Jump to content

Schwarzenegger: La Olympic Bid "has It All"


ejaycat

Recommended Posts

I think that the USOC would be making a mistake if they chose LA. I don't see London 2012 as setting an important precedent for cities such as Los Angeles - I'm pretty sure the next three time host will be Paris, whenever they choose to bid - they've surely waited long enough since 1924!

London was just after WWII, whereas LA is still in the memories of relatively young people - also the UK were informed by the IOC that it would it could only win if it forwarded London, the US isn't in the same position - they could choose from 4 or 5 candidates, so I don't understand why there is such a push for a Games in the same US city.

From an international point of view I'm sure that Chicago would stand a far greater chance against premium cities like Tokyo and Rome. If the 2016 campaign is anything like the 2012 campaign the IOC will have a shortlist of cities all capable of staging a successful Games - great as you may think LA is, the fact that they have already hosted so recently and the fact that there wouldn't be the legacy benefits of the other cities would be an ideal opportunity to discount them for someone else.

The US already has a 'been there, done that' label attached to it with respect to the Olympics - the least the USOC can do is to provide a city that has never hosted so that it at least appears slightly more new and 'exciting' - if they choose LA they may as well just play old recordings of the 1984 Games in 2016 - other than the names and times nothing would look or feel significantly different.

....although being someone who supports Tokyo for 2016 you may want to take my opinion with a pinch of salt! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

STU!!!!!! :o How could you! This after I got up at 2:00 a.m. almost 2 years ago to root London along!

Well, O.K., I actually got up to root for New York but London was my second choice. :D

Well I am reserving my arguments now until after April 14th. Hopefully after that this will all be a moot point. But if not - I am stocking my arsenal for between then and 2009! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STU!!!!!! :o How could you! This after I got up at 2:00 a.m. almost 2 years ago to root London along!

Well, O.K., I actually got up to root for New York but London was my second choice. :D

Well I am reserving my arguments now until after April 14th. Hopefully after that this will all be a moot point. But if not - I am stocking my arsenal for between then and 2009! :D

Heart-wrenching though it is to disappoint you - I'd just rather not have two Anglophone nations following on from each other. :(

Anyway, I thought you only used to get up so early for Royal weddings and funerals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point between LA and the contemporary Euro Olympic host cities (Barcelona, London, Munich). LA is essentially a very young 20th century city. It's very contemporary. The European cities offer a great mix of deeper, old historical backgrounds and modern, contemporary settings. That is the great difference.

As you well know, Todd, Chicago is a radically different city. It's got the feel of the older, northeastern, 'skyscraper,' compact American city. Lozangeles is totally laid-back, sunny, southern Califoria. If LA were to have offered a WHOLE NEW set of venues -- everything new -- then it would be the one to beat. (pssst, LA also would be a great reminder of AtLAnta '96; I think Chicago would erase those connections.) So, LA's very recent, been-there outing is also its biggest liability.

It comes down to the informal survey that the USOC did of many IOC members. More were intrigued by a Chicago bid than a return trip to LA. (I'm sure a few of them rolled their eyes, and sighed, and uttered diplomatic niceties if asked about a second LA turn.)

Further, Tokyo and Chicago will offer the same feel of a skyscraper, business-oriented setting. So on that level, the 2 lead candidates would be on an equal footing. Finally, LA's got the $223 million from 1984 (of which the IOC shared very little); what else do they need another round of glory and another $300 mil in the bank for? That's the rub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heart-wrenching though it is to disappoint you - I'd just rather not have two Anglophone nations following on from each other. :(

Anyway, I thought you only used to get up so early for Royal weddings and funerals.

Precisely my point! The only time I ever get out of bed in the middle of the night to watch some extraveganza the British are involved!

But alas - I see that we have lost you. :(

Baron - all points well taken. I will rest my case - for the time being at least!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just rather not have two Anglophone nations following on from each other. :(

If Los Angeles does get 2016,then not only will it become one of only 2 cities to host the Olympic Games 3 times but it will mark only the third time in Olympic history that two Anglophone nations will have hosted one after the other,the previous 2 occasions being:

St.Louis 1904 followed by London 1908.

Atlanta 1996 followed by Sydney 2000.

A Los Angeles win would thus prove doubly attractive for the Olympic record books,but it seems to me that the domestic contest is shaping up more and more as Chicago's to lose! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The back-to-back anglophone scenario could happen with either Chicago or Los Angeles.

Yes I know,but for Los Angeles it would be a double record!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Los Angeles win would thus prove doubly attractive for the Olympic record books,but it seems to me that the domestic contest is shaping up more and more as Chicago's to lose! B)

I must be in the minority when it comes to this board in thinking Chicago has it all but wrapped up. The USOC has been absolutely humuliated by Atlanta in 96 and its poorly planned and operated games, Salt Lake's bribery scandal in 02, New York's embarrasing collapse after the USOC selection before the IOC vote for 2012, and now San Francisco's withdrawal for 2016 after being selected as one of the finalists. I think a lot of people here were impressed by the computer models and plans for these games at the time, but they were dead wrong. I am not saying that Chicago is necessarily in that group as I think its plan is more solid than these others, but there are still risks especially in construction costs. Beijing and London are way over budget and in the US an Olympic building plan that is way over budget won't be covered by the government, so that is a huge risk (where those extra hundreds of millions of dollars will come from is unclear).

Chicago presents an exciting compact games, and the popular wisdom is that LA's games are spread out and difficult to access. However, the majority of big events, the media village and press center in LA are either in the Downtown region or to lesser extent in Downtown Long Beach, which both offer downtown amenities hotels, restaurants, nightlife and high-rises (that seems to be important to some people for what reason I have no idea). These two areas are connected by a metro rail line as are venues representing 94% of the tickets sold - I am not even sure if Chicago is that high. This is a lot different from 84, when no metro-rail existed in LA and Downtown LA (and Long Beach) lacked its recent resurgance.

The UCLA athletes village is a problem in that it is away from the two centers. It really isn't a center for the games in that only a volleyball prelim. will be played in this part of town. The athletes would be bused to their events regardless of where they stay I would think, so I don't think this represents much of a traffic issue. In Chicago, how are they going to get from the athletes village to the track stadium - same way? Also, the UCLA campus has a pretty large track stadium and some athletic fields and gyms for practice for use when the venues are being used for actual events.

Finally, it seems like LA's venues are generally both larger and in some cases newer. For example for soccer finals, Soldier Field will only be able to seat about 2/3's the amount of people that the Rose Bowl would (soccer will sell out easily). The Chicago olympic stadium is also slightly smaller and some of the major events at Chicago's Convention Center won't be able to hold the same amount as the arenas in LA would. It is somewhat of a minor point, but thousands more people would be shut out of the experience.

Overall, I am not trying to trash the Chicago bid, but just make a couple of points that I think it is a lot closer than some may believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's not forget that it's not mainly a Chicago vs. L.A. thing here (like it seems that you're painting it as such) but also a matter as to which U.S. city would create a greater challenge to the international competition. Something that the USOC needs to consider as well, since the IOC likes new & innovative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's not forget that it's not mainly a Chicago vs. L.A. thing here (like it seems that you're painting it as such) but also a matter as to which U.S. city would create a greater challenge to the international competition. Something that the USOC needs to consider as well, since the IOC likes new & innovative.

And there lays the question of the hour.

What exactly DOES the IOC want?

They claim that they want to go to new frontiers. That they don't want cities/countries to go broke to host the games. That they want a legacy. And who do they choose?

For 2012 - London - Two time host, who has torn down all their previous legacies, who is way over budget and whose plans all lay in paper.

(This is NOT a slam against London - I was rooting for you! :) And still am)

They could have gone to Madrid or New York, who has never hosted the games before, or Moscow, who would have produced a very efficient games with little cost. Instead, they choose a country that has hosted two SOG's with a building budget that rivals Montreal '76's and whose plans all lay in paper.

(AGAIN - I am not slamming London! I will come to your Olympics!) :D

Los Angeles would provide a very efficient and profitable games for 2016. Chicago a new and exciting Barcelona'isque games.

So what does the IOC want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the IOC really gives a hoots a$s about costs. They may say they do, but deep down I don't think so. And if they wanted a more efficient Games for 2012, Paris (being the Euro comparable L.A. *bid wise*, with having everything in place) would've been a better option than Moscow. And the repeat host thing; all the countries officially in the running for the 2012 Games had already hosted before. So not much the IOC was able to do with that. You go with what you got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly DOES the IOC want?

They claim that they want to go to new frontiers. That they don't want cities/countries to go broke to host the games. That they want a legacy. And who do they choose?

For 2012 - London - Two time host, who has torn down all their previous legacies, who is way over budget and whose plans all lay in paper.

It seems clear to me that they want the city that promises to leave the most lasting legacy and in the 2012 race there was no question that London was the city that offered the most impressive potential legacy,ie. the entire regeneration of the eastern half of the city (which incidentally,is almost certainly what is causing all the current talk of cost overruns and not the actual cost of putting on the Games as the IOC understood perfectly well from their recent visit!).You cannot compare the 'legacies' of the 2 previous London Games which were somewhat makeshift affairs as London was asked to step in on both occasions at the last moment by the IOC!

(This is NOT a slam against London - I was rooting for you! :) And still am)

I'm relieved to hear it!!

They could have gone to Madrid or New York, who has never hosted the games before, or Moscow, who would have produced a very efficient games with little cost. Instead, they choose a country that has hosted two SOG's with a building budget that rivals Montreal '76's and whose plans all lay in paper.

London is not Montreal! Whatever the final budget will be (and there is already evidence that it will be a lot less than some of our more hysterical newspapers have been predicting),London is one of the wealthiest cities in the world.There is no way it will go broke like Montreal did!

(AGAIN - I am not slamming London! I will come to your Olympics!) :D

AGAIN - I'm relieved to hear it!!

So what does the IOC want?

As I said,I think they will opt for the city that promises the most impressive legacy.And that is where I think potential first-time host Chicago will have an automatic advantage over recent 2-time host Los Angeles!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the repeat host thing; all the countries officially in the running for the 2012 Games had already hosted before. So not much the IOC was able to do with that. You go with what you got.

Neither Madrid nor New York had hosted before!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key word there was COUNTRIES, not city. ALL the *countries* involved in the 2012 race had previously hosted.

Whoops,too quick to reply there I guess.Sorry! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems clear to me that they want the city that promises to leave the most lasting legacy and in the 2012 race there was no question that London was the city that offered the most impressive potential legacy,ie. the entire regeneration of the eastern half of the city (which incidentally,is almost certainly what is causing all the current talk of cost overruns and not the actual cost of putting on the Games as the IOC understood perfectly well from their recent visit!).You cannot compare the 'legacies' of the 2 previous London Games which were somewhat makeshift affairs as London was asked to step in on both occasions at the last moment by the IOC!

I'm relieved to hear it!!

London is not Montreal! Whatever the final budget will be (and there is already evidence that it will be a lot less than some of our more hysterical newspapers have been predicting),London is one of the wealthiest cities in the world.There is no way it will go broke like Montreal did!

AGAIN - I'm relieved to hear it!!

As I said,I think they will opt for the city that promises the most impressive legacy.And that is where I think potential first-time host Chicago will have an automatic advantage over recent 2-time host Los Angeles!!

Always refreshing to read a well thought out posting. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point that will be factored in, is that Los Angelinos do not appear as enthusiastic as it's Midwestern rival.

A myth that only Chicago and other Midwestern media have created.

I will also add, there are no groups in LA opposed to an Olympic bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mayor at this point, (aside from your governor), seems to be the only one on the bang wagon, though. When asked the question, all his response was; "I'm excited, 'I'm' enthusiastic". And just because there are no opposing groups in the city, does not neccesarily translate into enthusiam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mayor at this point, (aside from your governor), seems to be the only one on the bang wagon, though. When asked the question, all his response was; "I'm excited, 'I'm' enthusiastic".

Again, something the Chicago media has been trying to perpetuate. Polls have shown high support, with percentage points in the 90s. And from reading various news sources, during the USOC visit to LA, it was the Chicago press that kept asking about LA's enthusiasm and traffic. I even heard a comment from a Chicago reporter, saying something like "note that the Chicago Tribune has written dozens of stories on our Olympic bid, but in the same period, the LA Times has only written X amount of stories about their bid." And somehow that's supposed to translate into low enthusiasm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...