Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since I generally don't respond to your posts...but Sydney's arrivals/immigration angle seemed very forced. For a long while, Oz had a "whites/European" only immigration policy. The "black" contingent? How many thousands of African blacks really migrate to Oz? Of course, they wouldn't highlight that -- and of course, how could they NOT do an Opening ceremony without the Aboriginal peoples? They already didn't do the ethnic diversity angle in Melbourne 1956. No big shows yet then.

(Just out of curiosity--and probably JMark Snow will come up with some stats -- how many embassies did Oz and NZ really have in continental Africa in 1950s and 60s, other than perhaps in the ex-Commonwealth countries (so Egypt, S. Africa, Namibia, probably Kenya, Nigeria) through which Oz could attract :rolleyes: and process interested emigrants?) Even when Oz was a penal colony (which I don't recall being touched upon in the Opening), I wonder what the statistics were of prisoners of color being shipped off half a world away??

But with Lillehammer, Atlanta's "Welcome to the South" portion, some of Ainus in Nagano -- how could Sydney/Ric Birch NOT force a multi-ethnic face for Sydney in 2000 as even the composiiton of the IOC membership indeed already reflected that (despite its still being very Euro-centric in its membership).

Anyway, my point is -- In contrast, London (messy as I found it) didn't really and blatantly hit you on the head with ..."oh look, how diverse British society is" message. Even the acknowledgment of the UK's south Asian populations didn't really appear until the Bollywood portion at Closing.

Finally, remember that the IOC Executive Board vetts the message and content of the Ceremonies--so who knows how tweaked and bleached the Ceremonies turned out from their original visions without the Executive Board's input?

london OC showed immigration with the 'windrush' float during pandemonium (there was also the nostagia steel band and the notting hill carnival which was not shown live)

south asian influnce was also shown with signature and nimma nimma by ar rahman drung the frank and june was thank tim segement

and if you want to go deeper. the quick clip of 'going for an english' from 'goodness gracious me'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

london OC showed immigration with the 'windrush' float during pandemonium (there was also the nostagia steel band and the notting hill carnival which was not shown live)

south asian influnce was also shown with signature and nimma nimma by ar rahman drung the frank and june was thank tim segement

Except that such use of a tune specially composed for the occasion, the only one in the Thanks Tim section which was not a chart hit, rather pointed up a lack of south Asian influence in most aspects of British culture (other than food). If you're not a fan of Brimful of Asha- which was pretty lame until Norman Cook remixed it- there's not a lot of south Asian music which would have fitted the hit sound rule for Thanks Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more coming from Paris. It appears Paris will introduce a system known as Optimouv as a part of the Paris 2024 bid. It is important to note that Los Angeles, in 1984, created a similar system that has since expanded into the entire region. The system, known in LA as the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control System (ATSAC), is capable of providing live feeds of intersections, counts of vehicles using a highway, and changing street light color to move traffic. The Los Angeles System also uses LED lighting on Street Lights that can be dimmed or brightened remotely. To say the least, the LA system is light years ahead of what Paris is proposing. Increasingly it appears Paris is moving it's bid to look more like LA's.

http://www.sportsfeatures.com/olympicsnews/story/52140/paris-2024-co-chairman-tony-estanguet-and-french-president-hollande-encourage-sustainable-development-in-sport

Optimouv has nothing to do with an automated traffic surveillance and control system... Optimouv is a system designed to miminimize the transport impact of a sport event: based on a set of parameters such as competition format, potential venues, forecasted attendance, point of origin of the competitors... the system evaluates various scenarios to help design the concept (choice of venues) and competition schedule that will minimize the transport impact of the event.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Optimouv has nothing to do with an automated traffic surveillance and control system... Optimouv is a system designed to miminimize the transport impact of a sport event: based on a set of parameters such as competition format, potential venues, forecasted attendance, point of origin of the competitors... the system evaluates various scenarios to help design the concept (choice of venues) and competition schedule that will minimize the transport impact of the event.

Well, Ruff is NOT VERY intelligent -- as he so aptly charged me. And, Ruff, your attitude is mierde. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to reiterate for those that require sprinkles on their cupcakes.

IN 1984, LOS ANGELES CREATED A SIMILAR SYSTEM THAT HAS SINCE EXPANDED TO THE ENTIRE REGION. The system was created for the 1984 Olympiad to move people to venues and manage traffic created by the influx of people attending the games. The system proved so effective that it remained a legacy of the 1984 games and in the 30+ years since it was introduced it now controls the color of traffic signals to keep traffic flowing in the region and it also uses LED technology that allows the city to dim or brighten street lamps as needed. The origin of the system was the 1984 Olympiad, and the purpose was the same as Optimouv.

Here is what Optimouv is doing (sorry it is only in French but with the infographics, one should get the idea) : https://www.facebook.com/199414186798337/videos/968870643186017/

How is that similar to the system for LA 84?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Paris thread:http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/23063-paris-2024/page-179

An LA 2024 cost overruns now seems like a highly unlikely scenario. A profitable games is still questionable, but a game that goes into the red seems every day more unlikely.

The difference between now and 1984 and the issue that LA boosters ignore is that Los Angeles cannot dictate terms to the IOC this time. I fully agree that LA has a plan that is good for the city. But the IOC's partners do not care about that. They are only interested in what works for their sport or business.

The last time I checked LA was planning on using a football stadium for the diving events. That has never been done before (swimming yes, diving no), and the governing body for diving (FINA) may very well demand that Los Angeles provide a new aquatics center instead. So at that point you are stuck either spending money on a white elephant or abandoning the Olympic bid.

The Olympics are an auction. In 1984 Los Angeles was able to use an affordable plan because they were the only bidder. That is not the case this time: the IOC does not have to accept LA's plan, and the individual sporting federations will likely try to coerce LA into building better venues. That's what they did to Rio, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Paris thread:http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/23063-paris-2024/page-179

The difference between now and 1984 and the issue that LA boosters ignore is that Los Angeles cannot dictate terms to the IOC this time. I fully agree that LA has a plan that is good for the city. But the IOC's partners do not care about that. They are only interested in what works for their sport or business.

The last time I checked LA was planning on using a football stadium for the diving events. That has never been done before (swimming yes, diving no), and the governing body for diving (FINA) may very well demand that Los Angeles provide a new aquatics center instead. So at that point you are stuck either spending money on a white elephant or abandoning the Olympic bid.

The Olympics are an auction. In 1984 Los Angeles was able to use an affordable plan because they were the only bidder. That is not the case this time: the IOC does not have to accept LA's plan, and the individual sporting federations will likely try to coerce LA into building better venues. That's what they did to Rio, anyway.

You completely forget that there is Agenda 2020; and the OGs, if they are to survive, cannot operate by the old rules anymore. It's not ALL or nothing. There will be give and take.

OK, Trivia question: what is the other major city in the world also known as the City of Angels ( in its native tongue)??

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

The difference between now and 1984 and the issue that LA boosters ignore is that Los Angeles cannot dictate terms to the IOC this time. I fully agree that LA has a plan that is good for the city. But the IOC's partners do not care about that. They are only interested in what works for their sport or business.

The last time I checked LA was planning on using a football stadium for the diving events. That has never been done before (swimming yes, diving no), and the governing body for diving (FINA) may very well demand that Los Angeles provide a new aquatics center instead. So at that point you are stuck either spending money on a white elephant or abandoning the Olympic bid.

The Olympics are an auction. In 1984 Los Angeles was able to use an affordable plan because they were the only bidder. That is not the case this time: the IOC does not have to accept LA's plan, and the individual sporting federations will likely try to coerce LA into building better venues. That's what they did to Rio, anyway.

Rio had a less than compelling bid (at least according to evaluation scores) whose biggest drawing card was that they were on a continent that had never hosted the Olympics before. They could be more easily coerced.

LA, not as much. Yes, they have to impress the voters in order to be selected ahead of Paris. FINA can demand all they want and threaten to send votes Paris's way in response. Doesn't mean LA is going to budge or be forced to acquiesce to FINA or the only alternative is to abandon the bid entirely.

The sport federations are largely in the same boat as the bid cities. They have to choose between what's handed to them. And guess what.. once a bid city is selected, that's it. They're locked in. Look at what has happened with Tokyo. No question LA has to earn this one unlike 1984. But for all the demands the IOC makes of prospective hosts, they're not going to get 100% of what they want. All they can do is pick the city they think best suits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LA, not as much. Yes, they have to impress the voters in order to be selected ahead of Paris. FINA can demand all they want and threaten to send votes Paris's way in response. Doesn't mean LA is going to budge or be forced to acquiesce to FINA or the only alternative is to abandon the bid entirely.

I was merely using the diving venue and FINA as one example. The same issues are also true of the athletics stadium and the IAAF, which will almost certainly prefer Paris' stadium, those IOC members who deal with the media and fears about a temporary media center, the athletes commission and using existing college dorms instead of a new athletes village, etc.

There is a reason that cities have put forward extravagant bids in the past. London also has lots of football stadiums. So why did they bother to go with the expense of a new aquatics center instead of trying to convert a football stadium into a temporary aquatics venue? Because it would lose them votes in the race against Paris.

Until the IOC finds a way to force their members to vote against the interests of the groups they represent, Agenda 2020 is just words on paper.

This is not in any way a criticism of the Los Angeles bid. The problem for LA is timing. This strategy would serve them well against a poor field, and let them host an Olympics with only a minor financial loss. They are not facing a poor field of opponents, though. They are facing Paris and Rome: two historic cities that also have most of the required facilities already in place. Every vote matters in a race against Paris.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was merely using the diving venue and FINA as one example. The same issues are also true of the athletics stadium and the IAAF, which will almost certainly prefer Paris' stadium, those IOC members who deal with the media and fears about a temporary media center, the athletes commission and using existing college dorms instead of a new athletes village, etc.

There is a reason that cities have put forward extravagant bids in the past. London also has lots of football stadiums. So why did they bother to go with the expense of a new aquatics center instead of trying to convert a football stadium into a temporary aquatics venue? Because it would lose them votes in the race against Paris.

Until the IOC finds a way to force their members to vote against the interests of the groups they represent, Agenda 2020 is just words on paper.

This is not in any way a criticism of the Los Angeles bid. The problem for LA is timing. This strategy would serve them well against a poor field, and let them host an Olympics with only a minor financial loss. They are not facing a poor field of opponents, though. They are facing Paris and Rome: two historic cities that also have most of the required facilities already in place. Every vote matters in a race against Paris.

lol stop bringing up Rome like they matter in this race. They don't. They only have a slightly better chance than Budapest, but not enough to get anywhere close to how many IOC votes LA and Paris would get.

And did you seriously just wonder why London, a place that is known for its rainy, un-summerlike weather, didn't put forth a bid with a temporary aquatics venue in an OPEN AIR football stadium? LMFAO!!!!!

Temporary venues to that extent AFAIK have never been done during that time, at least not on a large scale like that. The Olympic stadium for Atlanta doesn't really count since it wasn't an existing stadium that converted to a track & field stadium just for the games. The Olympics is not the best place to experiment with an unproven plan. Thankfully we have the Aquatics championships in Kazan and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow to show us that it can be done successfully, and if anything LA would improve upon their methods.

And even then, the race for the 2012 games happened over 10 years ago, during a time when the only recent major problematic games was Athens, and the IOC probably thought that was going to be a fluke. Before that they had 3 successful summer hosts, Sydney, Barcelona, and Atlanta (despite the pipe bomb and other issues and controversies, Atlanta was a financial success). And they recently had a successful winter games, Salt Lake City. Next year the IOC could be voting with this in mind: a severely corrupt Sochi games that inflated the cost to over $50 billion USD, a potential disaster of a Rio games (they're currently still facing venue and transportation delays, government corruption, one of the worst recessions in their history, etc.), abandoned venues from the Athens and Beijing games that have yet to be re-purposed, and Agenda2020.

I don't see LA or Paris facing any of the issues of Rio, Athens, Sochi, or Beijing, but I can't say for sure about Budapest or even Rome. Times have changed and the IOC needs to realize that the games can no longer be about having everything new at the expense of the host, especially if the host city, and even the host country, isn't the most economically stable. Even if bid cities are more financially secure, like LA and Paris, compared to its competition, they shouldn't have to build anything new if they want to avoid doing so, nor should that work against their chance of hosting an Olympic games.

I was looking at an article about Tokyo's 2020 Emblem Design competition. One of the 4 remaining designs

"flowering of emotions" appears to have a sun in it. Bad omen. Follow the sun.

http://gamesbids.com/eng/future-olympic-games/tokyo-2020-seeks-public-input-on-four-new-emblem-designs/

Follow the sun. Bad omen, or catchy tune???

Ok that's enough of me for now lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol stop bringing up Rome like they matter in this race. They don't. They only have a slightly better chance than Budapest, but not enough to get anywhere close to how many IOC votes LA and Paris would get.

I wouldn't necessarily laugh too much about that, especially when Rome's chances are probably more than "slightly better" than Budapest. Budapest is a non-starter, period. Rome is FAR from that, especially when you consider the significance & influence of CONI, in a country six times the size of Hungary.

Many thought the same of Tokyo, & especially Madrid, only to be totally caught off guard when Madrid came in "runner-up" (for what that was worth) to Rio for 2016 & suitable Chicago was left in the dust. So I'd LMFAO if Rome did indeed would up with more 2024 votes than L.A. does, as theirs precedence to such twists lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Paris thread:http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/23063-paris-2024/page-179

The difference between now and 1984 and the issue that LA boosters ignore is that Los Angeles cannot dictate terms to the IOC this time. I fully agree that LA has a plan that is good for the city. But the IOC's partners do not care about that. They are only interested in what works for their sport or business.

The last time I checked LA was planning on using a football stadium for the diving events. That has never been done before (swimming yes, diving no), and the governing body for diving (FINA) may very well demand that Los Angeles provide a new aquatics center instead. So at that point you are stuck either spending money on a white elephant or abandoning the Olympic bid.

The Olympics are an auction. In 1984 Los Angeles was able to use an affordable plan because they were the only bidder. That is not the case this time: the IOC does not have to accept LA's plan, and the individual sporting federations will likely try to coerce LA into building better venues. That's what they did to Rio, anyway.

The new stadium in question is being built independent of the games. The old Sports Arena is being demolished and a new Football stadium for the Los Angeles Football Club is taking its place.

They will erect a temporary pool at the stadium since it will cost a fraction of what a new aquatic center would.

Also, with the last 3 Summer Olympics, this years 2016 Rio Olympics, and the Tokyo 2020 seriously going into the red, the IOC's reputation and image is again on very shaky ground.

LA opting out of a new Olympic Village may hurt its chances, or it may be what gives it the upper hand over Paris.

There's all this talk about "The Timing" is not right for LA and all, but the IOC really needs to clean up its image and restore at least partially its reputation. It's become a joke in they eyes of the world.

Oslo pulling out of the Winter 22 games was a black eye to the organization, and Beijing winning is an utter embarrassment.

Where does artificial snow fall into the 2020 Agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not in any way a criticism of the Los Angeles bid. The problem for LA is timing. This strategy would serve them well against a poor field, and let them host an Olympics with only a minor financial loss. They are not facing a poor field of opponents, though. They are facing Paris and Rome: two historic cities that also have most of the required facilities already in place. Every vote matters in a race against Paris.

Couple of things here..

Do you think the LA organizers' strategy will be dictated by who they're up against? I doubt it. Obviously this is not the 1984 bid where they were running unopposed. LA went into this knowing they might face some strong competition, including potentially from Paris. There's no point in being reactive. Put your best foot forward regardless of who you're up against.

More than that though.. yes, every vote does count. Tell that to the folks in Paris, you know the city who was considered the front-runner to win 2012 and then squandered whatever edge they may have had and wound up losing to London by 4 votes. That logic applies to both sides. We can say the timing favors Paris, but favors is not to say this is automatically theirs to lose and that LA needs to be careful. Paris needs to be careful as well. LA isn't exactly weak competition that they're up against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than that though.. yes, every vote does count. Tell that to the folks in Paris, you know the city who was considered the front-runner to win 2012 and then squandered whatever edge they may have had and wound up losing to London by 4 votes. That logic applies to both sides. We can say the timing favors Paris, but favors is not to say this is automatically theirs to lose and that LA needs to be careful. Paris needs to be careful as well. LA isn't exactly weak competition that they're up against.

Los Angeles isn't London, though. And you've acknowledged this fact yourself before. Paris lost 2012 to another mega European city in a race that was determined to be Europe's nontheless, which in the end, it still was. 2024 seems to have very much the same dynamics to it. Some seem to be very submissive to Rome, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if they manage to do better than most expect (ala Madrid 2016).

And also seriously doubt that the French will "squander" away anything that they have in their favor this time around. Unlike the USOC (which seems never to learn from their past mistakes), the French are going to be more determined than ever before (which is already evident in this campaign by being more proactive this time around than before) to try & land the 2024 Olympics.

No, L.A. isn't exactly weak competition (I don't think that anybody has said that either), but let's not go overboard in the other direction as if they're the savior of all Olympic bids & therefore have this in the bag like some here are trying to portray it. I think that's where L.A. needs to be VERY "careful".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Los Angeles isn't London, though. And you've acknowledged this fact yourself before. Paris lost 2012 to another mega European city in a race that was determined to be Europe's nontheless, which in the end, it still was. 2024 seems to have very much the same dynamics to it. Some seem to be very submissive to Rome, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if they manage to do better than most expect (ala Madrid 2016).

And also seriously doubt that the French will "squander" away anything that they have in their favor this time around. Unlike the USOC (which seems never to learn from their past mistakes), the French are going to be more determined than ever before (which is already evident in this campaign by being more proactive this time around than before) to try & land the 2024 Olympics.

No, L.A. isn't exactly weak competition (I don't think that anybody has said that either), but let's not go overboard in the other direction as if they're the savior of all Olympic bids & therefore have this in the bag like some here are trying to portray it. I think that's where L.A. needs to be VERY "careful".

Always nice to see a post like this and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm on Gamesbids. When someone else who actually goes overboard and refers to LA as the savior of all Olympic bids (and I agree with you that has and will continue to happen.. although not with me, and I'm sure you know that B) ), be sure to bring that up. In the same way we don't expect the Parisians to be overly arrogant, I don't expect LA to come out with that attitude that some LA backers here want to go in with. Not that we didn't both know that already.

Yea, 2024 could be similar to 2012, but things don't always play out the way they're supposed to. You know my feelings on this bid that Paris has a natural edge, but I wouldn't frame it to where LA can't afford any mistakes while Paris has a comfortable margin for error. That was my original point to Nacre. Every vote matters on both sides, even for Paris when they're in their most favorable position of the 4 bids they've been a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say 2024 allows LA a real good chance to fine-tune and tweak their game plan for 2028.

That's a conversation for the LA organizers to have in the fall of 2017. I'm not a fan of the whole dry run/tune up mentality, certainly so far as a bidder like LA is concerned. When Pyoengchang entered the 2010 race, they could have made that argument they they would eventually win it down the road and history shows that they did make alterations to the bid along the way. LA doesn't need to do that though. They're in this one thinking they can win if and if they don't, they'll think about that later. And even still, if they lose, chances are it's not because of anything that was wrong with the bid. If they enter the 2028 race, it's likely against lesser competition, so is there really much they'll need to change to improve the bid? Obviously it helps to have a dialogue with the IOC as they will now and they can put that to good use if they repeat this process. But I still think you're selling LA short if you believe they should treat this as a trial run for 2028.

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...