Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Transit vs environmentalism is a classic public vs private conflict. Automobile transit is terrible for the economy and the world, but taxing it to fund mass transit is a terrible loss for individuals, especially the poor. (See the anti-fuel tax riots in Paris.) It takes me 10 minutes to get to work by car and about 70 by bus, for example. Unfortunately this is one area where politicians pushing for us to consider the needs of the country and the planet rather than ourselves are very vulnerable to accusations of "champagne socialism." 

Anyway for the specific idea of putting a toll of driving to fund mass transit, I am not sure if it would be legal in California. It is not in Washington State, and I know that it is illegal to tax anything related to aircraft for purposes other than aviation. A tax on jet fuel cannot be used for anything other than airport and aircraft services, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congestion pricing already kind of exists in Los Angeles County, so it's really nothing new.  

For a number of years now, the 10 Freeway from El Monte to downtown LA, and the 110 Freeway from Harbor Gateway to downtown LA, has express toll lanes, with congestion pricing, and I thought the fees collected for use of the express toll lanes was supposed to help with public transit, but not to the extent of making public transit free.

My only beef when they put in these express toll lanes was that they used to be HOV lanes, paid for by our tax money, and then they made it so that you had to pay to use them, even if you have 2 or more people in your car.  "Lexus Lanes," some people were referring to them as.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This stadium is really starting to take shape now.

From Urbanize Los Angeles:

Swooping Roof Canopy Hoisted Into Place at the Inglewood NFL Stadium

Link: 

https://urbanize.la/post/swooping-roof-canopy-hoisted-place-inglewood-nfl-stadium?fbclid=IwAR3PkiTFaFxq4FBt35RAJjz93MPmdno3i_YixoxHijcO4yLxwj-FbJo-QhU

 

 

Inglewood%20Stadium%20by%20Hunter%20Kerh

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Snarky Response:

It is cheering to hear that Los Angeles has solved its problems with poverty and homelessness in the four months since I last visited.

Non-Snarky Response:

I don't know why people in LA continue to ignore the reason that their city was able to host without running up debt. LA has hosted twice before by default: once during the great depression and the other time during the cold war when no one else bid and nearly half of the athletes didn't show up due to boycotting. It's not as if Los Angeles has hosted luxuriant Olympics that outshine the rest of the world for a tiny fraction of the cost of regular bids. It has hosted cheaply by using cheap facilities.

LA will host in 2028 in a cost effective manner once again. But it won't do so because the local people are smarter, more virtuous or wealthier than the rest of the world. It will be because they can stick the athletes in dorm rooms and use sporting venues that wouldn't be good enough to win an actual bid competition. (Yes, I know. Dodger Stadium and the new Inglewood stadium are great. But baseball and American football aren't even Olympic sports in most Olympiads.)

That isn't to say that LA will host a bad Olympics or that they should spend a lot of money on the games. But I fear that people in LA are in for a nasty surprise when the world's media reports on the 2028 games and gives them the same rough treatment Atlanta got in the press.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nacre said:

I don't know why people in LA continue to ignore the reason that their city was able to host without running up debt. LA has hosted twice before by default: once during the great depression and the other time during the cold war when no one else bid and nearly half of the athletes didn't show up due to boycotting. It's not as if Los Angeles has hosted luxuriant Olympics that outshine the rest of the world for a tiny fraction of the cost of regular bids. It has hosted cheaply by using cheap facilities.

LA will host in 2028 in a cost effective manner once again. But it won't do so because the local people are smarter, more virtuous or wealthier than the rest of the world. It will be because they can stick the athletes in dorm rooms and use sporting venues that wouldn't be good enough to win an actual bid competition. (Yes, I know. Dodger Stadium and the new Inglewood stadium are great. But baseball and American football aren't even Olympic sports in most Olympiads.)

That isn't to say that LA will host a bad Olympics or that they should spend a lot of money on the games. But I fear that people in LA are in for a nasty surprise when the world's media reports on the 2028 games and gives them the same rough treatment Atlanta got in the press.

Cheap facilities?  What in thefuck are you talking about?  That's bullshit LA's venues wouldn't win them an actual competition.  Tell us.. what city would beat them solely based on the quality of venues?

You talk about LA hosting in a cost effective manner like it's a bad thing.  Should they have built facilities from scratch that may or may not serve a purpose after the Olympics?  Haven't we learned that's not necessarily the way to go.  Should LA have built a bunch of new housing instead of using existing dorms?  Or would that have been not such a good idea?

As for cheap facilities, don't know why you even brought up Dodger Stadium since it may not be an Olympic venue (but it may be.. LOL at "in most Olympiads").  The new stadium in Inglewood is a $5 billion project.  Don't think we can call that one cheap.  Who cares what sport it normally hosts?  Is the Staples Center cheap?  Galen Center?  Whatever the hell the corporate name of the complex in Carson is?  The Forum and Pauley Pavillion are perfectly suitable venues, just like they were in `84.  You are out of your mind if you think these are sub-standard facilities.

What exactly is going to surprise the world's media when they come to LA in 2028?  Let alone that it would draw comparisons to Atlanta.  Yea, LA hosted an Olympics in 1984 that they got by default and in part because of that, they used a lot of existing venues and infrastructure.  Guess what.. it was a smash hit.  You need to work on fractions if you think "nearly half of the athletes" boycotted.  Over 6800 athletes were in LA.  At the time, that was more than any Olympics except for Munich.  140 nations were represented in LA, a new record.  18 countries boycotted, although only 15 did so on behalf of the Soviet Union.  Incidentally, 18 is also the number of nations that made their debut in Los Angeles.

Once again, LA is the right city in the right place at the right time.  It's not relevant whether or not they won a vote to get it.  Yes, the 2028 Olympics will be measured up against the success of the `84 Games (which again, has nothing to do with how they were awarded the Olympics) so the expectation is that it will make money and if it doesn't then yes, the people in LA will start to question what happened.  You'll still have to explain to us what you think the press will report on.  Fairly certain it won't be that the facilities are cheap or that the dorm rooms are insufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Cheap facilities?  What in thefuck are you talking about?  That's bullshit LA's venues wouldn't win them an actual competition.  Tell us.. what city would beat them solely based on the quality of venues?

Paris is itself a great example.

  • archery: Les Invalides > the retention pond being built next to the new Inglewood Stadium
  • athletics: Stade de France > LA Coliseum (the new renovations will be good for USC football boosters but terrible for the Olympics and create lots of obstructed view seats)
  • aquatics: a tie since they will both use cheap temporary venues
  • beach volleyball: Santa Monica or Venice Beach > Champ de Mars in a win for LA
  • canoe/kayak: probably a tie since both have planned venues of similar scope (to be honest I think they may just tell the UCI they will be using real rivers in the Sierras and Alps for slalom)
  • combat sports: Grand Palais exhibition hall and Bercy Arena > the LA Convention Center
  • cycling: France's National Velodrome and the Champs Elysees > Velo Sports Center and Grand Park
  • equestrian: Versailles PalaceSepulveda dam recreation center
  • gymnastics: LA Forum > Paris' plans for a temporary gymnastics venue (and this might turn into a major win for LA if the Clippers build a new arena in time for 2028)
  • tennis: Roland Garros > Dignity Health Sports Park

LA wins in having real beaches and better arenas (plus baseball and American football stadiums, but they don't matter for the Olympics) the two cities tie where they are planning on using temporary venues and Paris wins everything else.

The difference is that Paris is the national capital city of France and has government supported "national" buildings and events while LA has to make due with whatever private industry can put together and has to share national events with other cities - for example the US Open is in New York rather than Los Angeles. That is the reason Los Angeles has lost every single one of the seven times the host city decision has come to a vote.

That isn't a slam on Los Angeles. It's simply a product of the sports and subsidized in North America vs Europe. European countries kick in money for the Olympic sports while North American cities subsidize the major sports leagues. (Although LA wisely doesn't even do that.) And 2/3 of our major domestic sports aren't in the Olympics, while all of France's most popular team sports are in the Olympics.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nacre said:

LA wins in having real beaches and better arenas (plus baseball and American football stadiums, but they don't matter for the Olympics) the two cities tie where they are planning on using temporary venues and Paris wins everything else.

The difference is that Paris is the national capital city of France and has government supported "national" buildings and events while LA has to make due with whatever private industry can put together and has to share national events with other cities - for example the US Open is in New York rather than Los Angeles. That is the reason Los Angeles has lost every single one of the seven times the host city decision has come to a vote.

That isn't a slam on Los Angeles. It's simply a product of the sports and subsidized in North America vs Europe. European countries kick in money for the Olympic sports while North American cities subsidize the major sports leagues. (Although LA wisely doesn't even do that.) And 2/3 of our major domestic sports aren't in the Olympics, while all of France's most popular team sports are in the Olympics.

Wow, you're just doubling down on the dumb statements, aren't you.  Let's look at those 7 times.  1924 and 1928.. we're supposed to put any stock into what happened a century ago?  At a time where travel between Europe and North America (let alone the West Coast of North America) took a lot longer than it does today.  And they had already been to the United States once.  Then there's 1948/1952/1956.  Gee, what a shocker they weren't in a hurry to go back to LA, especially with several other US cities in the running.  Then we get to 1976.  Did LA lose because the US Open is in New York?  Or maybe it was purely a political decision to avoid the 2 world superpowers and instead give the games to a more neutral country.  That's pretty common knowledge.  Then 1980 was a tough selling coming off Montreal and with Lake Placid the only Winter city. 

LA's losses have been a matter of circumstance more than anything.  I know it's easy to look at their history and note they've never won a contested vote but that's BS to hold that against them.  As if they're some charity case that only gets the Olympics when no one else wants them.  The success of the 1984 Olympics doesn't care about that.  Plus, if we're comparing them to Paris, how many times have they lost?  This coming after decades where they didn't even try.

So yes, Paris is capital of France and the central focus of most major sports.  So what.  LA has to make due?  Do you not realize how ridiculous that sounds?  Look at what private industry has delivered to Los Angeles and then keep trying to convince yourself they are cheap facilities.  Not to mention to compare it to any other city in the United States.  I'm as arrogant a New Yorker as there is on here and I'll put up out sports tradition/history with anything else, but in terms of hosting an Olympics, we don't hold a candle to what LA can offer.  It's not a coincidence that other cities in the U.S. tried and failed and here with are with L.A.  Because of course we are.

Sports in the United States (and North America for the most part) are different than elsewhere.  We don't have national stadiums here, mostly because national teams are never the priority.  Nor do we have government-backed Olympics bids.  And at the end of the day, the Olympics are probably going to be more meaningful to the whole of France than they are to the whole of the United States, particularly outside of Los Angeles.  These days though when there's an animosity against the IOC and spending money on sports facilities, which would you rather have.. the great European capital that's spending taxpayer dollars on sports?  Or private industry building facilities for specific purposes that then can be used for the Olympics (the money being spent on the temporary conversion of the Coliseum for athletics notwithstanding).

Last thing.. it's been brought up here before that LA is not known for iconic buildings.  Locations, yes.  But we're also comparing to Paris here.  Yea, they're going to win that one and will likely have some stunning backdrops.  Doesn't make LA cheap by comparison.  Let alone in the context of what makes for a good Olympics host city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles' non-NFL, non-NBA and non-MLB sports facilities are cheap in comparison to what countries in Europe and Asia have done in building "national" sports venues.

To use athletics as an example, Paris got Stade de France because the government put up the money for the building, designed it with a track and forced the French football and rugby federations to use the building when each wants their own building. The stadium was designed so Paris could host the Olympics, cost and the wishes of the tenants be damned.

That would never be possible in the USA. In Seattle we couldn't even get the NFL and NCAA American football teams to share a stadium when both wanted stadiums of the same size much less keep a track in Husky Stadium. Private industries have built lavish venues, but they are designed for those private sports events and teams rather than the interests of the country as a whole. The Coliseum's new design will be absolutely awful for the Olympics. The LA 2028 organizing committee has no say in what USC does with the stadium, and will simply have to put a brave face and sell the design as a positive thing even if you can't see half the track from some seats.

www.insidesocal.com/usc/files/2015/11/COLISEUM.BAD_.png

Given the vociferous complaints by European fans and journalists about Atlanta's stadium, do you really think there won't be complaints about a stadium with obstructed views that bad?

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nacre said:

Los Angeles' non-NFL, non-NBA and non-MLB sports facilities are cheap in comparison to what countries in Europe and Asia have done in building "national" sports venues.

To use athletics as an example, Paris got Stade de France because the government put up the money for the building, designed it with a track and forced the French football and rugby federations to use the building when each wants their own building. The stadium was designed so Paris could host the Olympics, cost and the wishes of the tenants be damned.

That would never be possible in the USA. In Seattle we couldn't even get the NFL and NCAA American football teams to share a stadium when both wanted stadiums of the same size much less keep a track in Husky Stadium. Private industries have built lavish venues, but they are designed for those private sports events and teams rather than the interests of the country as a whole. The Coliseum's new design will be absolutely awful for the Olympics. The LA 2028 organizing committee has no say in what USC does with the stadium, and will simply have to put a brave face and sell the design as a positive thing even if you can't see half the track from some seats.

www.insidesocal.com/usc/files/2015/11/COLISEUM.BAD_.png

Given the vociferous complaints by European fans and journalists about Atlanta's stadium, do you really think there won't be complaints about a stadium with obstructed views that bad?

The issue with Atlanta's stadium wasn't obstructed views, it was this..

1200px-Athletics_venue_during_the_1996_P

I can see why some friends would take issue with that because that's a lot of seats that are really far away from the action.  A lot more than might be obstructed at the Coliseum because that's not even a whole section that would be bad.  

You're right that the solution for the Coliseum is extremely wonky and a pretty ugly solution to be able to host athletics.  And you're right that France came up with a much more elegant solution for a stadium that they can use for the Olympics than we would ever see in the United States (hence why we're going back to Los Angeles and not New York or Chicago or Boston). 

But again, in case you haven't noticed lately, building sports venues with the country's interests in mind and not individual teams is what many cities and countries are trying to get away from, especially with regards to the Olympics.  London has their iconic main stadium and yet they still built a new stadium which they struggled to figure out post-Olympics.  Tokyo built a brand new stadium to serve as the host of the final of the 2002 World Cup.  It even has a track, but it is NOT serving as their main Olympic stadium.  Instead, they decided to build something brand new.  How many times has it been suggested that a city like Tokyo be more cost effective with their bid instead of letting costs spiral out of control?

As for LA.. it's pointless to talk about their venues and discount their NBA and NFL facilities.  Their new NFL stadium is going to be a ceremonies host.  Their NBA arena is going to be a key venue in a perfect location.  Who cares if the other venues aren't "national."  Sure, their tennis venue can't compare to Roland Garros, but does that make it cheap?  Is LA's velodrome cheap?  It's hosted world championships, just like in France.  You're looking for this arbitrary standard, but you're not going to find a lot of venues that surpass it.  Yes, the Coliseum solution will always be a wonky one, but that doesn't make the rest of LA's facilities poor by comparison. 

It's a piss poor argument because you're looking for some ideal scenario that's never going to exist, nor should it.  You talk about "private sports," but those are the tenants that provide regular events at those venues.  You're still trying to paint that concept in a bad light because it prevents "national" venues from being built.  That line of thinking has scared countless countries off from trying to host the Olympics.  LA's entire budget for construction is less than the cost of the main stadium for Tokyo.  In no universe does that make LA's facilities cheap.  It means they have a lot of good facilities (you yourself said LA has better arenas, so weight that against all the comparisons you made, several of which favor LA) and don't have to spend taxpayer money to get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't disagree with any of that. LA has been smart to not waste money. And it makes more sense to cater to long term interests (USC) than a three week sports festival.

But the sporting federations' various voters in the IOC have repeatedly (and perhaps foolishly) voted against LA in favor of more lavish bids. Where LA has been successful is not in hosting better Olympics than London or Beijing, but in cheaper Olympics without the sports palaces the sporting executives in Lausanne want. And people in Los Angeles have a serious cognitive dissonance problem on that score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nacre said:

Again, I don't disagree with any of that. LA has been smart to not waste money. And it makes more sense to cater to long term interests (USC) than a three week sports festival.

But the sporting federations' various voters in the IOC have repeatedly (and perhaps foolishly) voted against LA in favor of more lavish bids. Where LA has been successful is not in hosting better Olympics than London or Beijing, but in cheaper Olympics without the sports palaces the sporting executives in Lausanne want. And people in Los Angeles have a serious cognitive dissonance problem on that score.

No.. they haven't.  You keep saying that, but it's still demonstrably untrue.  LA has never lost a vote because their bid wasn't lavish enough.  They've lost because of politics.  They've lost because of bad timing.  But never because the IOC thought their venues were cheap or not lavish enough.  You won't be able to find one time that happened, let alone repeated instances.  I know it's an easy narrative to say how LA has never directly beaten another city for an Olympics.  Take a closer look at that one and you'll realize the history tells a different story than the one you're trying to push.

LA's venues are more than acceptable.  Most cities bidding for the Olympics or that want to bid for the Olympics would love to have their infrastructure.  This BS notion that you have that somehow the IOC is going to see what they've got and think it's "cheap".. yea, it's going to be a different experience than they've seen in other cities.  How'd that work out for Athens or Rio?  Are we supposed to praise London that they had to build venues for handball and cycling and spent millions on temporary venues for basketball and field hockey and handball where Los Angeles has perfectly suitable venues for those ready to go?  I doubt fans and IOC members will see those and think "man, how cheap is LA that these are Olympics venues."

The only think that Angelinos may have an issue with is that the `84 Olympics were so successful, in large part because of low costs, that they assume it will be easy to do it again.  Won't be that simple given the exponential increase in security costs and they're not spending a small amount of infrastructure.  And if we're talking about "better" Olympics, then part of that evaluation has to be legacy and finances, not just to - as you alluded to - treat it just as a 3 week sports festival where a couple of negative media reports may come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 2:59 PM, Nacre said:

I don't know why people in LA continue to ignore the reason that their city was able to host without running up debt. LA has hosted twice before by default: once during the great depression and the other time during the cold war when no one else bid and nearly half of the athletes didn't show up due to boycotting. It's not as if Los Angeles has hosted luxuriant Olympics that outshine the rest of the world for a tiny fraction of the cost of regular bids. It has hosted cheaply by using cheap facilities.

LA will host in 2028 in a cost effective manner once again. But it won't do so because the local people are smarter, more virtuous or wealthier than the rest of the world. It will be because they can stick the athletes in dorm rooms and use sporting venues that wouldn't be good enough to win an actual bid competition. (Yes, I know. Dodger Stadium and the new Inglewood stadium are great. But baseball and American football aren't even Olympic sports in most Olympiads.)

That isn't to say that LA will host a bad Olympics or that they should spend a lot of money on the games. But I fear that people in LA are in for a nasty surprise when the world's media reports on the 2028 games and gives them the same rough treatment Atlanta got in the press.

What the heck are you talking about?  Atlanta got bad treatment in the press because aside from the Olympic Park bombing, they were considered one of the more poorly run Olympics.  I mean come ON, bus drivers there were getting lost taking athletes to their competitions.  That's pretty bad!  Let alone the crass commercialism that marred those Games, which the IOC was not happy with.  

Cheap facilities?  Again, what are you talking about?  UCLA housing the athletes, yeah, they're existing dorms, but they're not exactly mobile homes either.  They're perfect for housing Olympic athletes, and they already have dining facilities:

Image result for ucla housing

Related image

 

I don't know if you know, but The Forum was renovated in 2014 and now hosts big events like concerts, sporting matches, and awards shows:

Image result for inglewood forum

 

Pauley Pavilion on the UCLA campus also went through an extensive renovation in 2012 and is a state of the art sports arena:

Image result for pauley pavilion

Image result for pauley pavilion

Image result for pauley pavilion

Again, thanks for your concern, but I won't worry too much about the media talking about our "cheap facilities."  

Edited by ejaycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 9:31 PM, RuFF said:

Sport only shifts money in the local economy, it does not add. In terms of LA all adding an NFL team would do is shift peoples spending habits, but not add. And so the City of LA said no taxpayer funds for the NFL. What did the NFL do? It paid for its own stadium. What is the Organizing Committee going to do? It's going to pay for its own games. Granted, the Games are no NFL. But this is repeated over and over in Los Angeles as part of a norm while most of the rest of the world is still having government (read: taxpayer funds) fully or partially paying for its sporting infrastructure and to attract professional teams.

LA is proving to be an exception in the World when it comes to how it funds a Summer Olympics (not in terms of the model, but in terms of how much private money is available, making the public subsidy needed that much smaller). LA is proving itself to be an exception in America, not the World, when it comes to funding stadiums built for pro-sport teams though. People said, look, the LA Rams are funding their own stadium. America went "wow! ". The rest of the world said "And?"

But since this is a thread about the Summer Olympics, not the LA Rams, it will certainly be impressive if LA pulls of the Games in the way they hope, with a combination of huge sponsorships and existing venues allowing for relatively little spend.

Edited by Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rob. said:

LA is proving to be an exception in the World when it comes to how it funds a Summer Olympics (not in terms of the model, but in terms of how much private money is available, making the public subsidy needed that much smaller). LA is proving itself to be an exception in America, not the World, when it comes to funding stadiums built for pro-sport teams though. People said, look, the LA Rams are funding their own stadium. America went "wow! ". The rest of the world said "And?"

But since this is a thread about the Summer Olympics, not the LA Rams, it will certainly be impressive if LA pulls of the Games in the way they hope, with a combination of huge sponsorships and existing venues allowing for relatively little spend.

And LA isn't even an exception in America.  MetLife Stadium in New York East Rutherford, NJ was entirely privately financed as well.  And to tie that into the Olympics, remember that project came about not too long after the NYC 2012 Olympic bid where the Jets would have moved into the new stadium built on the West Side of Manhattan as the main Olympic stadium as well as additional convention space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RuFF said:

So the concern is building a satellite village? I thought the reason for choosing Lake Perris was so the dorms at UC Riverside could be used for housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 9:14 PM, RuFF said:

That’s what I thought, too. 

Also, Long Beach wants to place a baseball field for the Angels on the parking lot of the Long Beach Arena/Convention Center where I believe temporary venues were proposed for the 2028 games. Of course it wouldn’t hurt to have them in the stadium, either. 

https://lbpost.com/news/angels-anaheim-long-beach-stadium/

 

 

Looking at the image, it seems like the parking lot would be awfully small for a MLB stadium that is unless they intend on demolishing part of the convention center and arena which would result in more changes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stryker said:

Looking at the image, it seems like the parking lot would be awfully small for a MLB stadium that is unless they intend on demolishing part of the convention center and arena which would result in more changes.

I was thinking the same thing.

From what I've heard, this may be nothing more than a negotiating ploy on the part of the Angels.  Sounds like this is more about Long Beach trying to lure the Angels rather than genuine interest on their part to move there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of ways to deal with parking: they can building parking garages (vertical spread) instead of using a lot (horizontal spread) for example. Some stadiums also have parking underneath the structure of the stadium. 

But I don't think the Angels will accept it. That area of Long Beach has a lot of fan friendly amenities, but Arte Moreno wants to own the area around the stadium, not move into an area with existing businesses he will have to compete with. It would be a lot easier to deck over the sea of parking lots in Anaheim and build shops and restaurants there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nacre said:

There are a lot of ways to deal with parking: they can building parking garages (vertical spread) instead of using a lot (horizontal spread) for example. Some stadiums also have parking underneath the structure of the stadium. 

But I don't think the Angels will accept it. That area of Long Beach has a lot of fan friendly amenities, but Arte Moreno wants to own the area around the stadium, not move into an area with existing businesses he will have to compete with. It would be a lot easier to deck over the sea of parking lots in Anaheim and build shops and restaurants there.

Here's a cutdown of Angel Stadium over the existing space in Long Beach.. That's a really tight fit, and I'm not sure how easy the ingress/egress would work given that they'd probably need at least a couple of multi-level garages surrounding the stadium.  Yes, I agree that Moreno probably wouldn't be a fan of that.

Long-Beach.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indianapolis pedestrianized the city streets downtown around the stadium during the 2012 Super Bowl and it isn't difficult to do that in any city in America. They do it during lots of small street festivals across the country that have very little economic clout. I doubt that was the problem.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2019 at 1:33 PM, Nacre said:

Indianapolis pedestrianized the city streets downtown around the stadium during the 2012 Super Bowl and it isn't difficult to do that in any city in America. They do it during lots of small street festivals across the country that have very little economic clout. I doubt that was the problem.

Sure.  That was one event for ONE afternoon.  The Olympics are OVER 17 days at, like, 25 locations.  The venues, the hotels, the restaurants have to be stocked with FRESH FOOD for all those 17 days.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 2:59 PM, Nacre said:

 Snarky Response:

It is cheering to hear that Los Angeles has solved its problems with poverty and homelessness in the four months since I last visited.

Non-Snarky Response:

I don't know why people in LA continue to ignore the reason that their city was able to host without running up debt. LA has hosted twice before by default: once during the great depression and the other time during the cold war when no one else bid and nearly half of the athletes didn't show up due to boycotting. It's not as if Los Angeles has hosted luxuriant Olympics that outshine the rest of the world for a tiny fraction of the cost of regular bids. It has hosted cheaply by using cheap facilities.

LA will host in 2028 in a cost effective manner once again. But it won't do so because the local people are smarter, more virtuous or wealthier than the rest of the world. It will be because they can stick the athletes in dorm rooms and use sporting venues that wouldn't be good enough to win an actual bid competition. (Yes, I know. Dodger Stadium and the new Inglewood stadium are great. But baseball and American football aren't even Olympic sports in most Olympiads.)

That isn't to say that LA will host a bad Olympics or that they should spend a lot of money on the games. But I fear that people in LA are in for a nasty surprise when the world's media reports on the 2028 games and gives them the same rough treatment Atlanta got in the press.

The amount of bullshit here is, well, staggering.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People of Los Angeles to United Airlines, thanks, but no thanks.
Coliseum renaming by United Airlines get serious opposition by residents and War vets.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-united-airlines-coliseum-naming-deal-20190329-story.html

I welcome United Airlines pulling out of the Coliseum deal to be completely honest.
Such a storied and iconic venue that was built and paid for by LA taxpayers that should not be for sale like that.

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

×