Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, RuFF said:

Granted that those may be valid points. But if you want to strike at the core of why European Cities are bowing out of the games, this would be a good place to start. The loss of the interest of hosting is welded to taxpayer dollars. 

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

Let's not veer off from what I said. Housing is a plus for sure, but that's not the what I am zeroing in on. I am zeroing in on taxpayer money. Taxpayer money is the key to everyone fleeing the Olympics. And housing is a definite advantage, in most cases I would assume, but tie it to taxpayer bucks and lining the pockets of development interests and the word housing will kind of just disappear in the taxpayers mind. 

Not entirely.  Corruption and mistrust are bigger culprits.  It's not like taxpayer money hasn't been part of Olympic bidding for a long time now.  No one objected before.  The problem these days is increasingly more people don't want their tax dollars spent on the Olympics and to benefit the plutocrats of the IOC.  They don't trust their city or their country's government to get intertwined with the Olympics.  It's why we've seen many cities enter the bid process only to come to the realization that it's not such as smart idea.  Taxes exist for a reason, but the people paying them want that money to benefit them, which the Olympics don't always do.  To that end..

Rob brought up a good point.  Spending money on a housing project is not something people object to.  There are benefits to building housing.  The issues come in when that is planned for and around the Olympics and then a post-games plan has to be executed.  That can be money well spent if it's done right.  The problem lies in dealing with the IOC.  They'll often make it difficult for a city to do it right.  And when we're talking about sports venues, that's even harder.

You mention lining the pockets of development interests.. would that not happen if private money is used instead of public?  Should those private interests put their money out there knowing the IOC is calling the shots?  This all goes back to what fundamentally needs to change about the Olympics.  The financial model is a problem.  But it's not THE problem.  The problem is the IOC.  They can do more to self-correct the problem than any city could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

Still, you can't get Angelinos to taxpayer back an Olympic Village on the LA River, even though the LA River promises to be the backbone of mega development for Los Angeles, with, or without the Olympics. So even though LA has a need and usually backs housing, throw in "Olympics" and that story goes to sh!t.

But in Paris it's evidently not deemed a problem. So LA isn't "showing" Paris anything as you confidentally claimed earlier. What LA is in fact doing is reacting to what its own taxpayers think. The dorms solution is a Plan B (albeit a very smart one) because Plan A couldn't be sold with an Olympics attached. Paris, on the other hand, is still going ahead with Plan A.

The conclusion we've basically reached is that of the two bidders remaining, only one has had to substantially change an aspect of its plans because of anti-Olympic mistrust - the city that we're told has Olympic blood running through its veins like no other. Sorry, couldn't resist the little dig. In truth, LA is right to change its plans in reaction to what people living there think. But can we drop the idea it's setting some kind of example to its rival. Paris and Parisians seem perfectly happy to have a new housing project as part of their plan.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether happy to be taxed for it, or resistant to being taxed for it, the Olympic mega villages concept is a complex risk for Paris that LA won't have to deal with. 

...it's so complex for Paris that according to them, it's a once in a lifetime proposition that changes back to a pumpkin in September 2017 if they they are not selected. Coming up with another project at another time may be impossible.

Less is more.

especialy less Olympics in LA.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so hypocritically hysterical about the whole OV debate, is that when L.A. was proposing a brand spanking new village over at the piggyback yards, said L.A. supporter was ALL over it, citing how much of a "legacy" it would bring to L.A.'s much NEEDED housing shortage. The very thing that Paris 2024 still wants to do. But now it's a "negative" for them cuz L.A. changed tact. It's the same convenient arguments over & over again, so of course many counterpoints will be said for the 'umpteenth time' but to no avail. It's simply how they operate, cuz L.A. can do "no wrong" in their L.A. bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, paul said:

Whether happy to be taxed for it, or resistant to being taxed for it, the Olympic mega villages concept is a complex risk for Paris that LA won't have to deal with. 

But every Olympic host city has to deal with this. Even after an L.A. Games, the next host city will have to come up with the "complex" Olympic Mega Village bcuz  not every city has a few thousand dorms just laying around to accommodate the athletes. It's one of those necessary evils. But if Paris can still make it work for THEM, then it's not as "complex" as an endeavor as you & others are making it out to be. 

20 minutes ago, paul said:

...it's so complex for Paris that according to them, it's a once in a lifetime proposition that changes back to a pumpkin in September 2017 if they they are not selected. Coming up with another project at another time may be impossible.

Yeah mean like the same once in a lifetime "game changing" opportunity. That the Olympic Games themselves will turn into a "pumpkin" if L.A. is not selected in September? Bcuz being able to do that at another time may also be impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take a trip in the wayback machine, shall we?  Then I have an interesting thought to piggyback these posts (pun totally intended)..

On 12/4/2015 at 1:35 AM, RuFF said:

I think the Griffith Park story is hardly a story. I won't be surprised if come 2024 the rules are bent and it hosts BMX mountain biking.

As far as the piggyback yards I see that the proposal is costly and complicated, but there are tremendous legacy benefits packages into that site. I wouldn't be surprised if both of these move forward.

On 12/31/2015 at 11:27 AM, RuFF said:

And just one more thing. What the Olympics would ask of LA, LA is already asking of itself. People in LA do not fund sports with tax dollars. The evidence is strong and long for that story. But if you asked them to fund the LA River, even if it would benefit the Olympics, you'd still be asking them to fund the River, which I think Angelinos want to do. Angelinos want to see a revitalized River. Same goes for NBC. They want to increase in house production. It's the reason all the studios are pouring money into expansions, Not the Olympics. there just happens to be a fit there. The MLS stadium, it's not for the Olympics. The Coliseum, it's not being renovated for the Olympics. The inglewood stadium is not being proposed because of the Olympics. Even the piggyback yards, they aren't becoming a part of the river revitalization because of the possibility of an Olympics. Removing Union Pacific and decontaminating the site to return it to the River has been in the discussion for years. Are there going to be high costs? Absolutely, even if LA doesn't win the right to host the games ever again, because Angelinos want to see a revitalized river and as a part of that revitalization will be the piggyback yards. And that's the thing, Angelinos are willing to pay for these things because even though sports benefit, they aren't the core reason Angelinos would do any of this. If they were the core reason you'd be right. LA would be solidly against hosting the games.

On 12/31/2015 at 6:38 PM, RuFF said:

The entire river is 51 miles. The revitalization of the river is a long term project for the city of Los Angeles that I can remember going back to 2005. So that's at least 11 years in the making. A consensus is that certain lots adjacent the river provide prime opportunities for restoring the habitat, recreation and flood control. The Piggyback Yards has long been identified as a lot that would be acquired for the revitalization of the river and these purposes. There are countless renderings of what is proposed for the yards. It's already in motion and has a preferred alternative established after a few years of review by the Army Corps of Engineers. There have been discussions of a tax in a river district in order to fund the revitalization. Kind of like a tax on new housing that benefits from being immediately next to a revitalized river. The point is this. It's going to cost 2 billion to remove contaminates and introduce it back to the river and that lot is key in the master plan of a revitalized LA River. Wouldn't it make sense to have the added benefit of an Olympics and a chance to renew interest in LA? Just all around the Exposure of hosting the Olympics would be an added on value of a revitalized river. The piggyback yards may benefit an Olympics Angelinos love, but it would benefit the river that presents economic opportunities in the region and stays true to caring for the planet which is a core part of Angelino culture. At the end of the day you could argue it's being accelerated for an Olympics, but people in LA are going to probably think that it's an added benefit to a revitalized Los Angeles river. The legacy there, that will have the typical media hype, but Angelinos have consistently supported projects like the river. Of reference, and to some surprise, Angelinos overwhelmingly supported high speed rail in 2008, imposed a self tax, support for new rail infrastructure is near unanimous except in Beverly Hills. Haha. These are things Angelinos care about and you'll see opposition, but I think it'll be overwhelming support.

Again, let it be said of Agenda 2020.. it's supposed to be about a city doing what's best for them rather than to follow a template.  That's exactly what's happening here.  Paris is proposing their village.  LA decided on something completely different because they felt it suited them better.  And whichever one the IOC chooses is probably not going to be any sort of commentary on the future of the Olympics but rather simply about the here and now of the 2024 race.

Food for thought though.  Let's say it's Paris 2024 and LA 2028.  Would this allow and perhaps encourage LA to tweak their bid knowing they have 11 years lead time rather than 7.  7 years is not a lot of time to push for a major urban infrastructure project (speaking of things that might be scaring away potential bid cities).  Give them an extra 4 years and that opens up some possibilities.  We know Paris has said they don't want that extra 4 years and that they're not in a position to wait until 2028.  Maybe that's an idle threat, but the flip side here is that maybe it's opportunity for Los Angeles.  That's not to imply they'll revisit their housing/village plans, but especially with more private backing rather than public backing, perhaps they moreso than Paris would benefit rather than be hurt by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Yea. But had the piggyback yards been selected the private committee proposed 75 million of their bucks and sought 1 billion from private developers. The stop was never the taxpayers. Taxpayers is the problem. Parisians are all over new housing, but when that Olympic Budget hits 10 billion, or 12 billion being directly tied to that figure taxpayers will say something else. It's at the core of the reason LA2024 backed out. For as nice as public funded sorely needed housing sounds, over budget housing on the taxpayer buck looses its shine. And that is you who always argues there's no way LA can pull off an Olympics with its budget. And while I believe there is truth to that, there is also truth to the concept that LA could easily absorb the Olympics because as individual events LA handles and has the venues to handle all of the events, except one, all the time. 

You say taxpayers are the problem.  What happened to "But if you asked them to fund the LA River, even if it would benefit the Olympics, you'd still be asking them to fund the River, which I think Angelinos want to do."  We all understand why LA changed course on this one and it makes sense.  If that you argued then that LA taxpayers would have been happy to fund a project like that, maybe you shouldn't argue now that the issue is how to pay for it and that's the reason they backed out.

And no.. no one argues that "there's no way LA can pull off an Olympics with its budget."  Several of us here are just a little skeptical of their confidence that it's so much less risky to go over budget.  If everything goes well, as it did for 1984, they can probably keep costs minimal.  But if not everything goes so well, what then?

Maybe Paris will cost more than anticipated.  That happened with Sydney.  Happened again with London.  Both of those Olympics and their legacies seem to be doing pretty well.  Specific to the housing argument though, it's really difficult for you to make a case that their Olympic village plan is an issue when once upon a time, LA was planning on doing something very similar and you were fully behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RuFF said:

also, let me recognize that the Athletes Village Paris proposes may be what is best for Paris. However, at its core Paris' Athletes Village has the same core of why people are saying no to the Olympic Games. For better or for worse, USC/UCLA eliminate that completely. 

You keep saying "core" for some reason.  You're right that many people are saying no to the Olympics, particularly across Europe (but also in Boston).  Guess what city that's not happening in?  Paris.  They're confident they can make this plan work and who's to say they can't, as past cities have?  That's part of the issue here that everyone looks at when the Olympics have cost too much, either by choice (Beijing, Sochi) or by unforeseen circumstances (Athens).  Few people seem to recognize when an Olympics is done right, and it's usually in larger more developed cities like a Sydney or a London.  Paris certainly falls into that category.  So yes, good for LA that they have something different to offer.  They and they alone could pull that off, so it's not a case where they're trying to show the rest of the world how to handle the issue of an athletes' village and try to create a new model for hosting the Olympics.  For all the rhetoric that's what the Olympic movement needs, you could just as easily make the same argument that what it really needs is for a city like Paris to propose and build an athletes' village and turn that into a successful legacy project so that other cities could follow suit.  And that neat thing about that is that if Paris gets 2024 and LA gets 2028, the next round of bidding wouldn't open up until 2023, so prospective bid cities would get a good look at how Paris is doing and wouldn't have to put their plan into action until after Paris has hosted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

It's at the core of the reason LA2024 backed out. 

No, it wasn't. The were several factors at play why L.A. finally said no to the piggyback yards. But cost wasn't the "core" reason why. Even Garcetti himself cited as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Let's take a trip in the wayback machine, shall we?  Then I have an interesting thought to piggyback these posts (pun totally intended)..

The pun of hypocrisy lmfao.

3 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Food for thought though.  Let's say it's Paris 2024 and LA 2028.  Would this allow and perhaps encourage LA to tweak their bid knowing they have 11 years lead time rather than 7.  7 years is not a lot of time to push for a major urban infrastructure project (speaking of things that might be scaring away potential bid cities).  Give them an extra 4 years and that opens up some possibilities.  We know Paris has said they don't want that extra 4 years and that they're not in a position to wait until 2028.  Maybe that's an idle threat, but the flip side here is that maybe it's opportunity for Los Angeles.  That's not to imply they'll revisit their housing/village plans, but especially with more private backing rather than public backing, perhaps they moreso than Paris would benefit rather than be hurt by it.

Exactly, & not only that, but 2028 would also give L.A. more of a relaxed timeframe to finish the purple-line extension to UCLA, rather than a hurrriedly & "very ambitious" schedule to try to get it done by 2024. That's where things then can start to get out of control (ala Athens 2004 last minute rushed preps), & right or wrong, where perception of big infrastructure projects tied to the Olympics start to get the negative headlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Paris 2024's plans for its OV are an augmentation of some existing buildings already there.  If I read the docs right, I think like 15%-20% of the essential bldgs for the OV are already there; except they will be re-purposed to serve as admin areas, common sites, i.e., cafeterias, etc.  The site happens to have some free land on which to then build the other residential units.  So it's NOT an entirely built-from-scratch project that LA's Miss Piggyback projects would have been.  

What's often not mentioned is that UCLA will also have to build MORE dorms in order to accommodate 10,500 athletes.  But if they can find good housing closer to the Perris Lake Rowing site, then UCLA housing for the est. 800 rowers won't have to be built and they would have the right # of beds, but broken up as it was in 1984 when the rowers were housed at UC-Santa Barbara.  

Or LA 2024/8 and UCLA will have to find more creative ways in squeezing all the athletes in there if no NEW dorms are being built.  But if there is satellite housing, then things wouldn't be too crowded in the UCLA-OV.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Actually, Paris 2024's plans for its OV are an augmentation of some existing buildings already there.  If I read the docs right, I think like 15%-20% of the essential bldgs for the OV are already there; except they will be re-purposed to serve as admin areas, common sites, i.e., cafeterias, etc.  The site happens to have some free land on which to then build the other residential units.  So it's NOT an entirely built-from-scratch project that LA's Miss Piggyback projects would have been.  

What's often not mentioned is that UCLA will also have to build MORE dorms in order to accommodate 10,500 athletes.  But if they can find good housing closer to the Perris Lake Rowing site, then UCLA housing for the est. 800 rowers won't have to be built and they would have the right # of beds, but broken up as it was in 1984 when the rowers were housed at UC-Santa Barbara.  

UCLA is already planning on building more dorms:  http://dailybruin.com/2017/03/12/ucla-to-propose-new-dorms-apartments-to-match-enrollment-increase/

And I thought I read somewhere that for the Perris rowing site, the dorms at UC Riverside could be utilized if need be to house the rowing/canoeing athletes.  UC Riverside is only a little less than 16 miles away per Google Maps.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ejaycat said:

UCLA is already planning on building more dorms:  http://dailybruin.com/2017/03/12/ucla-to-propose-new-dorms-apartments-to-match-enrollment-increase/

And I thought I read somewhere that for the Perris rowing site, the dorms at UC Riverside could be utilized if need be to house the rowing/canoeing athletes.  UC Riverside is only a little less than 16 miles away per Google Maps.  

Ah OK.  So, someone's already thinking along my lines.  ;)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Actually, Paris 2024's plans for its OV are an augmentation of some existing buildings already there.  If I read the docs right, I think like 15%-20% of the essential bldgs for the OV are already there;

Correct, it is "la cité du cinéma". It's not a joke!;)

(and also some shools and existing sport facilities)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, neige said:

Correct, it is "la cité du cinéma". It's not a joke!;)

(and also some shools and existing sport facilities)

Oh interesting, is this the area?  https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9220215,2.3390042,3a,75y,267.24h,89.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl8mdzsLFo-auZHOot6pfnQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

Yes it is....you can see the OV construction work has already started (UNIVERSEINE).

La cité du cinéma: http://www.citeducinema.org/en/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's sounding more tense than LA24 FOR SURE...maybe it will work or is he just reminding the members this IS France they are dealing with.

“But on our side, our project is only possible for ’24. We also believe this is the time to come back to Paris, or to Europe, in ’24. This is the fourth bid, we learnt a lot. It’s now or never. “Either the IOC family wants to choose Paris for ’24 or we will not come back for ’28. -Paris bid co-chairman Tony Estanguet said during a visit to London on Tuesday.

 

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

LA2024 continues its professional streak steering clear of harsh words or wishywashiness seen in the Paris team.

agree but they cant avoid Paris again.....much as many may want to.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-la-paris-2028-story,amp.html

I think it's become clear that Los Angeles has the superior bid. I have to side with Livingston that the Paris2024 team is bluffing on the OV only being available for 2024, too. LA2024 continues its professional streak steering clear of harsh words or wishywashiness seen in the Paris team.

Also, Alan Abrahamson made mention that the IOC should speak to Tony Estaunget about playing fairly. Bid week notes the OV as being LA's key to 2024 being the same thing (bluff) Paris is using to win the prize.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/bidweek-race-not-to-host-the-2028-games-is-on-as-olympic-bids-navigate-new-twist/

Maybe the IOC should talk to Casey Wasserman about playing unfairly.  Nothing the Paris guys have done is against the rules.  Who gives 2 shits if they've been wishy-washy.  You talk about bluffs, but this very much is a game of poker on a political level.  LA may have the superior bid (in no way is has that become clear except through the rose-colored glasses you don't want to take off), but that may not be enough to win this for them.  Again, same thinking here since day 1.. technical merit is not what wins Olympic bids.  We've seen that play out before.  If LA loses this because Paris fought dirty (and I'd hardly what they're doing fighting dirty), I have no sympathy for them.  And if Paris' bluff works, kudos to them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

It's important to be clear. Mayor Hidalgo was against the Olympics before she was for the Olympics and she specifically mentioned potentially trying for 2028 instead. From inspecting LA venues, to stepping into LA's marketing, to #shareparis, to "now or never". If those things aren't sending messages of the kind of people the IOC will deal with for 7 years if they choose Paris I don't know what would. And for that I give a huge amount of credit t the LA2024 team. For solid consistent support from the beginning, exceptional professionalism and marketing, and a razor sharp focus on 2024. LA2024 has kept their eye on the prize, Paris2024 have kept their eye on LA. And I think that says it all.

Grasping at straws, are we?  LA was going to build a new housing development for their Olympic village.  Then they weren't.  No one is going to remember any of that inconsequential bullshit when it comes time to vote.  Only the peanut gallery in a forum like this (and the occasional reporter like your BFF) think such things would mean anything.   They don't.  This is the IOC you're dealing with.  You can keep telling yourself how clear it is that LA has the better bid or all these supposed warning signs about Paris and their bid and the people they'd be working with.  Take a serious look at the situation and tell me you honestly think the IOC voters - the only 100 people out there whose opinions actually carry any value - will actually see what you want them to see.  If you're holding out for that, start marking 2028 on your calendar because that's the earliest the Olympics in LA will be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RuFF said:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-la-paris-2028-story,amp.html

I think it's become clear that Los Angeles has the superior bid. I have to side with Livingston that the Paris2024 team is bluffing on the OV only being available for 2024, too. LA2024 continues its professional streak steering clear of harsh words or wishywashiness seen in the Paris team.

Also, Alan Abrahamson made mention that the IOC should speak to Tony Estaunget about playing fairly. Bid week notes the OV as being LA's key to 2024 being the same thing (bluff) Paris is using to win the prize.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/bidweek-race-not-to-host-the-2028-games-is-on-as-olympic-bids-navigate-new-twist/

First, LMFAO you're still using Abrahamson as part of your defense argument when this guy not only show his real colors, but then he's a full liar with reasoning like a chedar cheese.

Second, if you think Estaunget is playing dirty, then my friend, you have seen NOTHING related to Olympic bids or your standards are too high (Or even delusional, but knowning you it's not a surprise). Then, you need to reclaim how Tony Blair was knocking every door for 2005 summit for getting every vote to London beating the better technically qualified Paris for 2012. Or how Beijing was treating to leaving the Olympics for getting the Olympics, or how people from Salt Lake City bribed for votes, or even Samaranch going to Palais Elysée to convince Mitterrand for Barcelona 1992. Estaunget did nothing wrong and he's doing the same as people from other bids did before. Even in highsight, they may have that right to put that ultimatum.

Third, even as pretending rational, this is a classic pettiness for a potential disappointment as happened with Toronto 2008 or Madrid 2020. Then better to keep calendar for 2028.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Grasping at straws, are we?  LA was going to build a new housing development for their Olympic village.  Then they weren't.  No one is going to remember any of that inconsequential bullshit when it comes time to vote.  Only the peanut gallery in a forum like this (and the occasional reporter like your BFF) think such things would mean anything.   They don't.  This is the IOC you're dealing with.  You can keep telling yourself how clear it is that LA has the better bid or all these supposed warning signs about Paris and their bid and the people they'd be working with.  Take a serious look at the situation and tell me you honestly think the IOC voters - the only 100 people out there whose opinions actually carry any value - will actually see what you want them to see.  If you're holding out for that, start marking 2028 on your calendar because that's the earliest the Olympics in LA will be.

This. I mean, who cares if Anne Hidalgo changed of idea for Paris 2024. There's the OMG possibility she thought it can be better a 2024 bid. External and internal factors are reasons for change every time. This is now a full level of trying hard at level of TRuff.

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...