Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hektor

And then there were Five...

Recommended Posts

If there's anything that might be "difficult" for the LA bid, it's the Olympic Village. I don't see its proposed location on the piggyback yards, or its funding, to be a sure thing.

It's fairly directly equivalent to London's Olympic village. Great big rail yards are very inefficient and intrusive uses of urban space, and Olympics present a great excuse to replace them with something both more valuable and more attractive. Single ownership means a fairly straightforward process of negotiation with an owner who can probably get to share in the long-term financial benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller and older? The Stade de France opened almost 2 years before the Staples Center did.

OK. Let's use your example. Staples Center is an arena, and State de France is an athletics stadium. Los Angeles' equivalent of the Stade de France was originally built in 1923 and was taken over by USC a few years ago because the Coliseum Commission failed to deliver promised renovations. Meanwhile Paris' equivalent of Staples Center was originally built in 1984 and then heavily renovated last year. So even in that comparison Paris beats Los Angeles.

I understand that a lot of people want to support their country for patriotic reasons, and LA people don't want to accept anything viewed as critical of their city. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Los Angeles is going to be saving costs by using venues from the 1920's and 1930's, that means using many older and/or smaller venues. If Los Angeles is going to be building new venues that will be expensive.

I was born in Orange County, and still have lots of family there. I've been to USC vs UCLA games at the Coliseum. I'm not trying to slam it. But you are being a homer and comparing apples to oranges, for example showing that renders of LA's plans look better than the pictures of Paris and Rome. Well, that's the whole point of renders: to make things look better than they turn out in real life.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Budapest, a new Puskás Ferenc Stadium would be built on the site of the old

12036371_10203663633630034_2396934663048

hungarytoday.hu

The new stadium, which is to be constructed for the UEfA Euro 2020, will not feature an athletics track. If I'm informed correctly, they propose to build an Olympic stadium on Csepel Island to the south of the city centre. Nevertheless, Budapest won't likely get to host in 2024 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind LA isn't proposing the 1920's Coliseum for the 2024 games. They current facility will require extensive renovations, not to mention all the renovations over the years. At what point are there no 1920's bricks left, and you have a new stadium that merely occupies the same "space" as the original?


Keep in mind LA isn't proposing the 1920's Coliseum for the 2024 games. They current facility will require extensive renovations, not to mention all the renovations over the years. At what point are there no 1920's bricks left, and you have a new stadium that merely occupies the same "space" as the original?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^and to add on to that, just like the 1984 Paris arena has been heavily renovated, LA's coliseum will be heavily renovated if they get the games anyways so the matter of "modern" arenas make no difference here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind LA isn't proposing the 1920's Coliseum for the 2024 games. They current facility will require extensive renovations, not to mention all the renovations over the years. At what point are there no 1920's bricks left, and you have a new stadium that merely occupies the same "space" as the original?

  1. The basic design of stadiums has changed a lot in the past century. No city would build a bowl stadium like the Coliseum now. Basic things like tiers and concourses have been implemented to improve the stadium experience, and can't be easily added without completely rebuilding the structure of the stadium or arena. This can be easily experienced if you attend a USC match and compare it to the facilities at a modern NFL stadium. I always thought I would love visiting Fenway Park, for example, but nostalgia aside it is actually one of the worst stadiums I have ever been to for the fans even though it has been renovated several times.
  2. Sure, Los Angeles can renovate their old venues. But that costs money, and that is my point. Paris does not need to renovate most of their venues. Although their football and rugby stadiums are surprisingly awful. That's probably the one area that Los Angeles has a clear advantage if the Rams relocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris or La are not going to win the bid on their venues. While Paris might have to build a bit more then LA, I can't see any IOC member having their vote influenced on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris or La are not going to win the bid on their venues. While Paris might have to build a bit more then LA, I can't see any IOC member having their vote influenced on this matter.

It does when Agenda 2020 plays into view, unless its only a only a couple venues difference (assuming a solid legacy is present).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does when Agenda 2020 plays into view, unless its only a only a couple venues difference (assuming a solid legacy is present).

I'm sure Paris can do well with 2 more arenas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paris or La are not going to win the bid on their venues. While Paris might have to bild a bit more then LA, I can't see any IOC member having their vote influenced on this matter.

I agree, but the argument from (some) Los Angeles boosters is that the IOC will choose them because they have so many existing venues. That's a great argument to raise against most rival cities. But Paris is one of the few cities in the world with even better sporting infrastructure in place than LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but the argument from (some) Los Angeles boosters is that the IOC will choose them because they have so many existing venues. That's a great argument to raise against most rival cities. But Paris is one of the few cities in the world with even better sporting infrastructure in place than LA.

Better sporting infrastructure? Hmm, I don't know about that. Someone's got to compare each and every venue in each of the cities to see who really has the better sporting infrastructure. And since you made the claim, it's yours to prove! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but the argument from (some) Los Angeles boosters is that the IOC will choose them because they have so many existing venues. That's a great argument to raise against most rival cities. But Paris is one of the few cities in the world with even better sporting infrastructure in place than LA.

While I said the bid is not going to be won or lost on sporting infrastructure, LA does have slightly better venues. Paris does have a lot of small rugby and football grounds, which unfortunately don't make a difference in the bid. Paris lacks the many large indoor arenas that LA has, but I'm sure their is a huge market to build the roughly 2 indoor arenas Paris needs for 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind LA isn't proposing the 1920's Coliseum for the 2024 games. They current facility will require extensive renovations, not to mention all the renovations over the years. At what point are there no 1920's bricks left, and you have a new stadium that merely occupies the same "space" as the original?

My assumption with the Coliseum is, if anything, the peristyle would be retained.

The new stadium, which is to be constructed for the UEfA Euro 2020, will not feature an athletics track. If I'm informed correctly, they propose to build an Olympic stadium on Csepel Island to the south of the city centre. Nevertheless, Budapest won't likely get to host in 2024 anyway.

I stand corrected. I'm very curious to see Budapest's venue plan, as well as the other European candidate cities' plans. I've already seen Los Ángeles' plans.

OK. Let's use your example. Staples Center is an arena, and State de France is an athletics stadium. Los Angeles' equivalent of the Stade de France was originally built in 1923 and was taken over by USC a few years ago because the Coliseum Commission failed to deliver promised renovations. Meanwhile Paris' equivalent of Staples Center was originally built in 1984 and then heavily renovated last year. So even in that comparison Paris beats Los Angeles.

I understand that a lot of people want to support their country for patriotic reasons, and LA people don't want to accept anything viewed as critical of their city. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Los Angeles is going to be saving costs by using venues from the 1920's and 1930's, that means using many older and/or smaller venues. If Los Angeles is going to be building new venues that will be expensive.

I was born in Orange County, and still have lots of family there. I've been to USC vs UCLA games at the Coliseum. I'm not trying to slam it. But you are being a homer and comparing apples to oranges, for example showing that renders of LA's plans look better than the pictures of Paris and Rome. Well, that's the whole point of renders: to make things look better than they turn out in real life.

I'm not being a homer at all. If LA wins or loses 2024, I'm good either way. I had wanted to post bid plan renderings of all main Olympic stadiums (my mistake with the one for Budapest), but I couldn't find bid renderings for Paris or Rome.

And, I was just correcting you on your incorrect statements. I don't know where you got the idea that many of the venues used for the 1984 LA Olympics were also used in the 1932 Olympics; again, only 2 were. And, LA's 2024 venue plan is vastly different from what was done in 1984---80 percent of events would take place at venues that did not exist in 1984, or will have been significantly rebuilt or remodeled. The LA Convention Center, for example, will be expanded and modernized to the point that it won't even look like the same building when the project is done; Pauley Pavilion reopened 3 years ago after having undergone nearly 3 years of extensive renovations and now isn't the same, either.

And Paris' bid plan hasn't been completely released yet. If age of venues matters so much to you, we don't know the entire story yet. One source says that fencing would be at the Grand Palais, which was built around the turn of the 20th Century. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful complex, but you seem to be hung up on old venues.

shut. up. how the hell have you been?

I've been good, and you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Reads part about Grand Palais*

*Googles it* OMG SO PRETTY

*pretentious snort* LA has an equivalent... The Walt Disney Concert Hall

*Checks LA24 site*

*Disney Concert Hall missing from venue list*

Cri.

WHY WOULD THEY REMOVE IT???? No wonder it felt like the bid lost its magic the second time the plan was released. What's next? No more Rodeo Drive or Griffith Park? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where Los Angeles comes out ahead is with better venues for rugby, volleyball and basketball. But that is precisely because those venues are (relatively) friendly to private financing. Paris needs to upgrade its football stadiums. But their big local team is already planning to do this just like Los Angeles is probably going to get a new NFL stadium. Similarly it should be easy for Paris to acquire funding for a second large arena for basketball because the arena's operators will likely make a profit off renting it out.

Los Angeles on the other hand needs to secure improvements for non-revenue facilities that are not very attractive to private investors because they are money losers.

Examples:

Athletics Stadium

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum (86,000 seats for athletics; 1921 stadium with $1.03 million total spent on 2010 renovations)

Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_de_France (81,000 seats; 1995 facility)

Aquatics Center

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uytengsu_Aquatics_Center (1,640 seats; FINA wants at least 15,000 seats, so will need to build a new aquatics center; by comparison Seattle built a bigger aquatics center for the 1991 Goodwill Games)

Paris: just like LA their facilities are too small, and they will need a new aquatics center

Tennis Center

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Tennis_Club (6,000+ seats; college facility with no current pro tournament)

Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Roland_Garros (30,000+ seats; grand slam venue)

Velodrome

Los Angeles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VELO_Sports_Center (2,450 seats)

Paris : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lodrome_de_Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (5,000 seats)

The main stadium isn't a big problem for LA because USC can probably convince its alumni to kick in $150 million for renovations. I am not so sure they will give money for a 15,000 seat aquatics center, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where Los Angeles comes out ahead is with better venues for rugby, volleyball and basketball. But that is precisely because those venues are (relatively) friendly to private financing. Paris needs to upgrade its football stadiums. But their big local team is already planning to do this just like Los Angeles is probably going to get a new NFL stadium. Similarly it should be easy for Paris to acquire funding for a second large arena for basketball because the arena's operators will likely make a profit off renting it out.

Los Angeles on the other hand needs to secure improvements for non-revenue facilities that are not very attractive to private investors because they are money losers.

Examples:

Athletics Stadium

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum (86,000 seats for athletics; 1921 stadium with $1.03 million total spent on 2010 renovations)

Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_de_France (81,000 seats; 1995 facility)

Aquatics Center

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uytengsu_Aquatics_Center (1,640 seats; FINA wants at least 15,000 seats, so will need to build a new aquatics center; by comparison Seattle built a bigger aquatics center for the 1991 Goodwill Games)

Paris: just like LA their facilities are too small, and they will need a new aquatics center

Tennis Center

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Tennis_Club (6,000+ seats; college facility with no current pro tournament)

Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Roland_Garros (30,000+ seats; grand slam venue)

Velodrome

Los Angeles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VELO_Sports_Center (2,450 seats)

Paris : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lodrome_de_Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (5,000 seats)

The main stadium isn't a big problem for LA because USC can probably convince its alumni to kick in $150 million for renovations. I am not so sure they will give money for a 15,000 seat aquatics center, though.

You cannot tell me Los Angeles has a better venue for rugby then Stade Jean-Bouin. And France is a year out from hosting the second largest ad most important football competition in the world. I think they will be fine finding 5 stadiums to host the football tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where Los Angeles comes out ahead is with better venues for rugby, volleyball and basketball. But that is precisely because those venues are (relatively) friendly to private financing. Paris needs to upgrade its football stadiums. But their big local team is already planning to do this just like Los Angeles is probably going to get a new NFL stadium. Similarly it should be easy for Paris to acquire funding for a second large arena for basketball because the arena's operators will likely make a profit off renting it out.

Los Angeles on the other hand needs to secure improvements for non-revenue facilities that are not very attractive to private investors because they are money losers.

Examples:

Athletics Stadium

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Memorial_Coliseum (86,000 seats for athletics; 1921 stadium with $1.03 million total spent on 2010 renovations)

Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_de_France (81,000 seats; 1995 facility)

Aquatics Center

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uytengsu_Aquatics_Center (1,640 seats; FINA wants at least 15,000 seats, so will need to build a new aquatics center; by comparison Seattle built a bigger aquatics center for the 1991 Goodwill Games)

Paris: just like LA their facilities are too small, and they will need a new aquatics center

Tennis Center

Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Tennis_Club (6,000+ seats; college facility with no current pro tournament)

Paris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Roland_Garros (30,000+ seats; grand slam venue)

Velodrome

Los Angeles : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VELO_Sports_Center (2,450 seats)

Paris : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lodrome_de_Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (5,000 seats)

The main stadium isn't a big problem for LA because USC can probably convince its alumni to kick in $150 million for renovations. I am not so sure they will give money for a 15,000 seat aquatics center, though.

It seems to me that you haven't seen LA's bid plans. Here they are: http://www.scribd.com/doc/276070799/LA2024-Bid-Book#scribd

Tennis would be held at the already built tennis stadium at the StubHub Center, which seats 6,000. I don't know if that needs to be expanded or not; I don't know what the IOC requires in terms of spectator capacity for tennis.

And, the aquatics events would be held in the soon to be built MLS soccer stadium, adjacent to the Coliseum. When completed, that stadium will seat 20,000, and supposedly, that would be the largest spectator capacity for aquatics events ever for an Olympics. Temporary pools would be built within the stadium.

Incidentally, if Los Ángeles wins 2024, it would be the first time in nearly 100 years that Olympic swimming events would be held in a temporary pool; the swimming events at the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics were held in a temporary pool, demolished after the Games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Sports_Park_Swim_Stadium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, USC isn't going to own the new MLS stadium or the team, so USC will have nothing to do with an aquatics center, or even Expo Park for that matter.

You also fail to mention the Stubhub Tennis Center, which held a couple championships, is home to USTA's USA Tennis High Performance, and has 12 more courts than Paris'. Now granted its facilities aren't as large (8k compared to the 14k seater in Paris), it's at least better than the dingy and innacurate Wikipedia page you linked (The LA Tennis Club is in Hollywood and nowhere near UCLA's Tennis Center). You're comparing a professional sports complex to a University sports complex, which still has hosted several college-leveled championships. The Stubhub Tennis Center can work with some cheap extra seats just fine if the seating needs to be upped.

The VELO is also the US's largest velodrome and has held the Championships in '06 so, y'know, you can't really complain a lot about that. But no doubt money will have to be forked over to make it even bigger.

-snip-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot tell me Los Angeles has a better venue for rugby then Stade Jean-Bouin. And France is a year out from hosting the second largest ad most important football competition in the world. I think they will be fine finding 5 stadiums to host the football tournament.

Stade Jean-Bouin looks ugly imo. But just about any major country will have no problem with finding some professional soccer/football stadia, since the sport is so popular. In America, American Football is more popular thus the expensive NFL stadiums will probably be more adept to host Rugby. At least that's what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Reads part about Grand Palais*

*Googles it* OMG SO PRETTY

*pretentious snort* LA has an equivalent... The Walt Disney Concert Hall

*Checks LA24 site*

*Disney Concert Hall missing from venue list*

Cri.

WHY WOULD THEY REMOVE IT???? No wonder it felt like the bid lost its magic the second time the plan was released. What's next? No more Rodeo Drive or Griffith Park? :angry:

Why would they even use Walt Disney Concert Hall? While the outside looks amazing, the inside just doesn't look like it will be suited well to host a sporting event. And Grand Palais is amazing. When I worked in the couture department in Neiman Marcus, I would watch the videos of the Chanel fashion shows held there, and my god is that place huge! And while I despise the idea of Chanel and the fact that people spend thousands of dollars on crap that looks like **** most of the time, I think the setup for their fashion shows are pretty badass. Here's one of the first ones I remember seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they even use Walt Disney Concert Hall? While the outside looks amazing, the inside just doesn't look like it will be suited well to host a sporting event.

If Shrine Auditorium can be used, I don't see why the Walt Disney Concert Hall can't.

Shrine Auditorium and Expo Hall

Shrine-Theater-Stage-and-Seating-eecue_2

shrine-stage.jpg

Walt Disney Concert Hall

http://wdch10.laphil.com/wdch10/image/53/564/375

Disney-Hall-copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Shrine Auditorium can be used, I don't see why the Walt Disney Concert Hall can't.

Shrine Auditorium and Expo Hall

Shrine-Theater-Stage-and-Seating-eecue_2

shrine-stage.jpg

Walt Disney Concert Hall

http://wdch10.laphil.com/wdch10/image/53/564/375

Disney-Hall-copy.jpg

I can. Look at the difference in stages. Shrine Auditorium is flat whereas Walt Disney Concert Hall has raised steps which are more than likely a permanent feature. And also the stage looks smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×