Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This plan for the Athletes' Village seems to imply that negotiations for conversion of the Piggyback Yard are going nowhere. That suggests LA would get relatively little of the "Olympic excuse for gentrification of a decaying area" effect.

I think the LA bid is better off without it. Besides it was going to cost over $2 billion to buy it and clean it up. Let the piggyback yards be someone else's problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much should LA use 1984 in their bid, by saying to the IOC (subliminally or blatantly) 'we saved you the last time you were in a financial hole & the world was running scared, so let us do it again'?

They really don't have to spell it out. Unless the IOC members, new or old, are clueless, they know the score. Or, they SHOULD know the score.

But see the problem is, -- LA is always the IOC's reserve city. THey can always blackmail a laggard city and say: well, we can always go to LA. But with LA as an active candidate, it has taken itself out of the IOC's backpocket...and therefore, make their chances less. What would the IOC use to "blackmail" LA if they are falling behind??

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

This plan for the Athletes' Village seems to imply that negotiations for conversion of the Piggyback Yard are going nowhere. That suggests LA would get relatively little of the "Olympic excuse for gentrification of a decaying area" effect.

That's the paradox of a Los Angeles bid. It is the only US city that can host the Olympics affordably, but it is also the city with the least to gain. As purely entertainment the Olympics are not worth it. So what long term legacy will these games leave behind?

As a former resident of the metro area who goes back there every year or two I think Los Angeles desperately needs housing, a more diversified economy and solutions to its water problems. It does not need more sports and entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much should LA use 1984 in their bid, by saying to the IOC (subliminally or blatantly) 'we saved you the last time you were in a financial hole & the world was running scared, so let us do it again'?

About as much as Paris should play up how they haven't hosted in 100 years. Which is to say.. not at all.

Like baron said, the IOC knows what LA did in 1984. But so what. Does that have relevance to their current bid? Does it put LA in a better position to host 2024 that they have their history from 1984? Not really, IMO.

LA has a lot going for them with this bid. That's what they should play up. Not that type of ancillary crap that is not going to win the IOC over and if anyone risks coming across as smarmy and arrogant if they think that reminder is necessary. Their focus should be on why their 2024 bid is the right one, not why 1984 was the right one when that means nothing at all here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But see the problem is, -- LA is always the IOC's reserve city. THey can always blackmail a laggard city and say: well, we can always go to LA. But with LA as an active candidate, it has taken itself out of the IOC's backpocket...and therefore, make their chances less. What would the IOC use to "blackmail" LA if they are falling behind??

You've brought this up before, but I still disagree. LA is not the IOC's reserve anything, let alone now that they're actively bidding. Either way, it's unlikely the IOC would make a decision on the basis of keeping them as a reserve city, especially with South Africa on the shelf until 2032 and the USOC hungry for another Summer Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've brought this up before, but I still disagree. LA is not the IOC's reserve anything, let alone now that they're actively bidding. Either way, it's unlikely the IOC would make a decision on the basis of keeping them as a reserve city, especially with South Africa on the shelf until 2032 and the USOC hungry for another Summer Olympics.

No. Obviously, their being an active bidder changes the whole dynamics. But if they just stayed quiet, that is the situation. THe IOC was ready to go back to them when Athens 2004 looked like they weren't going to make it. Here's the thing: LA has stated before all they need is 24 months to mount a last-minute Olympics; and 2 years before a Games is when the IOC can slam the gate shut or not. ANyway, let's agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite frankly the IOC isn't looking for front or back pocket options. They don't have that luxury this time around, to be playing games like that. They need to get it right on the first go. Tokyo is proving to be problematic, Rio is proving to have many obvious issues, they're still getting over the European snub of 2022 and the financial negativity of Sochi, Athens and Beijing are overshadowing the progress London 2012 seemed to have made. So I say all of that to mean the IOC is simply looking for the best most stable bid at this time. Whether it comes from Paris or LA. They need stability over the sentimentality of "I haven't hosted it in 100 years" or the "Remember that time I saved your behind in 1984" This bid is about the very image of the IOC in an era of great corruption among some of the major sporting organizations (FIFA, IAAF). They have to get 2024 right so I truly feel it will come down to who has the best bid and nothing more.

As it pertains to LA. NACRE I think your point that LA has the least to gain from the Olympic movement might actually be it's strength. If all the infrastructure is in place, or being created for something else then the Olympic carbon footprint on the city is significantly diminished. The IOC is not looking to have decaying ruins strewn about a city to remind the population everyday that the olympics left us in this mess, like Athens. The Olympic movement when it comes to major cities simply hopes to inspire the youth to sport, not make them pay for it for years to come, they've learned that lesson and so have major cities. If you had someone with a house that is already prepared to host you and your family for 2 weeks would you not choose to go there over making another person pay out of their own pockets to build a house to host you and your family especially after realizing that that doesn't really help your image due to the fall out from the last time you had someone build a house (Sochi, Rio, Athens, Beijing)?

I think the main point from all of the referendums and cities dropping like flies from 2022, is that Cities are no longer buying into the legacy argument that the IOC is pedaling. The scale to which the IOC and the Olympics have grown too, means they have to go to cities with preexisting venues in order for it to make sense, be affordable and be profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it pertains to LA. NACRE I think your point that LA has the least to gain from the Olympic movement might actually be it's strength. If all the infrastructure is in place, or being created for something else then the Olympic carbon footprint on the city is significantly diminished. The IOC is not looking to have decaying ruins strewn about a city to remind the population everyday that the olympics left us in this mess, like Athens.

This is a key issue that I think needs to be addressed. The while elephant model is bad. But the temporary model that leaves little behind is not much better.

In the USA, in 1962 Seattle created a secondary civic center when it hosted a World's Fair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_21_Exposition) that used a mix of existing and new venues. It built the Space Needle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Needle), a new arena, museums, theaters, etc. The legacy of that World's Fair is that Seattle got an NBA team, one of the best ballet troupes in North America, and a walkable arts and entertainment park for events like music festivals and sporting events. Spending quite a bit of money helped turn Seattle from a backwater industrial city into a major American city.

For the Olympics, Barcelona in 1992 is the classic example of spending money on redevelopment. Barcelona spent a LOT of money on the games. But it spent it on stuff like an expanded metro system and beaches for tourists rather than white elephants.

Atlanta hosted an Olympics on the cheap, and a few decades later it's hard to see what benefit has been left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main point from all of the referendums and cities dropping like flies from 2022, is that Cities are no longer buying into the legacy argument that the IOC is pedaling. The scale to which the IOC and the Olympics have grown too, means they have to go to cities with preexisting venues in order for it to make sense, be affordable and be profitable.

It's not a bad argument. The problem is in the execution. It's not the IOC's fault when a city makes promises that they can't follow through on. You can make the argument that the IOC shouldn't ask those cities to make those promises in the first place, but no one forces a city to bid for the Olympics. And sometimes they wind up with cities that shouldn't be there in the first place, case in point Boston.

No question the number of cities that can hold a fiscally sound Olympics is much smaller than in the past and coming up with a plan that works is tough. But there are cities out there that can handle it because they have enough of the proper infrastructure in place and can supplement that with plans that make sense for the city. Barcelona is obviously the poster child for that. Atlanta was the opposite. The problem is that you have these cities with Olympic dreams where little benefit will go to their citizens. So good on those citizens for standing up for themselves and stopping plans from going forward that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had someone with a house that is already prepared to host you and your family for 2 weeks would you not choose to go there over making another person pay out of their own pockets to build a house to host you and your family especially after realizing that that doesn't really help your image due to the fall out from the last time you had someone build a house (Sochi, Rio, Athens, Beijing)?

Except that the only 2024 bid that was proposing to build a "new house" (Hamburg), is no longer in the picture. And barring Budapest (which really is the outsider in this race), all of the other 2024 bids are planning to use 'houses' that are already there. None are planning the mega spending of Beijing & Sochi. So L.A. is not the only 2024 bid that falls into the more frugal category here.

And as far as Athens & Rio are concerned, their situations are/were not necessarily directly related because of their spending. Athens, for example, squandered away half their lead-up time in getting things ready. So by the time they finally got their butts in gear, the timeframe was extremely tight & therefore the costs soared, with overtime, tighter deadlines & the "just get everything ready no matter what so we don't look like fools to the world" mentality by trying to get everything ready in half the time.

Others factors that this analogy also fails to recognize, is that if it were only about who's house was more prepared, but it's not. So many other intangibles are involved that also get much more complicated when you have over 100+ individuals from all over the world, each with their own set of idiosyncrasies & preferences trying to decide between a 'California-bungalow or Chateau-style' housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a key issue that I think needs to be addressed. The while elephant model is bad. But the temporary model that leaves little behind is not much better.

In the USA, in 1962 Seattle created a secondary civic center when it hosted a World's Fair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_21_Exposition) that used a mix of existing and new venues. It built the Space Needle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Needle), a new arena, museums, theaters, etc. The legacy of that World's Fair is that Seattle got an NBA team, one of the best ballet troupes in North America, and a walkable arts and entertainment park for events like music festivals and sporting events. Spending quite a bit of money helped turn Seattle from a backwater industrial city into a major American city.

For the Olympics, Barcelona in 1992 is the classic example of spending money on redevelopment. Barcelona spent a LOT of money on the games. But it spent it on stuff like an expanded metro system and beaches for tourists rather than white elephants.

Atlanta hosted an Olympics on the cheap, and a few decades later it's hard to see what benefit has been left behind.

I get that but you are also talking about 1962 and 1992, years of a different economic climate. Furthermore in this day and age the only countries that can truly benefit from that model are countries in the developing world who can use the olympics to build infrastructure because cities like Paris and LA don't need the olympics to initiate urban development. However after the global economic crisis, most countries, both developed as well as developing, don't have that kind of capital to invest in the games. The economic fall out from the 2014 World Cup and now the 2016 Olympics in Rio is a prime example of that. Sure brazil has brand new stadiums and sporting halls and even housing but at what cost? we can't compare bid races and legacy appeals of one bid cycle to the next because different factors are at play. The needs of the IOC itself has changed due to the current climate. Compared to the golden age where countries were falling over themselves to host the games as a centerpiece for their prowess on the world stage countries are now cringing at the thought of even being asked. The IOC, and the Olympics are not looked upon as the catalyst for modernization as the used to be back in the 60's and 90's. South Africa, a country that was almost guaranteed to win if they had decided to bid for 2020 isn't even considering bidding until 2032 citing early o'clock that it's due to the financial parameters mandated by the IOC. All of this to say we do not live in a time where the creation of museums, theaters and stadiums mask the bigger financial issues that face a country and it's population in when hosting the olympics. Hosting the games in the 90's and what they cost now are drastically different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bare with me I am learning how to use this multi quote feature

Looks like more of you are coming to see what I've been seeing about the LA bid. A huge advantage LA has is that it can now move on and place much greater emphasis on athletes and their experience and not the construction of venues and infrastructure.

I was saying that awhile ago but got shut down and boo'ed off the bored because in support LA people thought i was demonizing Paris. However both bids focus on the Athletes more so than construction. I just feel like the latest developments with the LA bid just makes it a little bit more competitive with Paris where as before the Piggyback yard concept would have definitely been their chilies heel. Now that they're using existing facilities we can now truly have a real debate with Paris.

It's not a bad argument. The problem is in the execution. It's not the IOC's fault when a city makes promises that they can't follow through on. You can make the argument that the IOC shouldn't ask those cities to make those promises in the first place, but no one forces a city to bid for the Olympics. And sometimes they wind up with cities that shouldn't be there in the first place, case in point Boston.

No question the number of cities that can hold a fiscally sound Olympics is much smaller than in the past and coming up with a plan that works is tough. But there are cities out there that can handle it because they have enough of the proper infrastructure in place and can supplement that with plans that make sense for the city. Barcelona is obviously the poster child for that. Atlanta was the opposite. The problem is that you have these cities with Olympic dreams where little benefit will go to their citizens. So good on those citizens for standing up for themselves and stopping plans from going forward that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

My comment was directed to the poster who said that Cities that already have preexisting infrastructure do gain from the Olympic movement and that it's a kind of waste to award the games to such cities. My statement was made to show that poster that, the legacy concept in this day and age is proving to be more costly and that cities are not buying the legacy idea anymore because of the massive debt that comes out of it.

Your statements are true but the IOC sets the precedent. If you continually chose cities that spend more or have to spend more to host the games, then you, by your actions, are telling future bidders that they need to spend a lot in order to win. They just chose Beijing again over Almaty, and Almaty has real snow and and a winter culture. They were the perfect candidates as NACRE had defined to benefit from having the games to improve upon infrastructure but the IOC went with money and what they know, even though they know Beijing were left with some white elephants after 2008. That is why I am saying it is no longer about legacy, like it was for Barcelona in 1992. The IOC has not been rewarding legacy bids in the last decade so cities aren't bidding under that premise anymore,

Except that the only 2024 bid that was proposing to build a "new house" (Hamburg), is no longer in the picture. And barring Budapest (which really is the outsider in this race), all of the other 2024 bids are planning to use 'houses' that are already there. None are planning the mega spending of Beijing & Sochi. So L.A. is not the only 2024 bid that falls into the more frugal category here.

And as far as Athens & Rio are concerned, their situations are/were not necessarily directly related because of their spending. Athens, for example, squandered away half their lead-up time in getting things ready. So by the time they finally got their butts in gear, the timeframe was extremely tight & therefore the costs soared, with overtime, tighter deadlines & the "just get everything ready no matter what so we don't look like fools to the world" mentality by trying to get everything ready in half the time.

Others factors that this analogy also fails to recognize, is that if it were only about who's house was more prepared, but it's not. So many other intangibles are involved that also get much more complicated when you have over 100+ individuals from all over the world, each with their own set of idiosyncrasies & preferences trying to decide between a 'California-bungalow or Chateau-style' housing.

FYI I am sorry, it's my fault I did not put the quote from the other person to which I was responding too because you misappropriated my analogy. I did not write that quote to compare the current bidders of this 2024 cycle. I know that both Paris and LA are using pre existing facilities. I was writing in response to a point made where the poster said that a bid with already existing infrastructure and facilities don't gain from hosting the games and that it hurts them in the IOC's eyes because it does not leave an olympic legacy. I was just pointing out that the IOC at this time is actually in need of a city like that to help with their current image. Whether that comes from Paris or LA or Rome or Budapest was not the point of my post and I actually think we can all agree that the IOC as an organization needs to choose a more stable bid with less construction and rehabilitation costs this cycle more so than in previous ones due to the simple negative press they have received and the fall out out of cities refusing to bid due to potential cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was saying that awhile ago but got shut down and boo'ed off the bored because in support LA people thought i was demonizing Paris.

Sorry, but this is total nonsense. No one here is denying what L.A.'s strengths are. There's a big difference in being in "support" of L.A., & then there's hyperbole. For some to continue to talk about them as if they're the only ones in the race that have this all figured out & giving the impression that the other candidates are just totally left in the dark is what is being "shut down & booed off".

A couple of people fall in this category when it comes to L.A. & certainly the post that you're responding to this about certainly is. This is a competition afterall, & some people like to forget about that aspect when talking about their bid of choice with such bombastic 'support'. And that's what becomes the problem here when it comes to that.

Your statements are true but the IOC sets the precedent. If you continually chose cities that spend more or have to spend more to host the games, then you, by your actions, are telling future bidders that they need to spend a lot in order to win. They just chose Beijing again over Almaty, and Almaty has real snow and and a winter culture. They were the perfect candidates as NACRE had defined to benefit from having the games to improve upon infrastructure but the IOC went with money and what they know, even though they know Beijing were left with some white elephants after 2008.

You can't judge the 2022 race as a precedent of anything when the IOC was left with two really bad choices after all the Europeans pulled out. They chose accordingly after the bad hand they were dealt. Like the 2020 race, the IOC went with what they felt was the safest choice for them after ALL things considered. And unlike the 2020 race, the IOC was still virtually split as to which sucky choice they should go with for 2022. Certainly not an ideal race to draw any conclusions from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statements are true but the IOC sets the precedent. If you continually chose cities that spend more or have to spend more to host the games, then you, by your actions, are telling future bidders that they need to spend a lot in order to win. They just chose Beijing again over Almaty, and Almaty has real snow and and a winter culture. They were the perfect candidates as NACRE had defined to benefit from having the games to improve upon infrastructure but the IOC went with money and what they know, even though they know Beijing were left with some white elephants after 2008. That is why I am saying it is no longer about legacy, like it was for Barcelona in 1992. The IOC has not been rewarding legacy bids in the last decade so cities aren't bidding under that premise anymore,

Choice is an illusion. The IOC can only choose between those cities that bid, regardless of who they want in the race. Like FYI said, you can't judge the IOC for not awarding a once-every-four-years event to a relatively unknown region of the world in Central Asia. And even if you do make that argument, remember that 84 votes were cast and 40 were for Almaty. Don't look at Beijing's victory as if the whole of the IOC favored them over Almaty when that's obviously not the case. Almaty had their negatives as well and as much as Beijing is 1 of the symbols for Olympic over-spending, there is an argument that winter sport will benefit from having their showcase event in China rather than Kazakhstan.

So again, look at the last 3 bids. Yes, all the Euro candidates for 2022 dropped out and we were left with giant douche and turd sandwich. For 2020, the only 2 Euro bids (after Rome dropped out) were Istanbul and Madrid with shaky political and financial issues to deal with. So no wonder they won. And 2018 featured Annecy (what were they doing there in the first place), Munich, and a 3rd timer in Pyoengchang who very nearly won 2010 and very nearly won 2014. Going back earlier than that, I remember thinking at the Beijing Closing Ceremony that I hoped London wouldn't try to out-do them. They didn't. The most expensive Summer Olympics in history was followed up by 1 that was much more fiscally responsible. Unfortunately we then would up with Sochi and Rio and they fell back into a bad cycle. Barcelona was the right city in the right place at exactly the right time. The IOC was fortunate that they were presented with that option then and as much as history knows that their win wasn't so pure, hindsight tells us that was a smart selection.

So you say the IOC has not been rewarding legacy bids. Other than Almaty versus Beijing, what bid would have been better for that line of thinking? Cities aren't bidding because the IOC's list of demands has gotten longer at a time when costs are soaring and they're not doing much to help the problem. They should be working with these cities to make an Olympics more sustainable and no question they're scaring some off by not doing that. But like you brought up, how do you find balance with coming up with all the infrastructure that's needed (whether it's existing or need to be built) and trying to use the Olympics to transform your city. That Barcelona accomplished that may or may not mean there's another city out there that could do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI and Quaker I think we may have veered way off topic on this particular discussion. This came out of the fact that someone said LA does not stand to gain from the olympic movement because they are using existing venues and won't need the olympic movement to improve infrastructure. That is an argument that can be applied to most of the 2024 bidders. my original counter point to that person was simple. In this time, with the negative press the IOC is getting around the world, a city like that is exactly what they need. Get in, get out, have nothing to build have little to pay for, leave no mess behind focus on the sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my original counter point to that person was simple. In this time, with the negative press the IOC is getting around the world, a city like that is exactly what they need. Get in, get out, have nothing to build have little to pay for, leave no mess behind focus on the sports.

What the IOC needs is very different from what the IOC wants. The IOC voters want the Olympics to be seen as transformational - a force for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI and Quaker I think we may have veered way off topic on this particular discussion. This came out of the fact that someone said LA does not stand to gain from the olympic movement because they are using existing venues and won't need the olympic movement to improve infrastructure. That is an argument that can be applied to most of the 2024 bidders. my original counter point to that person was simple. In this time, with the negative press the IOC is getting around the world, a city like that is exactly what they need. Get in, get out, have nothing to build have little to pay for, leave no mess behind focus on the sports.

There are still costs (security being chief among them) that make "little to pay for" impossible. Even a city like LA or Paris is not going to have 100% of the infrastructure they need and will still have to sink at least some money into an element they need for an Olympics that may or may not necessarily benefit them for the future. Case in point the Coliseum.. as much as there has been talk of renovations, making that stadium ready for track & field is a much different animal than making it more friendly for USC and/or a temporary home for the NFL.

To zeke's point - which I couldn't agree more with - the IOC is looking to leave an imprint on a city. Not just get in and get out. If they wanted to do that, have 1 city be the permanent host for the Olympics so you know they'll have everything they need. Even then, there are still considering costs for each time you want to host the Olympics. You're right that the IOC is better served by changing their focus and in theory, that's what Agenda 2020 is supposed to accomplish. Far easier said than done, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the biggest problem of all is that your perception of the situation here 'is all created in YOUR head', (due to your blinders-on L.A. salesman pitch enthusiasm), which 'you then proceed to project these feelings which are justified by those very thoughts' (ie "demonizing" the other bids. Which I find you ALSO using that particular word interesting).

Not to mention this patronizing & condescending attitude that you then take by stating that there must be something mentally wrong with some of us here simply because we don't buy into your L.A. has the "upper-hand" rhetoric, (which is totally subjective on your part). And it's not the first time that you've done this & you do it to anyone who challenges your position.

I've acknowledged in many specific instances that L.A. has it's own strengths & that they will be a competitor. But the fact that some of us state the challenges that L.A. still also has to overcome does not signify that anyone else is "demonizing" the other bids or that those particular supporters are getting "backlash" simply because of their support of L.A. Last time I checked, this was an Olympic FORUM to discuss all of the pros & CONS of all prospective Olympics bids. But if that's not something that some people like here because it seems to them in their "heads & thoughts" that it's "backlash", then this isn't the place to be, & perhaps all you guys in "support" should go start your own twitter feed or something.

"But alas, that's unimportant, though. Because it's easier to revert to the line of thinking that's becomes the go-to starting point that justifies what you'll then project".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But seriously, talk about "projecting & fabricating other positions to distract from a genuine discussion. But since you view it that way you justify your behavior with it".

No one, however, is taking away from things that are coming from L.A. This came down cuz someone "else" mentioned that they also tried doing what you were doing but that they then were "shut down & booed off", which coukdn't be further from the truth.

Then you decided to chime in with your projectile nonsense & trying to paint yourself as the poor little victim in all this (which is typical of you). But none of the "groupies" here buy it. Only your groupies do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hosting the games in the 90's and what they cost now are drastically different.

1) That is true.

2) The increases in cost are not really avoided with temporary venues.

If Los Angeles ends up spending $175 million to use a football stadium as an aquatics center (they've budgeted $100m just for the inconvenience payment to LAFC alone, before even beginning the work of converting the stadium) that is still a waste.

The security costs will be another $2 billion dollars flushed down the toilet. Even if it is the national government that pays for it rather than the city of Los Angeles.

Even with a plan that involves remodeling existing venues and building temporary new venues, the Olympics are still a massive waste of money. So what benefit will Los Angeles see from this? How will our country benefit?

Until we see real reform from the IOC, I would prefer that the USA not bid for another Olympics.

Edited by Nacre
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...