Los Angeles unveils plans for 2024 bid

[mr.bernham]

Yes, I would say Barcelona helped Spain. Seoul and Sydney as well. Athens not so much, but that was mostly due to poor management and economics. Had Athens done a London level job preparing for the games and planning the legacy of the venues I think they could have helped Greece.

Well, if the federal government is going to kick in a couple billion in security and transportation costs, shouldn't there be some benefit for the country as a whole? Ideally there should be some kind of PR benefit to the host country.

As to why I think Los Angeles is going come off as culturally underdeveloped, just take a look at the bid plan they posted. They are going to play up Hollywood, Venice Beach and Disneyland as much as they can. It's not that I think that Los Angelenos are barbarians, but that's the side that will be shown off the the public. That would not be the case in San Francisco, New York, etc.

That won't stop Los Angeles from being a good host, though.

Most of the culture and impression comes from the people in the city. They will leave the impression on reporters and the games, the only reason they are playing up Disney (which is not that bad) is because the Disney CEO is a part of the bid committee. You can not go to LA and not talk about Hollywood.

Overall I disagree that LA will not benefit the nation, it will restore national pride, show the world that America's still got it, and showcase that Americans are multi-cultural and accepting, kind people.

[woohooitsme83]

Well, if the federal government is going to kick in a couple billion in security and transportation costs, shouldn't there be some benefit for the country as a whole? Ideally there should be some kind of PR benefit to the host country.

Then what is, exactly, your idea of a nationwide benefit that would still be related to the Olympics? If you yourself cannot come up with one, I highly doubt the planners would too. You're making it seem like an Olympics held in another country would have a nationwide benefit.

[zekekelso]

As to why I think Los Angeles is going come off as culturally underdeveloped, just take a look at the bid plan they posted.

For Pete's sake, they are putting taekwondo in the Walt Disney Concert Hall. That about as explicit a "cultural" tie-in as it gets. What more do you want?

[Nacre]

Then what is, exactly, your idea of a nationwide benefit that would still be related to the Olympics? If you yourself cannot come up with one, I highly doubt the planners would too.

Well, look at Seoul in 1988. It showed the world the economic and political progress South Korea had made since WW2 and the era of quasi-dictatorship in the 50's-60's. Sydney helped change the view of Australia from an exotic wilderness of kangaroos and koalas to that of a developed country with excellent urban cities.

For American cities San Francisco and New York could show the world that the US has high culture, arts and good cuisine. Philadelphia (or New York) could show the recovery of America's inner cities. Chicago could show off American architecture.

It's not that I find Los Angeles objectionable. I grew up in Anaheim and know there's more to SoCal than pop culture, fake blondes/boobs, and nice weather. It's just that the world has a fairly one-sided view of Americans that I would rather disprove than emphasize.

For Pete's sake, they are putting taekwondo in the Walt Disney Concert Hall. That about as explicit a "cultural" tie-in as it gets. What more do you want?

I give up. If you don't see why most Europeans are going to laugh at us for Disney-fying the Olympics then there's no point in arguing over this.

[olympiaki-agones]

It was LA'84 that made me conscient about the Olympics, but still, I don't think the IOC would pick their choice that soon. London had to wait first 40 years and then 64 years. Having big metropolis in the race, they rather take Baku, Istanbul or any other muslim or African city if they would. After all, they already assure everything in 2020 with Tokyo.

[Quaker2001]

Yes, I would say Barcelona helped Spain. Seoul and Sydney as well. Athens not so much, but that was mostly due to poor management and economics. Had Athens done a London level job preparing for the games and planning the legacy of the venues I think they could have helped Greece.

Well, what are we basing this on? Is it legacy planning? Facilities? Improved performance at the Olympics?

If we're basing it on that last point, then yes, Barcelona's Olympics helped Spain. Before 1992, Spain had never won than 6 total medals at an Olympics. Here's what they've won since then.. 22, 17, 11, 20, 18, 17. So yea, Barcelona helped Spain. South Korea saw a similar bump after 1988 that has been sustained since. Ditto for Australia. Greece?.. not so much. 16 medals in 2004. Only 4 in Beijing and 2 in London, no gold at either Olympics.

If we're talking about the United States, they're not going to get a bump from hosting an Olympics. It's going to use mostly existing facilities. You can't hold these things against the USOC though that they're going to host a different Olympics than other cities and countries would. Not for what the United States has contributed to the Olympic movement.

Well, if the federal government is going to kick in a couple billion in security and transportation costs, shouldn't there be some benefit for the country as a whole? Ideally there should be some kind of PR benefit to the host country.

As to why I think Los Angeles is going come off as culturally underdeveloped, just take a look at the bid plan they posted. They are going to play up Hollywood, Venice Beach and Disneyland as much as they can. It's not that I think that Los Angelenos are barbarians, but that's the side that will be shown off the the public. That would not be the case in San Francisco, New York, etc.

That won't stop Los Angeles from being a good host, though.

Like you said though, there still is a benefit to the country by hosting an Olympics in a particular city. How many events has Barcelona hosted since the `92 Olympics (I know 1 well.. the 2013 FINA World Championships, I was there)? Pretty sure China (and not just Beijing, but the entire country) got some good PR from the `08 Olympics. Australia got some of the same from 2000. So that indirect benefit is still there.

And Los Angeles has made sides to it. There are certain distinctions about the city and the region, but I don't think it's the negatives that will be played up. mr bernham brings up a great point though.. a city's cultural identity comes as much from its people as it does from landmarks and other iconic sites. I don't think LA is lacking in that area. But it's the nature of this country that the whole nation probably isn't going to benefit from an Olympics held in a particular city. Not all that much that can be done about that. Shouldn't preclude a city like LA from bidding for and winning the honor of hosting an Olympics.

It was LA'84 that made me conscient about the Olympics, but still, I don't think the IOC would pick their choice that soon. London had to wait first 40 years and then 64 years. Having big metropolis in the race, they rather take Baku, Istanbul or any other muslim or African city if they would. After all, they already assure everything in 2020 with Tokyo.

And yet Paris had been waiting longer than London, was a return bidder in 2012, and still lost. I agree with you that 40 years on from 1984 is an issue, but I've also said the problem LA faced was to make a future Olympics distinct from the first experience. Seeing this plan, I think we're getting that. Is it enough to win? That's debatable. But depending on who the competition is, I could easily see the IOC picking them. Without a South African entry or a solid European candidate, I think their odds are actually pretty decent.

[woohooitsme83]

It's not that I find Los Angeles objectionable. I grew up in Anaheim and know there's more to SoCal than pop culture, fake blondes/boobs, and nice weather. It's just that the world has a fairly one-sided view of Americans that I would rather disprove than emphasize.

The thing is, the venues are so spread out, you get to see the different sides of LA. While the downtown cluster may give the stereotypical LA, the Westside, Avalon, and Harbor clusters could possibly give a more different perspective. Also, while commuting between the 4 clusters you'll be able to see all things in between, and when you visit the venues outside of the clusters, you'll be able to see the cultural diversity (eg. Rosebowl and the San Gabriel Valley).

With multiple landmarks and attractions that demonstrate the history of LA and the surrounding areas, it isn't very fair to say that Los Angeles is lacking culture when they are using said landmarks to use as a backdrop to show the diversity of LA (eg. Griffith Observatory and Hollywood for bicycling, Revitalized LA River for canoe/kayak/slalom, Queen Mary for sailing).

[runningrings]

Not to mention, it has been seismically volatile recently, and of course, with statewide recurring droughts

Yes - the IOC lives in fear of seismic activity, hence the decision last year to avoid quakey/shakeyy Istanbul and Tokyo in favour of Madrid.

[Athensfan]

I said another Los Angeles games would not change the way the world views the USA. Another SoCal games is not going to fight the stereotypes of Americans and the USOC (arrogant, uncultured, etc) the way a San Francisco games would. Nor is it going to do much to increase foreign familiarity with Los Angeles, since most people around the world already know about LA.

LA is totally capable of putting on warm, welcoming, inclusive Games that will offer very positive messages and impressions about American character. I have trouble thinking of a city that could do it better.

I think you drastically overestimate San Francisco's ability to somehow rebrand the US. For those who harbor a negative view, the choice of city won't make a difference anyway.

LA's goal wouldn't be to increase "foreign familiarity." It would be urban renewal, promotion of sport, and a celebration of multiculturalism.

[mr.bernham]

The thing is, the venues are so spread out, you get to see the different sides of LA. While the downtown cluster may give the stereotypical LA, the Westside, Avalon, and Harbor clusters could possibly give a more different perspective. Also, while commuting between the 4 clusters you'll be able to see all things in between, and when you visit the venues outside of the clusters, you'll be able to see the cultural diversity (eg. Rosebowl and the San Gabriel Valley).

With multiple landmarks and attractions that demonstrate the history of LA and the surrounding areas, it isn't very fair to say that Los Angeles is lacking culture when they are using said landmarks to use as a backdrop to show the diversity of LA (eg. Griffith Observatory and Hollywood for bicycling, Revitalized LA River for canoe/kayak/slalom, Queen Mary for sailing).

Excellent point, the venue plan allows for many different areas of the city to be showcased. We also must remember that LA is very different than it was in 1984, the city and region has seen tremendous growth and Urban Revitalization.

LA is totally capable of putting on warm, welcoming, inclusive Games that will offer very positive messages and impressions about American character. I have trouble thinking of a city that could do it better.

I think you drastically overestimate San Francisco's ability to somehow rebrand the US. For those who harbor a negative view, the choice of city won't make a difference anyway.

LA's goal wouldn't be to increase "foreign familiarity." It would be urban renewal, promotion of sport, and a celebration of multiculturalism.

I agree, LA is in it to improve their city at large. Another possible result could be LA changing it's image domestically. Many people have negative thoughts of the city here at home. By hosting the games LA can improve their image domestically and internationally.

Well, what are we basing this on? Is it legacy planning? Facilities? Improved performance at the Olympics?

If we're basing it on that last point, then yes, Barcelona's Olympics helped Spain. Before 1992, Spain had never won than 6 total medals at an Olympics. Here's what they've won since then.. 22, 17, 11, 20, 18, 17. So yea, Barcelona helped Spain. South Korea saw a similar bump after 1988 that has been sustained since. Ditto for Australia. Greece?.. not so much. 16 medals in 2004. Only 4 in Beijing and 2 in London, no gold at either Olympics.

If we're talking about the United States, they're not going to get a bump from hosting an Olympics. It's going to use mostly existing facilities. You can't hold these things against the USOC though that they're going to host a different Olympics than other cities and countries would. Not for what the United States has contributed to the Olympic movement.

Like you said though, there still is a benefit to the country by hosting an Olympics in a particular city. How many events has Barcelona hosted since the `92 Olympics (I know 1 well.. the 2013 FINA World Championships, I was there)? Pretty sure China (and not just Beijing, but the entire country) got some good PR from the `08 Olympics. Australia got some of the same from 2000. So that indirect benefit is still there.

And Los Angeles has made sides to it. There are certain distinctions about the city and the region, but I don't think it's the negatives that will be played up. mr bernham brings up a great point though.. a city's cultural identity comes as much from its people as it does from landmarks and other iconic sites. I don't think LA is lacking in that area. But it's the nature of this country that the whole nation probably isn't going to benefit from an Olympics held in a particular city. Not all that much that can be done about that. Shouldn't preclude a city like LA from bidding for and winning the honor of hosting an Olympics.

And yet Paris had been waiting longer than London, was a return bidder in 2012, and still lost. I agree with you that 40 years on from 1984 is an issue, but I've also said the problem LA faced was to make a future Olympics distinct from the first experience. Seeing this plan, I think we're getting that. Is it enough to win? That's debatable. But depending on who the competition is, I could easily see the IOC picking them. Without a South African entry or a solid European candidate, I think their odds are actually pretty decent.

The US as a whole may not see many benefits, unless LA promotes an image of a diverse America and uses the beauty of many American Cities during the games.

[Athensfan]

Well, look at Seoul in 1988. It showed the world the economic and political progress South Korea had made since WW2 and the era of quasi-dictatorship in the 50's-60's. Sydney helped change the view of Australia from an exotic wilderness of kangaroos and koalas to that of a developed country with excellent urban cities.

For American cities San Francisco and New York could show the world that the US has high culture, arts and good cuisine. Philadelphia (or New York) could show the recovery of America's inner cities. Chicago could show off American architecture.

It's not that I find Los Angeles objectionable. I grew up in Anaheim and know there's more to SoCal than pop culture, fake blondes/boobs, and nice weather. It's just that the world has a fairly one-sided view of Americans that I would rather disprove than emphasize.

I give up. If you don't see why most Europeans are going to laugh at us for Disney-fying the Olympics then there's no point in arguing over this.

Your diminutive representation of LA is an argument in favor of LA hosting -- not against. Hosting would provide an opportunity to correct misconceptions. LA is not Baywatch, Disneyland and the Oscars. Even this preliminary document paints a much more well-rounded picture.

And honestly, I don't think NYC, SF or Chicago need help from the Olympic Games to earn international respect. Chicago would benefit some, but the other two are just fine.

Anyone who thinks the US is all peroxide blondes and hamburgers is so uncultured and simple-minded that I'm not sure we care about winning their good opinion anyway. An educated, savvy foreigner would know differently.

[mr.bernham]

Your diminutive representation of LA is an argument in favor of LA hosting -- not against. Hosting would provide an opportunity to correct misconceptions. LA is not Baywatch, Disneyland and the Oscars. Even this preliminary document paints a much more well-rounded picture.

And honestly, I don't think NYC, SF or Chicago need help from the Olympic Games to earn international respect. Chicago would benefit some, but the other two are just fine.

Anyone who thinks the US is all peroxide blondes and hamburgers is so uncultured and simple-minded that I'm not sure we care about winning their good opinion anyway. An educated, savvy foreigner would know differently.

Athens this comment put a smile on my face! Brilliantly said.

Just looking at the early documents, even I am seeing a different LA then the one I saw before. This document has made me much more excited then any other American bid before. Maybe I'm just a sucker for good graphics or I'm excited about LA and the potential it holds. Regardless they are showing that LA is much, much, much more than Hollywood, Plastic Surgery, and Mexican Mafias.

[Athensfan]

It was LA'84 that made me conscient about the Olympics, but still, I don't think the IOC would pick their choice that soon. London had to wait first 40 years and then 64 years. Having big metropolis in the race, they rather take Baku, Istanbul or any other muslim or African city if they would. After all, they already assure everything in 2020 with Tokyo.

While I understand this thinking, I'm not sure I agree. A beautiful, dynamic LA Games should lose to Baku? Really?

The IOC can say no, but they would be rejecting a pretty fantastic option, rejecting one of their closest partners solely for the novelty of going to a Muslim nation. That just doesn't sit well. If Paris or Durban shows up with a really awesome bid and they're on fire, I can see the IOC going that route. But otherwise, I think LA is pretty compelling.

Frankly , I can imagine this document from LA making Paris and Durban a little bit apprehensive. We'll see.

[FYI]

Baku-koo would be no more a threat to Los Angeles than it would be to Paris, Durban or Rome. Which is virtually nil.

[Quaker2001]

Well, look at Seoul in 1988. It showed the world the economic and political progress South Korea had made since WW2 and the era of quasi-dictatorship in the 50's-60's. Sydney helped change the view of Australia from an exotic wilderness of kangaroos and koalas to that of a developed country with excellent urban cities.

For American cities San Francisco and New York could show the world that the US has high culture, arts and good cuisine. Philadelphia (or New York) could show the recovery of America's inner cities. Chicago could show off American architecture.

It's not that I find Los Angeles objectionable. I grew up in Anaheim and know there's more to SoCal than pop culture, fake blondes/boobs, and nice weather. It's just that the world has a fairly one-sided view of Americans that I would rather disprove than emphasize.

I give up. If you don't see why most Europeans are going to laugh at us for Disney-fying the Olympics then there's no point in arguing over this.

NYC and San Fran can show that but Los Angeles can't? The thing is.. the world has seen LA before. I'm too young to really remember the `84 Olympics, but from what I understand, most people had a favorable experience. Why are you so afraid of putting Los Angeles up as the representative of the United States, as if it's going to be an embarassment for the country or something? I'm from NYC so obviously I'm biased (the world is "biased" folks.. you are not bias, you are biased) in favor of my city, but you're right, there is a lot more to SoCal than pop culture, muscle beaches, and the weather. And they'll get to show that off to the world if they were to host an Olympics. The world will see most of the good side of Los Angeles.. a diverse and multi-cultural city that's more than capable of hosting and entertaining people from around the world.

While I understand this thinking, I'm not sure I agree. A beautiful, dynamic LA Games should lose to Baku? Really?

The IOC can say no, but they would be rejecting a pretty fantastic option, rejecting one of their closest partners solely for the novelty of going to a Muslim nation. That just doesn't sit well. If Paris or Durban shows up with a really awesome bid and they're on fire, I can see the IOC going that route. But otherwise, I think LA is pretty compelling.

Frankly , I can imagine this document from LA making Paris and Durban a little bit apprehensive. We'll see.

I agree with that last point. If anything it's going to put them on notice that there's a serious contender out there. Now some folks here can (and have, and will continue to do so no doubt) will continue to dismiss LA as a non-competitor in the face of Durban or Paris because of geopolitics. That may be true, but if nothing else, it means that Durban and Paris will have to work for it. We all know it's a hotly debated subject here of whether or not South Africa could submit any bid and win simply because they're South Africa. Well, LA is setting a pretty high benchmark here. Obviously Durban gets points simply for being in Africa, but that may or may not be enough in the face of what looks like it could be a pretty decent bid.

[Nacre]

Your diminutive representation of LA is an argument in favor of LA hosting -- not against. Hosting would provide an opportunity to correct misconceptions. LA is not Baywatch, Disneyland and the Oscars. Even this preliminary document paints a much more well-rounded picture.

And honestly, I don't think NYC, SF or Chicago need help from the Olympic Games to earn international respect. Chicago would benefit some, but the other two are just fine.

Anyone who thinks the US is all peroxide blondes and hamburgers is so uncultured and simple-minded that I'm not sure we care about winning their good opinion anyway. An educated, savvy foreigner would know differently.

OK. It seems I am not communicating myself clearly.

I lived in the Los Angeles metro area for 16 years. I still have family there and have been there twice this past year. I am very, very aware of the fact that the stereotype is unfair.

Yet I also believe that people in Los Angeles will choose to present their region to the world through In-N-Out Burger, Disneyland, Hollywood, etc. I believe that because the LA people I know tell me I should move back there for those reasons. I believe that because the bid plan has TONS of Hollywood pics. I believe that because the bid plan envisions events and venues at Rodeo Drive and the Disney concert hall. I believe that because that was my memory of the 1984 games when I was living in SoCal (although I was very young at the time, so my memory could be off a bit.)

There is a lot more to LA than the stereotype, but I think Los Angelenos will choose to make the stereotype the headline of their bid and their hosting experience. And the plan presented does nothing to change my mind.

It does look like a good, realistic, economical plan, though.

[mr.bernham]

NYC and San Fran can show that but Los Angeles can't? The thing is.. the world has seen LA before. I'm too young to really remember the `84 Olympics, but from what I understand, most people had a favorable experience. Why are you so afraid of putting Los Angeles up as the representative of the United States, as if it's going to be an embarassment for the country or something? I'm from NYC so obviously I'm biased (the world is "biased" folks.. you are not bias, you are biased) in favor of my city, but you're right, there is a lot more to SoCal than pop culture, muscle beaches, and the weather. And they'll get to show that off to the world if they were to host an Olympics. The world will see most of the good side of Los Angeles.. a diverse and multi-cultural city that's more than capable of hosting and entertaining people from around the world.

I agree with that last point. If anything it's going to put them on notice that there's a serious contender out there. Now some folks here can (and have, and will continue to do so no doubt) will continue to dismiss LA as a non-competitor in the face of Durban or Paris because of geopolitics. That may be true, but if nothing else, it means that Durban and Paris will have to work for it. We all know it's a hotly debated subject here of whether or not South Africa could submit any bid and win simply because they're South Africa. Well, LA is setting a pretty high benchmark here. Obviously Durban gets points simply for being in Africa, but that may or may not be enough in the face of what looks like it could be a pretty decent bid.

Your last point.

I think Durban is in the most complicated position; LA has shown their in it to win it, Paris appears to be working very hard to get it right. Durban/SA on the other hand is in a tough situation because of Rio. Worse for Durban is that they are not a world city, and they have not shown they can host an event this large. The best thing Durban can do is not bid for 2024, instead focus on getting the Common Wealth Games then bid in 2028.

Rio is going to hurt any bid put forth by a developing country (SA), because I feel that now the IOC will be much more cautious.

[runningrings]

LA's goal wouldn't be to increase "foreign familiarity." It would be urban renewal, promotion of sport, and a celebration of multiculturalism.

This - I also feel that LA24 really set itself apart from LA84 by emphasising the cultural change that has occurred in the city since 1984. I'm thinking it could be an American Olympics with a distinctly Latin American taste to it. I think celebrating LA's diversity is a great way to go. There is something about the 1984 Games that is very waspy - maybe due to the Reagan factor.

[mr.bernham]

This - I also feel that LA24 really set itself apart from LA84 by emphasising the cultural change that has occurred in the city since 1984. I'm thinking it could be an American Olympics with a distinctly Latin American taste to it. I think celebrating LA's diversity is a great way to go. There is something about the 1984 Games that is very waspy - maybe due to the Reagan factor.

In my opinion LA84 was meant to be America's last games of the 21st century and was held at the hight of the Cold War. Hence the huge nationalism, Reagan used the games to secure his '84 re-election. I think that's the main thing that strikes me about LA84, is the fact that they were America's games.

[baron-pierreIV]

is how they are planning major renovations and construction, not just reusing the old facilities.

Well, they have to because a 2024+ SOGs are probably 1/4th bigger than they were in 1984. PLUS, LA-1984, they were not bound to host the Paralympics (they passed on that). This time they are bound to + golf and rugby have been added since then. And LA knows they have to give more oomph for the 3rd try so they aren't a 'been there-done that' bid.

Except I'm wondering where Indoor Track Cycling will go? I don't know where Velo Park is? Plus, will a 2024-28-32 plan finally give track Cycling its OWN indoor track? Funny that it doesn't even mention the 1984 Dominguez Hills track. I think this is the one major venue which they haven't figured out how to avoid spending $500 mil on a new track??

That new USOC document just shows that it's really only the mega-cities that can host this ridiculous extravaganza called the SUmmer Olympic Games. ANd even for a repeat-major metropolis like LA, they have to reach out to 3 or 4 major neighboring cities in order to fulfill the friggin' needs of the IOC's show. The IOC really has to whittle down their show to just like 18 basic sports in order to get smaller but quality cities interested.

[Lord David]

There's an existing velodrome that's indoor in Los Angeles. It's just not big enough in seating capacity. I guess they'll end up doing a temporary track, this time an indoor one. It seems silly to have an available indoor training velodrome when the one used for competitions is outdoor.

[Rob2012]

For an intranational bid docuiment this is stunning and set the bar very high for other US candidates.

It's nice to see a little cluster of venues in a main Olympic Park. The stadium renovation has shades of Berlin's 2006 renovation of their Olympic Stadium which is very promising. The use of a football stadium for Aquatics is resourceful and I hope it works, though I wonder how sightlines, field space will be utilised. Similarly, how will a concert hall work as a venue for taekwondo - I'm not sure I'd go for the tickets near the back!

Kinks can be ironed out though. At this stage this has a great feel to it.

[baron-pierreIV]

For an intranational bid docuiment this is stunning and set the bar very high for other US candidates.

It's nice to see a little cluster of venues in a main Olympic Park. The stadium renovation has shades of Berlin's 2006 renovation of their Olympic Stadium which is very promising. The use of a football stadium for Aquatics is resourceful and I hope it works, though I wonder how sightlines, field space will be utilised. Similarly, how will a concert hall work as a venue for taekwondo - I'm not sure I'd go for the tickets near the back!

Kinks can be ironed out though. At this stage this has a great feel to it.

1. The football stadium hosting Aquatics - I think a 50yd-long pool would fit well in a tight field. They just dig maybe 6 ft. deep and then raise the sides from the diggings...to raise the whole thing above the normal plane of the field...should do it. (And when done; just keep the old pool walls, rip up the floor; and throw in all the earth again to get back your field.

2. Taekwondo finals in Disney Hall? Not much modification to do...other than put in a flat stage. Too bad it's just such an undignified sport IMHO to throw in there. I'd much rather they stuck fencing in there...which they could still do removing that first section of seating closest to the stage. It would have great sightlines. Except where would 2 giant screens go..though...if necessary??

And of the great theatres of LA, they still haven't enlisted the Kodak Theater (where the Oscars are staged) altho that's right in the heart of the Hollywood tourist area. Luckily, the Shrine Auditorium

...which is near the USC campus is slated for Weightlifting -- a better fate than its 1984 use when it was just used as a food preparation and part kitchen for the USC Village then.

[Rob2012]

Hmmm....that photo doesn't convince me.

[baron-pierreIV]

Hmmm....that photo doesn't convince me.

Remember, the plan now is just the Finals. And I don't know how TK lays its Olympic FOP configuration -- since the diversion doesn't interest me in the least.