that would be ideal for the Olympics, but it's not going to play out that way. It would be great for them to find a use for the stadium (assuming it gets built) for the Olympics since it'll be a brand new state-of-the-art building. But that's likely to go on completely independent of the Olympic bid, not in conjunction with it. It's a pipe dream to think it will play out that way.

[Quaker2001]

This is an excellent post and I can agree largely with it. However, I think your last statement is where I am more bullish on LA than most. There is more action going on in LA that what most people are seeing. This is well documented. However, at a rapid pace people are starting to see the action. This differentiates LA from Boston in major ways that make the comparison of the two not a comparison at all.

Once again, can I please ask for you to stop being so patronizing. Those of us discussing LA with you are not oblivious to what is going on there. We are aware and we acknowledge what you have posted and shared with us. But there is still a disconnect because when you talk about "action", you are referring to projects that may (or may not) directly benefit the Olympics. The comparison I make between LA and Boston is more in your interpretation of what's going on. I'm not trying to infer that the similarities will result in LA befalling the same fate as Boston. I don't think there's even a remote possibility of that happening. You keep telling us thought that all these civic improvements are going on in LA and therefore layering an Olympics on top of that is a logical next step and that the expenses are not as costly as they otherwise might be. There's some true to that, but only some. The costs of an Olympics, even with all the "action" that "people are starting to see" are still more significant than you see to want to give the situation credit for. And not to speak for Los Angelinos here, but I don't think it's as much as a given as you seem to think that they'll back that simply because they backed other projects.

[baron-pierreIV]

I wasn't saying the stadium can't be used for any sports Sherlock. I was saying that I don't know that they would add it to the bid and even though it seems likely, I then don't know which sport they would use the venue for, though again there are many uses one could think of. Smartypants. Or should I say stupidpants.

He's a disgusting know-not-it-all passing for someone who knows something. Such a hypocrite.

[LatinXTC]

He's a disgusting know-not-it-all passing for someone who knows something. Such a hypocrite.

I guess you would know, you wrote a whole book about crap you pretend to know about! How many people have you begged in private message to buy your book this week? Did they jump at the chance when you offered your super special discount?