los angeles 2024

[Jesse Saenz]

LA's bid has a bit of a non conventional approach to venues and post games usage.

Usually, venues and villages are built for the Olympics first, then with some plan, however ambigious or uncertain, for after the games. 

In LA, all venues are already being used and the two under construction are being built for non-olympic events first with the plan that they can be used for the Olympics.

They are being finanaced and paid for independent of the games which is why they shouldn't even be considered part of the budget.

I know I am being accused of not lumping costs together like other cities, but thats because in this case, they shouldn't.

Even the Metro system expansion. That was voter approved back in 2008.

It too should not be considered when tallying up the overall cost of the games.

[zekekelso]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Once again, look what that has gotten them.  This is the organization that essentially scolded Oslo when they dropped out and left them with Beijing and Almaty.  The IOC can say what they want and try to believe their own hype.  Does anyone outside the IOC buy any of that?

Uh, yeah. Pretty sure we now agree. 

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

Uh, yeah. Pretty sure we now agree. 

Did we ever not agree?  I thought you were being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

[Jesse Saenz]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

This is often over looked. I spoke about this a few months back but the cost overruns argument kept being banged. But if anybody knows California politics they'll know Californians do not pay for sport. The NFL left LA in 1994, had entered markets on the taxpayer buck but LA has held out. The Rams return to LA is all private money. What is astonishing is that not only is it all private money, but it will be the worlds most expensive stadium nearing a cost of $3 billion. More than the proposed and dumped Zaha Hadid Olympic Stadium for Tokyo. That is very unique for Los Angeles and I recently read an article about LA2024 presenting a bid that is loaded with privately financed venues. In some ways it parallels 1984 in that at that time LA84 was able to keep a substantial amount of sponsorship revenue, and private enterprise such as McDonalds financed venues (i.e. McDonald's Swim Stadium). I don't think there is a city on the planet that can make that claim that virtually all venue are being paid for by private money. 

Granted, the argument that there will be temporary stadiums (swimming/volley ball, etc.) and elevated tracks holds merit. There is a cost associated with that method... but compared to the alternatives I think this temporary method is a substantial amount of savings. We'll see though. 

All things considered, it is becoming hard to deny that LA will carry with it the least fiscally risky games.

The temporary venues (pool/vollyball) are a fraction of the cost of permanent arenas or stadiums.

The worlds most advanced stadium will be built without a cent of IOC's and taxpayers money but will be fully available to the IOC as will the new Banc of California Stadium.

No other city can come even close to what LA is prepared to deliver on.

But again. IOC....

[LDM]

9 hours ago, RuFF said:

I'm struggling to believe that this video went without comment. It's an excellent video and I love the way they put USA house together. Pretty incredible stuff. Wish I could have experienced it first hand but this video did a great job of substituting the real thing. 

Agree. Great concept and amazing execution. Perfectly reflects the angle they are trying to push LA for as a candidate city: new age, youthful, vibrant, creative and tech savvy. 

[ejaycat]

At first I thought it seemed out of the blue that Anaheim and Long Beach would say that they would commit their facilities should LA get 2024; I just thought that they just wanted in on the action, too (and some of the limelight), and that 'well, there are now rail transit links to both cities that did not exist during 1984.'

 

Well I guess the LA plan has been continually evolving, and I guess a revised plan now does include Anaheim and Long Beach:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/la2024-729775-revised-scng.html

 

The Metro Blue Line from downtown LA to downtown Long Beach has existed since 1990.  Two years ago, the ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center) opened, a nice facility, but underused, which acts as a station for Metrolink, Amtrak, Greyhound buses, OCTA buses and other regional bus agencies.  ARTIC was also designed with the California High Speed Rail system in mind.  ARTIC is walking distance to Angel Stadium, near the Honda Center, and not far from the Anaheim Resort district (Disneyland/California Adventure and Anaheim Convention Center).  

Edited September 22, 2016 by ejaycat

[zekekelso]

12 hours ago, Jesse Saenz said:

All things considered, it is becoming hard to deny that LA will carry with it the least fiscally risky games.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't seen a budget or a financing plan for any of the three remaining cities, have we? Without that, there's no real way to know whose plan is risky, and whose isn't. 

[Rob2012]

^^ I think that statement will almost certainly prove true. What I take issue with is this part of his post:

No other city can come even close to what LA is prepared to deliver on. But again. IOC....

Paris certainly comes close. It's almost as if these guys are forgetting Paris was considered a safe, conservative technical bid which made good use of existing venues 11 years ago and that since then they've built even more stuff.

Least risk does not equal best for the IOC. It might do, it might not. And in any case the risk levels are marginal between the two big beasts in this race. It's not like LA is trying to contrast itself with Hambantota. Any LA backers who try to paint Paris as "the risky bid" will inevitably fail because it flies in the face of the facts and the IOC's own evaluation reports on the city! No city can even come close? That's an easy bit of hyperbole to shoot down, because unfortunately for LA, one of them is in this race!

 

[Rob2012]

^^ I was just about to post to say I agree with everything in that post until I read the last two sentences. I respond to exactly what people write. If they don't mean what they write, they should be clearer.

So close to getting a 'like' there RuFF, so close... .

But yeah, I don't think we disagree, amazingly! LA is likely the least risky bid but that doesn't mean Paris is risky. Exactly! That's pretty much what I've been saying here since the start. And it's also why I took issue with the article you posted about Paris offering the IOC seven years of negative headlines.

My guess is that the marginally less risk LA offers combined with the undoubted USPs you've outlined above won't be enough to get it over the line against a fourth Paris bid especially when the IOC is desperate to get Europe back on board. That's still my stance, and has been for a while. But predictions are of course, tricky.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Rob.

[ejaycat]

Hmm, now I'm looking forward to see the revised venue plans for LA2024.

 

According to this, the rowing/canoeing venue might move from Lake Casitas in Ventura County to Lake Perris in Riverside County:  http://www.dailynews.com/events/20160922/honda-center-long-beach-added-as-venues-in-las-2024-olympic-bid

 

I don't know what the advantage to that would be; Lake Perris isn't that much closer to downtown LA than Lake Casitas.  Maybe because it's in a less remote area? 

 

[Rob2012]

Quote

The LA 2024 enhanced Games Concept offers two specific innovations. The first is an Olympic and Paralympic Village that offers extensive and fully integrated training facilities. UCLA’s previously designated competition venues, the tennis center and north athletic field, will now join Drake track and field stadium as part of the Village training center. With unprecedented convenience and quality for athletes, LA 2024’s Village and Training plan ensures all sports will either have training facilities at the Village or their competition venue, eliminating the need for additional travel.

The second innovation takes the concept of the Olympic Park to the next level by offering four unique Sports Parks, in Downtown Los Angeles, the South Bay, the Valley, and now Long Beach. By evolving the traditional concept of a singular, highly concentrated Olympic Park into a new city-wide model, the LA 2024 plan uses more world-class existing sports venues and brings the Games experience to more areas of Southern California than ever before.

https://la24.org/media/922-new-venues

The second innovation is certainly not an innovation. I assume whoever wrote this didn't watch Rio 2016 which also used clusters of venues in this way.

The first point is very interesting though. I think that's a really neat idea and is one area where LA might've stolen a bit of a march. So the moving of the venues is about creating this 'training campus'. I like that a lot.

[ejaycat]

25 minutes ago, Rob. said:

https://la24.org/media/922-new-venues

The second innovation is certainly not an innovation. I assume whoever wrote this didn't watch Rio 2016 which also used clusters of venues in this way.

 

Probably an idea LA2024 got by observing Rio during their Games...

 

Makes me wonder how Paris might change up their bid plans.

[zekekelso]

" By evolving the traditional concept of a singular, highly concentrated Olympic Park into a new city-wide model, "

The concept of multiple clusters has been around a long time. Heck, most WOG's have a ice cluster and a mountain cluster. Tokyo is going with a "Tokyo Bay Zone" and a "Heritage Zone". But that bit about a "city wide model" rings a bell. There was one recent bid (Madrid?) which specifically used the idea of "Our entire city will be the Olympic Park". Anyone remember which bid that was?

[Rob2012]

15 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

" By evolving the traditional concept of a singular, highly concentrated Olympic Park into a new city-wide model, "

The concept of multiple clusters has been around a long time. Heck, most WOG's have a ice cluster and a mountain cluster. Tokyo is going with a "Tokyo Bay Zone" and a "Heritage Zone". But that bit about a "city wide model" rings a bell. There was one recent bid (Madrid?) which specifically used the idea of "Our entire city will be the Olympic Park". Anyone remember which bid that was?

Leipzig rings a bell.

[ejaycat]

I thought previous Summer Olympics also used "clusters" or "zones"; I'm trying to think why/how LA's 2024 clusters would be somehow different.

Reading the description, maybe the fact that they'll be considered and treated like "Sports Parks"?  They'll each be self-contained, each offering a "mult-sport and entertainment experience within a secure perimeter where all attendees will be able to walk from one venue to another in a vibrant and lively atmosphere that will include food, music, celebration Live Sites, and the opportunity to see several events..."  Like mini sport amusement parks connected by mass transit?  Hmm...

 

[Sir Rols]

1 minute ago, ejaycat said:

I thought previous Summer Olympics also used "clusters" or "zones"; I'm trying to think why/how LA's 2024 clusters would be somehow different.

Reading the description, maybe the fact that they'll be considered and treated like "Sports Parks"?  They'll each be self-contained, each offering a "mult-sport and entertainment experience within a secure perimeter where all attendees will be able to walk from one venue to another in a vibrant and lively atmosphere that will include food, music, celebration Live Sites, and the opportunity to see several events..."  Like mini sport amusement parks connected by mass transit?  Hmm...

 

Sydney had two major clusters - Homebush Bay and Sydney Harbour/Darling Harbour plus a scattering of major venues outside of these (Beach Volleyball, rowing, cycling and more). And with live sites also scattered across the city. So, not really a new concept. If anything, the idea of a "highly concentrated Olympic Park" is a myth - I don't think any city has been able to concentrate the overwhelming bulk of its sports into one location (at least recently). If anything, over-centralisation these days would cause more logistical headaches than a sensible plan with a major focal point, plus a thoughtful placement of satellite venues throughout the wider city.

[alphamale86]

To be honest the truth is LA has a wealth of world class venues that they can host different events in throughout the city so do these additions necessarily change the narrative not real in my opinion. I agree with the point that moving more events out of USLA so that the athletes have those arenas for practice is a great idea and an obvious manifestation of their promise of delivering an "athletes games"

[ejaycat]

24 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The major advantage may be rail accessibility. While Ventura is served by the Ventura County Line, the New Perris Valley Line has a station that is in closer proximity to Lake Perris than the Ventura Station is to Lake Casitas. Also, Lake Perris can be reached by numerous lines.  

Oh that's right; I forgot that Metrolink recently extended rail service into Perris.  I thought maybe Perris' freeway access made it less remote than Lake Casitas.  I like that LA2024's bid plans really are trying to factor in rail transit for its venues. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by ejaycat

[ejaycat]

31 minutes ago, RuFF said:

It's going to be interesting should LA win. People will have an opportunity to experience LA from a pedestrian perspective which will be a huge departure from 1984. 

Less car-dependent or bus-dependent, anyway, but I think shuttle buses would still be utilized.

I read somewhere that when LA hosted the Olympics in 1984, it was the first city without rail mass transit to host a Summer Games since Rome in 1960--which I thought was odd, because I also thought I read somewhere that Rome's subway first opened in the 1950s.  Go figure.

Anyway, what was then called the RTD (now the MTA/Metro) organized bus routes and schedules especially for the 1984 Olympics, and apparently that was a success.  

This video is from 1984, talking about bus service during the 1984 Summer Olympics; kind of quaint, almost hokey.  But I thought it was interesting to watch, especially in light of what exists in LA now public transportation-wise, with Metrolink, Metro Rail and our extensive Rapid Bus lines:  

 

Check out that bustle-back Cadillac Seville at 2:22!  And that "Police Academy"-looking traffic cop at 2:49!  

Edited September 22, 2016 by ejaycat

[ejaycat]

On 09/21/2016 at 3:59 PM, FYI said:

Even the USOC has come out & said, that if the circumstances were "ideal", than a San Francisco candidature would be their pick. But unfortunately, that workable plan is not there like it is an L.A. at the moment. And remember, L.A. wasn't even the USOC's first 2024 choice, Boston was. So that should tell us something.

The last time, and only time, San Francisco was a candidate city for the Summer Olympics was for the 1956 Games.  This was the last time that multiple cities from one country were allowed to bid.  This is how it fared:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Summer_Olympics#Host_city_selection

I'm wondering what the IOC didn't like about SF and Montreal that they got the number of votes that they did. 

And as an aside, I'm really curious to see LA's losing bid plans for 1976 and 1980, as well as 1956.  I wish they could be found somewhere... I wonder if the Central Library downtown has them somewhere in the closed stacks...

[Aquatic]

On 9/21/2016 at 6:50 PM, Quaker2001 said:

L.A. helped save the Olympic movement in 1984.  We all know they were the only choice the IOC had, but the results speak for themselves.  Yes, that is a really bad analogy.  Remind us.. how many Olympics has the Bay Area hosted?

I'm not sure what your question at the end has to do with anything? SF is the USOC's ideal choice and I'd bet my last dollar the IOC would leap at an SF bid if there was one. I personally don't care if the USA doesn't host a Summer Olympic games until 2096. However, I stand by my analogy. L.A. has always been the city of last resort for the IOC. The Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games really thinks the IOC loves L.A., just because they hosted in 1984 and the games didn't go bankrupt. Yes, the IOC was happy a games happened that year, but I really don't believe they are eternally grateful or see LA. as an ideal host city. They know L.A. is capable, that doesn't mean they love the place or want to return. As long as they have a choice, they won't.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, Aquatic said:

I'm not sure what your question at the end has to do with anything? SF is the USOC's ideal choice and I'd bet my last dollar the IOC would leap at an SF bid if there was one. I personally don't care if the USA doesn't host a Summer Olympic games until 2096. However, I stand by my analogy. L.A. has always been the city of last resort for the IOC. The Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games really thinks the IOC loves L.A., just because they hosted in 1984 and the games didn't go bankrupt. Yes, the IOC was happy a games happened that year, but I really don't believe they are eternally grateful or see LA. as an ideal host city. They know L.A. is capable, that doesn't mean they love the place or want to return. As long as they have a choice, they won't.

What do you mean if there was one?  The USOC had the Bay Area as an option for their 2012 bid.  Passed them over for New York.  The Bay Area was back at it again for 2016, but withdrew due to failed negotiations with the 49ers over their new stadium.  And now we have the 2024 bid, where San Francisco was passed over not once, but twice by the USOC.  You keep telling us San Francisco is the USOC's ideal choice (are you stating that as a matter of opinion or fact?), but if San Francisco doesn't have the goods, it's irrelevant.  The USOC's ideal choice is the city that gives them the best chance at winning the IOC's vote.  Right now, that city is Los Angeles, not San Francisco.

You can make this a hypothetical about where the IOC would rather go if they had their choice.  Unfortunately, they don't get to pick who does or doesn't bid for the Olympics.  You're darn right they know LA is capable.  And I think the IOC is pretty grateful for what LA gave them in `84.  They may not love the city, but they certainly love what they did for the Olympics.  Not going bankrupt and not having a major terrorist incident were a pretty big deal.  Given their druthers, would they like to see another city in the US offered up as a candidate for the Olympics?  I'm sure they would.  But "always" as a last resort is 2 times, 1 of which was nearly a century ago.  Good for your analogy.  Under the right circumstances, the USOC probably would take San Francisco over LA.  In the real world however, LA is far better suited to host an Olympics than San Francisco is because LA has the technical means to pull it off and has their act together.  San Fran does not and it's not because they weren't in the running in the first place.  At the end of the day, that's all that really matters.

[FYI]

First you think that Quaker & I are one (which anyone with half a brain could see that we're not), now you think it's Aquatic. "Someone ought to sock you in your pussy @ss face!" 

Persoanlly, I think you're the QUEEN (troll) of mutilple handles like the two Jesse accounts, City of dreams & perhaps also AM86 (& who knows what else). So of course you would know all about that when trying to accuse others of the same, Truff. 

[FYI]

10 hours ago, RuFF said:

I don't know about all that jibberish or that I even have anything to add to that.. 

What are you talking about. You know ALL that there is to know about 'G'ibberish! 

[Aquatic]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

What do you mean if there was one?  The USOC had the Bay Area as an option for their 2012 bid.  Passed them over for New York.  The Bay Area was back at it again for 2016, but withdrew due to failed negotiations with the 49ers over their new stadium.  And now we have the 2024 bid, where San Francisco was passed over not once, but twice by the USOC.  You keep telling us San Francisco is the USOC's ideal choice (are you stating that as a matter of opinion or fact?), but if San Francisco doesn't have the goods, it's irrelevant.  The USOC's ideal choice is the city that gives them the best chance at winning the IOC's vote.  Right now, that city is Los Angeles, not San Francisco.

You can make this a hypothetical about where the IOC would rather go if they had their choice.  Unfortunately, they don't get to pick who does or doesn't bid for the Olympics.  You're darn right they know LA is capable.  And I think the IOC is pretty grateful for what LA gave them in `84.  They may not love the city, but they certainly love what they did for the Olympics.  Not going bankrupt and not having a major terrorist incident were a pretty big deal.  Given their druthers, would they like to see another city in the US offered up as a candidate for the Olympics?  I'm sure they would.  But "always" as a last resort is 2 times, 1 of which was nearly a century ago.  Good for your analogy.  Under the right circumstances, the USOC probably would take San Francisco over LA.  In the real world however, LA is far better suited to host an Olympics than San Francisco is because LA has the technical means to pull it off and has their act together.  San Fran does not and it's not because they weren't in the running in the first place.  At the end of the day, that's all that really matters.

I mean exactly that. If there was one. L.A. is and always will be "second choice city". For everybody. USOC, would rather field SF, over L.A. Even Boston was not who they really wanted. They wanted SF. IOC will always want somewhere else other than L.A. given other good choices. Nobody wants L.A. as a first pick. Never in history has L.A. ever been anyone's first pick. That's what I am saying.

I think also you like Forum discussion drama and like to argue for the sake of arguing.