Schwarzenegger: La Olympic Bid "has It All"

[Elsongs]

Good try. But, in all seriousness, I think you want to convey more than just the initials of any city -- whether it be L.A., NYC, BA (Buenos Aires), CT (Cape Town), HKG (Hong Kong), etc. You try to capture a defining icon of the city.

Ummm...try telling that to the folks who designed the Atlanta 1996 bid logo...I don't see any icons there.

[baron-pierreIV]

Ummm...try telling that to the folks who designed the Atlanta 1996 bid logo...I don't see any icons there.

Well, Atlanta isn't really a Tier A City. Further,

1. It's past. What's your point? Atlanta not really having any iconic symbols, a Star is always a neutral symbol but a symbol of aspirations...which is what the Games are, aren't they?

2. That wasn't a bad bid logo -- but wasn't supreme either. Besides, I never even saw a Minneapolis logo. So there was no competition.

Further, it did the job, didn't it? It not only carried the City's bid domestically, but it was enough to win the Centennial bidding, was it not?

[LA84]

Well, this probably belongs in the "Past Bids" section, but anything I can do to push that ANNOYING Toronto thread further down . . .

So I was in Palm Springs this weekend. I love that place!

I was at Hunters (the local chi chi gay bar) and this wonderful older man was standing there in a Los Angeles '84 tee shirt.

Which was odd because I had seen 2 other people this weekend wearing them.

So I go up and start to talk to him and turns out, he worked for LAOOC in '81-'84. So we started talking about Los Angeles' chances for '16 and he was sooooo excited. He was sharing with me stories from '84 (fascinating stuff btw) and how, even tho he is now in his 70's, he would come out of retirement to help Los Angeles prepare for '16 if they get the nomination.

We talked for an hour and even tho it cost me a LOT for drinks, it was so fun to talk to this gentleman about the Olympics - especially since he had been right there in the planning stages.

And people say we don't take the Olympics that seriously.

[masonite]

I wasn't all that impressed with the Coliseum enhancements for the Games. I guess I am old-fashioned (although not sure why since I am only 34) in that I don't see why the luxury boxes and sun shades are so necessary. Whenever I see something like this I think of what happened to Soldier Field, which is ironic in this case.

Personally, I would like to see the LA team spend $250 million or so and create a massive park/plaza near the Convention/Staples Center since Exposition Park and USC (which can effectively serve as a park during the games) already surround the Coliseum. This would be only a fraction of Chicago's bid, but I think the LA bid could afford it no problem, and it would leave a mark on the city. It could be a lasting symbol of the Olympics and goodwill as well as a gathering spot during the games.

[ChicagoFan90]

An article in USA Today about Los Angeles attempt at the 2016 Olympics, and the visit today and the rest of the week (Feb 28-Mar 2) from the USOC Evaluation Committee.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/su...htm?POE=SPOISVA

[FYI]

You gotta love those people who constantly harp (like in the USA article) that a certain city that has hosted the Games before should host them again, "simply" because of the fact that virtually no one is around now that was there when that particular city's Games took place (i.e. L.A. Squaw Valley, Paris, Moscow). Well, if we look at it like that, then every city that has hosted the Olympic Games already should just "automatically" host them again, since no one was around when those respective Games took place. Forgot all about NEW cities getting an opportunity.

[ChicagoFan90]

Just found out that Los Angeles has gotten Disney to produce and direct the bid film that will be shown on Friday.

Wonder who Chicago has gotten to direct......

[baron-pierreIV]

Just found out that Los Angeles has gotten Disney to produce and direct the bid film that will be shown on Friday.

Wonder who Chicago has gotten to direct......

Seriously, Chicago doesn't need a film for this domestic stage. That's a case of overkill on LA's part -- and becayse they need it.

[LA84]

Seriously, Chicago doesn't need a film for this domestic stage. That's a case of overkill on LA's part -- and becayse they need it.

Agreed. Los Angeles has a steeper hill to climb to overcome the "been there - done that" stigma.

Besides, I'm sure that Oprah and her Harpo Studios will be the official filmakers of Chicago's 2016 bid. Her entire Color Purple castmates have probably been called in to do a short film for the IOC's benefit

[ejaycat]

Actually, if you watch the news clip from ABC in Chicago, it'll show a snippet of them working on the video they'll be showing to the USOC:

Chicago film touts athletes

[ejaycat]

And this is a clip from a liveshot on today's local KTLA news show in Los Angeles; it's on the sports section of the LA Times website, just look for the video entitled

L.A. Hopes to impress Olympic Committee for 2016 bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

THanks for the links, ejay. Interesting.

The 2 reports highlight the nub of the whole competition. All things being equal, a new setting is required. Just look at how the IOC and FIFA award their products: they want to set their Games in brand new, glowing surroundings. OK, so LA has new venues -- BUT it's still the same city that it was 23 years ago. The last time the Olympics got closest to Chicago -- really a very different looking American city from LA -- was in 1904 when their originally promised Games got moved to St. Louis. It's as if a Games is owed is Chicago, and time will seem to heal that injustice.

But the USOC is getting what it wants in Los Angeles giving Chicago a good fight so that the winner's product is the BEST and SHARPEST package it can be to present to the IOC and survive the even keener international scrutiny. It's just too bad that SF dropped out a few months ago.

[LA84]

Article from today's Tribune. I've condensed it down to what I see of the pluses and minuses of LA's bid:

L.A. hopes past will be prologue

City says Olympic experience offers edge over Chicago

By Philip Hersh

Tribune Olympics reporter

Published March 1, 2007, 11:29 PM CST

LOS ANGELES -- The committee trying to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Los Angeles gave the U.S. Olympic Committee commission evaluating their chances a virtual tour of the proposed Olympic Village on the UCLA campus Thursday.

Sophisticated urban simulation software developed by UCLA professor Bill Jepson made the tour possible and reflected one of Los Angeles' major talking points for its bid: That the creative community centered in Hollywood will be available for the first time to promote the Olympics.

But the virtual part wasn't necessary because the USOC visitors later walked through the real buildings that would house about 75 percent of the 16,000 athletes and officials on the campus if the Games were in Los Angeles for a third time. UCLA is building new housing that would accommodate the rest.

While Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid extols the attractiveness of a $1.1 billion development on Lake Shore Drive that would make its debut as an Olympic Village and provide the comforts of apartment-style living, that housing exists only on drawing boards.

And although Chicago's village would be much closer to most of the sports venues than the UCLA dorms are to the Los Angeles venues, the USOC will leave Southern California with the comfort of having seen actual bricks and mortar as it decides April 14 which city would be the better candidate for the 2016 bid.

Reality sometimes is less inspiring.

Nearly one-fifth of the residents in a UCLA Olympic Village would have to use a common shower and bathroom down the hall. Many others would have one bathroom and shower for five or six people.

Chicago hopes its apartment-style village will look better by comparison, even if it is only on paper.

"When we said 'college-type room' 20 years ago or 30 years ago, we had rooms and toilets and a common shower at the end of a hall. Of course, that we don't want," Gilbert Felli, the International Olympic Committee's executive director for the Olympic Games, said in a Tribune interview.

"If you have as we do now on [many] campuses, rooms where you have your own shower, sometimes even a little kitchen, everybody will say it is fantastic."

Because only one Olympic venue is planned at UCLA—Pauley Pavilion, for volleyball preliminaries—travel times to other venues are an issue in a city where overtaxed freeways are constantly congested.

Olympic gold medal swimmer Janet Evans needed 2½ hours Thursday to cover the 66 miles from her home in Orange County to UCLA, where she introduced the civic and campus leaders who presented the L.A. bid to the USOC commission. It took a reporter 45 minutes from her home in Long Beach, where 16 sports would be played.

A day before the USOC tours the venues, Villaraigosa played down travel concerns, citing new rail service and traffic management as solutions.

"In 1984 (the last L.A. Olympics), people talked about doomsday and Armageddon, yet traffic flowed because leadership decisions were made," he said.

phersh@tribune.com

This issue of the shared facilities at the athletes village I see as a major stumbling block. Granted this is the way it was done in the past but over the last 25 years, the athletes - and IOC - have become spoiled by countries who will go into debt to provide all the creature comforts to both athletes and spectators. The unneeded awnings at the Coliseum IMHO is another example of this.

Nevertheless, Los Angeles definitely is a contender.

[ejaycat]

From earthtimes.org:

Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games Rolls Out Red Carpet for United States Olympic Committee

LOS ANGELES, March 2 /PRNewswire/ -- The Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games (SCCOG) today concluded two-days of hosting the United States Olympic Committee Evaluation Commission. The meetings, bid review sessions, venue tours, unveiling of an original film from Disney Studios and more highlighted an eventful itinerary key to Los Angeles' bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

Presenting a program that combines existing permanent venues for all but one contested sport and extraordinary plans for the few temporary facilities the Games will require, the SCCOG was able to take the focus of the visit from construction to "beyond the venues" measures promoting Olympic spirit and a broadening of the Olympic stage.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who participated in multiple activities during the USOC visit, reaffirmed his commitment and enthusiasm for the Games. "Los Angeles embodies the Olympic ideal. It is the city where dreams are realized and stars are born. This is the stage for a truly spectacular 2016 Olympic Games," he said.

"From the outset of the bid process, our goal has been to take the focus off construction and put it where it belongs, on the athletes and the true spirit of the Games as first conceived by Baron de Cubertin more than a century ago," said SCCOG Chairman Barry Sanders. "While our world-class venues are without question a large part of the equation, the fact that they are already in existence provides us with the time and resources to focus on other areas of the Olympic experience and shine the spotlight like no other city in the world."

During day-long meetings at UCLA on Thursday, March 1, the USOC commission was provided detailed information related to every aspect of the L.A. 2016 bid, including financing -- which will not involve any public funds -- security, environmental impact, transportation, marketing and more. Presentations were given by SCCOG board members, a number of prominent Southern California Olympians including Peter Vidmar, Janet Evans and Willie Banks along with experts in each specific category. Commission members also toured the spectacular UCLA facilities proposed as the Olympic Athletes Village for 2016.

A marquee moment of Thursday's schedule was the "premiere" of a spectacular short-film produced by the Walt Disney Studios on behalf of the SCCOG which features Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mayor Villaraigosa and prominent Olympians from the Los Angeles area.

Mayor Villaraigosa, Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster, Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard, SCCOG board members, Olympians including Rafer Johnson, Evans, Banks and others, Lakers Coach Phil Jackson and President Jeanie Buss and additional guests joined the USOC commission for a special Getty Center dinner on Thursday night.

On Friday, the USOC commission and members of the media were given a tour of many of the venues that would serve a Los Angeles 2016 Games. The trip, which included transportation on one of the many rail lines that are integral to the transportation program for the proposed Games -- 94% of all tickets sold for the Games will be accessible by rail -- took the two groups through Home Depot Center in Carson, multiple venues in Long Beach and concluded in Downtown Los Angeles at STAPLES Center.

"As it does in so many diverse and exciting situations, Los Angeles put its best foot forward during this visit," concluded Sanders. "We are pleased the USOC commission was able to spend some time in our wonderful community and hope they leave here as confident as all of us are that there is no better place in the world for the 2016 Olympic Games than Los Angeles."

Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games Rolls Out Red Carpet for United States Olympic Committee

LA 2016's logo in effect!

Campus housing at UCLA

Pine Avenue in Long Beach

[LA84]

Would you mind running over to UCLA and grabbing me one of those planters. My palm at home needs a new one

[ejaycat]

Would you mind running over to UCLA and grabbing me one of those planters. My palm at home needs a new one

Sure, I'll see what I can do for you... I was thinking of heading to Westwood anyway, to see a movie and check out the college hotties lining up for Pinkberry.

Oh, and here's Chicago's local ABC report, text AND video, about the USOC visit to LA:

USOC wraps up inspection of Los Angeles

[ChicagoFan90]

Hey, anyone have the Disney LA2016 Film, can't find it anywhere, and the little snippet I saw on the news last night was pretty good. With the Governator and the mayor movie shooting in an old western town.

[LA84]

Hey, anyone have the Disney LA2016 Film, can't find it anywhere, and the little snippet I saw on the news last night was pretty good. With the Governator and the mayor movie shooting in an old western town.

Hmmm - not on YouTube. Wonder if they (and Chicago) will ever release them to the public?

So about these supposed "negatives" of LA's bid - I just don't see it. There are so many positives in general and so many legacies still intact from the '32 and '84 games that IMHO they overcome any preceived negatives.

The third time thingy - the same arguments for awarding London 2012 can be used for LA 2016.

As for the traffic, I have decided I must be the lukiest person in the world. I was just down in the Los Angeles area two weeks ago at around noon on a Thursday - no prob at all getting from the 5 over to the 10 which of course means going through Pasadena and near the Rose Bowl, one of the venues. I have never, in my many travels there had a problem getting around *knocks on wood*

The only negatives I see are that (1) it is spread out as much as San Francisco's proposed bid was which may be a problem after London's compact games: and (2) this business of athletes having to share the facilities.

[baron-pierreIV]

If Bob Cvrtlik, a Southern California boy, and one-time security guard volunteer at the Long Beach volleyball venue in 1984, has publicly voiced LA's main drawbacks, then, if I were on LA's committee, take those to heart -- to make the letdown a little easier. The sun already shone on LA twice within the last 75 years. LA today is NOT that much spectacularly different from LA of 1984.

It's NOT at all like London of 1948. (1) London WAS aked in 1946 if they could host 1948 (look at the numerology - 1948 - 1984); even as London and England were just trying to recover from World War II. (2) Los Angeles sought out to host 1984; and luckily for them, they were the only seekers. London 2012 will be NO WAY like London 1948.

On a personal note: while of course having the Games come back to Los Angeles for a 3rd time in 2016 would be very convenient for me; that 3rd time thing really weakens the US hand.

LA84, your love for the City of the Angels clouds your view of the competition. Not too many on the IOC are/will be enamored of the freeways and splitting the Games between downtown LA, Westwood, Carson City and Long Beach. You're actually lucky, you come from Chicago.

[LA84]

Perhaps you are right. I am trying to give LA the benefit of the doubt simply because I do love the city and I do have wonderful memories of '84. Chicago is still my first choice, however.

Like I've said in the past, I don't really care. My favorite 3 cities in the U.S. made the cut, two are in the finals so either way, I win!

[FYI]

What?

The third time thingy isn't a negative for L.A.?!

The argument for awarding London their 3rd Games cannot be used for L.A. At least not at this time, it's not that black-&-white. By the time 2012 rolls around, London would have waited 64 years from their last Olympics, while it would only be 32 years ('84-2016, half the time) for L.A. In Olympic terms that's too soon. Plus, London's 2012 bid offers a huge Olympic legacy where an entire section of London is getting an enourmous face-lift for the Games (just like Chicago's bid is proposing at Washington Park).

What is L.A. offering for a legacy, besides already existing venues. Woop-dee-doo. Even Bob Ctvrtik, chairman of the USOC evaluation commission, said the fact that L.A. has hosted twice before comes up almost across the board. "So it's a factor".

So no, you can't use London as an argument for L.A. Again, at least not now. When the Games are due to the United States again, then yeah, the argument could work for L.A. Considering by 2032 for example, it would be 48 years since the last L.A. Games. They could use those as their "centennial" Games.

[cfm Jeremie]

At the moment, I think two things are sure about LA:

1. At the present time, LA is "more ready" than Chicago to host the Games
   
2. The 3rd time host topic will be an issue
   

I can see USOC selecting LA if they feel the IOC might have doubts about Chicago ability to deliver (significantly more construction work needed than for LA, mostly -only?- private funding, that could scare some at the IOC, especially if, comes 2009, we still don't have a clue on how much London will cost).

This being said, LA, if selected, would definitely have to find a WoW factor. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to award the Games to LA for a third time if there are other exciting bids.

All things said, whatever the outcome, the US will have a very strong bid for 2016 and this is going to make this race interesting.

[LA84]

What?

The third time thingy isn't a negative for L.A.?!

The argument for awarding London their 3rd Games cannot be used for L.A. At least not at this time, it's not that black-&-white. By the time 2012 rolls around, London would have waited 64 years from their last Olympics, while it would only be 32 years ('84-2016, half the time) for L.A. In Olympic terms that's too soon. Plus, London's 2012 bid offers a huge Olympic legacy where an entire section of London is getting an enourmous face-lift for the Games (just like Chicago's bid is proposing at Washington Park).

What is L.A. offering for a legacy, besides already existing venues. Woop-dee-doo. Even Bob Ctvrtik, chairman of the USOC evaluation commission, said the fact that L.A. has hosted twice before comes up almost across the board. "So it's a factor".

So no, you can't use London as an argument for L.A. Again, at least not now. When the Games are due to the United States again, then yeah, the argument could work for L.A. Considering by 2032 for example, it would be 48 years since the last L.A. Games. They could use those as their "centennial" Games.

Uh, yes I can.

Perhaps some think that London '12 sets the standard for how long to wait but I reject that notion. If Los Angeles' bid turns out to be the best then they should be granted the games. I am not saying it is the best - I still favor Chicago at this point in that regard - but nevertheless, just because London waited longer to host again doesn't mean that Los Angeles is bound to wait an equal or longer amount of time.

But yes, the LA bid will require a "wow" factor to be considered. However, Los Angeles also has something going for it that those who were bidding for it's third time for '12 doesn't in that it has preserved it's legacies from '32 and '84 and actually uses them on a regular basis. And we all know how important legacies are to the IOC.

[FYI]

Yes, but what's also important to the IOC is spreading their movement around & creating *new* legacies. So why choose a city that already has one & is using it?

The IOC had the gems of Europe bidding for the 2012 Games, so they just were salivating at those prospects. I seroiusly doubt the IOC views L.A. as they do London, Paris or Rome. The only thing it seems that would make the USOC pick L.A. (like cfmjeremie pointed out) is the cost escalations of London. And if they do, they're gonna have a very uphill battle to land the 2016 Games.

It's just too bad the domestic selection wasn't towards the end of the year instead of next month so we could see more of London's developments.

[LA84]

Yes, but what's also important to the IOC is spreading their movement around & creating *new* legacies. So why choose a city that already has one & is using it?

The IOC had the gems of Europe bidding for the 2012 Games, so they just were salivating at those prospects. I seroiusly doubt the IOC views L.A. as they do London, Paris or Rome. The only thing it seems that would make the USOC pick L.A. (like cfmjeremie pointed out) is the cost escalations of London. And if they do, they're gonna have a very uphill battle to land the 2016 Games.

It's just too bad the domestic selection wasn't towards the end of the year instead of next month so we could see more of London's developments.

Well, I guess we will have to "agree to disagree."

IMHO, London '48 and Los Angeles '84 are two of the most important and significant Olympics of the modern era, (as well as of course Athens 1896, Athens 1906 (unofficial) and Antwerp 1920). At any of those points in history, the Olympics were on their deathbed but were revived by these cities.

So from the respect of the Olympic movement, Los Angeles should indeed be considered one of the "gems" and be considered seriously, if chosen and not readily dismissed because "it's too soon."

Hopefully Chicago will be the candidate and we won't have any more of these discussions!