los angeles 2024

[FYI]

Yea, 2024 could be similar to 2012, but things don't always play out the way they're supposed to. You know my feelings on this bid that Paris has a natural edge, but I wouldn't frame it to where LA can't afford any mistakes while Paris has a comfortable margin for error. That was my original point to Nacre. Every vote matters on both sides, even for Paris when they're in their most favorable position of the 4 bids they've been a part of.

Yeah, I know what you were trying to say to nacre. And that's fine if you want to subscribe to the whole "devil's advocate" type of argument (which you usually like to do). But I'm "not a big fan" of that type of philosophy. I do believe (& it turns out that so do some others on here as well) that Paris could indeed have that 'comfortable margin for error' this time around & not just a "natural edge", cuz to me, the latter only suggests a 'subtle edge', which I don't believe to be the case.

When Munich & Pyeongchang were dueling it out for 2018, many believed that it was going to be a "tight race", but that couldn't have been further from the truth after Pyeongchang's multiple attempts. Same thing for 2008, & one could make the argument for 2004, 2016 & even 2020, too, when there were many that simply claimed Tokyo couldn't win cuz of Pyeongchang 2018 (which I didn't buy into that theory at all), yet Tokyo went on to win 2020 by a very comfortable margin. But hindsight is always 20/20, & then you'll always have the people that will say afterwards that "it was finally Beijing's time, PyeongChang's time or Rio's time", etc, to which 2024 could very well end up in that category, as well.

So while it's always the "nature of gamesbids" (as you always enjoy to point out, & yet you're always here along with the rest of us 'extremists' :-P) to go to all sorts of extremes, why does it have to be such taboo to be firmly on one side of the fence, versus - "well, ya know, it could be that way, but it could also be this way. Everyone is more or less on 'equal' footing". Which, when we're talking about the IOC afterall, is anything but.

[Quaker2001]

Yeah, I know what you were trying to say to nacre. And that's fine if you want to subscribe to the whole "devil's advocate" type of argument (which you usually like to do). But I'm "not a big fan" of that type of philosophy. I do believe (& it turns out that so do some others on here as well) that Paris could indeed have that 'comfortable margin for error' this time around & not just a "natural edge", cuz to me, the latter only suggests a 'subtle edge', which I don't believe to be the case.

See, this tends to be the difference in how you and I look at things. Our viewpoints of Paris vs. LA I think are pretty similar. But you're more confident in where Paris stands versus LA. I'm not. So yea, maybe I am playing devil's advocate a little bit, but don't take that to mean I think the other person I replied to is completely off base. And I too probably got caught by the old Gamesbids trap perhaps trying to push him to an extreme and thinking to reel him back in. Again, I blame this website for that!

When Munich & Pyeongchang were dueling it out for 2018, many believed that it was going to be a "tight race", but that couldn't have been further from the truth after Pyeongchang's multiple attempts. Same thing for 2008, & one could make the argument for 2004, 2016 & even 2020, too, when there were many that simply claimed Tokyo couldn't win cuz of Pyeongchang 2018 (which I didn't buy into that theory at all), yet Tokyo went on to win 2020 by a very comfortable margin. But hindsight is always 20/20, & then you'll always have the people that will say afterwards that "it was finally Beijing's time, PyeongChang's time or Rio's time", etc, to which 2024 could very well end up in that category, as well.

There's that word again. Could. I totally agree that if Paris wins by a significant margin, the hindsight argument will be that they had this all along and how could anyone have reasonably thought otherwise. Just like 2022 where the range of potential results stretched all the way from Almaty winning by a little to Beijing winning by a lot. There's some similarity here, I think. LA is unlikely to win running away. Paris might. The actual outcome could land anywhere in between and no question some people will frame their memory of the whole thing after the fact based on the outcome. Doesn't mean that the commentary in the lead-up is completely off-base, aside from some isolated examples like the one you brought up about Tokyo. But most reasonable posters on here know to ignore that type of nonsense.

So while it's always the "nature of gamesbids" (as you always enjoy to point out, & yet you're always here along with the rest of us 'extremists' :-P) to go to all sorts of extremes, why does it have to be such taboo to be firmly on one side of the fence, versus - "well, ya know, it could be that way, but it could also be this way. Everyone is more or less on 'equal' footing". Which, when we're talking about the IOC afterall, is anything but.

It's not taboo. Nor is it taboo to point out a difference in opinion. Where I disagree with Nacre is this notion that LA is going to change their strategy or do things differently in the 2024 bid than they might do in the 2028 bid if Paris or other competition from Europe is in the picture. Or that they need to alter their bid plan because Paris is the competition. That's where we get too wrapped up on this website making comparisons between cities, and that's understandable because eventually that's what the IOC will be doing. But if you're on the LA organizing committee, you're a lot more concerned about LA than Paris. It's like a co-worker of mine always says to me.. don't try to control things you have no control over. LA needs to do what's best for LA. If that's not enough to measure up to Paris and they lose, in a way good for them that they didn't acquiesce to the IOC's overwhelming demands and let them come back another time. LA is in it to win it, as all cities are, but not at all costs. At least it shouldn't be. Leave that to the communists and the dictatorships to play the game that way.

[zekekelso]

If only there were a website that looked at all the factors surrounding olympic bids and gave each city a numerical score so we could compare their chanc of being selected.

[FYI]

There's that word again. Could. I totally agree that if Paris wins by a significant margin, the hindsight argument will be that they had this all along and how could anyone have reasonably thought otherwise. Just like 2022 where the range of potential results stretched all the way from Almaty winning by a little to Beijing winning by a lot. There's some similarity here, I think.

I don't see any "simalarities" between a race that you consistently eloquently put it between a "douche & a turd sandwich". That's not what the IOC is dealing with here right now, unless the top two 2024 bids happened to just drop out (which at this point seems extremely unlikely).

Yeah, Paris "could" take this by a comfortable majority. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe that this is still Paris' to lose, whether that's by a landslide victory (ala Beijjng or Pyeongchang), or by a much more modest win (like London or Sochi), I still see Paris as the victor here, all things considered.

I've said this before & I'll say it again, but the only thing that I can possibly see right now that keeps this from Paris is Paris itself, & "in a sense" I guess that I would agree with nacre that L.A. has to fight that much harder bcuz of it. So unlike 2022 where the IOC was pretty much fu@ked no matter who they voted for.

[FYI]

]

I share this sentiment. I think Paris is the front runner but I don't think it has a comfortable lead. Still, I think it's a compelling story and a strong bid and I can't bring myself to think that Paris has this one in the bag, because I seriously don't think it does.

Of course you share it. I wonder why that is, though. :-/

There's no doubt that Los Angeles has its strengths, but that's as far as it goes. It's a viable bid, yes. But nothing really "compelling" about it, especially when there's at least one other bid that can just as easily match it, if not surpass it.

Another element of surprise that many here are dismissing is Rome. While granted their bid is not as strong as Paris & L.A., I think that they have the potential to pull off a Madrid 2016 spoiler, & the expense of the American bid.

And someone stated earlier that Los Angeles isn't London, and I don't think anybody is making that comparison. But Los Angeles is Los Angeles.

The comparison someone made was relatively speaking. They brought up that London was able to snag the 2012 Games from Paris, so then their implication of argument was "couldn't L.A. do the same thing". That's where L.A. isn't London comes in. The dynamics of the 2012 race where Paris lost are not the same here. London was/is another mega European global capital that managed to take the 2012 Olympics from yet another mega European global capital. Los Angeles doesn't fall into that category, regardless of its own global standing. That's what was meant by that, & it WASN'T a "direct" comparison simply just to make one.

[baron-pierreIV]

London, like Paris, is the seat of gov't of a major European power and a long-time Olympics veteran--as France, the USA and Greece are. LA is not even the capital or seat of gov't of its state. That's Sacramento where the Governor and Legislature operate out of; the Calif Supreme Court sits in SF. Yes, LA is a mighty powerhouse; and king of its SoCal region. But it's not quite on the same level of global importance as London or Paris, Wash DC, or NYC.

[alphamale86]

London, like Paris, is the seat of gov't of a major European power and a long-time Olympics veteran--as France, the USA and Greece are. LA is not even the capital or seat of gov't of its state. That's Sacramento where the Governor and Legislature operate out of; the Calif Supreme Court sits in SF. Yes, LA is a mighty powerhouse; and king of its SoCal region. But it's not quite on the same level of global importance as London or Paris, Wash DC, or NYC.

Baron I agree with you on the fact that LA is not a political powerhouse, but it is the entertainment capital of the world and that does carry some wait. Might not be enough to award them the games but it is something very unique that the other cities can not boast of. Now when I say entertainment capital of the world I mean big business entertainment not just of we have singers and actors I am talking production, slash where the multi-billion dollar entertainment deals go down. Even other countries' entertainment industries are tied to LA in that sense, Cannes film festival Toronto Film festival all of them are stacked with LA based production companies doing the distribution deals. The Olympics is no different. I work at the airport and every Olympics, be it summer or winter, the amount of production companies that are based in LA that are used annually to produce the games internationally are staggering. I always thought it was a local crew that put on the games in each country but truly that work is outsourced to many different countries and LA just has a large number of the behind the scenes producers. I am not even solely talking ceremonies, I'm talking construction, marketing, advertising, security. Every Olympic year LAX is briefed about whatever olympics is going on in whatever part of the world and the protocol entailed in the corporate and production travel for the games.

All of this to say LA doesn't need to be a political center to be taken seriously on the global scene . It is not a political city nor is it trying to be, but it is the most dominant player when it comes to Entertainment and what is the Olympics but a giant production. Again I say this not to say it should get the games based on that but I believe that is the niche to which LA has carved out for itself and it's a great argument in their favor. They basically get to tell the IOC "we do this all the time. This is what we do, what we're known for, what you know we are known for and we do it better than any other city in the US and arguably the world."

[alphamale86]

Another element of surprise that many here are dismissing is Rome. While granted their bid is not as strong as Paris & L.A., I think that they have the potential to pull off a Madrid 2016 spoiler, & the expense of the American bid.

FYI could you explain this point a little further to me? I ask solely because I agree with you that Rome is mounting a nice campaign that people are underestimating but I thought since it was a European city it might take votes away from Paris not really LA. To me Rome isn't an alternate to Los Angeles, it's definitely an alternate to Paris. Voters thinking Rome, in my opinion, aren't looking at LA as an option in the first place they are considering Paris. With Paris being the unofficial front runner, I also feel like the question that some undecided voters may have is "What is the alternate to Paris" and with 2 other european cities in the race vs only 1 none european Paris to me has a lot more to lose with a strong Rome bid than does LA. LA is an entity unto itself. I think if Rome wasn't in the picture most likely the votes it would have attained would have gone directly to Paris. Don't you think?

[JesseSaenz]

I agree with alphamale86 on how LA can hold its own despite not being a political center.

We tend to forget the immense influence the city has had on a global scale not just from movies, but from the production and design it exports to the world.

Ironically, the hardest act for LA 2024 to follow is itself from 1984. You know that whatever LA is conjuring up is going to have to be much better than 1984, so I am dying to see what tricks they have up their sleeves.

Also, I disagree that LA2024 and the USOC will be treating this as some sort of trial run for 2028. If the organizer felt they didn't stand a chance they would have opted to sit this one out. LA knew that it was up against Paris and Rome when it threw its hat in the ring after the Boston fallout.

They are in it to win it, they don't have a plan B nor do they intend to return to the drawing board.

The state of California unanimously passed a $250 Million Dollar guarantee for the games, so clearly they are not taking this bid very seriously.

[FYI]

FYI could you explain this point a little further to me? I ask solely because I agree with you that Rome is mounting a nice campaign that people are underestimating but I thought since it was a European city it might take votes away from Paris not really LA. To me Rome isn't an alternate to Los Angeles, it's definitely an alternate to Paris. Voters thinking Rome, in my opinion, aren't looking at LA as an option in the first place they are considering Paris. With Paris being the unofficial front runner, I also feel like the question that some undecided voters may have is "What is the alternate to Paris" and with 2 other european cities in the race vs only 1 none european Paris to me has a lot more to lose with a strong Rome bid than does LA. LA is an entity unto itself. I think if Rome wasn't in the picture most likely the votes it would have attained would have gone directly to Paris. Don't you think?

You could very well be right. But I only see this scenario maybe playing out in a Paris/Rome 2024 final ballot (much like the London/Paris 2012 final ballot), since the intial ballots are most likely going to be strategic, as they usually are (this is also where I coukd see Rome 2024 pulling off a Madrid 2016-style surprise, since they really had no business to be in the final ballot along with Rio, but yet there they were anyway). And even then, I still can see Paris 2024 coming out on top.

And lets be honest here for a moment. While Budapest is a Europesn city, they stand virtually no chance of winning this whatsoever (that is of course if everyone else drops out), & whatever few votes that they wind up getting are going to be those infamous "sympathy" votes, & those could come from any of the other three cities initial votes, including L.A:

[Quaker2001]

I agree with alphamale86 on how LA can hold its own despite not being a political center.

We tend to forget the immense influence the city has had on a global scale not just from movies, but from the production and design it exports to the world.

Ironically, the hardest act for LA 2024 to follow is itself from 1984. You know that whatever LA is conjuring up is going to have to be much better than 1984, so I am dying to see what tricks they have up their sleeves.

Also, I disagree that LA2024 and the USOC will be treating this as some sort of trial run for 2028. If the organizer felt they didn't stand a chance they would have opted to sit this one out. LA knew that it was up against Paris and Rome when it threw its hat in the ring after the Boston fallout.

They are in it to win it, they don't have a plan B nor do they intend to return to the drawing board.

The state of California unanimously passed a $250 Million Dollar guarantee for the games, so clearly they are not taking this bid very seriously.

I think the bigger point is that somehow LA is still a top 10 global city despite these obvious shortcomings. Its not hard to figure out what makes up for those shortcomings because where LA is strong it is disproportionately strong. For example, LA leads the world in television production and dollars made in the industry, it leads the world on environmental issues and sustainability. Taking the entire state into consideration California leads the world in technology, start-ups, online culture and disproportionately to any other region on earth. So what does it matter to the movement if LA is not the seat of gov't of the state when the state is supportive of the games?The question, I think, is are LA and California's disproportionately strong influences what the Movement needs? And I think the answer is yes. I don't think the city of LA itself is the allure, but rather what places you can reach by doing business in LA.

Again, it comes down to a basis of comparison. LA would be an excellent choice for the IOC for many of the reasons we've gone over. But that's viewing their bid in a vacuum. The question is how do they compare to Paris? In terms of what the Olympic movement needs, that may be the smarter choice on their part. They need Europe right now more than they need the United States, and not because of who may or may not return for a 2028 bid or who has gone the longest without hosting an Olympics, or any of those intangibles. LA can stand on its own as a major world city. But put them side to side against Paris and suddenly they're not quite so big anymore.

This is the Olympics and the IOC we're talking about. The minutiae of a city's influence on the world is not a small factor. That's why recent hosts include the likes of Sydney, Beijing, London, and soon to be Tokyo. Those are some of the biggest of the biggest world cities. LA is maybe just a small notch below that level. But Paris is not. That alone won't make the difference, but combine that with the IOC's likely desire to want to return to Europe and it makes Paris that much more compelling. All things being equal with their bids (again, you can talk up LA all you want, but you have to measure them against the competition, not against themselves), that likely puts Paris in the driver's seat.

[Rob2012]

LA is comparable to Sydney, Barcelona, Rio.

Like those cities it's not the capital of the country or even its biggest city but that doesn't matter because it's one of the most appealing cities in the country to host an Olympics.

I still think the winds are blowing Paris' way, but not being a capital is a strange thing to point out, as if that would hamper LA.

[yoshi]

It's a thing with the US that the major cities aren't generally even state capitals - LA, NY, Dallas, Chicago for example. Why is that?

[woohooitsme83]

I'm not so sure about the other cities, but I know that Sacramento became the capital for historical reasons. It was actually a major city during its time.

Yeah, but on to the historical reasons: Sacramento's as old, if not older, than California itself. It became a key distribution center and hub for foods and other resources in the region even when it was still part of Mexico. When the Gold Rush came around, it became a distribution center, hub, and rest stop for gold-seekers heading west due to its close proximity to SF. In fact, Sacramento was such a huge destination, the railway terminus for California was originally in Sacramento. From there on, Sacramento continued to grow and eventually became the first incorporated city in the state. It had existing infrastructure, government, and a stable economy. Plus, it was inland (in case of a sea invasion, I guess?) but still had river connections to other cities like SF and the sea. Thus, Sacramento eventually became the capital of California after several switches.

I think it may be the same for the other states. The capital was chosen, but other cities eventually grew larger than it as time progressed and things changed.

[zekekelso]

It's a thing with the US that the major cities aren't generally even state capitals - LA, NY, Dallas, Chicago for example. Why is that?

Several reasons (often a combination)...

1. People from other part of the state wanted to ensure that the interests of the big city didn't dominate the state too much (a problem we have in Massachusetts with Boston as capital).

2. Many of our big cities (Dallas, LA, Chicago) were insignificant when the state capitals were determined.

3. A desire to have the state capital be it's own city (a tradition that started with the Federal Capital in DC).

4. Many states grew East-to-West. So the big, established city is on the eastern edge. They wanted the capital to be more geographically central.

[Nacre]

1. People from other part of the state wanted to ensure that the interests of the big city didn't dominate the state too much (a problem we have in Massachusetts with Boston as capital).

Mostly this. In the 19th century it was thought that having the financial center and the political center in the same city would lead to corruption and/or the dominance of a few wealthy families. I am not certain it really matters, though. Illinois and Louisiana are by far the most corrupt states in the USA, and they both have smaller capital cities than Chicago and New Orleans, respectively.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Nacre

[TeamBlakeUSA]

How Many Sponsors Do We Need?

[TeamBlakeUSA]

I Think More Sponsors Are Yet To Be Announced.

[woohooitsme83]

1. People from other part of the state wanted to ensure that the interests of the big city didn't dominate the state too much (a problem we have in Massachusetts with Boston as capital).

That's also what happened during the UK elections last year iirc. (correct me if I'm wrong)

[TeamBlakeUSA]

We Only Have 8 Years To Go.

[thatsnotmypuppy]

[TeamBlakeUSA]

You're Guys Are So Psychotic.

[FYI]

I keep reading that the Movement needs Europe right now more than the United States, but at the same time another question needs to be raised. IF the IOC chose Los Angeles over Paris for the 2024 games, and Los Angeles hosted another wildly successful games, would Paris, or any other European city, be back for 2028? How would the worlds attitude change if a successful Olympic Games had been hosted?

Just like someone else mentioned that L.A. wouldn't be back for 2028 if they lost 2024 (which I don't buy anyway), then Paris definitely wouldn't be back for 2028, regardless. It took a lot for them to even consider this 2024 attempt. If the IOC doesn't want to pick them now, the French will refrain for several cycles. So if the IOC wants a

B or C-class European city for 2028, then the IOC can vote accordingly.

But I don't see whats with this phallacy that only L.A. could host "a wildly successful games" (at least that's the implication that's being given in the context of that sentence). London 2012 was a 'wildly successful Games' in a European city. So it's very possible to replicate that success in a another grand European capital that has many of the attributes already in place.

But what you also fail to consider here is, that a hypothetical "wildly successful games" 2024 L.A. games would have no bearing whatsoever on a 2028 bid campaign since that election would take place in 2021, three whole years BEFORE 2024. So other cities won't be able to make determinations on that aspect yet cuz they'll have nothing to go by at that point. You're making too much of intangibles that aren't even there yet & may not even be there at all in the end.

I think head to head Paris will offer everything LA does on the technical side, but who will provide peace of mind?

Either one would. So that aspect alone is on equal footing.

[Quaker2001]

I would like to see this examined more. How does LA's bid compare to Paris' bid in terms of what the Olympic Movement needs? I keep reading that the Movement needs Europe right now more than the United States, but at the same time another question needs to be raised. IF the IOC chose Los Angeles over Paris for the 2024 games, and Los Angeles hosted another wildly successful games, would Paris, or any other European city, be back for 2028? How would the worlds attitude change if a successful Olympic Games had been hosted?

But still, I think it's important to examine Paris' bid versus LA's bid and how they benefit the Movement. Sure, Paris as a brand is stronger than Los Angeles. But the Los Angeles brand, as already mentioned, is deeply rooted in specific industries that deliver a sharp impact on things that the Olympic movement may need. IMO the LA bid is creating good harmony with the movement. It's creating a win win without any major headaches especially because there is no Olympic Stadium to be built and housing is existing. But adding to that point as also mentioned earlier, every games results on LA based production traveling to cover the games. What if they don't have to travel and have a plethora of existing resources right in LA, right now. They potentially don't even need housing.

I think head to head Paris will offer everything LA does on the technical side, but who will provide peace of mind? Paris absolutely offers prestige, but how does that compare to the connectivity of LA and entertainment, as well as mentioned before, LA being in a global powerhouse when it comes to technology and social media. Anybody care to contribute on Paris' behalf?

'If the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain'

I joke sometimes about how you confine yourself to the LA thread, but if you want more of an examination of Paris's bid, perhaps you should go over to the Paris thread yourself and ask. I'm sure there are plenty of folks there who would be happy to fill you in, not to mention a good deal of information and discussion that has probably been covered already. You shouldn't count on them to come to you simply because you're here.

To further what FYI said.. you say it's important to examine Paris's bid, but you don't seem that interested in doing that. You sound like someone who is shopping for a home, found his supposed dream home, and isn't seriously considering anything else out there. We know you think LA is everything the IOC could want, but you keep brushing Paris aside ("yea, they sound great, but I'm in love with LA") without giving serious thought to them. That's not how it's going to play out next summer. It's not going to be a situation where every time a positive about Paris is brought up, you reach for a positive about LA to counter.

Let it be said again.. the IOC would be perfectly content with an LA 2024 Olympics. However, you have to consider whether or not they are in fact the best choice. And if the question is who will provide peace of mind and what the Olympic movement needs, Paris is probably going to have the edge over LA.

[Rob2012]

I would like to see this examined more. How does LA's bid compare to Paris' bid in terms of what the Olympic Movement needs? I keep reading that the Movement needs Europe right now more than the United States, but at the same time another question needs to be raised. IF the IOC chose Los Angeles over Paris for the 2024 games, and Los Angeles hosted another wildly successful games, would Paris, or any other European city, be back for 2028? How would the worlds attitude change if a successful Olympic Games had been hosted?

Apart from your timeline being out (as other people have already pointed out), in isolation a successful LA Games would do little. The last decade has seen several successful Games but the headline for many is SOCHI SPENT 50 BILLION DOLLARS! That alone makes naysayers' jobs so easy when campaigning against Olympics coming to their city.

The IOC needs a string of successes and no blowouts to get the momentum back on their side. One city isn't capable of doing it by itself I don't think.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Rob.