Jump to content

Why Not L.a.?


Recommended Posts

It seems as if the majority of the people on this board are discounting L.A. and are ready to give the U.S. bid to Chicago, but why? I understand that they have hosted twice, albeit with tremendous results, but is there anything else about the city that I'm missing? Is there economic, transportation or any other issue that cannot be fixed and hurts the bid or is it just the fact that they have hosted twice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but is there anything else about the city that I'm missing?

Excitement and novelty.

But seriously, since it has everything INCLUDING the $223 million surplus from the '84 Games, then why do they need the Games again? THe IOC likes to pick a city and leave it better with a sports legacy than what it had before. Chicago has never had that chance. Having a Games there would give the youth and people of Illinois new sports facilities and a legacy that Los Angeles, Atlanta and Salt Lake City have already had. That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as if the majority of the people on this board are discounting L.A. and are ready to give the U.S. bid to Chicago, but why? I understand that they have hosted twice, albeit with tremendous results, but is there anything else about the city that I'm missing? Is there economic, transportation or any other issue that cannot be fixed and hurts the bid or is it just the fact that they have hosted twice?

Also, hosting three time is nearly inexcusable for the IOC at this point, especially coming from a country (the USA) that have so much potentials hosts (Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, etc...). LA isn't London or Paris, and beside, Los Angeles hosted just in 1984. 2016 is WAY to early (and don't tell me about Innsbruck 1964 and 1976, that was a freak accident, and the IOC wanted Whistler as a back-up anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago gold-medal pick for Olympics

January 11, 2007

BY RICK TELANDER Sun-Times Columnist

Do you know the difference between Chicago and Los Angeles? Chicago's a city; L.A.'s a Botox party.

Chicago has neighborhoods; L.A. has drive-by zones.

Chicago has weather; L.A. has varieties of smog.

Chicago has commuters; L.A. has Escalades in gridlock.

Am I being petty and stereotypical?

That reminds me, Chicago has smartasses; L.A. has scriptwriters.

But the biggest difference?

Los Angeles twice has hosted the Olympics (1932, 1984); Chicago never has.

When all is said and done regarding the U.S. bid for the 2016 Summer Games -- a battle now reduced to Chicago against Los Angeles because San Francisco surrendered in mid-November -- Chicago should win simply because of that final fact.

And, if needed, plenty of others.

Not the least of which is that when we get our city-that-works/patronage gears grinding toward a common goal, Chicago can make effete Californians eat sand.

An announcement Wednesday by the U.S. Olympic Committee that our country is going full tilt after the 2016 Games -- because, according to USOC vice president Bob Ctvrtlik, our country ''can be competitive'' -- is amazing news for Chicago.

The 2012 Olympic bid by New York was a weak, halfhearted effort by a city that can't figure out where all its rats come from or why the Jets and Giants play in New Jersey, and it deeply embarrassed the USOC.

Now Mayor Daley, perhaps sensing the end of his family reign and the need for a Ramses-like monument to honor himself and his late father, seemingly has made the Olympics that symbolic pyramid.

You might think the United States isn't a much-loved country in this era of Middle Eastern chaos and American hegemony, and you would be right.

But conflict or not, the world always respects us and always covets what we have. And when you get right down to it, everybody on the planet has a relative here.

And everybody knows the United States should run things when it wants. And we want the 2016 Games.

Daley, Ryan must flex muscles

I don't trust USOC chairman Peter Ueberroth, who was L.A.'s Olympic chairman back in 1984, to be absolutely unbiased or fair in his leanings toward his city or ours. But I do trust Daley and mover and shaker Patrick Ryan, the Aon gazillionaire and Chicago Bid Committee chairman, to figure out Ueberroth's weaknesses and attack each with zeal.

The United States will pick the final city in 2009, knowing that it will be presented to the International Olympic Committee as a rival to Tokyo, New Delhi, Rome, Rio de Janeiro and other potential sites.

One thing the USOC must see is guaranteed money -- like, hundreds of millions -- to build all the infrastructure needed. If Daley and Ryan can't snap a few fingers and guarantee that, they don't deserve to call themselves bosses.

Ryan is a minority owner of the Bears, and he gave enough money to Northwestern that Dyche Stadium, which was supposed to remain Dyche Stadium in perpetuity, is now Ryan Field.

So he has his little pyramid.

But he, also feeling the winds of time, would like the big Egyptian-style Olympic edifice as a legacy.

Mayor Daley visited Beijing last May -- Beijing will host the Summer Olympics in 2008 -- and discussed Chicago's desire to host the event.

A small visit? Hmm. No other U.S. mayor went to China.

Chicago had the Olympics taken away from it in 1904, when the Games were moved to St. Louis to go along with the world's fair.

I think it's safe to say we wouldn't like to lose them again.

And not to Los Angeles.

Second City, my butt.

City has it all

I was at the 1984 Games, and I stayed on the ocean liner Sagafjord, docked in Long Beach harbor. My bunkmate was Ivan Maisel, a fellow sports scribe, and we had a jolly time.

But there was nothing there. It was like we were living in a swaying apartment built on a retention pond off a freeway.

Los Angeles has the Olympic structures already. So?

Build stuff? Chicago can do that. Ever seen our skyline?

The lake, the restaurants, the stadiums -- Soldier Field, Wrigley Field, the United Center -- we've got it all.

You know what visitors say when they come here?

''Wow, Chicago is a great city!''

And you say, ''Yeah, it is.''

Winter stinks, but we're talking about summer.

And sports spirit? The Sporting News in August named Chicago ''The Best Sports City'' in America.

Los Angeles doesn't even have an NFL team. And it used to have two. And it doesn't care.

When Los Angeles does get a team, a great name would be the Wimps.

The year 2016 might seem like a long way off.

Here's betting that when it does arrive, so do the Chicago Olympics.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/telander/20...-rick11.article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago gold-medal pick for Olympics

January 11, 2007

BY RICK TELANDER Sun-Times Columnist

The lake, the restaurants, the stadiums -- Soldier Field, Wrigley Field, the United Center -- we've got it all.

But they don't even have a Fred Segal.

And I heard their arthouse theater scene sucks.

But please let Chicago be the USOC's choice for 2016; Angelenos already know what it feels like to be overrun with foreigners. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago's and LA's bid books are due to the USOC this coming Monday; sorta kinda excited about that (but not nearly as excited as the Oscar nominations, which are out this coming Tuesday).

So, as a note to the USOC deadline, here's something from the LA Times that came out a week or so ago:

By Lisa Dillman, Times Staff Writer

January 10, 2007

Olympic tried and tested versus the rookie. West Coast versus the Midwest. A venerable Olympic stadium versus a field of dreams. The tag team of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa versus Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

OK, so the contest between Los Angeles and Chicago to become the U.S. bid city for the 2016 Summer Games probably won't come down to sheer political star power. Then again, the magnetism of London bid leader Lord Sebastian Coe cannot be understated in helping his team prevail against Paris to win the right to stage the 2012 Games.

Now that the U.S. Olympic Committee officially decided to proceed with a bid for the 2016 Games, and will choose between Chicago and Los Angeles on April 14, one independent bid expert took note of recent history, looking at how the stadium issue played out in the London-Paris contest.

The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum has been the Olympic Stadium both times the Games were here, most recently in 1984. Chicago, on the other hand, announced plans to build a 95,000-seat stadium in Washington Park on the South Side of the city.

Toronto-based Rob Livingstone has followed the Olympic bid process for more than 15 years, and is web producer of GamesBids.com, and noted the differences in what the IOC says and how it eventually votes. London offered to build an Olympic Stadium, while Paris planned to use an existing venue, the Stade de France, which played host to the 1998 World Cup final.

"On one hand, the IOC tends to say recently they don't want a lot of construction, don't want a lot of cost and risk," Livingstone said, as what happened with the 2004 Games in Athens. "But when it comes to voting, they're all excited about new things built for the Olympics."

A rock-solid plan for an Olympic Stadium, or better yet, an existing one, has become paramount since New York's bid for the 2012 Games imploded over exactly that issue. USOC Chairman Peter Ueberroth has said as much publicly and to the bid committees.

"There's not a way Peter is going to take any chances this time," said Tim Leiweke, president and chief executive of Anschutz Entertainment Group and a member of L.A.'s bid committee.

There has been tinkering with both bids since November, when stadium uncertainty forced San Francisco to withdraw its proposal and the race became a two-way contest. David Simon, the Los Angeles bid committee president, said in an interview Tuesday that there were "a handful of changes," in the range of four to six, centralizing the venues.

Barry Sanders, L.A. bid chairman, said the group plans an announcement in about 10 days regarding enhancements to the Coliseum.

Officials from Chicago, meanwhile, held a news conference and spoke about alterations in their bid and that they now have raised $25 million. Beach volleyball, field hockey and the equestrian events have been moved.

Patrick G. Ryan, bid chairman and chief executive, said the equestrian facilities could be used by the public after the Olympics, in contrast to the first proposed location. One soccer venue for preliminary games will be out of state, at the University of Minnesota.

Chicago has never played host to an Olympics, and one point that officials attempted to drive home during the news conference and in a later interview was the issue of legacy. Legacy, of course, is not an issue for Los Angeles, considering its rich history of amateur athletics.

"You're supposed to improve your community and that urban legacy for our Olympic Village is something we're very proud of," Ryan said in a telephone interview. "To do this right, we have to create sports legacy, that's what the mission is all about. We chose athletics and aquatics and then had the good fortune to get this equestrian facility.

" … Eight-five percent of the athletes will be within 15 minutes or less from their venues, many of them walking distance from the village."

The next step in the process is the submission of more detailed bid information on Jan. 22. In late February or early March, a USOC evaluation team will conduct site visits. The IOC will make a final decision in 2009.

Livingstone views both bids as relatively compact: Los Angeles has better name recognition while the cost will be much more for Chicago because it doesn't have as many existing venues.

"The strength and weakness both for L.A. is obviously they've hosted twice," he said. "So that can work for or against them."

Olympic historian John Lucas echoed that theme.

"No question between the two of them, the city of Los Angeles, a far superior climate, superior city and superior ambience," he said. "People who vote on this, members of the IOC, they know very little about Chicago. They know a great deal about Los Angeles."

Still, being the unknown quantity may have its benefits for Chicago. "It helps quite a bit because the Olympic Committee does like to spread the Olympic Games around," Lucas said.

USOC and the 2016 bid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's another LA Times article. Kinda counters what Koolshundle posted earlier.

I usually like Patt Morrison's columns, but her facts seem dubious to me in this article:

January 18, 2007

THE LAST TIME L.A. landed the Olympics, it was because nobody else wanted them.

In 1977, when bids were due to host the 1984 Summer Games, the International Olympic Committee was still waiting by its mailbox in Switzerland for an application from some city somewhere in the world besides Los Angeles. Anyone? Anywhere? When the mailman didn't stop, the IOC gave it to L.A.

Tehran had been in the running, but the shah of Iran — who could have filled a hundred Olympic swimming pools with light sweet crude — decided that the Games were too expensive. Everyone was spooked by Montreal in 1976, when the Games ran a billion dollars in the red. After that, a chastened IOC agreed to a budget Olympics — "spartan and businesslike," as Mayor Tom Bradley put it, and, as it turned out, the first Olympics to make money.

Monday is the deadline for the last two U.S. cities in the running for the 2016 Olympics to file detailed bids to the U.S. Olympic Committee: Chicago and L.A., City of the Big Shoulders versus City of the Big Breasts. The USOC will choose one to forward to the IOC.

I thought I didn't want another L.A. Olympics. I loved the no-traffic fortnight of the '84 Games; it was so pleasant, like living in L.A. after a neutron bomb blast. But I couldn't bear seeing "festive federalism" again, the 1984 Olympics' color theme that was so anxious to offend no one that it inspired no one: magenta, vermilion, aqua and the color of French's mustard when it dries on Levi's. Plus, I am still sitting on a closetful of 1984 Olympic souvenirs worth jack-all on EBay.

But now I truly do want Los Angeles to land the 2016 Games. It has nothing to do with this little spat you may have heard about between the L.A. Times and its Tribune Co. overlords in Chicago. Nothing.

Why L.A. and not Chicago? Where to start? L.A. jogs. Chicago, as the song says, merely toddles. L.A.'s BMI, at least in westerly ZIP Codes, is awesome; Chicago was Men's Fitness magazine's fattest burg of 2006. Give us the Summer Games; Chicago can have the Olympic pie-eating contest.

I consulted my Chicago Trib sports columnist pal Mike Downey for more analysis of our dueling cities.

Downey: President Obama could proclaim, "Let the Games begin," and Vice President Winfrey could host closing ceremonies.

Morrison: Nix. President Villaraigosa will do the honors, and Gov. Beckham will kick the first ball.

Downey: Chicago is a much safer city. When we throw an Olympic Games, our guests will be able to buy extra protection from some of our top mobsters.

Morrison: Have you ever seen the paparazzi in action? I'll put the Academy Awards security guys up against the Midwestern mob any time.

Downey: L.A.'s stadium is too old. I think Hercules threw the discus there.

Morrison: The Coliseum is only as old as Henry Kissinger, but Soldier Field? The soldier it was named after is Ulysses S. Grant. Old Soldier Fields don't die — they just get hideously made over by crashing flying saucers.

It's sweet that Chicago has been trying so hard to copy us. Like California, it banned foie gras on the grounds of animal cruelty. Chicago's mayor believes in bikes. Chicago might even ban smoking at the beach. (Beach? I guess I slept through "Baywatch: Lake Michigan.")

Flattering. But why go with a copy when you can have the real thing?

By 2016, as we all know, L.A.'s fabulous transit system will zip visitors from Riverside to Santa Monica, from San Clemente to Santa Clarita. The freshwater, free-flowing Los Angeles River will host every waterborne competition. Palmdale International Airport will welcome tourists with jet-lag aromatherapy booths. Every venue will be more or less in L.A. — unlike Chicago, which proposes preliminary soccer games at the University of Minnesota. And whatever we have to build — Frank Gehry lives here.

None of this will wind up in the actual Olympics bid, which reads like a college admission form, asking such questions as, "Describe your motivation behind the choice of location of key Olympic infrastructure."

Dump the essay questions. There is one supreme and salient reason why L.A. should welcome the world: We are not America. At least we are not the Beltway-think America that people have come to distrust and protest and fear the world over.

California has already been culled from the American herd by public figures who seize on every cultural earthquake as proof of the Left Coast's depravity. Pat Robertson wrote a novel about a meteor hitting the coast and putting L.A. a mile under water, and don't think he didn't enjoy it.

Of course they hate us. We're the high-risk, high-payoff destination where Nobel laureates and migrants, the Silicon Valley and the Central Valley, Disneyland and Hollywood arise and flourish, create and heal, connect and feed and entertain everyone else. Come to think of it, is anything more American than that?

Not even Chicago deep-dish pizza.

Who wants a deep-dish Olympics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's another LA Times article. Kinda counters what Koolshundle posted earlier.

I usually like Patt Morrison's columns, but her facts seem dubious to me in this article:

January 18, 2007

THE LAST TIME L.A. landed the Olympics, it was because nobody else wanted them.

In 1977, when bids were due to host the 1984 Summer Games, the International Olympic Committee was still waiting by its mailbox in Switzerland for an application from some city somewhere in the world besides Los Angeles. Anyone? Anywhere? When the mailman didn't stop, the IOC gave it to L.A.

Tehran had been in the running, but the shah of Iran — who could have filled a hundred Olympic swimming pools with light sweet crude — decided that the Games were too expensive. Everyone was spooked by Montreal in 1976, when the Games ran a billion dollars in the red. After that, a chastened IOC agreed to a budget Olympics — "spartan and businesslike," as Mayor Tom Bradley put it, and, as it turned out, the first Olympics to make money.

Monday is the deadline for the last two U.S. cities in the running for the 2016 Olympics to file detailed bids to the U.S. Olympic Committee: Chicago and L.A., City of the Big Shoulders versus City of the Big Breasts. The USOC will choose one to forward to the IOC.

I thought I didn't want another L.A. Olympics. I loved the no-traffic fortnight of the '84 Games; it was so pleasant, like living in L.A. after a neutron bomb blast. But I couldn't bear seeing "festive federalism" again, the 1984 Olympics' color theme that was so anxious to offend no one that it inspired no one: magenta, vermilion, aqua and the color of French's mustard when it dries on Levi's. Plus, I am still sitting on a closetful of 1984 Olympic souvenirs worth jack-all on EBay.

But now I truly do want Los Angeles to land the 2016 Games. It has nothing to do with this little spat you may have heard about between the L.A. Times and its Tribune Co. overlords in Chicago. Nothing.

Why L.A. and not Chicago? Where to start? L.A. jogs. Chicago, as the song says, merely toddles. L.A.'s BMI, at least in westerly ZIP Codes, is awesome; Chicago was Men's Fitness magazine's fattest burg of 2006. Give us the Summer Games; Chicago can have the Olympic pie-eating contest.

I consulted my Chicago Trib sports columnist pal Mike Downey for more analysis of our dueling cities.

Downey: President Obama could proclaim, "Let the Games begin," and Vice President Winfrey could host closing ceremonies.

Morrison: Nix. President Villaraigosa will do the honors, and Gov. Beckham will kick the first ball.

Downey: Chicago is a much safer city. When we throw an Olympic Games, our guests will be able to buy extra protection from some of our top mobsters.

Morrison: Have you ever seen the paparazzi in action? I'll put the Academy Awards security guys up against the Midwestern mob any time.

Downey: L.A.'s stadium is too old. I think Hercules threw the discus there.

Morrison: The Coliseum is only as old as Henry Kissinger, but Soldier Field? The soldier it was named after is Ulysses S. Grant. Old Soldier Fields don't die — they just get hideously made over by crashing flying saucers.

It's sweet that Chicago has been trying so hard to copy us. Like California, it banned foie gras on the grounds of animal cruelty. Chicago's mayor believes in bikes. Chicago might even ban smoking at the beach. (Beach? I guess I slept through "Baywatch: Lake Michigan.")

Flattering. But why go with a copy when you can have the real thing?

By 2016, as we all know, L.A.'s fabulous transit system will zip visitors from Riverside to Santa Monica, from San Clemente to Santa Clarita. The freshwater, free-flowing Los Angeles River will host every waterborne competition. Palmdale International Airport will welcome tourists with jet-lag aromatherapy booths. Every venue will be more or less in L.A. — unlike Chicago, which proposes preliminary soccer games at the University of Minnesota. And whatever we have to build — Frank Gehry lives here.

None of this will wind up in the actual Olympics bid, which reads like a college admission form, asking such questions as, "Describe your motivation behind the choice of location of key Olympic infrastructure."

Dump the essay questions. There is one supreme and salient reason why L.A. should welcome the world: We are not America. At least we are not the Beltway-think America that people have come to distrust and protest and fear the world over.

California has already been culled from the American herd by public figures who seize on every cultural earthquake as proof of the Left Coast's depravity. Pat Robertson wrote a novel about a meteor hitting the coast and putting L.A. a mile under water, and don't think he didn't enjoy it.

Of course they hate us. We're the high-risk, high-payoff destination where Nobel laureates and migrants, the Silicon Valley and the Central Valley, Disneyland and Hollywood arise and flourish, create and heal, connect and feed and entertain everyone else. Come to think of it, is anything more American than that?

Not even Chicago deep-dish pizza.

Who wants a deep-dish Olympics?

I love that article. The SunTimes had something similar awhile back dissing Los Angeles in a similar manner to be the candidate. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...