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's an empty lot in Century City along Avenue of The Stars that sits right on top of a future Metro Purple Line that's the exact size just for an arena, probably not enough to add a parking garage though. There's a proposal for an office building on that site but I assume the land can be sold and repurposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bythebay said:

There's an empty lot in Century City along Avenue of The Stars that sits right on top of a future Metro Purple Line that's the exact size just for an arena, probably not enough to add a parking garage though. There's a proposal for an office building on that site but I assume the land can be sold and repurposed.

 

That would be perfect.  They can always put the garage under the stadium.  So the stadium would be like 4 or 5 stories higher than it normally would.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, stryker said:

I noticed in the bid book that field hockey is slated for the North Athletic Field at UCLA. I'm assuming this would be the secondary field hockey venue and the main venue would be Drake Stadium?

 

Probably not.  They might keep Drake Stadium as a practice facility for Athletics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Here's another set of renderings. Guess they opted to not used the LAFC Stadium for Swimming after all, but I actually like it inside of USC and the open air design is fitting for the city's weather.

Artist's rendering of an updated Coliseum (From LA 2024)



Artist's rendering of a temporary swim stadium in and around USC’s baseball facility (Courtesy of LA 2024)

 

Ah interesting, so now they're proposing a temporary swim stadium on the USC campus itself, on Dedeaux Field, adjacent to the already existing Uytengsu Swim Stadium.  I guess this would free up the LAFC stadium for another possible use?  

EDIT:  Ah, I just learned from westsidetoday.com that the LAFC stadium is now being proposed as a soccer venue.

 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Usa2024olympics said:

Have they also abandoned a roof for the colosseum?

I believe so. I have not seen the roof in any of the recent renderings. With this one being an official announcement, it does seem like the roof has definitely been omitted from the redesign.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RuFF said:

LAFC = Los Angeles Football Club. It's intended use has always been for soccer.

Not for your Olympics it wasn't. It was going to be converted temporarily as your bid's swimming venue. Looks like this has changed. 

EDIT: Sorry, I've just realised this post was meant to be a joke! :huh:

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: the new aquatics centre proposal....

It definitely looks to be a more elegant venue, more TV friendly, and one which will cause less disruption. I know LAFC say they're ok with their stadium being used but it can't be great for their fans to get a new stadium and then be chucked out of it for a year soon after moving in. And as others have pointed out earlier, two sides of the LAFC stadium taken along the length and width of a swimming pool doesn't offer much capacity so the temporary stands on the pitch would've been huge, unlike in Kazan.

One minus is the loss of the mini Olympic-park feel with the swimming and athletics complexes being opposite one another, but looking on Google Maps this new proposal is not that far from the main stadium anyway.

And the minus in comparison to Paris is that it's a temporary solution with no swimming legacy. But then again, this was also a problem with the soccer-converted venue, and I find it hard to believe LA is short of world class pools anyway.

So...seems like a generally sensible change to me.

(And the other nice aspect for LA planners is the fact the they don't need to worry about building roofs!)

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things.  Here's Dedeaux field in its current state (the pool in the upper left gives a good reference point)..

47897301.jpg

Not sure how exactly they plan to make this work without completely compromising the baseball stadium and/or some of the surrounding infrastructure.  I get that a temporary pool is probably a good way to go, but don't just look at the renderings.  Look at what's there now for a better sense of what's going on.

2 hours ago, rio2016man said:

LA 2024 track and field stadium design is beautifully and perfectly innovative

If it was perfectly innovative, then the $270 million in renovations that USC is spending would actually benefit the Olympic bid rather than requiring a completely separate and very temporary solution.  For what's needed, it works.  But this is the reality they're dealing with and it's less than an ideal solution based on how much it's likely to cost, both in terms of actual dollars and the displacement of USC football.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

47897301.jpg

Not sure how exactly they plan to make this work without completely compromising the baseball stadium and/or some of the surrounding infrastructure.  I get that a temporary pool is probably a good way to go, but don't just look at the renderings.  Look at what's there now for a better sense of what's going on.

It appears that they are going to retain the curvy bit of the stands, so I think they are at least trying to retain as much of the current field as they can.

 

SyFrKld.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phandrosis said:

It appears that they are going to retain the curvy bit of the stands, so I think they are at least trying to retain as much of the current field as they can.

 

SyFrKld.jpg

 
 
 

And it looks like they might demolish (and probably replace) the other older buildings on the wings of the existing stands.  Uytengsu (a Filipino-Chinese millionaire) would then function as a training and warm-up pool.   Strange that part of the left stands would be roofed.  Probably the Press, IOC and TOP sponsors boxes.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Another thing to consider is that the buildings could remain. They just might be under temporary stands during the games.

judging from the alignment of the existing pool compared to the renderings, it looks like the walkway around the temporary stadium may be temporary, too.

 
 
 

You CANNOT build the underpinnings for stands around EXISTING structures.  The City's Permits Department and the insurers won't allow it.  You are sacrificing the safety of hundreds of people for the sake of saving a few old buildings.  That rendering is based on having unfettered access underneath to PROPERLY support the temporary viewing stands (w/ seats) overhead.  Study all the Temporary stands (say, for the Beach V-B venues EVERYWHERE -- in London, now in Rio), there are NO existing structures underneath (except maybe for small Port-o-Potty's which can easily be inserted between the pylons).  If USC has approved putting the new facility there, it means that existing structures underneath are dispensible; and they would get BRAND-NEW facilties in place as part of the deal.  I don't think the structures around Dedeaux Field are Historical Landmarks (like the Peristyle end of the Coliseum) that they cannot be touched and replaced.  

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

Biggest issue with the atrocious Coliseum proposal  is STILL the obstructed seats all around the suite tower. Definitely 1000+ can't even view the damn finish line! And thousands more won't have a full view of the track. USC just hurt LAs chances here (However big or small it hurts, we won't know). The lack of a roof to handle the beating sun/lighting/ceremony infrastructure doesn't help either. (That might be a bigger concern for the IOC honestly)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dylanlip said:

 The lack of a roof to handle the beating sun/lighting/ceremony infrastructure doesn't help either. (That might be a bigger concern for the IOC honestly)

 

What are you talking about?  Ceremonies are always now held at dark because it is (1) cooler; and (2) you get the maximum dramatic effect from the theatrical lighting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, baron-pierreIV said:

What are you talking about?  Ceremonies are always now held at dark because it is (1) cooler; and (2) you get the maximum dramatic effect from the theatrical lighting.  

Erm, daytime sessions for athletics are in the sun. There are more reasons for a roof then just holding lights. That's why I mentioned it.

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...