Los Angeles 2028

[Rob2012]

I struggle with this idea of new templates or models being created, by either bid. The only "model" that exists is the IOC's and the IF's venue/transport/security requirements and they've changed very little. Neither Paris nor LA (their village concept aside, which I've praised before) is doing anything radical or new. They both just happen to have a lot built already and are both supplementing that with a handful of new or temporary venues (i,.e. nothing we haven't seen already in previous Olympic cities). Both are using the same financial model as has always been used (mixture of sponsorships, broadcast revenue etc). In LA's case that happens to cover costs (at least in part because of their huge domestic sponsorship market), whereas for any other city in the world (including most in the US) it simply wouldn't. LA gets to boast about a privately funded Games but this is because of happy circumstance rather than any new model they're putting forward.*

Neither Paris nor LA are tearing up the rulebook, because they can't, it's not theirs to tear up, and it'll still be there for future hosts to abide by.

Nothing radical is forthcoming from either city that will seriously change the landscape for future hosts (as Rols rightly pointed out, even LA's fantastic village idea isn't easily replicable). But hat's not the fault of either city and hosts shouldn't be expected to be an example to the world. They should be expected to do the best by their city and the Olympics, that's all. It's the IOC that needs to change things for future cities if they think there are problems - and that is a much, much tricker proposition.

* it's also, of course, a legacy of '32 and '84.

[hektor]

Host city contract

[JesseSaenz]

18 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Venice, Italy or Venice, CA?  What's happening there?  Another rally? 

Venice in Los Angeles. An Alt-Right protest like the one in Charlottesville was scheduled to take place on Saturday.

It has been "postponed" and hopefully cancelled altogether.

http://ktla.com/2017/08/16/organizers-postpone-march-on-google-planned-for-venice-8-other-cities-due-to-alt-left-threats/


 

[Quaker2001]

4 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

Venice in Los Angeles. An Alt-Right protest like the one in Charlottesville was scheduled to take place on Saturday.

It has been "postponed" and hopefully cancelled altogether.

http://ktla.com/2017/08/16/organizers-postpone-march-on-google-planned-for-venice-8-other-cities-due-to-alt-left-threats/

As indicated by the headline..

Don’t Look Now, But Alt-Right Demonstrations Are Scheduled for Nine Cities Next Weekend

So I don't think there's an immediate concern that there will be a focus on Los Angeles, even if this hadn't been called off in light of what happened in Charlottesville

[Quaker2001]

On 8/15/2017 at 8:00 PM, Sir Rols said:

I'm glad you mentioned that - it's something that's bugged me whenever the old "LA;'s plan should be the template for future games" argument gets brought up. Nice idea, and, sure, some aspects (if they work) will be picked up. But so many things just aren't replicable.

Take the OV. It works for LA because of the US campus culture. That culture doesn't exist elsewhere - ity's a US-specific thing (I dunno, maybe Canada as well, but I'd need to be educated on that). Elsewhere, in Europe, Oz, Asia etc, the old model will still always rule. I get that LA's plan was a great point of differentiation it could sell, but it was always disingenuous to try to paint any other approach as flawed - especially when it's a model that has been used in just about all non-US games, and is rarely a sore point or sticking point.

Beyond that, you hit the nail on the head. Private enterprise, profit-driven, high Capitalism is not as worshipped as much outside the US as America enshrines it. Most other places are comfortable with some level of Government involvement. Advanced democracies don't like to see Government waste or spendthrifting, but they aren't adverse to public spending on worthy projects.

On 8/16/2017 at 6:03 AM, Rob. said:

I struggle with this idea of new templates or models being created, by either bid. The only "model" that exists is the IOC's and the IF's venue/transport/security requirements and they've changed very little. Neither Paris nor LA (their village concept aside, which I've praised before) is doing anything radical or new. They both just happen to have a lot built already and are both supplementing that with a handful of new or temporary venues (i,.e. nothing we haven't seen already in previous Olympic cities). Both are using the same financial model as has always been used (mixture of sponsorships, broadcast revenue etc). In LA's case that happens to cover costs (at least in part because of their huge domestic sponsorship market), whereas for any other city in the world (including most in the US) it simply wouldn't. LA gets to boast about a privately funded Games but this is because of happy circumstance rather than any new model they're putting forward.*

Neither Paris nor LA are tearing up the rulebook, because they can't, it's not theirs to tear up, and it'll still be there for future hosts to abide by.

Nothing radical is forthcoming from either city that will seriously change the landscape for future hosts (as Rols rightly pointed out, even LA's fantastic village idea isn't easily replicable). But hat's not the fault of either city and hosts shouldn't be expected to be an example to the world. They should be expected to do the best by their city and the Olympics, that's all. It's the IOC that needs to change things for future cities if they think there are problems - and that is a much, much tricker proposition.

* it's also, of course, a legacy of '32 and '84.

It's been discussed here before.. back in the 60's and 70's, the problem was with the host cities.  Mexico City dealt with protests and social unrest.  Munich had infamously lax security and we all know what happened as a result.  Montreal had financial woes that were largely self-imposed.  So when Los Angeles came in in 1984, they got the reputation as the savior of the Olympic movement which was largely well-deserved.

These days, the problem isn't so much the host cities as it is with the IOC and their desire for excess.  They're responsible for an Olympics in Beijing (soon to be 2 Olympics in Beijing) and in Sochi.  So that has scared off a number of cities.  When Paris and LA come into the picture, that may or may not lead to an increase in the number of interested cities.  What will make the difference though IMO is less about how successful Paris and LA pull off their Olympics and more about the IOC and their reputation.  If they were true to their Agenda 2020 philosophy, they're supposed to be doing right by their potential host cities.  The so-called "rulebook" should be flexible to make it work for whomever is bidding.  We're at a point in time where maybe only the biggest of big cities can hope to host an Olympics, but those cities need to be drawn in first, not pushed away.

And yes, for all the rhetoric about things that LA is doing differently - and they're in a position to do better than other bids because of the economics of Olympic bidding in the United States - it's not necessarily something other cities can follow any more than Barcelona created some sort of new model, unless we can find another city/country emerging from decades of political strife.  There are lessons to be learned there for sure, but I agree, it's not going to be anything revolutionary.  LA `84 wasn't that either.  They simply didn't repeat the mistakes of prior hosts, some of which could have been foreseen and others which were a matter of circumstance.

Bottom line is this.. bidding for and hosting an Olympics is an expensive proposition.  It's not going to get any cheaper.  Paris and LA feel confident they can pull it off.  But it all needs to start with the responsibility of the IOC where they do right by potential host cities rather than for themselves.

[baron-pierreIV]

Funny how the business of Olympic bidding cities is about where they were 100 years ago, i.e., the players involved.  So have things really changed or just same old, same old??

Antwerp, I'm waiting for you to show your cards!!    

(And technically too, Tokyo could be considered a 3x-er by the time 2020 rolls around, since they were first chosen for 1940.  Then actually 1964; and now 2020.)  

[ejaycat]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

There are lessons to be learned there for sure, but I agree, it's not going to be anything revolutionary.  LA `84 wasn't that either.  They simply didn't repeat the mistakes of prior hosts, some of which could have been foreseen and others which were a matter of circumstance.

LA '84 actually was pretty revolutionary in how it was funded, because no other city did it that way before---by private sponsorship,  increased use of corporate sponsors, and selling television rights ($225 million from ABC back then, well in advance of the Games).  

And, probably a minor thing, but the LA '84 Olympics was the Olympics that established the "Look of the Games" with its color scheme and temporary structures at venues.  I also read somewhere that the LA '84 Olympics were the first to extensively use wayfinding signage with the graphic symbols for the different sports.  They had the wayfinding signage with the '84 Olympic color schemes not only at the venues but on the streets and even freeways, so even though the Games were spread out, it really did create a sort of unified feel and look for the area.  

[ejaycat]

2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Funny how the business of Olympic bidding cities is about where they were 100 years ago, i.e., the players involved.  So have things really changed or just same old, same old??

Antwerp, I'm waiting for you to show your cards!!    

(And technically too, Tokyo could be considered a 3x-er by the time 2020 rolls around, since they were first chosen for 1940.  Then actually 1964; and now 2020.)  

Well, I think the IOC long ago should have stopped "forcing" cities to create brand new venues just to appease them (by "forcing," I mean letting it seem as if the only way to win an Olympic bid would be to build brand new venues).  Agenda 2020 was a step in the right direction, I think.

I guess we kinda are back to square one, in that only cities that already have the facilities should really only bid for and/or host the Olympics.  In fact, when Melbourne hosted the 1956 Summer Olympics, the only brand new venue built was the swimming stadium (incidentally the first indoor pool used at an Olympics).  Granted, this was before television, which changed things up.  I assume that before TV, a city would be satisfied with the "prestige" of hosting an international event like the Olympics, but when TV came about, then it became all about not just hosting an international event but broadcasting the city to the whole world.

At this point in time, I actually wouldn't mind permanent "designated Olympic cities," maybe one or 2 cities from each continent that can host an Olympics, and they just rotate it, with an occasional different city in the mix.  It would save a lot of money, and cities with the wherewithal to host wouldn't be so burdened.

And in the future, will audiences even be into the Olympics anymore?  Supposedly, the Rio Games' TV-viewing audience skewed older.  

Regarding Tokyo, I guess it can claim that it won an Olympic bid 3 times, but even after 2020, it still won't have hosted 3 Olympics.

Edited August 17, 2017 by ejaycat

[FYI]

36 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

And in the future, will audiences even be into the Olympics anymore?  Supposedly, the Rio Games' TV-viewing audience skewed older.  

That's probably due to the fact that younger audicences simply watched via non-traditional ways, like the internet or other streaming options. And now that we're starting to see commercials even with online viewing these days, the way that we know television now will more than likely be a thing of the past in the next decade or two.

But I don't see the Olympics going anytime soon. At least not due to a lack of audience. The Rio 2016 Olympics were still watched by 3.5 Billion people worldwide, & 200 million in the U.S. alone (that's nearly 2/3rds of the country's population). Those numbers still aren't too shabby.

[ejaycat]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

That's probably due to the fact that younger audicences simply watched via non-traditional ways, like the internet or other streaming options. And now that we're starting to see commercials even with online viewing these days, the way that we know television now will more than likely be a thing of the past in the next decade or two.

Good point.  

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, ejaycat said:

LA '84 actually was pretty revolutionary in how it was funded, because no other city did it that way before---by private sponsorship,  increased use of corporate sponsors, and selling television rights ($225 million from ABC back then, well in advance of the Games).  

And, probably a minor thing, but the LA '84 Olympics was the Olympics that established the "Look of the Games" with its color scheme and temporary structures at venues.  I also read somewhere that the LA '84 Olympics were the first to extensively use wayfinding signage with the graphic symbols for the different sports.  They had the wayfinding signage with the '84 Olympic color schemes not only at the venues but on the streets and even freeways, so even though the Games were spread out, it really did create a sort of unified feel and look for the area.  

And no other country has done it that way since.  LA's financial model for the Olympics didn't create a revolution.  It was largely a one-off that worked well for them, but not necessarily something others could replicate.  That's what I think will happen again here.

[JMarkSnow2012]

4 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

These days, the problem isn't so much the host cities as it is with the IOC and their desire for excess.  They're responsible for an Olympics in Beijing

Well yes, obviously they are responsible for an Olympics in Beijing- but was that the result of a desire for excess, or a desire to bring a new nation into the hosting game (the other choice in that respect being Istanbul)?

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

Well yes, obviously they are responsible for an Olympics in Beijing- but was that the result of a desire for excess, or a desire to bring a new nation into the hosting game (the other choice in that respect being Istanbul)?

Beijing on it's own may not have been an issue.  Have Sochi follow that up a few years later and we know the fallout from that.  I agree it's something of a slippery slope to not exclude these countries or tell them what they can or can't spend.  But the cause and effect can often be that the IOC will get excess and then they'll expected excess.  Kudos to London for not trying to out-do Beijing (not that they could have if they tried), but the IOC still needs to get out of a culture where they can expect the biggest and the best from any host city.  Some can deliver that, and in the case of Beijing, no surprise they wanted to put on a show for the world.  In a scenario where the IOC has to choose between Oslo and Beijing though, that's where they'll get themselves into trouble.

[JesseSaenz]

Cool video from the 84' Games in which they analyze L.A. Even back then, they did not think LA with no center, no identity, a bank robbery a day, and cocaine parties, could pull it off.

 

https://youtu.be/-Mog1Y8bvUg

[baron-pierreIV]

5 hours ago, ejaycat said:

And, probably a minor thing, but the LA '84 Olympics was the Olympics that established the "Look of the Games" with its color scheme and temporary structures at venues.  I also read somewhere that the LA '84 Olympics were the first to extensively use wayfinding signage with the graphic symbols for the different sports.  They had the wayfinding signage with the '84 Olympic color schemes not only at the venues but on the streets and even freeways, so even though the Games were spread out, it really did create a sort of unified feel and look for the area.  

Nah.  It was creeping up there.  Actually, go all the way back to Berlin 1936, and of course, the Nazis drowned the Games in their Nazi imagery.  (funny, how that's so resonant today, huh?)   Then Tokyo 1964 (2nd Axis nation) was first to use a lot of Japanese icons integrated with Olympic meanings.  Grenoble 1968 built on that; then Mexico, and Munich.  (Funny too, how Rome 1960, Tokyo 1964 and Munch 1972, were premier cities of the losing countries of WW2, and they started hosting in the 60s and early 70s; and throw in 2 WOGs (Cortina and Sapporo) for them as well.)   But it was LA that spent a lot on the "Festive Federalism"  (whatever that meant) look, and splashed all these bold colors in your face!!  Strangely too, despite being an "American" Games, the look and feel Jerde and Sussman tried to go for was like a Mexican marketplace.  Funny how these things turn out. 

[FYI]

"If you wanna work 9-5, don't come here. Stay in Milwaukee. Stay in the Bronx. Stay in Dallas." Lmfao - L.A. is the land of the "aspiring actor".

Here's another indepth article, though, from the Washington Post from 11 days ago, that touch uponed the other two articles I posted last week. And while a few in L.A. were skeptical, this one does touch upon why it can have that certain element yet again. Especially when as much as $2 Billion (in U.S. federal TAX) dollars will be allocated for the 2028 L.A. Olympics, & that's how the bid can boast about "profibility" when L.A. won't be fronting that exbortant necessary cost (like other bids/hosts elsewhere do), for starters. And with the rate that things are going astray in this country as of late (i.e. Charlottesville), it wouldn't surprise me in the least if L.A. becomes a fortified city come 2028. Just look at how "militarized" liberal London 2012 was. 

And this is one of my favorite lines from the article; 

"As Los Angeles officials prepared for the 1984 Olympics, they were not concerned about the fate of African American or Latino youths living in neighborhoods devastated by an economic recession, unemployment rates that had topped 40 percent or a growing drug epidemic. Rather, they focused on combating the international attention that drug-related crime and rising gang violence had brought to the city. Such attention, officials feared, would ruin the image of Los Angeles as a city of the future and gateway to the Pacific Rim."

The very last sentence sounds so much of what a certain individual always loved to tout, too lol.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/06/the-1984-olympics-fueled-l-a-s-war-on-crime-will-the-2028-games-do-the-same/

 

 

 

[ejaycat]

12 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

 But it was LA that spent a lot on the "Festive Federalism"  (whatever that meant) look, and splashed all these bold colors in your face!!  Strangely too, despite being an "American" Games, the look and feel Jerde and Sussman tried to go for was like a Mexican marketplace.  Funny how these things turn out. 

I understand the "Festive," but not the "Federalism."

From what I've read, Deborah Sussman purposely did NOT want the typical red, white and blue color scheme, they purposely steered clear from that, which in my opinion was a good choice.  They wanted to promote Los Angeles as an international city on the Pacific rim, so they chose those bold pastels---magenta, aqua, vermilion, and chrome yellow to liven things up, plus it was very eye-catching on TV. 

[Sir Rols]

49 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Nah.  It was creeping up there.  Actually, go all the way back to Berlin 1936, and of course, the Nazis drowned the Games in their Nazi imagery.  (funny, how that's so resonant today, huh?)   Then Tokyo 1964 (2nd Axis nation) was first to use a lot of Japanese icons integrated with Olympic meanings.  Grenoble 1968 built on that; then Mexico, and Munich.  (Funny too, how Rome 1960, Tokyo 1964 and Munch 1972, were premier cities of the losing countries of WW2, and they started hosting in the 60s and early 70s; and throw in 2 WOGs (Cortina and Sapporo) for them as well.)   But it was LA that spent a lot on the "Festive Federalism"  (whatever that meant) look, and splashed all these bold colors in your face!!  Strangely too, despite being an "American" Games, the look and feel Jerde and Sussman tried to go for was like a Mexican marketplace.  Funny how these things turn out. 

Yeah. I dunno if that was some claim put out in the LA bid materials, but someone on SSC made that claim as well and I felt compelled to set them straight. Not counting the Nazis and the Japanese, certainly the specialty designed integrated look goes back as far as Mexico 68. And Munich 72 certainly had its own "Look Book" outlining its integrated graphics. LA 84 may have been another step in its evolution, and they did it bloody well, but it was in no way the first.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Sir Rols

[jtrevino]

6 hours ago, ejaycat said:

 

At this point in time, I actually wouldn't mind permanent "designated Olympic cities," maybe one or 2 cities from each continent that can host an Olympics, and they just rotate it, with an occasional different city in the mix.  It would save a lot of money, and cities with the wherewithal to host wouldn't be so burdened.

 

I can’t see that ever happening or see many cities choosing to be in that rotation. Every woman wants an joyous extravagant wedding, but I’m sure after having gone through the months/years of planning, they never want another one ever again. They’d have to at least get rid of media/athlete villages and have everyone pay their own way before that becomes a reality. 

[jtrevino]

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Nah.  It was creeping up there.  Actually, go all the way back to Berlin 1936, and of course, the Nazis drowned the Games in their Nazi imagery.  (funny, how that's so resonant today, huh?)   Then Tokyo 1964 (2nd Axis nation) was first to use a lot of Japanese icons integrated with Olympic meanings.  Grenoble 1968 built on that; then Mexico, and Munich.  (Funny too, how Rome 1960, Tokyo 1964 and Munch 1972, were premier cities of the losing countries of WW2, and they started hosting in the 60s and early 70s; and throw in 2 WOGs (Cortina and Sapporo) for them as well.)   But it was LA that spent a lot on the "Festive Federalism"  (whatever that meant) look, and splashed all these bold colors in your face!!  Strangely too, despite being an "American" Games, the look and feel Jerde and Sussman tried to go for was like a Mexican marketplace.  Funny how these things turn out. 

Nazi imagery and Tokyo had distinct imagery, but it was an imagery rooted in nationalism, more to influence how their country was seen. What I think LA contributed was more of a “branded” look rooted in commercialism and marketing and geared towards “selling” the Olympics itself, rather than the US or LA. It was sponsorship friendly, easy for anyone to appropriate for sponsor print ads. 

[Sir Rols]

2 minutes ago, jtrevino said:

Nazi imagery and Tokyo had distinct imagery, but it was an imagery rooted in nationalism, more to influence how their country was seen. What I think LA contributed was more of a “branded” look rooted in commercialism and marketing and geared towards “selling” the Olympics itself, rather than the US or LA. It was sponsorship friendly, easy for anyone to appropriate for sponsor print ads. 

Again, much as Mexico and Munich did.

[jtrevino]

11 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Again, much as Mexico and Munich did.

You’re right! 

[jtrevino]

I always imagined that the pastel-y color scheme of LA was to mimic what Ancient Greece might have looked like in their day....or it was just the 80s. 

 

[ejaycat]

^^^^A little bit of both, I think.  But for some reason, I feel I didn't start seeing the pastel colors in the 1980s until after the 1984 Olympics.  Things were still kind of earth tone 1970s before the Games, it seems to me.

[ejaycat]

I really love the Op art look of Mexico 1968!