Jump to content

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I imagine between Paris and LA the Olympics will come out the other side like when FYI went on Jenny Jones for a makeover. He went in a man and came out a woman... oh, damn. Sidetracked. 

Oh, this must be the "more articulate" PuFF that your lackey paul ('the parrot') talks about, & who's name calling that only a "dumb teen girl would giggle at". :lol::P:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Banc of California Stadium is nearly finished.  Is it me, or did this go up really fast??    The Coliseum renovation is moving right along... All images by S

Nearly everyone in every Olympic city says "traffic will be terrible!" and then they're proven wrong.   Having lived through the Olympics in my backyard (Vancouver in 2010), those 2 weeks we

I'm just glad they haven't wasted this opportunity to award both cities. 

4 hours ago, jtrevino said:

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. 

The big problem are the two villages: an OV for 10,500 and what, they have to provide housing for 17,000 press?  (Not counting Security whose numbers are never revealed.)  So, if the IOC brought down athletic numbers to say, 7,500; press to just 8,000 (you don't need 17,000 reporters covering the event); and a few thousand for Security. etc., that really will make the Games more viable and realistic to the A- and B+ cities.  

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

^^^^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.

Well, it was old, white men running the Games up to Mexico thereon, so the Look of those Games reflected that demographic -- old, boring and stodgy designs.  

Wow.  Never saw those outfits of the Mexico 1968 hostesses.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 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.

Not going to happen.  Look at LA, which probably has more infrastructure in place to host an Olympics than any other city and they're still spending over a billion dollars on venues alone.  And a lot of that is for temporary overlays.  Then, as jtrevino noted, you have the matter of the villages.  Even if all the competition venues are there, where are you going to house tens of thousands of athletes, coaches, media memebers, and everyone else you need to take care of.  LA has a unique solution for that, but that quantity of housing is rarely going to be available more than once.  The idea of permanent hosts sounds nice in theory, but in practice, it wouldn't work so well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 0:23 AM, Quaker2001 said:

Look at LA, which probably has more infrastructure in place to host an Olympics than any other city and they're still spending over a billion dollars on venues alone.  And a lot of that is for temporary overlays.  

Given the costs and I realize LA is spending much less than other hosts that would have to build a lot from scratch, could LA not save some money by let's say moving water polo back to the L.A. Tennis Center (the seating would already be in place) and aquatics from Dedeaux Field back to the LAFC Stadium as originally proposed? I realize the primary motive by moving aquatics to Dedeaux Field  was to use the existing USC pool as a warm-up pool, but wouldn't a temporary warm-up pool next to LAFC Stadium be cheaper considering all the seating is already in place?

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

Given the costs and I realize LA is spending much less than other hosts that would have to build a lot from scratch, could LA not save some money by let's say moving water polo back to the L.A. Tennis Center (the seating would already be in place) and aquatics from Dedeaux Field back to the LAFC Stadium as originally proposed? I realize the primary motive by moving aquatics to Dedeaux Field  was to use the existing USC pool as a warm-up pool, but wouldn't a temporary warm-up pool next to LAFC Stadium be cheaper considering all the seating is already in place?

I'm still mystified by the plan for the swimming venue.  There's next to nothing about the existing venue which seems to play a part in creating the temporary structure.  It's almost like "here's a big open space of land, that's where we'll put up the temporary structure for the pool."  Not sure how easily (or even if) they could have re-purposed the `84 venue.  The big ticket item will always be the Coliseum.  Not sure how much money they could save by changing around some of the venue plans.  IMO, money is the least of the concerns when it comes to the swimming venue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the renderings, I suspect FINA will not be too pleased about an open air venue during summertime in southern California. They were very critical of Rio when plans were scrapped for a roof over the Maria Lenk Aquatic Center.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm still mystified by the plan for the swimming venue.  There's next to nothing about the existing venue which seems to play a part in creating the temporary structure.  It's almost like "here's a big open space of land, that's where we'll put up the temporary structure for the pool."  Not sure how easily (or even if) they could have re-purposed the `84 venue.  The big ticket item will always be the Coliseum.  Not sure how much money they could save by changing around some of the venue plans.  IMO, money is the least of the concerns when it comes to the swimming venue.

The 1984 swimming venue (now called Uytengsu Aquatics Center) can't be used again for an Olympics.  The seating can't be expanded to accommodate spectators because of a building that has been built adjacent to the pool since the 1984 Games.  It can be clearly seen in the rendering below (clicking on the image will expand it).  A temporary pool for the competition built adjacent to Uytengsu to be used as a warmup pool is a good option, I think.  

34067794156_fdfbacd5e8_k.jpg

Edited by ejaycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stryker said:

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Uytengsu is supposed to be the warm-up pool and that was why the swimming venue was relocated to Dedeaux Field.

That's what I explained above.  That's why I feel it's a good option.

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

Given the costs and I realize LA is spending much less than other hosts that would have to build a lot from scratch, could LA not save some money by let's say moving water polo back to the L.A. Tennis Center (the seating would already be in place) and aquatics from Dedeaux Field back to the LAFC Stadium as originally proposed? I realize the primary motive by moving aquatics to Dedeaux Field  was to use the existing USC pool as a warm-up pool, but wouldn't a temporary warm-up pool next to LAFC Stadium be cheaper considering all the seating is already in place?

I think there's NOT going to be enough room to put in a warm-up pool by the LAFC, plus provide for all the additional needs of T&F @ the Coliseum.  Moving Swimming into the USC campus would also cut back on Security costs for a major venue.  Plus, they didn't want to lose a major football/rugby venue close to the Downtown cluster.  As for no roof  (well, by the rendering, one part (I guess the VIP and the Press Section will be roofed), they'll simply hold major races @ night; plus to help the fans in the PM races, they will simply sell more hats, visors, sunglasses and sunscreen; hence make those another very profitable set of Games.  

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

The 1984 swimming venue (now called Uytengsu Aquatics Center) can't be used again for an Olympics.  The seating can't be expanded to accommodate spectators because of a building that has been built adjacent to the pool since the 1984 Games.  It can be clearly seen in the rendering below (clicking on the image will expand it).  A temporary pool for the competition built adjacent to Uytengsu to be used as a warmup pool is a good option, I think.  

34067794156_fdfbacd5e8_k.jpg

Fair point about Utygensu but compare the rendering to what's there now (I was searching through Google images and actually found something I had posted here awhile back, but here's a fresh image)..

USC.jpg

You would never know there's a baseball field there now and I'm not sure how they would put one back in afterwards.  Not the biggest problem in the world, but again, saying that Dedeaux Field is serving as the venue is almost to pretend there's nothing there now and who knows what will be there afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Fair point about Utygensu but compare the rendering to what's there now (I was searching through Google images and actually found something I had posted here awhile back, but here's a fresh image)..

USC.jpg

You would never know there's a baseball field there now and I'm not sure how they would put one back in afterwards.  Not the biggest problem in the world, but again, saying that Dedeaux Field is serving as the venue is almost to pretend there's nothing there now and who knows what will be there afterwards.

From the renderings it looks like the stadium part of the Dedeaux field will remain in place. With regards to them not being able to expand the existing Aquatic's center...to me...it seems like it would make more financial sense to tear down the existing facility and build a new one with adjustable seating/and or building temporary seating on the side facing the fields (not blocked by a building and on the side not blocked by a street.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait..the building next to the Uytengsu Aquatics Center is just a rec center. Why don't you tear down both facilities and construct a new Aquatic center that can expand for temporary seating and build a new Rec Center along with it? That way the games have an even more tangible benefit for the university afterwards?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, FYI said:

Seems like such a waste to build that big a$s temporary swimming venue, just to tear it back down once the Games are gone.

Agreed.  I get that it's a necessary evil with the Coliseum, but you'd think they'd be able to come up with something more creative than this.  I have a strange feeling we might see a change with this plan at some point between now and 2028.

10 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

From the renderings it looks like the stadium part of the Dedeaux field will remain in place. With regards to them not being able to expand the existing Aquatic's center...to me...it seems like it would make more financial sense to tear down the existing facility and build a new one with adjustable seating/and or building temporary seating on the side facing the fields (not blocked by a building and on the side not blocked by a street.

It gets lost in translation sometimes.. building venues from scratch is not necessarily a bad thing.  The problem comes in with there's no legacy plan.  This is LA we're talking about, with 2 major universities and other smaller ones.  I have to imagine someone can come up with a better idea than this where there's some sort of legacy left beyond the shell of a baseball stadium.  I understand there are technical limitations here that make this all easier said than done, but look at Atlanta or Sydney or London.  They built new venues, but none of those are white elephants as all of them had a proper legacy plan.  I don't see why Atlanta can't do the same.  And it's neither here nor there as a point of comparison anymore, but between LA's temporary venue and Paris's permanent one, which of those 2 will look better in the long-term?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mr.bernham said:

Wait..the building next to the Uytengsu Aquatics Center is just a rec center. Why don't you tear down both facilities and construct a new Aquatic center that can expand for temporary seating and build a new Rec Center along with it? That way the games have an even more tangible benefit for the university afterwards?

Easier said than done just to tear down a building like that.  Maybe they don't want to lose that rec center.

Again though, this is perhaps the advantage of having an extra 4 years to work with.  Now there's time to re-evaluate those plans.  Not that we haven't seen venue changes on the normal timetable, but I'm with you that they can come up with something better and hopefully get USC on board with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Easier said than done just to tear down a building like that.  Maybe they don't want to lose that rec center.

Again though, this is perhaps the advantage of having an extra 4 years to work with.  Now there's time to re-evaluate those plans.  Not that we haven't seen venue changes on the normal timetable, but I'm with you that they can come up with something better and hopefully get USC on board with it.

This was the best mockup I could create of what I'm thinking they could do:

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good for us to project plans for the USC campus:

#1 - Touching Uytengsu.  I think when he gave $8 million a few years ago to complete that facility, part of the terms were it would be a PERMANENT installation.  WHy use his $8 million only to tear it down in a few years?  

#2 - What will USC do with a full-size Olympic aquatic scenter with seats (even if scaled down post-Games) for, just to grab a number) 10K seats when there is the existing Uytengsu facility that more than meets their needs?

#3 - We don't know what USC's future plans are for the other bldgs around there?

#4 - Yes, with the additional 4 years, maybe a cleaner solution might be found elsewhere but I think they want to use an existing facility -- whether it be USC or even UCLA -- for the warm-up facilities.  The warm-up pool for 1984 was then cut-up and one part was shipped to some community center in Wash State I seem to remember.  Being one of the marquee sports of the Games, it would have to be near a major commuter line or conduit to get the crowds in and out, quickly, easily and safely.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

This was the best mockup I could create of what I'm thinking they could do:

giphy.gif

What baron said.  USC has a multi-million dollar aquatics facility that was just renovated a few years ago.  Why let that all go to waste to replace it with a new venue?

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

Seems like such a waste to build that big a$s temporary swimming venue, just to tear it back down once the Games are gone.

???

On the contrary, it's the cheapest route than building an actual permanent pool, with all the concrete and plumbing and cost and hassle of maintaining a pool (pumps, filters, cleaning, etc... pools are a pain in the ass).  

For the 2004 US Olympic Swim Trials which were held in Long Beach, CA, they used a temporary pool that was easily assembled and easily disassembled.  And it worked fine.  Incidentally, where this pool was located is exactly the same site of the 2028 Long Beach cluster of venues:

myrtha-pools-Long-Beach_1.jpg

myrtha-pools-Long-Beach_3.jpg

myrtha-pools-Long-Beach_2.jpg

Images from myrthapools.com

As you can see from the overhead shot, they even built a temporary warmup pool.

It was all fairly easily assembled and disassembled:

 

Edited by ejaycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mr.bernham said:

Serious question...why can't they use the John C. Argue Swim stadium right next to Col? Renovate it for the modern era, set up temporary stands...seems to make the most sense to me.

For the same reason that Uytengsu can't be used for the swimming venue---no room to build expanded viewing stands for spectators.  

What is now called the John Argue Swim Stadium was built specifically for the 1932 Olympics, and was used until well into the 1990s.  Then in the late 90s until the early 2000-aughts, it closed and was abandoned for a bit, and sadly become a canvas for taggers, as I recall.  But then it was restored and reopened in 2004 and is a big asset to the community; my partner's nephew had some high school swim meets there.  

But, as part of the refurbishment, what was the shell/outer walls of the permanent stands used in the 1932 Olympics, though restored to its Art-Deco-y glory, is now the facade for a building built within the old walls that houses a pre-school, a rec. center, a senior center and theater.  So, they could build temporary stands on one long side of the pool (as was done in 1932) but not on the side where there's now a building.

Original facade of the 1932 Olympic Swim Stadium:

tumblr_l5l4jhE7lb1qblnf9.jpg  

What it now looks like on the other side:

image.jpg

img_4390.jpg

Small photos but here you can see how they built a building within the old walls of the permanent stands:

tumblr_l5kv6nTjx31qblnf9.jpg  la84-foundation-john-c-argue-swim-stadiu

 

And I thought this video clip was interesting; if you grew up in SoCal and watched PBS, you would be familiar with Huell Howser.

Anyway, in the first part of this video, he talks about the 1932 Swim Stadium with Sammy Lee, and you can see it before it's abandonment and restoration.  

The video is from 1996.  

Hmm, I had trouble with linking the clip; anyway, if you're interested in watching the video, just click on this, and then click on the first Google result (California Pools- Californa's Gold 702 - Chapman Blogs):  https://www.google.com/search?q=california+pools+huell+howser&oq=california+pools+huell+howser&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.4319j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

This image from Google Maps shows how 1932 Olympics/John Argue Swim Stadium looks now:

20901352_10207853388531288_1088302681140

That semi-circular pool is a shallow pool for kids to play in and whatnot.  It also dates from when the swim stadium was constructed for the 1932 Olympics.

Some screen grabs from the video I linked above.

This shows the swim stadium during the 1932 Olympics.  Temporary stands were built above the semi-circular shallow pool.

20900786_10207853391451361_6591682149350

 

This is an old view from when after the temporary stands were removed.

20988267_10207853390971349_2035363563279

A few more screen grabs from that video...

What the 1932 Olympic Swim Stadium looked like in 1996 before it was turned into what it is now:

20901707_10207853495413960_9858662705026

20900729_10207853494733943_1051970983943

Huell Howser interviewing Olympic diving champion Sammy Lee.

20934043_10207853495493962_7616340510586

Edited by ejaycat
  • Like 1
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...