los angeles 2024

[FYI]

Ok so I don't believe Rio will have any impact whatsoever on the 2024 race but in general Euro's will. Before we even got to this point many of you included FYI "Trump'ed" Paris ability to stage large sporting events namely the Euros as an advantage. Well I've been on the ground at said Euros and it is proving to show Paris' vulnerabilities. It's not just the fans it's the cities ability to handle all aspects of these large events and it's proving to be difficult for them.

Now all of these arguments might be mute as we all know the IOC is itching to get the games back in Europe but times are changing the global political outlook in Europe in general is changing and the thought of having a major Target like the games in the middle of Europe doesn't look as appetizing, sad to say but I can completely see some folks saying "Give it to the Americans and let them deal with the headache" Europe is not the same as it was back when Paris bid the last time even when Lomdon hosted. A lot has changed and though tragedy can strike anywhere in the world at any time from inside and out, one has to ask the question "which country becomes an easier accessable target? That's a simple logistical question IOC voters have to ask in this day and age sad but true. So I say they're more evenly matched now and it will be a much closer narrative than we think.

So going by this logic, then that would mean that the IOC should never again have a European Olympics if Europe is not the same anymore even when London last hosted. If the threat of an attack in the middle of Europe during a Games increases with time, then it'll be that much more real in 2028 than it would be in 2024. So is the IOC going to let fear run their decisions from now on if that's the case? If they do, then the terrorists have already won.

And on the other side of that token seriously, many are already saying that if Trump gets elected, that the United States will become an even bigger target for terrorism with all of his anti-rhetoric of all sorts. So really, who's more at risk here. Sounds like an equal playing field once again.

And as far as the Euro's are concerned, it seems those always attract the kinds of trouble that we're seeing now. Four years ago it was the same thing in Poland & Ukraine. So it seems that it's the type of crowds this event attracts than anything else. The Olympics don't attract those type of disrupting spectators. If anything, having Euro 2016 expose any vulnerabilities now & correcting them is much, much better than discovering them in 2024.

Unfortunately, the political landscape in the world at large (not just Europe) has changed. All one has to do is look at Orlando (& San Bernardino & Ft Hood, etc) that terrorism is unfortunately a (western) global problem now & not just Europe's.

[Rob2012]

Now all of these arguments might be mute as we all know the IOC is itching to get the games back in Europe but times are changing the global political outlook in Europe in general is changing and the thought of having a major Target like the games in the middle of Europe doesn't look as appetizing, sad to say but I can completely see some folks saying "Give it to the Americans and let them deal with the headache" Europe is not the same as it was back when Paris bid the last time even when Lomdon hosted. A lot has changed and though tragedy can strike anywhere in the world at any time from inside and out, one has to ask the question "which country becomes an easier accessable target?

Have you forgotten what happened in Orlando already?

I've got to be honest, I don't think the past week has been good for either front runner. and with Rome's political issues you could say the Top 3 bids have all had a rocky period. Let's just give 2024 to Budapest and be done with it.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Rob.

[FYI]

But new members who are only here to support their home city are nothing new on this forum. (it's how I started on here 13 years ago (!) )

Yeah, but it's far more than just being a bit OTT. That can be handled easily. But I don't recall you ever being so patronizing, condescending & downright insulting merely for disagreeing with other members for putting up legitimate challenges to their extremely partial POV's. And that's the main difference between someone like you & someone like him (& others like him throughout the years). But I digress.

[Quaker2001]

I mean this almost isn't real life here. I've never seen someone (and on this site, this is saying something) so convinced of his own hype. Insult me all you want and tell me I'm hearing voices in my head, but when there are at least a half dozen people that know bullshit when they see it, keep telling me I'm the one who isn't seeing things straight.

One thing I'd like to point out to the crowd here to show what a hypocrite you are. Let's take a trip in the wayback machine to December, when Piggyback Yards was still in play and before they decided on UCLA for the athletes village..

As far as the piggyback yards I see that the proposal is costly and complicated, but there are tremendous legacy benefits packages into that site.

As far as the Athletes Village Los Angeles faces a huge housing shortage. This isn't a want for the games, this is a need for the city. Regardless of where an Athletes village ends up there is a legacy there for LA.

As far as an athletes village building housing for housing starved LA is a problem a developer would want. If indeed you were in LA recently and happened to pass by LA Live, there are 10 under construction skyscrapers immediately adjacent LA Live. New housing over the past few years has been disproportionately centered around Downtown Los Angeles.

I'm not looking to drum up support for LA's bid. That's stupid. However, there remain truths that I can argue and there seems to be a lot of people missing that. For example, the need for housing. It's not fake, it happens to be true.

Here's the thing. You acknowledge the risks with a project like Piggyback Yards, but at the same time, you touted the plan's benefits to the city as being a part of LA's urban renewal and fitting within the fabric of an Olympic bid. Yet now that LA has gone in a different direction and you're lauding that (apparently everything LA does is magical), you're viewing it as a potential negative for Paris that they're doing EXACTLY what LA had initially proposed. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to play up the benefits and downplay the risks of LA's plan, don't turn around and look at Paris where you're downplaying the benefits and playing up the risks.

Remember - as a couple of people have noted - the IOC has a very good baseline on what Paris can offer. They had the highest evaluation scores of any city in the running for 2012. That's the baseline LA is up against. If you believe they can beat Paris on technical merit (and most of us here would agree you put up some good arguments for that), that's understandable. But if you're making out Paris to be less than it is in hopes of propping up LA, don't be so sure the IOC will see it the same way just because you see it that way.

[paul]

Yeah, but it's far more than just being a bit OTT. That can be handled easily. But I don't recall you ever being so patronizing, condescending & downright insulting merely for disagreeing with other members for putting up legitimate challenges to their extremely partial POV's. And that's the main difference between someone like you & someone like him (& others like him throughout the years). But I digress.

you guys do pile on this dude pretty heavily, of course he gets a little snarky now and then but for the most pert isnt it nice to have someone who at least seems to have some decent info and takes the time to be pretty knowledgeable about a bid? Unlike Many Who Post Total Nonsense Just To Try To F With Us.

Gotta say you all are pretty quick to jump on anybody who says good stuff about LA....it's just the nature of these forums...we Californians are used to it.

[Quaker2001]

you guys do pile on this dude pretty heavily, of course he gets a little snarky now and then but for the most pert isnt it nice to have someone who at least seems to have some decent info and takes the time to be pretty knowledgeable about a bid? Unlike Many Who Post Total Nonsense Just To Try To F With Us.

Gotta say you all are pretty quick to jump on anybody who says good stuff about LA....it's just the nature of these forums...we Californians are used to it.

See, this is the problem with this forum that everyone wants to set it up as an "us versus them" mentality. We're not piling on him because he has good stuff to say about LA and is a little snarky. He's a lot snarky. He's WAY over the top and is presenting a false view of reality as he sees it. He does have decent info and is pretty knowledgable, but that gets lost when he (and apparently you as well) want us to treat LA and California as some sort of oppressed underdog. And the result is the folks who back a certain city view anyone who backs another city as an enemy that needs to be fought with. Sadly, it's par for the course here.

[FYI]

Umm, did you read Quakers last post right before yours? 'Nuff said.

^

you guys do pile on this dude pretty heavily, of course he gets a little snarky now and then but for the most pert isnt it nice to have someone who at least seems to have some decent info and takes the time to be pretty knowledgeable about a bid? Unlike Many Who Post Total Nonsense Just To Try To F With Us.

Gotta say you all are pretty quick to jump on anybody who says good stuff about LA....it's just the nature of these forums...we Californians are used to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4347ZE0NQM

*The first post on this page

[paul]

He does have decent info and is pretty knowledgable, but that gets lost when he (and apparently you as well) want us to treat LA and California as some sort of oppressed underdog.

...but if Paris is the HUGE favorite (and it is) doesn't that make LA the underdog? Somebody's gotta argue their merits, not like anyone else here will barely acknowledge LA is a world class city.....I mean hard to believe how ridiculous that sounds.

Umm, did you read Quakers last post right before yours? 'Nuff said.

...ya but maybe it was a great idea, then with further analysis and realization of the cost and complications it was more prudent to adjust the plan to what appears to be one that has little to criticize and HUGE benefits to everyone. I don't see that as a problem that smart people can find and support better ways to do things. Flexibility to changing variables seems is an asset. Sticking to you guns at all costs is not.

[paul]

p.s. .....just a reminder I pilled on all the "New LA" BS as much as anybody, but I agree that LA is underestimated, particularly in a forum such as this. I also agree that Paris looks nervous and is making missteps while LA is acting decisively with professionalism and class, that may mean nothing in a race where the IOC has a love affair with the idea of Paris and feels they owe Paris after several snubs.

Edited June 18, 2016 by paul

[Quaker2001]

...but if Paris is the HUGE favorite (and it is) doesn't that make LA the underdog? Somebody's gotta argue their merits, not like anyone else here will barely acknowledge LA is a world class city.....I mean hard to believe how ridiculous that sounds.

I was actually just going to bring this up with alphamale..

Paris in my opinion is squandering their front runner status they seem to be constantly playing a game of catch up or "what is LA doing? let's try that" The hashtag of their "sun day" celebration was ill advisided. Even if you've been doing it locally for years from a PR and Marketing standpoint, if your competitor has made that a sucsseful part of their branding even incorporating it into their logo then Paris needed to avoid the sun like the plague. The field trip to LA by major committee members was highly ill advised if you're going to spy be low key send a mid level official and a bunch of interns cause having 4 to 5 visible board members go just strikes desperation even if and I truly believe this, that is is probably common practice among all potential bidders through the past decades.

Who decided that Paris is the front-runner, let alone a HUGE favorite? Or that LA is an underdog (and paul, forget underdog in this race, I'm talking about an overall stereotype that you yourself brought up). That's the problem when we're trying to argue against pre-conceived notions and one side feels like they need to throw in some hyperbole to clear up what they perceive to be mis-conceptions as if what we talk about here is globally accepted as fact.

Again, it's easy to make a case that LA is running a better bid than Paris is right now. But let's not blow things out of proportion as a result that because Paris supposedly (according to us here) started at a higher level than LA that their performance so far is proof of their failures.

[FYI]

...but if Paris is the HUGE favorite (and it is) doesn't that make LA the underdog? Somebody's gotta argue their merits, not like anyone else here will barely acknowledge LA is a world class city.....I mean hard to believe how ridiculous that sounds.

He said "oppressed" underdog, & you're making the case right there, cuz NO one here has denied that L.A. is a world-class city. What's actually ridiculous is when McRuff likens Paris to Rio as one of many examples where he "barely acknowledges" Paris' strengths in his endless attempts to hyperbole L.A.'s.

...ya but maybe it was a great idea, then with further analysis and realization of the cost and complications it was more prudent to adjust the plan to what appears to be one that has little to criticize and HUGE benefits to everyone. I don't see that as a problem that smart people can find and support better ways to do things. Flexibility to changing variables seems is an asset. Sticking to you guns at all costs is not.

It didn't take "smart people" to know that the initial concept of the Piggyback yards was going to be EXPENSIVE from the get go. To acknowledge later on that it wasn't going to be cost-effective is neither here nor there. Especially when you have certain L.A. people "sticking to their guns at all cost" that now it's "less risk" to just go with UCLA. That's trying to argue both sides for your own bias convenience.

[paul]

...I guess you are right, but the Piggyback Yards idea did seem really exciting at first, maybe those folks working on the bid should not have jumped in that early and been overly optimistic that such an enormously complex project could be incorporated into their short term bid, that was maybe a misstep. But to be honest I was excited about the project and i have no doubt it can be done profitable and be a very exciting development within a more realistic timeline.

[FYI]

Who decided that Paris is the front-runner, let alone a HUGE favorite? Or that LA is an underdog (and paul, forget underdog in this race, I'm talking about an overall stereotype that you yourself brought up).

What's actually interesting about that, is with all the articles I've been reading lately on the subject, they tout BOTH Paris & L.A. as the "front-runners". Now how these articles are coming up with that conclusion would be nice to read about. Or are they just cutting-&-pasting other articles.

But if there's really an 'underdog' in this 2024 race, it's Budapest & not L.A. And as rob pointed out, of all the bids only Budapest has been the one with no big missteps lately.

[paul]

I'm going by my impression of most people here who have always said Paris is the front-runner, it's Paris' turn, only European capitols have this kind draw on the IOC especially London or Paris, etc etc.

I believe you guys, Paris will win for sure, no problem.

[Quaker2001]

Now all of these arguments might be moot as we all know the IOC is itching to get the games back in Europe but times are changing the global political outlook in Europe in general is changing and the thought of having a major Target like the games in the middle of Europe doesn't look as appetizing, sad to say but I can completely see some folks saying "Give it to the Americans and let them deal with the headache" Europe is not the same as it was back when Paris bid the last time even when Lomdon hosted. A lot has changed and though tragedy can strike anywhere in the world at any time from inside and out, one has to ask the question "which country becomes an easier accessable target? That's a simple logistical question IOC voters have to ask in this day and age sad but true. So I say they're more evenly matched now and it will be a much closer narrative than we think.

Common mistake. The word is 'moot', not 'mute.'

Yea, like Rob said, maybe less than a week after the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States isn't the best time to talk about what country or continent looks appetizing and which is or isn't a terrorist target. As much as Europe is having their issues, you're also making a bet for 7 years down the line. The IOC isn't in a position to wait for things to improve there before they feel comfortable awarding an Olympics there. The Olympics will always be a target no matter where they're held. The question isn't which is the easiest target. The question is which city/country is best equipped to prevent such an attack. It's a much different story when you prepare than if you're unprepared as we've seen far too many times.

[paul]

I'm going to say the US is more prepared for an attack and Paris (the city) is more vulnerable to coordinated ISIS attacks on large marquee venues.

...just a guess considering all Paris attacks of recent years vs those on the US.

But Paris will for sure host the 2024 Olympics.....no question.

[FYI]

But what's even scarier, is that Orlando wasn't even as "coordinated" as Paris. It was done by only one person who created just as much mayhem, relatively speaking. But yeah, L.A. would be much "safer", no question.

[Quaker2001]

I'm going by my impression of most people here who have always said Paris is the front-runner, it's Paris' turn, only European capitols have this kind draw on the IOC especially London or Paris, etc etc.

I believe you guys, Paris will win for sure, no problem.

Again, that's the nature of this site to over-emphasize a point and perpetuate this high school mentality that the way to make a point is to scream louder than your opponent rather than to have a stronger argument. And then to dig into a position for the sake of digging into a position, as you're clearly doing. Someone says Paris is a front-runner, another person reads that as "Paris is a HUGE favorite." Someone says think think Paris will win and someone else has to be a dick about it and tell them what they really mean.

I'm going to say the US is more prepared for an attack and Paris (the city) is more vulnerable to coordinated ISIS attacks on large marquee venues.

...just a guess considering all Paris attacks of recent years vs those on the US.

Okay, and that's a valid argument. Double-edged sword there because it's been noted that the United States isn't always that welcoming to foreign visitors. Good to keep out terrorists. Not so good if you're trying to invite the world to visit your country. But still, how often does a terrorist group like ISIS actually succeed in targeting an event like the Olympics? Let alone with the billions spent on security. So it's not just about which is more vulnerable. Part of is is also which is more vulnerable during a big event with the world watching, but with a crap ton of security to cover it.

Don't forget the concerns leading up to Athens. The threat of terrorism was thought to be a major issue for them. And for all the negative legacies of those Olympics, that wasn't one of them.

[Quaker2001]

Yea, you might want to look at the very first post you quoted. I don't think I denied the risk involved with the construction of an athletes village at the piggyback yards. Granted a 1.2 Billion restoration of the Los Angeles River and opening up the natural space and development opportunities in LA, a region that met its physical boundaries around 2000, would be an incredible legacy. That will likely still happen as LA can't really grow out anymore, and by using existing structures that have designated use eliminate the risk. Idiot.

Thank you for once again offering evidence of your selective deafness. I very specifically addresses that first post where I said "You acknowledge the risks with a project like Piggyback Yards," so yes, I'm aware you didn't deny the risks. But here you are talking about how it would be an incredible legacy and trying to tell us how risky it would be for Paris to do the same. As if there's little to no risk in using existing structures.

I didn't like Paris to Rio. I pointed out that the risk taken in choosing Rio may make IOC members pause before taking more risk. And an athletes village from any which angle has risk when built from scratch as does an existing one. Just one is less risk. But you're not very intelligent and can't pick that up. You're still stick that I'm making Paris out to be 3rd world. You impress me with your ability to comprehend.

Risk/reward here. LA's village plan is safer but offers few legacy benefits. Paris's plan is more risky, but offers the potential of a bigger legacy. You're still expecting the IOC to take their experiences from Brazil and project them to Paris versus LA under the impression that "risk" is a black or white issue. To say nothing of the fact that it has yet to be seen if the IOC will be influenced by such a concept. Keep that confirmation bias coming though and paint the picture where things will play out the way you want them to because you said so.

[FYI]

Thank you for once again offering evidence of your selective deafness. I very specifically addresses that first post where I said "You acknowledge the risks with a project like Piggyback Yards," so yes, I'm aware you didn't deny the risks. But here you are talking about how it would be an incredible legacy and trying to tell us how risky it would be for Paris to do the same. As if there's little to no risk in using existing structures.

Yep!

Risk/reward here. LA's village plan is safer but offers few legacy benefits. Paris's plan is more risky, but offers the potential of a bigger legacy. You're still expecting the IOC to take their experiences from Brazil and project them to Paris versus LA under the impression that "risk" is a black or white issue. To say nothing of the fact that it has yet to be seen if the IOC will be influenced by such a concept. Keep that confirmation bias coming though and paint the picture where things will play out the way you want them to because you said so.

Bingo!

I didn't like Paris to Rio. I pointed out that the risk taken in choosing Rio may make IOC members pause before taking more risk. And an athletes village from any which angle has risk when built from scratch as does an existing one. Just one is less risk. But you're not very intelligent and can't pick that up. You're still stick that I'm making Paris out to be 3rd world. You impress me with your ability to comprehend.

Look at the other quotes I quoted. They exactly demonstrate how much of a complete & bias HYPOCRITE you really are. But of course you're not intelligent enough to pick that up. And instead make this out to be how we're not "comprehending" what it is what you're trying to convey. You impress me with... well, actually, you don't impress me with anything that comes outta your caca mouth.

It feels like you guys are stalkers.

You're on a PUBLIC forum spewing complete & bias nonsense. But what a typical bow out of yours when it gets pointed out to you.

[paul]

omg you guys all sound very intelligent and well written, stop calling each other idiots that just sounds silly coming from some of the best contributors on GB. There are lots of idiotic sounding people on here (maybe me often ) but none of you regularly debating in this topic would be in that group.

also please don't be so hard on us who are not journalists or experts in every field or doing constant research on the specs of every aspect of these bids, sometimes it's fun to just give opinions here, maybe they aren't good or accurate....maybe even wrong but it's interesting to hear opinions and see where peoples heads are at (insert "in you a$$" joke here.

[FYI]

I'm going by my impression of most people here who have always said Paris is the front-runner, it's Paris' turn, only European capitols have this kind draw on the IOC especially London or Paris, etc etc.

I believe you guys, Paris will win for sure, no problem.

Well, for starters, you're simply taking those things outta complete context here so you can try & make a (weak) point to bolster that we're not giving L.A. any credit (which is far from the truth). And by doing so, you're doing exactly what you want to accuse us of doing by "barely acknowledging" Paris' strengths by wanting to trivialize & mock their attributes by trying to be cute & sarcastic. So whatever.

[paul]

I think Paris is going to host 2024, I don't mind that they will host I like visiting Paris and always have fun.

But in or out of context the overwhelming narrative here in GB is that:

-Paris is due

-the US has hosted more often and more recently and is not due

-Paris is as or more capable than LA

-Paris has many more loyalties in the eyes of a euro-centric IOC than LA

-Paris will not bid again for decades or ever if they are not chosen this time

-LA will bid every year if they can so there is never incentive to go there unless

-no other city bids

-the IOC needs the money

-all other candidates have totally unrealistic bids

-the world hates the US and LA and Americans

-the IOC still holds a grudge against the controlling USOC (gotten better now that we handed them large piles of cash) but deep resentment continues.

....and my very favorite(according to one)....wait for it.......

-Paris has better weather than LA for athletes in summer........ :lol: :lol:

That last one was just one guy but I had to throw it in since almost nobody seemed to disagree with him!

I think there are more on the list of Paris will win narrative but those are the ones off the top of my head.

[ejaycat]

....and my very favorite(according to one)....wait for it.......

-Paris has better weather than LA for athletes in summer........ :lol: :lol:

That last one was just one guy but I had to throw it in since almost nobody seemed to disagree with him!

I guess I was the lone dissenter on that one? I honestly think that Paris in the summer is really humid and sticky.

I won't be surprised if Paris wins 2024. But I really would love to see Budapest host the Olympics. Of the 4 candidate cities for 2024, it's the only one I haven't been to, and from pictures and Globe Trekker episodes or Rick Steves travel shows, it looks like a very beautiful and interesting city. And of course, it's the only candidate city that has never hosted an Olympics before.

[FYI]

Okay, well what about the "L.A. will win narrative list". -

*It's a "new L.A."

*L.A. has celebrity power

*L.A. did it in 1984, so we can do it again.

*The U.S. provides the most money to the IOC

*the U.S. hasn't hosted since 1996

*so the U.S. is due

*L.A. won't bid again, either

*L.A. is "less risk"

*L.A. is "sunnier"

*L.A. is "beach-Y" (& that one is yours!) :-P

*the French are arrogant

*the French are snobs

*and my favorite, wait for it...

the French will soon insult our food & obesity! Granted, only one person mentioned that one but no one else diisageed with him, either.

I'm sure there's also more, but those are the ones off the top of my head, too. :So -P

*oh, yeah, & how could I forget that L.A. is building a metro line!