Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just a gratuitous downtown Los Angeles shot.

The Wilshire Grand Tower in the background there, the new tallest building west of the Mississippi River, wrapping up on construction.  Opens next spring.

14565106_1148204901903911_17793998010670

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLPLxusAmv6/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

Opens Next Spring?

Yes, some time in March 2017.  It's a mixed-use skyscraper; it'll have a hotel, observation deck, sky lobby, and space for offices and retail.  Typical American skyscraper stuff.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt both LA and Paris presented very strong bids!!!

LA's however seems to be trying to steer the Olympic Games in a new direction, I agree. A revamping or rebranding indeed.

Paris highlighted the unity and backing of the French people, which I felt was very important and noticeably missing from LA's.

LA highlighted the 88% support from LA area citizens, but did not really expand beyond that. I feel it needs to engage the American public as a whole, LA reisdents are already in the bag....move on to the rest of California and the other 49 states.

Get all of America behind it, and there will be no stopping it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Reading through the Paris 2024 web page and LA 2024's page I've noticed a key difference. Paris' page talks about benefits to Paris and France, as well as connecting to youth. Absent is something you see repeated through LA's bid documents. This phrase in particular. "New Games for a New Era." LA is deliberately selling revamping the Olympic Brand, and Paris is not. I think it would behoove Paris to copy LA here, if it can, and promote how a Parisian Olympics would reboot and revamp the Olympic Template. 

Ehh.. I'm not sure that's a message that LA should be selling, and definitely not one that Paris should be copying.  This is the IOC we're talking about.  As much as the world knows they need to change their image, I'm not so sure they're going to look favorably at LA trying to tell the IOC how to re-invent their brand.  This is not an organization that wants to be told what to do, as much as someone probably should.  Again, it goes back to the same idea that's been brought up before that what LA is selling is probably going to further the Olympic movement, but the voting members of the IOC can't exactly be counted on to do what's best for them.

31 minutes ago, Jesse Saenz said:

I felt both LA and Paris presented very strong bids!!!

LA's however seems to be trying to steer the Olympic Games in a new direction, I agree. A revamping or rebranding indeed.

Paris highlighted the unity and backing of the French people, which I felt was very important and noticeably missing from LA's.

LA highlighted the 88% support from LA area citizens, but did not really expand beyond that. I feel it needs to engage the American public as a whole, LA reisdents are already in the bag....move on to the rest of California and the other 49 states.

Get all of America behind it, and there will be no stopping it.

It's a near impossible task to get that to happen.  Paris can stand for the entire country of France.  I don't know how LA can engage with the entire country to the point where they'll feel the effects of an Olympics in LA.  Not sure there's anything that can be done about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Ehh.. I'm not sure that's a message that LA should be selling, and definitely not one that Paris should be copying.  This is the IOC we're talking about.  As much as the world knows they need to change their image, I'm not so sure they're going to look favorably at LA trying to tell the IOC how to re-invent their brand.  This is not an organization that wants to be told what to do, as much as someone probably should.  Again, it goes back to the same idea that's been brought up before that what LA is selling is probably going to further the Olympic movement, but the voting members of the IOC can't exactly be counted on to do what's best for them.

It's a near impossible task to get that to happen.  Paris can stand for the entire country of France.  I don't know how LA can engage with the entire country to the point where they'll feel the effects of an Olympics in LA.  Not sure there's anything that can be done about that.

It will certainly be difficult as LA is never synonimous with America both at home and abroad, but not impossible.

This is where LA's creativity can come in to good use.

Time so shake up that image that La La Land is this far off place lost in its own little world.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.  The US is too big and people have so many other priorities that a home-grown Olympic Games is really only going to excite the region it will be in; if at all.  Other parts of the country are simply too busy with their own agendas.  France is a smaller country of 64 million people whose ways are more homogenous.  

Crucial question: who's doing Ceremonies?  I think the 2024 bid will rise and fall on that!! 

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

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Nope.  The US is too big and people have so many other priorities that a home-grown Olympic Games is really only going to excite the region it will be in; if at all.  Other parts of the country are simply too busy with their own agendas.  France is a smaller country of 64 million people whose ways are more homogenous.  

Crucial question: who's doing Ceremonies?  I think the 2024 bid will rise and fall on that!! 

California alone has 40 Million people.

Its not wise to underestimate the potential.

USA's 319 Million vs France's 64 Million, I wouldn't knock em just yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every host city since I started following Olympic bidding claimed they were doing things in a new way for a new era. It's not an original message. I noticed Rio's mayor claiming they were breaking from the old model London used when in reality they used the same company to design their Olympic Park (to the point where the media centre was the SAME BUILDING, don't believe me use Google images!) and the funding models were identical (as they have been for most hosts since LA84).

So whatever else is true, the IOC have heard this message many times. I think it'll take something truly radical for it to wash, and I'm not sure with the Olympics something truly radical is even possible given the huge number of stakeholders and sponsors etc.

LA is not offering anything particularly groundbreaking for 2024, with the exception of the training campus idea which is truly excellent. It's certainly not offering a new blueprint for a new era going forward. It just happens to be in an advantageous position where it has so many already built venues. That can't carry across to cities which aren't in that position. If Durban wins 2032 for example, what can they possibly take from LA24 that they couldn't have taken from any other Games this century?

As I said before, LA needs to push home its advantages and what it can do to evolve the Olympic brand (digital, Hollywood, coastal location, youth message etc). Claiming a revolution when in fact what you're offering is some nice evolutions could look disingenuous.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jesse Saenz said:

California alone has 40 Million people.

Its not wise to underestimate the potential.

USA's 319 Million vs France's 64 Million, I wouldn't knock em just yet.

 

 
 
 
 

Everybody knows those stats -- but so what?  It doesn't really translate into the idea you're trying to push, Jesse.  Paris is the capital, nerve center and pride of a sovereign nation.  LA is but one of the 4 major cities of a vast country; and is NOT exactly one where real power flows from it.  

To wit: ff the US wins World Cup  2026, that's where you'll get more of a national excitement rather than 2024 because the World Cup bid is a national effort.  And it will be a repeat of the WC 1994 - Atlanta 1996 situation  (and more so if LA fails 2024; World Cup 2026 comes our way; and LA gets 2028 instead).  The 1994 WC broke house records (and like ten major cities and regions were involved).  You only had  4 modest cities involved for Atlanta 1996 (the host city + the 4 satellite soccer cities (all SE except for DC).  It's just the nature of the beast.  An Olympics is anchored to one host city; a WC is a national effort.  

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

39 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Whether it not this matters it's important to note that Paris Mayor Ann Hidalgo wasn't in support of the games before she was in support of them and even suggested putting in a bid for 2028 instead.

I've made this comparison before but the same was true of London's mayor back in 2005. I think as long as the mayor is fully behind the bid and persuaded of its merits when it matters, then that's fine. What would be worse would be to have a Mayor gung-ho for the Olympics regardless of the effect it had on their city. That Paris 2024 and the French NOC has won around a previously skeptical mayor surely is a good thing for all concerned? It implies a responsible bid and a responsible Mayor.

Of course, LA also has very strong support. Another thing it's hard to separate these two cities on!

Oh, and I'd love Rome to continue with its bid without Mayoral support just for the LOLs.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jesse Saenz said:

It will certainly be difficult as LA is never synonimous with America both at home and abroad, but not impossible.

This is where LA's creativity can come in to good use.

Time so shake up that image that La La Land is this far off place lost in its own little world.

11 hours ago, Jesse Saenz said:

Simply put, LA IS AMERICA. Its a friendlier, more laid back America, but America nonetheless, a side of America that is harder to hate.

Oh come on, do you honestly believe all that?  That people (and more importantly, the voting members of the IOC) actually perceive Los Angeles as a "far off place lost in its own little world" or a place that is unfriendly or should be hated?  Or is that the perception you want to believe they have now so that the image you can present looks that much better by comparison.

No, LA is not America.  Like baron noted, there's no 1 city in the US that can speak as representing the entire country that it "IS AMERICA."  This country is too large and diverse for that.  I've read people here (and elsewhere) talk about how not everyone in France likes the idea that people immediately associate the country with Paris and that there's more to France.  That said, France - unlike the United States - has 1 prominent city that towers (pun intended) above the rest so it's easier to sell that.

Either way, this is not like those memes where they have a profession and it's "what my friends think I do.. what society thinks I do.. what I think I do.. what I really do."  The IOC has been to LA before.  It's not an unknown entity.  Again, there is a great sales pitch there about how much the city has changed since then, but there's no use in wasting time trying to convince the IOC of what they're supposed to think about LA just so that the vision that's being offered seems that much stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Los Angeles HAS to talk about change because it needs to explain why it should be given the Olympics again so soon after 1984.

2) The sporting federations clearly do not want change - unless it means more money and/or better broadcasting numbers.

12 hours ago, Jesse Saenz said:

Simply put, LA IS AMERICA. Its a friendlier, more laid back America, but America nonetheless, a side of America that is harder to hate.

"Hate" is a strong word, but California is the most unfavorably viewed state and Los Angeles is in the bottom three for cities along with Detroit and Oakland. (I can't find the 2015 data, but polling has been consistent for a while now.) Los Angeles is widely disliked by other Americans (and in turn by the world), and I don't see how it could change its perception as a shallow, consumerist city. Because, let's be honest, pop culture is what Los Angeles does well.

And just to make it clear that I am not criticizing Los Angeles particularly, no city in the USA could really unite the country. Atlanta was a games for the south.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally DON'T like LA -- even though it has done nothing to me.  But I am forced to go there often because I have family members who live down there.  If I could, I would pack the ones I care for, and move them to the Bay Area.  It's really LA's vehicular lifestyle that I dislike; and what? 285 million other Americans do NOT live in LA.   LA sets trends but that doesn't mean people embrace all of it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RuFF said:

Whether it not this matters it's important to note that Paris Mayor Ann Hidalgo wasn't in support of the games before she was in support of them and even suggested putting in a bid for 2028 instead.

I (& a couple of other posters), have mentioned before, that this precise strong turn around to bid, as far as the French are concerned, is something crucial & very impressive in itself.

Sure, L.A. has had consistent support since the beginning, but now that Paris is all onboard once the 2024 campaign begun (where it really counts), speaks volumes. And it's something, IMHO, that the IOC shouldn't ignore, especially when you have all these other European bids dropping like flies (with Rome 2024 soon to be next, too).

Cuz if the French were to (once again) lose 2024, support for a 2028 bid is not going to be there, especially (& as you yourself acknowledged) strong support for 2024 was not intially there by the French. And the IOC shouldn't count on other strong European countries to perhaps maybe come forward for 2028, cuz the strong evidence as of late demostrates quite the opposite. So the IOC would be squandering away a perfect 2024 European opportunity for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On October 7, 2016 at 0:19 PM, ejaycat said:

Just a gratuitous downtown Los Angeles shot.

The Wilshire Grand Tower in the background there, the new tallest building west of the Mississippi River, wrapping up on construction.  Opens next spring.

14565106_1148204901903911_17793998010670

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLPLxusAmv6/

I never knew that this building was being constructed in downtown L.A. I guess the coverage over the Freedom Tower (whenever the news talked about it in recent years) in New York overshawed it. 

Thats always been one thing I always thought was lop-sided about L.A. For being the country's second largest city, it never had enough Skyscrapers to really give it an image of a truly "big city", like New York or Chicago. Before the U.S. Bank Tower was built in 1989, L.A.'s skyline was really plain Jane.

I mean even San Francisco has more of an impressive skyline & it's city proper population is only a 1/4 of L.A.'s. Maybe a few more new skyscrapers could finally give it that distinction of the big metropolis that it actually is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Thats always been one thing I always thought was lop-sided about L.A. For being the country's second largest city, it never had enough Skyscrapers to really give it an image of a truly "big city", like New York or Chicago. Before the U.S. Bank Tower was built in 1989, L.A.'s skyline was really plain Jane.

Los Angeles did not allow skyscrapers to be built until the 1960's. (It intentionally went for sprawl instead.) So it isn't really fair to expect it to have an impressive skyline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nacre said:

Los Angeles did not allow skyscrapers to be built until the 1960's. (It intentionally went for sprawl instead.) So it isn't really fair to expect it to have an impressive skyline.

Well, if they "intentionally" went for sprawl instead, why isn't fair to judge it accordingly then. Many European ciites didn't go for skyscrapers either until within the last twenty years or so, but they still have more of an "urban" feel than L.A. does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nacre said:

Los Angeles did not allow skyscrapers to be built until the 1960's. (It intentionally went for sprawl instead.) So it isn't really fair to expect it to have an impressive skyline.

Did you mean the City of LA or LA County?  I mean there's a whole host of cities w/in LA County - Beverly Hills, Culver City, Century City, Studio City, Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, Inglewood, etc., etc., 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Well, if they "intentionally" went for sprawl instead, why isn't fair to judge it accordingly then. Many European ciites didn't go for skyscrapers either until within the last twenty years or so, but they still have more of an "urban" feel than L.A. does. 

It is only fair to note, though, that Los Angeles is a *really* young city. LA had 5,000 residents in 1870.

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Did you mean the City of LA or LA County?  I mean there's a whole host of cities w/in LA County - Beverly Hills, Culver City, Century City, Studio City, Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, Inglewood, etc., etc., 

Both. The skyscraper thing was Los Angeles itself. For the county it was stuff like building highways and laying down water pipes to enable houses to be built in the middle of nowhere.

Back in the first half of the 1900's people did not think about resource scarcity. So the common man wanted decisions that maximized their personal prosperity, and sprawl does that. (At the cost of hurting long term economic growth and wasting resources.) In hindsight Los Angeles backed the wrong horse. But in the eyes of the working class back then high density meant palaces for the rich and slums for the poor, while sprawl was more fair.

And in any case I don't think the IOC cares much that San Francisco and Seattle have better downtown areas and early skyscrapers than Los Angeles.

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...