los angeles 2024

[Quaker2001]

Again, the consensus seems to be that they will vote for political reasons and not really based on Agenda 2020.

We can repackage this however we want, but the general consensus from almost everyone here is that they will vote for Paris for Europe's sake.

It would restore Europe's reputation at the cost of America's.

That's how the game is played. That's largely how the game has always been played. And yes, I think the consensus here is correct. Rio won for 2016 despite having evaluation scores that were lower than their competitors. But at the time, the majority of IOC voters felt it furthered their organization's cause by awarding the Olympics to South America than the other choices. How that decision has played out since then is a different matter altogether.

If Paris wins this one over LA, it's because they feel that's best for the future of their organization. It's not going to damage the reputation of LA or the USOC for them to lose. This isn't going to come down to which city will be the least butthurt by losing. The decision will be which city does the IOC benefit the most from. You can't throw Agenda 2020 out there as an abstract concept and make a decision based on that. As a couple of people have noted, the idea behind the reforms is for cities to figure out how best to make the Olympics work for them, not for the IOC to find some sort of template and pick the city that best follows the guidelines.

LA's white Elephants = 0

Paris' White Elephant = Olympic Village(s)

Again. At least at this point, LA should by technicality be the strongest most responsible and safest bid....and certainly the most easiest to execute of the 4 cities.

However, it could all mean nothing if they are determined to take the games back to Europe.

And you're right.. it may mean nothing. But the Olympics are not pre-destined for Paris. We've seen cases like that before only to have that city wind up losing. Like I said earlier, don't look at those of us who think Paris is the front-runner (the vote is more than a year away, a lot can change before then) that we're saying LA has no chance and should just pack it in. Right now though, I think the political forces that run the IOC favor Paris in this one.

[FYI]

LA's white Elephants = 0

Paris' White Elephant = Olympic Village(s)

How do you even know this, though. Do you know for a fact that Paris' 2024 Olympic Village would become a white elephant? The French have absolutely no plans for it post-Games?

And again, the only reason Los Angeles isn't building one, is bcuz they had to revert to a plan B, & not necessarily bcuz they had "agenda 2020" initially in mind.

[JesseSaenz]

That's how the game is played. That's largely how the game has always been played. And yes, I think the consensus here is correct. Rio won for 2016 despite having evaluation scores that were lower than their competitors. But at the time, the majority of IOC voters felt it furthered their organization's cause by awarding the Olympics to South America than the other choices. How that decision has played out since then is a different matter altogether.

If Paris wins this one over LA, it's because they feel that's best for the future of their organization. It's not going to damage the reputation of LA or the USOC for them to lose. This isn't going to come down to which city will be the least butthurt by losing. The decision will be which city does the IOC benefit the most from. You can't throw Agenda 2020 out there as an abstract concept and make a decision based on that. As a couple of people have noted, the idea behind the reforms is for cities to figure out how best to make the Olympics work for them, not for the IOC to find some sort of template and pick the city that best follows the guidelines.

I think what SHOULD make the Sept 2017 vote interesting is Agenda 2020.

Rio and Tokyo were both selected pre-Agenda 2020.

2024 will be the first Olympic Games to actually vote with that as part of the process.

So, the IOC really but itself in a really tough spot. Will it be business as usual and brush off the 2020 Agenda???

Everyone says that it's bullshit, and that it carries little to no weight, and given the IOC history, that could very well be true.

Dang, Sept 2017 can't get here soon enough!

Haha.

[Rob2012]

LA's white Elephants = 0

Paris' White Elephant = Olympic Village(s)

Again. At least at this point, LA should by technicality be the strongest most responsible and safest bid....and certainly the most easiest to execute of the 4 cities.

Again, Agenda 2020 isn't a mechanism to decide the best city or the winner, or even a mechanism for making comparisons between cities. It's a mechanism to ensure cities are able to tailor the Games more to their needs as the process moves towards the vote (and indeed after it, as we're seeing with Tokyo now).

The vote, as always, will come down to far more than simple technical considerations, though those are of course an important factor. The IOC will go with whichever city meets their technical needs and with whichever city most benefits the Olympic movement at a given time. That may mean a technically stronger bid losing to a slightly weaker bid. Even if that transpires, that "weaker" bid should still be technically very good and should, by the vote, be compliant with Agenda 2020 (the IOC now has the option of culling cities at any time if they feel the Games are beyond them so cities which are not compliant shouldn't even make the vote in theory).

Edited March 28, 2016 by Rob.

[JesseSaenz]

How do you even know this, though. Do you know for a fact that Paris' 2024 Olympic Village would become a white elephant? The French have absolutely no plans for it post-Games?

And again, the only reason Los Angeles isn't building one, is bcuz they had to revert to a plan B, & not necessarily bcuz they had "agenda 2020" initially in mind.

Just the estimated €2 Billion price tag.

I agree with your second point about it not being part of the original plan.

But, alas, no white elephants for LA. That's $2 Billion + that they could use elsewhere. They emphasized the leaving a "Legacy" behind, and I think that's where the LA2024 people could really make a killing with that money.

[Quaker2001]

So, the IOC really but itself in a really tough spot. Will it be business as usual and brush off the 2020 Agenda???

Everyone says that it's bullshit, and that it carries little to no weight, and given the IOC history, that could very well be true.

Who says it has to be 1 or the other? This isn't something so black-and-white as to how much weight Agenda 2020 will carry. And again, who's to say a win by Paris isn't influenced by those reforms? Yea, the IOC has made some poor decisions in recent times. Choosing Paris over LA hardly seems like a poor decision to me, nor is it to say that Agenda 2020 is bullshit and it's all politics.

[JesseSaenz]

Who says it has to be 1 or the other? This isn't something so black-and-white as to how much weight Agenda 2020 will carry. And again, who's to say a win by Paris isn't influenced by those reforms? Yea, the IOC has made some poor decisions in recent times. Choosing Paris over LA hardly seems like a poor decision to me, nor is it to say that Agenda 2020 is bullshit and it's all politics.

Man, Lima 2017, haha. It seems so distant all the sudden.

[Nacre]

Just the estimated €2 Billion price tag.

I agree with your second point about it not being part of the original plan.

But, alas, no white elephants for LA. That's $2 Billion + that they could use elsewhere. They emphasized the leaving a "Legacy" behind, and I think that's where the LA2024 people could really make a killing with that money.

I am a bit confused about what you are arguing. The IOC does not give cities money to build a village. Los Angeles will not be able to "make a killing with that money" because the money does not exist.

Paris will build a village because the French national government will give them the money. Meanwhile Los Angeles is on its own, except for the federal contribution to security costs. Hence the use of college dorms for housing the media and athletes. Budapest has similarly suggested re-purposing government housing for the elderly to create temporary hotels.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Nacre

[baron-pierreIV]

LA's white Elephants = 0

Paris' White Elephant = Olympic Village(s)

But if there's nothing NEW to build; then you're also ZERO in the legacy column. The IOC always wants something, even a corridor, or a small monument to say that the "Olympics were here on so-and-so." Ideally, if you have 85-90% of the infrastructure in place; and then the remaining 10% would offer some jobs plus be of lasting, permanent value, then that would tick off the Legacy box. So, in that regard, Paris has the edge over "nothing-needs-to-be-built-LA."

[JMarkSnow2012]

But if there's nothing NEW to build; then you're also ZERO in the legacy column.

-except for legacies like brand association for sponsors, some sort of educational benefits etc.

But you should get those from any Olympics, of course,.

[Quaker2001]

But if there's nothing NEW to build; then you're also ZERO in the legacy column. The IOC always wants something, even a corridor, or a small monument to say that the "Olympics were here on so-and-so." Ideally, if you have 85-90% of the infrastructure in place; and then the remaining 10% would offer some jobs plus be of lasting, permanent value, then that would tick off the Legacy box. So, in that regard, Paris has the edge over "nothing-needs-to-be-built-LA."

Virtually nothing new was built for the `84 Olympics. Does anyone question the legacy of those games? We know the IOC would like some shiny new monument to itself. Not exactly getting much of that from Paris either, so there's no huge edge there.

[Rob2012]

Virtually nothing new was built for the `84 Olympics. Does anyone question the legacy of those games? We know the IOC would like some shiny new monument to itself. Not exactly getting much of that from Paris either, so there's no huge edge there.

If LA supporters are going to claim an edge because they have one less venue to build than Paris as Jesse tried to do, I think it's only fair Paris can claim an edge on built legacy :P

Baron was being deliberately reductive in his argument in response to Jesse I think.

[baron-pierreIV]

Virtually nothing new was built for the `84 Olympics. Does anyone question the legacy of those games? We know the IOC would like some shiny new monument to itself. Not exactly getting much of that from Paris either, so there's no huge edge there.

No; there's the Village plus I think one new shiny arena; plus Marseilles is now becoming an Olympic city. Sure, 1984 had a legacy, but LA kept most of it to itself. The IOC felt a little stiffed financially. which is why they rewrote some of the financial rules. So what kind of a legacy is that if after 1984, the IOC has more control of the checks/fees going to them first?

[paul]

Virtually nothing new was built for the `84 Olympics.

..true but the Coliseum is so iconic from both 32 and 84 that it gives the legacy a centerpiece that seems significant vs other hosts who now can't afford or use a real Olympic Stadium or built something temporary. Also the 84 games were so pivotal that it sort of feels like the Olympics themselves are a legacy of the 84 games.

Now, do we want another games here.....hmmmmmmmmmm....I keep trying to decide if it's something worth the effort......the games have become sort of a dull albatross with sooo many problems and risks, is it worth the hassle. I'm leaning toward no.

[Quaker2001]

Now, do we want another games here.....hmmmmmmmmmm....I keep trying to decide if it's something worth the effort......the games have become sort of a dull albatross with sooo many problems and risks, is it worth the hassle. I'm leaning toward no.

A large function of that is where the wrong cities have bid for and hosted the Olympics. You run the gamut from a city like Athens to cities like Beijing and Sochi. LA is none of those. It's a fair question of what LA (or Paris or whoever else) stands to gain from hosting an Olympics and whether or not it's worth the risk. But don't base it on the worst of what hosting an Olympics has done for cities. That's not fair to LA to make a generalization about Olympic hosting and automatically assume the worst.

[alphamale86]

LA would use the Olympics to reintroduce itself as an urban city to the world. LA has a lot to gain from the international exposure and the recreation of its own image. Though many existing venues would be used the experience viewers, athletes and visitors alike have could very well transform how people think of LA. Especially the red headed step child image and the everybody hates LA image. The potential for LA to become even greater on a global scale is pretty great with an Olympics. The fact that Paris, precisely, is that top competitor lends itself further to this, IMO. The legacy of that in and of itself would be incredible for LA. It has been discussed time and time again, Paris is both modern and traditional, a cultural powerhouse... But LA is falling into this, too... And it might be time for a coming out party. That's just my opinion, and I think there is plenty of evidence for this. I also think LA24 is moving in that direction.

To put it lightly the LA we could see in 2024, or 2028, will not be the LA people usually imagine.

I'm sorry man but your description of LA on the world stage seems a bit off. It's always been an urban city since 1932. LA is no NYC but it's a unique city that the world is very familiar with already. There is no need to reintroduce LA it's actually quite famous and known for many different reasons. It may not have the longevity, history and grandeur that Paris and London may have but it's pivotal point at the heart of the global entertainment realm means that LA is already placed in the thoughts of the globe. You may have good bad or ugly things to say about LA but lets be real LA is no second tier city it's just a different type of city with a different focus.

Now I want the Olympics in LA just as much as the next LA supporter but lets be real LA isn't bidding for the Olympics as a coming out party to gain business, build infrastructure, or to announce to the world that we have arrived. LA has always been on the world stage. this bid is pure ego and I can say that because I live here! LA wants to bid because we can. All signs have pointed to Europe for 2024 yet LA still has been begging for this chance. The Olympics is a showpiece, an event and LA loves big events. They really do here. No matter how much you tell them it costs, people will go. LA doesn't need the olympics to build housing to create facilities they'll do that on their own. The world already knows we have some of the best venues and training facilities in the world, they already know we have an extremely sports fanatic population and LA is the entertainment capital of the world so this bid really won't tell the world anything they didn't already know about LA. This bid is so far from a legacy bid as well due to the fact that most of the venues and facilities are already in place. I'll call a spade a spade and just say LA wants the bid just for the show. That's not a winning argument but it's true and the population doesn't mind going along with that.

[Quaker2001]

LA would use the Olympics to reintroduce itself as an urban city to the world. LA has a lot to gain from the international exposure and the recreation of its own image. Though many existing venues would be used the experience viewers, athletes and visitors alike have could very well transform how people think of LA. Especially the red headed step child image and the everybody hates LA image. The potential for LA to become even greater on a global scale is pretty great with an Olympics. The fact that Paris, precisely, is that top competitor lends itself further to this, IMO. The legacy of that in and of itself would be incredible for LA. It has been discussed time and time again, Paris is both modern and traditional, a cultural powerhouse... But LA is falling into this, too... And it might be time for a coming out party. That's just my opinion, and I think there is plenty of evidence for this. I also think LA24 is moving in that direction.

To put it lightly the LA we could see in 2024, or 2028, will not be the LA people usually imagine.

Oh good grief, Charlie Brown. Who out there thinks of LA as a "red headed step child" that everybody hates? Let alone in the context of an Olympic bid where LA has hosted 2 very successful Olympics and has as stellar a reputation as any city out there?

It's bordering on trolling for you to try and frame the the public's perception of LA as some second-rate dump that no one would be interested in in order to measure it up against your perception of LA where there are these huge grand transformations going on. Only in your head and those who are so enthralled with LA is this happening. Again, I don't doubt that there is a lot of positive change going on in LA, but how exactly is a 2-time Olympic host having a coming out party? They have a lot to show off that wasn't there in 1984 and certainly they should play that up, but a lot of the groundwork was laid by 1984. Contrast that with a city and an Olympics like Barcelona 1992 where a lot of their infrastructure was in place, but it had never been shown off to the world before. LA has.

You can continue to sell this concept that LA is a completely transformed city, but at the same time, you don't want to lose that connection with what they offered in 1984 that worked so well for them and for the IOC. They are building that legacy, not trying to create one from scratch. So do us all a favor.. please stop telling us how others view LA because it seems like you're intentionally trying to mis-represent that viewpoint for the sake of making a comparison.

[baron-pierreIV]

Since the advent of moving & talking pictures in the 20s -- then television in the 1950s, and going into the rest of the last 20th century, the world knows about LA - Hollywood - Beverly Hills - Southern Cal. There is NO need to reintroduce the City to the world's consciousness. The world already KNOWS about L.A. In the last few decades, LA has just morphed into an even more metropolitan city with its new subway and TWO new, major museums. Those are really the only significant physical changes to the landscape. I mean, every time I visit SoCal, we still have to negotiate that 1+ hour drive on the 5 to get to downtown LA from Orange County. It's not like Downey, Hawthorne, La Mirada suddenly disappeared from the route and made the trip shorter.

Edited March 30, 2016 by baron-pierreIV

[Quaker2001]

I can't even believe this is coming from a New Yorker.

What does where I come from have anything to do with the point I was trying to make? Pretend it came from someone else who isn't from New York. Or actually find a couple of people who think of LA as a red headed step child, whether it's someone from LA or not. That sounds like something from a bad radio talk show where there's 1 angry caller and then based on that 1 person, it's "OMG, everyone hates us!"

Yea, I have to disagree. LA is aiming for a coming out party. If you feel the image of LA is urban since 1932 I can understand that, but in the eyes of the world LA hasn't been very urban. The argument of history has also already been discussed on this thread and photo's were presented that enlightened some in reference to LA's cultural identity, particularly it's inventory of historic structures.

The LA in people's minds throughout the world is not always what LA actually is. Cars, suburban homes, beaches, and all this sunny stuff is what people think of LA. Kardashians, celebrities, smog, dude. But Angelino's know LA is far more than that. It is a rough city in places and it is urban. It's increasingly urban and walkable. The story of LA's past is being reignited by adaptive reuse. Lots of things are happening in LA making LA a global epicenter. In technology, in arts, cultrual experience, environmental research, fashion, public transit, etc., it's moving up the ranks. The city is evolving into a modern metropolis and that is redefining what LA is and it's role on a global scale. The theory of "The New LA" used by LA 2024 isn't just a slogan, it's real and tangible throughout the region. While the city and region are already moving in this direction an Olympics could unify the region in getting major projects already planned underway, and there is incredible legacy there for the city of Los Angeles. The Olympic Movement and the City/Region of Los Angeles align right now. They both stand to gain a lot from each other. That said, it doesn't mean geopolitics won't win the day. And Paris may have just as much to gain as LA from a 2024 Olympic Games.

As a side note I was thinking that IF LA wins 2024, they should adopt Paris' Candidate Logo as their own being as it says LA and 24 all in 1 cute logo.

You mean the logo they're already accused of ripping off from another company? That's plagiarism on top of plagiarism right there!

So yea, again, you're talking about the perception others have of LA. Stop. It doesn't make a difference what the LA is in people's minds. All that matters is the LA in the minds of the IOC voters and I make no presumptions that they have these pre-conceived notions, particularly that many of them know their history and will be (hopefully) do their due diligence to know what LA is about, not what people think LA is about. When you say LA is "evolving into a modern metropolis," isn't it already one? This is where your message is getting lost because you keep talking about all that's going on in LA, but you make it seem like they're starting from a lesser place than they already are. LA is not going to use the Olympics to completely redefine the city. IMO (and don't paint a picture of me of where I come from as having anything to do with this), as much as there are certain cultural misconceptions about LA that it's only about cars and beaches and Kardashians, LA is still about cars and beaches and Kardashians and can add more to that. There's no wiping the slate clean and reinventing the whole city, particularly when the centerpiece of an Olympic bid is the same stadium (albeit renovated) from 1932 and 1984.

[CITYofDREAMS]

LA2024: A Lesson In Branding Authenticity

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/271566/la2024-a-lesson-in-branding-authenticity.html

[woohooitsme83]

LA2024: A Lesson In Branding Authenticity

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/271566/la2024-a-lesson-in-branding-authenticity.html

I thought that was gonna be an article about their logo, but nope. I am thoroughly disappointed by endless rehashes of existing pro-LA points.

[JesseSaenz]

But if there's nothing NEW to build; then you're also ZERO in the legacy column. The IOC always wants something, even a corridor, or a small monument to say that the "Olympics were here on so-and-so." Ideally, if you have 85-90% of the infrastructure in place; and then the remaining 10% would offer some jobs plus be of lasting, permanent value, then that would tick off the Legacy box. So, in that regard, Paris has the edge over "nothing-needs-to-be-built-LA."

It is no secret that LA lacks big landmarks like The Eiffel Tower or Big Ben, but Olympic legacy is definitely part of the city's history.

The Iconic Palm trees that line the streets of LA were planted ahead of the 1932 Games and have now become synonymous with the city

The LA Memorial Coliseum was built for the 1932 games, used again in 1984, and is still used today, and will be home of the LA Rams for the next 3 years.

The LA84 foundation is still using funds from the 1984 games to fund youth programs throughout the city. Venus and Serena Williams benefited greatly from this foundation and have gone on to leave their mark on the Tennis world.

LA's automated traffic system/Lights are also a result of the games. Though it took 30 years to fully install and finish, it too is a result of the 1984 games.

So while the city may not erect a new stadium or park for the games, it already has living legacies from past games still around.

Last I heard was that they want to build a pedestrian promenade from Staples Center to the Coliseum to leave in place after the games, as well as leave the Rowing facilities and Golfing areas to the city park post Olympics.

[ejaycat]

It is no secret that LA lacks big landmarks like The Eiffel Tower or Big Ben, but Olympic legacy is definitely part of the city's history.

The Iconic Palm trees that line the streets of LA were planted ahead of the 1932 Games and have now become synonymous with the city

The LA Memorial Coliseum was built for the 1932 games, used again in 1984, and is still used today, and will be home of the LA Rams for the next 3 years.

The LA84 foundation is still using funds from the 1984 games to fund youth programs throughout the city. Venus and Serena Williams benefited greatly from this foundation and have gone on to leave their mark on the Tennis world.

LA's automated traffic system/Lights are also a result of the games. Though it took 30 years to fully install and finish, it too is a result of the 1984 games.

So while the city may not erect a new stadium or park for the games, it already has living legacies from past games still around.

Last I heard was that they want to build a pedestrian promenade from Staples Center to the Coliseum to leave in place after the games, as well as leave the Rowing facilities and Golfing areas to the city park post Olympics.

Well...

While it's true that many palm trees were planted in anticipation of the 1932 Olympics, LA and southern California in general already had many palm trees well before the Olympics, Many were planted during the real estate speculation boom of the 1880s.

And I thought I read somewhere that the Coliseum (which was completed in 1923) was built in an effort to lure the 1924 or 1928 Games, but I'm not sure.

The LA84 Foundation is definitely a legacy of the '84 Games, probably the best legacy of those Games. The 1984 Olympic Velodrome at Cal State Dominguez Hills was eventually torn down; the USC Swimming Stadium of course is a legacy of '84 but is no longer configured to host an Olympic Swimming competition (lack of seating).

And yes, I heard that the canoe slalom at the Sepulveda Basin would be retained. Golf, though; I thought that would be contested at the Wilson Golf Course at Griffith Park, which already exists...

[paul]

There's lots of man made iconic things strewn around LA, but I think the most iconic thing about the city is the weather/nature/geography. I mean the lifestyle here is pretty perfect.

By the way I agree with someone who noted that LA is already a mega status top tier city know round the world. No need to reintroduce or have an Olympics coming out, no need for a games agenda to drive infrastructure projects...they're happening all the time already in the biggest way possible. If it happens it's just to have a BIG party where you know it's gonna be fun and glam with tons to do in perfect venues and weather. Now do we want to pay for the party with a bunch of shady IOC character lurking around like royalty......I just don't know about that....just feels dirty.

Edited March 30, 2016 by paul

[Nacre]

There's lots of man made iconic things strewn around LA, but I think the most iconic thing about the city is the weather/nature/geography.

By the way I agree with someone who noted that LA is already a mega status top tier city know round the world. No need to reintroduce or have an Olympics coming out, no need for a games agenda to drive infrastructure projects...they're happening all the time already in the biggest way possible. If it happens it's just to have a BIG party where you know it's gonna be fun and glam with tons to do in perfect venues and weather. Now do we want to pay for the party with a bunch of shady IOC character lurking around like royalty......I just don't know about that....just feels dirty.

I would say the most iconic things about Los Angeles are Disneyland and Hollywood, at least to people from outside of Los Angeles. LA is intentionally decentralized, so even if it had something like the Eiffel Tower or Empire State Building most people would not see it frequently.

Hosting the Olympics just for the sake of a big party is why I have a problem with an LA Olympics. Assuming Los Angeles generates a tiny profit for the cost of the games (which I honestly doubt will be possible even for Los Angeles due to the growth of the games in the last two decades) it simply means shifting disposable income away from theaters, the MLB and MLS teams, etc. Mega events are only worth it if they leave some important infrastructure or institutions behind.

Meanwhile I don't think people in LA understand the tsunami of negative press they are in for if they win. In 1984 the IOC, athletes and media were grateful to the city for saving the Olympics. If LA beats Paris and Rome the French and Italians (not to mention the always pleasant British press) are going to look for anything negative they can possibly find about the city to publicize. If Los Angeles homers can't handle me saying that Manhattan is better known for art deco architecture than LA just wait until the city faces the scrutiny Rio and Vancouver got.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Nacre