Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

There seems to be a lot of consternation over the redevelopment plans for the Coliseum reading the thread on Skyscrapercity and I can see why. The proposal looks ugly in what should be an iconic stadium, and will lead to restricted views for the sake of corporate ticket-holders.

What's the feeling in LA?

lacoliseum.jpg

Well seating capacity will certainly decrease with a plan like that. That piece will take up more seats than it can replace.

And let's not kid ourselves the only reason they even want that piece for the Olympics is so the dignitaries and the uber-rich have some shade so they don't have to endure the sun like the common folk.

I still think using this stadium for the opening/closing ceremonies is a terrible idea and should consider renting the new NFL stadium for the ceremonies. It'll be more technologically advanced than the Memorial Coliseum, and it wouldn't change the ceremonies much since neither stadium are able to utilize the floor like Athens, Beijing and London have. Still keep the Memorial Coliseum as the site for the athletics events, but don't include a piece of unnecessary structure such as what they're proposing, especially if it could affect its status as a national historic landmark such as Soldier Field. They lost that status once they added those ugly expansions, and the same thing could happen to the Memorial Coliseum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's not kid ourselves the only reason they even want that piece for the Olympics is so the dignitaries and the uber-rich have some shade so they don't have to endure the sun like the common folk.

I still think using this stadium for the opening/closing ceremonies is a terrible idea and should consider renting the new NFL stadium for the ceremonies. It'll be more technologically advanced than the Memorial Coliseum, and it wouldn't change the ceremonies much since neither stadium are able to utilize the floor like Athens, Beijing and London have. Still keep the Memorial Coliseum as the site for the athletics events, but don't include a piece of unnecessary structure such as what they're proposing, especially if it could affect its status as a national historic landmark such as Soldier Field. They lost that status once they added those ugly expansions, and the same thing could happen to the Memorial Coliseum.

Awww, that's adorable you think that the renovations to the Coliseum have anything to do with the Olympics. These renovations are about USC football. Anything else, including the Olympics, is completely secondary.

Ask yourself this question.. would the renovations planned to the Coliseum be any different if there was no Olympic bid on the table? The answer is probably not. As for what this means for USC football, that's a different story altogether. But don't kid yourself that you think this plan is being driven by the Olympics rather than USC, who is paying for this with their money.

I don't get the impression the structure is being proposed for specifically the Olympic bid.

Your impression is correct. Consider the Olympics a tenant in this building, operated by USC. Yes, there is language in their agreement with the city when the Olympics come into play, but virtually anything done to the stadium is being proposed for the benefit of USC football and not necessarily the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a look at a bunch of USC boards this morning. First thing to notice is that the stadium renovations are *way* down on the list of what people care about.

Those that do care hate the plans, but for very different reasons than the Skyscrapercity crowd. The feel the Coliseum is an 80+ year-old relic. Great for watching track and field in the 1930's. Lousy for football today. They don't want a renovation thatmostly goes to building stuff for the 1% crowd. They want the whole thing blown up and replaced with a modern facility. Just keep the peristyle for history's sake, but otherwise bring on the new.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious if LA doesn't have to spend a billion on an Olympic Village if it's possible to funnel some of those funds toward doing this Coliseum Renovation right?

There is no money to funnel. No public funding = they are at the mercy of private businesses to make decisions for themselves instead of what works best for the Olympics.

I am curious as to what exactly the seating capacity would end up being in track and field mode. Somewhere around 65,000?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no money to funnel. No public funding = they are at the mercy of private businesses to make decisions for themselves instead of what works best for the Olympics.

I am curious as to what exactly the seating capacity would end up being in track and field mode. Somewhere around 65,000?

I think so. Somewhere in their plans I saw that or 60,000, can't remember.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a look at a bunch of USC boards this morning. First thing to notice is that the stadium renovations are *way* down on the list of what people care about.

Those that do care hate the plans, but for very different reasons than the Skyscrapercity crowd. The feel the Coliseum is an 80+ year-old relic. Great for watching track and field in the 1930's. Lousy for football today. They don't want a renovation thatmostly goes to building stuff for the 1% crowd. They want the whole thing blown up and replaced with a modern facility. Just keep the peristyle for history's sake, but otherwise bring on the new.

I'm absolutely not a fan of the proposal. I think it's kind of cheap looking and I'd rather see something more symmetrical. I'd also like to see something a little more intimate and the bowl is just way too large for Football. That said, I think LA24 would be wise to consider the new stadium in Inglewood for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies. Still, that doesn't change that I'd like to see the Coliseum get something better than what is proposed. From what I understand that proposal was preliminary so it may change.

Therein lies the conundrum. This is USC's renovation. Their money. So how does that mesh with the needs of the Olympics, a 1-time event that may take place in 2024. Or 2028. Or not at all. The Coliseum is not designed well for football, particularly for the number of people that attend USC games. So they're torn between keeping the historic elements of the stadium and making it more functional in the 21st century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know.....sort of think just blow it up and start fresh.....I mean yea, I like the old arch thingy with the built in cauldron but not much about it is reeeeeally flash up close. Maybe build the same peristyle bigger and ALL GLASS or black marble! Yea....I like that idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know.....sort of think just blow it up and start fresh.....I mean yea, I like the old arch thingy with the built in cauldron but not much about it is reeeeeally flash up close. Maybe build the same peristyle bigger and ALL GLASS or black marble! Yea....I like that idea.

Wait until after it hosts the Olympics three times in a row. It's like the only surviving stadium that has hosted two olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until after it hosts the Olympics three times in a row. It's like the only surviving stadium that has hosted two olympics.

Well, not really. Stockholm hosted a full one in 1912 (and then the Equestrians in 1956). And Panathinaikos hosted 1896 (and Archery and the end of the Marathons in 2004 + all the Flame Handovers of recent years -- all of which makes it equally historic to me.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until after it hosts the Olympics three times in a row. It's like the only surviving stadium that has hosted two olympics.

Yea, it doesn't work that way. USC runs the stadium. USC is paying for the upgrades. USC uses it several times a year. Somehow I doubt they're going to be interesting in tabling renovation plans for a decade just to keep the stadium in better shape to use for the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, it doesn't work that way. USC runs the stadium. USC is paying for the upgrades. USC uses it several times a year. Somehow I doubt they're going to be interesting in tabling renovation plans for a decade just to keep the stadium in better shape to use for the Olympics.

Especially if the request is to not "to keep the stadium in better shape to use for the Olympics" but to keep in in lousy shape because somebody thinks it would be cool to use the same stadium for three Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, it doesn't work that way. USC runs the stadium. USC is paying for the upgrades. USC uses it several times a year. Somehow I doubt they're going to be interesting in tabling renovation plans for a decade just to keep the stadium in better shape to use for the Olympics.

And come 2024 or '28, LA has alternate stadia to hold full Ceremonies and/or T&F. There is the 96,000 Rose Bowl that could host Ceremonies and the new NFL stadium in Inglewood that could host T&F. I mean at this stage both the Memorial Coliseum and the new NFL stadia will BOTH have to be retrofitted to host T&F -- so it wouldn't be an extra expense for either facility which the LA Org Committee would pay for anyway. And they could always host some other type of quick, daytime Commemoration of LA Memorial if need be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And come 2024 or '28, LA has alternate stadia to hold full Ceremonies and/or T&F. There is the 96,000 Rose Bowl that could host Ceremonies and the new NFL stadium in Inglewood that could host T&F. I mean at this stage both the Memorial Coliseum and the new NFL stadia will BOTH have to be retrofitted to host T&F -- so it wouldn't be an extra expense for either facility which the LA Org Committee would pay for anyway. And they could always host some other type of quick, daytime Commemoration of LA Memorial if need be.

The Coliseum is *big* and originally designed for T&F. It will be much easier to retrofit for T&F than the Ram's stadium, won't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coliseum is *big* and originally designed for T&F. It will be much easier to retrofit for T&F than the Ram's stadium, won't it?

I think so because an athletics field is much bigger than a football field.

It would be stupid to design a new football stadium with such a constraint, wouldn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, it doesn't work that way. USC runs the stadium. USC is paying for the upgrades. USC uses it several times a year. Somehow I doubt they're going to be interesting in tabling renovation plans for a decade just to keep the stadium in better shape to use for the Olympics.

I know it doesn't work that way. I'm just saying it would be nice if the USC could work in partnership with LA24 to plan the stadium upgrades so that it could still host T&F in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coliseum is *big* and originally designed for T&F. It will be much easier to retrofit for T&F than the Ram's stadium, won't it?

Yes, but only in the sense that "much easier" means "not impossible". If you want to design seating for a football field (rectangular, about 50 x 110 metres) the sightlines are completely different from a running track (oval-ish, about 95 x 177 metres).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coliseum is *big* and originally designed for T&F. It will be much easier to retrofit for T&F than the Ram's stadium, won't it?

From prelim plans I've seen, they say they are NOT returning the 11 feet of dirt they removed in (I think 1994) to bring the infield closer. They are just going to build a platform over the hole to return the level of the field to 1984 height. This is what they would also do at the new NFL stadium, which would give them a smaller seating capacity -- but with more modern lighting rigging than what can be set up in the wider, more open Memorial. And the newer NFL stadium would offer MORE entrances/exits to the infield than the two that LA Mem currently has (and had in 1984).

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...