Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have not said the Olympics are a logical next step. The expenses are not as costly as they otherwise might be because LA is just becoming LA. It just happens that the things that are a part of LA's fabric happen to align well with things that benefit the infrastructure of hosting an Olympic Games. LA is not doing what it does so that it can host a games. LA is doing what it does so it can be LA. LA's existing direction compliments the possibility of hosting a games well, but the games themselves are not the reason LA is moving in the direction it's in.. But you're right, costs are likely to be more than what the bid book predicts. But that doesn't change things in LA as far as redeveloping the piggyback yard. That doesn't change the growth in downtowns population. It doesn't change huge investments and developments underway in LA. It doesn't change that there will likely be housing lining the LA River in the future. Those ideas have long been under discussion. LA doesn't need the Olympics, and quite frankly the Olympics don't need LA. They have Paris and Rome, two excellent choices. But, at the same time even without a need, they happen to compliment each other well.

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.

Good lord, enough with the constant sales pitch. It gets overbearing when you do this in virtually every post, especially when it's the same talking points all the time.

There is 1 important point though that seems to be missing throughout all of this though.. for all these projects in place that have funding secured, what is the timeline? Some of the articles I've read about the LA River are talking about a timeline that stretches decades into the future. That's 1 of the pitfalls of an Olympics. Because if you're the winning city, now you have a hard deadline where you have to deliver on your promises. And that's where costs tend to go up, where a project that may have been 20 years in the making now has to be complete in 7 years. In that regard, be careful what you wish for when you talk about what compliments current urban development plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'll say it again.. not every post of yours needs to contain a sales pitch for Los Angeles as if you're some real estate salesman trying to tell me a timeshare there. It's not necessary to make your point.
Your characterizations of the LA River ring true to me. Long term project. 11 years in the making. Already in motion. Not hearing much about a completion date though, and a couple of articles I've read put that date well past 2024 or even 2028. So I think you're drastically under-selling what an accelerated plan would mean and how much Los Angelinos (who according to you support everything, "here, take my money!") would be behind that, especially if the priority becomes a timely finish for Olympic purposes rather than a long-term plan that best benefits Los Angeles. So yea, it's not at the end of the day I could make that argument. I'm very much making that argument right now and let's see just how much the people in LA look at the benefits when that project becomes a part of the Olympic budget and there's a little sticker shock with what the cost will be. It's disingenuous to keep pushing this profile of LA that the people there are so willing to back these projects as if citizens in other cities (including some of those that are rejecting the Olympics) are not. I will certainly grant that LA will get behind the Olympics more than many other cities because of their history, but only IF the plans make sense. That may very well be the case. But again, I think you're making that leap a little too quickly because of this perception you have that LA will do what many other cities are not these days and that support (and in your own words, willingly and overwhelmingly) what will be a very expensive Olympic effort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol like LA would be able to pass a referendum! Not even Paris would probably pass it these days!

I actually think in a city like LA a referendum on the Olympics will pass. To be honest the good feelings from 1984 is really strong here. It must have truly been an excellent games because the older generation seems excited by doing it again and I think the younger generation won't really mind because it's LA and why not have another event to go too and get pumped for. Yes there is the sobering thought of funding but LA isn't Boston, it's a sports town a major sporting market, the majority of folks here will still say go for it anyway. LA is funny like that.

As for the comment on whether the all these other cities having talks of Referendums working in LA's favor I would have to disagree. If Rome and Budapest were to leave the race Europe would basically galvanize over Paris and it could be a first round KO. With Rome and Budapest there, then there is a minute possibility of splitting the Europe vote for Paris in favor of LA.

Still a two horse race with the edge going to Paris but still a lot of race left to go. I just hope LA figures out the Athlete's village thing out soon so that we can start pushing a fuller concept out to the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A referendum in Los Angeles today would probably succeed. That's largely because people in Los Angeles think that 2024 would be a repeat of 1984, with no (or at least little) public money being spent. People in the city think that LA84 was financially profitable because of the inherent virtue of Los Angeles instead of the fact that Los Angeles was able to dictate terms to the IOC since they were the only bidder.

My fear is about what will happen when the public eventually realizes that this is not true. If it eventually becomes clear that the people of Los Angeles will be responsible for $5 billion in taxpayer funding for the games, will there still be support for hosting?

From my time growing up in LA and going back there almost every year, I would say the answer is no. There has historically been very little public support in the city for giving in to the demands of professional sports leagues, and a refusal to commit public money to stadiums for American football and baseball (Dodger Stadium was privately funded), arenas for basketball (Staples Center was privately funded), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just guessing, but my guess is a lot depends upon how the referendum is worded.

Make it positive..something about wecoming the world to LA... you pass.

Make it negative... should the city or state spend $billions in taxes to host... not so much.

In any case, if the organizers think they could get 60%+ positive on a referendum they should do everything they can to have one. Throw down the gauntlet. If LA gets the democratic support of its' people, and the European candidates are fighting to prevent people from even voting, that's got to be a huge advantage for LA.

I'm no expert on California politics, but I always got the impression it's one of the easiest places to get a ballot initive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, truthfully a referendum in Rome would benefit other bids. It would provided an unwanted distraction for sure. Still, this is bad publicity and is a ding to the Olympic Brand. I'm convinced this cycle is more than Agenda 2020, but we'll see.

Then why didn't you post it in the Paris and Budapest threads as well? It's just as, maybe even more being a European city, relevant in those threads.

Better yet, we do have a thread for Rome 2024 in which it would have been by far the most appropriate. This thread would get awfully cluttered and go way off topic if it got posted every tit-bit of information from other cities whose only relevance to LA is that they are bidding for the same calendar year games as LA.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost think every bid city should have a referendum where the citizens can vote, I guess it's risky because then it can be a lot about what side organizes and can get out the vote. There's probably always going to be more motivation for the NO voters to get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think in a city like LA a referendum on the Olympics will pass. To be honest the good feelings from 1984 is really strong here. It must have truly been an excellent games because the older generation seems excited by doing it again and I think the younger generation won't really mind because it's LA and why not have another event to go too and get pumped for. Yes there is the sobering thought of funding but LA isn't Boston, it's a sports town a major sporting market, the majority of folks here will still say go for it anyway. LA is funny like that.

Boston isn't a bad sports market. They're just not the right city for a Summer Olympics. Especially in comparison to LA. No question it's a major market, but I don't know the argument that it's a sports town necessarily differentiates it from other U.S. cities to the extent that they wouldn't have the same pitfalls with regard to budgets and funding. That said, the fact that LA has so much in place and can offer a better setting than other cities they've competed against is what helps them.

A referendum in Los Angeles today would probably succeed. That's largely because people in Los Angeles think that 2024 would be a repeat of 1984, with no (or at least little) public money being spent. People in the city think that LA84 was financially profitable because of the inherent virtue of Los Angeles instead of the fact that Los Angeles was able to dictate terms to the IOC since they were the only bidder.

My fear is about what will happen when the public eventually realizes that this is not true. If it eventually becomes clear that the people of Los Angeles will be responsible for $5 billion in taxpayer funding for the games, will there still be support for hosting?

From my time growing up in LA and going back there almost every year, I would say the answer is no. There has historically been very little public support in the city for giving in to the demands of professional sports leagues, and a refusal to commit public money to stadiums for American football and baseball (Dodger Stadium was privately funded), arenas for basketball (Staples Center was privately funded), etc.

That's the concern for me. People are receptive to the return of the Olympics, but once they saw the price tag, they might have second thoughts and wonder if it's such a good idea. Is it something that would be beneficial for them. Good for SCCOG that they continue to pursue this even though it's an expensive endeavour. And eventually they will need to have people come to that realization.

Just guessing, but my guess is a lot depends upon how the referendum is worded.

Make it positive..something about wecoming the world to LA... you pass.

Make it negative... should the city or state spend $billions in taxes to host... not so much.

In any case, if the organizers think they could get 60%+ positive on a referendum they should do everything they can to have one. Throw down the gauntlet. If LA gets the democratic support of its' people, and the European candidates are fighting to prevent people from even voting, that's got to be a huge advantage for LA.

I'm no expert on California politics, but I always got the impression it's one of the easiest places to get a ballot initive.

Interesting thought, but that's a huge risk. If it gets through, it definitely gives them a leg up on the competition. But if it fails, it could knock them out of Olympic bidding for a while. Either way it's proposed, I think the danger is that it could galvanize the opposition and give them an opportunity to voice their opinion that they wouldn't otherwise have. To that end, it's probably not a risk worth taking, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"L.A. is doing so much but none of it is for the Olympics" is not a great selling point either. Paris planning to use many existing stadia (including the main stadium) falls inline with "agenda 2020" anyway. And like L.A., Paris also has it's own civic improvement plans called "Grand Paris" that are happening nontheless. So there's really no upper hand in that dept by L.A. if we really want to be constructively impartial. Besides, if it was really solely just about "agenda 2020" (which it's really much more complicated than that), then the USOC would've chosen L.A. from the start (but they didn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A referendum in Los Angeles today would probably succeed. That's largely because people in Los Angeles think that 2024 would be a repeat of 1984, with no (or at least little) public money being spent. People in the city think that LA84 was financially profitable because of the inherent virtue of Los Angeles instead of the fact that Los Angeles was able to dictate terms to the IOC since they were the only bidder.

My fear is about what will happen when the public eventually realizes that this is not true. If it eventually becomes clear that the people of Los Angeles will be responsible for $5 billion in taxpayer funding for the games, will there still be support for hosting?

Exactly. I also question that "support" when all the USOC did was polled a mere 600 Los Angelinos & all that was asked was "do you, or don't you, 'support' a Los Angeles Olympics in 2024" & then construed that as "81% support". Let's *independently* ask the real "nitty gritty" questions & let's see then where that "81%" goes from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grand Paris I don't know much about but I do know it's an ambitious plan for the city. I'm curious about that. What do you know about it?

Google is a wonderful thing..

http://www.societedugrandparis.fr/english

http://www.grand-paris.jll.fr/en/

http://untappedcities.com/2014/04/17/can-le-grand-paris-project-revitalize-the-greater-paris-region/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black, gold and red are pretty incongruous colors for a Los Angeles team, but as long as they don't use a faux-Euro name (IE "Minnesota United") then I am fine with it.

I do love the art deco design, even if it isn't an art movement particularly associated with Los Angeles. (LA didn't allow skyscrapers until the 1960's due to its pro-sprawl codes so there's no iconic 1920's towers except for city hall.) The gold and black are also very "LA Confidential" or "Chinatown."

That said, I am not sure what this has to do with LA's Olympic bid. Perhaps you should start a "General Los Angeles Developments" thread, RuFF.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, using 'Football Club' for an MLS team is one of those faux Euro names some of us hate.

This is a bit different, though, because it is the "international name" of the sport. And unlike other North American sports leagues, soccer teams routinely play against teams outside of Anglo-America. The Champions League finals match between Montreal and Mexico City last year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-KhHYNnTps) at the Stade Olympique was easily the most important game in Montreal's soccer history. If you are planning on routinely playing teams from Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, etc it makes sense to use the international name to identify yourself.

For example this year Seattle will be playing Mexico City in the North American (CONCACAF) Champions League, and it will be in the top 10 most important matches in the team's history. So I don't mind the "Seattle Sounders FC" name for the sake of comity with the Mexicans. It probably won't be enough to save our players from having batteries and bags of urine thrown at them for being evil gringos. But hopefully the attempt to adapt to the way the rest of the world does things will reduce the animosity of the Mexican fans a little bit.

I posted their logo as the LAFC stadium is proposed to be a 25,000 seat temporary swim stadium with a retractable roof should LA be awarded the 2024 Olympics. Just progress on that project.

The team's logo does not have anything to do with the stadium, though. It won't even be used as a soccer venue. It would either be swimming, rugby or field hockey.

Btw Nacre, the 1920's and that era of architecture are well represented in Los Angeles.

There are 1920's buildings in Los Angeles, but city hall and the Columbia Building are the only large Art Deco buildings I can recall in LA. Art Deco is far more associated with New York.

Seattle has an Art Deco skyscraper which was the tallest building on the west coast for 50 years, and no one thinks of Seattle when they think of that architectural style.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That IS actually an important part of the Olympics. Every Olympiad involves a campaign to sanitize the city by moving the homeless out of the city (even in London and Vancouver) and removing stray animals.

In the USA, the eastern cities have adopted a policy of low tolerance for the homeless, so most of them have moved to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle where there is more mild winter weather and more outreach programs. There are massive numbers of homeless people in Los Angeles who have migrated from New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. How Los Angeles is going to handle pushing its homeless situation is an important part of the Olympics.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what role this will play but Los Angeles is proposing 1.8 billion to end homelessness. At one point after LA was chosen by the USOC after dropping Boston, it was reported that ending homelessness would be tied to the Olympics and be a legacy of the games. Anyhow, more info surfaced today.

http://m.la.curbed.com/archives/2016/01/los_angeles_huge_homelessness_plan.php

LA is already doing a horrible job as is about sheltering the homeless during El Niño storms kek.

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...