Jump to content

Recommended Posts

LA controls the Olympic conversation in LA, and probably all of the United States. Flip that to San Francisco and that conversation goes to Shh. Point being is that LA has the formula the IOC needs. The IOC needs to regain control of its brand, that has nothing to do with Paris.

Again.. what does that even mean? You ran with this concept from that 1 story here on GB and at this point, I don't think even you know what it means anymore. Just remember though.. it took an absolutely massive failure on the part of Boston for them to be in that position in the first place. Otherwise, we're not having this conversation. Call that good fortune or whatever you will, but if LA lands the 2024 Olympics, they owe a big thank you to Boston for being so horrifically bad that they got LA back in the picture as opposed to if Boston had made it to the deadline and LA didn't get that second chance.

No question the IOC needs to regain control of its brand. LA probably has a very strong bid that the IOC would be happy with. But for crying out loud, stop pretending like Paris is some non-entity and that the IOC's goal of restoring their reputation has nothing to do with them.

The IOC doesn't seem to have an image problem in North America. Canada is only a few years removed from a fairly successful Olympics. 3 out of the last 4 cycles have seen a bid from the United States, and more than a few cities were interested in 2024 (sadly, somehow an ill-suited city was their initial choice). NBC just pledged billions of dollars in future rights fees. Now look at Europe. 0 bids in the last cycle after no less than 6 countries had shown some interest. The previous 2 cycles, the only non-European city in the running was the winner. That's where they need their reputation restored. A Paris Olympics would go a long way towards doing that. If you're talking about the IOC needing to regain control of their brand, that has as much to do with Paris, if not much moreso, than than LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On to the others. Istanbul, for its part, certainly had the allure ands attraction of an exotic new frontier but didn't really market itself well IMO, and shot itself in the foot to the point that months out from the vote it was pretty clear it wouldn't cut it. NYC may also have had the new location appeal, but even before it sabotaged its chances with its stadium debacle was fast losing the battle for my personal heart and mind in favour of London.

Istanbul was really NOT a viable bid--both physically and security-wise. And considering how things have deteriorated in that neighborhood, the IOC was far-sighted to skip Istanbul. I am also wondering if FIFA is not having nightmares about Qatar now, just in terms of security. I don't know how they can secure NINE sites in a muslim country. OK, we'll discuss that in another folder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the video captures the raw feel of LA. It's a city experiencing tremendous cultural growth, and it's not surprising that 100 years later it's competition would be Paris, specifically. Paris is a traditional cultural powerhouse, to say the least. But LA captures the raw feel of the new. Again, a strong suit for LA when pandering to new audiences. In the US Los Angeles is the epicenter of a booming creative class, and we haven't seen anything yet. Of course, I know nothing though.

No need for the snarky last sentence. I happen to agree with you on this point. LA's creative (read Hollywood) and technological industries can bring a lot to its bid if they play things right and this is one area where rival cities will look on with some envy.

I don't, however, think that means they're controlling the conversation. But they need to keep hitting on this usp.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I did misunderstand some of what you were saying. Yes, LA is controlling its own conversation well because there is seemingly little opposition. I won't dispute that. That's different from being in control of the conversation the IOC will be having about all contenders though. That's the one that matters.

And if anything, your post above has only hardened my own opinion on this. If LA's "proven framework" keeps the Olympic brand alive in the region, then the IOC may see no harm in letting LA wait a little longer, instead choosing to get continental Europe back on board for 2024. I'm still yet to be persuaded that a Paris '24 / LA '28 combo is anything but win-win for the IOC, and I see no signs yet of LA putting the IOC in the kind of conundrum that makes this impossible by saying they won't bid again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When using the term controlling the conversation I'm not sure it's understood.

Becuz you are using the term incorrectly -- and then passing it off as "misunderstood." If we misunderstand you, then obviously, we are not communicating in the same standards of language. So if LA loses the vote, will you say that "the IOC did not understand LA's msg which LA controlled"?

:rolleyes:

Methinks you need to go back to the drawing board to retool your personal strategy in boosting LA. We, the rest of us, KNOW what LA can offer, and how those assets really rate in this race. You, and sadly for you, Ruff -- and I don't read your long screeds (my time is valuable), just don't seem to get it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When using the term controlling the conversation I'm not sure it's understood. My rivals here are controlling the conversation and anti sentiment of the Olympics is controlling the conversation. These guys themselves have a list of European cities that dropped out or won't bid if Paris doesn't win. That, regardless of any of us think, right now, is the conversation.

In LA, its citizenry is having a more positive conversation about bringing the games to LA for a 3rd time (I live in Miami, btw). Zooming out in the US, people want the games on US soil but don't want them in their city. As soon as you step out of LA you have Andrew Zimbalist and Patrick Dempsey who blast the movement with negativity ala Hamburg. You move out of LA and you lose the conversation.

Now Paris enjoys good to great support, but does it have the conversation under control? I'm assuming because of wide support and no organized opposition that it may be in a good to fair position.

However, LA will have had 40 years of controlling the conversation and solidly engaging the LA population via LA84 foundation. It's a proven framework for keeping the Olympic Brand alive and strong in the region. It is in LA's interest to market that? Couples with Hollywood and the Silicon Valley there is incredible opportunity for the Olympic brand, so much so, and this is an assumption, that Bach found himself meeting with major social media executives in the Silicon Valley after having visited LA. And if I am not mistaken, LA has moved up to #2 for start ups after the Silicon Valley. It's in LA's best interest to market these valuable assets of their bid.

You keep using the word "conversation," but I'm not sure even you know what point you're trying to make anymore. baron is correct that when you say we're misunderstanding you, it's probably because you're not making as much sense as you think you are rather than the rest of us being able to grasp the concept. The fact that you're talking about what we're discussing here doesn't necessarily represent what's going on in the world. For you to conflate the 2 ideas means you're making a different point than you think you are.

For the most part, no one here has disputing that LA and their citizens have a positive outlook on the Olympics and have for a while now despite the turmoil created by the IOC. No one is disputing that LA makes a good case to be the right choice for 2024. But then you put them up against Paris, who you tend to have a very patronizing view of. You can play up LA all you want, but unless you're giving Paris (and Rome and Budapest) the same critical look, you're not being fair to this competition, nor are you representing the actual conversation the IOC will be having when they make their decision. If you put as much time and effort into understanding what motivates the IOC and learning about the other candidates, then maybe LA wouldn't be such a slam dunk choice as you seem to think it is. And again, for any of us to make such an argument is not to put down LA or say that the bid isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's to acknowledge that there is another city out there that can make a compelling case and may just be the right city to further the Olympic brand and regain control of the conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Why have your cake when you can eat it too? I hope the IOC are already dropping hints behind the scenes, just to make sure that USOC don't do a France & throw a huge strop if they don't get 24.

NOC's do not actually have the temperament of petulant children. I'd say nor are they that ignorant, but then again, we're talking about the USOC who thought Boston would be a better choice as a bid city than Los Angeles.

The USOC bounced back from New York's poor finish for 2012 to return for 2016. After that, they say out 1 cycle to get their house in order and are now back in the running. If they lose 2024, they'll most likely be back for 2028 especially if the circumstances seem favorable for a win, which at this point seems pretty likely. The IOC is not going to drop hints. Mostly because the IOC voters are 100+ individuals, not necessarily 1 cohesive body. If LA or Paris wants to feel out their chances, that's on them to do that. Either way, this is not the 1992 vote where there were serious behind the scenes dealings and a fairly pre-determined outcome. If Paris is destined to win this, they don't need that to happen in order to gain the majority of the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rendering of USC Village, which would be the Media Village if Los Ángeles gets the 2024 Olympics.

villagefeatured1.jpg

village.usc.edu

Here are some pics taken last Sunday, Feb. 21, 2016, of how the construction is progressing at University Village adjacent to USC.

P1020327.jpg

Courtesy jgacis skyscraperpage.com

P1020344.jpg

Courtesy jgacis skyscraperpage.com

P1020351.jpg

Courtesy jgacis skyscraperpage.com

P1020403.jpg

Courtesy jgacis skyscraperpage.com

P1020427.jpg

Courtesy jgacis skyscraperpage.com

P1020436.jpg

Courtesy jgacis skyscraperpage.com

P1020396.jpg

Courtesy jgacis skyscraperpage.com

A number of newer buildings currently under construction on the USC campus itself are being built in the Gothic style, I don't know why. The older buildings' architecture on the USC campus is Mediterranean Romanesque and Renaissance, so, I don't know why they're going with the Gothic motif---this is LA after all, not Princeton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rendering of USC Village, which would be the Media Village if Los Ángeles gets the 2024 Olympics.

A number of newer buildings currently under construction on the USC campus itself are being built in the Gothic style, I don't know why. The older buildings' architecture on the USC campus is Mediterranean Romanesque and Renaissance, so, I don't know why they're going with the Gothic motif---this is LA after all, not Princeton.

Maybe for Architecture classes. So it's just easier to point out and say -- Bldg X is a prime example of Gothic style...or Bldg Y is Romanesque or Renaissance?? Plus, I think a variety of styles is less boring; and it shows the gradual development of the university. There was the Romanesque Age; then the Renaissance, etc., etc. Plus, it may also have to do with naming rights' for the bldgs.

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

I think those gothic buildings honestly look great. Gives the area a really nice flair, and at least it will be more interesting to look at than the modern overload most of the recent villages have been.

Anyone else notice how diverse LA would be from a visual perspective? I honestly can not wait until 2028 when the flame arrives in the city!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is opening their eyes to the City of Angels and for those that are lucky enough it's a great time to be an Angelino. I imagine it much like New York in the 1920's. There is a booming creative class and infrastructure improvements that are revealing literally a new LA. Whether it's 2024 or 2028 or whenever, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised that the city is well on its way toward a more urban and cohesive city.

Eh. For me, the Bay Area and San Diego have better qualities of life than LA where you need a friggin' car to get around. LA makes such a huge carbon imprint on the planet -- sucks up all the water of the SW USA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh. For me, the Bay Area and San Diego have better qualities of life than LA where you need a friggin' car to get around. LA makes such a huge carbon imprint on the planet -- sucks up all the water of the SW USA.

I agree.

In San Francisco, you can, in some places, live the "good life" European style. LA, like many other large US cities, is still heavily dependent on cars. Granted, LA is still the most realistic option for another West Coast Olympics.

I'll be honest with you guys, while I'm excited for LA and am looking forward to the US hosting again in 2028, I can't help but feel LA is like Hillary Clinton. LA is inevitable, and it looks new, but it's still the old and tired city of old. I want something new and fresh. I honestly want Chicago or even New York to host, just so we have something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those ships sailed long ago. The IOC passed them over when they offered their wares -- so, they won't happen for another 30-40 years.

Those didn't happen because:

1. The USOC and IOC had terrible relations at the time

2. Atlanta 1996 happened only 20 years ago

3. New Yorks bid fell through in the final months/weeks of bidding making it look increasingly shaky.

Chicago had the best bid from every point of view ever submitted by a US city. What killed the bid was slightly declining support, Atlanta, and the USOC/IOC relationship. Now that those bridges have been rebuilt Chicago should bid again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those didn't happen because:

1. The USOC and IOC had terrible relations at the time

2. Atlanta 1996 happened only 20 years ago

3. New Yorks bid fell through in the final months/weeks of bidding making it look increasingly shaky.

Chicago had the best bid from every point of view ever submitted by a US city. What killed the bid was slightly declining support, Atlanta, and the USOC/IOC relationship. Now that those bridges have been rebuilt Chicago should bid again.

It's a little heavy on the hyperbole to say Chicago has the best US bid ever, particularly when it was based around a temporary stadium. In a different time and place, maybe that bid does better, but it probably says something that Chicago was so quick to say no to the prospect of a 2024 bid.

As for New York, they had a window where they could make a good play for an Olympics, but Atlanta screwed it all up for them. When we had the alternate timeline thread of what happens if Athens gets the 1996 Olympics (and not Athens, Georgia) over Atlanta, that could have set the stage perfectly for an NYC bid when they were ready for it around 2008 or 2012. Aside from the stadium deal that killed their prospects, there was a building boom of sports infrastructure that coincided nicely with 2012. Again though, thanks to Atlanta, the timing for another US Olympics was all wrong. I would love to see an Olympics in New York, but only in a time and place that makes sense for the city. Like baron said, that's probably not going to come back around again for awhile. Where the IOC needs to re-establish their reputation as not plopping themselves down in a place with little to no benefit for the host city, the old tired LA may be exactly what is best for everyone involved in terms of a US bid city.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your are completely right, and bring up good points. It's probably too much of an exaggeration to say Chicago had the best bid ever by a US city, but it certainly was stellar for what its worth.

I suppose I'm just tired of the US, and more specifically LA, always having to jump in and "save the Olympics" and then close the door for another US city to host in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine it much like New York in the 1920's.

Well then, either your imagination sucks, or you have a terrible understanding of New York and history. I assume its a mix of both.

LA now is nothing like New York of the 1920's and never will be, nor will LA ever reach the culture and development of great global cities like New York, LA, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Sydney, etc. Plain and simple, LA is not that great...San Francisco will always be better.

LA is only good for the Olympics and Hollywood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your are completely right, and bring up good points. It's probably too much of an exaggeration to say Chicago had the best bid ever by a US city, but it certainly was stellar for what its worth.

I suppose I'm just tired of the US, and more specifically LA, always having to jump in and "save the Olympics" and then close the door for another US city to host in the future.

"Always" being twice. Let's not pretend this is a more commonly recurring theme. Especially since LA bid multiple times before winning which isn't the case here.

More than that, the United States and LA may or may not be asked to save the Olympics here. Paris might be the city to accomplish that. Again, it's circumstance and a matter of timing that leaves us with LA over Chicago and New York. For better or worse, maybe there is some truth to the idea that it simply is the most ideal host for an Olympics in this country, even though there are more cities out there the United States has to offer.

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...