los angeles 2024

[Roger87]

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

Taken as a State California has leapfrogged France to become the worlds 6th largest economy. As a region Los Angeles is the worlds 3rd largest behind Tokyo and New York. Rising up that same list and potentially taking the 3rd spot from LA is Seoul. Paris, though a more globally connected city by information, exchange and policy trails Los Angeles by over 100 billion annually. 

So I'm sorry tu burst your bubble but in terms of GDP both Los Angeles and California out rank Paris and France. 

That would be an excellent theory... If California became an independent State. Unless i'm missing, California is still part of the United States, so at the end Los Angeles is still an AMERICAN CITY. You can't use your argument as "California is independent from the USA" and next "California is the new America" by your own convenience.

And still, if we use that type of flawed arguments, Paris (And France) is still part of a bigger institution called the European Union, which GDP is not only higher than the USA but also representates a bigger market.

And related to the concept of global cities, you also need to considerate history and value of the world, as FYI mentioned. But then, considering that "American arrogance" from your part is really special.

[Quaker2001]

51 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Should 2024 and 2028 be awarded at the same time the 2024 games will have been over for 1 full year prior to 2032 being awarded. With one likely highly successful games followed by another, the chances of the Olympic narrative changing would have increased hopefully also increasing the number of interested candidates. Precedent is that the cost issue ends up with a games in Los Angeles. That's does not imply LA would go first, but that narrative is already there. Want to kill the cost conversation, take the games to Los Angeles.

Good idea.  Los Angeles 2028 it is

Why is it still the presumption that Los Angeles and ONLY Los Angeles can cure the issue of increasing costs with Olympic hosting?  What makes them so bulletproof that they're going to be immune to the cost overruns that have been a problem for previous bids?  And don't tell us that they have very little to build.. temporary overlays, with price tags in the hundreds of millions, can't be ignored.

And it's not as though Paris has a huge budget either.  I think it's going to take more than 1 good host to restore faith in the Olympics.  The problem is that there are multiple examples of costs getting out of hand, and that's not even including the 2 extreme outliers in Beijing and Sochi.  We all know the history of what LA `84 did for the Olympic movement.  It is far from a guarantee that they and they alone would be able to solve the IOC's ills this time around.

[Quaker2001]

6 hours ago, paul said:

....this thread owns the GB forum. What about Paris......I'm sure they made a statement about how important the sun is recently?

p.s. Rio sucked, I remember Brazilians screaming on and on about how Rio would be the greatest games EVER, and how Brasilia should bid right away after.....what a joke.

Rio put a very specialized nail in the Olympic coffin, part of the reason they are in the bind they are now.

.....and now.....back to the LA hate...take it away guys!

Why is it still the default position that anyone who isn't in full support of someone's opinions/arguments in favor of a city is therefore hating on that city?  To point out that there are political factors working against LA that might sink an otherwise very worthy bid is not hate.  To have all this discussion here (which as FYI noted is a function of who posts here) is not hate.  And yes, forgive us if a poster here is offering up his holier-than-thou views of LA and their bid and the natural reaction is to fight against that.  Welcome to GamesBids.  It has long been the nature of these forums that the best way to argue your point is to either try and be louder and more annoying than your opponent or to push your viewpoints to such extremes that the only counter-argument is often to try and make up the opposite extreme.  Fortunately that's not the case here.

To argue that LA might lose to Paris and give reasons why is not hate.  It's an opinion.  And IMHO, a pretty well founded one.  Again, not that anyone here ever gets the benefit of being thought of as objective.

[Rob2012]

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

Should 2024 and 2028 be awarded at the same time the 2024 games will have been over for 1 full year prior to 2032 being awarded. With one likely highly successful games followed by another, the chances of the Olympic narrative changing would have increased hopefully also increasing the number of interested candidates. Precedent is that the cost issue ends up with a games in Los Angeles. That's does not imply LA would go first, but that narrative is already there. Want to kill the cost conversation, take the games to Los Angeles.

Short of a brand new model which will attract cities put off by costs, what the IOC needs is Games with few negative headlines. Neither LA nor Paris are offering a new model and both are capable of pulling off smooth Olympics.

[anthonyliberatori]

Has the Paris Olympic Committee said anything about not pursuing a 2028 bid if they are to lose? I know the California Olympic Committee released a statement that they would not be interested in a 2028 bid, that all of their attention would go to 2024. While somewhat insignificant in the grand perspective, I think that the IOC may look this over when voting on a host city. Los Angeles is one of the best cities in the world for sport, so a lasting effect of venues is much more guaranteed in Los Angeles than in Paris, making profitability more likely. But if for some reason the political situation of the US or another factor would impede, causing Paris to win, then the IOC is missing out on the one bid that could really drive out the nail that has been hammered deep into the Olympic Host City Coffin, done mostly by Beijing, Sochi, and Rio. I think LA has more of a shot just due to the nature of its bid, and the (possible) economic success of it would help the host city movement as a whole, and could hopefully put cities worldwide back on the host city bid list.

[Rob2012]

2 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Has the Paris Olympic Committee said anything about not pursuing a 2028 bid if they are to lose? I know the California Olympic Committee released a statement that they would not be interested in a 2028 bid, that all of their attention would go to 2024. While somewhat insignificant in the grand perspective, I think that the IOC may look this over when voting on a host city. Los Angeles is one of the best cities in the world for sport, so a lasting effect of venues is much more guaranteed in Los Angeles than in Paris, making profitability more likely. But if for some reason the political situation of the US or another factor would impede, causing Paris to win, then the IOC is missing out on the one bid that could really drive out the nail that has been hammered deep into the Olympic Host City Coffin, done mostly by Beijing, Sochi, and Rio. I think LA has more of a shot just due to the nature of its bid, and the (possible) economic success of it would help the host city movement as a whole, and could hopefully put cities worldwide back on the host city bid list.

Paris has said the land for their village won't be available for 2028.

As for the rest of your post, nobody who has taken on this narrative has explained to me how LA will "help" other cities. It might put a spring back into the step of the movement (so can Paris btw), but it's not going to help cities who need to build stuff in any way, shape or form. It's not offering a new model. It'll show the world how LA can put on a low-cost Games, not how any other city could.

[FYI]

7 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Has the Paris Olympic Committee said anything about not pursuing a 2028 bid if they are to lose? I know the California Olympic Committee released a statement that they would not be interested in a 2028 bid, that all of their attention would go to 2024.

Paris has said pretty much the same thing that their main interest in 2024 only. And as a matter of fact, the land that their proposing for their Olympic Village is contingent on it's 2024 bid. It would no longer be available for a 2028 bid. As far as the rest of your post, it's been discussed ad nauseum in this very thread over the past year & a half.

[FYI]

5 minutes ago, Rob. said:

As for the rest of your post, nobody who has taken on this narrative has explained to me how LA will "help" other cities. It might put a spring back into the step of the movement (so can Paris btw), but it's not going to help cities who need to build stuff in any way, shape or form. It's not offering a new model. It'll show the world how LA can put on a low-cost Games, not how any other city could.

Yep - all it is, is L.A. hyperbole, plain & simple.

[FYI]

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

It may not be a guarantee, but it is the only city that against incredible odds on both occasions proved to be profitable.

You're talking about Games from many decades ago, especially 1932. Which btw, there are NO good documentions for, like there is now, to explain how every aspect of the Games was handle. So saying those Games were "profitable" is an UNKNOWN quantity. 

And 1984 cost a mere $584 million to put together. Their 2024 budget is $5.3 Billion. So the two are really a totally different ball game now. And as with ANY "estimate" that number is going to go over budget regardless. L.A. still has to get their venues "Olympic ready", especially the Coliseum, & that costs MONEY.

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

On this subject specifically and if this were the o key consideration for who you would award the games to would you go with a place with the track record, or the one without it? 

So yea, there are no guarantees Los Angeles will make a profit, but there is even less of a guarantee that Paris will.

Seriously.  You make it seem like France is some unknown entity, & totally foreign to the IOC. Never mind that Paris hosts many World Championships, & France has hosted a successful World Cup & Euro, & accommodates millions of tourists year after year. 

You just enjoy to "downplay" Paris every chance you can get, so you can put L.A. on some sort of rosey pedestal. But the IOC ain't gonna see that rose as "pretty" as you do. They're gonna be far more objective about it than your L.A. travel brochure.

[anthonyliberatori]

7 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Paris has said the land for their village won't be available for 2028.

As for the rest of your post, nobody who has taken on this narrative has explained to me how LA will "help" other cities. It might put a spring back into the step of the movement (so can Paris btw), but it's not going to help cities who need to build stuff in any way, shape or form. It's not offering a new model. It'll show the world how LA can put on a low-cost Games, not how any other city could.

Sochi and Rio both offered a new model. Sochi was the first WOG to have a whole Olympic Park built specifically for the Games, and was attracted to the IOC using the large amount of otherwise vacant off-season hotel rooms in the sunny summer beach town, as well as Russia's seemingly endless checkbook. While the Games were pretty to look at from the outside, they ended up being the most expensive in history, caused a huge human rights issue, displacement of locals, and those beautiful venues have been used little since. Sochi 2014 was also  the main reason for many cities dropping out of the 2022 race, causing China, another country with human rights and economic issues, to win. Rio was the first Games in South America and was chosen on its good economic standing and its growth potential, just like Beijing was, but unlike Beijing, suffered an uncontrollable economic and political crash, causing venues to be finished within days of the start, sailors sailing in literal human waste, crime, very cheap tickets, negative world exposure, and of course, white elephants.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I support both LA 2024 and Paris 2024. I think both bids have potential and could really turn around the ill-fated ways of some recent Olympic host cities. I just feel that in Rio's wake, the IOC will feel that the safest option is to choose the city that is conditioned to these types of events, has the venues ready, or a majority ready with plans for them afterwards, in a country that has continuously placed high in the Games and is guaranteed to have a lot of attendance. I would love to see the Games in either LA or Paris, but again, on the topic of wanting a "new model", I think the IOC has seen enough of that in recent years and may lean on LA solely for the reliance.

[anthonyliberatori]

14 minutes ago, FYI said:

Paris has said pretty much the same thing that their main interest in 2024 only. And as a matter of fact, the land that their proposing for their Olympic Village is contingent on it's 2024 bid. It would no longer be available for a 2028 bid. As far as the rest of your post, it's been discussed ad nauseum in this very thread over the past year & a half.

 

19 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Paris has said the land for their village won't be available for 2028.

As for the rest of your post, nobody who has taken on this narrative has explained to me how LA will "help" other cities. It might put a spring back into the step of the movement (so can Paris btw), but it's not going to help cities who need to build stuff in any way, shape or form. It's not offering a new model. It'll show the world how LA can put on a low-cost Games, not how any other city could.

 

I did not know this, thank you for the info! What is the plan for the area if the games are awarded to Paris? Will they demolish the village?

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

It may not be a guarantee, but it is the only city that against incredible odds on both occasions proved to be profitable. On this subject specifically and if this were the o key consideration for who you would award the games to would you go with a place with the track record, or the one without it? 

So yea, there are no guarantees Los Angeles will make a profit, but there is even less of a guarantee that Paris will.

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

In your own way you have just said Los Angeles will not produce a profit and Paris will produce a deficit.

In what way have I said that?  I'm just questioning the logic of your BFF Abrahamson who seems to think that Paris has an impossibly small budget which they can't possibly stick to, where LA has a very sensible budget where (his words here, not mine) "When the LA24 people say the bid will be $5.3 billion, it will be $5.3 billion, if not less."  You're right there are no guarantees and this is a matter of odds.  Even if LA is producing a more financially sound plan (and that's debatable), I don't think the gap between LA's chances of producing a profit and avoiding a deficit is necessarily that much better than Paris.  Yes, LA has a track record, but does what happened in 1932 really apply here?  No one is questioning the success of 1984, but can they replicate that here?  Much easier said than done when costs of hosting an Olympics have skyrocketed for reasons that aren't just about building venues and infrastructure.

Beyond that, if we're talking specifically about a track record, it's not as if Paris and France haven't hosting large scale sporting events before.  So they don't lack experience that they can boast on that one.

[Quaker2001]

29 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Has the Paris Olympic Committee said anything about not pursuing a 2028 bid if they are to lose? I know the California Olympic Committee released a statement that they would not be interested in a 2028 bid, that all of their attention would go to 2024. While somewhat insignificant in the grand perspective, I think that the IOC may look this over when voting on a host city. Los Angeles is one of the best cities in the world for sport, so a lasting effect of venues is much more guaranteed in Los Angeles than in Paris, making profitability more likely. But if for some reason the political situation of the US or another factor would impede, causing Paris to win, then the IOC is missing out on the one bid that could really drive out the nail that has been hammered deep into the Olympic Host City Coffin, done mostly by Beijing, Sochi, and Rio. I think LA has more of a shot just due to the nature of its bid, and the (possible) economic success of it would help the host city movement as a whole, and could hopefully put cities worldwide back on the host city bid list.

No such statement was made.  It was reported based on minutes from a USOC meeting that they and LA are committed to 2024 and not interested in 2028 *right now.*  Doesn't imply that they wouldn't later be interested in a 2028 bid should they lose 2024, and later on LA mayor Eric Garcetti said they would go along with whatever the IOC decides in terms of 2024/2028 both being awarded together.  So it seems like if 2028 was put on the table for them, they would indeed be interested.

[FYI]

4 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Please don't get me wrong, I support both LA 2024 and Paris 2024. I think both bids have potential and could really turn around the ill-fated ways of some recent Olympic host cities. I just feel that in Rio's wake, the IOC will feel that the safest option is to choose the city that is conditioned to these types of events, has the venues ready, or a majority ready with plans for them afterwards, in a country that has continuously placed high in the Games and is guaranteed to have a lot of attendance. I would love to see the Games in either LA or Paris, but again, on the topic of wanting a "new model", I think the IOC has seen enough of that in recent years and may lean on LA solely for the reliance.

Again, yet another post from the L.A. camp that makes it seem that France is some developing or third world country, like Brazil. Which couldn't be farther from the truth. Paris & France are quite capable & has "the majority of venues ready" (your words). Instead of comparing Paris 2024 to Rio 2016, compare it to London 2012, which was a successful European Games. L.A. seems to have no problems comparing themselves to London, so why should Paris be any different in that aspect.

[Quaker2001]

7 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Sochi and Rio both offered a new model. Sochi was the first WOG to have a whole Olympic Park built specifically for the Games, and was attracted to the IOC using the large amount of otherwise vacant off-season hotel rooms in the sunny summer beach town, as well as Russia's seemingly endless checkbook. While the Games were pretty to look at from the outside, they ended up being the most expensive in history, caused a huge human rights issue, displacement of locals, and those beautiful venues have been used little since. Sochi 2014 was also  the main reason for many cities dropping out of the 2022 race, causing China, another country with human rights and economic issues, to win. Rio was the first Games in South America and was chosen on its good economic standing and its growth potential, just like Beijing was, but unlike Beijing, suffered an uncontrollable economic and political crash, causing venues to be finished within days of the start, sailors sailing in literal human waste, crime, very cheap tickets, negative world exposure, and of course, white elephants.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I support both LA 2024 and Paris 2024. I think both bids have potential and could really turn around the ill-fated ways of some recent Olympic host cities. I just feel that in Rio's wake, the IOC will feel that the safest option is to choose the city that is conditioned to these types of events, has the venues ready, or a majority ready with plans for them afterwards, in a country that has continuously placed high in the Games and is guaranteed to have a lot of attendance. I would love to see the Games in either LA or Paris, but again, on the topic of wanting a "new model", I think the IOC has seen enough of that in recent years and may lean on LA solely for the reliance.

I have to ask again.. where is this idea coming from that Paris and France would not be reliable?  They are worlds apart from Sochi and Rio for so many different reasons and can more than likely be counted on to put on a very successful Olympics.  The issues that plagued Sochi and Rio (especially with Sochi, which we all saw coming from the start) don't apply to these 2 cities that are currently running.  That Beijing and Sochi spend huge sums of money means very little in terms of what we should expect from Paris or LA.  It's understandable that other cities got scared off because of it, but if the IOC is looking for a stable, reliable bid city/country to put them on a better course than what they've had, Paris can give them that.  Just like London didn't feel the need to try and match Beijing's extravagance and spending.

[anthonyliberatori]

Just now, FYI said:

Again, yet another post from the L.A. camp that makes it seem that France is some developing or third world country, like Brazil. Which couldn't be farther from the truth. Paris & France are quite capable & has "the majority of venues ready" (your words). Instead of comparing Paris 2024 to Rio 2016, compare it to London 2012, which was a successful European Games. L.A. seems to have no problems comparing themselves to London, so why should Paris be any different in that aspect.

Most certainly did not mean to compare it to Rio 2016. If you read my post, I mentioned Rio in the sense that it was a "new model" for the IOC. I was getting at the fact that recent "new model" attempts on how to show other cities worldwide that they too can support an OG haven't ended so well. Paris had nothing to do with this, as Paris isn't really a "new model". It's conditioned to sporting events, has the necessary travel and tourist facilities, and an economy that could not only an Olympics but a post-Games legacy. I never equated France to a third world country. If you fully read my post, you would've seen this

 

And another observation: You are most likely to find LA-supporting bids from "La Camp" under the LA forum...

[zekekelso]

10 hours ago, paul said:

 

p.s. Rio sucked,

Counterpoint: The Rio games were awesome. 

[zekekelso]

45 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Has the Paris Olympic Committee said anything about not pursuing a 2028 bid if they are to lose? I know the California Olympic Committee released a statement that they would not be interested in a 2028 bid, that all of their attention would go to 2024. 

The US Olympics Committee has said all their attention is on 2024. They *have not* said they wouldn't be interested in 2028. 

[anthonyliberatori]

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I have to ask again.. where is this idea coming from that Paris and France would not be reliable?  They are worlds apart from Sochi and Rio for so many different reasons and can more than likely be counted on to put on a very successful Olympics.  The issues that plagued Sochi and Rio (especially with Sochi, which we all saw coming from the start) don't apply to these 2 cities that are currently running.  That Beijing and Sochi spend huge sums of money means very little in terms of what we should expect from Paris or LA.  It's understandable that other cities got scared off because of it, but if the IOC is looking for a stable, reliable bid city/country to put them on a better course than what they've had, Paris can give them that.  Just like London didn't feel the need to try and match Beijing's extravagance and spending.

It's not that France is not reliable. I definitely feel that Paris and France as a whole could put on a successful Olympics that would bring a very positive light to future host cities worldwide. It's just that Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics within the last 50 years, something that Paris cannot say that it has done, and likely has the natural edge of support from the IOC solely because of it. With the recent happenings, that edge could be relevant when choosing a host city for 2024. The intention of my original post was to point this out, not to attack or degrade Paris or France as a whole.

[zekekelso]

24 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

I just feel that in Rio's wake, the IOC will feel that the safest option is to choose the city that is conditioned to these types of events, has the venues ready, or a majority ready with plans for them afterwards, in a country that has continuously placed high in the Games and is guaranteed to have a lot of attendance.

That perfectly describes *both* LA and Paris. 

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Most certainly did not mean to compare it to Rio 2016. If you read my post, I mentioned Rio in the sense that it was a "new model" for the IOC. I was getting at the fact that recent "new model" attempts on how to show other cities worldwide that they too can support an OG haven't ended so well. Paris had nothing to do with this, as Paris isn't really a "new model". It's conditioned to sporting events, has the necessary travel and tourist facilities, and an economy that could not only an Olympics but a post-Games legacy. I never equated France to a third world country. If you fully read my post, you would've seen this

 

And another observation: You are most likely to find LA-supporting bids from "La Camp" under the LA forum...

The thread title is "los angeles 2024," not "los angeles 2024 supporting."  This forum is for about discussion of LA's bid.  It says nothing about supporting that bid.  And considering you just joined the discussion here, you wouldn't necessarily know what the main topics are here.

Back to Rio.. how did they creat a new model?  They were the first South American city to host, but that's not really a new model.  But, to FYI's point.. if you're supporting LA, that's one thing.  But you're already getting caught in the same trap that others here have done where you seem to want to downplay Paris in order to make LA look better.

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

It's not that France is not reliable. I definitely feel that Paris and France as a whole could put on a successful Olympics that would bring a very positive light to future host cities worldwide. It's just that Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics within the last 50 years, something that Paris cannot say that it has done, and likely has the natural edge of support from the IOC solely because of it. With the recent happenings, that edge could be relevant when choosing a host city for 2024. The intention of my original post was to point this out, not to attack or degrade Paris or France as a whole.

Saying that LA has hosted more recently than Paris can be used against them to say that it's better to spread the Olympics around rather than award them to a city that already hosted them in somewhat recent memory.  The IOC is a highly political organization.  To imply that LA has a "natural edge of support" ignores all of the factors that work against LA and in favor of Paris.

And again, this thread has 167 pages to it.  I know you're trying to jump into the discussion here, but we've been talking about this for a while now here.  I've said it here many times.. LA has a lot going for it and they're putting together a very worthy bid.  But the criteria that the IOC will likely use to choose a host still seems - to me at least - to point in the direction of Paris.  And many of the arguments you're making for LA apply just as well to Paris.

[FYI]

4 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

Most certainly did not mean to compare it to Rio 2016. If you read my post, I mentioned Rio in the sense that it was a "new model" for the IOC. I was getting at the fact that recent "new model" attempts on how to show other cities worldwide that they too can support an OG haven't ended so well. 

I don't think that the IOC was looking at Sochi & Rio as a "new model", but rather moreso looking at taking the Games to new horizons.

7 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

And another observation: You are most likely to find LA-supporting bids from "La Camp" under the LA forum...

Yes, but when L.A. is in a COMPETITION that involves Paris (& Budapest), then it's only natural that the conversation is going to overlap with these other cities. Especially when one of the forumers here is always downplaying Paris' chances.

[zekekelso]

3 minutes ago, anthonyliberatori said:

. It's just that Los Angeles has hosted the Olympics within the last 50 years, something that Paris cannot say that it has done, and likely has the natural edge of support from the IOC solely because of it. 

Oh for Pete's sake. France has hosted two Olympics in the past 50 years (for whatever that matters). They've hosted FIFA world cup and tons of huge events. There is not the slightest doubt in any voter's mind that Paris can do a wonderful job hosting the Olympics. 

[anthonyliberatori]

11 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Oh for Pete's sake. France has hosted two Olympics in the past 50 years (for whatever that matters). They've hosted FIFA world cup and tons of huge events. There is not the slightest doubt in any voter's mind that Paris can do a wonderful job hosting the Olympics. 

 

11 minutes ago, FYI said:

I don't think that the IOC was looking at Sochi & Rio as a "new model", but rather moreso looking at taking the Games to new horizons.

Yes, but when L.A. is in a COMPETITION that involves Paris (& Budapest), then it's only natural that the conversation is going to overlap with these other cities. Especially when one of the forumers here is always downplaying Paris' chances.

 

11 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Saying that LA has hosted more recently than Paris can be used against them to say that it's better to spread the Olympics around rather than award them to a city that already hosted them in somewhat recent memory.  The IOC is a highly political organization.  To imply that LA has a "natural edge of support" ignores all of the factors that work against LA and in favor of Paris.

And again, this thread has 167 pages to it.  I know you're trying to jump into the discussion here, but we've been talking about this for a while now here.  I've said it here many times.. LA has a lot going for it and they're putting together a very worthy bid.  But the criteria that the IOC will likely use to choose a host still seems - to me at least - to point in the direction of Paris.  And many of the arguments you're making for LA apply just as well to Paris.

Again I say, I support both bids. I was just bringing up a point that I thought would be somewhat relevant to LA's bid, but I guess the horse has been beat long before I got here. Didn't really know that that kind of statement was "argument" (Quaker2001's words) quality, but I'm new here, so of course I haven't learned too much about the ropes yet. I never once tried downgrading Paris either, as it is a wonderful city that I cannot wait to visit this summer. #Paris2024.  #LA2024. Happy?