Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Forgive me if this is already mentioned here, but why isn't the Forum, a vanue of course used for Olympic basketball and the handball final back in 1984, not considered a venue for LA's 2024 campaign?

Like the renderings for LAFC'S proposed stadium. LA can certainly use more pedestrian areas. However, I've been spoiled with the all-indoor Olympic swimming venues since Seoul. Los Angeles and Barcelona's were good looks due to the scenaries. Not so much with Athens. If the LAFC Stadium gets a retractable roof, I'd be OK with it as a swimming venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks you two for that! :) Los Angeles does indeed have a tremendous wealth of venues large, medium-sized, and small to utitlize for. The bigger and more notable ones like Staples Centre, Dodger Stadium, Stub Hub Center, Pauley Pavillion, Galen Center, Microsoft Theater, Rose Bowl, and Los Angeles Convention Center are all part of this. I noticed Long Beach is not part of it this time; it was the site of the volleyballa action back in 1984. Surely this is part of desire to keep many of the Olympics sports closely clustered wherever possible and not have it stretched out in the galaxy that's Los Angeles. So that means no Ontario, Long Beach, Anahiem (Orange County), or the Inline Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an interesting article on 3 wire sports how the IOC will burn through the USA's top 3 cities if LA loses 2024. It makes an interesting point that #4 would be Houston. Not to knock Houston but imagine that, when the games finally come back that they go to Houston. The burn Europeans keep talking about if Paris is not selected is very real in the United States as well. Polls have shown there is a hunger for the Olympics back in the US, so long as it's in another city.

I guess that article presumes LA wouldn't bid again if they lose 2024. Which I don't think is accurate. LA was in the running for the 2012 and 2016 domestic nomination. They came in to save the day after Boston fell apart. Just because New York and Chicago didn't return for another try doesn't mean the same fate would be in LA's future. New York especially, and to a lesser extent Chicago, took 1 big shot and then moved on. I don't think LA would do that. They can stay in this for the long haul until they win. Forget the past history that it took them 3 tries to land 1984 (which the US won by default). Do you really think LA would be handed 1 rejection and that would be it for them? I sure don't

Another interesting point, and I'm not sure if this will play a role but Paris boosters bring up that it will have been 100 years since Paris last hosted and it's their turn. Granted their may be merit and sentiment toward that. On the flip LA will have hosted 40 years prior. While again that could be a bad thing 1984 was a proven and wild success, so much so that it served as a model for future games and changed the way broadcast and sponsorship revenues were distributed. There has to be some sentiment toward that. Coupled with the very real possibility that LA's bid will come at a sticker lower than that of Paris' bid and the possibility that 2024 profits could make 1984 profits look like crumbs, LA's bid may be technically stronger. I know that not all can agree with that. I've also read that LA is pulling the humble card and are quite possibly purposefully underestimating profit potential. We'll see. I'm too lazy to look up the articles but all can be googled I'm sure.

These ideas of sentiment and who's turn it is are complete and utter bullshit. Paris was up against London for 2012. Paris had last hosted in 1924, London in 1948. Who won? When Athens bid for 1996, was there any sentiment for them hosting the Centennial Olympics? Nope.

This is all about geopolitics. Absolutely when the 2 respective cities/countries last hosted an Olympics will be a factor (not that Paris needs to bring that up.. any voting member of the IOC they're trying to appeal to knows when they last hosted an Olympics). Pretty good case to be made that the IOC wants a European city this time around. But don't put too much into the history or the sentiment. Think more about what economically and politically influenced voters are going to be looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and for what it's worth I am of the opinion that sentiment will play a smaller role this time around. I sense based on recent happening that this is going to come down to the safe choice. So that means the stronger, more financially sound bid that manages to move the movement forward. We'll see though. I think LA wants to use the Olympics to elevate itself. It's quite interesting that the competition is specifically Paris. Its also interesting that 1924 Paris won over LA. It's like the same meeting 100 years later. Add that yet another European city was awarded 1928 before LA got to host in 1932 and one could probably argue that sentiment too, though I don't see much traction behind that.

What happened 100 years ago has no bearing on what will happen now. That's stuff we think about here, as fans of Olympic bidding and people who post on an Internet forum about it. I'm fairly confident no one at the IOC is giving any consideration to that as a pattern they might have an interest in repeating.

Your first instinct here is right. Sentiment means little, if anything. Tough to tell what the motivations of 100 or so individual IOC voters will be. But focus on the present, not the past. Especially when the past is a century ago.

One last note. It's no secret that the USA has lower love worldwide than the US. But LA is a global city for sure. In many industries LA is more connected to other countries than the US as a whole. By the same token California carries those same attributes. And as a result LA, and California(and Casey Wasserman spoke about this in the podcast) are a very unique place far from what is traditional US. Sure, it's recognized as the US, but it's also worldwide recognized as California and LA. Both a special place that are breeding grounds for technology, innovation, creativity, music, culture and more that directly impact the lives of people everywhere else. So much so that I ask myself this... Does LA penetrate it's culture more into Paris, or does Paris' culture penetrate more into LA. Zoom out a bit more and I have to ask the same question of France, and California.

Sounds like what the LA committee is selling, you're buying. To me, it's a little bit of hyperbole to call LA a "special place that directly impact the lives of people everywhere else." I don't know that's going to win over the IOC, particularly where the competition is 1 of the world's most internationally renowned city like Paris. LA's strength is likely more the technical aspects of their bid. It's what we're talking about more than 30 years later how they pulled off 1984 so successfully (different time and place though, so to expect them to be able to replicate that is asking a lot). They have a large number of ready-made facilities in place and plans to improve others that work within the fabric of the city. That's what they need to be selling. It's an internationally diverse region, without question. But to call it the Northern capital of Latin America? Come on guys, ease it up with the shtick.

When New York bid for the Olympics 10 years ago, their final presentation was all style, very little substance. LA needs to be the opposite. They have plenty of substance. Play up that. And everything else about LA that makes it a great choice for a future Olympics will follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that I would call LA the northern capital of Latin America bit I think LA has the largest Spanish Speaking population outside of Mexico City. I think that's what they are trying to reference I'm just not sure that would be the right way to do it. And don't get me wrong, I am not saying Paris is not a renowned city. I just am making reference to California's cultural penetration. In technology, which drives so much of everyone's lives, there is a clear epicenter. In entertainment, there is a clear epicenter. For people of LA we know a little lie known as Hollywood that the world has bought into. Hollywood is synonymous with music, motion picture and television, but most major studios are located outside of Hollywood. Hollywood, short for Hollywoodland, was a housing development. That name has major influence, yet it's almost universally fiction. Point is there are 2 major sources of culture that the Olympic movement could utilize to push its brand further, and taking the games to the homes of these industries are giant advantages of LA24. Again, I can't deny Paris is a cultural powerhouse or that it's a top global city. Question is is being a top global city more lucrative than the cultural penetration that LA and California offer for very specific reasons that may benefit the movement.

You keep talking about cultural penetration and how California is a unique place, far from the traditional US (not sure that's a good thing for an Olympic bid) and what they could do for the Olympic movement, but the question to ask - and certainly what the LA committee will be asked - is to expand on that. How does an LA Olympics further the Olympic movement and push its brand further? You're still talking about a city that hosted an Olympics within somewhat recent memory. So the question needs to be what will a 2024 Olympics do that 1984 didn't or more like how will a 2024 Olympics build on what happened in 1984?

I still think it's a little bit of hyperbole to talk about how LA influences cultures. It's definitely a valid point that can be made, but a very similar argument can be made for Paris. If this were to be a 2-way race between those cities (not predicting that it will be, just throwing it out for argument's sake), you're comparing the 2 against each other. You can't evaluate LA in a vacuum where it's just them. You have to compare them to the competition, and needless to say, it's a very significant city you're talking about that you're putting them up against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes much more sense, especially when Argentina is officially a Spanish-speaking country, & Buenos Aires is the largest Spanish-speaking metropolitan area in South America. So in this case, being anal would be correct.

Quite frankly, the whole "Los Angeles is the 'northern capital' of Latin America, & the 'western capital' of the U.S. & the 'eastern capital' of the Pacific Rim" is nothing but nonsensical mumbo-jumbo at its best, & won't make for any compelling cases when it comes time to win over fastidious IOC members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be anal, Buenos Aires, which is roughly the same size as LA in total, has the 2nd largest Spanish speaking population in the world.

Ok that statement is both false and true. If you're talking specifically about cities, then it's false. If you're referring to metropolitans, it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to clarify that's what I mean about moving the movement forward. How do you throw meat behind Agenda 2020 and reach a generation the movement is eager to reach.

To be fair I don't know what Paris can offer as far as appealing to a new generation, but I do think both cities are well capable of hosting and supporting Agenda 2020. But reading between the lines of LA's first promotional video I think it's clear. LA will sell itself as multicultural, already home to many of the worlds cultures. It will sell itself as a creative utopia. Both which Paris would fare exceptionally well in. But start ups, technology, new LA, all align with one thing, and that's a next generation audience. LA's resurgence is heavily centered around youth, and the technology scene is becoming pretty explosive locally. Statewide, I don't think there is anything like it on earth and you can count on that being both a selling point and supported. I don't even think it even needs to be pressed. Subtly it's reach is huge. And don't get me wrong. Paris has far reaching influence. It's a top global city. The question I ask, is it the right one at this very point in Olympic history?

Agenda 2020 has nothing to do with trying to appeal to a younger generation. That's certainly something the IOC is trying to do, but that's a separate issue altogether. Agenda 2020 is about trying to create more sustainable legacies and making it easier for host cities to handle the burden of putting on the Olympics. In that regard, absolutely LA lines up well with Agenda 2020. But so does Paris. And the question there is will it really even matter? Is the IOC going to practice what they preach and actually choose a city on that basis? That remains to be seen.

Either way.. as much as you can pump up the qualities of LA that make it an appealing Olympic host (although I still question some of these concepts that they actually do help sell an LA bid), this is still a geopolitically motivated organization making the vote. So will they be swayed by any or all of this? Or is Paris' trump card simply that they're in Europe where the IOC desperately needs to restore its reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the IOC knows 2 things. First, that if they reject Paris, then they'll never see Paris, France, indeed maybe Western Europe, bid again. Second, that if they reject LA, that they'll be coming back again for 2028, because LA always wants the Olympics. Heck, they even have a permanent dormant bid committee that can be activated at any time. So surely it's a no-brainer - the only wildcard being how much the Euro vote will split between their 3 bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this on my SSC account, might aswell repost it here:

Stage one of the plan is to build the VIP Facilities with the universities private funds. Stage two is dependent on if their is an LA Olympics. It involves pretty much roofing all or nearly all (peristyle could be an exception) of the stadium. By the looks of it, this is what LA 2024 had planned all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seating would theoretically be reduced to about 70,000 in Olympics mode. That should still be superior to any plan Hamburg or Budapest can plausibly develop, and probably equal or even a little superior to Rome. (Rome's stadium offers 73,000 seats and is in need of refurbishment.)

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't there some sort of agreement between USC and either the USOC or the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games that in case of any renovations to the Coliseum, that the stadium must still be able to accommodate an athletics track?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tenant shall make the Coliseum available for Events related to any Olympics hosted in the County of Los Angeles, as well as the 2015 International Special Olympics that will take place in Los Angeles, subject to the negotiation of costs, required modifications to the Premises (including the temporary re-installation of track and field facilities), restoration of the Premises after the Olympic games by the relevant Organizing Committee, and other business issues to be negotiated with the organizers of such Events.

They don't have to optimize the stadium for the Olympics, they merely have to allow the organizing committee access to the stadium for modifications at the organizing committee's expense. Theoretically they could remodel the stadium so it is no longer a bowl but rather a standard modern football stadium, and then require the organizing committee to build a platform in the stadium to add a track in order to host the Olympics.

Edited by Nacre
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...