Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Nacre said:

LA Coliseum

  • somewhere between 60,000-70,000 seats in Olympic mode
  • lots of obstructed view seats after they add the block of luxury suites
  • not designed for performances like the opening ceremonies
  • closer to athletes and media villages
  • has hosted two Olympic opening ceremonies previously

Inglewood stadium

  • 100,000 seats in special events mode
  • modern stadium with excellent sight lines (unless the architects botch the job)
  • specifically designed as a multipurpose venue for hosting events like the opening ceremonies, political conventions, etc
  • closer to the airport and tourist parts of LA

It would not be an easy choice for me. LA 2024 would make an extra $30+ million with the ceremonies at the stadium in Inglewood, and it would presumably allow them to be a lot more creative with the ceremonies as well. But sentiment and convenience for the media and athletes would obviously be on USC's side.

 

If it were up to me, there is NO contest.  It would be at Inglewood.  Main liability of the Coliseum is that it only has one main egress from the bowels of the stadium out into the field.  I was surprised that Wolper put on an ingenious show in 1984 despite that limitation.  Transporting the 9,000 athletes to Inglewood from USC shouldn't be that big a problem vs. trying to stage a knock-out show in the Coliseum at 5:00pm, PDT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, neige said:

athletics at Inglewood: the most convenient and modern stadium for the biggest sport of the olympics.

ceremonies at the Coliseum: the most iconic stadium for the emotion of ceremonies.

The new NFL stadium will not be able to accommodate a track. The LA Coliseum must host athletics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

The Coliseum doesn't accommodate a track either. Either stadium would require renovations to make it work. I suspect the Coliseum is easier to retro fit a track into... but since they haven't built City of Champions stadium yet, it's hard to say. 

It does not have a track now, but the shape of the seating is an oval, and they can restore the track. A rectangular NFL stadium cannot be temporarily converted into an athletics stadium. There is not enough space at the ends, so they would have to completely rebuild the stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

So Las Vegas Could Be A Venue for the GamesBids logo votes announcements.

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 1 & 2

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 3 & 4

Momos, cubanos and hamburgers are a good idea for food for an logo launch

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

9m7bXS.jpg

Probably not Blake, we've been there before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2016 at 8:15 PM, JesseSaenz said:

Completely off topic....but Just saw "La La Land" and man was it good.

Beautifully shot.  Almost like a love letter to LA with a nod to Paris.

I saw "La La Land" this evening.  I liked it a lot, and it definitely is a love letter to LA; the writer/director intended it be such.  The director also made it a point to show LA as is, with no "beautification," with only some well-known landmarks (notice the Hollywood sign was *not* used); he wanted to include very ordinary-looking parts of LA, the parts that most residents see when going about their lives within the city.

I really liked that they used Grand Central Market and the Colorado Street Bridge, though in very fleeting scenes.  And I thought it was kind of funny that my town was in it quite a number of times with their use of the Rialto Theatre and Emma Stone driving up Fair Oaks Avenue.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ejaycat said:

I saw "La La Land" this evening.  I liked it a lot, and it definitely is a love letter to LA; the writer/director intended it be such.  The director also made it a point to show LA as is, with no "beautification," with only some well-known landmarks (notice the Hollywood sign was *not* used); he wanted to include very ordinary-looking parts of LA, the parts that most residents see when going about their lives within the city.

I really liked that they used Grand Central Market and the Colorado Street Bridge, though in very fleeting scenes.  And I thought it was kind of funny that my town was in it quite a number of times with their use of the Rialto Theatre and Emma Stone driving up Fair Oaks Avenue.  

Ah. Good ol South Pasadena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, neige said:

If it were up to me, it would be:

athletics at Inglewood: the most convenient and modern stadium for the biggest sport of the olympics.

ceremonies at the Coliseum: the most iconic stadium for the emotion of ceremonies.

RE: athletics at Inglewood and the myriad problems in getting that to work, I'm going to quote my own post from March....

On 12/03/2016 at 9:23 AM, Rob. said:

As Stryker said, this platform solution is best suited to stadiums with a more oval infield, with a lot of room to play with at each end. You can see from the video I posted on the previous page how similar the Coliseum is to Hampden in this regard. Looking at pictures of the Inglewood facility, not only does the field shape not look conducive, but the tiers don't look to be uniform, making it even more challenging. On top of that, I think the shallower rake of the Coliseum would give much better sight-lines for athletics. Imagine sitting at the top of the Inglewood stadium. You'd be looking straight down most of the time to even see the track.

All in all, I think it'd look a very odd, very bitty athletics facility if the bulk of those lower seats were lost because of a platform. It would also reduce capacity severely and it's only 70k to being with! So, the Colisseum looks a much more natural fit.

And all of that's before we even get into questions of transferring the facility between the owners and the OCOG. Would Kroenke really want to hand over his baby for that long? Hampden was out of commission as a football venue for a long while before and after the CWG in Glasgow to install and remove the track and associate facilities.

For all these reasons, athletics will certainly be in the Colisseum. The only question is where will ceremonies be. There are pros and cons to both venues in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2016 at 5:35 PM, neige said:

If it were up to me, it would be:

athletics at Inglewood: the most convenient and modern stadium for the biggest sport of the olympics.

ceremonies at the Coliseum: the most iconic stadium for the emotion of ceremonies.

On 12/12/2016 at 0:11 PM, Rob. said:

RE: athletics at Inglewood and the myriad problems in getting that to work, I'm going to quote my own post from March....

On 12/03/2016 at 10:23 AM, Rob. said:

As Stryker said, this platform solution is best suited to stadiums with a more oval infield, with a lot of room to play with at each end. You can see from the video I posted on the previous page how similar the Coliseum is to Hampden in this regard. Looking at pictures of the Inglewood facility, not only does the field shape not look conducive, but the tiers don't look to be uniform, making it even more challenging. On top of that, I think the shallower rake of the Coliseum would give much better sight-lines for athletics. Imagine sitting at the top of the Inglewood stadium. You'd be looking straight down most of the time to even see the track.

All in all, I think it'd look a very odd, very bitty athletics facility if the bulk of those lower seats were lost because of a platform. It would also reduce capacity severely and it's only 70k to being with! So, the Colisseum looks a much more natural fit.

And all of that's before we even get into questions of transferring the facility between the owners and the OCOG. Would Kroenke really want to hand over his baby for that long? Hampden was out of commission as a football venue for a long while before and after the CWG in Glasgow to install and remove the track and associate facilities.

 

On 12/12/2016 at 0:11 PM, Rob. said:

For all these reasons, athletics will certainly be in the Colisseum. The only question is where will ceremonies be. There are pros and cons to both venues in this regard.

Sorry for having missed this discussion from March...but I don't agree with your analysis. On the contrary, I think it's better to have a stadium wider and not so long.This is quite well explained in this figure from this document: https://fr.scribd.com/doc/100501692/FIFA-Football-Stadiums-Technical-recommendation-and-requirements-5th-edition

15418471_1179299732154806_8325631181891427520_o.jpg?oh=43ac671d23e0ad384886644c8d2312dd&oe=58B7FF53

The FIFA rules says:  No part of the pitch or field of play should be further than 190m from any seat or viewing space.

It gives a a wide and not so long shape for new stadiums. All of the olympic stadiums since 2000 have such a shape.

The best example of a modern stadium that was designed for having an athletics platform is Wembley stadium (even if the platform has never been built...but the stadium is designed for).

wembley-stadium-4.jpg

Wembley capacity: 90k seats for the football configuration, 70k seats for the athletics configuration and the distance from the farthest seat to center: 130m

vs

LA coliseum capacity: 80k seats for the football configuration, 60k seats for the athletics configuration and the distance from the farthest seat to center: 165m!

15540890_1179341032150676_2133975688884738362_o.jpg?oh=32178e07617c28c2f75200749a02e48e&oe=58E47A40

Inglewood stadium will certainly have a similar shape as Wembley stadium. So it is certainly possible to design an athletics platform!

with none of these disadvantages:

  • not wide enough: at LA coliseum, there is not enough room on the side to put both of the long jump tracks (which is the standart since 2000)
  • too long: at LA Coliseum, the distance from the farthes seat to center is 165 m!

and all of these advantages:

  • As Inglewood stadium is built from scratch, it is certaily possible to slightly modify the shape at the platform level to optimize the distance to the tracks (if needed)
  • The integration of the platform would also be planed from the beginning (anchors for the pilars...) => the platform cost should be lower than at the Coliseum.
  • and the last but not the least: all the facilities of a $2.6 Billions modern stadium!

I agree with Rob for 1 point: it is not really possible if the Inglewood stadium capacity is 70k seats only (in that case, the capacity for the athletics configuration would be 50k only). But is it really the planed capacity? (It is given 80k to 100k here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Champions_Stadium)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

So poutine, empanadas, escargot or herring could be on the menu depending on who gets the most votes in the comp?

nQCbge.jpg

Vote in the Semi Finals of the GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup to decide:

Semi Finals - GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup

Or enter a new logo in this year's Comp:

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Comp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2016 at 8:18 AM, RuFF said:

Um, the threat I was talking about wasn't about Ann NFL team moving to LA, though the NFL has been the most obvious user of the threat of moving. I was talking about the threat of moving the Ceremonies to Inglewood. I thought that light bulb would have gone off but since you're such a trigger happy lady....

And about the Walmart sponsorship, nothing connects them. I mean Stan Kronke is cool with using 3 billion of his own money for the stadium and if the opening and closing ceremonies are there he's just going to rent out the place. I'm sure nobody will talk about the NFL or Walmart because Stan is rich and his real interests, of course, is just the rent money if the Olympics come to LA. :)

 

On 12/11/2016 at 8:30 AM, RuFF said:

... that, or to make rent money and push his brand (Rams) and the brand of his organization (NFL) to make some money to make the 3 billion investment more sound. At a time the NFL talks about expanding to London or Toronto, why would they want to connect their brand to a Global event like the Olympics, an Olympics in America to boot! But Quaker can't see Walmart joining this Mix, so I can't imagine the IOC seeing that either because I'm sure they're fine with their current sponsors and there's like no real gain of having the sponsorship of a global brand whose reserves are second only to the US Government. Haha, what was I thinking? 

 

Oooh, you called me a lady.  I'm so insulted by that.  Love when you resort to the cheesy reverse psychology though.  That's cute.  

But no, please keep trying to make a six degrees of separation connection between the Olympics and Walmart.  I'm sure it will happen.. because you can imagine it!  And of all the companies that LA could partner with, this close connection between a stadium owner's wife (who has no real role in the company other than her last name and her family) will make it happen.  As if Walmart didn't exist in 1996 when the Olympics were in the American South, a region they're actually well known for having a presence in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, neige said:

The FIFA rules says:  No part of the pitch or field of play should be further than 190m from any seat or viewing space

The teams that will play in the stadium are not association football teams. They are American football teams.

FIFA standard pitch size: 105 x 68 meters

American football field size: 110 x 49 meters

American football uses a much narrower field, so the added space of the track is even worse for American football stadiums.

Moreover the NFL has even more financial power than UEFA. The Los Angeles Rams are worth $3 billion USD. PSG are worth $850 million USD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, neige said:

Inglewood stadium will certainly have a similar shape as Wembley stadium. So it is certainly possible to design an athletics platform!

with none of these disadvantages:

  • not wide enough: at LA coliseum, there is not enough room on the side to put both of the long jump tracks (which is the standart since 2000)
  • too long: at LA Coliseum, the distance from the farthes seat to center is 165 m!

and all of these advantages:

  • As Inglewood stadium is built from scratch, it is certaily possible to slightly modify the shape at the platform level to optimize the distance to the tracks (if needed)
  • The integration of the platform would also be planed from the beginning (anchors for the pilars...) => the platform cost should be lower than at the Coliseum.
  • and the last but not the least: all the facilities of a $2.6 Billions modern stadium!

I agree with Rob for 1 point: it is not really possible if the Inglewood stadium capacity is 70k seats only (in that case, the capacity for the athletics configuration would be 50k only). But is it really the planed capacity? (It is given 80k to 100k here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Champions_Stadium)

City of Champions Stadium is going to be privately owned and privately financed.  It need not conform to FIFA specifications.  It's going to be optimized for an NFL team.  There is little chance they'll put in a provision for an athletics platform (and by little chance, I mean absolutely no chance).  Stan Kroenke is not about to spend well north of $2 billion for a 1-time event that's not even guaranteed to happen, particularly if it compromises his NFL franchise.

Look at Wembley set up for an NFL game compared to the renderings for City of Champions stadium..

Wembley.jpg

Inglewood-Football-Stadium.jpg

Look how much extra space there is around the playing surface at Wembley than there is in Inglewood.  A large part of that is due to the fact that American football fields are narrower than your standard FIFA football pitch, but that's how NFL stadiums are designed.  They're not going to move seats further away from the field in the event they need to put an athletics platform in.  Certainly not when they have the LA Coliseum where the seating bowl was built and remains much more suitable to host athletics.  Because this stadium will be state of the art (as opposed to a renovation), it will get consideration to host the ceremonies, as we've already heard.  No shot whatsoever they're using this stadium for athletics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, neige said:

Sorry for having missed this discussion from March...but I don't agree with your analysis. On the contrary, I think it's better to have a stadium wider and not so long. This is quite well explained in this figure from this document: https://fr.scribd.com/doc/100501692/FIFA-Football-Stadiums-Technical-recommendation-and-requirements-5th-edition

15418471_1179299732154806_8325631181891427520_o.jpg?oh=43ac671d23e0ad384886644c8d2312dd&oe=58B7FF53

The FIFA rules says:  No part of the pitch or field of play should be further than 190m from any seat or viewing space.

It gives a a wide and not so long shape for new stadiums. All of the olympic stadiums since 2000 have such a shape.

It's not about viewing distances neige, it's about viewing angles and FIFA's document is (unsurprisingly) for football spectators/stadiums, not for athletics.

And it's not true all Olympic Stadiums since 2000 follow this shape. London's didn't and London's Olympic Stadium was built to be ideal for athletics. As a result of that choice of many of the back seats fall outside of FIFA's guidelines when it comes to maximum viewing distance for football (which is why many of these back seats are covered in tarpaulin when West Ham are playing there, see diagram below).

FIFA_OS_stad_combined.jpg

But London's Stadium is ideal for athletics - as it was designed to be - because it's the edge of the playing area (i.e. the track), not the centre, which is most important. In athletics stadiums viewing distance is deliberately sacrificed so everyone has an ideal view of the track without having to look down all the time. You go for a shallower stand angle, because that's the most important thing.

In the top tier of a soccer stadium (Wembley might be a bit of an exception because it's far more capacious than most soccer stadiums) or an American Football stadium, the folks in the top tier would have a horrible viewing angle for athletics. The Colisseum is far closer in shape to London's Olympic Stadium than Inglewood, and by that analysis I'd say it's better for athletics.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2016 at 8:17 PM, Nacre said:

LA Coliseum

  • somewhere between 60,000-70,000 seats in Olympic mode
  • lots of obstructed view seats after they add the block of luxury suites
  • not designed for performances like the opening ceremonies
  • closer to athletes and media villages
  • has hosted two Olympic opening ceremonies previously
 

I don't see how the Coliseum will have shrunk to 60,000 - 70,000 in Olympic mode when for the Opening Ceremony alone in 1984, there were 92,655 spectators clocked in (without the full use of the Peristyle section where only the 1,000-member choir was seated).  Granted, modifications were made once T&F began, but I think the grand Old Lady could then take in 80,000 - 82,000 for an average T&F day.  

All LA has to do is either restore the 11' feet of earth they took away; or just build the platform business.  But I just don't see how the seating capacity will have drastically shrunk.  (Well, I know there are the boxes, etc., etc.,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob. said:

It's not about viewing distances neige, it's about viewing angles and FIFA's document is (unsurprisingly) for football spectators/stadiums, not for athletics.

And it's not true all Olympic Stadiums since 2000 follow this shape. London's didn't and London's Olympic Stadium was built to be ideal for athletics. As a result of that choice of many of the back seats fall outside of FIFA's guidelines when it comes to maximum viewing distance for football (which is why many of these back seats are covered in tarpaulin when West Ham are playing there, see diagram below).

FIFA_OS_stad_combined.jpg

But London's Stadium is ideal for athletics - as it was designed to be - because it's the edge of the playing area (i.e. the track), not the centre, which is most important. In athletics stadiums viewing distance is deliberately sacrificed so everyone has an ideal view of the track without having to look down all the time. You go for a shallower stand angle, because that's the most important thing.

In the top tier of a soccer stadium (Wembley might be a bit of an exception because it's far more capacious than most soccer stadiums) or an American Football stadium, the folks in the top tier would have a horrible viewing angle for athletics. The Colisseum is far closer in shape to London's Olympic Stadium than Inglewood, and by that analysis I'd say it's better for athletics.

What I mean is that all of the stadiums since 2000  were wide enough to have both of the long jump tracks on the side and were not so long.

Yes London olympic stadium is longer than Wembley stadium but not as long as LA coliseum and it has a capacity of 80000 seats for a 150m maximmum distance to tte center (vs 70000 at Wembley for 130m and 60000 at LA coliseum for 165m)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awarding the 2024 and 2028 games together could come with complications for both LA and Paris. Both remain fully committed to 2024 and are not even considering the 2028 Games.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/12/14/Olympics/LA-28.aspx?ana=SBD Email 
 

Four-Year Delay In L.A. Hosting Olympics Could Bring Unforeseen Challenges

By Ben Fischer, Staff Writer

Published December 14, 2016

Font Size   Resize SmallResize NormalResize Large  |  Print  |  Share  |   
 
DC185F1F9E0C4929A96E9EEA220AC4CC.ashx?w=
LA 2024 is less reliant on new development than Paris, as it is focused on rentals
If the IOC awards L.A. the '28 Games instead of the '24 Games that the city has been seeking, it would raise vexing questions never contemplated before this week, Olympics insiders and business veterans said. IOC President Thomas Bach last week said he is contemplating major changes to bidding rules and did not rule out awarding two Games at once. If the IOC were to call both L.A. and chief rival Paris winners, it might prevent one from permanently abandoning Olympic ambitions, but the order of events would still be crucial, experts say. “The city that doesn’t get '24 is still going to feel they lost out,” said St. Lucia IOC member Richard Peterkin. “But maybe at least, you can live with it.” On one hand, it would undeniably be a victory for the USOC, fulfilling its top strategic goal of returning the Summer Games to U.S. soil for the first time since '96. But the four extra years would throw planning into turmoil. LA 2024’s team has been lobbying government agencies and politicians, negotiating rental agreements and venue plans with private owners and building public support based on a precise timeline leading up to summer '24. Also, the bid committee would confront the question of sustainability. Whichever organizing committee is given the ’28 Games would have to either attempt to sell sponsorship rights for an event a decade away, find additional private philanthropic funding (which is currently supporting LA 2024) or temporarily halt operations. 

FOCUSED ON '24: A spokesperson for the Paris '24 bid said, "Paris is in this for 2024. A 2028 bid would certainly require a different Games plan. The land planned for the Olympic and Paralympic Village, for example, is located in an area that is so attractive for future projects that it would be difficult to hold beyond 2024. We are fully focussed on this bid.” LA 2024 would have different issues, relying mostly on rentals and little new development. But L.A. and the USOC say they are focused exclusively on ’24. “We are absolutely laser focused on bidding for the 2024 Summer Games, and no thought or consideration is being given to any future games, whether it’s ’26, '28 or beyond,” said USOC Chair Larry Probst. "Our goal is to win the bid, to have the Olympic Games in Los Angeles 2024.” An L.A. bid spokesperson said, "We are only bidding for the 2024 Games." 

TRYING NOT TO LOSE POTENTIAL HOSTS: From the IOC’s perspective, the argument in favor of the radical reforms is straightforward. L.A. and Paris are on a shrinking list of cities with both the capability and desire to host the Olympics, and a traditional all-or-nothing vote would alienate the loser at a time when their continued enthusiasm for the Olympics property is crucial to the broader industry, veteran sports marketer Patrick Nally said. Also, it would spare the cost and hassle of new ’28 bid race, freeing up IOC team to deal with the Russian doping scandal and other strategic concerns. It is not clear how quickly the IOC or Bach intend to pursue these changes, and Bach was vague on exactly how he would accomplish his stated goal of creating fewer losers in the bid process. In theory, Nally said, the IOC could conduct the current bidding race under current rules, then declare in short order that the runner-up in '24 would be given the ’28 Games. But that would require extensive talks with current bidders, members and lawyers, all well in advance of the scheduled September vote on the ’24 Games. “(Bach) wouldn’t have said that if they weren’t a lot farther down the path of considering this than we all realized,” Nally said.

CREATING AN EVEN BIGGER WINDOW: Researchers have identified the long window (usually seven years) in between selection of a host city and the Games as a key driver of cost escalation and blown budgets, as economic and political circumstances change in ways difficult to foresee. This change would put the '28 Games 11 years out from selection. “If you get ’28, there’s now a lot more uncertainty about what government’s going to be in place, are people going to still be interested?” Peterkin said. However, Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist, a frequent Olympic critic, praised Bach’s concept, saying both L.A. and Paris require relatively little new construction, which usually causes the overruns. Zimbalist also speculated that LA 2024 could come to new terms with major rental partners UCLA or USC relatively easily. “There’s always more risk if you push it four years out, but I don’t think it’s a large risk,” Zimbalist said. He also said the Olympics as a whole would benefit avoiding the costs of a new round of bidding for ’28.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I don't see how the Coliseum will have shrunk to 60,000 - 70,000 in Olympic mode when for the Opening Ceremony alone in 1984, there were 92,655 spectators clocked in (without the full use of the Peristyle section where only the 1,000-member choir was seated).  Granted, modifications were made once T&F began, but I think the grand Old Lady could then take in 80,000 - 82,000 for an average T&F day.  

All LA has to do is either restore the 11' feet of earth they took away; or just build the platform business.  But I just don't see how the seating capacity will have drastically shrunk.  (Well, I know there are the boxes, etc., etc.,

USC's plans are to reduce capacity from 93,600 to 77,500 in football mode. (LA Times) So, take out another 9,000 for the installation of the track platform and you get 68,500 seats. And that's before security and camera crews eat up some more seating.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nacre said:

USC's plans are to reduce capacity from 93,600 to 77,500 in football mode. (LA Times) So, take out another 9,000 for the installation of the track platform and you get 68,500 seats. And that's before security and camera crews eat up some more seating.

But the eastern stands - which would be opened up for the Olympics - are presumably not included in the 77,500. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...