los angeles 2024

[yoshi]

Which is why it needs something like a Paris games followed by an LA games. Wait, what's that? That's feasible? Well, excuse me while I have my cake. And then eat it too

[Nacre]

IF the IOC chose Los Angeles over Paris for the 2024 games, and Los Angeles hosted another wildly successful games, would Paris, or any other European city, be back for 2028? How would the worlds attitude change if a successful Olympic Games had been hosted?

Probably not, especially since Rio is becoming a financial disaster.

If the IOC chooses Los Angeles over Paris and Rome the only European countries that would likely bid for the next games would be places like Azerbaijan. The IOC is likely choosing between Paris now or 16+ years without an Olympics in Europe.

I think head to head Paris will offer everything LA does on the technical side, but who will provide peace of mind? Paris absolutely offers prestige, but how does that compare to the connectivity of LA and entertainment, as well as mentioned before, LA being in a global powerhouse when it comes to technology and social media. Anybody care to contribute on Paris' behalf?

I've already been told by LA boosters in this thread that I am an LA hater for saying that New York has better art deco buildings than Los Angeles. So no.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Nacre

[baron-pierreIV]

Baron I agree with you on the fact that LA is not a political powerhouse, but it is the entertainment capital of the world and that does carry some wait. Might not be enough to award them the games but it is something very unique that the other cities can not boast of. Now when I say entertainment capital of the world I mean big business entertainment not just of we have singers and actors I am talking production, slash where the multi-billion dollar entertainment deals go down. Even other countries' entertainment industries are tied to LA in that sense, Cannes film festival Toronto Film festival all of them are stacked with LA based production companies doing the distribution deals. The Olympics is no different. I work at the airport and every Olympics, be it summer or winter, the amount of production companies that are based in LA that are used annually to produce the games internationally are staggering. I always thought it was a local crew that put on the games in each country but truly that work is outsourced to many different countries and LA just has a large number of the behind the scenes producers. I am not even solely talking ceremonies, I'm talking construction, marketing, advertising, security. Every Olympic year LAX is briefed about whatever olympics is going on in whatever part of the world and the protocol entailed in the corporate and production travel for the games.

All of this to say LA doesn't need to be a political center to be taken seriously on the global scene . It is not a political city nor is it trying to be, but it is the most dominant player when it comes to Entertainment and what is the Olympics but a giant production. Again I say this not to say it should get the games based on that but I believe that is the niche to which LA has carved out for itself and it's a great argument in their favor. They basically get to tell the IOC "we do this all the time. This is what we do, what we're known for, what you know we are known for and we do it better than any other city in the US and arguably the world."

Uhmm...preaching to the choir. Doncha think I know this? I was merely pointing out that while LA is of course top-notch in terms of media importance, but hobnobbing with Mayor Garcetti or even Gov. Brown from a social-climbing IOC'ers point of view is 2nd tier compared to hobnobbing with the French president and being invited to a gala at the Elysee palace; or being honored with a Legion d'Honor vs. a what? an Emmy or Order of the Golden Gate (if there is such a thing) from LA. Not even a close cigar. You entirely miss the point that this handicapping thing has to be veiwed FROM the IOC voter's POV--not from your local Chamber of Commerce-booster's POV.

[zekekelso]

You and I may think costs are a big problem for the IOC. But the average IOC voter tends to think the problem isn't the cost, but that people are counting things they shouldn't and fail to understand how awesome the games are.

Some of you have things exactly backwards. All things being equal, the voters will prefer the city that spends MORE, not the one that spends less.

[Quaker2001]

This may very well be the case, and as mentioned before, politics play a role. That can absolutely not be discounted. But right now, at this very time in Olympic History are politics something the Olympic Movement can afford? The article I posted immediately prior to this post has a mayoral front runner of Rome specifically mentioning costs as the reason he doesn't support the Olympics in Rome and a win by this candidate is certain to place a nail in Rome's Olympic coffin. So within months we are looking at one more major city saying no to the Olympics.

If that doesn't influence IOC members or at least cause a pause, the world may see what Agenda 2020 really means and the trend will continue.

Tell us.. what does Agenda 2020 really mean? A lot of people here seem to want to interpret it as being more inexpensive, but that's not how Agenda 2020 is intended. It's about cities being more smarter and more responsible about hosting so that we don't have cities like Beijing or Sochi spending untold billions of dollars nor do we have cities like Athens and very possibly Rio which have had to over-extend themselves to host the Olympics. That's why - and we've discussed this before - the winner of the 2024 bid isn't necessarily going to be the one that most exemplifies Agenda 2020 principles. It's not some form of new evaluation system by which cities are being judged. The question is whether or not the cities' bid plans are in line with Agenda 2020. It's either they are or they aren't, and according to the IOC (take that for what it's worth), all these cities do fall in line with Agenda 2020.

So when you say "politics play a role.. That can absolutely not be discounted," maybe it's those voices inside my head, but that sounds like something someone would say who would like to discount politics and thinks they shouldn't play a role. The IOC voters are still politicians. And like most politicians, they're more likely to vote along with whatever suits their interests rather than being forward thinking. You keep talking about what the Olympic movement needs, but you still sound like you refuse to seriously consider what other cities have to offer. You'll look for any reason to suppress discussion of another city so that you can insert more discussion about LA. That's not how things are going to play out in reality because there, every city is on equal footing and gets to make their push without the other cities trying to poo-poo their pitch.

For what it's worth, London 2012 has already happened and it has not solved the image the Olympics have earned themselves worldwide. London's very own cost overruns garnished and fed the poor image the Olympics have. How would Paris be different? And I ask this question specifically because London was a safe bet, as has been Tokyo. Both are fueling a negative image of the cost of the games. Paris is a certain safe bet so it seems to be implied. Like Los Angeles it has a vast majority of it's venues built. But that Athletes Village and that overall budget in Paris is greater than LA's is perhaps silent to some, but it's there. If LA up's it's ante Paris may do the same, pushing that budget even higher. The point of that comment is this. Regardless of how things have changed since 1984 causing the games to become more expensive, Los Angeles is a recent successful games that was not a disaster. It changed the image of the games when the games has an image similar to what it has now. Watching the opening ceremonies of 1984 a few days ago in the reporting it was mentioned that Montreal was in debt more than what LA has spent to host the entire games in 1984. There are things here that put LA over Paris. But the Olympics aren't just a budget, they're more than that and I understand that.

As far as Paris' bid I read that thread all the time. I am well aware of a lot going on in Paris. LA, however, I know like the back of my hand. I know it's policy and it's urban renewal. I know the explosion of attention LA is getting in the world of creatives, technology, fashion, manufacturing, etc. To say the least, I consider myself an expert in Modern Los Angeles. I have read Paris' thread and see a lot of what they are doing, and on the technical side alone Paris isn't doing any better than LA. On the cost side, Paris is a few billion over LA. Subtract the Athlete's village and that gap grows even more. So one could say that when Paris has a positive I counter with LA's positives, but on technical alone, LA is ahead. The result may end up being the same and even very similar, but the budget will not.

That said, Paris has prestige, and a lot of good qualities... but.. so did London. What happened? Recent memory has that formula. LA doesn't have a lot that Paris has, no question. But LA has a lot. And one thing I see from LA that I'm not seeing as strong from Paris is that LA has the ability to strike at the very core of the problems the Olympic movement is facing. Cost.

As a side, or an added value so to speak, LA has a pipeline to a generation that Olympics needs to engage. One can talk about Paris' president vs Jerry Brown all they want, but would that matter when you have an open pipeline to Facebook? or Apple? Or Google? There is something VERY unique about doing business in California that is very costly for sure, as many republicans will point out. But the companies that remain don't struggle to say if you're going to be relevant, the place to be it is in California. The concentration of the industries that the Olympics work with are incredible in the State of California. So Paris' prestige is up against that. I feel strongly that Paris is underestimating that.

It's interesting that you bring up London's issues. It's a cautionary tale, but what makes you so sure that LA couldn't fall down the same path if they won. Because they didn't in 1984? That seems like a long long time ago. No guarantee they'd be able to be so successful again, especially when they have to beat out the competition just to get the right to host in the first place. And like zeke said, they're not going to wow the IOC by being more cost-effective than Paris if Paris offers up a better package, reforms or otherwise. Wishful thinking if you believe that's going to happen.

You talk a lot about engaging with a generation and the state of California, but what about the continent of Europe? The IOC doesn't seem to have trouble drawing support (in the form of TV dollars, among other things) from the United States. They're having that trouble in Europe right now. That's the audience they need to engage with or else they might push them further away. Good for all the tech companies based in California. Does having the Olympics in LA as opposed to wherever else benefit a Facebook or an Apple or a Google which can have a huge presence at an Olympics anywhere in the world and still engage with their audience?

[Sir Rols]

LA is also a finalist for the Ultimate Sports City Award by SportBusiness.

And the winner is.....

NEW YORK

New York City receives award for being top sports host city in the world

Edited April 21, 2016 by Sir Rols

[TeamBlakeUSA]

The Vote At 130th IOC Session Will Be On September 13th of Next Year.

[mr.bernham]

Jesus Christ, you'd think LA was the only front-runner if you just read this thread and 90% of Ruff's posts.

With Rome likely to drop out this summer, it will only drive the IOC closer to the warm embrace of the French Capital. Rome being gone does not help LA, it hurts LA. With Rome gone I can honestly see Paris getting a majority first ballot.

[Nacre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Sir Rols]

It's interesting that you went full circle on this. You ask what Agenda 2020 really means and then say people here want to interpret it as being more inexpensive. Then you say it's about making sure that cities like Beijing, Sochi, Athens, and Rio don't over extend themselves spending untold billions of dollars. What are you trying to say by it's not about money yet it's about not spending billions?

My interpretation of Agenda 2020 is a combination of costs, but also sustainability and legacy. Making sure that costs don't spiral out of control for venues that will deteriorate and fall into despair after the games. ALL cities you mentioned have suffered that consequence.

You might wanna read GMod's excellent report in what the Swiss NOC thinks about Agenda 2020: Swiss Olympic Committee shuns Agenda 2020

[TeamBlakeUSA]

OK Agenda 2020 Should Be Interesting. Thanks For Your Help. I'm Not Trolling. I'm Just Helping.

[FYI]

The legacy of the LA24 Olympic Bid is already existing, the sustainability, it's all there. How many bids ever, have had that luxury? Ever? They don't exist. No matter how strong the competing bids are there is something pretty incredible to be said about LA's position going into this from that perspective.

Then how could an L.A. games "benefit the movement with sustainability going forward" (according to the pro LA rhetoric here) if no other bids like it exist elsewhere? Sounds like an oxymoron of an argument right there, cuz other cities would still have to build afterwards since only L.A. supposedly has everything. So unless the Summer Games are permanently held in L.A. it's a moot point to constantly bring up L.A.'s "sustainability" if other cities really won't benefit from that at all if they're not "as prepared" as L.A.

With another European City likely to drop out (Referendum on Rome 2025 Gets a Green Light: http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/referendum-on-rome-2024-olympic-bid-gets-important-green-light/ ) someone, somewhere, is going to have to take control of this ship. I don't know how this will play out with the IOC's voting members nor if it will benefit LA or Paris one way or another, but I do think that if these messages that are being sent by cities dropping out and an NOC located on ground zero of the movement continue to fall on deaf ears, we can expect Europe to continue to drop out. The core of why cities aren't interested or drop out would remain strong and intact.

With the threat now of Rome possibly dropping out only adds more fuel to the fire that the IOC NEEDS Europe more than ever before! With Paris being the only strong European bid now (not that Rome was anywhere near the strength of Paris TBW), & the majority of the French still wanting the Olympics, the IOC would be shooting themselves in the foot big time if they were to reject the French yet a fourth time (not to mention, the string of unprecented non-European Olympics that are ahead that the IOC is going to be fatigued from by the time 2024 comes around).

Cuz at this point, things don't look good, as far as strong, viable 2028 European prospects go, if the IOC doesn't select Europe now. Paris won't be back if they lose yet again. And now it looks like Rome continues to get cold feet, (let's remember they also bailed on 2020) & they also have their major issues nonetheless. The Germans haved pulled out twice already for 2022 & 2024, so very, very doubtful they'd be back for 2028. The U.K. is out for obvious reasons. So unless the IOC wants another Putin-expense (Sochi-style) Olympics, or from small dictatorship, pseudo-European locales like Azerbaijan, or biting off much more than they can chew Budapest, then by all means, the IOC should just bypass Europe for 2024. :-/

[Shiruba16]

OK Agenda 2020 Should Be Interesting. Thanks For Your Help. I'm Not Trolling. I'm Just Helping.

Help? You don't help at all!

You even posted something nasty about Conor15 on your status.

And as a result, he got suspended for arguing with you and using bad language

[Quaker2001]

I did read the article. I think most of us have already assumed that Agenda 2020 is lip service. With another European City likely to drop out (Referendum on Rome 2025 Gets a Green Light: http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/referendum-on-rome-2024-olympic-bid-gets-important-green-light/ ) someone, somewhere, is going to have to take control of this ship. FWIW, I also don't think Agenda 2020 is a complete farce. I think it's important that the games don't have white elephants and where possible costs be controlled. I don't know how this will play out with the IOC's voting members nor if it will benefit LA or Paris one way or another, but I do think that if these messages that are being sent by cities dropping out and an NOC located on ground zero of the movement continue to fall on deaf ears, we can expect Europe to continue to drop out. The core of why cities aren't interested or drop out would remain strong and intact.

I don't think Agenda 2020 is lip service. It has its merits. But some people jumped to the conclusion that it would be this big reform on how the IOC selects future host cities and that's not what its intention is. To me, it's more about reforming the bid process and to a large extent, I think it has done that. The IOC has made it easier for the Dohas and Bakus of the world to not even bother and to make sure that the cities that are in the running belong there. Where the IOC has lost control of their ship is that cities that might otherwise be interested simply aren't bidding. They only have themselves to blame and yes, maybe this is lip service, but at least it's a half decent first step. But to the point that these NOCs are making a statement that they're not interested in working with the IOC, perhaps the USOC and the French NOC are making an equally powerful statement that they are interested. And to the extent that 1 major city in Europe is still there where others are not is something the IOC needs to look at and could have a big effect on their decision making process.

[Nacre]

FWIW, I also don't think Agenda 2020 is a complete farce. I think it's important that the games don't have white elephants and where possible costs be controlled.

Agenda 2020 has not changed the voting process and the venues required. Cities were always allowed to use a spread out and affordable plan. All of California's Olympics have done this. Squaw Valley even unilaterally cut bobsledding from the Olympics in 1960.

The reason so many cities have chosen to build a huge Olympic Park with expensive white elephant venues is simple: they felt they needed to in order to win the bidding race. Until the IOC changes the vote for the games from the current auction format where the most lavish plan wins it is wise to be skeptical about the reforms Agenda 2020 claims to have implemented.

For what it's worth, though, Paris also has the vast majority of venues they need to host already in place. This is a case of an affordable North American city on its own vs an affordable European city with national government support.

[Nacre]

It may be important to note that the economy of California is very close in size to the economy of France and LA has near unilateral support at all levels of local and state government as well as with its constituency. And the National Government supports LA, too.

I am not talking about public approval or a hopeful statement from the President. I mean money. The French national government will commit public funding to the project, while the US government will not spend any money building stuff for Los Angeles.

Please note that I do not think that California should be spending public money on the Olympics. In fact I think Los Angeles has a very good plan. This is about what the IOC voters think, because they get to choose which city hosts the Olympics. And they have a very strong tendency to choose plans backed by lots of government funding.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Nacre

[FYI]

Granted that these are serious issues facing the movement, they aren't the only issues. Take Tokyo for example. They were considered a safe bet at 2.5 billion. Today, they're at 15 billion. Paris is starting at 6?

Considering who Tokyo's competition was, the Japanese were the safe bet. And to be fair, their initial budget was $4.5 Billion (not $2.5). Now compare that to Istanbul's staggering proposed $20 Billion (which more than likely would've balloned ala Sochi style, since the Turks had to build everything & anything) & Madrid's meager & totally unrealistic $1.9 Billion budget, which one of these three was the best option? Obviously the IOC voted accordingly in that one.

Even the USOC acknowledges that just the *operational* budget alone for a 2024 Games would be $3 Billion for any U.S. candidate. Things hardly ever come in on budget anyway in whatever it might be, not just the Olympics. So I don't understand why some people try to hold a higher standard to the Olympics when things sometimes go over budget. As long as they don't go astoundingly bezerk via Sochi's $51 Billion, then it shouldn't be too much of an issue. $15 Billion sounds pretty typical, modestly speaking, for a Summer Olympics nowadays anyway, i.e. Athens, London, Rio & Tokyo. Especially when remember, there's NO other city that is "as prepared" as L.A.

Paris' mayor was documented via media outlets that she wasn't sure about a Paris bid months before she changed her mind and gave her support. The LA County Board of Supervisors gave unanimous support for the games even before Boston was selected as the US Nominee. There has consistently been, whether orchestrated or not, near universal support for an LA Olympiad.

Precisely! Paris 2024 was not a whole-hearted attempt at first. But they did a full 360 now & they're totally behind this endeavor. This has been brought to your attention before by many but now you choose to use this tidbit of information to seemingly make your case. But on the contrary, the IOC needs to take notice of Paris' determination now when initially it wasn't there before they finally launched their 2024 campaign (not to mention how many other European countries are wanting to turn their backs on them). So unlike L.A., which as you just pointed out, ALWAYS had & has that full support across the board at a moments notice. So any realistic better & voter should place their bet on the one that's less likely to be there the next time around, & in this case that's not too hard to figure out which city that might/would be.

[Quaker2001]

It's important to note that in the America's there is just 1 city bidding, too. This issue has grown far past Europe. It might be important to remember that Chicago feels the burn, as does New York, and now Boston, too. We are potentially looking at future US bids coming from cities like Dallas, TX or Orlando, FL. I'd venture to say that the entire Western World has a negative view of the cost of the Olympics.

What issue is there in the Americas? Canada just hosted an Olympics and is already talking about another one, not to mention that Toronto just hosted an event that could set them up for an Olympic bid (their lack of interest in 2024 notwithstanding). The United States had multiple cities interested in hosting, but by rule are only allowed to put 1 up for bid. New York doesn't feel any burn. They tried for 2012 and missed and have since moved on. It's been floated that bidding for the Olympics helped spur on more than a couple of projects in the city, so there was some upside to that bid. Chicago also took their shot and yes, they seem less than willing to return. Boston we know about. But remember, the IOC rejected those cities, not the other way around. Boston's failure to put together a competent bid (and the USOC's choice to put them out there in the first place) is a lot different than Oslo and Norway basically telling the IOC to piss off when there was an Olympics ready to be handed to them on a silver platter. That's the concern right now in Europe and we've seen it in other countries too. No such concern exists in North America, particularly from the 2 countries most qualified to host an Olympics since pretty much every other country aside from the one about to host an Olympics probably isn't in great shape to bid at this point.

Well, I can agree with this. Historically, the IOC chooses expensive bids. But at the same time this is the first cycle under Agenda 2020. Potentially, the IOC itself could extinguish the image it's tried to sell as reform under Agenda 2020.

That's the other element of Agenda 2020 where we can't rush to judgment. We won't know the success or failure of it in the short term. Is there an outcome in the 2024 vote that's going to make a statement about the IOC and Agenda 2020's effectiveness? Probably not. More than likely, we'll need to wait until at least 2024 itself when the first Olympics is held having gone through the bid process before we know anything. We all know the IOC has a severely tarnished image. It's going to take awhile to repair that. And again, it goes to the purpose of Agenda 2020 which is to get a better field of candidates in the first place.

[TheOtherRob]

The reason so many cities have chosen to build a huge Olympic Park with expensive white elephant venues is simple: they felt they needed to in order to win the bidding race.

In terms of Olympic Parks, how true is this? Working backwards, Rio already had a small cluster of venues from the PanAms so expanding that into a Park made sense, London's Olympic Park came about when a Mayor cynical about the Games said he'd only support them if they were used as a catalyst for regenerating that part of East London, Athens already had a cluster of venues in a Park which simply needed upgrading and Sydney's Olympic Park also made sense for them.

Which leaves Sochi and Beijing really, which are the two Games normally blamed for the IOC's current image.

Olympic Parks are a good idea if they can be successfully woven into the city, and in Games time they're easily the most efficient and safest model in terms of movement of people, athletes and security. We're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Clearly, in LA's case building a new Olympic Park makes no sense, but that doesn't mean LA's model is right for other cities or that we should dismiss everything that's happened in the past as a failure, because it clearly isn't. Agenda 2020 isn't about imposing one model on cities, and just because Agenda 2020 is new, that doesn't mean some past hosts wouldn't now be regarded as generally compliant

Edited April 23, 2016 by Rob.

[TheOtherRob]

Paris' mayor was documented via media outlets that she wasn't sure about a Paris bid months before she changed her mind and gave her support. The LA County Board of Supervisors gave unanimous support for the games even before Boston was selected as the US Nominee. There has consistently been, whether orchestrated or not, near universal support for an LA Olympiad.

What matters is they both have Mayoral and Government support now. That Paris' Mayor took some persuasion only goes to show that her first priority is Paris, and that she had to be sure the Olympics were right for her city. This shows the kind of responsible thinking the IOC should be encouraging so there's no reason to knock marks off Paris.

You're right, LA seems to have better public support than Paris. But Paris' isn't bad.

Interestingly, last time Paris bid it was the other way around. Both these factors were in their favour vs their main rival and it's easy to see the parallels. London had a Mayor very cynical of the benefits of the Olympics who only said yes when it was agreed the Games would be the catalyst for regeneration, whilst Paris' bid was unified and never really showed any chinks. Public support was also consistently 15-20% higher in Paris during the bidding phase than it was in London. But that didn't matter in the final reckoning.

It's been said many times. Public support can lose it for you, but it can't win it. So LA is at no huge advantage at the moment. What it does have a more solid cushion. If something happens in Paris that knocks public support they've got less wriggle room, whilst LA could take some knocks and still have solid support.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Rob.

[Nacre]

In terms of Olympic Parks, how true is this? Working backwards, Rio already had a small cluster of venues from the PanAms so expanding that into a Park made sense, London's Olympic Park came about when a Mayor cynical about the Games said he'd only support them if they were used as a catalyst for regenerating that part of East London, Athens already had a cluster of venues in a Park which simply needed upgrading and Sydney's Olympic Park also made sense for them.

Rio built the Pan-American park with the intent of using it to host the Olympics.

And while the original intent for the Queen Elizabeth Park may have been for urban regeneration, there's no reason that urbanization had to include expensive sporting facilities built at public expense. The city could simply have built a new park and housing. It's the same issue with Sydney.

To put it simply: if London had not hosted the Olympics and still built the park in Stratford, would that park have included an Olympic stadium, aquatics center, velodrome, etc?

We're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Clearly, in LA's case building a new Olympic Park makes no sense, but that doesn't mean LA's model is right for other cities or that we should dismiss everything that's happened in the past as a failure, because it clearly isn't.

I don't mean to suggest otherwise. I am merely saying the IOC is pretty clear in their preference for the Olympic Park model rather than the Atlanta model, and the cities that are considering bidding know that.

[TheOtherRob]

In London's case getting that area cleared and regenerated would've taken decades without the incentive of the Games. In any case, that misses the point I was trying to make. You claimed the only reason cities build such parks is to impress the IOC. There are a few examples where that choice was made for other reasons - because it was the most efficient method, or because it matched the city's/mayors aims most closely.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Rob.

[Nacre]

In London's case getting that area cleared and regenerated would've taken decades without the incentive of the Games. In any case, that misses the point I was trying to make. You claimed the only reason cities build such parks is to impress the IOC. There are a few examples where that choice was made for other reasons - because it was the most efficient method, or because it matched the city's/mayors aims most closely.

I didn't say it was the only reason, but if it were not for the hope of winning the right to host mega events they would not get built. And the reason for using a park instead of spreading venues through a metro area is that federations and governing bodies prefer it that way.

In cities in democratic countries that are already heavily developed, buying up huge chunks of land is much more difficult than groups of smaller parcels of land. (To wit: how is Heathrow's third runway project going?) When cities go for a huge project it is almost guaranteed to be a political decision.

[JMarkSnow2012]

In cities in democratic countries that are already heavily developed, buying up huge chunks of land is much more difficult than groups of smaller parcels of land. (To wit: how is Heathrow's third runway project going?) When cities go for a huge project it is almost guaranteed to be a political decision.

Heathrow's third runway project is opposed by the Mayor of London, and millions of people under or around the flight-path. Buying up huge chunks of land which are divided between multiple ownerships can be very difficult, but if you can get any project through political scrutiny which allows compulsory purchase from all those owners, you can achieve a lot in the long term. LA has the problem that the Piggyback Yard, crying out for gentrification, has one powerful owner who would hire serious legal muscle, so "we already have nearly all the facilities" has to be the way to go.

[Nacre]

Heathrow's third runway project is opposed by the Mayor of London, and millions of people under or around the flight-path. Buying up huge chunks of land which are divided between multiple ownerships can be very difficult, but if you can get any project through political scrutiny which allows compulsory purchase from all those owners, you can achieve a lot in the long term. LA has the problem that the Piggyback Yard, crying out for gentrification, has one powerful owner who would hire serious legal muscle, so "we already have nearly all the facilities" has to be the way to go.

That's precisely my point. Democratic governments trying to buy up a huge area of land in an already dense city have to go through legal battles and seizures of property. Buying smaller parcels of land can be achieved with willing sellers at a lower cost.