Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Making a double award seem more appealing? It does look like LA has more to do than Paris, so would benefit from being the later one. The more I think about it, the more it looks like this could be the reverse of the World Cup farce - the IOC could save themselves with a double award. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

16 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:


This line is needed yesterday and if the Games is what it takes for Metro to speed it up and get it done already,  I feel there will be very little opposition to it (Except for maybe Beverly Hills Unified School District)
 

According to this, Beverly Hills finally can't slow down the progress of the subway construction anymore:  

http://www.lamag.com/driver/beverly-hills-finally-loses-crazy-stupid-subway-battle/

Thank goodness, too.  It was them and Westside residents and some of the people they elected into local government who stopped subway construction through their part of town back in the 1980s; classism and racism under the guise of supposed methane pocket concerns.  

Edited by ejaycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

I can see the goal vs obligation thing, yeah, true.

It will be interesting to see how LA2024 and Metro decide to word it moving forward.

That's the thing, IMO.  Right now this project is about the people of LA and their willingness to fund it to benefit them.  If the IOC comes in, they run the risk that the project could become about them and additional costs are for their benefit, not that of the population of LA.  That's where things could get a little hairy, if the perception changes to where they're doing this to benefit the IOC and paying to help them in the form of cost overruns more than for the citizens of LA,

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RuFF said:

uaker is injecting his narrative into what he thinks is happening but fails to really understand what is happening in LA. In quakers mind LA is going to rush to finish in time for the games. In Metros mind they're going to rush to finish because they have a ton of shovel ready projects and just as much taxpayer approved funding for matching federal grants and low interest loans. It benefits LA to have Measure M. Without Measure M Quaker would be right, but from a financial perspective it's highly lucrative for LA to be ahead of the curve with EIR's and local money ready to compete for federal money, now.

 
5

As you said, outside of you and LA2024 and LA City Hall, nobody cares how you get the Purple Line built.  All that matters to the IOC voters -- having experienced a similar thing in Rio -- will this unfinished project so close to our Games, if we give them 2024, look good for our brand??  Will it attract more cities for our future bids, or, regardless of the nuts and bolts, will it be lumped with unforeseen costs and TURN OFF wannabee bidders?  That's all they care about.  SO, for that reason alone, it doesn't make sense for LA to rush it.  Either way, 2028 looks better for everyone concerned - LA Bid, the IOC and their brand.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

As you said, outside of you and LA2024 and LA City Hall, nobody cares how you get the Purple Line built.  All that matters to the IOC voters -- having experienced a similar thing in Rio -- will this unfinished project so close to our Games, if we give them 2024, look good for our brand??  Will it attract more cities for our future bids, or, regardless of the nuts and bolts, will it be lumped with unforeseen costs and TURN OFF wannabee bidders?  That's all they care about.  SO, for that reason, it doesn't make sense for LA to rush it.  Either way, 2028 looks better for everyone concerned - LA Bid, the IOC and their brand.  

I definitely see the fear factor in all of this, but I don't think the risk will be the same as in Rio and the IOC should to acknowledge that.





 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that Rio did open a major subway expansion plus a nifty light rail in time for 2016. Both of which the IOC is happily taking full credit for. 

Side note that has nothing to do with the Olympics... Unfortunately, as if far too common, the Rio expansion benefits richer parts of town, not the critically undeserved poor. See also line comma purple. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I think before making a statement that the Purple Line will serve the wealthy one should examine the demographics of those riding the packed busses just a few feet above the route. 

I was just gonna say something similar.

And, the Purple Line already serves low-income areas, particularly the Westlake/MacArthur Park Station.  If anything, the extended purple line will serve the city of 2 of the city of LA's largest employment centers, where people of all income levels work.  

I can't imagine the residents of the Westside's Wilshire condo corridor taking the subway, for some reason, but it would obviously be a service to them, as well as possibly their housekeepers.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. I know its irrelevant. 

Feel free to ignore me ya'll.

Just thought it was fun.

 

And I stand by my comment weeks ago when I said the opening scene of La La Land was iconic. Its definitely not the best movie in the world, but it was very much much a stand out cinematic experience.

Opening scene of the GG only confirmed that. 

But I want to be clear I do not believe La La Land is the best movie in the world however I do believe it was the best movie of 2016 and it was perfect timing because it highlighted Los Angeles at a time when it's an Olympic candidate City.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

LA2024 tweets about La La Land sweeping the Golden Globes winning 7 of 7.

That's the kiss of death for LA 2024.  La La Land will win the big film awards this Jan-Feb; but the other city Mia goes to film her movie, the one with the tower, will probably win the real life plum in September.  ;-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, baron-pierreIV said:

That's the kiss of death for LA 2024.  La La Land will win the big film awards this Jan-Feb; but the other city Mia goes to film her movie, the one with the tower, will probably win the real life plum in September.  ;-) 

Kiss of death?

 

Ok Pierre. 

 

Yes, Paris will likely win, but slow your roll. "Kiss of death"

 

Come on now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely we're not going to overanalyse this tweet in the same way some overanalysed the Paris team tweeting pictures of the sun are we???

:o

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

I feel that LA posting about La La Land articulates what's wrong with LA's bid: It's too in love with itself to recognize its lacking features. But I look forward to seeing either the 2024 or 2028 games there. 

Oh come on.  I may poke fun at Jesse, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with LA tweeting about a movie.  No, LA2024 is not in love with itself.  Certain posters here might be.  Tell us.. what features is LA's bid lacking?  If LA loses, IMHO it won't be because the bid was lacking anything and more because the IOC is more interested in Paris.  I think it's going to be that simple.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

  Tell us.. what features is LA's bid lacking?  

An Eiffel Tower? 

I still worry about the financing for LA2024. Their plan of "We can do this for a fraction of the price of recent hosts, with only a small contingency fund. We won't go over budget because... we won't."

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Los Ángeles Times:

Jan. 9, 2017

L.A. Olympic bid report forecasts $11-billion boost for local economy

http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-sn-oly-econ-impact-20170109-story.html

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RuFF said:

http://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php/articles/1045614/study-claims-los-angeles-2024-could-increase-economic-output-in-the-united-states-by-183-billion

11 billion for the region and 18.3 billion for the country. It goes on to indicate economic impact for France should Paris host, which would be less than the region surrounding LA should LA host. Of course it's an LA2024 commissioned study and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Don't forget http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/study-suggests-los-angeles-2024-could-generate-over-11-2-billion-local-economic-output/

 

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...