Jump to content

Chicago Versus La


Sir Rols

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

1. Where's the hillside?

2. I think anything temporary would just be scaffolding covered w/ banners and bunting.

3. Temporary bleachers would also all be in straight lines and/or right angles. No curves -- it would be extremely expensive. (Can't find the photos of the 2004 US Swim Championships in ANaheim. THat was a temporary set-up for 20,000 spectators -- all straight lines.

4. Where's the cauldron?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO L.A. wins the U.S. bid and then the games. While some people look at the city hosting for a third time and traffic or whatever the critics say, fact is the IOC rarely votes for the city that will put on the best games. The IOC iis interested in money and L.A. will makw the most money. The costs are much lower because of existing places and that is huge after the Athens fiasco. Look at the IOC's nomination of Bejing for an example. Bejing got the bid because of the sponsorship money generated by companys hoping to capture the untapped Chinese market. L.A. will make the most money and will win the games for 2016. Whoever the U.S. nominates though will win, again because of money. NBC ponys up a loooot more money if the games are in the U.S. and the USOC and IOC will make sure they get that money.

Agreed . Los Angeles the capital of media and the city that in 1984 reinvented the games for commerical potiential. With the New Home Depot Centre which is a Soccer Stadium/ Indoor velodrome/ Aquatic Centre Los Angeles probably is in better shape for new modern venues then they were in 1984.

You have to relatively new hockey/basketball arenas in the area with Arrowhead Pond and Staples Centre. In 1984 you had a LA Forum which was Older at this point of the bidding then the Pond and Staples centre are now. Financing is not much of a problem as I am sure the legacy funds from the profits or 1984 could probably be accessed . $ 200 million in profit is probably a very big fund now.

Money is going to rule in this and Los Angeles has twice provided a balance sheet in the black .

Even Infra structure with light rail is probably much better in scope today then it was in 1984.

the LA bid also benefits from the desire of the national football league to re enter the La market.

The coluseum would probably be renovated with cash from the NFL as is the talk with a new jets/ giants stadium in the new york / new jersy area.

With chicago the city did a 650 million dollar renovation to soldier field a couple of years ago and it is not suitable for the games athletics stadium .

jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is all very interesting.... after Chicago announced it would bid for 2016, everyone was saying it was Chicago vs. New York for the USOC nomination, with New York being the favorite. With New York out, it was San Francsico vs. Chicago, San Fran being the favorite. And now Chicago vs. Los Angeles.... and apparently according to some of you LA is gonna get the nom.

I dont get it.

Have any opinion polls been taken in LA concerning the Olympics? I know it wont be a major factor in deciding, but I was just wondering what the general feeling in LA is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed . Los Angeles the capital of media and the city that in 1984 reinvented the games for commerical potiential. With the New Home Depot Centre which is a Soccer Stadium/ Indoor velodrome/ Aquatic Centre Los Angeles probably is in better shape for new modern venues then they were in 1984.

You have to relatively new hockey/basketball arenas in the area with Arrowhead Pond and Staples Centre. In 1984 you had a LA Forum which was Older at this point of the bidding then the Pond and Staples centre are now. Financing is not much of a problem as I am sure the legacy funds from the profits or 1984 could probably be accessed . $ 200 million in profit is probably a very big fund now.

Money is going to rule in this and Los Angeles has twice provided a balance sheet in the black .

Even Infra structure with light rail is probably much better in scope today then it was in 1984.

the LA bid also benefits from the desire of the national football league to re enter the La market.

The coluseum would probably be renovated with cash from the NFL as is the talk with a new jets/ giants stadium in the new york / new jersy area.

With chicago the city did a 650 million dollar renovation to soldier field a couple of years ago and it is not suitable for the games athletics stadium .

jim jones

Does profit make much of a difference in the international race? I don't know cause I'm new at looking at bids but for some reason, to me, it doesn't seem too important. Also while Chicago did have a renovation to Soldier Field, they will be building a temp stadium for the T&F/ceremonies in a different location in the city so Soldier Field can be used for something else. Soccer maybe?

What I don't see from the LA bid is a new legacy that can come from it. I know LA has most of the arenas built but what will leave it's mark after the '16 Games that the IOC can say "we were here and we made an impact on the city"? Another atletic program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed . Los Angeles the capital of media and the city that in 1984 reinvented the games for commerical potiential. With the New Home Depot Centre which is a Soccer Stadium/ Indoor velodrome/ Aquatic Centre Los Angeles probably is in better shape for new modern venues then they were in 1984.

You have to relatively new hockey/basketball arenas in the area with Arrowhead Pond and Staples Centre. In 1984 you had a LA Forum which was Older at this point of the bidding then the Pond and Staples centre are now. Financing is not much of a problem as I am sure the legacy funds from the profits or 1984 could probably be accessed . $ 200 million in profit is probably a very big fund now.

Money is going to rule in this and Los Angeles has twice provided a balance sheet in the black .

Even Infra structure with light rail is probably much better in scope today then it was in 1984.

the LA bid also benefits from the desire of the national football league to re enter the La market.

The coluseum would probably be renovated with cash from the NFL as is the talk with a new jets/ giants stadium in the new york / new jersy area.

With chicago the city did a 650 million dollar renovation to soldier field a couple of years ago and it is not suitable for the games athletics stadium .

jim jones

You just outlined all the wrong reasons for LA not getting the nod. LA will not get it. Haven't you been reading my other posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the stadium is temporary seating, it uses the same system as the turner field stadium in olympic mode...the north end that is...the stadium "concourse" or facade would just be covered with banners /olympic signage etc.

Yeah, but Turner's North End probably sat around 25,000 only. The remaining 55,000 were the permanent stands. It's the exact opposite for Chicago's planned Olympic stadium at this point. They say 10,000 permanent with a capacity of 90,000 for the SOGs. Therefore, 80,000 would be temporary. That large a number would have to be in scaffolding. Otherwise, if you are going to do the concrete way that Turner did it, then you might as well make it permanent.

How is London doing their temporary 60,000 seats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one member

"not the stadium thing again, we had it with NYC, we had it with SF and now again chicago"

Chicago really does not have a stadium problem and you can't even compare it to NYC or San Fran yet because Chicago has the land necessary, unlike some other cities mentioned.

And other IOC members have said, "Chicago 100%" or "A quintessential American city."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan Weiner of the New York Sun seems to think LA is the USOC's front runner:

Los Angeles Now the Likely U.S. Olympic Bid for 2016

It seems like American Media outlets are giving LA the nod, just for the fact of venues, while international outlets are giving Chicago the heads up, due to the compact plan, along with this being Chicago's first time, instead of third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan Weiner of the New York Sun seems to think LA is the USOC's front runner:

Los Angeles Now the Likely U.S. Olympic Bid for 2016

Ho-hum. The story, Mr. Weiner's take on the whole thing, is kinda old. He presents the same old 'assumptions' that Pete Ueberroth all along has wanted a West Coast city. That's the article's biggest falsehood. I would take this article with a grain of salt.

Plus, nobody in NYC really reads the Sun. I never heard of it when I lived there. It was the New York Times, the Post, or the Village Voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they could put it off until the New Year. The USOC is weighing ALL factors including:

1. the results of the Iraq Study Group and how, so far, the allies (including France) are optimistic about it, and the White House heeding the Group's recommendations -- and the allies seem to be receptive to this...

2. the results of behind-the-scenes talks with IOC'ers in Doha, and in Brussels next week.

All of that will have to be weighed and processed in the USOC's decision-making.

So, I'd expect more by the New Year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am starting to get the feeling it's not going to happen. . .and that kind of frightens me because I have been right about New York and San Francisco so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...