Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From LAist, new renderings of the LAX-Metro Connector Station, completion date estimated to be between 2021 and 2023:

3c7aa7f11concoursemezzaninefloorplan-jpg

ad0459430lrtplatforms-jpg.jpeg

7e3694482metrohubaviationblvdlookingsout

9f9383164metrohubgroundlevelplaza-jpg.jp

7931b4c5fmetrohubmezzaninelevellookingno

ebace9364metrohubmezzaninelevellookingso

72bb74b6dmezzaninetolrtplatformlookingso

6a0ad7034vehicularpickupdropoffarea-jpg.

015610c05aerialwithprogrammaticcomponent

d937c00d4bikehubfromaviationblvdlookingw

888f0e63dbusplazalookingsouth-jpg.jpeg

 

Link:  http://laist.com/2017/04/17/lax_metro_connector.php#photo-6

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2017 at 11:16 AM, Rob. said:

Circumstances across nations differ so much. In London the government backing was a Godsend as the credit crunch hit in 2008 meaning no banks were willing to lend to the developers chosen to build the Olympic village and media centre. In the case of Sochi and perhaps Rio (where Mayor Paes has been named in a corruption scandal this week) corruption seems to be creep into the equation. Then there's the matter of simple pride - Athens not wanting anything in homecoming Games to be temporary, Beijijng wanting to build a huge national symbol like the Birds Nest.

I don't think government backing by itself is a problem though, and perhaps a realistically costed government backed bid would be as much a boon to the Olympic movement as a more heavily privately backed bid. And what would actually buy the IOC time would be a sensible double award, in whichever order.

This.  A well-run LA bid will be great for LA and a breather for the IOC, but it doesn't solve their long term problems.  They'll be a one-off, not necessarily a new model for other cities to follow.

What the IOC needs is to restore confidence in the current model.  The issue isn't so much the NOCs and the governments as it is the IOC.  They chose Beijing and Sochi.  They make demands on the host city/country that invite corruption.  That's where they need to look in the mirror and realize that they are the problem.

And a double award, as you noted, gives them a breather.  They lock in 2 very capable host cities and don't have to think about a Summer host for several years.  Let other cities make long term plans rather than to go after the next available Olympics.  There's this negative perception about hosting an Olympics, but that's what happens when you have it in the wrong city.  Paris is not a wrong city.  Building infrastructure related to an Olympics, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.  It only becomes that way if it's poorly managed and executed.  An Olympics with a well-thought out legacy plan is exactly what the Olympic movement needs right now.  And that's exactly what Paris offers.  Lock both them and LA in for 2024 and 2028, in whatever order.  Then maybe once we get past Tokyo, which seems like it may bring in some negative press in terms of costs, then the IOC will be in a better place going forward from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, RuFF said:

I agree that in either order the IOC wins. What I don't understand is why hasn't Paris already done this? More than LA, Paris has the opportunity to change the government backed model, especially because of the businesses that call Paris home. 

Paris is doing what's right for Paris.  Just like LA is doing what's right for LA.  They can boast how they're doing things differently and changing the formula, but do you really think LA cares about what happens to the Olympic movement after the Games are gone?  Hell no.  They certainly care about their own legacy and what it means for the city, but they're not trying to change the model for the benefit of the IOC.  They'll say that because it sounds enticing.  But don't be fooled in thinking either of these cities gives 2 shits about the best interests of the future of the IOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After L.A.'s, Paris' bid is as sustainable as you can get (especially for a European one). They're not building as much as other cities have done before. So to say that it shares the sams model that other cities have used is totally taking things outta context solely for the purpose of L.A. spin.

If Hamburg was still in the race, then that argument could've certainly been used against them (since they needed to build everything from scratch), but that's not the case here with Paris 2024. Besides, they'll have seven years to tweek anything in their plan anyway (if need be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

I have to disagree here. I believe Los Angeles stands to gain from hosting, but there is something deeper in the hearts of Californians when it comes to the games.  But the same could be said for France. 

In this particular instance I believe the French bid could do better, specifically by addressing its own formula, which is used by other cities as well. I have come to agree that the LA2024 bid is a one off, but doesn't change anything elsewhere. I believe that is something the Parisian bid can change, especially because it shares a model that most host cities use. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the duty of Paris2024.

Give it a rest with this "the Olympics run through the souls of Californians" as if anyone thinks that means anything.  And yea, remind the 88% who support it that it's projected to cost $5 billion (key word there.. "projected") and ask them how deep in their hearts the Olympics are.

The problem with the IOC is that they're making demands on prospective host cities that they shouldn't be asking to deliver on.  So saying that Paris should adjust its plans for the sake of helping the IOC is exactly what the problem is now.  That's not solving things; it's making things worse.  It's doing the opposite of what the IOC should be aiming for which is allowing the host cities to do what's best for them.  Again, isn't that what Agenda 2020 is supposed to be about?

There shouldn't be a model or a formula or a template that Olympic host cities need to follow.  Every city is different and that needs to be acknowledged.  Play to the cities' respective strengths rather than trying to exploit weaknesses.  Certainly there are things that can be learned from one another, but to tell Paris to change not the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I'm forced to believe that Paris needs the Olympics for its national crybaby crap

Of course you are, it must've been painful for you to come to this obviously inescapable conclusion.

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

22 minutes ago, RuFF said:

This theme of talking about one thing and others hearing and responding to something completely different all the while completely unaware of it is rather tiring. 

I would say the main tool to deal with that would be to ban you from posting here, but as we've established, can't get rid of herpes.

20 minutes ago, RuFF said:

And what I said had absolutely nothing to do with the IOC placing demands on what host cities should do. Instead, host cities themselves should know full well the risk, and that the Olympics aren't a regeneration project or an opportunity for nationalism, though it's already built in. Im forced to believe that Paris needs the Olympics for its national crybaby crap, and that the Olympics need Paris, not Los Angeles, to make bidding for the games appear more viable especially to europe. You guys have been rambling about it for years, and yet, you are content with more of the same. If anybody needs to prove something here it's Paris, and right now it's not doing that. It's a one off, on its own accord. 

And you're trying to force us to believe that crap about how LA has an emotional connection with the Olympics and it's in their hearts, speaking of rambling.  You can't avoid the nationalistic element of the Olympics, particularly in virtually any country other than the United States where it really does represent the whole country and not just a particular region or city.  It's laughable and ridiculous that you want to make this about doing right for the IOC and ignoring what the problem is here because LA so desperately wants the Olympics.  You think any of us give 2 shits about what the IOC wants or what they're about?  But unlike you, we're objective enough to assess the situation rather than to view it from and LA bubble and think you know what's good for the IOC.

Paris is a one off?  Explain to us how Paris is a one off but LA isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, RuFF said:

This theme of talking about one thing and others hearing and responding to something completely different all the while completely unaware of it is rather tiring. 

I know what you mean. So stop doing it.

15 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

And you're trying to force us to believe that crap about how LA has an emotional connection with the Olympics and it's in their hearts, speaking of rambling. 

I was just about to say; talk about hypocritical "crybaby crap"ola!

2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

And I am agreeing. LA can't do anything to resolve. It's a one off, and because Paris isn't doing anything either, it's also, a one fk'n off. By your own arguments to boot!

So then what's the problem! Paris 2024 & fk'n L.A. 2028 it is then! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RuFF said:

You're still too stupid to comprehend. We are having 2 different conversations so I'd rather you just have one with yourself.

And I am agreeing. LA can't do anything to resolve. It's a one off, and because Paris isn't doing anything either, it's also, a one fk'n off. By your own arguments to boot!

What happened to where you used to say how LA was going to create a new model?  Or were you just parroting something someone else said?

And you also are saying that Paris is more of the same and that they're not even trying to do anything about that.  Isn't that, by definition, not a one off?

But whatever,  Right now, don't know why I'm bothering.  So let's just end with a meme that seems appropriate at this point..

post2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RuFF said:

I have to disagree here. I believe Los Angeles stands to gain from hosting, but there is something deeper in the hearts of Californians when it comes to the games.  But the same could be said for France. 

In this particular instance I believe the French bid could do better, specifically by addressing its own formula, which is used by other cities as well. I have come to agree that the LA2024 bid is a one off, but doesn't change anything elsewhere. I believe that is something the Parisian bid can change, especially because it shares a model that most host cities use. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the duty of Paris2024.

You should offer your advice to Paris 2024.  And then, of course, there is such a thing as "unsolicited advice."

Ruff, the bottom line, getting past the shudda-cuddas, is let's see how 95 or so IOC members will cast their vote in September.  And I think it will be decided in one vote.  No succeeding rounds.  Or we might be in for a bigger surprise before a formal vote is even taken.  

Remember, Paul Ryan called off the House vote on the Republican Ill-Health We-Don't-Care Act to save his party embarrassing itself.  Bach might still pull a double hat-trick to save the two remaining cities some embarrassment.  If the USOC and LA-2024 have reliable spies in the membership, they should take a solid count of where that vote is going and add a 15% error/lying factor, to avoid a 3rd successive defeat for the US. .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuFF said:

There are two sides to each story. LA indeed is playing a very fine line. The thing is someone has to say something, and I get that you guys are saying something, but it has to come from the people of LA. You guys don't matter. You need people on the ground like No Boston or politicians saying this is wrong, but they're not. And there are reasons why. Los Angeles isn't building for the Olympics. Los Angeles is putting at the service of the movement itself. Unanimously, through all levels of government, the citizens, everyone, even No Boston and Andrew Zimbalist, everyone thinks LA is an ideal host of the Olympics. Why? Because the Olympics defined the city of Los Angeles twice before, and both times the games were woven into the fabric of its history and citizentry. Los Angeles grew sport because of the Olympics and for whatever reason, Los Angeles kept pace with the movement. So today, when LA is building a subway, in the works since like 1986, and its citizenry believes a subway that should have opened yesterday would benefit by being built quicker, even without the Olympics, it is indeed a fine line, perhaps even a shell. But why aren't the people of LA seeing that? That's who need to say that. But what's really happening is that the Subway to the Sea that needs to be opened quicker for the Olympics is just a press release that really means Angelinos wish they could have it open by rush hour Monday morning. People aren't identifying the Subway for the Olympics as much as they're identifying it as a new face of Los Angeles, something people want for themselves, not for the Olympics.

Yet, in both instances LA won the honor, why was it the only bidder after two rounds?  And lightning could strike a 3rd time the same way.  

Don't you even wonder??

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

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 4:32 PM, RuFF said:

Ouch. Double edged sword there buddy. The recipe in this screams exactly what has been wrong with host cities. 

Do you realize that the coliseum was originally built with public money?

What has gotten the Olympics into trouble is not the use of government funding, but rather governments wasting money. Every major city in the world spends money on public housing, including Los Angeles, so the fact that Paris will use a government funded village is not significant.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

Do you realize that the coliseum was originally built with public money?

What has gotten the Olympics into trouble is not the use of government funding, but rather governments wasting money. Every major city in the world spends money on public housing, including Los Angeles, so the fact that Paris will use a government funded village is not significant.

And this is the key part, but somehow there's still a stuborn blindness from certain posters - Build an Olympic village with public money is not the problem when these building have a posterior use and a full social recovery. And when it's righfully planned, this isn't a waste of money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UGH, "enough already with the many" AbraTwatson spinS. He twists any argument that there is in order to tailor-make it for L.A. :rolleyes:

And as far as Verbruggen is concerned, it could be argued that the IOC is trying to "take hold of the situation" already, by trying to get these TWO (not just one "L.A.") top "quality" bids locked in now for 2024 & 2028. And no, his words DON'T "apply directly & forcefully to L.A." That's just AbraTruffson spin there. 

As a matter of fact, Verbruggen doesn't even mention 2024, but he does go on to say that public spending is fine so long as it's being done regardless of the Olympics anyway, which is exactly what Paris 2024 is doing. And while his strategy about only approaching countries deemed worthy looks good on paper, there will always be the political fallout of the other NOC's crying foul & discrimination why they're being isolated & not included in the process. So it's one of those 'damn if you, damn if you don't' scenarios where there's no easy answer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FYI said:

UGH, "enough already with the many" AbraTwatson spinS. He twists any argument that there is in order to tailor-make it for L.A. :rolleyes:

And as far as Verbruggen is concerned, it could be argued that the IOC is trying to "take hold of the situation" already, by trying to get these TWO (not just one "L.A.") top "quality" bids locked in now for 2024 & 2028. And no, his words DON'T "apply directly & forcefully to L.A." That's just AbraTruffson spin there. 

As a matter of fact, Verbruggen doesn't even mention 2024, but he does go on to say that public spending is fine so long as it's being done regardless of the Olympics anyway, which is exactly what Paris 2024 is doing. And while his strategy about only approaching countries deemed worthy looks good on paper, there will always be the political fallout of the other NOC's crying foul & discrimination why they're being isolated & not included in the process. So it's one of those 'damn if you, damn if you don't' scenarios where there's no easy answer to.

You know who twisting again the words of an IOC representative for his obsessive LA 2024 cause

0xLKW.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

Old man Barron was actually living in Southern California when the Coliseum was built so I have to agree that I'm not sure that's called "public money". Speaking about public money and government controlled sport, Alan AbRuFFhamson has a new article specifically about the topic! :)

http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/04/19/enough-already-many-bid-hypocrisies/

He also wrote for us the day before. Speaking of a high ranking and influential figure who blogged about the current state of the IOC.

http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/04/18/tear-throw-away-start/

 

Ruff, you silly Valley Girl. 

Image result for Valley Girl memes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA2024 releases some renderings of the proposed venues:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/la2024/sets/72157680690947351

From the LA Times:  LA 2024 releases new visuals of potential Olympic Games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2017 at 8:56 AM, RuFF said:

Renderings were just released for a park under the new 6th Street viaduct, which I believe is scheduled to be completed in 2019-2020. The new bridge would probably be featured in pan shots of downtown LA. Symbolically, the new bridge closes one chapter of Los Angeles, and marks the beginning of another, especially as the 6th Street viaduct is deeply rooted in the history of Los Angeles and has been featured in countless movies, tv shows and auto commercials over the years.

I'm hoping that whichever plan for the park they choose to go under the new 6th Street Bridge will be lush and not have a lot of hardscape.  That area of LA needs more park space.   

Edited by ejaycat
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...