Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

I'd at least wait to see if LA is viable and won't implode like the Boston bid.

What makes you think LA's bid might implode like the Boston bid? They have the public support, which Boston did not, thus answering one of the big unknowns there. I know the financial side of things remains in question, but do you honestly think what happened to Boston is a danger with LA? Or are we just asking the question since it happened once and therefore that means we need to question other prospective cities that they might be a trainwreck like Boston. It's fair to question whether or not this LA bid will work out. But to compare them to Boston? That's taking it a little too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think LA's bid might implode like the Boston bid? They have the public support, which Boston did not, thus answering one of the big unknowns there. I know the financial side of things remains in question, but do you honestly think what happened to Boston is a danger with LA? Or are we just asking the question since it happened once and therefore that means we need to question other prospective cities that they might be a trainwreck like Boston. It's fair to question whether or not this LA bid will work out. But to compare them to Boston? That's taking it a little too far.

In case you haven't noticed, bid implosion is quite common these days. Yeah, I think its a real danger.

One thing to consider is that the Boston bid was a disaster, and for some reason the USOC thought it a better bid than LA's. Yes, the USOC is full of corrupt idiots. But are they total nincompoops?

As for support, give me some non-biased polling done after an actual bid exists and the No's have had time to get their message out. If they still have support then, I'll feel much better about an LA bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case you haven't noticed, bid implosion is quite common these days. Yeah, I think its a real danger.

One thing to consider is that the Boston bid was a disaster, and for some reason the USOC thought it a better bid than LA's. Yes, the USOC is full of corrupt idiots. But are they total nincompoops?

As for support, give me some non-biased polling done after an actual bid exists and the No's have had time to get their message out. If they still have support then, I'll feel much better about an LA bid.

The No's? That sounds like a new Fox sitcom, coming this fall! Yea, good for the No's. Or that the No's knows. Not sure you're aware of this, but the No's didn't sink Boston's bid. Piss poor planning and gross incompetence did that for them. And yes, the USOC chose them. Wonderful that you're trying to use that as fodder to make an argument against LA. But if they're such a bunch of corrupt idiots (what happened to 'corrupt weasels'.. to upgrade them from weasels to idiots almost seems like you're trying to give them credit), that's not a knock against LA. Especially not when you said from the start that they probably were the better bid versus Boston.

I've noticed what's happened with bids these days. Most of which are from outside the United States where financing and government backing are a lot different than they are here. If LA had been picked from the start, would you be worried about the bid imploding in the same manner we just saw with Boston? Of course not. That's a reactionary view to the USOC still dealing with the dead corpse that is Boston's bid. Of course there are dangers with an LA bid and issues they have to overcome. Once again though, make a better argument than "hey, look what happened in Boston, why couldn't that happen in LA." I know there's a case to be made for what they're up against, but to look at what happened with Boston and try to apply that to the next bid that comes along for the sake of applying that to the next bid is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the Boston implosion I'm thinking of. There's Munich, Oslo, Stockholm etc.-

You are right that I'd be less worried about LA if they had been the original pick. But what happened in Boston isn't the only reason.,

Not all failed bids are created equal. Again, I get there are concerns with an LA bid that other failed bids have brought to light. But put these things in context if you're trying to apply lessons to Los Angeles. A lot of what sank Boston provides little insight into the future of an LA bid. That's why I'm not concerned about LA because of Boston. Nor am I overly concerned that the USOC chose them over LA. That their bid unraveled has more to do with their mismanagement than anything that makes me think history might repeat itself with LA.

So yes, there are other cities that cited financial concerns, among other things. Valid things to be worried about with LA. I've said it before that I hope they realize this isn't the 1970s anymore and they are going up against other cities, not walking up to the IOC with them holding out the keys to the kingdom. Still, be careful about trying to draw parallels simply to asses whether an LA bid is viable. Because I still think to ask the question "is an LA bid viable" by comparing them to other cities is to make a generalization and not addressing the specific circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, tax-exempt status for the NFL coming to an end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/04/28/the-nfl-is-dropping-its-tax-exempt-status-why-that-ends-up-helping-them-out/

Will that help out future USA Olympic-bidding efforts? Or will it doom it; and the USA will just be left with the LA Memorial Coliseum as its ONLY Summer Olympic venue??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, tax-exempt status for the NFL coming to an end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/04/28/the-nfl-is-dropping-its-tax-exempt-status-why-that-ends-up-helping-them-out/

Will that help out future USA Olympic-bidding efforts? Or will it doom it; and the USA will just be left with the LA Memorial Coliseum as its ONLY Summer Olympic venue??

Don't think it makes a difference either way. The reason they're doing it is so that they don't have to disclose financial info from the league office such as the commissioner's salary. Baseball made a similar move a few years back. This move means nothing for future Olympic efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL's tax status will have zero impact on any Olympic bid.

And keep in mind the coliseum is nowhere near ready to host an Olympics. It's lost the track, has no roof, lacks amenities, etc.

If it's just going to host athletics events then a roof isn't needed unless the IOC demands it. And adding a track to it shouldn't take years to add to it. And what type of amenities does it need? Bathrooms? Concession stands? I'm sure those already exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's just going to host athletics events then a roof isn't needed unless the IOC demands it. And adding a track to it shouldn't take years to add to it. And what type of amenities does it need? Bathrooms? Concession stands? I'm sure those already exist.

I'm sure it would be a good excuse to totally renovate the whole stadium.

Let's assume that Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum hosts athletics and of course the ceremonies. Without re-configuring it to its 1984 state, you could place a temporary athletics track platform like what Glasgow did with Hampden Park because the existing track there wasn't IAAF standard. By doing this and raising the "field" as it were by a platform setup, you could do a hidden area beneath the track. Given that football won't be played in this stadium, an infield of proper grass isn't necessary. Just a layer of lawn for the field events of track and field.

The thing is of course, this athletics track platform, needs to be stable if it were to hold 10,000+, unless of course they're seated in the stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It currently seats 93,607. Reconfigure the seating to be around that all seated with new seats (minus the "stage" end), which may include new skyboxes to add additional seating capacity. You have the athletes and officials seated at the track end, making them do a full lap around the track, (during the parade of nations) and being escorted towards their seats. Maybe a sacrifice of 12,000 seats for athletes and officials and perhaps 5,000 seats at the stage end for performers/choir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd only renovate the coliseum if it where to be used by an NFL afterwards.

Zero chance of that happening. The only way the NFL is coming to LA is if there is a brand new purpose-built stadium. It won't be a renovation of a century old building.

Remember also.. the the agreement with the Coliseum Commission is that USC now is the official operator of the stadium. There are a couple of provisions in the agreement that say they have to work with the city to make the stadium available for things like an Olympics or a temporary NFL team. But that's all easier said than done, particularly so far as major renovations go. And as baron noted, there are certain parts of the stadium that absolutely cannot be altered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't touch everything...or at least the peristyle-end. The structure enjoys National Historic Landmark status ...so (at least) the peristyle end CANNOT be altered.

.....i wish they WOULD touch those 2 old jumbotrons atop the peristyle.....they totally ruin the lines of everything and the materials they are incased in look like a garden shed...not pretty in the same sightline as the stone materials. Maybe some talented designer could envision some new way to allow scoreboards down on that end without the same cumbersome heavy effect. I think maybe they should be raised above the peristyl.....I don't know something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it would be a good excuse to totally renovate the whole stadium.

Let's assume that Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum hosts athletics and of course the ceremonies.

Uh, no that's f**king stupid to assume that the LA Coliseum will host the opening ceremonies because that is clearly not what my intentions were for that stadium's use. The purpose of using the LA Coliseum for a future LA Olympics is so that stadium ONLY serves to host the track and field events. Clearly it is outdated for today's glamorous opening ceremonies, and more than likely closing ceremonies as well.

LA would have to do what Rio will be doing for 2016, and that's have a separate stadium that hosts the opening and closing ceremonies and keep the athletics events in a separate stadium, and in this case it's the LA Coliseum.

While LA may or may not get an NFL franchise, will a city like LA, with a metro population of 13 million, really lose out if they build a 80k+ capacity multipurpose (with heavily favoring an NFL configuration) stadium without a guarantee of getting an NFL team? San Antonio's Alamodome was built to attract an NFL team, which never happened. But it still gets a lot of good use even today. This new stadium can host a variety of concerts and a variety of sporting events like the NCAA Final Four, NBA All-Star basketball games, the Super Bowl, and even some regular NFL games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember also.. the the agreement with the Coliseum Commission is that USC now is the official operator of the stadium. There are a couple of provisions in the agreement that say they have to work with the city to make the stadium available for things like an Olympics or a temporary NFL team. But that's all easier said than done, particularly so far as major renovations go. And as baron noted, there are certain parts of the stadium that absolutely cannot be altered.

And if a new multi-purpose stadium were to be built a good year or two ahead of the Olympics, USC can temporarily move to this new stadium while the Coliseum is being renovated for the track and field events. They more than likely will have to be there for up to two seasons, which I don't think the fans will complain. They'll be inside a new air-conditioned stadium with some shade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen the documents leaked by LA 2024 last year? Im guesing you haven't considering you're saying the stadium cannot host todays ceremonies.

Screen%20Shot%202014-05-02%20at%208.28.2

Here is what they are proposing what the stadium will look like. I don't know about you but that looks like a stadium fully capable of ceremonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen the documents leaked by LA 2024 last year? Im guesing you haven't considering you're saying the stadium cannot host todays ceremonies.

Screen%20Shot%202014-05-02%20at%208.28.2

Here is what they are proposing what the stadium will look like. I don't know about you but that looks like a stadium fully capable of ceremonies.

While the drawing doesn't look too bad, I actually think in real life that thing will look beyond ugly. It'll look more like the travesty that is now Soldier Field

soldier-field.jpg

Oh and any renovations could very well take the Coliseum's status as a historic landmark. That's exactly what happened to Soldier Field.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1982664-why-the-soldier-field-renovations-were-a-mistake-for-the-bears-and-chicago

http://www.nps.gov/nr/listings/20060428.HTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no that's f**king stupid to assume that the LA Coliseum will host the opening ceremonies because that is clearly not what my intentions were for that stadium's use. The purpose of using the LA Coliseum for a future LA Olympics is so that stadium ONLY serves to host the track and field events. Clearly it is outdated for today's glamorous opening ceremonies, and more than likely closing ceremonies as well.

LA would have to do what Rio will be doing for 2016, and that's have a separate stadium that hosts the opening and closing ceremonies and keep the athletics events in a separate stadium, and in this case it's the LA Coliseum.

While LA may or may not get an NFL franchise, will a city like LA, with a metro population of 13 million, really lose out if they build a 80k+ capacity multipurpose (with heavily favoring an NFL configuration) stadium without a guarantee of getting an NFL team? San Antonio's Alamodome was built to attract an NFL team, which never happened. But it still gets a lot of good use even today. This new stadium can host a variety of concerts and a variety of sporting events like the NCAA Final Four, NBA All-Star basketball games, the Super Bowl, and even some regular NFL games.

Couple of things here..

If you're going to compare LA to Rio, remember that it was the new stadium they built that is hosting athletics while the existing stadium was the one that got renovated and is hosting the ceremonies. You're asking LA to do that in reverse. Plus, the planned capacity of Farmers Field (which means very little since it's anyone's best guess when and where a stadium would be built in LA) is around 72,000, expandable to around 76,000. That's much lower than the capacity of the Coliseum. You say it's outdated for the ceremonies, but not to go all Agenda 2020 on you, but is it worth putting the ceremonies in a new stadium if the seating capacity is significantly lower? Some might call that "f**king stupid.

In comparison to San Antonio, they didn't have a major football venue before the Alamodome was built. You're right that they've gotten use out of it (including in its earlier years as a temporary home for the Spurs), but it's a little harder for a city like San Antonio to attract a football team than Los Angeles. More importantly, the LA area already has 2 NFL-sized stadiums (even if neither has any shot in their current form to attract a team). Why build a 3rd if there's no guarantee of a tenant? And I sincerely doubt they're going to build an enclosed stadium in Southern California, so they're not getting a Final Four or an NBA All-Star game. Maybe they get a college bowl game (although that may be tough with the Rose Bowl down the road). Super Bowl is unlikely without a team.

If the right situation comes together, a stadium will get built in LA for an NFL team and it will be occupied. But until that happens, there's no point in building that stadium unless someone has a billion dollars lying around and is willing to finance it. A small handful of occasional events won't make it worthwhile without a permanent tenant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....i wish they WOULD touch those 2 old jumbotrons atop the peristyle.....they totally ruin the lines of everything and the materials they are incased in look like a garden shed...not pretty in the same sightline as the stone materials. Maybe some talented designer could envision some new way to allow scoreboards down on that end without the same cumbersome heavy effect. I think maybe they should be raised above the peristyl.....I don't know something.

They've fixed those. But that's about the only place you can put jumbotrons that all the stands (except for those below the peristyle area) can see. So that was allowed; and they did not structurally alter the peristyle end. Remember too, that because that's on the eastern end, so the fading afternoon sun casts a heavy reflection on the 'trons.

Have you seen the documents leaked by LA 2024 last year? Im guesing you haven't considering you're saying the stadium cannot host todays ceremonies.

Screen%20Shot%202014-05-02%20at%208.28.2

Here is what they are proposing what the stadium will look like. I don't know about you but that looks like a stadium fully capable of ceremonies.

And if they're wise about it, they can just install a new track on a platform, so building one a la Sochi, where the area underneath the platform can be used for Ceremonies purposes. That way, after the OGs, they just dismantle the platform and the track; and they're back to USC football configuration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the renderings also show a lack of jumbotrons, so I don't know what their alternate plan would be.

Don't believe everything you don't see in renderings -- if this comes to pass at all. They just left out the jumbotrons from that drawing so the interior of the stadium could be shown. No one is going to hold them accountable to those renderings if the jumbotrons are there. 1984 just went on fine with them; I don't see why succeeding events can't have them.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
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...