Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, FYI said:

Like I said to paul, I'm not being anymore a little overdramatic than him claiming "L.A. is a 'FANTASTIC' place to live!!!!" Talk about 'exaggeration'.

That's great.  Saying you're not being as over-dramatic as paul is like someone saying they're not as big a troll as TruFF.  Pretty low bar there.  I know as well as you do that this is how arguments go on GB.  Someone makes an exaggeration, so the counter-point has to be an equally big exaggeration.  Good for pail that he's being over-dramatic.  I expect that from him.  But if you're going to stoop to his level, don't be surprised when you get called out for making a ridiculous statement.

6 hours ago, FYI said:

I know that L.A. is doing a lot of civic improvements throughout the city, but what about for the everyday, poor Angelino. Why are so many of the middle-class leaving California in droves, etc. 

That's not just an LA thing.  The middle class is being priced out of many major cities because of increasing costs.  Didn't help that California was mired in budget deficits a few years ago, seemed to right the ship somewhat, but are now headed in the wrong direction.

6 hours ago, FYI said:

If you think otherwise, fine. But like you told your buddy ZK the other day, if you're going to disagree with me about something, then cite your reason, instead of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.

I'll try not to be as timeshare salesman-y as a certain other poster..

MEASURE M

downtown los angeles renaissance: the good, the bad and the needs improvement

LOS ANGELES DEVELOPMENT

How infrastructure planning is being used by LA as a blueprint for sustainable urban development

I'd go on, but you probably don't want me to.  I think the reality of what LA is lies somewhere between "a FANTASTIC place to live!!!!" and "Who in their right mind would want to live in L.A."  Heed your own advice and maybe don't respond to paul's exaggeration with an exaggeration for the sake of exaggerating.  I know we're trying to find balance in this thread, but that's not it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nacre said:

That isn't because people hate Los Angeles, though, it's because real estate, water and electricity are all in high demand. (Well, many people outside of Los Angeles hate the city, but the people who live there do not.) The real estate cost issue also forces people with lower incomes out of Manhattan and San Francisco, yet no one calls them "third world."

But we're not talking about San Francisco & Manhanttan. We're talking about L.A., where a lot ot the characteristics of social inequality resembles many cities of the "developing world", is that a better term fo use? Since yes, I know that using "third world" nowadays is not very PC. And it's not like I'm making it up, one of these articles is from the New York Times which cites just that:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/opinion/welcome-to-hooverville-california.html

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2015/07/08/43566/will-economic-inequality-turn-la-into-a-third-worl.amp

And yes, I know that a lot of the middle-class leaving has a lot to do with the extremely high real estate prices in California, which is why I went on to say - (leaving for places) "where their money can take them a lot further", & which was really one of the things that I was getting at.

I mean really, in L.A. where a shanty, little old box can easily cost you $500K, & in other parts of the Southwest you can virtually have a brand-new palace, in comparion, for the same amount of money, or often times for even less, than it's really a no-brainer, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

That's great.  Saying you're not being as over-dramatic as paul is like someone saying they're not as big a troll as TruFF.  Pretty low bar there.  I know as well as you do that this is how arguments go on GB.  Someone makes an exaggeration, so the counter-point has to be an equally big exaggeration.  Good for pail that he's being over-dramatic.  I expect that from him.  But if you're going to stoop to his level, don't be surprised when you get called out for making a ridiculous statement.

Ugh, like you're one to talk about stooping to certain people's levels here & making ridiculous statements yourself. :rolleyes:

10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Heed your own advice and maybe don't respond to paul's exaggeration with an exaggeration for the sake of exaggerating.  I know we're trying to find balance in this thread, but that's not it.

Again, practice what you preach here then. And call it whatever you want, but that's just your opinion, though. And for someone who is actually known for driving some people away from here, bcuz you enjoy to argue for the sake of arguing (& those aren't my words, but the words of the person that you ran off from here a few months ago. Too bad that doesn't work on Truff, though), don't talk to me about "balance".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

That's not just an LA thing.  The middle class is being priced out of many major cities because of increasing costs.  Didn't help that California was mired in budget deficits a few years ago, seemed to right the ship somewhat, but are now headed in the wrong direction.

Yes, but like I mentioned earlier, the social inequality within the city itself is becoming much more stark & at a faster pace than any of the other major U.S. cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, FYI said:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/opinion/welcome-to-hooverville-california.html

https://www.google.com/amp/www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2015/07/08/43566/will-economic-inequality-turn-la-into-a-third-worl.amp

And yes, I know that a lot of the middle-class leaving has a lot to do with the extremely high real estate prices in California, which is why I went on to say - (leaving for places) "where their money can take them a lot further", & which was really one of the things that I was getting at.

I mean really, in L.A. where a shanty, little old box can easily cost you $500K, & in other parts of the Southwest you can virtually have a brand-new palace, in comparion, for the same amount of money, or often times for even less, than it's really a no-brainer, IMHO.

First paragraph from the Times article.. 

"A GENERATION ago, this West Coast metropolis became a “third world city.” At least in the rhetoric of certain East Coast thinkers.

And the 2nd article is essentially just referencing the first one.  It's a fair point about the income inequality in a city like LA, although to bring the "third world" line into this discussion without the same context is a little awkward.  Not to mention..

Third World diplomats say NYC is grosser than the Third World

Third World Chicago: What we want to avoid

Of course, there is a certain irony here.  We keep talking about how LA isn't like Rio in the context of an Olympic bid, but here we are talking about issues of income inequality where we're trying to compare a city like LA to make them seem more like a Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

First paragraph from the Times article.. 

"A GENERATION ago, this West Coast metropolis became a “third world city.” At least in the rhetoric of certain East Coast thinkers.

You took it out of context, though. Bcuz once you start to read along, you'll see that the article then agrees with that first paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FYI said:

Again, practice what you preach here then. And call it whatever you want, but that's just your opinion, though. And for someone who is actually known for driving some people away from here, bcuz you enjoy to argue for the sake of arguing (& those aren't my words, but the words of the person that you ran off from here a few months ago. Too bad that doesn't work on Truff, though), don't talk to me about "balance".

Do I sense someone doing some projecting? :lol::rolleyes::DB):P

You've gotten in your fair share of pissing contests too.  I have too, I know that.  I ran someone off from here?  Cool.. hope it was someone who deserved it.  You're right though, too bad we can't get rid of Herpes, speaking of things that would help this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FYI said:

You took it out of context, though. Bcuz once you start to read along, you'll see that the article then agrees with that first paragraph.

You were the one who introduced that idea though, and not until it was brought up how fantastic and fun is.  Again, I get bringing up the counter-point, but would you really be pointing out socio-economic problems of LA if someone else wasn't trying to build it up?  (Not that Herpes hasn't been doing that for awhile now).

And for the record.. the population of Los Angeles has remained on an upward trend for years now.  There are very real issues with income inequality, but to paint a picture that "oliticians there are hardly doing anything to make the lives of the citizens there to be better" isn't necessarily true until we're talking about the haves versus the have nots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, I get bringing up the counter-point, but would you really be pointing out socio-economic problems of LA if someone else wasn't trying to build it up?  (Not that Herpes hasn't been doing that for awhile now).

What's wrong with that, though? It's not like you haven't told 'herpes' yourself that L.A. isn't really the "grand utopia" as he's painting/selling it out to be, either. And it's not like I'm saying that L.A. is a total cesspool either (although, quite a few people would probably have that view anyway). But citing the city's real problems shouldn't be taken as a knock, when in fact those are very real concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FYI said:

What's wrong with that, though? It's not like you haven't told 'herpes' yourself that L.A. isn't really the "grand utopia" as he's painting/selling it out to be, either. And it's not like I'm saying that L.A. is a total cesspool either (although, quite a few people would probably have that view anyway). But citing the city's real problems shouldn't be taken as a knock, when in fact those are very real concerns.

What difference does it make what he said?  I agree that pointing out the negatives of a city (regardless of what else has been posted) is fair game.  But you said earlier "Who in their right mind would want to live in L.A." so clearly you think it's pretty undesirable. That's a pretty strong opinion if you're goal is merely to refute the "fantastic and fun" line.  And yes it's true that many people have left California to go to other states, and 1 article does refer to it as a mass exodus.  The number 1 reason for that is the high tax rate.  Which obviously is tied into the issue of income inequality.  If LA and California have become more undesirable places to live, particularly for the "have nots," then that's your main culprit right there and probably not so much things like traffic and smog, which people can deal with a lot better when the cost of living isn't so high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What difference does it make what he said?  I agree that pointing out the negatives of a city (regardless of what else has been posted) is fair game.  But you said earlier "Who in their right mind would want to live in L.A." so clearly you think it's pretty undesirable. That's a pretty strong opinion if you're goal is merely to refute the "fantastic and fun" line.  

It's like that old saying, Quaker. --insert locale name here-- "is a great place to visit, but I sure wouldn't want to live there!" 

12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And yes it's true that many people have left California to go to other states, and 1 article does refer to it as a mass exodus.  The number 1 reason for that is the high tax rate.  Which obviously is tied into the issue of income inequality.  If LA and California have become more undesirable places to live, particularly for the "have nots," then that's your main culprit right there and probably not so much things like traffic and smog, which people can deal with a lot better when the cost of living isn't so high.

But I didn't say that things like traffic & smog were the main culprits. I said when you "pile on things like that" on top of the real problems, then it's not so "fantastic & fun" anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

. I think the evaluation is going to leave a big impression of what LA is doing and by the billions upon billions of investment they'll see with their very own eyes, they're going to see a New LA. 

Which just hosted, as of this year, only 33 years ago.  Whereas, the other candidate city on the other side of the globe, certainly acclaimed perhaps "The Most Beautiful City on God's Green Earth", has yet to host Games which were re-founded in that city, after nearly a century!  I wonder which one the heavily Euro-centric body would lean to??  :blink:

(BTW, except for the downtown metro stations, I don't think any of LA's outlying metro stations, old or new, are at the doorstep of the major venues, let alone the minor, more distant venues (i.e., there is no metro link to Long Beach, is there?  How far is the Santa Monica stop to the Beach Volleyball site?  Anaheim stadium?)  So, for the most part, the official Olympic family and devoted fans will still have to depend on surface transport to get to AND from LA's sites.  

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

^Plus, what I find so hysterical in that so-called post, is how laden with total hypocrisy (yet once again) it's filled with. 

So when L.A. can spend "billion upon billions of investment" it's called the - "New L.A." fever again. But when other global ciites "facing a lot of the same challenges", such as Paris & Tokyo, are doing exactly the same thing as L.A is, it's called "more of the same". Hypocrisy, anyone?!

When the evaluation committee arrives in L.A. all they're going to see is constructions sites. Nothing "new" that they haven't seen before, especially coming from Europe where many of their urban centers are also experiencing this "new" trend called investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i keep flying over the Hollywood park construction and it honestly looks as impressive as any recent olympic park/stadium project.....it's massive. it's tangible....that what will be seen from 5,000 feet as any incoming flight approaches LAX, it's directly to the west of LAX "between" the 2 runway clusters. One sees construction in every big city all the time.....it's a bore and annoyance most of the time...but this thing is exciting. Also our new supertall downtown is a nice addition...not my favorite building but it adds a nice mass to the space......the flat side that faces west is the best looking part.

here's a fun video of the coliseum cauldron

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If there is any confusion which stadium is doing what.....here is the LA ceremony plan.

LA 2024 unveils groundbreaking citywide ceremonies concept

On July 19, 2024, LA 2024’s proposed Opening Ceremony will begin with a torch relay down the peristyle of the LA Memorial Coliseum, which will be filled with 70,000 spectators for a Hollywood-produced program of live entertainment, top musical performances and a live viewing and virtual-reality experience of all Ceremony events at the LA Stadium at Hollywood Park. The Torch Relay will proceed past iconic landmarks on the streets of Los Angeles, connecting the city’s diverse neighborhoods, until it reaches the new LA Stadium at Hollywood Park.

Simultaneously, up to 100,000 spectators at the new LA Stadium at Hollywood Park will witness a breathtaking celebration of sport and the Olympic Movement, drawing on LA’s extraordinary capacity as the global hub of entertainment. The LA Stadium at Hollywood Park will stage the formal Opening Ceremony elements, including the Parade of Nations, the Olympic Oaths, the official opening of the Games and the lighting of the Olympic Cauldron.

On August 4, 2024, the LA Memorial Coliseum will host the formal elements of the Closing Ceremony, including the Parade of Athletes, the Olympic Flag Handover and the extinguishing of the cauldron, a fitting location as LA closes the next chapter in its rich Olympic storybook. The new LA Stadium at Hollywood Park will simultaneously host spectators for live viewing and high-tech entertainment.

LA2024-Ceremonies-concept-stadiums-olymp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@barron

...definitely but it's kinda unprecedented to have these caliber of facilities all lined up (figuratively and literally) in advance which offers flexibility to deliver anything the partners can dream of. They can basically do anything anybody asks or desires and do it bigger than any host in the history of the games.....with a deep focus on both legit history and tradition AND simultaneously embrace the future. Even The Forum (which completed an 80million dollar renovation in 2014) is part of the regenerated Hollywood park district so why not toss in another 18,000 seat legendary Olympic arena into the viewing mix.

This Hollywood Park district is probably comparable to the London Olympic Park in that it is transforming a whole district of the city that had not been refreshed for many years. I wont say it was a bad area before but by LA standards Inglewood would be considered somewhat less desirable....although it has always been a important community in LA of wonderful people and families. This is definitely a complete transformation to the area that will make it a new revitalized destination. I'm so excited to see this regeneration and enjoy all the fun it's going to bring the city. Don't forget we will host the Super bowl in the new district in 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

If the scale isn't clear from this picture, the Coliseum is roughly 3.5 miles East of the new stadium, and 4.5 miles North. 

Oh, and forum looks great in this picture. Is it scheduled to host any events?

It's Hollywood; so that is what they call in the industry "forced perspective." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

If the scale isn't clear from this picture, the Coliseum is roughly 3.5 miles East of the new stadium, and 4.5 miles North. 

Oh, and forum looks great in this picture. Is it scheduled to host any events?

Gymnastics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

How far is the Santa Monica stop to the Beach Volleyball site?

The new Expos line dead ends about 4 blocks form the Santa Monica Pier

2024-los-angeles-olympic-venues-03.jpg

4 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

 (i.e., there is no metro link to Long Beach, is there?

yes, the blue line has been running for over 5...10...20......25! years......it loops downtown LB blocks form the water and venues.

2024-los-angeles-olympic-venues-02.jpg

Edited by paul
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...