Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If this ends up being built it brings home court advantage to a new level in the NBA. Would make a nice addition to the Olympics also. Now if they can just get through litigation with MSG it'll be a go.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27259348/clippers-unveil-renderings-proposed-arena

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1088854/los-angeles-2028-metro-funding-gap

While it's not unusual for public transportation projects to be over-budget, needing "billions of dollars" to complete all nine lines seems like a bit much. I haven't been to LA in years but how much of these upgrades or new lines can LA afford not to have and still be able to shuttle people around for the Olympics? Seems like lines such as the transit line through Sepulveda Pass would be necessary for spectators to reach the Valley Sports cluster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stryker said:

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1088854/los-angeles-2028-metro-funding-gap

While it's not unusual for public transportation projects to be over-budget, needing "billions of dollars" to complete all nine lines seems like a bit much. I haven't been to LA in years but how much of these upgrades or new lines can LA afford not to have and still be able to shuttle people around for the Olympics? Seems like lines such as the transit line through Sepulveda Pass would be necessary for spectators to reach the Valley Sports cluster.

Well, clearly the key main Acchiles knee related to Los Angeles (and that's beyond the Olympics) was related to the mass transportation. Comparing to other global cities around the world (London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul as Olympic host cities) and even inside USA (New York City for example), Los Angeles really needed a proper plan to deliver a good metro system. I guess the most important lines will be made, but yep, doing 9 lines, even with 8 years of distance can be too much to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Roger87 said:

Well, clearly the key main Acchiles knee related to Los Angeles (and that's beyond the Olympics) was related to the mass transportation. Comparing to other global cities around the world (London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul as Olympic host cities) and even inside USA (New York City for example), Los Angeles really needed a proper plan to deliver a good metro system. I guess the most important lines will be made, but yep, doing 9 lines, even with 8 years of distance can be too much to handle.

Luckily, LA can pull this off even without all the lines completed.

In 1984 it didn't have a single mile of rail and the games were a massive success. Traffic never materialized because of proper planning in the months leading up to the events.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JesseSaenz said:

Luckily, LA can pull this off even without all the lines completed.

In 1984 it didn't have a single mile of rail and the games were a massive success. Traffic never materialized because of proper planning in the months leading up to the events.

1984 was a massive success because they didn't have to build all that much, so they weren't spending a lot of money.  This is the pitfall of tying infrastructure projects to an Olympics because now they're rushing to deliver and that rush is going to cost money.  If the private sector is willing to pay for it, then they're fine.  If not, that's a problem.  And the response shouldn't be "well, if they don't do all these things they said they would do before 2028, it probably won't matter anyway."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 6:24 PM, Quaker2001 said:

1984 was a massive success because they didn't have to build all that much, so they weren't spending a lot of money.  This is the pitfall of tying infrastructure projects to an Olympics because now they're rushing to deliver and that rush is going to cost money.  If the private sector is willing to pay for it, then they're fine.  If not, that's a problem.  And the response shouldn't be "well, if they don't do all these things they said they would do before 2028, it probably won't matter anyway."

And let's not forget, 1984 had different standards based on the venues and sports and also, we had 140 nations with 6829 athletes. In Rio 2016 we have 207 nations and 11238 athletes. This time, a proper mass public transport is required. 

Of course, Los Angeles can deliver, but this isn't a small issue, when part of the core bid was precisely the metro system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Roger87 said:

And let's not forget, 1984 had different standards based on the venues and sports and also, we had 140 nations with 6829 athletes. In Rio 2016 we have 207 nations and 11238 athletes. This time, a proper mass public transport is required. 

Of course, Los Angeles can deliver, but this isn't a small issue, when part of the core bid was precisely the metro system. 

Don't forget the number of media as well.  That's probably an even bigger jump from LA `84 to 2028.

It's been said here many times before, but it bears repeating.. the narrative of "LA was successful in 1984, therefore they will automatically be successful in 2028" is a really dangerous approach to take.  I don't doubt that they have a lot of smart people working and managing all of this, but it is far from a given that history will repeat itself when so much more is being asked of the city and the organizing committee this time around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 4:24 PM, Quaker2001 said:

1984 was a massive success because they didn't have to build all that much, so they weren't spending a lot of money.  This is the pitfall of tying infrastructure projects to an Olympics because now they're rushing to deliver and that rush is going to cost money.  If the private sector is willing to pay for it, then they're fine.  If not, that's a problem.  And the response shouldn't be "well, if they don't do all these things they said they would do before 2028, it probably won't matter anyway."

You do know that Metro's projects were approved by taxpayers a whole year before the Olympic bid was even won and was in the works before LA was even the US Bid right?

You do know that it's also completely independent of the bid?

While it will be ideal for those projects to be finished, in the event that they are not, LA can execute a plan B similar to what they did in 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JesseSaenz said:

You do know that Metro's projects were approved by taxpayers a whole year before the Olympic bid was even won and was in the works before LA was even the US Bid right?

You do know that it's also completely independent of the bid?

While it will be ideal for those projects to be finished, in the event that they are not, LA can execute a plan B similar to what they did in 1984.

Please don't turn into a certain banned poster here because he's not around anymore and pretend like everything is going to be okay with your reasoning being "because 1984"  Did you bother to read the article that stryker posted which talks about a potential funding shortage for Metro project, possibly in large part because they're being accelerated due to the Olympics?  Yes, I'm aware these projects were approved before the Olympic bid.  Have you considered that these projects will now be more expensive than they would have been otherwise *beacuse* of the Olympics?  If the private sector kicks in the money, then it's not an issue.  Otherwise, where else do you suppose they'll get the money from.  Give this a read..

L.A. Officials Use Olympics as Cover to Spend $26 Billion on Transit Projects That Have Little to Do With the Games

I know it's a popular talking point to talk about how these infrastructure projects are independent of the Olympic bid.  That's accurate, but look at the consequences of that.  And if we're talking 8 years out about things not being finished and already talking about a "Plan B," then maybe that's not a good thing and there is at least a tiny level of concern that everything won't be as perfect as it was in 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given LA's readiness in all other areas, the best reason for awarding Paris 2024 and LA 2028 (and not the other way around) was to give LA time to implement a better transport solution. It might be independent of the Games in a technical sense, but I'm not entirely sure the IOC see it that way.

Share this post


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

Given LA's readiness in all other areas, the best reason for awarding Paris 2024 and LA 2028 (and not the other way around) was to give LA time to implement a better transport solution. It might be independent of the Games in a technical sense, but I'm not entirely sure the IOC see it that way.

Inasmuch as Jesse is right that this wouldn't be some big catastrophe, it does shine a light on what happens when infrastructure projects are tied to the Olympics.  We can say it's not a bid of the bid - which is technically accurate - but these things still cost money that has to come from somewhere.  It can't be "well, that's not LA2028's problem."  It's someone's problem.  If the private sector is willing to pump in additional funds, then it's all well and good.  If not, then the question becomes how vital are these projects and is it worth the extra money to finish them earlier.  Thus, we have the unintended consequences of hosting the Olympics in LA.  And it's not like we couldn't find similar cases when we're talking about 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 2:09 PM, Quaker2001 said:

Please don't turn into a certain banned poster here because he's not around anymore and pretend like everything is going to be okay with your reasoning being "because 1984"  Did you bother to read the article that stryker posted which talks about a potential funding shortage for Metro project, possibly in large part because they're being accelerated due to the Olympics?  Yes, I'm aware these projects were approved before the Olympic bid.  Have you considered that these projects will now be more expensive than they would have been otherwise *beacuse* of the Olympics?  If the private sector kicks in the money, then it's not an issue.  Otherwise, where else do you suppose they'll get the money from.  Give this a read..

L.A. Officials Use Olympics as Cover to Spend $26 Billion on Transit Projects That Have Little to Do With the Games

I know it's a popular talking point to talk about how these infrastructure projects are independent of the Olympic bid.  That's accurate, but look at the consequences of that.  And if we're talking 8 years out about things not being finished and already talking about a "Plan B," then maybe that's not a good thing and there is at least a tiny level of concern that everything won't be as perfect as it was in 1984.

Reason.com/Reason Foundation is a right-wing/Libertarian organization, just to let you know; hence their angle and viewpoint in the article you posted.

Just saying; Reason Foundation isn't exactly the most objective source you could post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public transport = big government and cars = small government argument is particularly bizarre since automobile infrastructure requires more government subsidy per rider than public transit. If you live in rural Nebraska would you rather pay $25 in taxes for more bikes and trains in big cities or $100 in taxes for more freeways and parking lots in Dallas, LA, etc?

The real problem for public transport is that it is really slow even in cities like Paris with good public transport. (The average speed of the Paris Metro is about 25 kph/15.5 mph, which is only marginally better than the average American bus at 13 mph.) But that's a problem for big city commuters, not the Republican Party.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1090145/sofi-stadium-los-angeles-2028

I read just recently that SoFi Stadium is nearing completion but what jumped out in this article is the headline listing the stadium for the opening and closing ceremonies. Did LA decide that both ceremonies will be at the new stadium rather than holding the closing ceremonies at the Coliseum?

Share this post


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

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1090145/sofi-stadium-los-angeles-2028

I read just recently that SoFi Stadium is nearing completion but what jumped out in this article is the headline listing the stadium for the opening and closing ceremonies. Did LA decide that both ceremonies will be at the new stadium rather than holding the closing ceremonies at the Coliseum?

TBH, I think it's better doing the ceremonies in one sole stadium. So it's better that idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1091092/world-rowing-long-beach-los-angeles-2028

So apparently World Rowing is still studying whether or not to relocate the rowing competition from Lake Perris to Long Beach. I thought this had already been decided. Also didn't know the Long Beach course would be significantly shorter (1500 m instead of 2000m).

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but Clippers owner Steve Ballmer has been trying to get a new arena built in Inglewood for the Clippers but his plan has been blocked repeatedly by MSG, the owner of the Forum, for fear of losing events. Well now it seems Ballmer is buying the Forum from MSG which clears the path for his new arena to be built. The question then becomes what happens to the Forum? With SoFi Stadium and a new Clippers arena, I can't see the Forum being kept around, even for the Olympics. The Clippers new arena is set to open sometime in 2024-2025, well before the Olympics. My guess is the Forum is eventually demolished and the gymnastics competition is moved to the Clippers new arena.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-03-02/steve-ballmer-buys-forum-future-clippers-inglewood

Share this post


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

 My guess is the Forum is eventually demolished and the gymnastics competition is moved to the Clippers new arena.

Or, if push comes to shove and a new Clippers arena isn't ready, Gymnastics can move to SoFi Stadium since there's nothing there but Opening Ceremony.  Yes, it's large but the better to sell MORE tickets!! 

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 3:49 AM, Quaker2001 said:

This removes the last hurdle for Ballmer to get his ne w Clippers arena which probably means it's only a matter of time before the Forum faces demolition, and probably well before 2028.

Share this post


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

This removes the last hurdle for Ballmer to get his ne w Clippers arena which probably means it's only a matter of time before the Forum faces demolition, and probably well before 2028.

Would be convenient if they could build the new arena to open in 2028, leave the existing forum up, use both for the Olympics and then demolish the other one (my understanding is that they are NOT at the same location).  But sports and construction timetables rarely are that convenient so I doubt it will work out that way

Share this post


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

Would be convenient if they could build the new arena to open in 2028, leave the existing forum up, use both for the Olympics and then demolish the other one (my understanding is that they are NOT at the same location).  But sports and construction timetables rarely are that convenient so I doubt it will work out that way

Probably not. Ballmer likely bought the Forum to ensure it gets torn down sooner rather than later. The new arena will be in Inglewood just south of SoFi Stadium, very close to the Forum. Ballmer is eyeing construction to begin in 2021 with an opening date of 2024. I cannot see him keeping the Forum open for four years just for the Olympics given the money for upkeep. The Clippers lease at Staples Center ends in 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this.  Why would anyone pay $400 million for an arena, only to tear it down?   (I mean, even the nutcase Donald Trump can't be that crazy to execute such a move.)   I know it's an old facility but wouldn't throwing, say , another $150 mil to upgrade it, make the most sense -- thereby spending like $500 mil in total instead of another $1 billion+ for a state-of-the-art arena like Chase Center in San Francisco which supposedly cost $1.3 billion (including the land)?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I don't understand this.  Why would anyone pay $400 million for an arena, only to tear it down?   (I mean, even the nutcase Donald Trump can't be that crazy to execute such a move.)   I know it's an old facility wouldn't throwing, say , another $150 mil to upgrade it, make the most sense -- thereby spending like $500 mil in total instead of another $1 billion+ for a state-of-the-art arena like Chase Center in San Francisco which supposedly cost $1.3 billion (including the land)?  

Bigger is better in today's NBA. Ballmer wants the Clippers to be the first choice of NBA free agent superstars when they think of Los Angeles. He wants out of the Staples Center. Check out the link I posted earlier in the thread about what he envisions for the Clippers new home. It's not just an arena either but team offices, medical center, retail, and practice courts. The Forum was renovated by MSG when they purchased it to turn it into a concert venue. The amount of money required to turn the Forum into a state-of-the-art NBA arena with all the luxury suites and bells and whistles would likely go well beyond $150 million. As for buying it to tear it down, MSG had been blocking Ballmer's bid for a new arena since 2010. Now that he's bought it from MSG he can build his shiny new palace that would likely be more appealing than Staples Center.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...