Jump to content

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Nacre said:

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

And Dallas had 3,000 people in 1870, & yet their skyline is a little more impressive than L.A.'s. So that's still no excuse, other than the 'intentional sprawl'. 

59 minutes ago, Nacre said:

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.

No one said that, or even brought up Seattle, other than you. Of course the IOC wouldn't necessarily care about such things. I made a simple reference about skyscrapers, bcuz someone posted about the new skyscraper that's about to open in downtown L.A. Why YOU chose to make a connection with that the IOC might or might not care about skyscrapers is beyond me.

56 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Funny you should mention this. There are 10 skyscrapers currently under construction within a block or two of Staples Center/LA Live with more scheduled to break ground in 2017. I can't say how long the current development boom will last but if it continues as it's been we are looking at a significantly different skyline come 2024 in Downtown Los Angeles. But the development boom is also making its presence known in Hollywood, the Sunset Strip, Century City, & K-town. 

Great! And just think, that by 2028 it would be even that much more impressive, & would make awesome TV footage of the "new L.A." then!! ;):lol::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FYI said:

And Dallas had 3,000 people in 1870, & yet their skyline is a little more impressive than L.A.'s. So that's still no excuse, other than the 'intentional sprawl'. 

No one said that, or even brought up Seattle, other than you. Of course the IOC wouldn't necessarily care about such things. I made a simple reference about skyscrapers, bcuz someone posted about the new skyscraper that's about to open in downtown L.A. Why YOU chose to make a connection with that the IOC might or might not care about skyscrapers is beyond me.

Great! And just think, that by 2028 it would be even that much more impressive, & would make awesome TV footage of the "new L.A." then!! ;):lol::P

 

Well, if we are to believe LA2024 according to its boosters Ruffage and Jesse, LA has also re-invented the skyscraper!!  What will LA NOT have re-invented by the time they have closing ceremonies in 2028??  :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Well, if we are to believe LA2024 according to its boosters Ruffage and Jesse, LA has also re-invented the skyscraper!!  What will LA NOT have re-invented by the time they have closing ceremonies in 2028??  :blink:

OK Pierre, take a chill pill or two, lol.

In all seriousness I like that we all disagree and that we are forced to see things through a seperate set of lenses. It expands our understanding and makes for a more interesting forum.

How boring if we all just agreed and said nothing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RuFF said:

This is a very important point. The view of LA is changing. First it started with the way Angelenos see themselves and slowly it has been spilling nationally and globally. There is a lot of evidence that people are seeing LA as a new LA. In culture, the arts, fashion, creativity. What LA 2024 is selling isn't lip service. There is plenty of meat behind the sales pitch. 

I've never disagreed with any of that.  Where you're losing me is that you're trying to set the baseline for how the rest of the world views LA.  How exactly doe Angelinos see themselves?  Did they not have a boost of self-confidence from the effort the Olympics put forth in 1984?  Has it been slipping since then to the point that they are in desperate need of another Olympics to stem the tide?

LA can and should push their "New LA" narrative.  It is indeed a good sales pitch.  But they need to sell what LA is, not try and fool anyone based on what they want the IOC to believe about LA just so they can replace that message with another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I've never disagreed with any of that.  Where you're losing me is that you're trying to set the baseline for how the rest of the world views LA.  How exactly doe Angelinos see themselves?  Did they not have a boost of self-confidence from the effort the Olympics put forth in 1984?  Has it been slipping since then to the point that they are in desperate need of another Olympics to stem the tide?

LA can and should push their "New LA" narrative.  It is indeed a good sales pitch.  But they need to sell what LA is, not try and fool anyone based on what they want the IOC to believe about LA just so they can replace that message with another.

I think what makes LA intresting is that its still not an entirely defined city. 

That in itself is both a weakness and a stenght. A wild card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Oh, did they?  Well, who cares about the SuperBowl?  It's the best day to go to the movies....when the stupid crowds are at home or in the bars watching the dumb big show there.  

Who cares about the Olympics opening ceremony? :lol: 

Football is the reason they are going to build a shiny new stadium in LA.  Does that necessarily mean much for the Olympics?  Probably not, but you should love the fact it might offer an alternative option to having another opening ceremony in the Coliseum, as if we haven't seen that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Who cares about the Olympics opening ceremony? :lol: 

 

Oh, u know better than to ask that question.   :rolleyes:   Of course, MILLIONS watch the Opening Ceremony -- BOTH Summer and Winter.  It is the HIGHEST-ranked telecast of recent Olympic Games (well, except for the Tonya Harding-Nancy Kerrigan face-offs in 1994), and after some Ladies Singles Finals.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was a dumbass question (even if it was meant as a facetious one). If no one cared about the Olympic ceremonies, the organizing committees wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars, not to mention all of the hours spent on preps & rehearsals, on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuFF said:

They are selling what LA is. There's no fooling anyone into what they want anyone to believe about LA. Whether you believe it or not, LA isn't 1984, and it's not exactly suburban central either. The message is irrelevant when the story is already something else. The problem is just that you haven't seen it. But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. 

Taking that picture for example. FYU sees a new building he may have not known about that may have played a back story to the press garnishing freedom tower. Ejaycat and myself see something else. You see a creative that took that picture, and you see residents in historic downtown Los Angeles actually living there, activating the street life and increasingly living a pedestrian lifestyle. Ejaycat probably knows there's a regional connector for the metro rail under construction. He probably knows well that there is a development boom in downtown and that the skyline is already changing. He probably knows billions of dollars are currently invested in downtown Los Angeles and billions more are on the way, a huge departure from LA just 10 years ago, let alone 1984. 

So, you can say the narrative is being sold, but ejaycat and I probably already know it's a narrative that has already changed. Just now more and more people are finding out.. both in LA, the US and abroad. 

There's a big gap between what "They" are selling and what you and Jesse and others are arguing here.  Which I get, but that's why I'm address you and not them.  We get that you and ejaycat see things a certain way, but what you guys know is not important.  It's how that message translates for the IOC voters that matters,  And they have to be allowed of their own free will to "believe it or not."  I trust that the LA2024 won't respond to IOC voters the way you're telling me it's a problem that I'm not seeing LA in the same light that you are.  I was in LA a few years ago.  I went to a basketball game at Staples, so I saw for myself what's going on downtown, so I understand and acknowledge that's worlds apart from what the IOC experienced in 1984.  Again though, be careful about selling this idea of "OMG, you're not going to believe how much LA has changed, it's going to blow your socks off!"  I've acknowledged time and time again that what LA has and what LA is selling is impressive, but mind you that some IOC members may not think this New LA transformation is as dramatic as you see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, FYI said:

Yeah, that was a dumbass question (even if it was meant as a facetious one). If no one cared about the Olympic ceremonies, the organizing committees wouldn't spend tens of millions of dollars, not to mention all of the hours spent on preps & rehearsals, on them.

Which dumbass question was that.. the one I asked or the one where baron asked " Well, who cares about the SuperBowl?"  I guess you missed that one.  And/or didn't realize who made that comment.  Probably also missed this comment in another thread..

12 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I guess only LA, Paris, Doha and Baku wants these big events now.  Even Durban is in danger of bowing out of CWG 2022.  Are we past the times of these mega-sports events?  Too much emphasis on BORING sports I say.  People are much more interested in the shows and ceremonies rather than the boring sports events.  

But no FYI, clearly I'm the dumbass here.  baron, we know you're just being you here and that you think most Olympic sports are just filler material and a distraction between the ceremonies.  Just remember though.. you can have sports without ceremonies.  You can't really have ceremonies without sport and still pretend it's the Olympics.  Not that they would ever do away with the ceremonies for obvious reasons, but don't speak for "People" when we know you're just speaking for yourself there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, FYI said:

And Dallas had 3,000 people in 1870, & yet their skyline is a little more impressive than L.A.'s. So that's still no excuse, other than the 'intentional sprawl'. 

No one said that, or even brought up Seattle, other than you. Of course the IOC wouldn't necessarily care about such things. I made a simple reference about skyscrapers, bcuz someone posted about the new skyscraper that's about to open in downtown L.A. Why YOU chose to make a connection with that the IOC might or might not care about skyscrapers is beyond me.

Dallas did start trying to build its downtown area in the 1920's, and yet is only marginally better off than LA. (If it is at all.) The intentional sprawl was a mistake, but even if LA had opted to build vertically it would not be the equal of the east coast cities. New York already had a million people in the 1870's while many of the west coast cities were only villages.

I mentioned San Francisco and Seattle because they are the two west coast cities that went for high density downtown areas, as opposed to Los Angeles. (And Seattle was basically the same size as LA until the latter found oil and created the film industry right at the time of its first Olympic Games, making it a good comparison for the pre-1920's era.) This is a thread about Los Angeles' Olympic bid on a forum about Olympic bids. So I think it is only fair to note that Los Angeles' sprawl has not hurt its Olympic bid. San Francisco is a better urban environment than Los Angeles in my opinion, but it is a much worse Olympic bid city.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/08/2016 at 1:26 PM, baron-pierreIV said:

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.  

But most Americans do drive private vehicles to get around.  NYC and San Francisco have among the highest rates of public transit use, but the reality is that most Americans still do drive to get around.  Even in the Bay Area, the traffic is pretty horrendous.  The Bay Area is a big place; outside of the City of San Francisco, the Bay Area is largely suburban in built form, and therefore still very car-oriented.  San Jose is basically like Orange County times 10.  And those Silicon Valley business parks are definitely suburban and car-oriented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RuFF said:

Whether you believe it or not, LA isn't 1984, and it's not exactly suburban central either.

It definitely is not.  And construction in downtown LA, and Koreatown and Hollywood, is booming.  Today my partner and I hung out downtown and I decided to take some pictures of the changing skyline. 

The new Wilshire Grand tower still needs to have its glass skin installed at the top. 

14500412_10205728034758772_5248238129308

Photo by me

 

The tall building on the left is the combination J.W. Marriott and Ritz Carlton of LA Live, which would be an Olympic family hotel if LA gets the 2024 bid.  And of course the Microsoft Theater is also part of the LA Live complex, and would be an Olympic venue.  Downtown has a lot of construction cranes, it's almost like Berlin after reunification---maybe that's a slight exaggeration.  :P

14608845_10205728036158807_7490813852960

Photo by me

 

14633571_10205728038198858_7236718280922

Photo by me

 

The LA Convention Center in the near foreground, which would of course be a venue for a number Olympic competitions if LA gets the 2024 bid.

14570623_10205728039838899_6624533892148

Photo by me

 

A densifying Koreatown in the distance, and the LA Convention Center in the near foreground.

14542337_10205728042558967_1569504332246

Photo by me

 

Sunday-light traffic on the 10 Freeway.  If this were a regular weekday, with more traffic on the freeway, some might say this would be a more "typical" view of LA; and this is a view of part of the city proper outside of the CBD; this is not the suburbs.  On the other side of those hills of course is the San Fernando Valley, which is still part of the City of LA, with a number of "holes"---Burbank, Glendale, San Fernando, Hidden Hills and Calabasas are their own cities; some people dispute that Calabasas and Glendale are part of the San Fernando Valley... even I don't consider Glendale to be "The Valley."  Glendale has its own vibe, and therefore in my opinion is its own entity.  Incidentally, Glendale is the third largest city in LA County in terms of population. 

14543849_10205728043438989_6670638006279

Photo by me

 

And even LA's suburbs seem somehow more busy and full of people and built up.  I have visited relatives in suburban New Jersey and suburban Chicago and where they live feels more like small towns and maybe even rural areas compared to LA suburbs.  Just do Google street view of Rockaway, NJ and Mt. Prospect, IL and you'll see what I'm talking about. 

 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2016 at 9:56 AM, Nacre said:

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.

"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.

I question the objectivity of the PPP; and I know that many Americans for whatever reason or reasons don't like California, but being viewed as the most unfavorable state?  Over Texas?  Alabama?  Mississippi?  The Bible Belt??  What the hell?

Having grown up in, and continuing to live in California, it's always baffled me why people from other parts of the US make fun of Californians.  I've seen a lot of the rest of the US, and I'm like "Wait, *they* think *WE* are weird?"  And as far as setting trends, California has been on the forefront of being environmentally and health conscious.  We were the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to require catalytic converters on new cars; we've required them since the mid-1970s, so the whole conservative argument that the current governor is being unreasonable in wanting cars to meet a certain emission standard by 2030 or whatever will put a burden on car manufacturers and will be bad for business in California is total bullshit.  Riverside County in southern California was the first in the nation to institute the letter grading system for restaurant health inspections; San Bernardino and LA Counties soon followed suit, followed by San Diego County.  Orange County, however, didn't do the letter grades; they started their own grading placard system based on a pass/fail percentage system, but it was years after the other SoCal counties started doing the letter grades.  I noticed years later, Las Vegas and now even NYC has the letter grades at their restaurants, I assume from the SoCal influence.  In 2013, the City of Los Ángeles completed the world's largest LED street light replacement project.  A lot of LA's buildings meet the LEED certification.  LA was the first city in the nation to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, and this was done decades ago.  And even the last few years, a number of California cities have even been banning outdoor smoking from within 20 or 25 feet within a building entrance, and this includes outdoor restaurant seating. 

So even from that standpoint, I don't see why California would be viewed the most unfavorable state.  I mean come on, even over Arizona?  Try getting a decent salad there. 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ejaycat said:

But most Americans do drive private vehicles to get around.  NYC and San Francisco have among the highest rates of public transit use, but the reality is that most Americans still do drive to get around.  Even in the Bay Area, the traffic is pretty horrendous.  The Bay Area is a big place; outside of the City of San Francisco, the Bay Area is largely suburban in built form, and therefore still very car-oriented.  San Jose is basically like Orange County times 10.  And those Silicon Valley business parks are definitely suburban and car-oriented. 

 

True.  But in my commutes, I have the very good option of taking BART or Muni in SF.  When I go to Berkeley, I take BART; when I go to SF, unless it's the weekend, I use BART;; same with Oakland.  I don't drive as much to San Jose; or obvisouly when I go to San Mateo or the Peninsula, that's not even once a month.  And the commute times are FAR saner that similar distances would be in LA.  I can't speak for the hordes who commute using their car.  That's their choice and it's stupid.  I can only speak for myself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RuFF said:

You're an idiot. How the hell do you steer the conversation in this direction. YOU have said that LA is trying to fool people and replace a message with another. LA has just 1 message, and that's the one it's getting out. You may not think the IOC is going to see it the same way which is fine. But WTF are you talking about? I'm addressing how you're saying they're (and we) are trying to fool anyone. And nobody says "OMG, you're not going to believe how much LA has changed, it's going to knock your socks off." That's a bullshit extreme that you're using to justify your stupid skewed argument. LA 2024's job isn't to fabricate a narrative or fool anyone. It's to let everyone they can know what LA already is, today.. you're working a wobbly angle saying you recognize change from "a few years ago" (which anyone who does actually know changes in LA knows is even detached from "a few years ago"), and then saying that they're trying to switch one message for another and fool anyone. You can't exactly play both sides Quaker. 

But alas, it's all over LA24's bid page. 7 Billion to the airport, 120 billion in transit, City of Champions Stadium, Creative class, technology. All the points that for some reason I recognize and to you come across as changing the narrative or fooling people, or somehow translate to mean they're going to blow your socks off. Though, if you think they're "fooling" arguments and message changing, they might blow YOUR socks off. 

Uh oh, really hope we're not going to resort to flinging insults at each other here instead of having actual intelligent dicsussion.

No, I did not say LA is trying to fool people.  I said YOU are trying to fool people.  I'm trying to make a clear distinction between the message LA2024 is offering and the arguments you're putting for here.  I know what you say here doesn't necessarily represent the actual message that LA2024 is offering.  So yes, I know it's not their job to fabricate a narrative.  But you flirt with that line sometimes with things like " Theres this belief that's California is a special place and a newer, better America."  Who is it that believes that?  And again, that's not some empty rhetoric I'm expecting to hear from them.  But it's coming from you.

And you're accusing me of both sides?  You're the one who looked at Paris' website and said Paris should copy some parts of LA's site.  You're the one who will bury some talking points about Paris in a paragraph touting LA and try to make Paris still less appealing by comparison.  Goes back to your favorite saying of trying to "control the conversation."  I've said it before that's something LA can do very easily internally.  Becomes a little harder when they're taking themselves to the world stage and they're getting measured up.

I'll say it yet again since this keeps getting lost.. I'm not trying to downplay the positives that LA is trying to offer or how much the city has and continues to change.  It's been discussed here more times that I can remember that the number one goal of an LA Olympic bid is to differentiate it from their 1984 offering.  A lot about the Los Angeles the IOC would experience in 2024 is exactly that.  And yes, it's all there on the website and no doubt will be a big part of their final pitch to the IOC.  But again, that's a lot different than you trying to shove it in our faces as though if we refuse to believe you.  I'm not the only person who has said it, but if you would just calm it down with the sales pitch, we would be a lot more receptive to listening instead of you trying to tell us how amazing LA24 is and thinking the rest of us are missing the point if we don't see LA through the same rose-colored glasses that you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

True.  But in my commutes, I have the very good option of taking BART or Muni in SF.  When I go to Berkeley, I take BART; when I go to SF, unless it's the weekend, I use BART;; same with Oakland.  I don't drive as much to San Jose; or obvisouly when I go to San Mateo or the Peninsula, that's not even once a month.  And the commute times are FAR saner that similar distances would be in LA.  I can't speak for the hordes who commute using their car.  That's their choice and it's stupid.  I can only speak for myself.  

What I like about BART is that it's almost like a hybrid between a mass transit rail system and a commuter rail system; like a mass transit rail system, it runs frequently the whole week, unlike a commuter rail system, but like a commuter rail system, it goes long distances, and often there are large distances between stations in the outer areas, like a commuter rail system.  MUNI is great too; I use it whenever I visit SF.  When I drive into SF, I just leave the car at the hotel and take MUNI everywhere.  I've heard the locals complain about MUNI, but I think every local complains about their own public transit; I know I complain about LA's Metro system occasionally.  

I wish the LA area had a similar system to BART, or with its current Metro Rail system, I wish they took into account the possibility of express trains.  They experimented with express trains on the Metro Gold Line some years ago where some trains would skip every other station or every 2 stations or something like that, but it didn't last long.  

Edited by ejaycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ejaycat said:

I don't see why California would be viewed the most unfavorable state.  I mean come on, even over Arizona?  Try getting a decent salad there. 

1. Bigger states attract both more love and hate. Texas, Florida and New York are also on the list of most unfavorably viewed states.

2. For better or for worse, the USA is a center-right country that doesn't care much about things like kale salads.

3. Many people on the left see Los Angelenos in particular as hypocrites: the stereotype is that they are heavy consumers who only give lip service to issues like the environment for the sake of looking good while driving around in an SUV and filling a backyard swimming pool in the middle of a drought.

For the record I don't think it is entirely fair. There are more stereotypes of Californians than people from other states simply because there are more Californians than there are people from any other state. But there's no denying that lots of people hate California. When I moved from California to Washington State when I was 13 some of our neighbors refused to speak to us because we were from LA.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem with BART is that it basically only has one line through the city itself. If you want to go somewhere in the city that's not on that line, you are SOL. Most damming, it doesn't even hook up with the commuter rail station. Or, from this board's standpoint... AT&T park, or by any of the spaces that might be used to build an Olympic Park. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

The big problem with BART is that it basically only has one line through the city itself. If you want to go somewhere in the city that's not on that line, you are SOL. Most damming, it doesn't even hook up with the commuter rail station. Or, from this board's standpoint... AT&T park, or by any of the spaces that might be used to build an Olympic Park. 

 

I don't think a SOG will ever come to the Bay Area in our lifetimes -- so no use pining over that issue.   It's even a wonder that BART got built at all, considiring Marin and San Mateo Counties opted out (altho it does run through Colma and Millbrae now on the direct service to SFO.  And they just added a driverless $480 million people-mover from the BART Coliseum station directly into OAK Int'l ($6 each way though).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

For better or for worse, the USA is a center-right country that doesn't care much about things like kale salads.

I'm not even talking about kale salads; I'm talking about regular salads with regular lettuce and tomatoes, etc.  In Arizona, at least in the restaurants I ate at, the lettuce was either wilted or I could tell was frozen---definitely not fresh.

 

3 hours ago, Nacre said:

For the record I don't think it is entirely fair. There are more stereotypes of Californians than people from other states simply because there are more Californians than there are people from any other state. But there's no denying that lots of people hate California. When I moved from California to Washington State when I was 13 some of our neighbors refused to speak to us because we were from LA.

No offense to people from the Pacific Northwest but Washington state likes to portray itself as liberal, at least Seattle does, but I've found many people from Washington state to be quite hokey, so I'm not surprised they refused to speak to you.  

And don't get me started on Portlanders.  They rave about their city, but it's very, uh... "Stuff White People Like," the kind of place where they think authentic Mexican food comes from trucks and rave about it, and also rave about a Thai restaurant that was started by a white chef (Pok Pok).  Recently that same chef opened a similar restaurant in LA, but I'm like please, if you want really good authentic Thai food in LA, just go to Thai Town.  It's the best.  And many of those restaurants are open really late.  

Edited by ejaycat
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...