# 2024 Summer Olympics | Games of the XXXIII Olympiad - Candidate Cities



## swifty78 (Nov 10, 2002)

Paris please or just award both 2024 and 2028 in one go!


----------



## Targaryen (Jul 4, 2016)

I want Paris 2024, PLEASE bring the games back to Europe.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

swifty78 said:


> Paris please or just award both 2024 and 2028 in one go!


This makes sense, and according to few interviews Thomas Bach gave recently, not impossible at all, especially now after Budapest is out!


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ given how shaky is the ground under the Olympic movement right now, it would be irresponsable from the IOC not to seize the chance and give the next two summer Games to the two best bids there can possibly be for the few decades from now on, in one go. JUST DO IT THOMAS!


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

About the possibility of the IOC selecting the 2024 and 2028 Olympic Games hosts at the same time: If this were to become reality, the 2028 Summer Olympics can be awarded to the city that needs more time to develop and Games-related infrastructure they may have planned. In the case of 2028, that would give either Los Angeles or Paris eleven years to prepare for that year's Olympics, compared to the usual seven. Not sure which of Paris or LA need more time to develop their Olympics-related infrastructure.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Jim856796 said:


> About the possibility of the IOC selecting the 2024 and 2028 Olympic Games hosts at the same time: If this were to become reality, the 2028 Summer Olympics can be awarded to the city that needs more time to develop and Games-related infrastructure they may have planned. In the case of 2028, that would give either Los Angeles or Paris eleven years to prepare for that year's Olympics, compared to the usual seven. Not sure which of Paris or LA need more time to develop their Olympics-related infrastructure.


I do not think this will play major role in the decission. If they go for both then it rather looks like Paris first. There are several european cities (Madrid, any chosen german city end even Istanbul that is considered partly-european) that openly consider bidding for one of following games, and if Paris gets '28 that would significantly reduce their chances for '32. And in Olympic movement, Europe still plays the biggest role so IOC will have to get the back of european members before going for such decission!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Whilst Paris has more to build there's nothing in their build programme that should cause any issues within a 7 year timescale.

However...

Paris say they can't keep hold of the land for the OV for 2028. Whether that would still apply if they were certain of hosting 2028 rather than having to gamble on another bid I don't know, but that's quite a big issue.

It'd be great for LA if they could include their subway extension with absolute certainty. I'm sure that's something they'd love to include and the IOC would like to see too. There's been exploratory talk of a big push to get it ready for 2024 but it sounds like it'd be a real rush and could cause organisers headaches when planning routes for athletes and spectators if there's uncertainty over completion. As far as I'm aware, the 2024 bid committee are treating this project as a bonus if it comes off in time for the Olympics. But give LA the 2028 edition and they can include it as a central part of their plans instead.

For these reasons I'd go with Paris 2024 followed by LA 2028.

_(a bonus of course is there's less opportunity for Trump to get involved in either the build up or the actual Games. He can keep his (tiny) hands away!)_


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

RobH said:


> Whilst Paris has more to build there's nothing in their build programme that should cause any issues within a 7 year timescale.
> 
> However...
> 
> Paris say they can't keep hold of the land for the OV for 2028. Whether that would still apply if they were certain of hosting 2028 rather than having to gamble on another bid I don't know, but that's quite a big issue.


Doesn't Paris still needs to negotiate the purchase of the OV site? Per bid book........
http://www.paris2024.org/medias/bidbook/bb3_en_inter_02_02_2017_bd.pdf


_SOLIDEO will take lead in securing the land through one or
more of the following options embedded in French law:
Temporary acquisition of land and existing structures
through an agreement covering rental fees, rights of
use and restoration requirements after the Games
Negotiations leading to a sale of the land to public
authorities, particularly where already foreseen in the
long-term urban development plans of cities or region
Expropriation in the public interest with fair value for
loss of ownership.
Land acquisition has already begun, particularly by the local
authority (Plaine Commune) for land parcels of the Olympic
and Paralympic Village. After the Host City election,
SOLIDEO will take the lead on the land acquisition process,
taking a maximum of* two years to conclude contractual
agreements*._

Its feasible.....right?


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

parcdesprinces said:


> The Sun is not yours, dear Californians! How dare you!! It's ours too!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my! A Frenchman serenading in Español. :cheers:


----------



## Mr_Illusive (Nov 5, 2014)

LA all day every day! No other city can do it like LA can. By far the best events city on the planet.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

pesto said:


> You think the 2028 games should be before the 2024 games?


No, I said _"Paris and LA, are left"_ then I said _"I truly hope we both get games, 2024 and 2028, not in that order"_.....meaning, not Paris 2024 and LA 2028.

I only said "Paris" first, for courtesy, you never put yourself first in reference, at least that's how I was raised. 

:dunno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

A couple of comments.

1. Security issues are a larger concern than some recognize. Sebastien Petrasanta (who prepared the parliamentary security analysis) has repeatedly said that France is at the beginning of solving their security issues, larger attacks will follow and it will be a generation until France re-obtains stability from terrorist attacks. 

As the "warm-up" attacks at Balaclan showed the people, organizations, logistics for weapons and explosives, and comm systems are already in place and working very well. Even worse, this ability makes it difficult to gather sufficient intelligence to determine which of the many “leaked” plans is the real one since multiple leaks might be real. 

Petrasanta (and others) noted that this is something that masses of troops and “states of emergency” do not help. What is needed is very long-term infiltration and winning back the “hearts and minds” of the Islamic community. This is no small task when there may be 5k dedicated suicide bombers in place.

2. Besides security, the IOC also has to think about the potential for massive cost over-runs and public protests over unneeded public spending in the light of unmet human needs.

Los Angeles (and the US generally) has fewer security problems and no possibility of public cost-overruns (financing is private). While nowhere is perfect, the IOC might well conclude that LA is the less risky choice. 

3. By comparison, finishing a subway line is of small importance. It’s nice but I would guess the IOC has not talked about it once, whereas revenues, security, financing and popular support are talked about every day. Remember: the PR talks about mass transit; but the IOC members use limousines.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

RobH said:


> Whilst Paris has more to build there's nothing in their build programme that should cause any issues within a 7 year timescale.
> 
> However...
> 
> ...


Just because of the subway extension to Westwood? That is the key issue for you? And not the fact that LA is the most prepared city in the world to host the games ...now, anytime. 

The purple line extensión is set to open between 2024-2027, if anything, winning the 2024 bid will absolutely rush this project to be ready for 2024.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> 1. Security issues are a larger concern than some recognize. Sebastien Petrasanta (who prepared the parliamentary security analysis) has repeatedly said that France is at the beginning of solving their security issues, larger attacks will follow and it will be a generation until France re-obtains stability from terrorist attacks.


Such issues are exacerbated by the social and political dynamics in countries like France, but the US too. 

For example, enlisted people in the US military were fully aware of the anti-American, pro-Islamic sentiments of one of their fellow members - an Army psychiatrist, no less - but apparently did little or said nothing about him until the moment he pulled out a rifle and started shooting up Fort Hood in Texas in 2009. 

Is the atmosphere of political correctness less extreme in France than it is in the US?

Knowing a society where its current president, although very unpopular, has an overall demeanor that remains commonplace of "humanitarianism is beautiful, no matter what," I'd be surprised if it were.

However, I think the 90-plus-year wait that Paris has had to go through in getting another Olympic games, more than anything else by far, will be the crucial and deciding factor. 

France's capital could be blown up by terrorists with radioactive devices and I have a hunch a majority of IOC members will still have an attitude of "we'll just have to make sure the athletes wear lots of protective garb."


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Such issues are exacerbated by the social and political dynamics in countries like France, but the US too.
> 
> For example, enlisted people in the US military were fully aware of the anti-American, pro-Islamic sentiments of one of their fellow members - an Army psychiatrist, no less - but apparently did little or said nothing about him until the moment he pulled out a rifle and started shooting up Fort Hood in Texas in 2009.
> 
> ...



As you say, there is no accounting for wildcards; but the IOC has to make relative judgments and I see no real comparison here.

The biggest issue is not the long wait; it's whether the continuing humiliation of Paris being denied one more time will lose the French market. This may result in the IOC selecting Paris but with a private talk with LA about being ready to step in for 2024 if by, say, 2020 if Paris is having difficulties.

The local country committees may be more receivers and disseminators of decisions to the local community than actually involved in the decision. This is typical of large organizations where financial, media, PR and managerial skills are centralized. It will be interesting to see what changes are coming.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> The biggest issue is not the long wait; it's whether the continuing humiliation of Paris being denied one more time will lose the French market. This may result in the IOC selecting Paris but with a private talk with LA about being ready to step in for 2024 if by, say, 2020 if Paris is having difficulties.


People are fairly emotional when it comes to voting for matters like this, and I imagine most members of the IOC are no different. 

They'll be strongly affected by Paris not having hosted a games since 1924, while the US had a games as recently as 1996, Los Angeles itself having one as recently as 1984. I don't see how that big elephant standing in the corner of the room won't be noticed by IOC members.

The only thing that may offset that is if the IOC considers Paris across the channel from London as geographically - if not governmentally - a part of the same entity (the EU---even with Brexit?), just as Atlanta is geographically (but also governmentally) connected to Los Angeles on the west coast of the US. If so, then 2012 is even more recent than 1996 or 1984. 

As for Rio, while that may be considered a part of the Americas, it's way, way south and to the east of the US, including Atlanta, even more so Los Angeles.

If I had to wager a bet, I'd still say a majority of IOC members will favor Paris for 2024. So the big question is if they'll also modify the rules to select Los Angeles for 2028. 

If they don't - and given all the problems they're witnessing with Tokyo 2020 (and after Rio 2016, I thought Japan would be smooth, easy sailing), much less the dropping out of Rome and Budapest, etc - it will be a slap in the face if both remaining bidders for 2024 aren't accommodated - somehow, someway - at the meeting in September.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> The biggest issue is not the long wait; it's whether the continuing humiliation of Paris being denied one more time will lose the French market. This may result in the IOC selecting Paris but with a private talk with LA about being ready to step in for 2024 if by, say, 2020 if Paris is having difficulties.


Lolwut. Paris isn't some third world backwater. No other host has needed a back up and Paris certainly won't need one. Either the IOC will award 2024 or it'll change the rules to award 2024 and 2028. They're not going to have secretive talks with LA about being a back up to a very solid Paris bid. That suggestion patronises both Paris and LA.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

slipperydog said:


> WEBCAM ALERT
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Opening Ceremony - LA Stadium at Hollywood Park (if chosen of course).


----------



## bairrosfelipe (Jun 21, 2015)

Paris. 

After the Atlanta games the States should never host an olympic again.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

redspork02 said:


> Opening Ceremony - LA Stadium at Hollywood Park (if chosen of course).


An L.A. Stadium webcam, alright!! :cheers:

Like redspork said, this is the stadium that would host the opening ceremonies, as well as archery outside. I also think it'll host football, but that hasn't been put in yet.
Speaking of football, here is another webcam, for the LAFC stadium currently under construction:
https://lafc.com/live-lafc-stadium-cam/

And just to give a perspective as to the size of the new L.A. stadium development, here is a screen grab of LAFC's stadium cam:








^^ Notice the construction vehicles.

And here is a screen grab from the L.A. Stadium webcam, with the Forum in the distance. Notice the construction vehicle on the left side of the pit :cheers::


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> We have two very, very solid bids in cities capable of making a lot of money for the movement and for the sports federations, each in a region which needs bolstering, and each saying they may not come back again (though I believe that more in Paris' case since it'll be their 4th recent attempt, and LA always seems ready to bid and will have pretty much an open goal for 2028).
> 
> In a sense, it doesn't matter what order the double award happens, but if Paris is correct in saying the logistics of their bid will only work for 2024 with the placement of the village that could have some bearing. As far as I'm aware there's nothing in LA's bid which precludes them from hosting the later edition in such a way.
> 
> ...


Ok, so you advise Paris 2024 and LA 2028? Or just hold another open bid for 2028? 

And one of the board members asks you "How does that fit in with the higher risk of Paris, especially, as Mr. Bach has noted, in this time of political attacks on supporters of the games and the blame we are receiving for encouraging cities to over-spend to the detriment of their own citizens? In case of a terrorist attack, wouldn't we open ourselves up to deserved criticism unless we have iron-clad evidence that Paris is our safest choice both for physical security and for spending to address local human needs? I worry that our brand might be permanently harmed."


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Kenni said:


> All I said was, that *you* serenaded with a song sung in Spanish. And I cheered *you* for it :cheers:


Oups... My bad then...


Anyway, I'm not *Dalida* unfortunately... I wish I was...But I'm not 









*DISCO* Forever! 











:runaway:


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

LOL There's some miscommunication, I didn't think you were her. Let's move on to the topic.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

The Oscars were in Hollywood L.A. tonight!

And I know it doesn't have anything to do with the Olympics, the only reason I'm bringing it up is... well, whatever city you're rooting for, for all of our sakes let's hope Warren Beatty/Faye Dunaway or for that matter Steve Harvey doesn't get put in charge of announcing the winner :lol::lol: (_tbf sounds like Beatty was given the wrong envelope_)


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> The Oscars were in Hollywood L.A. tonight!
> 
> And I know it doesn't have anything to do with the Olympics


:|


parcdesprinces said:


> Isabelle Hupp' for the win (©Oscars)!!
> 
> Nothing to do.. but still :
> 
> ...


:shifty:

BONUS: Map & list of countries by number of Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

pesto said:


> Ok, so you advise Paris 2024 and LA 2028? Or just hold another open bid for 2028?
> 
> And one of the board members asks you "How does that fit in with the higher risk of Paris, especially, as Mr. Bach has noted, in this time of political attacks on supporters of the games and the blame we are receiving for encouraging cities to over-spend to the detriment of their own citizens? In case of a terrorist attack, wouldn't we open ourselves up to deserved criticism unless we have iron-clad evidence that Paris is our safest choice both for physical security and for spending to address local human needs? I worry that our brand might be permanently harmed."


This isn't something Rob will address. He sincerely believes that the Paris bid is on par technically with the LA bid. The flaws of Paris' bid I do not believe he cares to discuss as much as he can discuss the flaws in the LA bid. For example, the Purple Line necessitates LA being awarded 2028 while the Athletes Village risk is not discussed but necessary that Paris be awarded 2024. Most people would catch that, Rob will just smooth it over.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> This isn't something Rob will address. He sincerely believes that the Paris bid is on par technically with the LA bid. The flaws of Paris' bid I do not believe he cares to discuss as much as he can discuss the flaws in the LA bid. For example, the Purple Line necessitates LA being awarded 2028 while the Athletes Village risk is not discussed but necessary that Paris be awarded 2024. Most people would catch that, Rob will just smooth it over.


LOL. Don't worry; I have low expectations for the likelihood of reasoned response.

But by focusing the situation it will make at least some people remember that these are real people who will have to explain their connection to the pictures of masked terrorists firing into the faces and genitals of helpless captives in an Olympic arena or outdoor festivity. 

If I'm an IOC member I want to have something to say other than "we figured Paris was about as safe as anywhere" in spite of the daily news, published warnings, travel alerts, open admission of the French government, etc.

And really, no one who has any interest in working in sports management ever again is going to say "the terrorists, police violence, housing riots, attacks on Asians, call for a referendum and potential massive over-runs for security don't bother me; but, oh boy, that fully-funded LA subway keeps me up at night".


----------



## gabriel campos (Jul 13, 2010)

aquamaroon said:


> The Oscars were in Hollywood L.A. tonight!
> 
> And I know it doesn't have anything to do with the Olympics, the only reason I'm bringing it up is... well, whatever city you're rooting for, for all of our sakes let's hope Warren Beatty/Faye Dunaway or for that matter Steve Harvey doesn't get put in charge of announcing the winner :lol::lol: (_tbf sounds like Beatty was given the wrong envelope_)


Rio's cauldron


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

RuFFy said:


> This isn't something Rob will address. He sincerely believes that the Paris bid is on par technically with the LA bid. The flaws of Paris' bid I do not believe he cares to discuss as much as he can discuss the flaws in the LA bid. For example, the Purple Line necessitates LA being awarded 2028 while the Athletes Village risk is not discussed but necessary that Paris be awarded 2024. Most people would catch that, Rob will just smooth it over.


1. I didn't say the Purple line "necessitates" LA getting 2028, but nevermind. What I said, purely in response to a question about infrastructure, was that being certain that that transport link is ready would be a good thing for LA and would make their bid better than it already is. From the reading I've done 2024 sounds like a rush for this rail project whilst 2028 won't be. If 2024 is Paris' only option because of their village, as they claim, the _bonus_ of awarding 2028 to LA would be that that transport link could be included in LA's plans with certainty. Can you tell me what you disagree with in this analysis?

2. With regard to the terrorism issue, of course it's a big thing for Paris and for the IOC to consider. But Paris like LA hosts international events year round. Euro 2016, Roland Garros, Six Nations matches with huge crowds, concerts etc. Much like LA, in fact. An Olympics will be a terrorism target wherever it is, see Atlanta 96. Paris obviously has bigger issues than a lot of cities but to the extent that pesto is arguing whereby Paris becomes a hard sell? Well, that's where I disagree.

3. RuFF, rather than hiding behind pesto and discussing me like a schoolgirl, why don't *YOU* respond to the post I wrote in response to yours? It's getting rather boring having people who are _nothing but LA cheerleaders_ like you telling people in this thread how to analyse this race. I suppose I should at least be grateful that on this forum you have had the good grace not to tell me I have Paris' dick in my mouth i.e. the standard RuFF "analysis" on Gamesbids' forums to people not universally loving what LA24 is doing. :nuts:

---

My opinion hasn't changed on this race, and now there's no outlying bids or dark horses it's only hardened. The two big guns in this race (i.e. the cities now left standing) are offering the IOC two of the most solid and risk-free bids in recent Olympic history. LA's bid is less risky than Paris' but that doesn't make Paris' bid risky. Both have very little to build compared with any other recent Games, both are guaranteed to match or surpass the record revenues London brought in for the IOC and IFs, and both are extremely capable, world-renowned, marketable cities with a list of past successful events as long as your arm. If the IOC want to pick Paris over LA, they will be taking on more risk - true - but not a reckless amount, not even close. It's their choice, and they'll do what they think is right for them, and that's not necessarily what's least risky. That said, at the moment, I'd advocate a double award, in whichever order (though LA28 does put Trump out of the picture). Get both these cities tied down.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

*City of Los Angeles breaks ground on new $1.6 billion LAX terminal*



> FEBRUARY 27, 2017
> LOS ANGELES — Mayor Eric Garcetti broke ground today on a new, $1.6 billion terminal at LAX that will make traveling through the airport easier, and help bring even more visitors to L.A. from around the world.
> 
> *The 750,000-square-foot Midfield Satellite Concourse will improve LAX by adding 12 new gates, a new baggage system, and additional dining and shopping amenities for travelers. *The Mayor joined Councilmembers Mike Bonin, Bob Blumenfield and Joe Buscaino along with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) leaders to unveil plans for the terminal.
> ...


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

I was coming over to put that story. LAX expansion continues, the Tom Bradley International Terminal which was built for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, was expanded a couple of years ago to the wave roof gates we see today, and this is phase 2. 12 more gate as an "island terminal".

Tho, I'm not sold on the design, I like the original one with the aerial bridge. 

Mayor Eric Garcetti

_Just broke ground on a new $1.6 billion LAX terminal adding 750,000 square-feet and 12 more gates to our airport. Construction is expected to create 6,000 new jobs and produce more than $300 million in direct wages._


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

And I'll chime in with the video!






This is an extension of the Tom Bradley International terminal, so if LA were to get the games this is the terminal that the majority of international travelers will pass through on their way into LA


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

RobH said:


> My opinion hasn't changed on this race, and now there's no outlying bids or dark horses it's only hardened. The two big guns in this race (i.e. the cities now left standing) are offering the IOC two of the most solid and risk-free bids in recent Olympic history. LA's bid is less risky than Paris' but that doesn't make Paris' bid risky. Both have very little to build compared with any other recent Games, both are guaranteed to match or surpass the record revenues London brought in for the IOC and IFs, and both are extremely capable, world-renowned, marketable cities with a list of past successful events as long as your arm. If the IOC want to pick Paris over LA, they will be taking on more risk - true - but not a reckless amount, not even close. It's their choice, and they'll do what they think is right for them, and that's not necessarily what's least risky. That said, at the moment, I'd advocate a double award, in whichever order (though LA28 does put Trump out of the picture). Get both these cities tied down.


I'm not a big conspiracy theorist (at least when it comes to the Olympics :lol but I can't help but think the USOC plan was always to let Paris get 2024 and really shoot for 2028. That's why Boston was initially picked over a very solid L.A. bid, it was intended to be a "sacrificial lamb" to Paris. That's not to say that the USOC wouldn't have tried to win: if Boston got 2024 then fantastic! But if they lost to Paris it would've been an expected setback and they could come back with LA in 2028.
Of course Boston fell through due to NIMBY opposition, and LA was pushed up to 2024. And now we'll see what happens when these two, who would probably be favorites in a different race, go up against each other.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

One last video while we're on LAX, here is a video of the future People mover system that will connect LAX to the LA Metro (also talks a bit about the '84 games)






I believe the plan is to have this finished by 2021 or at the latest 2024, so it'll be ready for the Olympics regardless.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> The Oscars were in Hollywood L.A. tonight!
> o with the Olympics, the only reason I'm bringing it up is... well, whatever city you're rooting for, for all of our sakes let's hope Warren Beatty/Faye Dunaway or for that matter Steve Harvey doesn't get put in charge of announcing the winner :lol::lol: (_tbf sounds like Beatty was given the wrong envelope_)


The last few minutes were off, sort of like bad Olympics ceremonies. 

Whoops.

In a way, Los Angeles - at least symbolically - lost the big win in various ways unexpectedly or unwittingly last night (what an embarrassment!---to some movie producers, award presenters, the academy, a few accountants), which I suspect points to the outcome of the IOC's vote in September. 

However, Paris 2024 is the sentimental favorite, and the quasi-loser last night (although it really wasn't since it picked up some wins) was also the sentimental favorite.

I'd be surprised if most of the 90 voters in the IOC don't feel that it's almost mandatory that Paris, after waiting more than 90 years, gets the nod for the games following Tokyo 2020. 

I at first believed that if Paris were in the UK it would have no chance of winning, but that ignores what happened in 1989 when Atlanta (in the US) got the bid just 5 years following Los Angeles (also in the US). So there's nothing unprecedented about Europe getting another Olympics in 2024 after the games in 2012.

Just think how different the tone of this would be - in RETROSPECT - if at least the opening ceremony had been good (no silly tricycles, etc) and attendance turned out fairly well:








There was also controversy about the rather elaborate, expensive Olympic village in Rio 2016 not being ready for guests. 

That's another reason why if Los Angeles 2024 had even dared to stick with its original proposal of building a costly village on the banks of the LA River, I'd hope the city's bid would be cancelled. 

It's all yours, whichever city wants to have a supposed Olympic "legacy."


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> One last video while we're on LAX, here is a video of the future People mover system that will connect LAX to the LA Metro (also talks a bit about the '84 games)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A nice plus to show-off. But as is, LAX has more people starting and ending their trips than any airport in the world so the Olympics is a drop in the bucket.

And on a related subject, given the low-cost and availability of Uber, local mass transit is nice but not always the quickest way to get around. 

And given the great attractions from San Diego to Laguna to Newport to Disneyland, Magic Mountain, Redondo, Venice, Malibu and Santa Barbara, you would be well advised renting a car and seeing the sun, surf and mountain trails up close. It's always a bit of a shock when you pass someone and suddenly realize it was Cher or Leonardo DiCaprio or a world famous athlete rehabbing his knee.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Very good, you get to the right place (choose both) without mentioning riots, violence against tourists, police hate crimes, a referendum, an upcoming election, terrorism or French government comments that getting security stable in Paris will take a generation. So your advice to the IOC is that they should choose Paris because it is low-risk as to venues, cost-overruns, terrorism, general security, crimes directed against Asian tourists, lack of public support, etc.?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

delete: sorry, pressed wrong button


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Okay, so if the 2016 Olympic ceremonies couldn't have been good, there was one other way the games could have been salvaged and looked okay in the process. Unless even that second option didn't pull through too: 















What's the point, IOC? After 2016, and in light of even Tokyo 2020 showing signs of being stressed out and wobbling, can you people at the Olympics afford to be so complacent?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Pre-empting pesto 

*French police sniper shoots two in error at Hollande speech*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur...ng&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> Here is the crux of Paris' argument:
> 
> Basically this is a shot across L.A.'s bow. Paris' BIG advantage I think is the compactness of their bid; almost everything is within 10km of the OV. And central Paris has excellent metro connections for fans. This is their way to add extra leverage to this advantage. It's a way to differentiate Paris from car-centric L.A. (to be fair to L.A., nearly every venue will be accessible from the Olympic family hotels via the LA Metro/shuttle buses.)


I was looking at the 100-plus year history of the IOC voting for cities for the Olympics and what stood out to me is the many times Detroit - yes, Detroit - was in competition for a games.

Sorry, Detroit:

:lol:

hno:

Although giving a games to Detroit would be the next best thing to the IOC awarding a games to a country like South Africa or Liberia. Or maybe some city in the Middle East. Better yet, a games to be held in the middle of summer in that part of the world.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

Milan Mayor Giuseppe Sala and Lombardy Governor Roberto Maroni have renovated the idea to bid for the 2028 Olympics as Budapest withdraw from the Games, leaving Paris and Los Angeles as the only bidders for the 2024 Olympics. Italy's financial capital would like to organize the 2028 Games with public and private investments. Local officials said that they support California's largest city and that institutions are ready to start to draw up a plan in late 2017 if LA gets the 2024 Summer Games.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

*Trump's Policies Could Derail Los Angeles' Olympic Bid*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...-derail-los-angeles-olympic-bid/#432446f739aa


by Andrew Bender, Contributor

OPINION PEACE by A FORBES MAG. Contributor

President Donald Trump and his rhetoric, policies and executive orders have endangered the bid by Los Angeles to host the 2024 Olympic Games, according to experts.

"There's absolutely no question that President Trump is a huge liability for L.A., big time. I mean big time," says Andrei S. Markovits, Professor of European Politics at University of Michigan, who has also written widely on sports and sports culture in Europe and United States.









_An Olympic themed monument stands beside the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, home base of the 1932 and 1984 games. L.A. is America's candidate city to host the games in 2024. (Photo: MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)_

"The election of Donald Trump and his subsequent pronouncements on immigration have not helped L.A.'s bid," says Zev Yaroslavsky, Director of the L.A. Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and a former Los Angeles City Councilman and County Supervisor. "Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in La La Land."

The race is now down to two candidate cities, L.A. and Paris. Budapest dropped out of the running last week, and a fourth city, Rome, dropped its bid last year. The International Olympic Committee will decide between Paris and L.A. this September.

L.A. already had one hand tied behind its back, Markovits says. He says the I.O.C. is "known for its leaning anti-Americanism and heavy domination of Europeans."

The I.O.C. had "already been disenchanted with George W. Bush," he says, but "I've never seen anything like the animosity toward Trump. Anti-Americanism in Europe has gone into overdrive."

"I think L.A. is cooked," he says.

"I don't think it's fair to say L.A.'s bid is dead in the water," Yaroslavsky counters. "I think it is fair to say the bid has been dealt a blow not of its own making."

"If circumstances had been different," Markovits says, "I'm really thinking that L.A. would have had an excellent chance." He calls L.A.'s bid "a superb proposal."

"Our bid is not a political bid, it's a private bid," L.A. 2024 Bid Committee Chairman Casey Wasserman told L.A. radio station KPCC on Monday. "Unlike other bids and other countries, we're not a government agency, we're not reliant on the whims of the federal government or city or state government."

Yaroslavsky notes that a city ordinance prohibits taxpayer money from being spent on the games.

"I would hope that the I.O.C. will differentiate between the White House and Los Angeles," which Yaroslavsky calls "the most diverse city in the world" and "a city of immigrants, with more languages spoken than are spoken at the United Nations."

"An L.A. Olympics can be an antidote to Trumpism and a counterforce to what's coming out of Washington," he says, "to showcase brotherly and sisterly competition, in the home country of someone who's spewing xenophobic rhetoric. For the Olympic movement to turn its back on L.A. would be a missed opportunity."

The plot thickens when you consider the multiple factors affecting the decision.

One big wild card is French politics, specifically whether far right candidate Marine Le Pen wins the Presidential election in May.









_L.A.'s rival for the 2024 Olympic bid, Paris, hosted the Olympics in 1900 and 1924. (Photo: AP Photo/Francois Mori)_

"Marine Le Pen is advocating policies in her campaign that, to put it gently, raise eyebrows," Yaroslavsky says, including pronouncements about immigrants and Islam that are similar to President Trump's.

"If I were the L.A. Olympic Committee," Markovits says, "I would be rooting for Marine Le Pen."

Then there are swirling rumors that the I.O.C. might bypass its usual process of awarding the Olympics every four years and instead award both 2024 and 2028 this September, to L.A. and Paris four years apart (though not necessarily in that order).

Yaroslavsky says this is all speculative, but "This speculation has not been categorically rejected by the I.O.C. or the two bid cities."

Case in point: I.O.C. President Thomas Bach told the Associated Press last month that "I like it that people are talking in this way about the Olympic candidature procedure."

Why would the I.O.C. consider this? Simply put, supply and demand. "Every four years, for each Olympic bid, there has been a diminishing number of cities bidding," he says; two now and two for the 2022 winter games (awarded to Beijing, hardly a winter resort city). With two qualified host cities in the bag, the I.O.C. could take a break from the four year cycle, allowing both itself and potential host cities time to retool.

The main reason so few cities step up: cost. Many Olympics have turned into massive boondoggles, as cities have built facilities for the games which languish afterwards, like empty Olympic villages and ghost town stadiums.

By contrast, Markovits calls L.A.'s bid "cost-effective" largely because most of the facilities needed already exist and are well used outside of the Olympics. In addition to the 1984 games, L.A. first hosted the Olympics in 1932. 2024 would be the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted the Olympics (the first time was in 1900).

President Trump, for his part, has said that he supports L.A.'s Olympic bid and has spoken with the I.O.C. "They wanted to have an endorsement from me, and I gave it to them very loud and clear," he told Westwood One Radio (scroll to 5:26). "I would love to see the Olympics go to Los Angeles. I think that it’ll be terrific."

The I.O.C. is scheduled to meet in Lima, Peru on September 13 to make its decision.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

IThomas said:


> Milan Mayor Giuseppe Sala and Lombardy Governor Roberto Maroni have renovated the idea to bid for the 2028 Olympics as Budapest withdraw from the Games, leaving Paris and Los Angeles as the only bidders for the 2024 Olympics. Italy's financial capital would like to organize the 2028 Games with public and private investments. Local officials said that they support California's largest city and that institutions are ready to start to draw up a plan in late 2017 if LA gets the 2024 Summer Games.


So, could be Italy is voting for LA? Or are all the voters Roman and Sicilian? :lol:


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

Well, Milan expressed the will to host the Games so many times. CONI could vote for LA because this will give a chance to host the 2028 Games in Europe.
We'll see.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

redspork02 said:


> *Trump's Policies Could Derail Los Angeles' Olympic Bid*
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...-derail-los-angeles-olympic-bid/#432446f739aa
> 
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

The public opinion poll that Bach has commissioned regarding local support in LA and Paris will be released in July. It will be particularly interesting if one city has a majority yes and the other does not.

Can Bach and the committee ignore these results? Or, if you are more cynical, can they manipulate the results by carefully phrasing the questions and narrowing the demographic to likely supporters (or opponents, as the case may be)?


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

...


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> Just to clarify the two "experts" here are left wing attack dogs for the Democratic Party.


Admittedly, people who didn't care for Obama (Nobel Peace prize winner, no less!!) were snickering and laughing back in 2009 when the IOC selected Rio instead of Chicago. 

But Chicago 2016's bid was weak - weak enough to not survive the first round - and that city wasn't competing against a city that hadn't hosted the games in 90 years in spite of bidding repeatedly during those past 90 years.

Any article that doesn't emphasize the fact that Paris hasn't been awarded the Olympics in over 90 years - and the IOC sympathizing for that long wait greatly influencing the outcome of the vote in September - is full of hot air.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Bren said:


> Le Bourget prêt à accueillir les JO en 2024
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

californiadreams said:


> I was looking at the 100-plus year history of the IOC voting for cities for the Olympics and what stood out to me is the many times Detroit - yes, Detroit - was in competition for a games.
> 
> Sorry, Detroit:
> 
> ...


What a terrible statement. Detroit (who lost against Mexico City in 1968) would've put in a great Olympics. The bones were certainly there.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> The public opinion poll that Bach has commissioned regarding local support in LA and Paris will be released in July. It will be particularly interesting if one city has a majority yes and the other does not.
> 
> Can Bach and the committee ignore these results? Or, if you are more cynical, can they manipulate the results by carefully phrasing the questions and narrowing the demographic to likely supporters (or opponents, as the case may be)?


No need to speculate really. The question asked for at least the last three Summer bid cycles has been this:

*“To what extent would you support or oppose [CITY] hosting the Olympic Games in [YEAR]?”*

With the options being "support strongly", "support", "no opinion / neutral", "oppose", "oppose strongly".

This question is asked in the bid city and in the wider country and both results published separately.

See Appendix C (p106 of the pdf) from the 2020 report here https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Host_city_elections/2020_Evaluation_Commission_report.pdf

They can certainly ignore the results if they want to. It's one factor amongst many. The general rule is that bad public support can lose you the Games on its own, but good public support can't win you the Games on its own. In the 2012 race, London had about 65% public support, with only NYC lagging behind in the mid-50s. Moscow, Paris and Madrid were all higher, yet London won.

The other point of the IOC's polling is for them to compare it to the city's own polling. I see from Paris 2024's canditature file that their own polling shows 69% support in Paris and 77% across France. It'll be interesting to see how the IOC's polling compares.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> No need to speculate really. The question asked for at least the last three Summer bid cycles has been this:
> 
> *“To what extent would you support or oppose [CITY] hosting the Olympic Games in [YEAR]?”*
> 
> ...


Thanks for the background. I had assumed that Bach was talking about updating the process for greater accuracy. (I don't find any of those levels of support are even vaguely credible, but for sure do not want to debate that here! :lol. 

Funny how Boston, Hamburg, Rome, Budapest (and last week Davos) held real votes and were unsupportive. SF was way below 50 percent with various groups gathering signatures to block it legally and remove elected officials supporting it if they were selected (as actually happened with Boston).

So the question is still how will they phrase the question and how will they fine tune the demographic? For accuracy or to show strong support? And will the Paris and LA committees have knowledge of when, where and how the polls are so they can focus their PR barrages.

As a side issue, do they really poll throughout all of the US? It seems immaterial what people in Florida, Michigan or Massachusetts think of the Olympics. That's a privately funded event 2000 or more miles away. I would guess the great majority don't even know that LA is a candidate.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

I think if anyone wonders why the IOC is thinking of doing a double award for 2024 and 2028 this Sept. with two solid bids in hand, I think this graphic from GamesBids explains it pretty nicely:











> GamesBids.com‏ @gamesbids 2h2 hours ago
> More
> Updated Graphic: Bid interest for#OlympicGames plummets #LA2024 #Paris2024 #Budapest2024 #Rome2024 #Hamburg2024 http://ow.ly/D3tx309wBAY pic.twitter.com/uVWIOTP7LD


https://twitter.com/gamesbids/status/837364257922625536/photo/1


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

soup or man said:


> What a terrible statement. Detroit (who lost against Mexico City in 1968) would've put in a great Olympics. The bones were certainly there.


Terrible but also the unflattering truth? 

Even more so since my impressions of Detroit are also based on the way it is today - and not having any reason to feel happy or glad whatsoever by what it has gone through over the past few decades - not 40 or 60 years ago. 

However, even from the standpoint of the past, Detroit 1968 - much less if there were a Detroit 2024 - didn't seem all that good an Olympic games bid since quite a few of their venues apparently would have had to be built for any Olympics they did host. 

One of the newscasters said no other city has bid for the games as many times as Detroit without having hosted at least one Olympics. Which means for Atlanta 1996 to mosey on up to the IOC in 1989 and get a win after never having tried before (or at least trying way less than Detroit) must have really irked the supporters of Detroit who wanted that city to hold an Olympics.

Meanwhile, people in France, the US and the IOC are so unhappy about the political scene in America. I guess by comparison what's going on in France is great?








No on talks about French President Francois Hollande. Why? 

I guess that must he due to his wonderfulness.

Since (or if) that's the case, I say I therefore hope France's President Holland or someone exactly like him continues to manage France, or is elected in a short while. 

Is that sarcasm or not? 

Should people in the Los Angeles 2024 committee, if they (certainly the ones who spend all their time fretting about Donald Trump hurting LA's bid) want to have as much of a competitive edge as possible, also hope that Francois Hollande continues to preside over (or someone politically exactly like him takes over) the management of France? 

If so, are they being sincere - in their wishes for a more competitive France - or sarcastic in their preferences?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

"Diminishing Interest" plays to my point. The IOC can't allow polls to come out that show Paris and LA at, say, 40 percent support. That can NOT be allowed to happen and it is somebody's job to make sure it doesn't.

Not nearly the issue it was when many countries had their Olympic Committees operating under the control of the local oligarchs and with little effective public control over their spending.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

No on talks about French President Francois Hollande. Why? 

I guess that must he due to his wonderfulness.

Since (or if) that's the case, I say I therefore hope France's President Holland or someone exactly like him continues to manage France, or is elected in a short while. 

Is that sarcasm or not? 

Should people in the Los Angeles 2024 committee, if they (certainly the ones who spend all their time fretting about Donald Trump hurting LA's bid) want to have as much of a competitive edge as possible, also hope that Francois Hollande continues to preside over (or someone politically exactly like him takes over) the management of France? 

If so, are they being sincere - in their wishes for a more competitive France - or sarcastic in their preferences?[/QUOTE]

------------------------

You're not going to get your wish. Hollande is old school left and France is no longer left vs. right. Changes have come fast, as is true in much of the world, and politics and institutions are trying to catch up.

But, no more politics since I doubt that this has much relevance to the Olympic bids.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> Funny how Boston, Hamburg, Rome, Budapest (and last week Davos) held real votes and were unsupportive. SF was way below 50 percent with various groups gathering signatures to block it legally and remove elected officials supporting it if they were selected (as actually happened with Boston)


Eh? Only Hamburg and Davos of the cities you've listed had real votes.

Rome never had a referendum and the only polls we have from Rome actually showed reasonable public support. Raggi pulled the bid despite this because she thought Rome had other priorities. Not that I have a problem with that - she's the elected mayor.

Budapest didn't have a vote either, but the 'anti' petition was so large the bid was withdrawn.

Boston polling _always_ showed the city to have poor public support and it was on the basis of this polling - along with the efforts of the organised campaign against the Olympics in that city - that they withdrew.

Hamburg's referendum defeat was marginal and polls prior to it reflected this (I think they never showed more than 60% support). It was always going to be a close run thing.

Davos I haven't seen the numbers for, but Swiss Olympic bids being defeated in referendums are ten a penny. I don't know why the bother anymore! :lol:

I think polling can and does give a decent general impression of support levels. I'm not sure I buy into your duplicitous conspiracies on this.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> No on talks about French President Francois Hollande. Why?
> 
> I guess that must be due to his wonderfulness.


+1!


No comment, indeed!


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

...


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

pesto said:


> And the reference to Europe being the central part of the Olympic movement is aimed at pointing out how many of the cities from Europe (Rome, Hamburg, Budapest, Davos, Stockholm, Lvov, Krakow, Oslo) withdrew recently. That so many cities even at the core of Olympic support could not find enough local funding or support to compete indicates that the problems are widespread. But the issue is not the cost of the initial documentation; it’s the over-runs and lack of public input.


Yep, it's easy to see this news in context of the 2024 race, but regardless of 2024 the IOC has a serious problem especially in Europe, and getting cities to complete a bidding process. 2024 or not, that's a problem they need to solve.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

French investigators think the vote to give Rio the 2016 Olympic Games may have been rigged, it is claimed.

A Brazilian businessman paid $1.5m to the son of an influential International Olympic Committee (IOC) member just days before the host city was chosen, according to French newspaper Le Monde.

It was also alleged a payment was made to former Namibian sprinter, IOC member and IAAF Council member Frankie Fredericks, now Chair of the 2024 Evaluation Commission.

http://www.lemonde.fr/jeux-olympiqu...r-the-2016-olympic-games_5088584_4910444.html

http://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/39151162


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

IThomas said:


> French investigators think the vote to give Rio the 2016 Olympic Games may have been rigged, it is claimed.
> 
> A Brazilian businessman paid $1.5m to the son of an influential International Olympic Committee (IOC) member just days before the host city was chosen, according to French newspaper Le Monde.
> 
> ...


Another cost of bidding for the Olympics! Maybe that's why so many cities are withdrawing!

When the US does black ops it's to go after Bin Ladin; in Senegal it's to go after the Olympics. :lol:


----------



## milquetoast (Jul 31, 2007)

*Nothing's changed as far as I can tell:*

*"Board discussion followed as to public reports​ that the IOC may consider naming hosts for both the 2024 and 2028 Games​ during 2017," the minutes said.

"After a full and frank exchange of ideas, issues, and possibilities, there was​ general agreement that the LA 2024 bid is specifically configured and​ calculated for 2024 rather than 2028 activation.

"Neither LA 2024 nor the USOC have focused at all on the possibility of any​ bid other than for the 2024 Games; and the USOC Board does not foresee​ pursuing any bid other than for the 2024 Games."​*_
- Los Angeles 2024 chief executive Gene Sykes_

*Paris has also said it is bidding solely for 2024.
As for who the IOC picks, I think the fat slobs are choosing
between high end restaurants and tasty taco trucks!*


----------



## Pierre de Coubertin (Sep 25, 2016)

Does anyone from Paris or from France put on the thread some pics of the area where should be host the olympic village?

About rumors seeing Paris 2024 and then LA for 2028 I think it is totally uncorrect for all cities want to run for that edition, like Aquamaroon said. After 13th Sept all cities have to run from the same start.

By the way, I'm from Milan but I want Paris 2024. :cheers: 

Ah, French friends, do you think would be possible to see Saint Denis Pleyel served by 5 lines, like in the projects of Grand Paris?


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Thank you for the agreement haha! Although I'm sorry that's not quite what I meant 

I'm actually in favor of the 2024/28 solution and think it's a good idea as a one off. The IOC needs the breathing room to get their house in order, and by giving these two bids two Olympics it checks off a lot of boxes for the next ten years. Paris getting the games brings them back to Western Europe and allows the French to put on a great show that inspires and attracts Europeans to bid again. And the games going to L.A. allows the IOC to satisfy NBC by giving them a U.S. Summer Olympics before 2032. And in fact Los Angeles is probably the U.S. city that NBC would be most happy with, as they stand to benefit from a ton of capital improvements to their facilities at NBCUniversal Studios in Burbank. (the International Broadcast Center will be at Universal Pictures' studio facilities.)

What I DO think is unfair is the idea of either of these cities getting a leg up on the competition for 2028. I'd like to see a double bid, but if you're going to have an open competition for 2028, it wouldn't be fair to the other cities to have some sort of agreement in place for the losing 2024 city beforehand (and for that matter, not fair to either L.A. or Paris). That doesn't mean they can't make it cheaper to the losing city if they're coming back with the exact same bid. Like Rob said, that is a good idea and will help to spur more repeat bids going forward. But that absolutely shouldn't come with a wink-wink nudge-nudge agreement of "just show up and we'll give you the games".


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

milquetoast said:


> *Nothing's changed as far as I can tell:*
> 
> *"Board discussion followed as to public reports​ that the IOC may consider naming hosts for both the 2024 and 2028 Games​ during 2017," the minutes said.
> 
> ...


Assuming neither city is interested in 2028 and Paris has to get 2024 or be humiliated, then LA really has no reason to continue; might as well stop now. They are just one more “loser”.

And the IOC is left with no contingency if Paris loses popular support, elects an opposition government, has social unrest, serious over-runs, etc.

And with no rock solid contender for 2028 (everyone needs to develop funding plans, popular votes, list of facilities, security plans, etc.) you set up for numerous more drop out “losers", with 4 more years of media questions about the process. While meanwhile the Tokyo event has a deficit of 15B or so and every applicant city is getting their heads beaten in about this my local political opposition. 

Hard to see that how that helps the IOC’s list of top problems. Bach may need to do some work. :lol:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

A double bid is almost a necessity at this moment in the IOC's history. But mainly to hold onto the idea of a Los Angeles 2028. 

I'd be surprised if Paris 2024 isn't such an emotional and symbolic favorite with a majority of IOC voters in September, that France won't be chosen as the 2024 winner. So it's mainly an issue of how does the IOC placate or respond to Los Angeles?

If the IOC believes otherwise - as some of its membership have been implying - then they're living in an alternative universe. If that's the case - and it's business-as-usual to the IOC in Lima - then they had better hope that Toronto makes a bid - and a compelling one too - in the next go-around of 2021. 

That could happen, of course. But the IOC, therefore, would still be thinking of and treating itself as the Big Man on Campus, as the belle of the ball, as Everyone's Favorite Organization.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

pesto said:


> Assuming neither city is interested in 2028 and Paris has to get 2024 or be humiliated, then LA really has no reason to continue; might as well stop now. They are just one more “loser”.
> 
> And the IOC is left with no contingency if Paris loses popular support, elects an opposition government, has social unrest, serious over-runs, etc.
> 
> ...


We're in uncertainty times, political, financial and economical.
Milan could have a potential, but public opinion are now wary of coasts and legacies.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

CaliforniaJones said:


> We're in uncertainty times, political, financial and economical.
> Milan could have a potential, but public opinion are now wary of coasts and legacies.


As I understand, Milan is proposing ONLY IF LA gets 2024. If Paris gets it, they are a non-starter. 

In any event, they would seek help from other cities in Northern Italy which is far from a sure thing. And there is little reason to believe the Five Star Movement will support more "concrete, spending and waste" as a legacy for their children if the are nationally or locally elected.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

Five Star Movement has registered 10.06% in recent mayor elections in Milan (June 2016): this is a very low data considering that their national average is of 27%. Democratic Party's candidate won with 41.70% at the first turn, while with 51.70% at the ballot. Next elections to elect new mayor of Milan will be held in 2021. Even considering the victory a candidate from center-right wing, there might be a support for the Olympic bid. And yes, Milan may need the help of cities like Genoa or Venice (regarding the sailing)... but nothing was decided at moment.

Rome? In June 2016, Five Star Movement won because Virginia Raggi was presented to Romans as "the change". About Olympics bid, her decision was just a mix of stupid ideologies and fake news. She doesn't even considered what businesses, universities, schools, associations said. The Five Star Movement also changed its will on Olympics bid: before elections they sustained "we'll support the project", while after being elected they said "we'll see" in the first months and "no" at end.

Sadly, the honeymoon with Romans is finished before than expected. In these months Raggi has shown no real change for the city, she still has not resolved some emergences. Industrial associations have said the city is paralyzed. Also she was involved in some scandals (see Romeo and Marra cases). Raggi is under investigation by Italian justice in two cases of "abuso d'ufficio" with regard to decisions on staffing of her private office. She is a complete mess over management of ordinary things as well as of important dossiers. Recent data have shown that her credibility among Roman citizens fall from 80% to 52% in just 8 months; negative comments on her government during the same time period registered a growth from 20% to 48%. She already changed 3 Councillors with important roles (Environment, Finances, Urban Planning) and 1 Head of Cabinet. That's a record! Is this enough? Another curios fact is that almost all Roman users on Italian SSC section want that she resigns as soon as possible.

Five Star Movement at local level? They have mayors in just 38 cities on a total of 7,981. They have problems also in the cities which govern, with exponents leaving the party: some have been labeled as "rebels" because don't respect what Grillo says or decide. WTF? Is he a dictator or what?

Italian politics is like The Game of Thrones. Everything can happens. It's true that Renzi lose the referendum in December 2016, but it is also true that it was a political vote. Indeed citizens don't voted for the Constitutional reform but have given a vote on his government. Five Star Movement has done a "hate campaign" against him. Renzi lose with 41% of the votes, whilst all other parties (and only God knows how much are) have collected together 59% of the votes. In addition, the recent news of split within his Democratic Party will give him more power, since the minority group ("old owls" and "traitors") are now out of the party. Some analysts say that in next months he will reorganize the coalition to create the so-called "party of the nation". 

There is no modern left or right at this moment: the next general elections in Italy will be among those who want a democratic and european country or a country with a mix of ancient nationalism and populism. In this case, Italy is not so different than the US, France or Germany.

I'm sorry for my long post. Let's talk about LA and Paris again!


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

IThomas said:


> Five Star Movement has registered 10.06% in recent mayor elections in Milan (June 2016): this is a very low data considering that their national average is of 27%. Democratic Party's candidate won with 41.70% at the first turn, while with 51.70% at the ballot. Next elections to elect new mayor of Milan will be held in 2021. Even considering the victory a candidate from center-right wing, there might be a support for the Olympic bid. And yes, Milan may need the help of cities like Genoa or Venice (regarding the sailing)... but nothing was decided at moment.
> 
> Rome? In June 2016, Five Star Movement won because Virginia Raggi was presented to Romans as "the change". About Olympics bid, her decision was just a mix of stupid ideologies and fake news. She doesn't even considered what businesses, universities, schools, associations said. The Five Star Movement also changed its will on Olympics bid: before elections they sustained "we'll support the project", while after being elected they said "we'll see" in the first months and "no" at end.
> 
> ...


I agree that politics is struggling vigorously to get to where business and culture have already gotten.

As is already occurring, the traditional left and right will absorb ideas from either the "tech-ecology-open" world where Islamic or Asian morality are just as valid and protected as the local historical morality; and unique national arts and cultures disappear into the largely US-inspired mass world culture; or they will cling to a nationalistic view where traditional cultural standards of behavior and right and wrong will be more or less maintained, and homogenization into a "one-culture" world will be restrained.

I won't comment on your adulation of Renzi or predictions for Italy specifically.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

I'm not an adulator of Renzi or Five Star Movement or other political parties. I just try to make my considerations on what I see. I think that no one is perfect, but I hate people that claim "I'm honest, I'm better than you". If you really are so, you don't need to say it. Like any other young voter with no particular personal interests, I just want a good and renovated country.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

IThomas said:


> I'm not an adulator of Renzi or Five Star Movement or other political parties. I just try to make my considerations on what I see. I think that no one is perfect, but I hate people that claim "I'm honest, I'm better than you". If you really are so, you don't need to say it. Like any other young voter with no particular personal interests, I just want a good and renovated country.


Everyone wants this. The problem is the definitions of "good" and "renovated".


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Another big Athletic Event is coming to the Southland! (the general L.A. area) March 6-19 Indian Wells, CA is hosting The BNP Paribas Open, the "The largest international tennis tournament outside of the Grand Slams." (that's what they say at least :lol:


















Photos from the BNP Paribas twitter: https://twitter.com/BNPPARIBASOPEN

If LA were to get the 2024 Olympics Indian Wells would almost certainly be the tennis venue, were it not for one problem: distance. Indian Wells is about 112mi/180km from downtown L.A., and that's just too far to go for a major venue. Instead tennis will be held at the StubHub Tennis Center in Carson, alongside the Velodrome and Rugby/Modern Pentathlon Venues:


















It's probably for the best, as hopefully the Olympics could raise the profile of the StubHub Tennis Center. I still have a sneaking suspicion though that tennis may find it's way to Indian Wells in the end though... but we'll see!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

RobH said:


> Who can they rely on for 2028 if they decide not to do a one-off double award? If LA wins 2024 I find it hard to see Paris coming back straight-away for a 5th bid in my lifetime. If Paris wins 2024 I have an easier time imagining LA coming back again - they always seem to be eager - but still wouldn't bet my house on it. Madrid used to be perennial bidders but the stadium situation has changed there now, Rome can't be relied upon in any way to stick around (see 2020 and 2024), Milan may be an option but it's quite speculative right now, Toronto always seems to be mentioned but never quite gets all their ducks in order, Durban and South Africa are currently making a pigs ear out of their Commonwealth Games build up, Russia despite wanting to bid according to Zhukov is a no-go with their doping scandal still far from resolved, Istanbul used to be a perennial bidder but surely they've got bigger worries now and would be a real security nightmare. And these seem to me to be the _most_ likely options!
> 
> China again? Buenos Aries after hopefully hosting a successful Youth Olympics next year? Australia? Hmmm.....
> 
> ...


Thanks for the 'like' redspork, but reading my post back I'm a little embarrassed to have used the phrase "getting their ducks in order" 

https://malaphors.com/2013/12/23/she-needs-to-get-her-ducks-in-order/

:bash:


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

Everyone one telling Bach............"Fire in your kitchen!!!" 

Firefighters arrive..........

Bach knows there is a fire in the kitchen but his IOC roommates tell the firefighters the fire is in the bedroom?

How did there conversation go from cost overruns for cities during the games to too many losers in the bidding process? 

The IOC will burn in there own filth because of greed. The conversation needs to be reverted back to game costs, not the bidding process. IOC is clueless or they just don't care. 

Will LA bid in 2028 if it loses out on 2024?.....I doubt it but if it does decide....I highly doubt the talents of Gene Sykes, Casey Waserman and Bob Iger will return. I doubt Universal Studios will allow them to use the Studio as a IBC....and I highly doubt the enthusiasm factor will ever be at 88% after a snub.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

RobH said:


> Thanks for the 'like' redspork, but reading my post back I'm a little embarrassed to have used the phrase "getting their ducks in order"
> 
> https://malaphors.com/2013/12/23/she-needs-to-get-her-ducks-in-order/
> 
> :bash:


Oh MATT! lol


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Another big Athletic Event is coming to the Southland! (the general L.A. area) March 6-19 Indian Wells, CA is hosting The BNP Paribas Open, the "The largest international tennis tournament outside of the Grand Slams." (that's what they say at least :lol:
> 
> If LA were to get the 2024 Olympics Indian Wells would almost certainly be the tennis venue, were it not for one problem: distance. Indian Wells is about 112mi/180km from downtown L.A., and that's just too far to go for a major venue. Instead tennis will be held at the StubHub Tennis Center in Carson, alongside the Velodrome and Rugby/Modern Pentathlon Venues:
> 
> ...


Ah, precious memories. This is owned by Larry Ellison and I did some work on it a few years back so I can’t talk about it. But suffice to say it is quite a bit nicer than the slams in quality and elegance. For the regular visitor it’s more like you are invited to a club where the best players in the world are members.

This is also where I personally experienced that Larry could call Obama and actually get him on the telephone; but complained he couldn’t get Serena to return his calls. First name basis with all of them, of course. 

As for the Olympics, it would be a tad on the warm side in August even at night.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

redspork02 said:


> Oh MATT! lol


I've heard that America and Britain are two nations separated by a common language. But if you have been to the Midlands, Yorkshire or Scotland you know it's more complicated than that.

But as long as its understandable it's OK, if perhaps a little jarring to the ear.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

RobH said:


> Agreed, I'd be very surprised as well. Some people don't understand that, like the UK, France only really uses referendums for constitutional matters. It has only had three in the past 30 years, mostly to do with issues pertaining to the nature of the nation's EU membership.
> 
> That's not to say an anti-Olympic movement couldn't arise and then influence politicians, but at the moment it looks like such a movement is a fringe effort. Whether it will become anything more we'll have to wait and see.


The argument being made, not just by me but various sources, is that by being financed by the government the bid is tied to its changes. That doesn't mean that Le Pen would be anti Olympics, like Trump isn't anti Olympics, or that a change of leadership will result in an anti Olympic leader. But look at Tokyo. The governor can use the build up to her own gain, if politicians see an opportunity (Rome) or someone wants to come up (Budapest) by using the Olympics to gain noterity, or whatever, the publicly funded bids are susceptible to that instability. Perhaps Tokyo and London would be better examples but at the very core of the IOC problem is the very core of the Parisian bid. Publicly financed bids and cost overruns. The Paris bid, whether cheaper or not, promises to be a Rio, Tokyo, London, Athens, Sydney, etc. There is one common denominator in every one of those bids absent from 1984 and LA 2024, and the IOC can blind itself and so can you, but every European city that exited the bidding race did it pretty much for the same reason, and that reason is at the core of the Parisian bid. Taxpayer funding. Obscene taxpayer overruns, negative press revolving directly around waste. But not private waste, public waste. Even if any of those games was successful, which they were, that common denominator is at the forefront of why cities are either not bidding or dropping out. It's number 1, the Olympics aren't paying for themselves. 

That whole thought is missing in Los Angeles minds, but in Paris it wouldn't be hard to ignite that conversation and fan it on social media, which is something Chris Dempsey knew and used to extinguish Boston. It's not far fetched that a Paris bid would easily ignite and suffer the same fate.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes, it's a possibility. Paris could follow in the footsteps of Boston, Hamburg, Budapest etc or it could follow in the footsteps of London, Tokyo etc. Of course, you're conveniently predicting the former so that LA is the only bid standing by September.

However, I see key differences:

Unlike Boston Paris' polling figures are decent. Boston's polling figures were always terrible - poll after poll - and their defeat was almost an inevitability as they failed to improve them. NoBostonOlympics had an easy task, they didn't even need to convince people of their cause, people were already singing from their hymn sheet.

Unlike Budapest nobody is using the Games bid as a political football to try to embarrass an authoritarian government. Hollande is a lame duck on his way out so the likelihood of their Games bid being attached to a mass-movement as it was in Hungary seems low.

Unlike Rome political support in Paris for the Olympic bid is solid, just like in LA. Nobody is going to withdraw the bid UNLESS something happens which triggers a mass-movement _specifically_ against the Olympics in Paris and it becomes politically untenable. Short of this, the only other possibility is defeat at a referendum but...

Unlike Hamburg a referendum is unlikely to happen in Paris because that's not how their politics works. A direct defeat at the polls is therefore unlikely.

For all these reasons, I think we'll have two strong bids lining up in front of the IOC in September.


----------



## caserass (Feb 16, 2008)

No need to add the bidding project is backed up by all the french politicians excepted by the communists and the ecologists that have 0 chances to get the power in the coming years... Macron, Fillon and Lepen already said it was an opportunity, so regarding the policy on a national level there is no reason to fear. Also, the bidding project has been submitted to the city council, only the communists and ecologists were against (see the interview in Le Monde posted earlier) all the others political parties (90% of the city council) were agreed, and the same happened on the regional level...
Poll after poll, the support of the Olympic games in Paris is gaining more ground...
And as I said, in France there is not referundum... At least not about that kind of things... The last one was about an airport and it took place after several years of polemic and fights... 
So, the LA's supporters can wait a referundum but it won't happen...


----------



## caserass (Feb 16, 2008)

Also, regarding politic stability... The first move to put Paris as a candidate city hasn't been made by the mayor of Paris or by any politicians. Actually, in France, we have a NGO (Ambition olympique et paralympique) in charge of the Olympic movement... It's that NGO that is leading the bidding project, not the politicians themselves...

In other words, the politicians have a say, but all in all the weight of their voice is reduced.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

the cure said:


> I allready wrote to a mod about pesto always involving security issues (he puts down on the table everytime geopolitical and security issues and moreover what he says is wrong).
> 
> Replying to him is forbidden but he can say so many BS he wants....
> 
> ...


Sorry you disagree so strongly with IOC Pres. Bach who has repeatedly said that security is the number 1 issue in the selection process. And that popular support, financing and venues are also important. 

As for rights, it is just the opposite. US people have stayed on topic, talking about venues, popular support, financing, relative values of certain venues over others, etc., and have avoided mass generalizations and random insulting, etc. Personally I have stated that Paris would make a fine site for the Games so many times I have lost track.

By contrast, after cleaning up their act for a month or so, some European posters have gone back to general discussions of non-Olympics issues where they feel their society is better (politics, crime, history).


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

IOC member Adam Pengilly wants a double award, but he's been outspoken before on things the majority of the IOC don't agree with. His reasons are pretty much what people have said in this thread:

http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...orts-joint-awarding-of-2024-and-2028-olympics


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

caserass said:


> No need to add the bidding project is backed up by all the french politicians excepted by the communists and the ecologists that have 0 chances to get the power in the coming years... Macron, Fillon and Lepen already said it was an opportunity, so regarding the policy on a national level there is no reason to fear. Also, the bidding project has been submitted to the city council, only the communists and ecologists were against (see the interview in Le Monde posted earlier) all the others political parties (90% of the city council) were agreed, and the same happened on the regional level...
> Poll after poll, the support of the Olympic games in Paris is gaining more ground...
> And as I said, in France there is not referundum... At least not about that kind of things... The last one was about an airport and it took place after several years of polemic and fights...
> So, the LA's supporters can wait a referundum but it won't happen...


You see? It's not so hard to do a non-raving post! :lol:

But, again, don't fixate on a referendum or a particular process. The issue is whether some group COULD arise that will exploit the unpopularity of the Olympics as occurred in Boston, Hamburg, etc. As I said, I don't have any idea if that strategy could get any traction, but it is something the IOC would want to monitor if they are doing basic diligence in their efforts to arrive at the best Olympics possible for 2024 and the future.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article137260598.html

Here is a bit of an offbeat article that shows how unpopular the Olympic movement is with some people. The essence is that LA sullies its name by associating with such a corrupt and archaic organization as the IOC. Unfortunately, I suspect that many people worldwide have this view, and with good cause.

The LA committee has more politely made this point by emphasizing that their Olympics would be a fresh start at revitalizing the Olympic movement, not just the same old routine that has led to the current state.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

RobH said:


> Yes, it's a possibility. Paris could follow in the footsteps of Boston, Hamburg, Budapest etc or it could follow in the footsteps of London, Tokyo etc. Of course, you're conveniently predicting the former so that LA is the only bid standing by September.


You're not getting it. While I agree with most of what you said after this quoted text the problem is right in this text. Tokyo and London. Tokyo I don't even have to start, the hemmoragong continues with Tokyo. And London, perhaps the closest one could put to Paris while successful did not manage to change the dialogue. The dialogue remains the same. And it's true that one could Say LA may not manage to change the dialogue either. But nowhere else on the face of the planet is the dialog similar to Los Angeles. Parisians may support the movement but ask this question of them. Do you think the games will pay for themselves? And anybody from Europe including me and you would answer No to that question. All it takes is one astute person to ignite that flame. And while Los Angeles cannot guarantee a games as successful as 1984 if you were to ask that question to an Angelino that answer would flip to yes. Not just because of 1984 but because of every major sporting franchise in Los Angeles that has us to pay to play. The Rams, Chargers, Lakers, etc., etc., etc. Los Angeles does this all the time, and therefore you get a different answer. It's built into the Parisian bid to say no, they will not pay for themselves and it's guaranteed as the Parisian bid has not even paid for its bid, itself. But flip to Los Angeles. The story is already writing itself.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

caserass said:


> No need to add the bidding project is backed up by all the french politicians excepted by the communists and the ecologists that have 0 chances to get the power in the coming years... Macron, Fillon and Lepen already said it was an opportunity, so regarding the policy on a national level there is no reason to fear. Also, the bidding project has been submitted to the city council, only the communists and ecologists were against (see the interview in Le Monde posted earlier) all the others political parties (90% of the city council) were agreed, and the same happened on the regional level...
> Poll after poll, the support of the Olympic games in Paris is gaining more ground...
> And as I said, in France there is not referundum... At least not about that kind of things... The last one was about an airport and it took place after several years of polemic and fights...
> So, the LA's supporters can wait a referundum but it won't happen...


Another great example. Dear Parisians, when the bill to foot the games comes to your pocket book a good place to understand how much that bill will be is London, and even though they fared better than most recent hosts, you still have to foot that bill. As a matter of fact you already are. About 1/2 of the costs to put up a bid is already charged to your hard work. 

Then, as we move closer to 2024 and the overruns become national news, the government somehow will stay in line, like in Tokyo, or Rio, or London. So yea, changing politics has nothing to do with who is voted in as much as how opinions change as things are actually happening. A private bid eliminates that to a large degree in Los Angeles.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Yes, it's a possibility. Paris could follow in the footsteps of Boston, Hamburg, Budapest etc or it could follow in the footsteps of London, Tokyo etc. Of course, you're conveniently predicting the former so that LA is the only bid standing by September.
> 
> However, I see key differences:
> 
> ...


I tend to agree. But the tone (and sometimes the specifics) of some posters is that it's stupid to even look at this; security, cost over-runs, popular support don't matter, life is beautiful, etc. Basically that the IOC is going to vote based on random prejudices and God-knows-what.

But that's not how serious organizations approach decisions and many are reminding the IOC of that. Change is coming, the only question is when.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article137260598.html
> 
> Here is a bit of an offbeat article that shows how unpopular the Olympic movement is with some people. The essence is that LA sullies its name by associating with such a corrupt and archaic organization as the IOC. Unfortunately, I suspect that many people worldwide have this view, and with good cause.
> 
> The LA committee has more politely made this point by emphasizing that their Olympics would be a fresh start at revitalizing the Olympic movement, not just the same old routine that has led to the current state.


The article, whilst egregiously arrogant in many ways (we're too good for the Olympics, let the French have them), at least cuts through the PR fluff LA's bid committee is pushing out there.

What LA _can and does _offer is a stable Games with little chance of negative headlines (Trump might dent this argument but let's leave that one aside). What it _doesn't_ offer is a revolution or the start of a "new era". That's because LA are not the ones in a position to change anything. 

LA being in the privileged position of having most things in place doesn't change any of the demands that will be put upon the 2028, 2032, 2036 hosts. All this stuff about LA being the start of a new era is PR fluff from their bid team. Good PR fluff, maybe exactly the kind of thing voting IOC members likes to hear, but PR fluff nevertheless.

The only real change would be for the IOC itself to fundamentally change venue requirements, the sports programme, the number of athletes etc. And that's not an easy thing to work out how to do.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> Another great example. Dear Parisians, when the bill to foot the games comes to your pocket book a good place to understand how much that bill will be is London, and even though they fared better than most recent hosts, you still have to foot that bill. As a matter of fact you already are. About 1/2 of the costs to put up a bid is already charged to your hard work.
> 
> Then, as we move closer to 2024 and the overruns become national news, the government somehow will stay in line, like in Tokyo, or Rio, or London. So yea, changing politics has nothing to do with who is voted in as much as how opinions change as things are actually happening. A private bid eliminates that to a large degree in Los Angeles.


Yes. As I have said above, does the IOC want to hear the French (and worldwide) press talk for a decade or so about the cost over-runs, poor management, questionable workmanship and a dozen other things being charged to the taxpayers at hideously inflated prices when they could simply avoid it by choosing LA?

Many Olympic voters may not care about this: they have been successfully plucking the chickens and ignoring the squawking for decades. But Bach may be more serious about moving out of the aristocratic age and into the modern age of public governance.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

> Exclusive: Pengilly supports joint awarding of 2024 and 2028 Olympics
> 127
> 1 comment
> By Nick Butler at the Hilton Wembley in London Thursday, 9 March 2017
> ...


http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...orts-joint-awarding-of-2024-and-2028-olympics


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

RuFFy said:


> Dear Parisians, when the bill to foot the games comes to your pocket book a good place to understand how much that bill will be is London


Nice try, but London is not a good starting point because we used the Games for a much, much bigger urban regeneration project than Paris is proposing. Paris' proposals are conservative by the standards of all recent Games and have little to build in comparison. Dear Parisians, I am sure, are aware of this so don't need to take your little bit of advice, but others in this thread might not be aware.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> The article, whilst egregiously arrogant in many ways (we're too good for the Olympics, let the French have them), at least cuts through the PR fluff LA's bid committee is pushing out there.
> 
> What LA _can and does _offer is a stable Games with little chance of negative headlines (Trump might dent this argument but let's leave that one aside). What it _doesn't_ offer is a revolution or the start of a "new era". That's because LA are not the ones in a position to change anything.
> 
> ...


True, not easy. But then again neither is being roasted daily re over-runs, secrecy, corruption, unused venues, etc. 

And do you figure Bach was hired to make sure there are enough hydration stations in central Paris or one of LA's subways is extended in time? I'm guessing they are looking for more.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Nice try, but London is not a good starting point because we used the Games for a much, much bigger urban regeneration project than Paris is proposing. Paris' proposals are conservative by the standards of all recent Games and have little to build in comparison. Dear Parisians, I am sure, are aware of this so don't need to take your little bit of advice, but others in this thread might not be aware.


Sounds like "UK exceptionalism". Just out of curiosity, how did the Kool-Aid taste? :lol:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

CaliforniaJones said:


> http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...orts-joint-awarding-of-2024-and-2028-olympics


Reminds me of something I was told long ago:

The role of a new CEO is to figure out the right thing to do, then sell it to the board even if it means removing those board members that can't see the light. After all, if the board is so good why are they having to hire a new CEO?

Hope Bach follows this modus operandi.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

---


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

RobH said:


> Nice try, but London is not a good starting point because we used the Games for a much, much bigger urban regeneration project than Paris is proposing. Paris' proposals are conservative by the standards of all recent Games and have little to build in comparison. Dear Parisians, I am sure, are aware of this so don't need to take your little bit of advice, but others in this thread might not be aware.


So in essence are you saying Paris is in good shape, just not as good as London?


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Some L.A. odds n' ends from Gamesbids.com:


Downtown LA Skyline by HunterKerhart.com, on Flickr



> *LA 2024 Releases Key Commitments On International Women’s Day*
> 
> Los Angeles’ bid to host the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games Wednesday marked the United Nations International Women’s Day by releasing “Equality, Excellence and Opportunity” – LA 2024’s Women in Sport commitment, by enshrining the bid’s mission to enable women throughout the Olympic Movement to achieve their goals in sport and in life.
> 
> ...


http://gamesbids.com/eng/summer-oly...-key-commitments-on-international-womens-day/



> *LA 2024 Confident of Continued Strong Public Support For Olympic Bid*
> 
> By Robert Livingstone
> 
> ...


http://gamesbids.com/eng/summer-oly...tinued-strong-public-support-for-olympic-bid/

:cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

pesto said:


> They must be distributing the Kool Aid in barrels to this website. :lol:
> 
> Only in a world in which money is free and government officials fanatically honest and efficient and there are no other uses for the money. Oh, and where the politicos have magically determined that they know what people want more than they do and what they want is what their chief financial supporters want.
> 
> Think about it: why not do the civic improvements without the Olympics. 20B on schools, hospitals, roads, instead of stadiums, handball courts, useless pools, canoe and mountain bike venues, villages, lavish dinners and hotel suites, limousines, etc.


Jeez, Sochi has one $51 billion Winter Olympics and the cynicism comes pouring out :lol:

You're right of course, when push comes to shove and the Olympics are around the corner, the power that be will throw all their money behind the handball court, and discard the social good projects they promised to get the games in the first place. And all the promises of new roads, transit, etc. never end up getting done. What I was basically saying is that the argument for public financial support isn't necessarily a bad one, but yeah, when the rubber hits the road those high minded ideas behind public support get thrown out the window.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> Only in a world in which money is free and government officials fanatically honest and efficient and there are no other uses for the money. Oh, and where the politicos have magically determined that they know what people want more than they do and what they want is what their chief financial supporters want.



All of that made much worse because of many people's belief that the Olympics should be a continuous travelogue - so a host city should always be different and excite the consciousness of a travel agent - and always be a promotion vehicle for a city's visitors-tourism bureau - as much as, or more than, it's primarily a two-week sporting event.

What's happening with Tokyo 2020 and the way officials are describing the cost factors if Australia were to host another games have so stunned me, that any bit of idealism I once had about the Olympics has been nailed shut. 

For example, I used to be apathetic about the idea of the Olympics discontinuing the traditional bidding process and singling out only certain cities throughout the world to be a host of the games. 

In a variation of that line of thought, some people have said Athens, Greece should be turned into the permanent host of the Olympics.

I no longer feel indifferent about such notions or suggestions.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> ETA: Just for reference, the Uytengsu Aquatics Center is planned as the practice/warmup facility adjacent to the Aquatics venue. It's seen here in the Aquatics rendering, next to the main facility.


I used to be skeptical about the value - or plausibility - of a temporary facility for swimming. But that was before learning that the swimming pool venue in Rio 2016 was, in fact, temporary. 

That game's swim setting looked perfectly fine, at least as shown on television. Its biggest problem during the games was seeing all the empty seats. The current big problem with it is that Rio apparently has yet to tear it down and relocate its salvageable materials to other locations, as originally intended.

Nothing sadder than seeing Olympic venues abandoned and allowed to rust and go to ruin.

As for the Uytengsu center on USC's campus, its big problem is the small footprint it takes up on campus. That results in little room for stadium seating. But swim competitions, as a rule, don't draw large crowds. I'm guessing that's a big reason USC didn't want to spend more money than it had to on things like large bleachers.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

californiadreams said:


> I used to be skeptical about the value - or plausibility - of a temporary facility for swimming. But that was before learning that the swimming pool venue in Rio 2016 was, in fact, temporary.
> 
> That game's swim setting looked perfectly fine, at least as shown on television. Its biggest problem during the games was seeing all the empty seats. The current big problem with it is that Rio apparently has yet to tear it down and relocate its salvageable materials to other locations, as originally intended.
> 
> ...


Yeah absolutely, although that's not to say that an Aquatics center would necessarily be a white elephant: it could hold Pac-12 championships, FINA events, home of USA Swimming, etc.
But you are right that a temporary venue is perfectly fine for just a one-off games, as Rio showed. Honestly, I do think a permanent world class facility would be a vanity project more than anything, and at a cost of $300 million (about what I think it could cost) that's far too much for a a private bid to invest when a temporary venue would be totally satisfactory. I guess I just want L.A. to have all the fancy venues is all :lol:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

aquamaroon said:


> Jeez, Sochi has one $51 billion Winter Olympics and the cynicism comes pouring out :lol:
> 
> You're right of course, when push comes to shove and the Olympics are around the corner, the power that be will throw all their money behind the handball court, and discard the social good projects they promised to get the games in the first place. *And all the promises of new roads, transit, etc. never end up getting done. *


Rio, London, Beijing and Athens all completed or completed sooner than anticipated new roads and rail lines because of their Olympics. If anything the Games tends to accelerate these projects. Even LA is talking about quickening construction of the Purple Line to get it ready for 2024 if necessary, and part of the reason Sochi 2014 was so eyewateringly expensive was because of the brand new highway and high speed rail line that were built in time for 2014.

Olympics tend to concentrate public spending on one part of a city or region and you obviously end up with monies going towards arenas and stadiums which mightn't otherwise have been spent. If not planned carefully they can leave unwanted legacies (the worst I can think of was Beijing rerouting a suburb's water supply to serve their Olympic Park!), and debt is obviously a danger. But I'm afraid I disagree with you when it comes to transport projects. Recent history shows these tend to get done, or get done faster, if an Olympics is looming with a fixed deadline.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Fair enough! looks like at least with regards to transportation infrastructure, the Olympics actually has a pretty decent track record :cheers: And you're right to point out that should LA get the games that'll be another good example (i.e. sped up purple line and perhaps crenshaw line development.)

However, in terms of other developments the Olympic record isn't so great. I'm thinking specifically of attempts to clean Guanabara Bay in Rio and the upgrade of their sewage treatment facilities, or curbing the air quality problems in Beijing. When it comes to flashy infrastructure such as subways and high speed rail that is something that gets pushed, however the smaller improvements in the quality of life for everyday residents tend to fall by the wayside.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yep, agree with that more. Though with the examples you gave it wasn't for want of trying. Beijing closed down factories and took cars of the streets to try to improve - if only temporarily - their air quality. And Rio certainly tried to clean up their waters (and _were_ successful in part). With both, I think it was a case of over-promising when selling the Olympics to their citizens and their bids to the IOC. Really, neither of those huge city-wide environmental pledges were possible to deliver within the timescale.


----------



## caserass (Feb 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> So you figure it will be a pretty successful Olympics if France doesn't actually start defaulting on its debts? "Look, mon amis, we still have 204 livres and a few sous left. I found them in the back of the vault. I told you we wouldn't go broke!"
> 
> The point is that government sponsored games yield huge debts because the managers have little incentive to stay under budget. In fact they have enormous pressure to go way over budget feeding the construction companies, hotels, restaurants, PR, production companies, etc., who contribute to their election.
> 
> The private investor will not allow this to happen when his own money is at stake. Ife deficits are imminent he will cut spending and seek new capital.


This is what you see from US, but in France, the companies cannot give much money to contribute to the election of any candidate... At least the amount is decided by the law and I can tell you that's not much... 
Also, what I'm saying is that a company, any company, can actually go to bankruptcy... A state could do, but it never happens... So, even if the Olympic Games are 100% private funded, the IOC would like to have got the gvt caution... whatever the amount spent in any kind of event, a caution coming from a gvt worth way much more than any caution of a company... 




> In any event, if the project loses money, it SHOULD be the IOC's problem. Welcome to the real world of taking responsibility for what you do, who you select, etc., like the rest of us do. Who knows, it might lead to hiring professionals and focusing on something besides mobilizing their collective expertise to play a key role in helping to plan an inclusive and socially responsible Games that demonstrates a strong social purpose and delivers real communities legacies....on the taxpayers' money.


I'm sorry, the IOC is not responsible for the submitted projects... if the project is made on false assumption, the one to support the consequences has to be the city in charge or the company that supported the project. After that, if the project wasn't prepared enough and lead to an over-run budget, then there are elections in order to punish the politicians responsible for the failure.


----------



## caserass (Feb 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> Mutatis mutandis, this is said about every bid or even in every discussion leading up to a bid.


I don't give a shit about what has been said or not regarding the previous bidding project.

What I'm telling you is the infra that will be used during the olympic games are, for the most of them, already built. The others are under construction and with or without the olympic game they will be made. Don't you know what mean under construction ??? :dunno:
Regarding the refurbishment to some stadium, these refurbishment are in process, today ! 
The remaing site, like the olympic village expected to cost 1,7 billion will have a social aim... the housing problem in Paris is huge, so even if the cost is shot up, there won't be any problem since Paris needs housing. The medai center will be based in "le Bourget" which is actually an airport that just need to be mix and match... 
The subway is already under construction too and is planned since many years, so, here again, with or without the olympic game it won't change anything.



> Unfortunately, the next step is "the engineers have costed it out and found a way for us to save even more money. Instead of making the improvements and updates required to bring the xyz up to modern standards and still having an older out-of-date facility, it is better to tear it down and build a new state-of-the- art stadium, which gives us the opportunity to re-route the rail line, tear down 8000 houses, dredge the river and build new docks for the luxury housing developments going up nearby, etc. It actually SAVES money to do this now rather than piecemeal over time so we view this as another benefit from the Olympics we are bringing to our fair city.


So, let me rephrase it one more time...

The works, regarding the infra that will be used during the olympic games are PLANNED since many years now ! 
They were even planned long before the people and the company knew Paris will be candidate to be an host city, there were also still planned when the city mayor of Paris said in 2012 Paris wouldn't be candidate...
That didn't change when in 2013 the same mayor change her mind.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> I guess I just want L.A. to have all the fancy venues is all


Yes, I know where you're coming from. I originally felt the same way you did, at least when it came to the venues for an Olympic games. But London 2012 and Rio 2016 have totally dispelled my original belief that expensive, shiny toys for a games will necessarily translate into a better event and, in turn, make the host city look and seem better.

The Olympics have come and gone in the UK and Brazil, and I have absolutely no higher regard for the cities of London and Rio after the fact than before. 

If anything, I now have a negative or mixed impression of those places - in spite of plenty of money being spent by London and Rio for the Olympics - because various aspects of their games left me cold and totally unimpressed. 

The problems that Tokyo 2020 are now facing have further shaken me up. I originally assumed that at least Japan's host committee would have been more reliable and competent in organizing the Olympics. So far, that's not the case.

I'd hate to see a future Olympics in Los Angeles - if it ever does host another one - brought down by some of the same mistakes that affected 2012 and 2016, and which are casting a shadow over 2020.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

aquamaroon said:


> Not to get to far afield here, but I have to admit that when it comes to pre-built facilities, the one venue I'm jealous of Paris of as an LA 2024 supporter is the Aquatics venue. That is the ONE part of L.A.'s sports infrastructure that is missing: a world class Aquatics center, and that missing piece is why I'm a little disappointed in the temporary solution on the USC campus. The closest we have is the Uytengsu Aquatics Center, USC's swim facility, which is great by college Pac-12 standards, but not like some of the venues we've seen in London and Beijing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but we don't need a fixed aquatics massive center, not with so many in lot's of communities where they get good use. 

One thing I agree on is that I don't like what LA2014 is proposing here. If we are going with temporary, why there in the field? (I know, I know...to use the existing Uytengsu Aquatics Center jointly/warm up pools), when they can select just about any place in LA with a much better setting. They have to be more creative with this one, it is one of the most viewed competitions.

Pershing Square for example, or Venice by the boardwalk, etc. Something bolder.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Kenni said:


> Yeah, but we don't need a fixed aquatics massive center, not with so many in lot's of communities where they get good use.
> 
> One thing I agree on is that I don't like what LA2014 is proposing here. If we are going with temporary, why there in the field? (I know, I know...to use the existing Uytengsu Aquatics Center jointly/warm up pools), when they can select just about any place in LA with a much better setting. They have to be more creative with this one, it is one of the most viewed competitions.
> 
> Pershing Square for example, or Venice by the boardwalk, etc. Something bolder.


GREAT point Kenni, I totally agree (I regret I have but one like to give :lol. The temporary swim venue is pretty nice (would really like a roof though, at least a canopy), but the biggest issue is the location. Dedeaux Field? Really, a baseball field in the middle of a college campus?? There are so many better locations to put the swim venue. Putting it on the USC campus A.) breaks up the feel of a cohesive Olympic park cluster, and B.) Puts a principle venue of the Olympics in a location that is not remarkable or one that looks good on TV. My feeling is that they picked this location to be close to the USC swim facilities for warm up, but there must be other ways to accommodate that.

If I had my druthers, my ideal location for Aquatics would be the parking lot next to the LA84 swim stadium at Expo Park (where the red arrow is pointing):








Link to original

By putting it there you put Aquatics next door to Athletics, and restore Expo Park as the undisputed heart of the 2024 Olympics. And if you look on google, the parking lot has the same acreage as Dedeaux Field so you're not sacrificing anything. And, you can use the LA84 Swim Stadium for warmups so you don't need USC's swim facilities.

So that's my ideal spot, but I'm really intrigued by your Pershing Square idea. That's a great out of the box location that would really showcase L.A. Especially if they must keep the Aquatics venue open air:

















Well regardless, hopefully someone at LA2024 listens to you and changes up the location! :cheers:


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

I like your proposal too, next to the 1932 and 1984 Swimming Stadium by the Coliseum. A record 3rd time, wow!

About my Pershing Square idea, it fits. It will look amazing, and we can use a neighboring hotel, let's say the Biltmore as a staging area, use their pools for warm ups, gym etc.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Jeez, Sochi has one $51 billion Winter Olympics and the cynicism comes pouring out :lol:
> 
> You're right of course, when push comes to shove and the Olympics are around the corner, the power that be will throw all their money behind the handball court, and discard the social good projects they promised to get the games in the first place. And all the promises of new roads, transit, etc. never end up getting done. What I was basically saying is that the argument for public financial support isn't necessarily a bad one, but yeah, when the rubber hits the road those high minded ideas behind public support get thrown out the window.


Sorry; I promise never to be sarcastic again. :lol: 

Would that all you wrote were true. But it isn't even vaguely true. And it's inherent in anything where you spend other people's money. There will always be a need for government services but I'm not sure that Olympics should be one without independently audited financials and a popular vote ahead of time. At least take steps to minimize the disaster.

Btw, there are a number of reasons to believe the losses are much larger than reported. Sophisticated budgeting people can hide capital expenses, interest, social taxes, retirement benefits, shared services, amortizations, etc., so as to get them off the "Olympic books" and into some other set of accounts.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

caserass said:


> This is what you see from US, but in France, the companies cannot give much money to contribute to the election of any candidate... At least the amount is decided by the law and I can tell you that's not much...
> Also, what I'm saying is that a company, any company, can actually go to bankruptcy... A state could do, but it never happens... So, even if the Olympic Games are 100% private funded, the IOC would like to have got the gvt caution... whatever the amount spent in any kind of event, a caution coming from a gvt worth way much more than any caution of a company...
> 
> 
> ...


I know the IOC is not responsible. That's what we are trying to change.

No use wasting time on who feeds who. France is famous as a place where "everything is negotiable" which means if you hire the right consultants, law firm, PR company and make donations to the right trusts you can get what you want. US law firms and VC's can steer you to the "right" consultant for whichever government agency you need to get to cooperate with you.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Yes, I know where you're coming from. I originally felt the same way you did, at least when it came to the venues for an Olympic games. But London 2012 and Rio 2016 have totally dispelled my original belief that expensive, shiny toys for a games will necessarily translate into a better event and, in turn, make the host city look and seem better.
> 
> The Olympics have come and gone in the UK and Brazil, and I have absolutely no higher regard for the cities of London and Rio after the fact than before.
> 
> ...


A fair comment. Even with private money you can't guaranty against running a loss. But by proper structuring you can reduce the risk to negligible vs. having government funding involved. Nothing focuses you on cost control like knowing you have 4B of your own money to lose. :lol:


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

I think that's what people fail to understand of a private vs public bid. The need to protect significantly increases when you are using private money. You won't even get private money if you are guaranteeing a loss, though loss can be measured by different means. In addition, changing government can make the finish line a moving target more. When I've said changing politics affect a bid that doesn't just mean whether a politician supports a bid or not, but additional projects they may support that could run a budget over and when the budget runs over the cuts and many voices that come out become increasingly difficult to manage, and then there is reelection. Pointing the finger to a overrunning bid is a free talking point.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> I think that's what people fail to understand of a private vs public bid. The need to protect significantly increases when you are using private money. You won't even get private money if you are guaranteeing a loss, though loss can be measured by different means. In addition, changing government can make the finish line a moving target more. When I've said changing politics affect a bid that doesn't just mean whether a politician supports a bid or not, but additional projects they may support that could run a budget over and when the budget runs over the cuts and many voices that come out become increasingly difficult to manage, and then there is reelection. Pointing the finger to a overrunning bid is a free talking point.


Yes. The process on a public bid: some career politicians vote to spend 10B of taxpayers' money to fatten up the local construction companies, unions, hotels, etc. If costs go over, they vote to spend more of the taxpayers’ money. Repeat as often as necessary.

The process on a private bid: Experienced business people propose a city and plan outlines. Sophisticated investors carefully look over the plans and have them reviewed by local bankers and VC’s who specialize in entertainment and sports ventures. If they look reasonable, they put their money in and appoint experienced people to monitor spending and cut-back as necessary. The chances of getting out of control are very low. But if they do, then these people lose their money and the project is transferred to new investors who put new money in to complete it.

Just to add a bit: I propose the IOC be required to absorb any costs beyond what the investors promised to put in. This makes the IOC interested in whether a realistic and competently managed bid is selected and how spending is going. If targets are not met, they take control and complete the games. City funds can be put in only after a popular vote with a specified limit included. 

Note the additional advantage that the group selecting the winning bid will be focused on revenues, costs, auditing, control, quality, PR, etc. (they act somewhat like preferred debt holders). None will be a washed-up 3rd world sprinter shuffling money through Brazilian and African bank accounts with apparently no one at the IOC having any idea about it.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The model LA is offering is not a new one, it's the same as the model it first introduced back in 1984 - a mixture of sponsorship, local and IOC funding offset against ticketing, merchandise, and broadcast rights.

LA is able to boast (or at least predict at this stage) less public spending than most host cities because it doesn't have to do much venue construction, which is a stroke of luck, nothing to do with having a whizzy new financial model for the Games.

This should lead to stability and less chance of negative headlines, but it's because of the good fortune of already being in such a venue rich city that this is possible for the organising committee. That's not to be sneezed at of course. As I've said several times there's not many cities besides LA and Paris who seem to be so willing and able at the moment, so give them both a chance at hosting.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

^^ Yeah I kinda agree. If L.A., and Paris for that matter, is offering a lesson for future Olympics, that lesson seems to be "Only bid if you already have everything!". That's not really a great model for a lot of other cities going forward, but sadly the way things are with the Olympic movement that may be the way it has to be for a couple of cycles.

As an aside, after reading the responses I do think the private model of hosting the Games is the right way to go, alongside limited public support of course. It seems to lower cost and risk in a lot of cases. Let the public sector handle things directly in its purview, like security and crowd control etc., and let private entities worry about getting the venues done on time and planning a sustainable future for them going forward.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> http://fasterskier.com/fsarticle/los-angeles-potential-host-2024-summer-2026-winter-olympics/
> 
> A somewhat peculiar suggestion that LA host both the 2024 summer games and 2026 winter games, thereby relieving the IOC of two problems.
> 
> ...


And the date yesterday was...

I preferred GamesBids' one:

*Paris and LA Could Resolve 24 / 28 Olympic Games Bid Rift On Field Of Play*
http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/p...=Feed:+gamesbidsrss+(GamesBids.com+Headlines)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The land for Paris' village only being available for 2024 is being blown into a bigger story than it needs to be. It's hard work getting all the venues together for one date, nevermind for four years later as well, so I take their answers on this at face value. A perfectly normal situation for a bid has only become a bone of contention because of the IOC's proposed double award.

However, it seems something else has gone under the radar. Paris looks like it could well remove the athletics hosting capability from the Stade de France, and the timetable they're looking at is post-2024 at the latest (see Stade de France thread in "completed"). This is because Diamond League events are moving to a smaller athletics stadium south of Paris, so the SdF won't be hosting athletics anymore. It makes sense but removing this capability for good - combined with their proposed timetable for doing so - suggests Paris will be done with Olympic bidding if 2024 doesn't come off for them. Make of that what you will. :dunno:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Champi94500 said:


> BTW: in France, everybody (85%) hate François Hollande as president and probably the same thing in all Europe


That's why would I (in light of all the unhappiness about Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen presumably found in the IOC and among other top officials in the world of art, commerce and politics) be supportive or opposed to the well-being and success of France and Paris's bid for the 2024 games if I hoped that Benoit Hamon or Jean-Luc Melenchon become France's next president?

Purely hypothetical, of course, but the humorous irony and contradictions (and possible sarcasm on my part?) are worth noting.

Similarly, I guess my ulterior (and insincere?) motives for Paris 2024 would be again ambiguous - although less so - if I were to wish that Paris's 2024 committee chooses 2012's Danny Boyle to organize and produce their Olympic ceremonies. After all, many of the big fans of 2012 did think he achieved a great outcome.

My comments are also made based upon my confidence that Paris will be selected by the IOC to host the 2024 games. That's because if I'm quite sympathetic towards a city that has made several unsuccessful bids in the past to host another Olympic games, members of the iOC probably won't feel any differently. 

The specter of a city waiting over 90 years to again host the games will almost force September's decision in Lima, Peru. That's why Los Angeles's committee had better hope the IOC goes for a duo-award later this year.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Los Angeles 2024's chairman seems to be moving closer to knowing what he and his committee are up against. 

Paris 2024 can issue ultimatums---because they've been waiting for over 90 years. But Los Angeles (waiting since only 1984 or America since 1996) can't play that same game.

Wasserman had better hope for a double award in September. Or else he'll leave the IOC's upcoming session in Lima totally empty handed.




> *Head of Los Angeles’s Olympic Bid Pledges: No Ultimatum*
> 
> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> APRIL 1, 2017
> ...


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

I simply can not imagine losing city not taking 2028 games. Everything else is bullshit!
Yes, they will continue playing chicken as long as it gets, but as soon as one city start feeling like loosing, they will take it! Mark my words!!!


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

The LA Coliseum has begun its renovations! (_h/t user Mr Stools for finding the info_) Specifically, they have begun restoration of the Peristyle and replacing the outdated scoreboards with brand new H/D ones. From the site:












> The iconic Peristyle of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum will soon take on a look not seen in 33 years, as the large video boards, originally installed in 1984 for the Games of the XXIIIrd Olympiad, will be removed in order to restore the famed column and archway structure to its original glory. The project, commencing the week of March 27, is part of an overall $270 Million renovation of the Coliseum being undertaken by the University of Southern California and completed in time for the 2019 football season.
> 
> “Restoring the Peristyle of the 94-year old National Historic Landmark stadium to reflect the vision of the original builders and architects is a wonderful thing,” said Joe Furin, General Manager of the Coliseum, “especially when you consider that it was first shared with the world during the 1932 Olympics and enjoyed by Angelenos attending events here for over six decades.”
> 
> *The two large structures, along with the advertising border that surrounds the center game clock, will be dismantled in pieces over a two week period and then trucked away to a salvage yard. This is only one phase of returning the Peristyle to its historic look. Damaged travertine limestone tiles will be replaced or fixed, the entire structure cleaned, and the restoration of the decorative mural underneath the center arch will also be undertaken. Replacing the old video boards will be two state-of-the-art, high definition display boards incorporated for the fans enjoyment into the northeast and southeast seating sections, so as to maintain the look of the Peristyle as it was originally intended.*


http://www.lacoliseum.com/index.php/watch-the-coliseum-peristyle-restoration-in-real-time/

And here is a link to the webcam showing the peristyle construction:

https://app.oxblue.com/open/usc/lamemorial


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Los Angeles 2024's chairman seems to be moving closer to knowing what he and his committee are up against.
> 
> Paris 2024 can issue ultimatums---because they've been waiting for over 90 years. But Los Angeles (waiting since only 1984 or America since 1996) can't play that same game.
> 
> Wasserman had better hope for a double award in September. Or else he'll leave the IOC's upcoming session in Lima totally empty handed.


Agree with Elvis and Californiadreams, generally.

Interestingly I had dinner recently with a VC who was associated with Korean Olympics in the past. His sense from people in Asia is that LA is the better option but that the humiliation for Paris would be too big for them to swallow, so the best workable solution is Paris 2024. This also has the advantage of having LA ready to step in for 2024 if Paris tanks (violence against Asian in Paris is big news in Korea.)

As some note, strategically Paris should be focusing on the idea that it has good venues for 2024 that will not be available in 2028. LA can’t argue this since it has multiple world class venues for the major competition, all of them available for either date. 

The problem for Paris is that arguing that the venues are good at one time and lacking at another attracts attention to the venues. And, of course, it’s just silly to claim that Paris can’t possibly host an Olympics in 2028 but a couple of dozen much smaller, poorer cities around the world can.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

I think the biggest argument for Paris 2024 isn't the OV but as RobH pointed out, the planned reconfiguration of the State de France. If they're planning on reshaping the bowl for a soccer field instead of an athletic track that really would hinder Paris from hosting the Olympics in the future. I mean it wouldn't be impossible to install an elevated track, but I think it'd be a bigger problem than having to find a new OV for 2028.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> I think the biggest argument for Paris 2024 isn't the OV but as RobH pointed out, the planned reconfiguration of the State de France. If they're planning on reshaping the bowl for a soccer field instead of an athletic track that really would hinder Paris from hosting the Olympics in the future. I mean it wouldn't be impossible to install an elevated track, but I think it'd be a bigger problem than having to find a new OV for 2028.


Could be. But in his press conference and subsequent interviews Estanguet specifically and repeatedly said: they like the idea of picking two Olympics together; Paris can't do 2028; and the reason they can't is the village.

My comments were that they were right in not mentioning other reasons they are incapable in 2028 because you then start looking foolish or incompetent or implying the IOC are fools that can easily be manipulated.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

And, right on cue:

“We have to communicate and see exactly what is the way they want to go,” Estanguet told reporters at a briefing. “We want to find solutions. We are a good partner, but so far we are here to win ’24.”

As per my suggestion, Estanguet gets reined in by his PR people and starts sounding like a team player instead of a spoiled 5 year old.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-olympics-idUKKBN1761R1

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...re-2024-plans-with-olympic-leaders/100014176/

Arched backs, hissing and general cattiness dominated the stage as Hidalgo and Garcetti tried to belittle the other while not sounding like they were doing so.

Most of the articles regarding the conference treat it as a ritual and I think that that is right. These meetings are to generate press coverage and public interest rather than to help resolve any real issues.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

http://www.aipsmedia.com/2017/04/03/20608/la-2024-los-angeles-olympics-olympic-games-bid

http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...ris-mayors-as-2024-and-2028-talks-gather-pace

In French

http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/jeux-oly...e-tres-sensee-du-double-vote-2024-2028-853322

http://www.la-croix.com/Sport/JO-20...-course-deux-vainqueurs-2017-04-04-1300837044


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

CaliforniaJones said:


> http://www.aipsmedia.com/2017/04/03/20608/la-2024-los-angeles-olympics-olympic-games-bid
> 
> http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...ris-mayors-as-2024-and-2028-talks-gather-pace
> 
> ...


A couple of thoughts.

My sense from seeing how CEO’s work is that they do not tell a staff committee to go and work on a solution unless they make it clear to the committee what the proper solution is. After all, the CEO is in charge; he controls the operations staff; and the committee are not operations people. If necessary he assigns one of his top operations people to “help” them reach a decision.

They are told to flesh out the lead proposal (say, granting two bids) and explain the benefits and how any problems can be eliminated. As part of this process, they should talk to LA and Paris and make it clear to them that if they are not committed to accepting either bid offered to them they will not be considered for 2024. This is not a game or party; it is business.

Of course, different story if the decision is, say, Paris in 2024 and LA bids with the rest for 2028. But either way you don’t send a committee off to come back and tell you what to do unless it’s a trivial issue you don’t want to be involved in.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

http://www.la-croix.com/Sport/JO-202...-04-1300837044

Btw, CaliforniaJones's cites include one loco Frenchman. He actually thinks that security is the biggest problem for the French bid!

Fortunately we have plenty of people on this site who know better. :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Good stuff guys! I'll add my two cents in a bit but for now, here is LA 2024's full presentation at the SportAccord Convention today in Aarhus, Denmark:






Hopefully we'll get to see the Paris presentation soon :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

And oh boy, we have ourselves a mini-scandal! Let's call it "like-gate" :lol:

First the news from LA 2024, they're the first ever bid to hit a million fans on Facebook!:



> APRIL 3, 2017
> LA 2024 BECOMES FIRST OLYMPIC BID IN HISTORY TO REACH 1 MILLION FACEBOOK FANS
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/la2024/videos/847446828742538/
> ...


https://la24.org/media/43-facebook-1-million-fans-

Great! but wait! Not so fast. The french website Le Figaro came out with a story claiming that LA 2024 artificially inflated their numbers by buying fans for the bid's Facebook page:

(article in French)


> LOS ANGELES 2024 ACHÈTERAIT SES FANS SUR FACEBOOK EN AFRIQUE ET AU MOYEN-ORIENT
> 
> Par La rédaction
> Publié le 03/04/2017 à 13h44
> ...


http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/jeux-oly...facebook-en-afrique-et-au-moyen-orient-853165

Here is the article in English through google translate:



> At the beginning of the year, the Facebook page of Los Angeles 2024 counted a hair more than 200,000 fans. A figure that has been multiplied ... by five today, L.A. 2024 having passed the million subscribers. While the first 200,000 fans were almost all Americans, RTL points out that the newcomers to the page come mostly from Africa and the Middle East. At the height of the irony, the fans are sometimes originating in countries targeted by US President Donald Trump's bans, such as Somalia or Libya ... Our colleagues say that "Los Angeles 2024 buy its fans on Facebook".


So now, LA 2024 has come out and defended its number of fans as authentic:



> Los Angeles 2024 forced to deny French claims it artificially inflated Facebook likes
> By Daniel Etchells at the Scandinavian Center in Aarhus
> 
> Los Angeles 2024 has denied allegations it used the services of fringe internet companies to artificially increase the number of likes on its Facebook page and followers on Twitter.
> ...


http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...laims-it-artificially-inflated-facebook-likes

So like all serious international endeavors, Paris is picking a fight with LA over who's more popular on Facebook opcorn:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> And oh boy, we have ourselves a mini-scandal! Let's call it "like-gate" :lol:
> 
> First the news from LA 2024, they're the first ever bid to hit a million fans on Facebook!:
> 
> ...


Sounds like someone is getting desperate. 

"No, no, don't look at the security issues, the Olympic Village or potential cost over-runs; look at the questionable Facebook likes and how this will ruin the Olympic experience for so many hapless visitors and Angelinos."


----------



## Rover030 (Dec 6, 2016)

pesto said:


> Sounds like someone is getting desperate.
> 
> "No, no, don't look at the security issues, the Olympic Village or potential cost over-runs; look at the questionable Facebook likes and how this will ruin the Olympic experience for so many hapless visitors and Angelinos."


On the other hand, buying Facebook likes also sounds like a pretty desperate thing to do...


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Rover030 said:


> On the other hand, buying Facebook likes also sounds like a pretty desperate thing to do...


Well it turns out what they did wasn't "buying likes" per se. What the LA 2024 social media team did was to advertise basically EVERYWHERE on Facebook in order to gain fans across the world. And in a lot of "markets" on Facebook, they were one of the only advertisers. So, if you were say a Bangladeshi or a Tanzanian using Facebook, LA 2024 was one of the only ads you would see in your timeline in heavy rotation. So it wouldn't be a huge surprise that out of the hundreds of millions using Facebook 800,000 would become fans if they saw the ads constantly. Some people are just fans of the Olympics! It's an easy way to get your product out to a ton of International internet users, purchasing power be damned, in that it's relatively cheap to advertise on Facebook in these markets and you also get a lot of visibility because of the lack of advertising competition.
So I think it's fair to say that the fan support wasn't "organic", but it also wasn't illegitimate, just the product of an ordinary ad blitz. Unless Paris 2024 wants to go down the dicey path of saying that people in sub saharan Africa, the middle east and southeast Asia "don't really count" in social media terms...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Rover030 said:


> On the other hand, buying Facebook likes also sounds like a pretty desperate thing to do...


That's where Facebook likes come from. I'm afraid that like it or not this is how PR works.

Some time back I mentioned that the IOC's visit to LA shocked them into awareness of what a modern PR campaign is like and that Paris changed their PR people (both reported widely). This COULD be related. :lol:

And it should be. If you have the skills to make people look at your postings and find them positive, you may also have the skills to convince them to visit or watch your event.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Well it turns out what they did wasn't "buying likes" per se. What the LA 2024 social media team did was to advertise basically EVERYWHERE on Facebook in order to gain fans across the world. And in a lot of "markets" on Facebook, they were one of the only advertisers. So, if you were say a Bangladeshi or a Tanzanian using Facebook, LA 2024 was one of the only ads you would see in your timeline in heavy rotation. So it wouldn't be a huge surprise that out of the hundreds of millions using Facebook 800,000 would become fans if they saw the ads constantly. Some people are just fans of the Olympics! It's an easy way to get your product out to a ton of International internet users, purchasing power be damned, in that it's relatively cheap to advertise on Facebook in these markets and you also get a lot of visibility because of the lack of advertising competition.
> So I think it's fair to say that the fan support wasn't "organic", but it also wasn't illegitimate, just the product of an ordinary ad blitz. Unless Paris 2024 wants to go down the dicey path of saying that people in sub saharan Africa, the middle east and southeast Asia "don't really count" in social media terms...


Just to elaborate a bit, projects worth billions of dollars cannot be left to individuals to make or sink you. The public response has to be managed. And that is done by PR initiatives.

When LA shows that their people can generate that kind of response, the IOC has to take notice. That's what their funders want to see: an event run by people with the skills to get people to watch and get involved.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Rover030 said:


> On the other hand, buying Facebook likes also sounds like a pretty desperate thing to do...


I think the Los Angeles 2024 committee actually has been more skilled in the material they've devised for their efforts. That includes their bid books, Youtube account and even things like their bid logo. (Some experts in the graphics field have said that LA 2024's angel is too representational or literal and not abstract enough---after decades of too much foo-foo-fau-fau, I personally disagree).

By contrast, the Paris 2024 committee seems more tentative and quaint - sort of an oddly unsophisticated Gallic way of doing things - in its approach to bidding for the 2024 games. Their bid books and videos haven't been as good.

But the IOC still needs Paris as a future host of the Olympics. If only because France's capital is more viable than most other potential host cities around the world. 

That's why Paris's committee could duplicate the lackluster traits of London 2012 or, even worse, Rio 2016 and no one in the IOC or international athletic federations will be negatively affected. The reason?

Beggars can't be choosers. 

However, that's assuming those same groups don't believe an Olympic games held in - for example - an oil-wealthy part of the Middle East will be wonderful. 

Riyadh 2032? Dubai 2032? 

Or maybe Johannesburg 2028?


----------



## the cure (Aug 1, 2011)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

how do you dare comparing safety between France and the US...

Pesto you are a litteral hater no more no less...

And these figures are even worse when getting for LA...

Get me figures where LA is safer than Paris you fool...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

the cure said:


> http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime
> 
> how do you dare comparing safety between France and the US...
> 
> ...


Ok, well the part about being a fool I will accept. :lol:

But you will recall it was a French source that indicated that Paris' BIGGEST drawback is security from terrorist attacks. See the quoted article, above.

Seriously, people saying what I have said have names like Hollande, Pietrasanta, Bach and every Presidential candidate. You can't have missed all of this so I assume you are being intentionally dense. The IOC wants to make sure that the areas immediately surrounding Olympics and tourist sites are safe.

For sure if someone in LA is trying to buy 10k of coke for cash in some deserted ghetto at 2 AM he is at risk. Or if he belongs to a gang and plans to eliminate competition in the 'hood, I wouldn't sell him life insurance. But he's not likely to come near Olympics facilities or tourist areas.

By contrast, terrorists will be focusing specifically on the Olympics and on tourists (e.g., the Louvre, where attendance has plummeted; tourist-oriented shops, where sales have plummeted; the Eiffel Tower, where an 8-foot, bullet proof glass wall is being installed so that survivors and security forces can fall back into a safety zone until reinforcements arrive); transit stations, etc., who continue to operate under a state of emergency. 

Is this that hard to understand? 

Btw, I have heard that the new Olympics facilities near the Stade de France will be connected to the Stade by an elevated walkway with bullet-proof glass walls so as to keep people off the streets. Could someone confirm if this is still the plan?


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Here's the article from Gamesbids about "like-gate" where they tested Facebook themselves and found that the Facebook advertising algorithm does in fact push your advertising to the places that ended up having the huge increase of fans on LA 2024's page:












> *LA 2024 Reaches Million Facebook Follower Milestone Amid French Suspicions of Unfair Play*
> 
> By Robert Livingstone | Published Apr 4, 2017 6:57 PM in Featured, 2024 Olympic Bid News
> 
> ...


(_emphasis mine_)

http://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/l...estone-amid-french-suspicions-of-unfair-play/

So no unfair play, just a result of targeted social media advertising to get the best "bang for the buck". And as Pesto points out, instead of being a scandal if anything I think it shows the savvy by which the LA 2024 team can maximize their international exposure across internet platforms in a way that Paris 2024 hasn't yet.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> That's why Paris's committee could duplicate the lackluster traits of London 2012 or, even worse, Rio 2016 and no one in the IOC or international athletic federations will be negatively affected. The reason?






parcdesprinces said:


>


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Hey gang, kind've a slow weekend on the Olympics front! Guess we were due for one after the SportAccord convention and the whole Facebook thing. Anyways thought I would put up some renders from LA 2024. They've been a little stingy with high resolution renders so I took these from the bid book (sorry for the pixelation!) Well here are the renders from the LA 2024 bid book that I don't believe we have high resolution files of as of yet:

*Villages*









*Olympic Village*









*Media Press Center* (the Media Village is actually across the street, "behind" this pic. In the background though are the Coliseum and the LAFC Stadium)

*Downtown Cluster*









*Convention Center, Staples Center and Olympic Family Hotel*









*Convention Center* - Fencing









*Figueroa Street* - "Live Site" connecting Convention Center/Staples Center to the Coliseum/Expo Park









*Galen Center* - Badminton









*LAFC Stadium* - Football Prelims

*Other Clusters*









*Sepulveda Basin*









*Carson/South Bay*

*Other Venues*









*Rose Bowl* - Football









*Santa Monica Pier* - Beach Volleyball









*L.A. Stadium and The Forum* - Ceremonies, Gymnastics, Archery (and probably football but that hasn't been announced yet)

Anyways that's it, fingers crossed that pretty soon we get some high quality files of these renders, and of other venues as well :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

and also in addition, here is the Paris 2024 presentation at the 2017 SportAccord convention:






Alrighty so now we can compare and contrast the two :cheers:


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

pesto said:


> Agree with Elvis and Californiadreams, generally.
> 
> Interestingly I had dinner recently with a VC who was associated with Korean Olympics in the past. His sense from people in Asia is that LA is the better option but that the humiliation for Paris would be too big for them to swallow, so the best workable solution is Paris 2024. This also has the advantage of having LA ready to step in for 2024 if Paris tanks (violence against Asian in Paris is big news in Korea.)
> 
> ...


Using the "It's now or never" argument is a tactical and frankly lazy error that Paris made during it's '92 bid when it was defeated by a less prominent, but boundlessly exuberant city with an urban regeneration focus. Athens made the same mistake for '96, as did Beijing for 2000.

Also, if IOC members vote based on how humiliating it would be for Paris to lose, then they have no business being IOC members. They should be voting based on the plans presented and focusing on what will be the best option for athletes and the image of the IOC itself. Let Paris be butt-hurt if LA is selected, they'll just have to get over it. And, if 2028 is not viable for Paris, then that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The argument that the Olympic movements needs Paris is just false. Paris needs the Olympics more than the Olympics need Paris.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Sportsfan said:


> Using the "It's now or never" argument is a tactical and frankly lazy error that Paris made during it's '92 bid when it was defeated by a less prominent, but boundlessly exuberant city with an urban regeneration focus. Athens made the same mistake for '96, as did Beijing for 2000.
> 
> Also, if IOC members vote based on how humiliating it would be for Paris to lose, then they have no business being IOC members. They should be voting based on the plans presented and focusing on what will be the best option for athletes and the image of the IOC itself. Let Paris be butt-hurt if LA is selected, they'll just have to get over it. And, if 2028 is not viable for Paris, then that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The argument that the Olympic movements needs Paris is just false. Paris needs the Olympics more than the Olympics need Paris.


Agree. About the only thing you can say for "now or never" is that it's aimed at "rallying the supporters" and is just ignored by the IOC who has its own set of serious discussions on the real issues (security, costs, venues, etc.) not on phony excuses.

I agree about Paris who came into this feeling entitled and has run a B-team campaign. It's not that they can't run a perfectly adequate Olympics. But what is probably best is to give them 2028 and let them learn from LA's 2024 effort to do things like you really care about them, not like you are bestowing an honor on the world by accepting the bid.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Hey gang, kind've a slow weekend on the Olympics front! Guess we were due for one after the SportAccord convention and the whole Facebook thing. Anyways thought I would put up some renders from LA 2024. They've been a little stingy with high resolution renders so I took these from the bid book (sorry for the pixelation!) Well here are the renders from the LA 2024 bid book that I don't believe we have high resolution files of as of yet:
> 
> *Villages*
> 
> Anyways that's it, fingers crossed that pretty soon we get some high quality files of these renders, and of other venues as well :cheers:


Thanks for the colorful and informative post. Just some thoughts.

Change, change, change. By 2024 there will be another couple of dozen sky-scrapers, stadiums, museums, etc. built where those pictures are. For sure the new Lucas, LACMA and AMPAS ("Oscar") Museums will be drawing huge crowds and the LAFC and Inglewood Stadiums will feature two NFL teams and a new MLS team. DT will not only have a dozen major towers but probably another dozen under construction. Hollywood and WeHo will have God knows how many more boutique hotels

Last week I went to dinner on La Brea and the street was closed down for 3 blocks since Nike was filming a new ad campaign all night. It will be interesting to see how much filming (studio, ad campaigns, independents, etc.) will be hitting the LA streets in the run up and during the Games.

For visitors, Vermont and Wilshire will be a good place to stay. Plenty of nightlife and subway connections to most of the venues plus Korean and Latin food galore. DT will be good as well and SaMo will have good rail if you are just seeing one or two events but spending time at the beach, dining al fresco and New Aging it. 

The local cities will have to take a look at their Airbnb policies. Not sure that 10 young people from country Xyz in a single bedroom is what the neighbors are looking for. :lol:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Sportsfan said:


> Also, if IOC members vote based on how humiliating it would be for Paris to lose, then they have no business being IOC members.


That's why they'll have - as you say - no business being members. My sense is the politics and emotions behind Paris 2024 are so strong, France's main city will win the vote later this year. So it's mainly a question of whether the IOC will make the session in September a duo-selection and award 2028 to Los Angeles.

If the IOC instead chooses to wave bye-bye to LA, that will be a slap down and snub to LA and the US. Refusing to hand out a double award in Lima will mean LA has been tossed aside by the IOC.

I agree with Pesto's and acquamaroon's impression that Los Angeles may have the stronger bid. But much of the international community will be thinking of 1984 and 1996. And they'll sense those years were way more recent compared with 1924.

Since I personally think most recent Olympics have been undermined by weak opening and closing ceremonies, if the Los Angeles committee were to get a planner or producer to elaborately detail the way he'd handle Olympic ceremonies in LA - and if his plans were impressive and noble, that could give the people in Los Angeles an edge over Paris. Otherwise, I have a strong hunch that 2024 will go to Paris instead of Los Angeles.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

http://www.sportsfeatures.com/olymp...o-stage-the-most-spectacular-games-in-history

https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-president-calls-on-sport-to-embrace-innovation

An interesting pair of articles.

Paris continues its backwards looking campaign which will now feature the Grand Palais, Versailles and the Arc de Triomphe along with the Eiffel Tower. Average age is about 250 years, which means about 150 years older than ANY building in LA. 

Seems like an odd course on the same day that Bach is saying that innovation in all aspects is the keystone of the current Olympic process. I suppose this is because places like Le Defense and Foundation Louis Vuitton do not evoke Paris for the average visitor: the image is of a city of artists with berets, and pompous aristocrats with waxed mustaches stepping out of horse-drawn carriages. Trapped by your own history (and continuing to make shameless use of it).

By contrast, the average building featured in LA’s Olympic presentations is about zero years old since places like Inglewood, LAFC, the Coliseum, etc., are not yet complete or are undergoing large-scale expansion. 

It's said that LA re-invents itself every few weeks; I guess Paris reinvents itself every few centuries.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

:lol:


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

pesto said:


> http://www.sportsfeatures.com/olymp...o-stage-the-most-spectacular-games-in-history
> 
> https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-president-calls-on-sport-to-embrace-innovation
> 
> ...


This is a harsh post but I agree. I think between this and the b rated campaign Paris shot itself on the foot. What I don't understand is why? Paris is an incredible city and I would think they'd be telling the world come take another look at Paris, we are doing amazing things. But instead they seem to be saying, come take a look at Paris, we are still doing the same thing... its like the part of the homework the bid team should have been building into its story was lost on keeping an eye on LA.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Using famous locations as backdrops for venues, setting up temporary seating and not having the worry of what to do with - say - a permanent volleyball arena afterwards is one of approaches which has proven a huge success over recent Games. Whatever changes the IOC needs to make, this isn't one of them. It's tortuous reading LA boosters trying to spin that aspect of Paris' plans into a negative.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Using famous locations as backdrops for venues, setting up temporary seating and not having the worry of what to do with - say - a permanent volleyball arena afterwards is one of approaches which has proven a huge success over recent Games. Whatever changes the IOC needs to make, this isn't one of them. It's tortuous reading LA boosters trying to spin that aspect of Paris' plans into a negative.


So you are saying that Bach is pretty confused? The article quotes him at extensive length about innovation being the focus for all aspects of the Olympics. I don't think he had Le Vau and Le Notre in mind when he said that. But now that I think of it, St. Denis was pretty damn innovative for the 12th century. :lol:

And it's not the LA supporters who are saying that Paris is backward looking. It is the Paris team who are proudly announcing that they will be moving the focus to French baroque and beaux arts buildings. Seriously, even Le Corbusier was 100 years ago but I guess he's considered too wildly revolutionary.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Just as a side note, if LA gets the Olympics it looks like they will be getting a Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup major match and Olympic Games in a period of 5 or 7 years.

Talk about "if you build it, they will come". :lol:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> This is a harsh post but I agree. I think between this and the b rated campaign Paris shot itself on the foot. What I don't understand is why? Paris is an incredible city and I would think they'd be telling the world come take another look at Paris, we are doing amazing things. But instead they seem to be saying, come take a look at Paris, we are still doing the same thing... its like the part of the homework the bid team should have been building into its story was lost on keeping an eye on LA.


And for the hundredth time, let me say I am not being harsh about Paris which is a great and beautiful city. But their campaign approach is confusing me.

I would think they would focus on showing the IOC that they are capable of motivating billions of people to get interested in the Olympics taking place in their city. That's what the IOC wants to see (along with finances, venues, etc.).

Instead they are focusing on the potential visitors. I would think that that is something you do later, after you get the bid.

I assume that the Paris team has commissioned someone to do metrics on where their efforts are succeeding and where they are failing. Perhaps they are responding to those reported deficiencies. But I can't see why that has to be addressed yet. Right now you are just showing that you are the master of all the tools.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

pesto said:


> Just as a side note, if LA gets the Olympics it looks like they will be getting a Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup major match and Olympic Games in a period of 5 or 7 years.
> 
> Talk about "if you build it, they will come". :lol:


I call that "if you have full pockets you'll need more of them". Kroenke is one of those guys. AFAIK he is the second richest NFL owner (only Paul Allen is far out of reach)

If you talk about LA in general and not about that particular privately funded project in Inglewood then yes, if you invest money smart it will come back, but we're talking about LA, not about Jackson Hole, Wyoming, you should be aware of that as well


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

I'm not a fan of this 'entitled' feeling that the Paris bid is putting out either. Remember, that attitude is what cost Athens the 1996 games.


----------



## Targaryen (Jul 4, 2016)

I believe it was a big pile of (coca cola) money from the Americans to the IOC that costed Athens the 1996 games.


----------



## Cobucci (Jun 30, 2005)

SirRols said:


> (...) or sexuality to put beach volleyball on Copacabana.


Sexuality to put beach volleyball on Copacabana? WTF? 

The name of the sport is BEACH volleyball, and Copacabana has an immense BEACH which is very easy for the public to access (metro stations and lots of bus lines near the beach).

Every beach volleyball competitions held at Rio take place at Copacabana, and there are many of them. It's a natural place to held beach volleyball competitions, since the adequate sand is already there and the sand strip is very large at Copacabana (~200m from sidewalk to sea).



SirRols said:


> Or whatever they were trying to achieve to have Sugarloaf Mountain, Christ the Redeemer and the coastal landscape feature in the back of as many events as they could.


These are famous features of the city. I see no negative side on this.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

^^ I guess you missed the fairly obvious sarcasm throughout the first paragraph of that post. He wasn't being negative at all.


----------



## Miguel Portela (Jan 21, 2008)

I see that there are many french in this forum or Europeans wanting to have a close by Olympic Games.


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

pesto said:


> If that's what you see in the Parthenon, Great Wall, etc., then no big deal; just keep visiting your shrink and stay on the meds.
> 
> And you seem to be having trouble with reading the prior posts. There is a time to pound away on the touristy b/s. But that time is NOT when you are wooing the IOC. For them you want to show that you can hit their goals (innovation, forward looking, diverse, secure, etc.) and have got the skills to generate mass interest and responses. Otherwise NBC and their friends don't pay as much.


No, this is EXACTLY the time, when you are wooing the voters in Lausanne, to pull out your trump cards and propose to the IOC the most spectacular settings to host their showpiece entertainment event and offer NBC and the other broadcasters the most breathtaking sightlines for the images they will be transmitting to their viewerships (believe me, they'll pay big bucks for that) - all without the cost burden of building a new venue from scratch that would likely offer little in the way of iconic event-stamping imagery. NOT play some silly convoluted mind exercises of reverse one-upmanship: i.e. "We are the more forward thinking location because we don't have any buildings older than 150 years or so to show off". If the IOC was more concerned that venue plans must send some subliminal message about modernity, Rio and its proposals would not have beaten out Chicago, London's venue proposals would not have beaten out NYC, and Beijing's would not have aced Toronto's. The IOC members are well aware that the average Parisians don't go around in Periwinkle wigs and travel in cars rather than carriages.

And meanwhile, it's not as if the Paris bid team isn't highlighting its own high tech credentials:
Paris 2024 offers techonological opportunities to start-ups at Hacking of City Hall event
Or diversity credentials:
Paris 2024 vow support for gender diversity at city's Marathon
Or forward thinking and sustainability credentials:
Paris 2024 become first Olympic bid to receive sustainability award
But I guess you may have missed those. USA Today probably chose not to run them or they didn't show up in your search strings because they didn't include the terms "Eiffel Tower" or "Overnight Paris police incidents". But the dedicated Olympic bid following media sure ran them, and you can bet the IOC membership all read them.

I get it that you're an LA24 booster and are looking for arguments to bolster your cause and paint the opposition as lacking. But you really are coming up with some quite bizarre straw man arguments with your efforts to paint Paris' whites into black.


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

soup or man said:


> I'm not a fan of this 'entitled' feeling that the Paris bid is putting out either. Remember, that attitude is what cost Athens the 1996 games.


Well, actually I'm not seeing much in the way of 'entitlement" or smugness in the Paris 2024 marketing. More straight professionalism. If anyone is pushing "entitlement", it's the LA team, and/or their social media attack bots, with their consistent messaging of "LA is the only city that can save the games", "LA is the only city aligned to Agenda 2020" or "LA is the only city that can project youth and futurism". Their dark web strategy may well pay dividends - after all, 80k Pakistani Facebook browsers can't be wrong! - or it could blow back in their faces just as well.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

SirRols said:


> Well, actually I'm not seeing much in the way of 'entitlement" or smugness in the Paris 2024 marketing. More straight professionalism. If an one is pushing "entitlement", it's the LA team, and/or their social media attack bots, with their consistent messaging of "LA is the only city that can save the games", :LA is the only city aligned to Agenda 2020" or "LA is the only city that can project youth and futurism". Their dark web strategy may well pay dividends - or it could well blow back in their faces as well.


Well yeah. 

Look at history. Los Angeles has indeed saved the Olympics. Twice. During tumultuous times. This is indeed fact. In terms of sports, there isn't many cities on earth that can rival LA. Pro sports yes but UCLA and USC will continue to pump out Olympians. LA wouldn't run again if it didn't think it couldn't win. Taking nothing away from Paris at all. I'd be perfectly fine if LA lost to Paris. Lol but I was born and raised in LA. Mid Wilshire. Of course I want Los Angeles to win.


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

soup or man said:


> Well yeah.
> 
> Look at history. Los Angeles has indeed saved the Olympics. Twice. During tumultuous times. This is indeed fact. In terms of sports, there isn't many cities on earth that can rival LA. Pro sports yes but UCLA and USC will continue to pump out Olympians. LA wouldn't run again if it didn't think it couldn't win. Taking nothing away from Paris at all. I'd be perfectly fine if LA lost to Paris. Lol but I was born and raised in LA. Mid Wilshire. Of course I want Los Angeles to win.


There's also not many cities that can rival Paris in its sporting credentials as well. Probably a bit of a tie between the two there. Meanwhile, show me where Paris is displaying "entitlement" or why it can't "save" the games as well - especially when one of the IOC's biggest concerns would be getting western Europeans back on board.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

SirRols said:


> There's also not *many* cities that can rival Paris in its sporting credentials as well.


Which ones? dunno


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...-centenary-anniversary-admits-chief-executive


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

parcdesprinces said:


> Which ones? duno


Exactly! On a serious examination, the short list would be London, Melbourne, probably LA and maybe NYC.


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

soup or man said:


> http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...-centenary-anniversary-admits-chief-executive


That article just proved the point - the Paris team's head went out of his way to say the city is NOT entitled. And the article mentions that the bid campaign is keen to avoid any perception of arrogance and entitlement.

Actually, I'd disagree with the article saying the 2012 campaign was perceived as entitled or arrogant - in that campaign they played it pretty low key, again to counter such criticisms. It was THAT attitude that sunk them against a more eager and persistent London.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

SirRols said:


> You just proved the point - the Paris team's head went out of his way to say the city is NOT entitled. And the article mentions that the bid campaign is keen to avoid any perception of arrogance an entitlement.
> 
> Actually, I'd disagree with the article saying the 2012 campaign was perceived as entitled or arrogant - in that campaign they played it pretty low key, again to counter such criticisms. It was THAT attitude that sunk them against a more eager and persistent London.


He wouldn't have to have said that at all if officials have noticed it in the first place.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

SirRols said:


> Actually, I'd disagree with the article saying the 2012 campaign was perceived as entitled or arrogant - in that campaign they played it pretty low key, again to counter such criticisms. It was THAT attitude that sunk them against a more eager and persistent London.


+1! (IMHO)


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

soup or man said:


> He wouldn't have to have said that at all if officials have noticed it in the first place.


Being the favourite and frontrunner is always a difficult tag to play to - as Paris has found to its dismay in their recent previous bid tilts. I'll give LA this - they're doing their darnedest to make what they can of that this time as well.
In the meantime, I still stand by my perception that the Paris team are making sure this time they're coming over as eager and keen, without stepping over the line into arrogance. And that if anyone's crossing that line, it's... well, let's not go there.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

SirRols said:


> Being the favourite and frontrunner is always a difficult tag to play to - as Paris has found to its dismay in their recent previous bid tilts. I'll give LA this - they're doing their darnedest to make what they can of that this time as well.


Absolutely. Like I said I'm fine with either city winning. But as a native Angelo, watching my city mature and urbanize, especially within the last 15 or so years (or as least as long as I have been on this forum), I see the 2024 games as a milestone point. LA in 2024 will be a wholly different place. Trust me when I tell you that LA is the most misunderstood city on the planet. A lot of the common stereotypes you hear are totally inaccurate. Despite the rise in crime, LA is one of the safest major cities in the US. You'll never see a celebrity in Hollywood aside from the Oscar's (they're at The Grove), I would rather live in Playa Rey than Santa Monica. 

Plus the Rams are back. Least there's that. And the world's most expensive stadium. Whatever that means, we'll see.


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

soup or man said:


> And the world's most expensive stadium. Whatever that means, we'll see.


Shhhhh. Don't say that. It's not Agenda 2020 compliant!!!


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

soup or man said:


> More importantly, what does traffic incidents have to do with the Olympics? None. Next?


None? Except that Olympic Games drag in tens of thousands of athletes, journos and visitors who live in the environment that the host city provides for a week or two. Think before you write or you're not fit for your avatar.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

SirRols said:


> Shhhhh. Don't say that. It's not Agenda 2020 compliant!!!


hno:hno:hno:
It's a privately funded stadium. No public money at all. It's not counted in the cost of putting on a Los Angeles Olympics. Therefore, Agenda 2020 doesn't have any relevancy here.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

I wonder if Toshiro Muto is going to do to Tokyo 2020 what Sebastian Coe did to London 2012? 

Muto mentions anime as one aspect of Japan that could be used as sort of a greeting to the world.

Oh-oh.

The 1964 Olympics were run by people who seemed to have a good sense of the supposed prestige of the ultimate in an international sporting event. Their opening ceremonies reflected that.

Not sure if history is going to repeat itself at the 2020 games. 

Muto and his committee have already been less than skilled, knowledgeable and transparent in dealing with Tokyo 2020's budget.

Adding to the concern, Tokyo's committee also didn't even consider the idea that their city's new stadium should be designed so as to include an Olympic cauldron. The committee back in 1964 didn't overlook that.

Moreover, the upcoming games don't even involve a country like Brazil.

Uh, er....Oh-oh.

Then there's the matter of Fukushima.

Will things like this affect the IOC over the next several months and years?


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Considering what's gone on with previous Olympic cities, with upcoming ones (or Tokyo), and other things going on throughout the world, including terrorism, volatile politics and natural calamities (which cause mass contamination), I'm now of the mind that if the IOC doesn't treat their upcoming conference in September as very unusual and greatly in need of a major change, then that will show the world the Olympics are being managed by some of the most clueless, strangely complacent or lazy, or "what-me?" people imaginable.

The situation is going from sheer speculation about the possibility of and need for a double award in Lima, Peru to the point where a double award will be a necessity. It will be a requirement.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

karlcreate1 said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> So, where to start ?
> 
> ...


This post is laughable. Los Angeles doesn't have a public transportation system? What is this?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I'd rather see the IOC decide to keep the OG in Tokyo after 2020 indefinitely. Anything to avoid another thread about how City A is the best this, or City B is entitled to that, or City C has no equal when it comes to blah blah blah.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

What precisely is the reason for choosing the remotely located UCLA campus as proposed Olympic village when the campus of USC is actually better located as it is in the midst of the main venue cluster?


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

flierfy said:


> What precisely is the reason for choosing the remotely located UCLA campus as proposed Olympic village when the campus of USC is actually better located as it is in the midst of the main venue cluster?


UCLA isn't remote. It's near Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and the Valley. It's actually more centrally located than USC which is much further east. Plus, UCLA is larger.


----------



## f-kuntz (Dec 16, 2014)

aquamaroon said:


> Well, as a non-neutral, I don't mind the tone too much as long as we're all respectful to each other. It's a competition after all, we don't wanna be TOO chummy with each other. Usually I think Paris is a beautiful city, the "City of Light" and a living monument to European civilization. Until September though, I have NO idea why the IOC would ever consider giving the Olympics to that hell-hole ( :lol And I'm sure Parisian backers feel the same way, the game is on! :cheers:


I'm sorry, but i think this is not a reason to post alternative facts with a clear anti-muslim and anti-migrant speech. 
I reported califoniadreams last bullsh*t video and I hope this troll will be banned for a while. :wave:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

^^ Wow! I'm a little shocked and very sorry if you took my post as an "anti-Muslim/migrant" statement. I was "dissing" Paris in the spirit of friendly competition, and like I wrote they are free to diss LA right back (goodness knows there's plenty of ammunition :lol And I wasn't even thinking at ALL about immigration issues! I am not an islamaphobe in any way, and I am honestly sorry and do feel bad if my post conveyed that thought.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

LA does have a public transportation system :lol: And due to distances, probably one of the US's largest, minus NY.


Here's an interactive map of the present and future. Most of the future will be done by 2024, almost definitely by 2028.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm almost sure that Paris and LA will get games, now which will be decided in September. It is the smartest way forward due to the atmosphere the movement is in. 

So, let's stop bickering between us and show what each will do, because again, I can almost guarantee both will get games.


*LA* (some venues)

*Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum* (1932 & 1984 Summer Olympics) - Track and field - Part of the Ceremonies.










*Los Angeles Convention Center* (multiple rooms) - Fencing - Table Tennis - Wheelchair Rugby - Paralympic Table Tennis - Boccia - Wheelchair Fencing























































*Microsoft Theater at LA Live* - Para Powerlifting - Weightlifting


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

*LA* Venice Beach


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

soup or man said:


> UCLA isn't remote. It's near Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and the Valley. It's actually more centrally located than USC which is much further east. Plus, UCLA is larger.


How is UCLA not remote when its 20 km away from central Los Angeles. The USC campus on the other hand is just 6 km away from the centre and adjacent to Exposition Park, site of the proposed Olympic Stadium as well as other Olympic venues.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

flierfy said:


> How is UCLA not remote when its 20 km away from central Los Angeles. The USC campus on the other hand is just 6 km away from the centre and adjacent to Exposition Park, site of the proposed Olympic Stadium as well as other Olympic venues.


Well, you have to understand that metro Los Angeles is GIGANTIC, we giggle at 20 kilometers. UCLA is not remote, yes USC is a bit closer to downtown. 

To us, remote has a different definition.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ Wow! I'm a little shocked and very sorry if you took my post as an "anti-Muslim/migrant" statement.


Not sure why you're apologizing to hit-and-run visitors to this thread. In the world of online forums, such users are sometimes known as trolls.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

californiadreams said:


> Not sure why you're apologizing to hit-and-run visitors to this thread. In the world of online forums, such users are sometimes known as trolls.


haha fair enough :lol: I do feel bad though if my ribbing was in bad taste, and absolutely apologize if it was xenophobic in any way. Well from now on, no anti-Paris for me; it's gonna be all pro LA all the time!! :cheers:

...and in that spirit, thank you for posting the renders Kenni!! I saw them on Facebook but you beat me to the punch :lol: Twitter has a few more but I don't know how to link twitter video here, hopefully they will show up on Facebook soon :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So I thought I would do a quick Coliseum update!

I don't know if it's been posted yet, but LA has started a video series about their venues, and the first episode is about the Memorial Coliseum. Here is Carl Lewis talking about his memories of the '84 Olympics, and the future Olympics to come (video is very nicely done imo):






Also as posted before, the renovations have started on the Coliseum. They are taking down the old video boards on the Peristyle, cleaning up the historic facade, and adding modern video screens to the sides. For reference here is how it looked at the start of the renovation:










And here is how it looked as of this past Friday:










At the rate they are going, the second screen should be fully removed by the end of this upcoming week, I'll post to show when it's removed. Can't wait to see the finished product :cheers:

ETA: So it's bit of an end of an era: I'm pretty sure those old video boards were put up for the 1984 Olympics, and now down they go after 33 years of service! In a way the end of one Olympic era for the Coliseum, and hopefully just in time to start a new Olympic era for the stadium as of this September :cheers:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> So I thought I would do a quick Coliseum update!


That remains the more dignified and historic of Olympic stadiums. The one in Berlin from 1936 is sort of in that same category. But the cauldron there is much smaller, more like a backyard charcoal grill and not of heroic proportions. Or not similar to the cauldron designed by John Parkinson. Tokyo's 1964 stadium was somewhat in the same category with LA and Berlin too, but it has since been demolished.

The video is good. It's nice that Carl Lewis doesn't look as noticeably aged in 2017 as another face from 1984 looks, Peter Ueberroth. I saw LA 1984's former CEO in another video, and he more clearly shows the difference in time from summer 1984 to the way he looked last summer in Rio.

The only downside to the LA 2024 video is it will remind members of the IOC that the last time Los Angeles played host to the Olympics, images captured on film or tape will look rather fresh in 2017. Whereas film from Paris 1924 will look very grainy, weathered and worn.

However, the situation - in terms of history, politics, economics and other issues - is moving closer to where the IOC should award the 2028 games to LA. And if they don't, they'll look naive and careless.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

californiadreams said:


> That remains the more dignified and historic of Olympic stadiums. *The one in Berlin from 1936 is sort of in that same category.* But the cauldron there is much smaller, more like a backyard charcoal grill and not of heroic proportions. Or not similar to the cauldron designed by John Parkinson. Tokyo's 1964 stadium was somewhat in the same category with LA and Berlin too, but it has since been demolished.


Oh yeah, totally agree with that sentiment. To me, Berlin's Olympiastadion and the LA's Memorial Coliseum are counterparts of one another, one the 1932 host and the other the 1936 host:



















It's a big reason why I'm a big supporter of putting a canopy roof over the Coliseum, as it's been so well done on the Olympiastadion:


















Given the climate, heavy protection from the elements isn't required, but I think a light colored fabric canopy done like the above would be excellent as a sunshade. (given the new suite box though I don't know how the canopy would still work)
The Olympiastadion though has also received quite a bit more "TLC" over the years, so it's very nice that the Coliseum is finally getting renovated. Honestly, should LA get the games I wouldn't made if they left the Coliseum in the track and field configuration the Olympiastadion is in. The US has no large athletics stadium as a home for track and field, and the Coliseum would fit that role nicely. Though as a USC grad, whatever they decide, please use a red track surface, ANYTHING but that blue shown above :lol:

ETA: for reference, here is the Coliseum renovation rendering in its primary use (USC Trojans American Football) and a physical model from the USC preview center:


















These pictures and other renders of the inside of the renovated Coliseum are on the renovation website, overview section: http://coliseumrenovation.com/overview


----------



## Chevy114 (Jul 21, 2011)

Yeah but Americans would complain if they had support beams blocking views


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Paris is interested in competing which is why they're in the race for 2024 and have put together an incredibly strong bid. The fact their bid isn't set up for the later date shouldn't be surprising and is in no way an indication of them being spoilt brats - you're throwing out phrases to discredit Paris for no reason here. These bids are dependent on so many connected things and going into the race neither city would have been asked to have things in place for 2028, so why is one bid saying that is the case so unbelievable to you?
> 
> Rather than disbelieving Paris, I would've thought LA supporters would instead leap on the fact that Paris' stance shows LA's bid is indeed as flexible and sturdy as they've been saying all along (it is, perhaps, unique, in this regard...I can't think of many recent bids where the plans would work unchanged for another year).
> 
> ...


Funny, those people you are talking about include every major politician in France, Bach, every commentator I've read (including the recent one above in French). 

And, be honest, have you seen more questions here about the LA financing, venues, etc., or about supposed traffic conditions in LA, crime rates in LA, Trump, finishing a subway line to the west side, Estanguet questioning whether Garcetti could even get re-elected, etc.?

Really, the first step in addressing a problem is to stop denying that it's there. The IOC is serious about issues with Paris which is why they came up with the 2 bids solution. As far as I know they have never focused on any specific issue with the LA bid although presumably they use the same review methods for both cities. If someone knows of a venue or financing or security issue we should discuss it.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

LA 2024 released their second "Legendary LA Venues" series video! In it former NBA and Los Angeles Lakers' great (and Olympic gold medalist) Kobe Bryant discusses playing basketball at the Staples Center:






in addition, on the LA2024 twitter page they're continuing their venue renderings by showing the Staples Center during the Olympic and Paralympic basketball competitions. Fingers crossed we get more high resolution renders today on their Facebook page (and I'll continue with my comparisons!)


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

pesto said:


> You are impressed by an app to get people to engage with sport and think about their ecological impact?
> 
> Shows how far out of the loop I am. I don't plan to ever think about the ecological impact of sport. After today at any rate. :lol:


:lol: I think Rob makes a good point though. The examples he used are examples of the bids using social media technology in order to strengthen the games themselves and leveraging the tech we all carry around in our pockets to improve the two weeks of the 2024 Games. For the competition itself that's more important than a social media "beauty contest". That said, it's pretty abundantly clear that the IOC is facing a public support issue and needs to improve its reputation in the worst way. So while Facebook likes and Twitter hashtags may not be important to pulling off the event, they ARE part of a larger effort to get the Games back in the good graces of the world and again make the hosting of an Olympics a highly desirable goal.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Come to think of it, not sure if saving the planet was one of the boxes not ticked off in the following video. Politically correct in every way but that?
> 
> I'd think that if bid cities want to be truly friendly to the planet, they'll cancel their entry in the IOC lottery and avoid hosting the Olympics in the first place. Think of all the energy and resources that will save!


Yes. One of the few principles that I agree with Raggi and the Five Star Movement in Italy: there is no such thing as an eco-friendly Olympics; they are the triumph of concrete and big business over ordinary human beings.

The short answer is that all sporting events should be cancelled and stadiums torn down. Similarly, travelling to sporting events is a crime against mother earth. Athletes should be repurposed into workers cleaning beaches and rescuing injured animals.

And while you're at it, shut down the gyms, tracks, etc. You can get all the exercise you need climbing the stairs in your local buildings or train stations.

Or you could just let everybody do their own thing; you know, those who want Range Rovers buy one and those who want to walk buy shoes. :lol:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> The short answer is that all sporting events should be cancelled and stadiums torn down. Similarly, travelling to sporting events is a crime against mother earth. Athletes should be repurposed into workers cleaning beaches and rescuing injured animals.


After seeing the following commercial for Dove soap, I now realize the people behind the "Everyone is Welcome" video messed up in their mission to be as inclusive and accepting as possible.

LA 2024 and the LA Tourist & Convention Bureau should be ashamed of themselves!








I'm starting to now understand why most Olympic ceremonies over the past 20 years have struck me as increasingly bizarre. What I consider off-putting and strange, other people (such as the producers of the 2012 and 2016 Olympic openings) apparently judge to be fanciful, clever, cool and trendy.

So expect more kids, animals, anime characters, etc, floating above the field of Olympic stadiums in the future! I can hardly wait.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

californiadreams said:


> *I'm starting to now understand why most Olympic ceremonies over the past 20 years have struck me as increasingly bizarre. What I consider off-putting and strange, other people (such as the producers of the 2012 and 2016 Olympic openings) apparently judge to be fanciful, clever, cool and trendy.
> 
> So expect more kids, animals, anime characters, etc, floating above the field of Olympic stadiums in the future! I can hardly wait.*


This calls for a celebration!

:dance:

:lol: :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So we haven't seen any more updated renders on LA 2024's Facebook page, but LA 2024's twitter page has continued with revealing venue renders each day. I was hoping to wait for them to update, but in the interest of keepin' on keeping' on, I grabbed the render off LA's twitter video and I'll use the lower resolution render to do the comparisons. (if and when we do get higher resolution pics I'll switch them out for that [ETA: they did and I did!]):

*Basketball*

*Paris*









*Los Angeles*









Personally I gotta give this one to LA. AccorHotels Arena is a fine venue, but Staples Center is the better basketball arena in a number of ways: a.)It's newer, larger and contains more amenities b.) It was built with basketball in mind c.) It is home to two NBA teams, the highest level of basketball worldwide. So LA takes this round imo.

Both bids have a secondary arena: Paris would use the Stade Pierre de Coubertin and LA would use the Western Hall of the Convention center adjacent to the Staples Center. We don't have a render yet of the convention hall in basketball mode but we do for wheelchair rugby, so for now I'll use that:

*Basketball (second venue)*

*Paris*









*Los Angeles*








(in wheelchair rugby mode)

So while the convention hall does have some benefits by its proximity to the Staples Center, the Stade Pierre de Coubertin seems to me to be the better venue. Both because it hosts basketball regularly and it creates a more intimate atmosphere. So hopefully we'll get a render of the West Hall in basketball mode, but unless it just knocks it out of the park design-wise, I gotta give the better secondary basketball venue to Paris.

ETA: Thinking it over, I've changed my mind and think they are about equal. So with that said, definitely have to give LA the better Basketball venues overall.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> :lol: I think Rob makes a good point though. The examples he used are examples of the bids using social media technology in order to strengthen the games themselves and leveraging the tech we all carry around in our pockets to improve the two weeks of the 2024 Games. For the competition itself that's more important than a social media "beauty contest". That said, it's pretty abundantly clear that the IOC is facing a public support issue and needs to improve its reputation in the worst way. So while Facebook likes and Twitter hashtags may not be important to pulling off the event, they ARE part of a larger effort to get the Games back in the good graces of the world and again make the hosting of an Olympics a highly desirable goal.


And I agree generally. The problem is not to confuse the decision makers at the IOC with the general public. The latter can be fed ecology, global warming, renewability, social change, puppies and unicorns, all day long and lap it up. 

The IOC and country organizations do not give a sh#t about these issues. They are basically European aristocrats with a handful of sheiks and super-wealthy 3rd world oligarchs. They ride in convoys of SUV's; wouldn't know what a bus or subway looks like much less ever ridden in one. 

And the time to focus on them is now, before the vote. The public campaign can wait while a series of beautifully crafted ads about athletes rescuing villagers from hunger, saving rain forests, repairing facial damage of babies while their mothers sob in gratitude; pulling baby animals out of polluted rivers, inter-ethnic kids playing together, etc., are developed, story-boarded, budgeted and begin production.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

^^ yep very good points :cheers:. Know your audience, and for these bids the audience isn't hopping onto a GreenPeace boat to attack an oil tanker anytime soon :lol:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

And while we are at it, how about "You Have to Have Heart" as a theme for the campaign. Ties in nicely with athletic achievement and doing good for the world and humanity generally.

Somebody ought to give that theme out to half a dozen PR companies and see what they can do with it. In fact, someone has probably already done so with some similar ideas. :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So here is another set for the render comparisons:

*Marathon/Road-Cycling/Race-Walk*

*Paris*









*Los Angeles*









These renders are a pretty good example of where Paris' greatest strengths lie. It's hard for any city to compete with the Arc de Triomphe in the distance! While it may not be the most progressive marketing tactic, it does the trick, and Paris wins out in this showdown simply by having the more landmarks per square mile.

*Aquatics*

*Paris*









*Los Angeles*
Aquatics by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

Personally I've never been a huge fan of this design and location for L.A. so I may be a bit biased here :lol: But even though we don't see inside the venue for Paris, the fact that Aquatics is adjacent to the Stade de France and a permanent venue gives Paris the better Aquatic center in my eyes.

So so far in my opinion, when it comes to the renders here's which bid I think has the better one:

PARIS: Athletics, Aquatics, Marathon etc.
LOS ANGELES: Ceremonies, Basketball
TIE: Archery

That's off renders of course, when things look their best. The real test comes with making the renders a reality :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So the LA 2024 Facebook page came through and uploaded the latest renders, woohoo! :cheers:

I replaced the photos in my past two "compare" posts, and in addition to those here are the latest renders out of LA 2024:

*OLYMPICS*

*LAFC - Football Prelims**









*Convention Center - Boxing*









*Convention Center - Taekwondo*









*Galen Center at USC - Badminton*









*PARALYMPICS*

*Grand Park and LA City Hall - Paralympic Marathon and Road Cycling*









*Galen Center at USC - Paralympic Badminton*









*STAPLES Center - Wheelchair Basketball*









*LA Convention Center - Goalball*










All of these photos and more are over on the LA 2024 Facebook page as well :cheers:

***Just a heads up, the LAFC Stadium no longer looks like that as that is based off of an outdated render. The adjacent building is no longer planned and instead and outdoor "beer garden" sort of space has taken its place. FYI here is the latest render of LAFC's Banc of California Stadium:


----------



## Chevy114 (Jul 21, 2011)

Shouldn't gymnastics get the Staples center? I would think they would get a bigger crowd than Olympic basketball, but that's just me.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> Personally I've never been a huge fan of this design and location for L.A. so I may be a bit biased here :lol: But even though we don't see inside the venue for Paris, the fact that Aquatics is adjacent to the Stade de France and a permanent venue gives Paris the better Aquatic center in my eyes.


I agree. Although I'm impressed by how Rio 2016 was able to create a fairly permanent or big-time looking Olympic swim facility within a temporary setting. I didn't know anything about moveable and temporary swimming pools until a few months ago and I'm now amazed at what can be done.

A permanent and enclosed large swim stadium is one element that Los Angeles, compared with certain other cities, does lack. But even though London 2012 handled that more fully than, for example, Los Angeles 1984, or what Rio 2016 was able to show to the world compared with 1984, or what Beijing 2008 was able to show off with its highly publicized water cube, because recent Olympic games have been so unimpressive and lacking in so-called charm in other respects (or what the world sees on TV, such as opening ceremonies and size and enthusiasm of crowds---a big weakness in 2016), the quality of their venues to me falls by the wayside.

That's probably why I focus on the way that ceremonies are handled as much as how other followers of the games focus on the quality and impressiveness of Olympic venues, or things like the look and hospitality of a city, including transit or public safety. 




> *1984 Olympics, Los Angeles*
> 
> Though the venue used as the main stadium for the 1932 Olympics was given a major renovation for track and field events, as well as the Opening and Closing ceremonies, the pool adjacent to the L.A. Coliseum was not picked to host swimming again in 1984. The layout of the pool no longer provided for enough spectator seating, nor was the facility adequate for competition. Organizers looked north for their answer, to the University of Southern California, where the athletic department was hungry for a new venue for its successful swimming teams.
> 
> ...





> *1996 Olympics, Atlanta*
> 
> The architects behind the pool hosting the swimming in Atlanta apparently couldn't make up their minds about how to build the facility? Should it be an outdoor pool? Should it be indoors?
> 
> ...


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So LA 2024's twitter page has continued on with the renders, and now the good folks at LA 2024's Flickr page have started putting the full resolution renders up! In addition to what we've seen, they've also put renderings of the Valley Park's three sports, and some shots of downtown as well. In the interest of reducing clutter, I'll post a smaller size pic of each render. Please check out LA's Flickr page if you're interested in seeing the full-res renders :cheers:

*Valley Sports Park*

*Canoe Kayak - Slalom*
Valley Rendering - Canoe-Kayak Slalom by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

*Equestrian*
Valley Rendering - Olympic and Paralympic Shooting by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

*Shooting*
Untitled by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

*Downtown Sports Park*

*Figueroa Live Site* (connecting Downtown Park Convention Center/STAPLES Center to USC/Coliseum)
Downtown Sports Park Rendering - Figueroa Corridor by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

*Downtown L.A. Live Park Aerial**
Downtown Sports Park Rendering - LA Live Aerial by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

***This is another render that is a little off. Mainly, the Convention Center is in the process of deciding some huge new renovation plans. Nothing is quite set in stone as to what will happen with it, but regardless my bet is it'll look quite different by the time 2024 rolls around. (even downtown itself will look quite different with the addition of so much development there, but that's not the LA bid's issue )


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

And now we can do another Paris to L.A. comparison!

*Equestrian*

*Paris*

















*Los Angeles*
Valley Rendering - Olympic and Paralympic Shooting by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

I mean... come on, man. I may be an L.A. supporter but I can admit the obvious: you ain't beating Versailles with the San Fernando Valley. I actually really like L.A.'s plan, but between the two bids Paris has the better Equestrian venue.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Chevy114 said:


> Shouldn't gymnastics get the Staples center? I would think they would get a bigger crowd than Olympic basketball, but that's just me.


That was actually the original plan! In the first bid book way back when, Staples Center was listed as hosting the Gymnastics competition and the Forum was hosting volleyball.

I think they changed up the plans for three main reasons:
1.) Since Basketball and Gymnastics overlap slightly, they didn't want the pain of having to re-do the floor each time. The other option would be to have the first week of Basketball entirely in the convention center but that wouldn't be ideal either, especially for the marquee teams.
2.) My guess is they also wanted to spread out the marquee events in the Olympics around the LA area. Now you have gymnastics on the westside in Inglewood, and also Volleyball in the OC at the Honda Center. Also, with Gymnastics at The Forum LA Stadium, ostensibly the "main" Stadium of the Games, feels less like it's on an island with another major sport next door.

And with all that said, the Forum isn't really any downgrade in terms of facilities. The only thing it lacks is luxury suite boxes, other than that it's a great modern venue. Until we get a gymnastics render of the Forum from LA 2024 (here's hoping!) here's a shot of the Forum in a sport setup: MMA:









https://twitter.com/theforum/status/822962492678631424

P.S. My hot sports take: MMA will be an Olympic sport by 2024 and will need a venue in whatever city hosts those Games :cheers:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> I mean... come on, man. I may be an L.A. supporter but I can admit the obvious: you ain't beating Versailles with the San Fernando Valley. I actually really like L.A.'s plan, but between the two bids Paris has the better Equestrian venue.


Things like that make it even more certain the Paris 2024 committee will win the bid in September. 

It's now just a question of whether the IOC will change their rules to accommodate the Los Angeles 2024 committee by arranging for them to take 2028.

Regardless, it's just about a given that it will be Paris in 2024. 

Less certain it will be Los Angeles 2028.

Less likely it will be Los Angeles 2024 and Paris 2028.

There is also the possibility of the IOC giving the LA committee (and the US in general) nothing at the meeting in Lima, Peru. That will be the case if they choose to stick with current rules and voting procedures.

They're willingness to do exactly that - or to instead change tradition at the meeting in Lima, duplicating a version of what the IOC did back in the early 1900s - is the big question right now.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

^^ yep, that is THE question right now: double bid or no? In truth losing either of these bids would be a shame for the IOC. The forward thinking minds in the organization see that, but I think the decision makers are still mostly populated by those resistant to change. And with the same thinking in mind, I think you're right that the pull of Paris to a Euro-centric ossified decision making body will be hard to compete against.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So why the heck not, more comparisons! :cheers:

*Shooting*

*Paris*








(Shooting is the venue across the river)

*Los Angeles*
Untitled by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

*Canoe Kayak - Slalom*

*Paris*









*Los Angeles*
Valley Rendering - Canoe-Kayak Slalom by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

Personally I like LA's Shooting venue more; more airy and laid out in a more pleasing way. And for the Slalom venues I think they are both nice. While you could say Paris' has the benefit of holding both canoe events in the same location to me this venue is a tie :cheers:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> And now we can do another Paris to L.A. comparison!
> 
> *Equestrian*
> 
> ...


Interestingly, the SFV is famous for involvement with horses. Its ranches host and teach every kind of show and work horses, riding, breeding, stunt work, etc. It is one of the equestrian capitals of the world. My neighbors in Sonoma County regularly show and perform in the Valley, as part of the western loop of events.

In general, you seem to be charmed by the settings the venues are put in rather than by an analysis of whether they are adequate to the specific needs of the event, have adequate access and support facilities and can pass muster with the specific sport federations for which they are intended.

Which is fun but may not go to the heart of what the performers need.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

--


----------



## SirAce (Mar 16, 2008)

I had been missing for a while and after months I see that some people are still debating on London openings?


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

aquamaroon said:


> Good morning from the West Coast! LA 2024's Facebook page came out with the high resolution renders of the Long Beach Sports Park:
> 
> *Long Beach Sports Park*
> 
> ...


It does look fantastic, this promises to be a very vibrant Olympic nucleus/park.

What a blessing to have so many events at the beach in Long Beach and in Santa Monica.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So with the Long Beach photos uploaded to Facebook (hopefully soon to Flickr as well!) We now have renderings for all the LA 2024 Sports Parks! So, as a reference post, here are the renders in the context of the whole LA 2024 venue map and plan.


First off here are the full maps for the LA 2024 Olympics and Paralympics:

*Olympics*









*Paralympics*












And here are the renders alongside the maps of their venues, to see what's what! (for now I'm just showing the Olympic venue map as most of these renders are in Olympic mode, if we get aerials of the Paralympics set ups I'll be sure to place them here):



*Downtown Sports Park*








Downtown Sports Park Rendering - LA Live Aerial by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr
(*Exposition Park with focus on LAFC Stadium*):
Downtown Sports Park Rendering - LA Footbal Club by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*Valley Sports Park*








Valley Rendering - Canoe-Kayak Slalom by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*South Bay Sports Park*








South Bay Tennis Center Rendering - Tennis and Wheelchair Tennis by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*Long Beach Sports Park*



















Each venue map shows the majority of the pertinent information: metro connections, venue status, etc. Paints a pretty picture to me, can't wait to see the "other venues" renderings :cheers:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Every little helps...



> Paris has been officially awarded the 2020 European Athletics Championships, it has been confirmed today.
> 
> The French capital had been the only bidder following the withdrawal of Georgia's capital Tbilisi last year.
> 
> ...


http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1049754/paris-awarded-2020-european-athletics-championships


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

aquamaroon said:


> Each venue map shows the majority of the pertinent information: metro connections, venue status, etc. Paints a pretty picture to me, can't wait to see the "other venues" renderings :cheers:



yepp, especially coliseum


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

Phase II of the Purple Line ha received its notice to proceed. Heavy construction should commence in 2018. Per the notice the project has until 2026 to open. However, with newly available Measure M funds both Phase II and Phase III are expected to open prior to 2024. 

http://thesource.metro.net/2017/04/27/notice-to-proceed-issued-for-section-2-of-purple-line-extension/


----------



## Sainton (Oct 21, 2016)

Wow, I like the beach venues. Paris cant compete with that!


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

SirAce said:


> I had been missing for a while and after months I see that some people are still debating on London openings?













The presentation material of the Los Angeles 2024 committee is possibly effective enough to force the IOC to change its voting procedures before September rolls around. 

The IOC can't really afford to turn down either Paris or Los Angeles. So to accommodate the two bids, the IOC may do some backroom dealings. Or negotiations that will make the committees of both cities happy.

But maybe not. If so, it will make one of the two cities look like total chumps. But probably LA, not Paris. The IOC won't allow Paris to be sacrificed after having waited for over 90 years to host another games. 

The big question is whether the IOC comes up with more than a back-handed strategy to please the LA committee.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

I think the 90 year argument is dead on arrival. That Atlanta won 1996 over Athens pretty much extinguishes that idea. Considering that race in particular $$$ beat out tradition, and I don't think this Olympic sweepstakes will be any different. The $$$ in Olympic Coffers is going to play a huge roll regardless of sentiment.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Interesting to watch the old guard finally being stuck into the crypts where they belong. In the private world, this would be handled by having the LA Committee buy the whole IOC and putting it on a rational basis as with other sports leagues, fan conventions, music festivals, pro teams, etc. 

Seems like the easiest thing to do is let the cities bid for 2024 with loser getting the money and the rights to 2028. But there are technical reasons why it will be more complex than that.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

ElvisBC said:


> yepp, especially coliseum


Oh Sorry! There is a Coliseum render out there now, I'll add the venues from Expo Park/USC in the Downtown Cluster:

*LA Memorial Coliseum - Athletics*
Downtown Sports Park Rendering - LA Coliseum by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*Dedeaux Field - Aquatics (Temporary)*
Downtown Sports Park Rendering - USC Dedeaux Field by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*Galen Center - Badminton*
Downtown Sports Park Rendering - Galen Center by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


(Feel free to debate the relative aesthetic merits of the renovated Coliseum, for sure we all have :lol: :cheers


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RuFFy said:


> I think the 90 year argument is dead on arrival. That Atlanta won 1996 over Athens pretty much extinguishes that idea. Considering that race in particular $$$ beat out tradition, and I don't think this Olympic sweepstakes will be any different. The $$$ in Olympic Coffers is going to play a huge roll regardless of sentiment.


The difference is that Paris 2024 is big-time and its bid is relatively good. Athens 1996 wasn't. 

But you do come closer to the surprise unpredictability of Atlanta 1996 being chosen over Toronto in September 1990. In Tokyo, no less. 

A combination of money and politics apparently greased the skids for the Atlanta committee. Did the elite of the IOC at that time feel politically and socially good giving the games to a city whose background was the next best thing to giving the games to a city like Johannesburg? That and big money from Coca-Cola, etc?

However, I still think September 2017 is different because of the ongoing controversy of cities dropping out of the bidding process, issues with Tokyo 2020, and other problems with the international scene that seem more pressing today than in 1990. 

Mainly, I don't think the IOC can afford to alienate either one of the two bidders this year. If they do, they'll create a whole new round of negative publicity.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> In the private world, this would be handled by having the LA Committee buy the whole IOC and putting it on a rational basis as with other sports leagues, fan conventions, music festivals, pro teams, etc.



Not just rational but rotational too. 

The idea of encouraging an existing set of cities that previously hosted the Olympic games to again host the games is starting to sound more and more reasonable to me. 

By contrast, the notion that the games should always be a continuous travel and leisure guide - as a tool for airlines, tourist agencies and tourists instead of athletes - above and beyond it being mainly a quadrennial sporting event is sounding more and more silly, extravagant and self-indulgent. 

Even more so when I don't think the games added any (or enough) prestige and charm to Rio 2016 or London 2012. Or Beijing 2008 too, etc.


----------



## Weebie (May 29, 2006)

Awesome bid. But lets be honest, unless the USA can't stop the NHL players from boycotting the winter olympics, along with their failure to jail armstrong, this bid like the NY bid, the Chicago bid, and all other US bids in recent memory is destined to fail.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Not just rational but rotational too.
> 
> The idea of encouraging an existing set of cities that previously hosted the Olympic games to again host the games is starting to sound more and more reasonable to me.
> 
> ...


Yes and no. For sure, there are very few cities that have any real hope of being selected and there is no use having them compete. When you see that even Tokyo is having a disaster you know that future reviews are going to be very thorough.

But strict rotation is not good either. If, say, Toronto develops a decent group of appropriate arenas and wants to compete, there needs to be room for that. And strict rotation becomes the same "entitlement" that has lulled many on this thread whose main argument is that it is "our turn".

Think of the progress we have made: a few months back the majority of posters said LA shouldn't even be considered because it had done it before; that it was no big deal, any mid-sized city could do it; any minor third world or small first world city should be chosen. That idea seems as dead as possible now, with the requirement that the host needs to erect and manage 30 or more world-class venues, show there would be no issues in the funding, a use for them afterwards, and modern PR, tech, and marketing techniques readily at hand.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Well it's a been a bit, but I thought I'd do the render comparison thing again! I was hoping to do this earlier today, but it's about 6:50 am in Paris right now so our French friends can instead wake up to this :lol:

So yeah, here are some same-sport venue renders from both Paris and LA for another showdown! (I'll keep my own opinions to myself, feel free to weigh in anyone :cheers

*Water Polo*

*Paris - Water Polo Arena*









*Los Angeles - Long Beach Water Polo Venue*
Long Beach Rendering - BMX and Water Polo by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr
(close up)










*Tennis*

*Paris - Roland Garros*









*Los Angeles - StubHub Tennis Center*
South Bay Tennis Center Rendering - Tennis and Wheelchair Tennis by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*Field Hockey*

*Paris - Stade Yves-du-Manoir*









*Los Angeles - StubHub Center Fields*
(Main Field Hockey Stadium)








South Bay StubHub Rendering - Olympic Field Hockey and Paralympic Football 5-A-Side by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*Sailing*

*Paris - Marina (Marseille)*









*Los Angeles - Long Beach Pier*
Long Beach Pier Rendering - Sailing by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

(_...not to drag my opinion in or anything, but I DO think it's fair to point out that LA's plan has the Sailing venue in, well, the LA area, and Paris 2024 has their sailing venue a seven hour trip away in Marseille. Not an insurmountable problem of course but it'll be a commute that's for sure :lol:_)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

aquamaroon said:


> (_...not to drag my opinion in or anything, but I DO think it's fair to point out that LA's plan has the Sailing venue in, well, the LA area, and Paris 2024 has their sailing venue a seven hour trip away in Marseille. Not an insurmountable problem of course but it'll be a commute that's for sure :lol:_)


With inland cities obviously sailing has to be farmed out somewhere and that's a disadvantage Paris can't avoid. It's never made much of a difference in the past though, so it's not really a 'problem' at all for Paris, more of a nice bonus for LA. It was over three hours from central London to the white-cliffed 2012 Sailing venue (going by train times from Waterloo to Weymouth). Beijing's Sailing venue was 6 hours away and that was by high speed rail (getting on for 1000km away). Atlanta's sailing was well over 4 hours drive away according to Google.

That said, I remember that Paris had a closer venue for sailing in its 2012 bid, with the West Coast La Rochelle chosen. So the decision to choose a venue further out for 2024 seems odd at first glance. Your post prompted me to look up why they might've changed this. This article - http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...r-marseille-as-prospective-2024-sailing-venue - gives some insight into their thinking. Suffice to say, Paris 2024 obviously feels the extra distance isn't an issue, when you add in the advantages Marseille offers and the fact past Games have done fine with far out sailing venues.

N.B. Seems the hockey federation's only worry between Olympics is what colour the pitch and pitch surrounds will be. Green/Purple vs Blue/Yellow this time. Decisions. decisions...


----------



## Targaryen (Jul 4, 2016)

Waterpolo: LA
Tennis: Paris
Hockey: Paris
Sailing: Tie


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

Targaryen said:


> Waterpolo: LA
> Tennis: Paris
> Hockey: Paris
> Sailing: Tie


I think as stand alone venues for Tennis and Field Hockey Paris has better venues. But given that LA's Tennis and Field Hockey are on the same campus clustered with other sports I get the sense that the energy level may be greater in LA because each event would be working off the human energy of people attending other events.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

redspork02 said:


> “If Eurosport are anxious to lock this up before the IOC’s decision that presumably means people are thinking the race is still very open.”


Not sure if I'm misinterpreting what he means or if he's saying the opposite of what he intended to. Which is what I did with a sentence in one of my previous posts. 

If Eurosport believes the bid is wide open, wouldn't they want to wait and see how the vote goes in September? If they believe Los Angeles has any chance of getting 2024, I'd think the European sports channel would want to hold off finalizing an agreement and not pay more than they have to. 

If anything, they're wanting to get a contract signed and sealed as soon as possible makes me think they believe Paris 2024 is a sure thing.

If not, what am I missing here?


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Coates claims Australia has watching brief over 2024/2028 Olympics awarding

By Michael Pavitt Saturday, 6 May 2017
John Coates has claimed Australia have a watching brief over the potential 2024/2028 awarding
John Coates promised Australia is keeping a watching brief over the potential double awarding of the 2024 and 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games as the country considers a future bid.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) vice-president made the assertion after extending his 27-year reign as the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) President today.

Coates won the election held during the AOC's Annual General Meeting at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney, beating challenger Danielle Roche 58-35, to add another four-year term to his Presidency.

Prior to the election, the 66-year-old had vowed to help support a bid for the Olympic Games.

South East Queensland Council of Mayors agreed to go ahead with a feasibility study back in September, despite Gold Coast and Logan City Councils voting against contributing funds.

The study, which will explore whether a bid from the region would be possible, is set to cost around AUD$2.5 million (£1.5 million/$1.9 million/€1.7 million).

Roche had claimed she would not take a "unilateral" decision over whether an Olympic bid would proceed if she was elected President.

Having been re-elected, Coates revealed support for the feasibility study had been given by the AOC Executive and a possible effort for 2028 or 2032 was possible.

"The AOC Executive, not John Coates, has agreed to a feasibility study being undertaken by Brisbane and six surrounding cities," he told Channel Seven.

"That is happening.

"The issue at the moment is what year, whether they could do 2028 or 2032.

"We have got two excellent bids in Paris and Los Angeles.

"If they are awarded at once, Brisbane will move to 2032.

"I think this is a watching brief, it is very important opportunity for South East Queensland, for Australia and for our athletes."

A bid for the 2028 Olympic Games would depend on the outcome reached by an IOC Working Group currently discussing reforms to the bid process, which could lead a joint awarding is possible later this year.

The Working Group was announced in March and is comprised of the four IOC vice-presidents, including Coates.

Turkey's Uğur Erdener, China's Yu Zaiqing and Spain's Juan Antonio Samaranch complete the Group.

They are report during the IOC Candidature City Briefing taking place in Lausanne on July 11 and 12.

IOC members will have "discussions" there based on the recommendations made by the Working Group.

It possible that host cities for both Games could be named at the IOC Session in Lima on September 13.

Los Angeles and Paris are the only remaining bidders in the 2024 race following the withdrawal of Budapest, Hamburg and Rome.

The co-awarding plan has gathered pace in recent months in a bid to avoid missing out on either the French or American cities.

There have been concerns regarding the impact of a dual awarding on other cities considering a bid for 2028.

Istanbul in Turkey is believed to be another potential contender for the 2028, with the country’s National Olympic Committee being led by Erdener.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1050046/coates-claims-australia-has-watching-brief-over-20242028-olympics-awarding


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

pesto said:


> Not a roof


definitely roof, nothing else :colgate:


by the way, last few days I read a couple of articles claiming paris is slowly gaining advantage over LA for 2024, and general tendencies go towards paris '24 and LA '28


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> definitely roof, nothing else :colgate:
> 
> 
> by the way, last few days I read a couple of articles claiming paris is slowly gaining advantage over LA for 2024, and general tendencies go towards paris '24 and LA '28


Not sure why you are playing dumb on this, but there is a real point involved.

In the HKS architect’s terminology a “roof” forms the top part of a space sealed off from the weather. He calls the Inglewood covering a canopy since no sealed space or “envelope” is created.

Call it what you will, the point is the stadium will NOT be like stadium’s with roofs: it will not have walls; there is free flow of air and no heating or cooling systems since no sealed space has been defined. You can walk from your seat to your car without passing through a doorway. 

I will admit that in common usage most will call it a roof since in many parts it seems to be one. But there is a real difference.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Macron wins French presidency by emphatic margin: projections

Well it looks like France has elected their new President, Emanuel Macron! With 42% of the vote in looks like he is heading to a 20 point victory of Marie Le Pen (earlier reports had the margin at 30 points!). Congrats to France, and it looks like the wave that brought us Brexit and Trump may have finally peaked (I REALLY want to give my political opinion right now but I'll bite my tongue :lol

Anyways in regards to our topic at hand, it seems like France elected the politician most desirable to the IOC, while the USA of course did not. And with no chance of a President Le Pen in 2024 (unless she runs again I guess) and with a slight possibility of a President Trump in his last year of office in 2024, that may guide things in regards to 2024, and the order of a potential 2024-28 awarding.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

^^ A *much* more interesting scenario is if they don't go for a double-award and Macron decides to travel to Peru to support Paris. In that situation, what would be better for LA - Trump turning up, or not? :naughty:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

ugh. personally, I think LA 2024 may be better off without Trump, with his daughter Ivanka in tow of course, trying to "make a deal" with the IOC. :lol:


...though honestly when I think about this question... I don't know! I mean for one thing, the IOC is comprised of quite a few Rich Old White Men, who are kinda Trump's target audience. And Obama, who in 2009 was the peak of his international popularity among liberals world wide, seems to hurt Chicago more than help it in Denmark. So they might... like Trump?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

In retrospect 2016 was Rio's to lose, so I'm not sure Obama's influence worked one way or the other (although I have read his security entourage pissed off a few in the IOC, but that'll be no different whichever US President is there).

As vile as he is, just for the entertainment factor I hope Trump is there.

But - seriously - what does LA do between now and then? Invite him wanting the President there, invite him and hope he says no, or keep their heads down and hope he doesn't invite himself?


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

RobH said:


> In retrospect 2016 was Rio's to lose, so I'm not sure Obama's influence worked one way or the other (although I have read his security entourage pissed off a few in the IOC, but that'll be no different whichever US President is there).
> 
> As vile as he is, just for the entertainment factor I hope Trump is there.
> 
> But - seriously - what does LA do between now and then? Invite him wanting the President there, invite him and hope he says no, or keep their heads down and hope he doesn't invite himself?


Honestly, it's a good question, I don't know! In general LA 2024 has acted as if the federal government doesn't exist and has done very little to engage Trump. But perhaps protocol demands that they ask the head of the country to come to the Olympic bid, if for no other reason you don't want the IOC to feel insulted but not having the head of state there. In the end Trump is more than anything a loose cannon, so in order to avoid any possible horrible faux pas, I best case for LA is to invite him and hope that he can't make it because of some previous engagement.


(of course, with the FBI investigation ongoing, there's a chance Trump may not even BE president by September, but that's a discussion for another thread...)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

In all honesty, I still think it'd be wise (although far less interesting) for a double-award to happen, in which case it'll probably be a very boring, technocratic session in September with neither President going.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Happy Sunday! The LA 2024 released additional renders on their Facebook page today:

*Inglewood Cluster*

*The Forum - Gymnastics*









*Coastal Cluster*

*Santa Monica Pier - Beach Volleyball*









*Pauley Pavilion - Wrestling/Judo/Paralympic Sitting Volleyball*

























*Standalone Venues*

*Frank G. Bonelli Park - Cycling (Mountain Bike)*








(we've seen this one prior)


There are two additional new renders on the LA 2024 Facebook page: Paralympic Taekwondo and Judo. However, those seem to be in the Convention Center configuration and not the Galen Center that we've seen before? So for now I'll hold off on those and see what they do going forward :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

With these latest renders, we now have renders for all the arenas of the LA 2024 Olympics. so just for fun :cheers:

*Here are the arenas of the 2024 LA Summer Olympics*

*Staples Center*
Staples Center by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO, on Flickr












*The Forum*




















*Honda Center*




















*Galen Center*




















*Pauley Pavilion*




















*Long Beach Arena*



















looks pretty exciting to me :cheers:


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

aquamaroon said:


> ugh. personally, I think LA 2024 may be better off without Trump, with his daughter Ivanka in tow of course, trying to "make a deal" with the IOC. :lol:
> 
> 
> ...though honestly when I think about this question... I don't know! I mean for one thing, the IOC is comprised of quite a few Rich Old White Men, who are kinda Trump's target audience. And Obama, who in 2009 was the peak of his international popularity among liberals world wide, seems to hurt Chicago more than help it in Denmark. So they might... like Trump?


Whether its Trump or Obama that attends a IOC meeting, they shouldn't go. The IOC didn't like it last time. Maybe just send Ivanka Trump or one of his famous Athlete friends....if he has any? But NO, Trump should not attend. Its not mandatory and the IOC hated the US secret Service level of security....Ivanka maybe (low level) should be there as to show Federal Government support (security funds, and visa (immigration) issues). 

and let me congratulate FRANCE!! THANK YOU for not electing that weird mean LADY!


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

RobH said:


> In retrospect 2016 was Rio's to lose, so I'm not sure Obama's influence worked one way or the other (although I have read his security entourage pissed off a few in the IOC, but that'll be no different whichever US President is there).
> 
> As vile as he is, just for the entertainment factor I hope Trump is there.
> 
> But - seriously - what does LA do between now and then? Invite him wanting the President there, invite him and hope he says no, or keep their heads down and hope he doesn't invite himself?


Totally right. It was Rio's to lose. 

Same thing with 2024....I love LAs bid and it makes sense to me and many California's we are right for the games but Paris also has a great bid, good plan and awesome fans. (My only Paris concern has always been financing the OV with gov. help!, im against a gov run games.)

But 2024 is theres to lose and LA 2024 (me) are hoping its a double award. Ill take either or!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

RE: Paris' village: It, or something like it, is happening there regardless. This from someone on Gamesbids who has a thorough understanding of it...



> The land over which Paris 2024 Village would be built has been identified as a high value piece for housing development in the Seine St-Denis Department: it is to become a central public transport hub in the scope of the new Paris Express Metro and the Local Housing Plan of Plaine Commune (where the village will be located) fixes an objective of 4,200 new housing units a year for the 2026-2021 period alone.
> 
> Therefore, should Paris not be awarded 2024, the development plan will keep going on and the land won't be availble for 2028, just like the land that had been identified for the Olympic Village for 2012 is now a fully developed new neighbourhood of Paris.


Let me ask; would you be against this if it didn't have an Olympics attached as its first-use? Or to put it another way, would you be against it if Paris lost and it happened anyway? And, no offence, but it's Paris' money and they seem happy for the Olympics to be used in tandem with the creation of new infrastructure, just as London was (on a bigger scale). There shouldn't a one-size-fits-all model for hosting an Olympic Games. Different cities will get different things from it. And that's fine, as long as everyone's happy with that.

I think you're being a little pessimistic in thinking this is Paris' to lose though. Certainly Parisians don't believe that, this being their 4th recent attempt.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

RobH said:


> Let me ask; would you be against this if it didn't have an Olympics attached as its first-use?


 YES




RobH said:


> Or to put it another way, would you be against it if Paris lost and it happened anyway?


 YES



RobH said:


> And, no offence, but it's Paris' money and they seem happy for the Olympics to be used in tandem with the creation of new infrastructure, just as London was (on a bigger scale). There shouldn't a one-size-fits-all model for hosting an Olympic Games. Different cities will get different things from it. And that's fine, as long as everyone's happy with that.


Good for them. I just don't think tax payers money should subsidize housing. Not a fan of "Section 8 type" programs. 



RobH said:


> I think you're being a little pessimistic in thinking this is Paris' to lose though. Certainly Parisians don't believe that, this being their 4th recent attempt.


Maybe, but maybe that's why. 4th times the charm. 

Look. Honestly....when it comes to government subsidies im really a nit picker. Ive seen the damage it an cause and I truly understand the benefits but, I work in a field where government subsidies are "looked at" in CA and you would be surprised at what is being spent. People are not nice, people are greedy and half the people who need the assistance are not helped at all. Anyways....More power to the French, its not my money.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

I think something huge is brewing in the anti Olympics world. The new group nolympics LA has strong and valid points that have the potential to derail LA's bid. But this could also be carried over to the Parisian bid. Their argument isn't cost, it's humanitarian, displacement, police state created by the Games and the lining of the pockets of the few. They're arguing for the Olympics to never return to LA, not just 2024 & 2028.

https://www.thenation.com/article/los-angeles-residents-start-to-organize-against-olympic-bid/


----------



## swifty78 (Nov 10, 2002)

Looking at the LA proposals, I do like the idea of a pink themed Olympics


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RobH said:


> I think you're being a little pessimistic in thinking this is Paris' to lose though.


I'd say it is because they've been waiting for over 90 years to land another Olympics. Most people, particularly those in the IOC, have to feel guilty about that. 

The idea of making Paris wait any longer makes even me, based in LA and far removed from the elite of the IOC and international sports federations, feel guilty.

As for Emmanuel Macron succeeding France's current very unpopular President Francois Hollande. Macron, who was formerly a member of Hollande's cabinet, will not do much to change the status quo. 

Macron and Hollande are politically and culturally more alike than different.

If Parisians and the French are unhappy about the state of their city and country, do they really believe things will get any better under Macron? He said not too long ago, right after the most recent act of mayhem in Paris, that the people of France will just have to get used to living with terrorism. An attitude along the lines of grin and bear it.

That has some relevance to the Paris 2024 bid, because the only thing that will derail it would be a major calamity striking France's capital city before the vote in September.

As for the only thing that will ensure Los Angeles 2024 isn't an act of futility is if the IOC decides to change protocol and go with a double award in September. 

Being more realistic about this is the likely reason Casey Wasserman recently expressed a more pliable opinion about the idea of one of the two cities at the IOC's meeting in Lima, Peru being awarded the games for 2028.

Wasserman has to know the most plausible (and probably only) option for LA 2024 is to grab 2028.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

swifty78 said:


> Looking at the LA proposals, I do like the idea of a pink themed Olympics


Speaking of which, Los Angeles 1984 apparently is the first time an Olympics games was given a generally uniform look through the widespread use of canvas coverings and other graphic-oriented adjustments to venues. 

Prior to that, the look of Olympic games was more plain and simple. Host committees were mainly concerned about concealing advertising signage that already existed in arenas and stadiums. No more, no less.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

californiadreams said:


> More organizations join in opposition to L.A.'s 2024 Olympic bid
> 
> 
> David Wharton
> ...


there is always opposition, for every piece of crap, not only for olympics. I do not think th is will be an issue ... unless if it really takes off with broad support, which is not going to happen


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> *A special International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Board meeting is due to be held on June 9 to accelerate plans to jointly award the 2024 and 2028 Games this year.
> 
> It seems virtually certain that they are seeking to press ahead with plans to award both Los Angeles and Paris editions of the Games.
> *
> ...


More @ http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...tly-awarding-2024-and-2028-olympics-on-june-9


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

ElvisBC said:


> there is always opposition


I admit to being opposed to the Olympic games in Los Angeles *IF* we f' 'em them up. I don't want to see an LA committee doing to the games what Billy Payne (along with Don Mischner) did to 1996 or what Sebastian Coe (along with Danny Boyle) did to 2012. Not to mention what was done to last year's games or what appears to be already occurring with the upcoming games in Tokyo.

I don't want to see a combination of goody-two-shoes etiquette - where people believe that if you can't say something nice about something or someone, you shouldn't say anything at  all - and bad taste ruin any future games in LA.

Incidentally, now that the 1964 stadium in Tokyo has been bulldozed, that city's 1964 Olympic cauldron (which was one of the few good ones---and although preserved, apparently not even salvaged with the idea it be re-installed in Tokyo's new main stadium) has sort of gone by the wayside. 

That leaves just the similarly smaller cauldron in Berlin's historic stadium and what I consider the more noble and larger one of the bunch - designed by John Parkinson in the 1920s - at the LA Coliseum.



> *
> IOC could announce 2024, 2028 Olympic hosts next month*
> 
> Jay Busbee
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> there is always opposition, for every piece of crap, not only for olympics. I do not think th is will be an issue ... unless if it really takes off with broad support, which is not going to happen


Yes. One of the great beauties of liberal democracies is that unhappy people can act out and release their hostilities by championing bizarre causes (secession, splitting into multiple states, return to Mexico, move the capital, impeach person x, etc.). These have been around off and on for 100 years and probably will for a long time longer. The Olympics will for sure get some complaints even if privately funded.

However, the likelihood of significant funds being spent by the state or city is so remote as to be not worth discussing. Paris has a bit more of an issue since the governments bear the risk of losses but so far it doesn't seem like much of an issue.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Some guy in London ruminating on the 2024 games. The writer is so well informed, notice what he says about LA and an Olympic village. As for sticky fingers, I'm more worried about the stinky fingers of an LA version of Danny Boyle:



> * Vote Paris and keep the Olympics out of Donald Trump’s sticky little fingers *
> 
> Richard Williams
> Friday 19 May 2017 10.09 EDT Last modified on Friday 19 May 2017 10.24 EDT
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> More @ http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...tly-awarding-2024-and-2028-olympics-on-june-9


"But President Thomas Bach, who will chair the one-day meeting at the IOC headquarters in Lausanne, is still considered instrumental in devising and formulating the idea."

Pretty much stating the obvious. And he might have added that those who are not on-board better update their resumes.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> *Vote Paris and keep the Olympics out of Donald Trump’s sticky little fingers *


Ha! Just came to post this, you beat me to it! It's the first opinion piece I've seen in the British press on this race (which I guess isn't a surprise since we're not involved). It's _very, very Guardian_ and a little loose with some facts. Though I've got to be honest the opening paragraph is hard to disagree with. Hopefully the Snowflake-in-chief will be gone by September anyway.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Some guy in London ruminating on the 2024 games. The writer is so well informed, notice what he says about LA and an Olympic village. As for sticky fingers, I'm more worried about the stinky fingers of an LA version of Danny Boyle:


Worthless. Factual inaccuracies, non sequiturs, wants every Olympics in Athens, no mention of LA having a private bid, uses generalities where he didn't feel like actually learning the facts.

I put it in the same category as the anti-Olympic Socialist movement people in LA.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Pesto and Rob H, since politics have cropped up in the discussion, and since the politics of Danny Boyle probably were the reason he snubbed recognizing Los Angeles 1984 and Atlanta 1996 in the opening of his production, I'll say the following: Whether I agree or don't agree with a person's politics, at least show some class, sophistication, and a sense of what's hokey or not in the way something is arranged and put together.

You may admire Boyle's politics, but that sure as hell didn't help give him a creative level in 2012 that was serious, skilled, appropriate and memorable---at least in a good way.

This writer goes on and on about the politics of 2012's opening, but no where did he mention what a cornball slopfest it was. The way it was both overdone and underdone.

If Olympic organizers in LA ever do something as bad, I'll be forever embarrassed by and ashamed of those people and what they did to the reputation of the Olympic movement vis-a-vie Los Angeles.




> *Comment: The politics of the opening ceremony *
> 
> By Ian Dunt Monday, 30 July 2012 10:13 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

2024. Your latest review of the 2012 ceremony is, once again, an irrelevance in this thread as are your last dozen posts on the same theme. You are literally spamming. Please stop.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

RobH said:


> Ha! Just came to post this, you beat me to it! It's the first opinion piece I've seen in the British press on this race (which I guess isn't a surprise since we're not involved). It's _very, very Guardian_ and a little loose with some facts. Though I've got to be honest the opening paragraph is hard to disagree with. Hopefully the Snowflake-in-chief will be gone by September anyway.


Yeah politically, for an organization like the IOC, it's a no brainer if your decision is between a regular European centrist politician in Macron and...well...whatever Trump is :lol:

It seems like we are heading full steam to a double award, and politics may in fact be a big reason why LA were to get the 2028 Games in such a situation. But, just to dip a toe into politics here, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Trump would be President in 2024. TBF I also thought it highly unlikely he would win, but he got into the White House while losing the popular vote by three million (a quirk of the Electoral College) and he's only gotten more unpopular from there. And, as you allude to in your post, with a special prosecutor on the Russia trail, there may be a chance that Trump won't even be President when it's time to vote on the host city, let alone in 2024.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RobH said:


> 2024. Your latest review of the 2012 ceremony is, once again, an irrelevance in this thread as are your last dozen posts on the same theme. You are literally spamming. Please stop.


Irrelevant? Why?

We're discussing the Olympic bids for 2024 - and probably now 2028 - and what makes them good or bad. Or what will make the two cities bidding for the games - and getting 2024 or 2028 - either good or bad.

If dealing with Danny Boyle isn't relevant, then neither is talking about politicians in the US or elsewhere. 

I bet if I said that London 2012's opening had been wonderful, you wouldn't mind seeing one post after another mentioning the exact same thing.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

californiadreams said:


> Irrelevant? Why?
> 
> We're discussing the Olympic bids for 2024 - and probably now 2028 - and what makes them good or bad. Or what will make the two cities bidding for the games - and getting 2024 or 2028 - either good or bad.
> 
> ...


If I spent my time in this thread telling everyone how much I enjoyed London's ceremony every three posts would you expect people to be fine with that? You actually think people care about your opinion of Danny Boyle so much we have to be reminded of it five times on every page of this thread? Seriously, you're on my ignore list now but you post so often that's not even helping very much at the moment.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

RobH said:


> Ha! Just came to post this, you beat me to it! It's the first opinion piece I've seen in the British press on this race (which I guess isn't a surprise since we're not involved). It's _very, very Guardian_ and a little loose with some facts. Though I've got to be honest the opening paragraph is hard to disagree with. Hopefully the Snowflake-in-chief will be gone by September anyway.


The last paragraph is shitty too. Sailing won't occur in Santa Monica. This piece is pure opinion based on the authors feelings toward Trump, and misses any real discussion.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

californiadreams said:


> Irrelevant? Why?
> 
> We're discussing the Olympic bids for 2024 - and probably now 2028 - and what makes them good or bad. Or what will make the two cities bidding for the games - and getting 2024 or 2028 - either good or bad.
> 
> ...


3 people coming out to tell you you're like public access television, going all day but nobody is listening.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

About politics. 

Living in a swing state people didn't vote for Trump. People placed a referendum on both Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. It severely hurt Hillary in Florida because the Democratic Party was viewed as colluding with the media and the Democratic Party to hand her the nomination over Bernie Sanders. But then came the same issue that France had. The liberal party moved too far Center and people felt both parties were not serving the causes important to the left. Sure, the US has Trump, but by the same token France has Macron, which like Hillary represents maintaining the Statis Quo. The US may be ridiculed by the international media for having elected Trump, but at the same time a good way to move the bar on the Liberal party is to not get up to vote. If the US Democratic Party processes this, the next Democratic Nominee will likely move left, making the long term political decision of electing Trump a good one. 

But there is more evidence of this. Donald Trump himself is an outsider. For better or for worse Donald Trump is the republican version of Bernie Sanders. That's who should have really been on the ticket. The difference is that Trump was seen as a joke, just like Bernie Sanders, but the media and the Republican Party didn't capture this and unlike the Democratic Party, they did not mobilize to stop Trump. This was evident at the Republican Convention where Party leaders were absent. The US choose to send a blow to Washington, and in the long term for both parties, it said we don't care for the regular off the shelf crap you keep putting forward.

France did not do that. France stood the path of the status quo and Macron, regardless of how popular he is, isn't really on the left. He's more in the center. Le Pen was just far right and visually Macron looked more progressive, but he's not.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Yeah politically, for an organization like the IOC, it's a no brainer if your decision is between a regular European centrist politician in Macron and...well...*whatever Trump is *:lol:
> 
> It seems like we are heading full steam to a double award, and politics may in fact be a big reason why LA were to get the 2028 Games in such a situation. But, just to dip a toe into politics here, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Trump would be President in 2024. TBF I also thought it highly unlikely he would win, but he got into the White House while losing the popular vote by three million (a quirk of the Electoral College) and he's only gotten more unpopular from there. And, as you allude to in your post, with a special prosecutor on the Russia trail, there may be a chance that Trump won't even be President when it's time to vote on the host city, let alone in 2024.


Just to help you out: trying to get the economy to create real jobs instead of baristas and hotel maids by removing legislative burdens, lowering taxes and eliminating life-long subsidies for not working. Securing borders; insisting on trade deals that don't have Americans competing with slave labor or its equivalent; restoring privacy rights; limiting big government. Financial markets have responded with an enormous boom and inflows of investment.

Macron by contrast has no plans or projects other than sound bites like "get the economy moving", "secure the borders". He is a wild card and financial markets are generally expecting 5 years of nothing getting done to fix the moribund French economy, education system and welfare system.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> The last paragraph is shitty too. Sailing won't occur in Santa Monica. This piece is pure opinion based on the authors feelings toward Trump, and misses any real discussion.


I noticed that too. On the other hand, beach volleyball WILL occur there which is a lot less silly than having trucks dumping sand in the middle of Paris near some tower.

I'm not sure how editors let all that get through even in an opinion piece.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RuFFy said:


> 3 people coming out to tell you you're like public access television, going all day but nobody is listening.


Whether people here are listening or not is not my main concern. My main concern is getting an opinion out there that will be on the internet for the next several years, based on the assumption this site will exist for awhile. 

If Los Angeles does get the 2028 games, and if people running the LA committee are as interested in public conversations about all the details of the Olympics as I am, they hopefully will come across this thread---if not now than in the future. 

I hope any feedback they find in this thread will affect their way of dealing with the games in Los Angeles.

I don't want them screwing up any Olympics in LA the way their counterparts in other cities have been screwing things up, making a big joke of the games.

Due to social niceties, strange tastes, poor judgment and a desire to be politically correct (or the goal of not violating the comfort zone of creative-hipster people out there---people like Danny Boyle), that can all too easily happen to a future games in LA.

If the IOC does award 2024 to Paris and 2028 to Los Angeles - even more so if we know about that sooner rather than later (or way before September) - then the conversation needs to switch over to how will those two events be managed and organized.

Any organizing committee for LA, if the city ends up in a planning and waiting mode for the next 11 years, will have a lot of time to come across internet pages like this one. During all those years of getting both the pros and cons of past Olympics, I want them to approach their task with eyes wide open.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> JHe is a wild card and financial markets are generally expecting 5 years of nothing getting done to fix the moribund French economy, education system and welfare system.


Let me add that I sense something is really amiss in France when policies like the following are in place: A few years ago, even before the current presidency (so things may be even worse today), the French government was actually sending out inspectors to patrol the parking lots of companies. The reason? To determine if any of them were violating a law that forbid workers (in private businesses, by the way, not government offices) from working past a certain hour. I believe the law even forbid people from working beyond an already rather early time of the evening.

George Orwell wants his 1984 back.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

hmm, we've seemed to have veered off course into politics, etc. (my fault as well) so let me offer my last *Paris vs. LA Render Comparisons*!

For the renders that we have so far, here are the last two "apples to apples" venue render comparisons from the two bids for your judging pleasure :cheers::

*Beach Volleyball*

*Paris - Champ de Mars/La Tour Eiffel*











*Los Angeles - Santa Monica Pier/Beach*

Beach Volleyball at Santa Monica Beach Still by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


*Athlete's Village*

*Paris - Olympic Village*











*Los Angeles - UCLA*

Aerial view of the UCLA Campus by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So it seems like LA 2024 has finished putting out renders (though there may be one or two left to show) so with all of that in, I'd like to give my two cents on the LA 2024 Olympic Plan:










*aquamaroon's grade for the LA 2024 Olympic Plan: 9/10, "A"*

I first have to admit that I can't help but be biased an LA supporter but I've tried to be objective. And looking at the plan the the bid committee has put together, personally? I think it's pretty close to perfect as a plan for an LA Olympics. The bid has done a fantastic job of incorporating the entire LA area into the Games while at the same time avoiding a sense of "sprawl" and keeping the venues as tightly packed as possible. The "Sports Parks" manage to incorporate pretty much the whole of the Southland as much as possible, BUT each Sports Park is tightly compact and allows for an entire experience within itself. And perhaps more importantly, each Park is connected by Public Transportation to one another, so if one were so inclined, you could see nearly every event in all different corners of LA without requiring a car. And the use of existing venues is done perfectly in my opinion save one or two things I'll mention later. They've managed to fully utilize LA's existing sports infrastructure and do so in a way that's reasonable and enhances the bid as opposed to hamstringing it with outdated venues.
So one man's opinion, but I am very very happy with the Games that LA 2024 put together and I think the LA 2024 bid committee should be congratulated on a job well done. Personally I'm ready to "follow the sun"! :cheers:

Downtown Sports Park Rendering - LA Coliseum by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

Santa Monica Pier by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

So with that said, I DID have a couple of nits to pick with the bid. One big one is the Coliseum renovation but that's out of LA 2024's hands, and I think they did they best with the design that USC is implementing (I've come to actually really like their plan!). I did though have two other suggestions for the LA 2024/28 Games to change to the bid. One is the Aquatics center which I talked about in this post. *TL;DR Extend the canopy over the whole seating/competition area and move it to a more aesthetically pleasing/thematically appropriate location.*

So that was one of the two suggestions I would give. The other one involves Indoor Volleyball. Currently the plan is to have Indoor Volleyball at the Honda Center in Anaheim:









Volleyball at the Honda Center Still by Los Angeles 2024, on Flickr

It's a great venue and while I do like that it incorporates Orange County, I think it's less than ideal for two reasons: 1.) Anaheim is pretty far for a standalone venue of an important sport and 2.) The Honda Center is built for Ice Hockey, which provides less than ideal sight lines for Volleyball.
So my suggestion, and it depends on a hypothetical happening, is this:

*Move Indoor Volleyball to the new Clippers Arena in Inglewood*











> *Ballmer and Kroenke representatives have discussed bringing Clippers to Inglewood*
> 
> Representatives of Steve Ballmer and Stan Kroenke, two of the richest owners in professional sports, have had multiple discussions about the Clippers joining the Rams and Chargers in the sports and entertainment district Kroenke is building in Inglewood.
> 
> ...


http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-ballmer-arena-20170224-story.html

So Steve Ballmer wants to build a basketball only arena for the Clippers, and is thinking about building it next to the new LA Stadium. This of course is where the Ceremonies would take place and Gymnastics would be contested across the street at the Forum. So if this goes through, LA's "Inglewood Cluster" would have another state of the art arena! Now what to use it for? Again I think volleyball would be perfect as it would fit better in a basketball only arena and also would feel more a piece of the rest of the Games. (I guess you could also use the new arena for Aquatics but shouldn't get ahead of myself here)

Now to be fair, this would be a disappointment to Anaheim/Orange County if they were to lose out on hosting a sport for the Olympics. My solution? *Bring Baseball back to the Olympics and have Angels Stadium host some of the games*:










Angels Stadium, home of the LA Angels (of Anaheim) is adjacent to the Honda Center. In fact, you can even see it in this photo past the outfield! And while Dodger Stadium could host the finals of baseball, Angels Stadium could host some of the preliminary games. That way, you still include Anaheim/OC into the Olympics and bring events down there!

So yeah, those are my two big suggestions. If they take them great! If not I'll still buy a ticket if I can :cheers: :lol:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

I think that would be a mistake. Not everyone wants to stay in DT with an urban experience. Those with kids would prefer the OC with the theme parks, beaches and easy parking even for SUV's and rec vehicles.

And, of course, the Disney tie-in would be a huge attractor of people and money as would the idea of being away from LA and the Olympic crowds.

As a side issue, the Clipper Stadium is vaporware at this point and may always be.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RobH said:


> If I spent my time in this thread telling everyone how much I enjoyed London's ceremony every three posts would you expect people to be fine with that?


Sure, why not? I thought this was, after all, an open forum to discuss the Olympic games for 2024 and - based on growing rumors - probably 2028 too. 

Everything else about the games is being discussed until people are blue in the face. So why you or others believe dealing with Olympic ceremonies is somehow less relevant or less appropriate to this general subject - and shouldn't be beaten over everyone's head as done with other facets of the games - is your boundary, not mine. 

If you want to praise and be lyrical about Danny Boyle and 2012 or Don Mischer and 1996, etc, go ahead. Be my guest. 

I'm just trying to figure out why the Olympic games have lost some of their prestige over the past several years. My theory is that's partly due to the nature of the event's very visible and widely watched ceremonies. 

If you disagree, fine. No sweat off my back. 

Actually, it will be if - as I hope - any running conversation here eventually makes its way into the inner circle of Los Angeles 2024 or Los Angeles 2028. But instead of persuading LA's organizers to realize 2012 or 2016 have been a disappointment - and do everything possible to avoid repeating those formats - they choose to go with the flow and continue the trends set by those games. I hope not.

But it's a crapshoot. Anything can happen in the next 11 years. I just don't want Los Angeles 2028 to end up a big dud.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> I first have to admit that I can't help but be biased an LA supporter but I've tried to be objective. And looking at the plan the the bid committee has put together, personally? I think it's pretty close to perfect as a plan for an LA Olympics.


So far Los Angeles 2024 has put together a presentation and format that seem fairly professional, inspired and knowledgeable. 

It's hard to think of the way that Los Angeles's organizers managed the games over 30 years ago when most of the facilities proposed for use at a future 2024 or 2028 LA games did not exist. But even back then they did juggle with and stretch (and sometimes strain) a limited set of circumstances, and - due in part to their being sensible and skillful with things like, yep, the games' opening ceremonies - they didn't end up with a big splat the way, for example, Rio 2016 did.

I just hope that Casey Wasserman, Janet Evans, etc, or their successors (should 2028 be too far into the future for the current group and they decide not to stick around), can avoid the mistakes of the past. That will be an even tougher test for them to navigate and get an A-grade on if they're too easygoing about the quality of previous games.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> 2024. Your latest review of the 2012 ceremony is, once again, an irrelevance in this thread as are your last dozen posts on the same theme. You are literally spamming. Please stop.


As I said before, unless we want these inane and repetitive comments to continue for 11 years, we should break into two threads:

2024/28 Olympics: Opening and Closing Ceremonies
2024/28 Olympics: Everything Except Opening and Closing Ceremonies (or words to that effect)

Of course, over time this would split into separate threads for 2024 and 2028.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> As I said before, unless we want these inane and repetitive comments to continue for 11 years, we should break into two threads:


Inane? How so? 

Rio put big time and money into their games. Facilities were pretty good and accommodating. Peter Ueberroth, the head of LA 1984, even scolded critics of the 2016 games for being overly pessimistic about Rio meeting the deadline and other things. But the event still came off with a splat. Why?

Repetitive? So everything else in this thread isn't repetitive? How so?

However, if the upcoming IOC meeting(s) aren't likely to result in a double award this year, with Los Angeles being given the boot as Chicago got back in 2009, then much of this thread will lose its importance and relevance to me. No games, no committee, no one to hope will be affected by the conversation here.

But Eric Garcetti now appears to see the writing on the wall. His comments suggest he's moving closer to accepting 2028.




> *IOC moves closer to announcing both 2024 and 2028 Olympics this year *
> 
> By Scott Reid | [email protected] | Orange County Register
> PUBLISHED: May 19, 2017 at 8:56 am | UPDATED: May 19, 2017 at 6:20 pm
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Inane? How so?
> 
> Rio put big time and money into their games. Facilities were pretty good and accommodating. Peter Ueberroth, the head of LA 1984, even scolded critics of the 2016 games for being overly pessimistic about Rio meeting the deadline and other things. But the event still came off with a splat. Why?
> 
> ...



Inane as in silly, fatuous, pointless. Expressing your opinion on aesthetics as if there were one correct answer and you monopolize it. Taking isolated portions of spectacles and condemning the games generally on account of them. Opposing entire Olympic games bids unless they provide ceremonies to your taste. The list is endless. Silly, fatuous, pointless. 

Repetition is OK when, for example new events have occurred but one feels that matters have remained the same. They are not OK when they are a mindless brain-dump of the same information that has been said several times and nothing about them or their context has changed. You seem compelled to repeat your little hate-list in response to anything that comes up. 

As I've said before, if you would just get rid of your repetitive fixations your comments would be of interest. But what is happening is that no one reads anything.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Today's Formula E race is right in the centre of Paris, Les Invalides, Grand Palais, so lots of Paris 2024 venues on show. A nice event to show off how the city/sport can combine. Obviously motor racing isn't an Olympic sport, but if I were Paris 2024 I'd be getting onto the FIA to ask for a few clips from the race weekend to cut into the final presentation to the IOC. Actual race is 14:30 BST today.

Last year's race highlights:





Driver track walk:


----------



## milquetoast (Jul 31, 2007)

.
.
.​*From one of our own, James Newton Howard, on how the L.A. Olympics sound to me:*
GRAND CANYON FANFARE






_I also think, as a side note, that cities like New York or Paris
are the stars in their own right, and the citizens tend to serve
at their architectural image. The city itself is the star, not the
people who serve it. They disappear or just blend in as paupers.
In Los Angeles, the people are the stars. The individual shines._


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

RuFFy said:


> This speaks about Paris in a negative way. In sport, how many times do the very same athletes that Paris intends to host "get snubbed" and do they get to take home the gold for coming in second place? What do athletes do? What has Los Angeles done? The very values of the Olympics should be apart of Olympic bids. It's the nature of the game. The arrogance of the Parisian bid reflect Paris negatively. But I guess that's France.


As any decent athlete Paris has tried it several time. If this forth and final bid fails again it's simply time to move on. Paris has shown good spirit in accepting defeat and launching new bids. That is great sportsmanship in no way negative unlike the reluctance to bid again for the 2028 games which the first time bidder Los Angeles has stated.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

flierfy said:


> As any decent athlete Paris has tried it several time. If this forth and final bid fails again it's simply time to move on. Paris has shown good spirit in accepting defeat and launching new bids. That is great sportsmanship in no way negative unlike the reluctance to bid again for the 2028 games which the first time bidder Los Angeles has stated.


Interesting point. But another point is that Los Angeles has bid more than any other city, period. And Detroit has lost more than any other city. Why would Paris be any different and deserve that win when Detroit did not? And one could argue that the Detroit of today is in no condition to host but the Detroit of yesterday was in a different position. 

But that brings me to another point, the double award. If LA has lost more than any other city and always come back, who is the double award really saving face for, the IOC? Paris? or Los Angeles? Who would need the consolation prize more? Who keeps crying about it? You need not look further than your very own post and just about any other post on this and other threads. It's Paris.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Today's Formula E race is right in the centre of Paris, Les Invalides, Grand Palais, so lots of Paris 2024 venues on show. A nice event to show off how the city/sport can combine. Obviously motor racing isn't an Olympic sport, but if I were Paris 2024 I'd be getting onto the FIA to ask for a few clips from the race weekend to cut into the final presentation to the IOC. Actual race is 14:30 BST today.
> 
> Last year's race highlights:
> 
> ...



Yes; that's tailor-made for a modern advertising campaign: Paris: We're Moving Fast. After some shots of the cars you cut to martial music and the Olympic logo with a tie-in to people working hard, venues being built, etc.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

milquetoast said:


> .
> .
> .​*From one of our own, James Newton Howard, on how the L.A. Olympics sound to me:*
> GRAND CANYON FANFARE
> ...


Yes, that's a point that is often made by cultural commentators. NY and Paris are well known because of their historic image but also burdened by it. LA by contrast is reinventing itself constantly as new people and cultural change are adopted easily.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> Yes; that's tailor-made for a modern advertising campaign: Paris: We're Moving Fast. After some shots of the cars you cut to martial music and the Olympic logo with a tie-in to people working hard, venues being built, etc.


Just finished watching it and it turned out to be a very good bit a free advertising for the Paris bid. That huge Paris 2024 logo they'd put on the Tour Montparnasse was visible in all the wide shots during the Grand Prix.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

flierfy said:


> As any decent athlete Paris has tried it several time. If this forth and final bid fails again it's simply time to move on. Paris has shown good spirit in accepting defeat and launching new bids. That is great sportsmanship in no way negative unlike the reluctance to bid again for the 2028 games which the first time bidder Los Angeles has stated.


Your "athlete" trope is a bit weak. So if LeBron James gets picked to the NBA All-Star team over me 3 years in a row, they have to choose me in the 4th year?

As I noted before, losing over and over is a rather weak platform for building a theory of arrogance and entitlement. "We should be selected because we always lose?"

In any event, the IOC is now bending over backward to make sure Paris gets either 2024 or 2028 so maybe the whining can stop now. This time Paris can't lose.


----------



## Targaryen (Jul 4, 2016)

RuFFy said:


> Interesting point. But another point is that Los Angeles has bid more than any other city, period. And Detroit has lost more than any other city. Why would Paris be any different and deserve that win when Detroit did not? And one could argue that the Detroit of today is in no condition to host but the Detroit of yesterday was in a different position.
> 
> But that brings me to another point, the double award. If LA has lost more than any other city and always come back, who is the double award really saving face for, the IOC? Paris? or Los Angeles? Who would need the consolation prize more? Who keeps crying about it? You need not look further than your very own post and just about any other post on this and other threads. It's Paris.


This is first time bidding for LA since 1984, Paris has put up 4 bids in that same time, so the point of LA being the city with most tries isn't really relevant. 
Regarding the double award. I think there are two ways to look at it. It could be consolation prize either for Paris (bidding for the fourth and final time) or for LA (it would mean third loss for USA in last 4 bid races). Either side losing 2024 will be left (in pesto's words) butthurt.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Targaryen said:


> Regarding the double award. I think there are two ways to look at it. It could be consolation prize either for Paris (bidding for the fourth and final time) or for LA (it would mean third loss for USA in last 4 bid races). Either side losing 2024 will be left (in pesto's words) butthurt.


And neither of these ways of looking at it would be correct! This double award isn't about preventing hurt feelings. If it happens it'd be a hard-nosed decision made by the IOC because they think it's the best thing for the Olympics, and the order will be determined by practical considerations first and foremost. If the double award doesn't happen they'll chose the winner based on what they think is best for the Olympics and tough luck to the loser.

And, to be fair, I haven't heard anything from either bid along these lines either - they know they have to win it on merit (that isn't, by the way, necessarily the same thing as simply presenting the least risky bid). If a few people in this thread are using sentimentality and past failures as a reason why their favoured city should win this time, fine. But I haven't heard LA24 refer to Chicago and New York's losses and I haven't heard Paris 2024 refer to 2012, 2008 etc. That's what matters.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Targaryen said:


> This is first time bidding for LA since 1984, Paris has put up 4 bids in that same time, so the point of LA being the city with most tries isn't really relevant.
> Regarding the double award. I think there are two ways to look at it. It could be consolation prize either for Paris (bidding for the fourth and final time) or for LA (it would mean third loss for USA in last 4 bid races). Either side losing 2024 will be left (in pesto's words) butthurt.


LOL. Just to clarify, I would never use the expression "butthurt" which in fact I have never heard of until today.

No one in the US thinks about losing out on the Olympic bidding. This is a non-issue in the US. It had never crossed my mind until I saw it in somebody's post. NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL matter; the Olympics are not on anybody's radar. 

By contrast, Paris seems to be non-stop talking about being losing; so much so that the IOC seems to have changed the selection method to guarantee them a win this time. Finally Paris CAN'T lose.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

Pierre de Coubertin said:


> 100 DAYS TO GO. 100 days to Lima. 100 days to Paris 2024.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers


More like 4 four days....................:lol:
Paris 24
LA 28

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Report: IOC leaning toward awarding 2024 Olympics to Paris, 2028 to Los Angeles*

https://www.si.com/olympics/2017/05/30/ioc-nearing-2024-olympics-paris-2028-olympics-los-angeles-decision


Chris Chavez

Tuesday May 30th, 2017


The International Olympic Committee is leaning toward a deal that would award the 2024 Olympics to Paris and the 2028 Olympics to Los Angeles, according to Matthew Futterman of the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ reports that the deal getting finalized is contingent on Los Angeles and the U.S. Olympic Committee securing enough incentives that waiting four extra years to host the Summer Games is still financially viable and beneficial. In exchange for waiting four more years, the Los Angeles organizing committee could receive financial assistance from the IOC as well as funding for youth sports programs in the city, according to the WSJ.

....................................etc.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

> *IOC might be changing the direction of Olympic bids once and for all*
> 
> (SFC) This week the IOC Executive Board will be studying proposals for 2024 and 2028 from a special working group that will greatly impact these next few campaigns for the Olympic Games. Friday the meeting will take place at the current IOC headquarters in Pully and could be groundbreaking as to the future of bidding to host the Olympic Games.
> 
> Los Angeles and Paris are the two cities that the IOC would like to nail down for two editions.


Read more.


----------



## swifty78 (Nov 10, 2002)

Awarding them both the best way to go, 2 superb bids and it'd be criminal for one to miss out!


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

swifty78 said:


> Awarding them both the best way to go, 2 superb bids and it'd be criminal for one to miss out!


Try again for 2028. The only way I can see this happening is if the IOC reimburses the failed bidders. They'd be complaining of all the money they've spent, only for the IOC to award the games out of desperation.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> Reading this thread *I feel too many people here post their subjective opinions as those were absolute truth*, especially about the olympics they know only from the news, TV and internet.
> 
> I have been to many olympics in the past, and for us, fans, tourists and casual visitors, all of them worked fine, only Atlanta really sucked simply because noone cared there. London games were by far the best, even with one huge flaw, no public transport in the night, (I will never understand how they failed to solve that), but all the others were quite fine as well. All hosts had their issues, but during the games most of the things did run smooth! I remember Athens, they provided free WiFi access at several city squares, there was big party there every time network crashed, loads of fun even though something did not work well :colgate:
> 
> The real problem about the games are costs past olympics, all the debts in the first place, and then all those white elephants with maintanence costs noone is ready to pay! That's why IOC is lacking good hosts, and that's why we should all be happy to get Paris 2024 and LA 2028 (or vice versa), especially after Fukushima 2020, the most idiotic big event host selection after Qatar 2022


Physician: heal thyself.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> One aspect of a games that is somewhat beyond the control of any one organizing committee. Gabriela Andersen-Schiess mentions that around 6:09. A lot better to be cheered on by a place full of spectators than seeing the opposite of that.
> 
> However, if ticket prices are too high - the LA 2024 bid book looks too blase about that compared with what their predecessors thought reasonable for 1984, adjusting for inflation included - an Olympic host committee may undermine one aspect of their event's success.


Demand pricing implies charging very high prices for high demand tickets and paying people to attend unpopular events.

It also implies dropping unpopular events from the Olympics, which hopefully will be done in a very thorough way in the very near future.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Changing the bid procedure before September 2017 won't necessarily be a major reason - or the reason at all - for cities and countries to want to respond like that.
> 
> Some of this might make more sense if the Olympics also was an event where the world's finest scientists, engineers, doctors, astronomers, architects, entrepreneurs, researchers, executives, Formula One race drivers, agriculturists, chefs and others gathered. But it's not:


The article you cite indicates that the London bid tripled their budget and others similarly went way over. One commentator said that expenses in London and other large cities actually were far beyond this since they had sophisticated accounting and administrative people who can funnel indirect costs (security, maintenance, pensions, benefits, interest, amortizable costs, shared costs, non-period costs, etc.) into other categories or accounting periods and effectively hide them.

This is another area that will be exposed as openness increases and will kill bids from small and mid-sized cities.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

redspork02 said:


> More like 4 four days....................:lol:
> Paris 24
> LA 28
> 
> ...


Yes. As we discussed about a month ago, the only negotiation left is whether the IOC will meet LA's price for agreeing to bail them out by hosting the 2028 games. With the IOC politically forced to take Paris in 2024, this will be a huge benefit for the IOC who has no bids of comparable quality on the horizon for 2028.

As I said then, the one possible misstep is for the IOC to fail to understand that LA does not need the Olympics the way the IOC needs them.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

CaliforniaJones said:


> LA and Paris deserved to host the olympics, according to the amazing pictures posted in this forums. There'll be two winners.
> There'll also be certainty Donald Trump will not be president anymore in 2028, after eventually 2 terms.


Not so fast! What if the ticket of Joe Biden and Oprah defeat him in 2024 but he and Kanye defeat them in 2028?

Bet you hadn't thought about that!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> Demand pricing implies charging very high prices for high demand tickets and paying people to attend unpopular events.
> 
> It also implies dropping unpopular events from the Olympics, which hopefully will be done in a very thorough way in the very near future.


It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of cost/revenue per event including typical venue construction cost. I'd imagine there are a few less popular sports that actually do ok on this basis, if it just means e.g. setting up a couple of small temporary stands in an exhibition centre. That's especially true if the temporary set up can be shared with other sports as well. Sports like Boxing, Fencing, Judo, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Weightlifting, Wrestling etc.

And conversely, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the popular sports do less well on this basis e.g. needing a new aquatic centre, athletics stadium, velodrome etc.

I'd imagine the sport that does best is gymnastics. Big capacity, tickets sold for good prices, always popular, and most cities already have a suitable arena. Win-win.

Something like kayak/canoeing may do worst with expensive specialised venue required. Or possibly even track cycling as the capacity at velodromes is never huge but it is an expensive venue. But the latter is certainly very popular, and in both cases good legacy uses can be made from the venues by hiring them out to groups after the Games. Both are very well used in London, though I'm unsure about other cities.

Which sports would you drop, out of interest?


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Lord David said:


> Try again for 2028. The only way I can see this happening is if the IOC reimburses the failed bidders. They'd be complaining of all the money they've spent, only for the IOC to award the games out of desperation.


Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You, you may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You, you may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will live as one

_________________________

or you prefer to switch on the news and live in a real world?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of cost/revenue per event including typical venue construction cost. I'd imagine there are a few less popular sports that actually do ok on this basis, if it just means e.g. setting up a couple of small temporary stands in an exhibition centre. That's especially true if the temporary set up can be shared with other sports as well. Sports like Boxing, Fencing, Judo, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Weightlifting, Wrestling etc.
> 
> And conversely, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the popular sports do less well on this basis e.g. needing a new aquatic centre, athletics stadium, velodrome etc.
> 
> ...


This is heading in the right direction. One of the above articles noted that the move is toward "corporate" thinking, which implies careful cost/benefit analysis and considering modifications to the sport, venue, format, etc., to see what can be done to make it profitable. Corporate isn't just cutting the budget; it's figuring how a loser can be turned into a winner

My personal prejudices are to remove anything this is more aesthetic than competitive. I am also doubtful about the upper crust "sports" of yachting and horsey stuff. Probably many others. But I am not thinking corporately on this.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion, too
> ...



You are so much more poetic than I am. I was going to suggest hiring a lawyer and seeing how far that theory would get in court. :lol:


----------



## Targaryen (Jul 4, 2016)

pesto said:


> Yes. As we discussed about a month ago, the only negotiation left is whether the IOC will meet LA's price for agreeing to bail them out by hosting the 2028 games. *With the IOC politically forced to take Paris in 2024,* this will be a huge benefit for the IOC who has no bids of comparable quality on the horizon for 2028.
> 
> As I said then, the one possible misstep is for the IOC to fail to understand that LA does not need the Olympics the way the IOC needs them.



Or IOC politically forced to give LA the games. (Do you really think that political influence of France is biger than the one from America).

There is no way that LA can get 2024 so they have to give them the 2028. It's funny that 2002 and 1996 were won with corruption, 1984 had no opposing candidates and now 2028 will just be given to USA simply because, well they just want it. hno:hno:hno:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Look at it from the IOC's point of view and the reasons for the likely double award become clear. Nobody needs to politicise this more than necessary. This sounds like it'll be a pragmatic decision made because they have two superb bids on the table against a backdrop of fewer cities wanting to bid.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Targaryen said:


> Or IOC politically forced to give LA the games. (Do you really think that political influence of France is biger than the one from America).
> 
> There is no way that LA can get 2024 so they have to give them the 2028. It's funny that 2002 and 1996 were won with corruption, 1984 had no opposing candidates and now 2028 will just be given to USA simply because, well they just want it. hno:hno:hno:


Under your theory why did Chicago and other American bidders not get the Olympics? Obama showed up personally, but here Trump is considered a liability. Yet LA is not only being selected but heavily subsidized for bailing out the IOC once again.

This is not at that level of politics. Both Macron and Trump have better things to do than throw tantrums over sporting events years from now. Terrorism, the economy, wars, etc., is where they are focused.

This is not really worth debating since both sides seem to win here, but few doubt that LA has the better bid; Baumann actually slipped and said so. A strong reason Paris is getting the bid is that it has been so humiliated by multiple losses that another loss could make the local populace anti-Olympics. When asked, Hidalgo said the reason to select Paris is the emotions of the 100th anniversary. No one has maintained that the Paris bid is better as to financial risk, venues, security, etc.

I am not denying that it is close however; both are strong bids.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Look at it from the IOC's point of view and the reasons for the likely double award become clear. Nobody needs to politicise this more than necessary. This sounds like it'll be a pragmatic decision made because they have two superb bids on the table against a backdrop of fewer cities wanting to bid.


Yes. Pragmatism is the word.

From two strong bids Paris was given the edge for "political" reasons, that is, so as to smooth relations with France and within the Olympic movement which wished to avoid having Paris lose after so many bona fide quality bids.

And, of course, this gives some time to implement the long-term plan of weeding out "losers" by limiting bidders and trying to make them of good quality before huge expenditures are incurred. The multi-step, open process should also help set public expectations and understanding of why their city was or was not selected.

It goes without saying that pragmatism also includes security. Just one athlete killed at the Olympics will be remembered forever.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Though us savvy bid watchers are starting to wise up to the idea of a double award, it seems like Paris isn't taking anything for granted...












> *A Jilted Paris Has Pined for the Olympics, but the Long Wait May End in 2024
> On Olympics*
> By CHRISTOPHER CLAREY JUNE 5, 2017
> 
> ...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/sports/olympics/paris-summer-olympics-bid-2024.html?_r=0 (full article)

Good on them for not taking anything for granted! But if things go the way it seems like they are going they are all but assured the Olympics, with LA for 2028. (which personally, sounds OK to me! Especially if they get a deal to fund youth sports in Los Angeles, free soccer/football/swimming/gymnastics for kids in LA would be a fantastic legacy).


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

In general bid news, LA released there latest video! It's episode 2 of "What's not in the Bid Book" with Casey Wasserman. He and Olympian Allyson Felix check out a store for "sneaker-heads", basically collectors of high end athletic sneakers (i.e. "trainers"):





(With captions _en français_!)


And for the record here is the first episode, generally about Hollywood and the Movie business:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Though us savvy bid watchers are starting to wise up to the idea of a double award, it seems like Paris isn't taking anything for granted...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt that LA is a winner if Paris gets 2024 with an expected huge loss and LA takes 2028 with an expected profit and funding of youth facilities.

With the huge presence of entertainment development and broadcasting, and the sports agents and marketers already here, you wonder if the Olympics will make like the NFL and create a permanent presence locally.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> By getting the Games right you seem to mean adhering to your highly personal and idiosyncratic aesthetic vision of them. Anything which varies from that is a "screw up".


Consider Atlanta 1996:

Privately financed and not a big burden to taxpayers. Check.

Modest amount of new construction for the games. Check.

Good turnout. Check. (Tickets sold exceeded the number for Los Angeles 1984 and was a record until I believe London 2012.)

Budget was mostly balanced. Check.

Venues looked fairly good. Check.

In judging that or other games, an incident like the bomb going off in Atlanta's Olympic park obviously shouldn't count against the games since 1996's organizing committee couldn't have foreseen that.

So 1996 actually ticked off most of the requirements for a good Olympics. Yet Atlanta's games were still considered a dud. 

Why?

At a certain point, what you may consider idiosyncratic vision or obscure personal tastes - of mine or other people - may count more than you realize.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Hps95 said:


> Tokyo
> I want new cities
> 
> It Could Be... Yokohama, Marseille or San Francisco/Las Vegas...


Well, Marseille will host the 2024 Yachting events.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

pesto said:


> Where would they host the Super Bowl? The closest professional football stadium is in San Jose (technically 1/4 mile away in Santa Clara) 45 miles south.
> 
> Berkeley would never permit it and Stanford would require work and face opposition as well (to say nothing of being closer to SJ than SF).


I meant Vegas hosting the Super Bowl.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Consider Atlanta 1996:
> 
> Privately financed and not a big burden to taxpayers. Check.
> 
> ...


Nope.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> Nope.


Yep.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

californiadreams said:


> Consider Atlanta 1996:
> 
> Privately financed and not a big burden to taxpayers. Check.
> 
> ...


And when its books were finally balanced, ACOG made a profit of $10 million -- the 2nd Olympic Games after LA 1984 to show a profit.


----------



## Chevy114 (Jul 21, 2011)

Atlanta's a dud because the stadium didn't look great. Yet I think it's funny no one gave a crap about Olympic track and field stadiums looking good until 2000 in Sydney. They just happen to be the one right before it so they take the most crap for it. 

Overall it was a well run Olympics if you ask me.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Knitemplar said:


> And when its books were finally balanced, ACOG made a profit of $10 million .


The 1996 games can at least take comfort in that. Rio 2016 ended up just the opposite.

All that for what?

The organizers of the Atlanta games did need to cover all the bases in raising money through private sources. Or not sticking others with the bill. Or not leaving the people of Atlanta with a hangover as what residents of Rio have been going through since last summer. Or apparently what people in Tokyo will be getting stuck with.

However, did people like 1996's Billy Payne and others on his committee ever flinch at hanging street banners like this during their Olympic games?:


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

San Francisco again :lol: There's no way they can gain 65% public approval, and, just like New York, people think these two cities will showcase what the world knows of them.......they don't have the room. 

Venues would be far from their well-known "world image". Santa Clara, San Jose, Oakland for San Francisco. And God knows where for NY.


----------



## potiz81 (Aug 9, 2005)

Chevy114 said:


> Overall it was a well run Olympics if you ask me.


Well, celebrating the 100 years' edition anywhere far from Greece, with an overcommercialized organizatiοn, winning a scandalous bid race with all these bribery accusations and having dead spectators during the event? Big NO, no matter how big the economical profit was.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

potiz81 said:


> Well, celebrating the 100 years' edition anywhere far from Greece, with an overcommercialized organizatiοn, winning a scandalous bid race with all these bribery accusations and having dead spectators during the event? Big NO, no matter how big the economical profit was.


Well when you compare the legacy of Atlanta and Athens, Atlanta wins by miles. The 96 (for better or worse) games put Atlanta on the map. The 2004 games nearly ruined Greece. Hmm.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The 2004 Games didn't nearly ruin Greece, much bigger structural and economic issues, some continental not just national in scope, did that.

However, the Games _did_ become the go-to example of the nation's profligacy. The spending on Athens 2004 became symbolic of Greece's problems. It didn't cause them though.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Kenni said:


> San Francisco again :lol: There's no way they can gain 65% public approval, and, Just like New York, people think these two cities will showcase what the world knows of them.......they don't have the room.
> 
> Venues would be far from their well-known "world image". Santa Clara, San Jose, Oakland for San Francisco. And God knows where for NY.


You mean you wouldn't tear up Nob Hill or the Marina to put in 100k stadiums and the access roads they would need? :lol: Even Dog Patch wouldn't accept venues since they can sell condos for 3M without even trying.

NY has it easier since it is enormous compared to SF. But it would be a waste to build more facilities in Manhattan when demand for housing and everything else is already so high. I would expect visitors would have to take subways out to Jersey and the other boroughs.

And I literally can't image what hotels would cost.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Athens 2004 has long stood out to me because of all the money they spent (and wasted, as far as I'm concerned) on a big contraption for their cauldron. As though they had tons of money to begin with.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

> aaron bauer‏Verified account
> @ABauer_ATR
> *Meanwhile the IOC will make a proposal to its members next month calling for a vote at the session for each city: http://aroundtherings.com/site/A__60421/Title__ATR-First-IOC-Confirms-Two-City-Vote/292/Articles …*





> aaron bauer‏Verified account @ABauer_ATR
> Replying to @ABauer_ATR
> *ATR has confirmed this with a source from the IOC EB. Source says a dual vote will take place in Lima. Race continues.*


https://twitter.com/ABauer_ATR

Around the Rings - "ATR First: IOC Confirms Two City Vote" (article behind a paywall though)

looks like dual award is a go :cheers:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> The 2004 Games didn't nearly ruin Greece, much bigger structural and economic issues, some continental not just national in scope, did that.
> 
> However, the Games _did_ become the go-to example of the nation's profligacy. The spending on Athens 2004 became symbolic of Greece's problems. It didn't cause them though.


Of course you are right: the Olympics were merely a visible symptom of Greece’s problems. But more to the point your post and others show that the IOC (and pretty much everyone else) focuses on security, financing, affordability, physical legacy, etc.

Over the last days I asked 10 serious sports fans I know and 4 non-sports fans (all women) about what they thought of the Atlanta Olympics. None of the sports fans said anything about it being a dud; their only specific recollection was the bomb fiasco. In general their attitude was “Who the f cares? The Olympics are all about the same.” 

The non-sports fans couldn’t really sort out one from the others except one lady said she liked the man on the giant bicycle; my wife said she prefers the Super Bowl half-time shows.

Unscientific as this may be, it’s about as far as I need to go to determine that the IOC is not interested in aesthetic idiosyncrasies. I am not belittling them; there are many areas in which small groups of aficionados debate the fine points of a subject (wine, dog breeds, butterflies, etc.). I’m just saying that these people are not material to the thinking at the IOC when shaping their proposed future program. 

Not even close to being relevant. In other words, not one IOC President or senior decision maker will ever say at a board meeting “we really, really need to address the Sebastian Coe issue”.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

*Breaking:* #IOC to award both 2024 and 2028 Games to both candidates - will call full session to vote on plan in July
https://twitter.com/gamesbids


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

https://www.ft.com/content/f683076e-4c67-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b?mhq5j=e1

Aside from repeating what we already know about 2024/28, this article cites an IOC spokesperson as saying that the future methodology for site selection will have the IOC approaching a small number of cities to work with them to make them viable candidates. The point is to remove the many bidders who have no chance of winning.

This seems to imply that multiple winners will come out of the process, with cities being notified of where they are weak and what needs to be done to assure a spot. Presumably over time additional cities will be approached.

Interesting to see how cities will position themselves to join the "short list".


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

To add to the big news day :lol::












> *IOC Executive Board approve joint awarding plans for 2024 and 2028 Olympics*
> By Nick Butler at the Olympic Museum in Lausanne
> 
> *A proposal to award both the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games to Los Angeles and Paris has been "unanimously" approved by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Executive Board here today.*
> ...


http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...int-awarding-plans-for-2024-and-2028-olympics (full article)


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

That's good news !


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> One thing though I'd argue against basketball being hosted here is that it would disrupt the compact nature of the downtown sports park. As is all B-Ball games are being hosted in venues next door to each other, and in this case you'd have attendees traveling across the city. That said this new arena will obviously be nicer than the convention center and built specifically for the sport, so there is that too.


I honestly think organizers would probably want to use a shiny new basketball arena for basketball. Given that the plan right now is to host basketball prelimins on the floor of an old convention hall, a better plan in my opinion would be to put volleyball in the Galen Center and use Staples and Inglewood as your primary basketball venues.


----------



## Pierre de Coubertin (Sep 25, 2016)

SirAce said:


> Ehm, actually it's lovely to see the way you promote your city but it would be better not to trade local or personal opinions for safe truths.
> 
> A sentence like "So Milano overpassed Rome for the point of view of the appeal and has become more international than Rome." doesn't make much sense. Eventually Milan overcame Rome from the point of view of infrastructures. And actually was already ahead before the expo. But what does it means appeal?
> 
> ...




Sirace, you know what I mean with my sentence "Milan has more international appeal than Rome, the most interesting point of view is about the international investments. foreign investitors prefer invensting on Milan rather than Rome. Area Expo with the city of the innovation and of the science is a pure example, but Porta Nuova with qatari investitors is an other one. In Area Expo are going to bid companies from Finland (Nokia), from German (Bayer), what the same companies wouldn't have the same feeling for Rome.


But the manage of what is pubblic is different (see how is dirty Milan and how is clean Milan or the manage of public transport too) in favour of Milan. Milan see to the future, and you can breathe this in the air, Rome is linked to the past.


I don't speak about infrastructures. It would be ironic comparing the two cities.


So, at nowadays, if CONI wants a credible bid wouldn't bid that on Milan only. Yep Rome is a really historic appeal but for a long time has managed not as a city like Rome should be managed. It 's sad but this is the situation. How many capitals do you have with rubbish along the streets or mice that cross the roads? I'm sorry saying that now Rome should be a strong bis, despite of its history. Obvious Milan has to invest on sport venues, without doubt, but starts from a different level.


Nun te la prende' Sirace, ma se che stamo a discute'?


----------



## Edumello (Aug 2, 2010)

edit


----------



## Edumello (Aug 2, 2010)

californiadreams said:


> If cities in Italy, or anywhere else, for that matter, want to have a pissing match as to which one can bid for an Olympics, much less be chosen as host of a games, I hope they all long remember Rio 2016.
> 
> A city in Brazil spent lots of time and money on their games. All for what? Was it worth it? Do people of the world now look more fondly at and feel more respect for Rio because it hosted the 2016 games?


Many of them do! Everyone who came to Rio had a wonderfull time! despite all the negativity thrown by the media...and the behavior of some athletes like your fellow american Ryan Lochte , something you should really be ashamed of!

I've been to London 2012 and to Rio 2016, I can tell you both games were great! Everyone that had the opportunity to be there at both games had a wonderfull time! And those are the opinions that truly matter! The opinion of those who were part of the experience... not the media or your personal point of view... 

So please this thread is related to the 2024 games! Please forget about Rio and London ... think about Paris! 2024 and hope for LA 2028 to workout fine... Hope for everyone to have a true great experience like they did in Rio and London!


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

IThomas said:


> It's like say that Los Angeles' attractions are:
> - a white sign on the hills
> - a sidewalk with black tiles
> - boxes hosting movie studios
> ...


Won't disagree with you there; but LA will host the Games a 3rd time in 2028. And when has Milan? :lol:


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

aquamaroon said:


> Wow I've been catching up on SSC/Olympics news and this drops! :cheers:
> 
> Yep agree with both of you guys, this more than anything cements Inglewood/Hollywood Park as one of the main "clusters" of the 2024/28 Olympics. LA 2024 just landed another state of the art arena! I think there are three main potential uses for this new arena: Volleyball, Basketball, or the Aquatics venue. I wrote kind of a longwinded post about using this arena for Volleyball that I'll repost now, but I'd love to see what other LA Olympic followers think! One last thing, this arena seems to be going for a 2023/24 completion date (which is when the Clippers are done at Staples Center). So while it'd be ostensibly ready for summer 2024, this may be another advantageous reason for LA to host 2028, as that'll give plenty of time for the whole development to shake out. Anyways, here's my previous post if you'd like to read and tell me what you think :cheers:


The reason, at this stage, even as LA 2024 transitions to LA 2028, that they assigned Indoor Volleyball to Anaheim is that the two US national Indoor Volleyball teams train in Anaheim and the city supports them in that regard. So "promising" the 2024/28 Indoor Volleyball competition to Honda Arena is a "concession / pay-back time" for Anaheim's support of the Indoor Volleyball national teams. 

But plans for 2028 could still change if a new Clippers arena also goes up in Inglewood, opening up Staples Center for Gymnastics, and maybe pushing Indoor Volleyball back to The Forum.


----------



## Pierre de Coubertin (Sep 25, 2016)

Knitemplar said:


> Won't disagree with you there; but LA will host the Games a 3rd time in 2028. And when has Milan? :lol:


Don't be too funny, you should become our clown or our Mascotte. You make me laugh so much. I can't stop.
And think if you don't get the games how will smile. Cheers


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Pierre de Coubertin said:


> Don't be too funny, you should become our clown or our Mascotte. You make me laugh so much. I can't stop.
> And think if you don't get the games how will smile. Cheers


hno:


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

Knitemplar said:


> Won't disagree with you there; but LA will host the Games a 3rd time in 2028. And when has Milan? :lol:


1932 _ LA won this edition because it was the only bidder
1984 _ Same as above
2028 _ LA won this edition without make an healthy competition with other cities.

Nice attempt, but try again :troll:


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

^^^^ Very true. But what would be the point if they were unsuccessful let's say?, like Montreal? 

Fine LA got them that way, but they 1) changed the Olympic movement 2) were the first ones with a surplus. 




IThomas said:


> It's like say that Los Angeles' attractions are:
> - a white sign on the hills
> - a sidewalk with black tiles
> - boxes hosting movie studios
> ...


:lol: I'd say that LA is much more than that, and 47.3 Million visitors/tourists (2016) would agree (Milan had aprox 7.7M).........plus, that sign, is much more than that and you know it. 

Just the weather year-round on its own trumps many, now imaging beaches, mountains for skiing in winter, sports, movies, music industry, etc. etc. etc. 

202082576


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

Kenni said:


> LA is much more than that, and 47.3 Million visitors/tourists (2016) would agree (Milan had aprox 7.7M)


No, the city itself (181 sqkm) registered 9 million tourists in 2016, making it the second most visited city in Italy behind Rome.
While the 47.3 million are not referred to the city proper of Los Angeles.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

IThomas said:


> It's like say that Los Angeles' attractions are:
> - a white sign on the hills
> - a sidewalk with black tiles
> - boxes hosting movie studios
> ...


Now you have really devolved into mindless pettiness. Next time you're here, try some of these. The NY Times last year called LA the second ranking place you have to go. 

Art Museums: 
-	LACMA: an enormous collection of paintings, sculpture, Asian art, archaeological items
-	Getty: a lovely campus featuring art works, gardens and fabulous views
-	Getty Malibu: a copy of a Pompeii home, with an excellent collection of antiquities
-	Huntington: lovely gardens, famous painting and sculpture, rare books
-	Norton Simon: a small but very high quality collection with a sculpture garden

Museums:
-	Science Mus: a space shuttle and launching pad; many other items
-	Nat. History: the usual collection of animals of all sorts in a classical setting
-	Lucas Mus: a study of how narrative can be developed in various art forms
-	Skirball Center: a very attractive center for Jewish history with special exhibits about famous Jews (e.g., Paul Simon, Roy Lichtenstein, Einstein, etc.)
-	Battleship Iowa: go on it; see the ship that kept Europe and Asia free and Roosevelt rode in to Yalta

Outdoors:
-	Hiking up over 2000 ft. without leaving the city; over 10000 ft. if you drive 30 miles
-	Beaches: great sand, volleyball, bathing, views, basketball, nighttime parties, from SJC (San Juan Capistrano) to County Line
-	Griffith Park: besides the hiking, there are horses, playgrounds, golf and great views

Neighborhoods:
-	Beverly Hills: homes, shopping, movie stars
-	WeHo: the enormous design center of Beverly, Melrose, Robertson, etc.
-	WeHO: the gay nightlife of SaMo Blvd, Robertson, etc.
-	Hollywood: honky-tonk, hip, clubs, trash; 
-	Sunset Strip: Hollywood gone upscale, exclusive but still drug and alcohol driven
-	Pasadena: architecture, a revived Old Town; the Rose Bowl
-	Santa Monica: ocean, dining, shopping, young people, pier, Ferris wheel
-	Downtown: everything you want in a big city: high rise, rooftop bars, architecture, a wide variety of sights (Bradley Bldg., Grand Central Market, Disney, Broad, Our Lady, etc.) 
-	Koreatown, Chinatown, Little Tehran, Little Armenia, Little Thailand, lots of Mexican areas

Theme Parks: 
-	Disneyland, Universal, Knott’s Berry Farm, Magic Mountain; easily a week of thrills and having your mind blown 
-	Water slides, rope lines, skating and boarding parks (or just improvise)

Trust me when I say this list can be easily expanded (Culver City architecture, Inglewood sports complex, Oscars Museum, UCLA and USC campuses, etc.). Look me up next time you are in town.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

Considering this report "Global Destination Cities Index" by Mastercard...Los Angeles does not even appear in top 20 









https://newsroom.mastercard.com/wp-...AL-Global-Destination-Cities-Index-Report.pdf

Milan 7.65 million
Los Angeles 5.60 million


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

pesto said:


> Now you have really devolved into mindless pettiness. Next time you're here, try some of these. The NY Times last year called LA the second ranking place you have to go.


Nice list, I've been in California. 
I could do the same with Milan metro area, but I do not think it's the case to fleed this thread 

However, it is clear that you have not grasped my sarcastic tone.
But it was your fellow citizen to say that there is nothing to see in Milan and surrounds.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

IThomas said:


> Considering this report "Global Destination Cities Index" by Mastercard...Los Angeles does not even appear in top 20
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again playing the fool. These are international visitors not total visitors as the chart plainly states. Of course Italy or France will have many international visitors: they are within 200 miles of about 10 other countries. 

The only country within 1000 miles of LA is Mexico, which has very low income. The only non-US population center with high income within about 2000 miles is Vancouver. Moreover LA is in a very populous country; even your limited math skills should understand that cities in populous countries will have fewer visitors from other countries all things being equal.

In fact, LA will have about 55M total visitors this year which just swamps Milan (and Paris too for that matter). The overwhelming majority will be from the US.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

I'm not sure where all this started, but I have nothing against Milan; I wish them well in their efforts to obtain an Olympics. Likewise for Rome. I have been to each city a few times and liked each.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

double post.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

pesto said:


> I'm not sure where all this started, but I have nothing against Milan; I wish them well in their efforts to obtain an Olympics. Likewise for Rome. I have been to each city a few times and liked each.


I have nothing against LA too. I repeat, my tone was sarcastic.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Edumello said:


> Please forget about Rio and London ... think about Paris! 2024 and hope for LA 2028 to workout fine..


You know there's a famous phrase: Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

That's why I haven't brought up past games to - as they say - rub salt in the wound. Whether I'm talking about Rio, London, Athens, Atlanta 1996, etc.

Last year's Olympics offer one great lesson: Just because the city of Rio hosted one of the quadrennial summer games, that doesn't mean lots of people worldwide probably or necessarily have a more positive impression of that city. 

The 2016 Olympics didn't give off the warm fuzzies. If anything, I heard more about Rio's crime and pollution - and poverty and corruption too - because it was in the crosshairs of the Olympic games. That might have been somewhat offset if the games at least had been fantastic.

Nothing is guaranteed in life. That includes the quality and success of a future games in Los Angeles or, for that matter, any other Olympics.

By the way, I've posted this previously: I comment in this thread due in part to my hopes that over the next 11 years, various people on a Los Angeles Olympic committee will stumble upon it and get something out of it. 

I don't think they'll get much out of another forum at a website that's even devoted to the topic of the games. The thread at Olympicbids.com on Los Angeles 2024 is mainly one giant food fight. No better than getting caught in the middle of a bunch of snot-nosed cliques at a local high school.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

IThomas said:


> 1932 _ LA won this edition because it was the only bidder
> 1984 _ Same as above
> 2028 _ LA won this edition without make an healthy competition with other cities.
> 
> Nice attempt, but try again :troll:


So what? hno: They still worked as partners with the IOC when they were needed, and served the IOC's aims. It's still in the history books. And has Milan? 

Duh! What a stupid retort from you, ITThomas. hno:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> Time to look in the mirror.
> 
> Europeans in particular have drunk the "social welfarist" model of life so deeply that they can't see a world where people really care about making their lives and those of the children freer, better, with more choices and less artificial burdens. In their own ways the US, Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and trying to find something new and better than what the colonialist powers forced on them. It's not always pretty but it's the human spirit at work.
> 
> And all Europe can do is sip their tea and say that Trump is a doo-doo head. How charming. How last gasp.


YOU need to look in the mirror. Imagine if Blair had attacked Mayor Giuliani the day after 9/11 and you might _start_ to 'get it'. The utter stupidity and insularity of some yanks on this forum since Trump's election has been astonishing. This time a year ago you were all saying you dislike him but don't worry he won't get elected (even in this thread!). Now loads of you jump to his defence deploying braindead Trumpian xenophobia whenever anyone criticises him.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)




----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

GunnerJacket said:


> EVERYONE PLEASE READ:
> 
> Anymore commentary about past Olympic games that is a) not used as a direct comparative reference to a 2024 bid, and/or b) includes any social commentary about a city, person, or poster not involved in a 2024 bid will henceforth be deleted and the person offering the commentary risks a yellow card or worse.
> 
> You've been warned.


I come back after a few days and the question of the moment - based on recent posts - is the warning being ignored?

What the hell do several of the comments above have to do with the topic of the 2024 Olympics? Or 2028 Olympics, for that matter? Or even the IOC. Even more so based on the rather general, all-encompassing stipulations you list.

Someone bitched about my mentioning past Olympic ceremonies and previous games in general, as though doing that somehow totally strays from the purpose or main topic of this thread.

What a friggin' joke.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> YOU need to look in the mirror. Imagine if Blair had attacked Mayor Giuliani the day after 9/11 and you might _start_ to 'get it'. The utter stupidity and insularity of some yanks on this forum since Trump's election has been astonishing. This time a year ago you were all saying you dislike him but don't worry he won't get elected (even in this thread!). Now loads of you jump to his defence deploying braindead Trumpian xenophobia whenever anyone criticises him.


Olympics: France needs to reestablish security (that's a quote from the Socialist MP who wrote the security report). Virtually every candidate assailed security under Hollande. It's an issue that needs to be resolved.

Think of Bach. Where does he stand if, say, someone slits the throats of 3 visitors from Spain; and someone blows himself up along with the Ukrainian wrestling team; or somebody does something really huge? The press is going to say "why were the Olympics in Paris"? He will have to know that France (or the US) are doing everything possible to eliminate such threats

As for Trump, I support him when he's right; oppose him when he's wrong; and laugh when the goes off the deep-end. You should do the same. 

On security, he is right. Everyone knows it but is afraid of looking like a racist so they say he's wrong. Do you think any western country doesn't do similar vetting based on computer analysis of where the terrorists are coming from? France literally follows the people returning from a similar group of countries around France, watching them. And right they are.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

californiadreams said:


> I come back after a few days and the question of the moment - based on recent posts - is the warning being ignored?
> 
> What the hell do several of the comments above have to do with the topic of the 2024 Olympics? Or 2028 Olympics, for that matter? Or even the IOC. Even more so based on the rather general, all-encompassing stipulations you list.
> 
> ...


News flash, Thomas Bach met with Donald Trump yesterday.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> News flash, Thomas Bach met with Donald Trump yesterday.


Yes, it is highly likely Bach and Trump discussed access to the US for all countries and security for the US games. Also possible they discussed cooperation with the French in security matters as Bach will meet with Macron shortly.

I hope no one here is comparing his aesthetic quibbles with the importance of maintaining top-flight security at the Games. The terrorists have shown they are happy to machine-gun people in the face at close range and then keep shooting them as an example to others.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Paris' Olympic Day events (actually spread over two days) look like its been a huge success. Huge numbers of visitors to various central locations demonstrating Olympic sport. Normally this would mark the start of a PR ramp-up culminating in September's vote. I wonder though if there'll be the same urgency now the double-award looks certain.

I guess we'll find out. In the meantime, a photo of President Macron trying out wheelchair tennis.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

https://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/...ent-in-france-support-paris-2024-olympic-bid/

Ouch. Paris gets 30 percent full support and 43 percent "somewhat supportive". Unclear if that would amount to a majority that would vote yes.

I'm not sure about the methodology but the result sounds like about what you would expect.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Wow yeah, that's actually pretty soft support! It seems as if 70 percent of the population can be moved to be against the Games (though are supportive in the abstract of course). It seems to me that as long as things run smoothly there won't be any problems, but if there's a major scandal then you could infact get a plurality, or even outright majority, against the Games.

But given the IOC's position, it's all kind've a moot point! More a question of "when" than "if"


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Thanks for the pics and video Rob! :cheers: Here's some of the same from LA's beach day celebration for Olympic day:




























































more photos on https://twitter.com/LA2024 :cheers:


ETA: oh, and happy belated Olympic Day everyone! :cheers:


----------



## nandoer (May 26, 2017)

I think that the IOC will want to encourage european bidders (considering the fact that Rome, Budapest and Hamburg dropped the race -without metioning all withdran WOG bids-) so... yeah.... Paris seems to get the games.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Wow yeah, that's actually pretty soft support! It seems as if 70 percent of the population can be moved to be against the Games (though are supportive in the abstract of course). It seems to me that as long as things run smoothly there won't be any problems, but if there's a major scandal then you could infact get a plurality, or even outright majority, against the Games.
> 
> But given the IOC's position, it's all kind've a moot point! More a question of "when" than "if"


Yeah, but how would you like to be Bach now: "Ok, so Paris has security issues and public support is doubtful. And if the opposition really mobilizes or the terrorists hit, I'm the guy that knew about it in advance and chose them anyway."

There's also a lesson in poll design here. This is a poll that tells you almost nothing about the 43 percent in the middle. You can basically say "73 percent support the Olympics to some extent" or "67 percent do not support the Olympics to some extent". The drafters were influenced by some consideration to make that group ambiguous.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

nandoer said:


> I think that the IOC will want to encourage european bidders (considering the fact that Rome, Budapest and Hamburg dropped the race -without metioning all withdran WOG bids-) so... yeah.... Paris seems to get the games.


Bienvenido!

It's probably going to be Paris in any event (barring catastrophes) and you have a good point about Europe being the focus of discontent against the IOC. This opposition is widely mentioned by the commentators.

This makes sense since there are many liberal democracies there which implies the ability to get a public forum to oppose what the "big boys" want. But I suspect that the image of the IOC is pretty weak around the world, at least in the reasonably developed countries.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

pesto said:


> Yeah, but how would you like to be Bach now: "Ok, so Paris has security issues and public support is doubtful. And if the opposition really mobilizes or the terrorists hit, I'm the guy that knew about it in advance and chose them anyway."
> 
> There's also a lesson in poll design here. This is a poll that tells you almost nothing about the 43 percent in the middle. You can basically say "73 percent support the Olympics to some extent" or "67 percent do not support the Olympics to some extent". The drafters were influenced by some consideration to make that group ambiguous.


yep if I'm Bach, French support for the Games is far too "squishy" for my taste. That said, as user nandoer mentioned above, that's pretty much the case EVERYWHERE in Europe right now. And considering some of the pushback the IOC has received in Europe, especially Northern Europe, 73 percent of even tepid support must seem like a minor miracle to them right about now.
And really nothing is more important for the long term health of the Olympics then to re-engage Western European democracies as hosts. Paris is really basically the last great European hope of the IOC. So not saying it's the case but even if they felt that the LA bid was superior for 2024, it's a big risk to turn down any willing Euro city right now. And while it's not ideal, I think Bach has to roll the dice here and go with Paris, and it's up to the Olympics to put on a great show that wins over that 43% of persuadables in the middle, and gives a positive example of the Games to the rest of Western Europe.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RuFFy said:


> News flash, Thomas Bach met with Donald Trump yesterday.


News flash, dumb politicians - in either the US or France, or anywhere else - or public figures in government or today's IOC will not affect the quality of a games in Los Angeles. 

However, the people in charge of the Los Angeles 2024 committee or any future committee for an Olympic games set in Los Angeles will affect the outcome.

Guessing how their decisions will either compare or not compare with the decisions made by their predecessors in Rio, London, Athens, Atlanta, etc, will be relevant to whether a future games in LA ends up a big success, a middling success, semi-good, so-so, humdrum, a disappointment or a big belly flop.

Some of the possible outcomes will be beyond the control and influence of an LA committee. Some of them, however, will be very much dependent on who's managing the event, who they choose or not choose, what they'll favor or not favor.

I prefer the games be a big success. The other options? Not so much.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> yep if I'm Bach, French support for the Games is far too "squishy" for my taste. That said, as user nandoer mentioned above, that's pretty much the case EVERYWHERE in Europe right now. And considering some of the pushback the IOC has received in Europe, especially Northern Europe, 73 percent of even tepid support must seem like a minor miracle to them right about now.
> And really nothing is more important for the long term health of the Olympics then to re-engage Western European democracies as hosts. Paris is really basically the last great European hope of the IOC. So not saying it's the case but even if they felt that the LA bid was superior for 2024, it's a big risk to turn down any willing Euro city right now. And while it's not ideal, I think Bach has to roll the dice here and go with Paris, and it's up to the Olympics to put on a great show that wins over that 43% of persuadables in the middle, and gives a positive example of the Games to the rest of Western Europe.


I can buy that as a strategy; I have said all along that Bach has really little choice but to choose Paris and take some Alka Seltzer. He may want to add some Prilosec to his regimen after that poll.

Longer term, Western Europe is relatively wealthy but stagnant and only constitutes maybe 5 percent of the world's population. But they have the advantage of being more widely known than LatAm, Asia, Africa, etc. That keeps TV audiences higher and makes them worth keeping happy. But I'm not sure any of the Europeans would shed tears if Paris loses. It makes it tougher for them to bid for a couple of rounds.

In any event, the disillusionment with the IOC is quite broad. Remember that Budapest is not Western Europe, nor is Boston, SF, Toronto, etc., all of whom had politicians turning and running from Olympic bids. Bach has lots of fences to keep mended.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

And speaking of security:

NBC won't be inviting VIP guests to Korea for the Winter Games due to security concerns. For now, they intend to send a normal broadcast team but this is open. This is an economic blow and very bad press for the IOC. We can assume they will not want this to recur in LA or Paris.

And there's a rumor out that the IOC is revamping their internal security group based on talks with experts and a vetting with Trump re cooperation and information sharing. This is purely oral and I can't document it.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

I originally thought the type of opinion voiced by Jon Keller would have been a case of people licking their wounds. Today? Heck, no.

Totally agree with his sentiment. 

Even more so because I originally thought that Tokyo 2020, following Rio 2016, would be case of smooth sailing ahead. 

Uh, oh-oh. 

If Los Angeles does get the games for 2028, and even though it's more prepared than certain other cities, nothing guarantees that it will be any better than past games, including Los Angeles 1984. 

Which is why if LA also had to build an Olympic village on the side of the LA river, as originally proposed, much less "invest" in other major expenditures for a games, I'd think a future Olympics for the city would already be coming up short. And far more likely to end up a big letdown. 



> *Keller @ Large: Boston Looking Smart 2 Years After Turning Down 2024 Olympics*
> 
> _June 29, 2017 7:18 AM
> _
> ...


----------



## I(L)WTC (Jan 30, 2010)

redspork02 said:


> USOC backs proposal for dual award of 2024, 2028 Olympics Games
> 
> [URL="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-olympics-2024-losangeles-idUKKBN19C04A"https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-olympics-2024-losangeles-idUKKBN19C04A]Article Here[/URL]
> 
> ...



The United States has the power to turn whole event into a mega event because the US market is massive.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> I originally thought the type of opinion voiced by Jon Keller would have been a case of people licking their wounds. Today? Heck, no.
> 
> Totally agree with his sentiment.
> 
> ...


Well, first, leave no doubt: Boston is embarrassed as hell about their Olympic flop; incompetence among the politicos, money guys and sports guys who believed it was a big enough town to do the job and needed the taxpayers to tell them otherwise.

Rio was an unmitigated disaster. Now Tokyo will be 5 more years of disaster in Bach's face and then there is Paris which has significant capital expenses and is almost certain to lose money. Add the security risk they are frantically spending billions on to rectify (the 8-foot, bullet proof security wall is now getting as much attention as the tower and in St. Denis they are using elevated walkways to move attendees between venues).

The key is to move the public conversation to new technology and new methods of choosing host cities, while eliminating the oligarchs who ran the show into the ground. LA helps that process in that it won't lose taxpayer money, has the facilities in place, is run by business people who are only interested in efficiency and a good image, in a country which is competent and serious about border control. Bach's dream come true.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> Now Tokyo will be 5 more years of disaster in Bach's face and then there is Paris which has significant capital expenses and is almost certain to lose money. Add the security risk they are frantically spending billions on to rectify (the 8-foot, bullet proof security wall is now getting as much attention as the tower and in St. Denis they are using elevated walkways to move attendees between venues).


The big pile of junk that has come to symbolize the Olympics of today is why I've been intrigued by figuring out what in hell exactly has happened to it. 

People who have been following the Olympic movement and all the ramifications of the 2024 bid who don't accept the general concept of "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it" are the types I don't want anywhere near a Los Angeles committee for a future games. 

If Los Angeles avoids the mistakes of Rio 2016, due partly to not having a runaway budget, but instead makes the mistakes of Atlanta 1996, that won't be much of a consolation prize. Same thing if LA 2028 avoids the mistakes of Atlanta, but instead makes the mistakes of Rio or London 2012. A set of lose-lose scenarios either way.

I originally thought Tokyo 2020 would possibly duplicate the reported success, charm, dignity and non-controversy of Tokyo 1964. Now I'm not so sure that's possible.

I don't want Los Angeles to go down that same road.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> The big pile of junk that has come to symbolize the Olympics of today is why I've been intrigued by figuring out what in hell exactly has happened to it.
> 
> People who have been following the Olympic movement and all the ramifications of the 2024 bid who don't accept the general concept of "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it" are the types I don't want anywhere near a Los Angeles committee for a future games.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid that Olympic officials do not define "mistakes" like you do. Financial, political and security problems are included in the term; aesthetic issues are not.

The IOC and local committees are not even trying for charm or dignity. Quite the opposite; they are trying to appeal to a broad, very uneducated, very unsophisticated audience. This privileges such things as bright colors, cute children, whimsical or bizarre performers, rock stars right at the edge of decency, circus-like performers.

It does not privilege Mozart's piano or clarinet concertos (unless, perhaps, if they are played Caribbean-style on conga drums by shirtless, turbaned performers high-stepping around the track). Light shows ala Jarre and blaring music may be bottom-of-the-barrel aesthetically, but they keep the attention of the target audience, who as it turns out really aren't big fans of Telemann or anyone he knew. 

If you do like Mozart or Telemann, there's the Disney or the Hollywood Bowl. But not so much Inglewood or the Coliseum.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

/\/\ Oh, is californiadreams trying to plot LA-2028's path? hno: Lordy-lordie!!


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

It would've been hard to fit in Telemann since I don't think he ever worked outside of Germany, unlike Handel. The latter's music was used in the Queen's entrance segment during London 2012. I believe Elgar's music was also used in part, though I can't remember exactly which piece (probably Nimrod) and it might've been the Paralympics. My memory is fuzzy. In truth, the London 2012 opening was full of tiny references both low brow and high, probably too jam packed for most to be noticed unless you were looking for them (which was on of the criticism's levelled at it).

Sochi 2014, only two years ago, dedicated _huge_ swathes of their ceremony to Russian classical music. I'm sure I remember Stravinsky (since the Firebird was a central theme of their torch relay), Borodin, Shostakovich and Prokofiev. Valery Gergiev was brought in to conduct.

If you want Mozart back Salzburg 2026. The ceremony will be full of it, just as Torino 2006 leveraged Italian opera.

So yeah, in danger of going well off topic again, but I think we've seen the full range of ceremonies. And classical music tends to get a better outing from these events than you might expect.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> It would've been hard to fit in Telemann since I don't think he ever worked outside of Germany, unlike Handel. The latter's music was used in the Queen's entrance segment during London 2012. I believe Elgar's music was also used in part, though I can't remember exactly which piece (probably Nimrod) and it might've been the Paralympics. My memory is fuzzy. In truth, the London 2012 opening was full of tiny references both low brow and high, probably too jam packed for most to be noticed unless you were looking for them (which was on of the criticism's levelled at it).
> 
> Sochi 2014, only two years ago, dedicated _huge_ swathes of their ceremony to Russian classical music. I'm sure I remember Stravinsky (since the Firebird was a central theme of their torch relay), Borodin, Shostakovich and Prokofiev. Valery Gergiev was brought in to conduct.
> 
> ...


That list is actually interesting as general knowledge but may miss the point here. And, yes, I know there are occasional full performances of classical works or other works of charm, dignity, etc.

In general, the noisier or more dramatic parts of classical music can be used as background for the real entertainment, which is visual and of a different sort, as referenced in my first post. But these are snippets; like using William Tell as background for The Lone Ranger or O Mio Babbino Caro behind Grand Theft Auto ads.

The rock star or fan dancers or Cirque du Soleil performer will give a complete performance or routine; classical music gets snippets removed from its artistic whole, generally as background. It is lip service but without respect to either composer or audience.

The aim is create a lively, down-market entertainment, not show-off Elgar or Borodin's accomplishments. They are just part of the window-dressing of putting on a national show.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Not sure I entirely agree...I think the line can be blurred quite a lot without disrespecting the music or getting into Lone Ranger territory*. It depends how it's done. Of course you won't get the full range of an hour long symphony when it becomes part of something else, but that doesn't mean it's been cheapened beyond redemption. Anyway, I don't want to get this thread back onto ceremonies after spending so long trying to get it off that topic! :lol: Suffice to say I think it's easy to overanalyse a one-off event that's meant to have impact on one night, compared with things which are meant to have lasting value.

* _"My definition of an intellectual is someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger"_ - Billy Connolly.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Not sure I entirely agree...I think the line can be blurred quite a lot without disrespecting the music or getting into Lone Ranger territory*. It depends how it's done. Of course you won't get the full range of an hour long symphony when it becomes part of something else, but that doesn't mean it's been cheapened beyond redemption. Anyway, I don't want to get this thread back onto ceremonies after spending so long trying to get it off that topic! :lol: Suffice to say I think it's easy to overanalyse a one-off event that's meant to have impact on one night, compared with things which are meant to have lasting value.
> 
> * _"My definition of an intellectual is someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger"_ - Billy Connolly.


Agree. I only mentioned Mozart because his piano concertos are generally accepted as among the profoundest and subtlest artistic works of humankind; I didn't mean to get into classical music generally, since it contains much trash itself. The point was that charm and dignity (much less profundity and subtly) are not the target: mass entertainment is the target.

But back to money, venues, security, votes, rule changes, etc.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> I'm afraid that Olympic officials do not define "mistakes" like you do. Financial, political and security problems are included in the term; aesthetic issues are not.


If that's the case, then they must consider Atlanta 1996 one of the best Olympics ever. It checked off almost the exact same things that Los Angeles 1984 was able to accomplish. 

The tone and tenor of those games were also somewhat in evidence before the bombing occurred in Atlanta's Olympic park. So the general regard for 1996 goes way beyond that act of terrorism.

Atlanta 1996's budget was fairly reasonable, resulting in even a reported surplus. Great! The games had few to minor white elephants, but plenty of generous private funding. Fantastic! 

Attendance for the 1996 games was damn good, surpassing any other Olympics until London 2012. Wonderful!

Based on that, observers and critics might hope Los Angeles 2028 uses Atlanta 1996 as their general role model. 

Personally, I sure as hell hope they don't.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> If that's the case, then they must consider Atlanta 1996 one of the best Olympics ever. It checked off almost the exact same things that Los Angeles 1984 was able to accomplish.
> 
> The tone and tenor of those games were also somewhat in evidence before the bombing occurred in Atlanta's Olympic park. So the general regard for 1996 goes way beyond that act of terrorism.
> 
> ...


I doubt they have thought about Atlanta for 10 years. Seriously, it was not one that was a major problem leaving aside the one-off bombing. It needs little further discussion.

Just look at the commentators, both specialists and major media sources: the names you see are Rio, Sochi, Tokyo, Athens, Montreal. The economic disasters. The unused facilities disasters. 

Or Bach's comments: security number one; venues, finances, popular support, revenues, logistics after that; general political concerns (environment, social issues, etc.) mixed in. That's it.

Of course they want a great show. But that comes later and the focus is on eye-catching and not offensive, not on aesthetic criticism. Count on the 2028 equivalent of Beyonce and Bruno Mars being there. And don't be surprised if Dudamel and Placido Domingo (if available) show up and maybe sit-in with Beyonce and Bruno.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-tokyo-budget-20170628-story.html

A propos de my recent comments: an LA Times article today re Olympic problems, citing Rio, Tokyo, Sochi for cost-overruns. An Olympic spokesman says overruns is where they are focused since they scare away bidders.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Evaluation report published...

VIDEO:
https://www.olympic.org/host-city-election-2024

REPORT:
https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/...19.416752265.1499264251-1829908062.1495185694


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Evaluation report published...
> 
> VIDEO:
> https://www.olympic.org/host-city-election-2024
> ...


I remember the wave of Europeans whose most sophisticated thought was “terrorism could happen anywhere” and that my comments on security were ridiculous, perhaps the sign of hatred or insanity. Oddly my comments almost exactly track the process the IOC went through and the conclusions the IOC reached.

On security, LA gets an obvious A+ given the already existing level of intelligence gathering (they joke that at Middle East gatherings or parades the organizers and most of the participants are CIA agents; the real Middle Easterners are expanding their restaurants and groceries, running auto repair businesses, investing in real estate, etc.).

As for Paris (bold type in the original):

“Security for the Games would benefit from recent refinements in security-agency roles and capabilities, the centralisation of intelligence capabilities and other positive responses to recent security challenges in France. Security forces in Paris and France are taking steps to enhance security and increase confidence in the local, national and international community. Many of the existing venues proposed by Paris 2024 have successfully delivered large-scale events that were safe and secure. Plans for the proposed Olympic Village show extensive and professional security arrangements. 

*The current security threat level across the Paris region is classified as “high” by French authorities. The proposed security measures for 2024 would reduce the risk level in Olympic Venues to “very low” and the
Olympic Route Network to “low”, *thereby providing a safe environment for Games’ constituents. Concurrently, the authorities estimate the risk in the public domain would be “medium”.

Paris is recognized as having high security dangers now but being committed to implementing changes that will bring security risks to low by the time of the games. As I suggested, the IOC bought off on the French plan (they had little choice). But Bach covers himself with bold type on the concerns and a “medium” risk for the city generally.

The “medium” in the public domain is a problem. As soon as a team heads to the Champs Elysees they should separate and not wear their colors. They are not protectable in that environment and neither are other participants or spectators.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

RobH said:


> Evaluation report published...
> 
> VIDEO:
> https://www.olympic.org/host-city-election-2024
> ...


Patrick does a great job trying to make it seem as if the Parisian bid is on par with the LA bid, even though anybody with half a brain cell can see they're not.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Fantastic stuff! Thanks so much for sharing Rob :cheers: Gonna dive in first chance I get!

*ETA*: Just glancing for now, but after a quick perusal... I come away feeling stronger about LA as an Olympic host than Paris. I fully admit to being an LA partisan and having a biased POV, but I still think it's hard to read this report any other way.


*ETA 2*: Sorry for all of these ETA's! :lol: Just spitting out thoughts as I read... I wanted to write again to say that while I think LA comes across as the better of the two bids, Paris also has a fantastic bid. Really the separation between the two is a matter of degrees, and the REAL takeaway is that the IOC has two fantastic bids from which to choose. You can definitely see why the double award idea came into focus as it did :cheers:


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

Alan Abrahamson has pretty much nailed it with his recent piece. 

http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/07/05/tale-two-not-cities/


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

aquamaroon said:


> Fantastic stuff! Thanks so much for sharing Rob :cheers: Gonna dive in first chance I get!
> 
> *ETA*: Just glancing for now, but after a quick perusal... I come away feeling stronger about LA as an Olympic host than Paris. I fully admit to being an LA partisan and having a biased POV, but I still think it's hard to read this report any other way.
> 
> ...


I don't think anybody can contend that Paris doesn't have a fantastic bid. Rio had a fantastic bid, Beijing had a fantastic bid. Fantastic bids aren't the issue. It's the costs. Paris is hiding stuff and I think the evaluation report does a poor job of evaluation and instead a good job of proping the Parisian Bid up. 

Security is reduced to nothing, the fact that 30% of the planned 2024 athletes village that is not available for 2028 is currently not available to the Organizing Committee either. And while public funded Olympics are the norm in Europe, it's accepted and glosses over the very issue at the Core of the Olympic Crisis, costs. And to boot, 63% support. Ouch. 

The strategy outlined by the media is being propped up by words, and when it's propped up by Money instead we can all be certain the negative press will plague Paris, whether it's 2024 or 2028.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Even though I prefer 2028 for Los Angeles (because of the promise of a revitalized downtown and expanded transit network and loads of infrastructure projects more) there is an upset coming in September because you can't add up Paris, and if you could, it wouldn't need excuses in the evaluation. There are gaping holes in Paris' bid that an actual award won't allow words to cover up because in order to cover up the organizing committee will need money.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

For sure those are good points you raise. As a bid it's great, but Paris 2024 has to deliver quite a bit for that bid to become reality. Specifically, building an athlete's village from scratch is no joke, even if the residential buildings are planned regardless. And there are a few venues that need quite a bit of permanent work, including a brand new permanent Aquatics center for example. AND, it has to be done as a Public works project, which will no doubt have the potential to turn the public against the bid given the relatively soft support.

All that said, it's not impossible! I mean, London had to do all of this for 2012, AND build a new Olympic Stadium from scratch, so it can be done. But the fact remains that choosing Paris is a little bit more of a leap of faith than LA's bid.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Paris is more risky than LA, but not to the extent that the bid has "gaping holes" or to the extent the IOC would need - uniquely in Olympic history - a back-up city in case things don't go to plan, which is what some have argued in this thread. Anyone with half a brain cell can see these are two of the most risk-free bids the IOC has ever had. I can't think of a single bid, besides LA 2024, which runs Paris 2024 close on this. Madrid 2012 probably comes closest but they had a whole staidum to build and the plans changed between their various bids. An aquatics centre, Olympic village (which are always well utilised after an Olympics) and not much else isn't a huge risk with a seven year lead-time. The biggest truth is, the IOC should think themselves damn lucky to be in this situation considering the dropouts they've had. They could easily be in the situation they found themselves in for the 2022 WOGs instead. And I think they'll recognise this by awarding both these cities the Games.

The most surprising thing about Paris' evaluation is the 14% difference between Paris' own polling the IOC's. That's quite a big gap. Low-60s isn't the end-of-the-world (London was around 65% and still sold record tickets and enthusiasm grew as the Games neared), but the gap in polling is a bit embarrassing. And I called the velodrome issue for LA - not that it's a big issue by any means - but it did look like the expansion plans were vague at best. insidethegames predicted the IOC would have questions over LA's transport - and they do. And a few here called the security issue with Paris. Lastly, it seems the IOC isn't fully reassured about arrangements surrounding labour laws for visiting personnel and I wonder if this is purely a post-Trump concern. So I think overall people have managed to identify mos of the issues before this report came out.

It is entirely unsurprising we're now getting a hard-sell from the IOC about how great both cities are, including the novelty of a video presentation post-evaulation. I'm sure 2028 will be awarded to one of the two. But then again, such a hard-sell is barely stretching the truth in this case. As I said, they're damn lucky.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Yep, good breakdown of the situation Rob :cheers:. I don't think Paris is exceptionally risky by any means compared to other potential bid cities. In fact I'd say the opposite, that Paris is one of the safest choices the IOC could have. We are just in a situation with two very solid bids, and Paris just happens to have more question marks than LA. But the Olympic question marks are all reasonable ones in the grand scheme of things. We're asking questions like "*can this OV be completed in time?*" and not so much questions like... "*will this country still exist in seven years??*" Really the biggest issue for Paris is the public support, or lack thereof, highlighted. The most important thing for the French bid to do is to engage their local community and get them excited for the Games. If they can do that, then everything else should pretty much fall in place :cheers:

In the end the big takeaway is, as you say, the great situation the IOC finds itself in. They're being presented with the opportunity to lock in two good hosts now and, save a 2026 winter games bidding process, they can give themselves a decade of breathing room to figure out the plans for the Olympics going forward. And with that opportunity coming around it looks like they are going to take it!


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Yep, good breakdown of the situation Rob :cheers:. I don't think Paris is exceptionally risky by any means compared to other potential bid cities. In fact I'd say the opposite, that Paris is one of the safest choices the IOC could have. We are just in a situation with two very solid bids, and Paris just happens to have more question marks than LA. But the Olympic question marks are all reasonable ones in the grand scheme of things. We're asking questions like "*can this OV be completed in time?*" and not so much questions like... "*will this country still exist in seven years??*" Really the biggest issue for Paris is the public support, or lack thereof, highlighted. The most important thing for the French bid to do is to engage their local community and get them excited for the Games. If they can do that, then everything else should pretty much fall in place :cheers:
> 
> In the end the big takeaway is, as you say, the great situation the IOC finds itself in. They're being presented with the opportunity to lock in two good hosts now and, save a 2026 winter games bidding process, they can give themselves a decade of breathing room to figure out the plans for the Olympics going forward. And with that opportunity coming around it looks like they are going to take it!


A better way of putting it is that in spite of the serious problems with Paris they have no choice but to take it.

You are seriously underestimating the potential security problems with Paris. French terrorists have shown both the ability and showmanship to roll the heads of the Swedish archery team (or any other chosen group) out of a van driving down the Champs Elysees. France has not shown the ability to stop them. 

The current level of danger is high and the country has a state of emergency in effect. The TARGET level of public security in 2024 is MEDIUM. If that is not attained, people anywhere other than places with barbed wire, bullet-proof glass and 24 hour top level security are at significant risk. 

French security claims there are about 5000 potential suicide bombers in France; other sources say 10k is closer to reality. Plus whoever can cross the border in the meantime. 

I'm not say disasters will happen; but they are a risk that the IOC committee is frank enough to put in their report in bold letters.

Over-runs are a certainty. The only issue is how much France can hide them by calling them something else (security, deferred costs, shared costs with other agencies, etc.). As those get leaked public support may be affected. Maybe not, but it's not something you can ignore.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Well, well. Someone is playing hardball.
> 
> First time I've seen the suggestion that the IOC hopes one of the two bidders for 2024 drops out.
> 
> ...


I warned earlier about this; it's the worst mistake the dying old guard could make: LA really, really will walk if they don't get the terms they want. 

The LA organizers have a thousand better things to do with their time and money. With sports and entertainment marketing, team values, representation, brandings, cross-industry tie-ins, etc., booming they really don't need the Olympics. They are going to be making billions in the intervening years.

But in any event I suspect this is more for public consumption than any part of negotiating reality. Bach and Baumann have said that LA is the best bid ever and that there weren't any others that were even in the ballpark (see his extended "two birds in the hand" metaphor).


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Hamster53 said:


> Of course the wall is not related to the Olympics it was a demand of the Prefecture de Police to secure the area, they will star to built it this autumn you heard about it months ago because it was the vote at the Conseil de Paris.
> 
> Bien sûr each bidders highlights its horses, but when you speak about history in Paris and innovations in LA that's not a big surprise. I don't know if it's me but LA don't speak too much about athletes or the time they will spend in transports?
> 
> ...


LOL, back to transportation! I would guess that 100 percent of LA's athletes drive to the their game sites, mostly in SUV's. Many have never been in a subway. Somehow they manage to get there on-time 100 percent of the time (or face fines). And we are talking about 10 major league franchises. 

In any event, the major sites will have excellent subway transit; only the South Bay will have to be served by shuttle and that will be provided.

But let's be honest. About 90 percent of the athletes know they do not have a chance to win a medal. They come along mostly to do some serious partying (Rio smashed London's record and distributed 42 condoms per athlete). Only the very poorest won't rent cars and head to the beaches, WeHo, the Strip, Hollywood, etc. And the poorest will share rides with their new girlfriends. Rarely will anyone go by bus or subway.

And I didn't mean to offend French carmakers (or German or any others). I only mentioned the ones with major locations in California. At 70M new vehicles per year, the car is not going away. As Asia and Africa increase in income to European levels, this industry will boom even more.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

pesto said:


> I warned earlier about this; it's the worst mistake the dying old guard could make: LA really, really will walk if they don't get the terms they want.
> 
> The LA organizers have a thousand better things to do with their time and money. With sports and entertainment marketing, team values, representation, brandings, cross-industry tie-ins, etc., booming they really don't need the Olympics. They are going to be making billions in the intervening years.
> 
> But in any event I suspect this is more for public consumption than any part of negotiating reality. Bach and Baumann have said that LA is the best bid ever and that there weren't any others that were even in the ballpark (see his extended "two birds in the hand" metaphor).


I really hadn't considered this but this is true. Los Angeles is booming, and it really doesn't need the Olympics. The Olympics are a distraction that could cost the city especially if they're dragged out 11 years. LA could host the Olympics next year and it probably wouldn't serve the people of Los Angeles well to have the Olympics be the ongoing conversation down at City Hall for so long. Things could change and LA's priorities could change in that time, too.

As a side note, I believe the stars did align for Paris, just that it was in 2005 and that chance was stolen from them by London.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I find it hard to believe the timing will suddenly not suit when we know LA has been trying to land a Games since 2001, submitting bids for every Games they could since then (starting with 2012). I think 2028 will be perfectly ok, even a bit of an unexpected bonus given that two years ago LA was on the sidelines watching Boston bugger things up so magnificently for America's chances. And if Boston hadn't dropped out and instead lost to Paris in the final vote, I can't imagine LA wouldn't try bidding for 2028 as they already had for 2012, 2016, and 2024.

Of course, LA knows the IOC are in a bit of a bind at the moment, so they can and should play a little hardball, but I still don't think 2028 will really be a hard-sell to a city like LA which has been in permanent bidding mode since the turn of the century.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

RobH said:


> I find it hard to believe the timing will suddenly not suit when we know LA has been trying to land a Games since 2001, submitting bids for every Games they could since then (starting with 2012). I think 2028 will be perfectly ok, even a bit of an unexpected bonus given that two years ago LA was on the sidelines watching Boston bugger things up so magnificently for America's chances. And if Boston hadn't dropped out and instead lost to Paris in the final vote, I can't imagine LA wouldn't try bidding for 2028 as they already had for 2012, 2016, and 2024.
> 
> Of course, LA knows the IOC are in a bit of a bind at the moment, so they can and should play a little hardball, but I still don't think 2028 will really be a hard-sell to a city like LA which has been in permanent bidding mode since the turn of the century.


LA has been in bidding mode, but let's be honest. Anybody who followed the domestic rounds for the 2012 and 2016 cycles knows that LA's bids were not right for the time and compared to the current bid, severely lacking. The 2024 bid is head over heels better than any bid LA has put up before, including bids it has won (been given), because LA has always relied on existing infrastructure, and some of the infrastructure we see on today's bid still didn't exist or werent to the level that they are today. For example, the Pauly Pavillion or the Forum had not been renovated. The LAFC Stadium and City of Champions Stadium were still not proposed, LAX was figuring out its modernization and in at least one occasion Measure R had still not passed. But that's not all that changed in Los Angeles. LA became cool between these bidding periods, its economy powered on after having languished from the early 90's. LA went from needing an event like the Olympics to increase its profile to being a city that asserts its influence. Things aren't the same in LA. LA just doesn't need the Olympics like it would have just 10 years ago. LA is going through an era that is quite frankly a little "mind blowing" and the IOC is quite lucky to have this bird in its hands. 

So I'd ask this question to Angelinos who know LA's current trends and it's increasing profile. Do you guys think a city like LA can afford to spend 11 years of its time on the Olympics when LA really does have bigger fish to fry? The answer is no.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

I suddenly realize one major thing I've forgotten about Olympic history, vis-a-vie 1984 compared with 1996, much less other games, is the boycott by the then-Soviet bloc nations. From that standpoint, Los Angeles hasn't really hosted a complete games in one most crucial way - in terms of a full array of people from throughout the world endeavoring to put on the best athletic performances possible - since the city's games in 1932.

Another thing: Think of what LA was like over 30 years ago compared with what's it's like today. Or what it may be like 11 years from today. The generally modest nature of what the city offered the Olympic movement in 1984 and what the LA84 committee had to work with stuns me for a moment. 

Then I think of what the ancient Egyptians were able to accomplish - in spite of a lack of modern technology and other advantages - with their great pyramids, etc, etc. All the many examples of where a group of people through sheer will, ingenuity and great resourcefulness manage to do things far beyond what would have seemed possible at the time.

This was broadcast on the 30th anniversary of the 1984 games: 







The other summer games in the US, in 1996, followed much of the same template and had many of the same advantages that 1984 had. Yet, will the 30th anniversary of the 1996 games, in 2026, necessarily make people at news organizations and elsewhere want to look back with enthusiasm? 

If not, why not? 

I don't think a bomb going off in a park will be the sole, major reason why there's an answer for that. 

1996 also did fairly well financially. But that calls to mind the saying about people knowing the price of everything, the value of nothing.

Unlike 1984, there wasn't any meaningful boycott in 1996 too.

The Los Angeles 2028 committee - assuming there is one - better not screw things up. I wish things could be guaranteed in life. But, regrettably, that doesn't exist in reality.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

RuFFy said:


> So I'd ask this question to Angelinos who know LA's current trends and it's increasing profile. Do you guys think a city like LA can afford to spend 11 years of its time on the Olympics when LA really does have bigger fish to fry? The answer is no.


Wait...are you suggesting that LA can't do both? Yes, LA is going through an unbelievable re-genesis, but that is happening on its own and this city emotionally is always ready for an Olympics, even during the tough periods. 

I don't understand why you think having the Olympics hovering over for 11 years would be a problem for LA. What specifically are you thinking? It can't be the public sentiment, that has and will always be pro-games, the economics?

By 2028....omg, just the thought. Metro extensions will be completed and running, LAX will have finished the Bradley West Midfield Concourse, gates 201-225 (now in construction), also the APM (Automated People Mover) and all the new car rental services and stations. Coliseum, LA Stadium, Banc of California Stadium, all complete. A new highrise or skyscraper is announced for DT almost every 2 weeks, DT will be amazing.















*PEOPLE MOVER*


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Kenni said:


> I don't understand why you think having the Olympics hovering over for 11 years would be a problem for LA.


I think he's just being very competitive over the bidding process and prefers that the Paris committee steps aside and waits 11 years instead of making the LA committee do that. 

I don't react the same way because, as the saying goes, I believe that ship has sailed. The IOC is just about mandated - due to history and politics - to award France the next summer games after Tokyo.

That leaves me with the concern that any LA committee for the Olympics does everything possible to avoid the shortcomings of 2016, 2012, 2008, 1996, etc. My sense is the games have become increasingly ersatz, weird and flaky over the past 30 years. There's now talk of a flying car - or probably what would be a souped-up drone - lighting the cauldron for Tokyo 2020. Things like that reflect trends I don't admire one bit.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

Then you're showing your age buddy  unfortunately that's the future, like marching bands in '84 making synchronized formations is not a wow factor anymore...it was then. 

The stage is set, I don't see a reverse on Paris getting 2024 and LA 2028, LA is always ready, so 11 years is _nada_. 

I am with you (I love the ceremonies!) and I look forward to them, and I hope we (LA) don't **** it up.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Kenni said:


> like marching bands in '84 making synchronized formations is not a wow factor anymore...it was then.


I've been ragged in this forum for pointing out the impact of the ceremonial aspect of the Olympic games. Or what I believe is probably the most significant factor that separates 1984 from 1996. 

Other people may see things differently or want to emphasize other contrasts between the two most recent summer games held in the US, but nothing else stands out as much as what David Wolper did versus Don Mischner. Although I know there were also issues with transportation problems and too much commercialism in 1996, my hunch is the less positive responses evoked by one event compared with the other weren't as dependent on problems like those.

Although things like very elaborate marching bands placed LA84 perilously close to being too much like a typical college football halftime event, I don't think that came nearly as close to all the "huhs?" and "WFTs?" that occurred in 1996.

But, again, whether 1984 or 1996, both games had most of the same major technical and financial strengths. Yet one came off triggering the warm fuzzies, while the other triggered people like a former mayor of Atlanta feeling the need to say "no" - apparently emphatically - to the idea of his city hosting the games again. 

I don't believe the late LA mayor Tom Bradley cringed in a similar way after 1984. I hope the same thing holds true of the mayor of Los Angeles after 2028. But nothing is certain or guaranteed in life. That is what will always concern me.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

Kenni said:


> Wait...are you suggesting that LA can't do both? Yes, LA is going through an unbelievable re-genesis, but that is happening on its own and this city emotionally is always ready for an Olympics, even during the tough periods.
> 
> I don't understand why you think having the Olympics hovering over for 11 years would be a problem for LA. What specifically are you thinking? It can't be the public sentiment, that has and will always be pro-games, the economics?
> 
> ...


I think you answered your own question. LA is always emotionally attached to the Olympics but I'd have to ask you this. The 2012 plan, do you think had it required a new athletes Village that it would have penciled out? That bid process didn't have the negative press directly related with "cost" tied to it so no UCLA dorms would have been acceptable. The Media Center at USC, back in 2005? Not even a thought. Back then it probably wouldn't have penciled out nor would it have for 2016, especially if the bid committee had gone back to the taxpayers to make it work out. It wasn't the right time. But you just posted so many remarkable things that are happening in LA that in just over the course of 10 years have happened. Not only have they happened but those things have brought LA to now and the time for the LA bid is now because of it. Not 2012, and not 2016. This is the thing. Look at all the things you just posted? How many more things will happen from now to 2028. And if big things like that are happening in LA will the LA of 2028 really need the Olympics? To me, that answer is no. But... the IOC will need LA because it's brand, like Paris' right now, is going the other way.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RuFFy said:


> And if big things like that are happening in LA will the LA of 2028 really need the Olympics? To me, that answer is no. But... the IOC will need LA because it's brand, like Paris' right now, is going the other way.


You're correct. But the politics and symbolism behind Paris coming after Tokyo are likely too firmly entrenched to be changed at this late date. Probably only a natural or man-made calamity will force a change in plans. One reporter hinted at exactly that several weeks ago. He alluded to Paris dealing with terrorism, and Los Angeles dealing with earthquakes. The latter, which researchers have been warning about for years, could throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the whole pile. But Paris has its own ongoing issues involving earthquakes---the kind, however, that involve social-political fractures, including no-go zones. 

It will be interesting over the next several years seeing three summer Olympics - Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles, back-to-back-to-back - affixed on the calendar and in the public's mind.




> *The Agents of Change*
> 
> Why are Los Angeles and Paris the last two cities standing in an Olympic bid process that can be fraught with risk? Look no further than their respective mayors, Eric Garcetti and Anne Hidalgo, who have changed the game along the way.
> 
> ...


Please don't screw it up, Los Angeles 2028 committee.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

RuFFy said:


> So I'd ask this question to Angelinos who know LA's current trends and it's increasing profile. Do you guys think a city like LA can afford to spend 11 years of its time on the Olympics when LA really does have bigger fish to fry? The answer is no.


I think that the Olympics need LA more than LA needs the Olympics. However, LA is in building mode. It has been and will be for a while. I think 2028 will be a culmination of sorts.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> You're correct. But the politics and symbolism behind Paris coming after Tokyo are likely too firmly entrenched to be changed at this late date. Probably only a natural or man-made calamity will force a change in plans. One reporter hinted at exactly that several weeks ago. He alluded to Paris dealing with terrorism, and Los Angeles dealing with earthquakes. The latter, which researchers have been warning about for years, could throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the whole pile. But Paris has its own ongoing issues involving earthquakes---the kind, however, that involve social-political fractures, including no-go zones.
> 
> It will be interesting over the next several years seeing three summer Olympics - Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles, back-to-back-to-back - affixed on the calendar and in the public's mind.
> 
> ...


Just as a quick comment: the article couldn't be further from the truth. Garcetti and Hidalgo are practically zeros in this process. Garcetti didn't even come along until the competition was practically over and in any event the city is not funding or managing any of this. I am a big supporter of his and for sure his opposition would have been deadly but he's not the force here.

I won't comment on Hidalgo generally; but the staged interview in which she asserted that the main reason to choose Paris is the 100th anniversary coincidence was shocking.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

soup or man said:


> I think that the Olympics need LA more than LA needs the Olympics. However, LA is in building mode. It has been and will be for a while. I think 2028 will be a culmination of sorts.


I'm with you that the Olympics need LA more than LA needs the Olympics. Going on a ledge here to say the Olympics need LA more than they need Paris. 

Also, while 2028 could be a culmination of sorts, there are no guarantees. That's the absolute risk in any bid and I think you will agree that we can't expect 2020 to be like 2017, or even 2016 for that matter, let alone 2028. We cannot say LA wil continue its prosperity and boom right through to 2028.

So, all the points I tried to get together above just happened to be crossing Robert Livingstones mind, and in his most recent article speaks of exactly what I'm trying to explain. Bach says 2028 is a gift, Livingstone spells out how 2028 could be a Trojan horse. But I very much agree with his article and think LA would be wise to walk away from 2028. 

https://gamesbids.com/eng/robs-bidblog/bidweek-ioc-sets-to-change-everything-about-the-2024-olympic-bid-race/


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

RuFFy said:


> I'm with you that the Olympics need LA more than LA needs the Olympics. Going on a ledge here to say the Olympics need LA more than they need Paris.
> 
> Also, while 2028 could be a culmination of sorts, there are no guarantees. That's the absolute risk in any bid and I think you will agree that we can't expect 2020 to be like 2017, or even 2016 for that matter, let alone 2028. We cannot say LA wil continue its prosperity and boom right through to 2028.
> 
> ...


You're right. There could be a 7.5 earthquake anytime between now and 2028 that could ruin everything. Anything can happen in 9 years.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

soup or man said:


> I think that the Olympics need LA more than LA needs the Olympics. However, LA is in building mode. It has been and will be for a while. I think 2028 will be a culmination of sorts.


https://www.bizjournals.com/losange...wasserman-story-goes-far-beyond-2024-bid.html

Yes. Some don't seem to grasp that these aren't politicians or ex-athletes now doing nothing but using up taxpayer money.

Wasserman represents athletes through-out the world and is invested in a variety of sports and entertainment ventures.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

Everyone seemed to think LA was conceding the race but I argued that LA was posturing creating a narrative of it being professional, and Paris being about ultimatums and other things. This was a few weeks ago when Nick Butler broke that story. Robert Livingstone saw what I saw.

"LA’s recent rhetoric has indeed been more concessionary, leaving the widely held belief that Paris is the most likely candidate for 2024.

But don’t be fooled.

This race is about posturing, and LA’s low-pressure candor may well be the key to winning member backing should the 2024 allocation actually come down to a vote."

He goes on to day...

"Instead LA claims it is ready to serve the Olympic movement no matter what, even though there are issues that could undermine the value of the 2028 Games for the U.S. city."

Livingstone has picked up on this, who's to say the voting members won't? 

Still, on the same article there is this... and I think this is why LA should seriously consider whether to accept 2028 because recent publications are pointing to exactly this... 

"With the Games funded largely by broadcast contracts, corporate sponsorships, and ticket revenues, there is the possibility that the Olympic brand will become less popular over time, reducing the amount of money flowing into IOC and Olympic organizing coffers.”


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> I'm with you that the Olympics need LA more than LA needs the Olympics. Going on a ledge here to say the Olympics need LA more than they need Paris.
> 
> Also, while 2028 could be a culmination of sorts, there are no guarantees. That's the absolute risk in any bid and I think you will agree that we can't expect 2020 to be like 2017, or even 2016 for that matter, let alone 2028. We cannot say LA wil continue its prosperity and boom right through to 2028.
> 
> ...


Of course, time and risk are fundamentally related. But Livingstone's article is mostly laughable.

Remember that the only risks being added are those arising from the passage of 4 years, from 2024 to 2028. 

The risks he cites are obviously true conceptually: completion and availability of venues, changes in Olympic sports, the Olympic brand may become worthless. These don't resonate with me as significant risks when you are talking about an extension of only 4 years. Really, which particular facilities are at risk? And the Olympic brand is suffering but it's not comatose.

And the Rio reference is absurd. The whole world knew Rio was going to be a disaster from the day it was announced. There was never any doubt. But Rio has zero in common with LA (private bid; no construction; VC's in charge; wealthy country, state and city; politically stable). 

As he notes, Paris has embarrassed itself with their hysterical reaction and doubtful excuses for why they aren't available for 2028, but that seems off topic. 

Where Livingstone is right is on the possibility of no deal for 2028. At the end of the day, I suspect Bach already knows what LA wants and will find a way to give it to them. If not, LA should (and will) walk and he will become a very weak leader.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

californiadreams said:


> I've been ragged in this forum for pointing out the impact of the ceremonial aspect of the Olympic games. Or what I believe is probably the most significant factor that separates 1984 from 1996.
> 
> Other people may see things differently or want to emphasize other contrasts between the two most recent summer games held in the US, but nothing else stands out as much as what David Wolper did versus Don Mischner. Although I know there were also issues with transportation problems and too much commercialism in 1996, my hunch is the less positive responses evoked by one event compared with the other weren't as dependent on problems like those.
> 
> ...


I think the issue isn't talking about the ceremonies in a constructive stance, I think the issue is going on and on and on about the same points.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)




----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

From GamesBids.com on Twitter. This is what has been decided:









https://twitter.com/gamesbids/status/884797555443474432


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> LA Presentation to IOC
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agree about the distancing from Trump, but again the target audience here is not the decision makers but the mass audience. These kinds of public affairs are the only place that eco, diversity, love, change the world, everyone is beautiful, etc., are said without eye-rolling. And remember that Garcetti and his staff are solidly left and vigorously supported Hillary.

As for Macron and Hidalgo, very impressive how they can pretend to tolerate each other for that period of time. :lol:


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

great presentation by both teams. I loved LAs opening vid. Great sequence of images. Garcetti has a future. (I hope). Paris is lovely as well. Great presentation. Macron is fresh! 

LA 2024 should take 2028... if that is what the IOC is proposing...why not. They should ask Paris 2024 for its help, saying we both agreed to Paris 24 and LA 28 but LA should get some extra funding or programs while they wait....


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

redspork02 said:


> great presentation by both teams. I loved LAs opening vid. Great sequence of images. Garcetti has a future. (I hope). Paris is lovely as well. Great presentation. Macron is fresh!
> 
> LA 2024 should take 2028... if that is what the IOC is proposing...why not. They should ask Paris 2024 for its help, saying we both agreed to Paris 24 and LA 28 but LA should get some extra funding or programs while they wait....


For sure Garcetti wants to be governor and President. And Hidalgo has similar ambitions in France. How the Games effect their careers is another interesting back-story.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

pesto said:


> For sure Garcetti wants to be governor and President. And Hidalgo has similar ambitions in France. How the Games effect their careers is another interesting back-story.


Im watching the LA Press conference and Garcetti stated he and Hidalgo are friend from many years thru C40 Climate Leadership Group. He also stated he knows Mr. Macron from the past (The French American Foundation). He also stated they were together for hours the night before.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

redspork02 said:


> Im watching the LA Press conference and Garcetti stated he and Hidalgo are friend from many years thru C40 Climate Leadership Group. He also stated he knows Mr. Macron from the past (The French American Foundation). He also stated they were together for hours the night before.


Sound like politico talk: you are friends from way back with everybody and you love them to bits. They probably nodded at each other once.

I do like the mental picture of the 3 of them together for hours. Could make a great one act play.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> Your posts go on and on about the same crap as much as anything else being posted here.


+1, about Pesto's posts! :colbert:



(=nonsense&Paris/France bashing all the way....opcorn




uke:


----------



## CFCman (Dec 21, 2016)

LA should get 2024, while Paris should wait till 2028. After all, the last time the games were held in North America was 21 years ago in 1996. A European city just hosted the event not too long ago in 2012, so in the interest of fairness, LA should get the earlier games.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> +1, about Pesto's posts! :colbert:
> 
> 
> 
> (=nonsense&Paris/France bashing all the way....opcorn


LOL. A visit from the village idiot.

Point out 1 post where I did any bashing. Accurate statements about Paris or the bid excluded. On the contrary I have said repeatedly that it is a beautiful city and can do a fine job on the Olympics.

Btw, did you notice that the evaluations of Paris was almost in my exact words re security (very weak but they are committed to improving and have a good chance of getting there), weak popular support (only 30 percent firmly support), emphasis on history (Bach and Baumann repeated it over and over)? It almost seems like I wrote parts.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

pesto said:


> On the contrary I have said repeatedly that it is a beautiful city and can do a fine job on the Olympics.


Yeah, yeah... laugh


Next? ohno


----------



## boston2015 (Aug 7, 2015)

I used to live in Paris and I will never forget LA 1984... I was waking up at night to watch the LA olympics live from France.
My heart is in Paris, I love LA and California.
Both cities are amazing candidates. The games are not what they used to be, but LA and Paris are smart cities and have the power to... make the Olympics great again :bash::banana::storm:
Who should go first? Both cities can be ready. After Paris 1924, Paris 2024 would be cool. I hope they can reach an agreement and show the world that making things intelligently and responsibly is still possible in 2017.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

FRIENDS! This is an amazing day! For so long we've been going back and forth on the two remaining bids and which one should host the Olympics. It turns out the answer is... both of them!!






:dance:















































So before anything else congrats to both Paris 2024 and LA 2024 for securing the Games for their city. Now, '24 or '28? I guess the *real* race begins :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

For those interested here is the venue video LA 2024 showed today at the session:






Basically the same video as the prior one, just a little slicker (the cgi models are a nice touch) also like how they show the Figueroa live site connecting the two halves of the Downtown Sports Park :cheers:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

...


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I played the John Williams Olympic fanfare in my youth orchestra, but I've never been up the Eiffel Tower.

Next...


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

RobH said:


> LA Presentation to IOC
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty much agree down the line with your review Rob :cheers: The "24 moments" video from the Paris presentation was great, probably their best so far! But LA was pretty slick as well, hopefully they put some of their videos from the presentation online as Paris did.

Anyways, hard to not feel like this is all a _fait accompli_ and LA is slated for 2028. Which personally is fine for this LA supporter, LA is going through a very dynamic period of change right now and basically the whole city has an "under construction" sign on it. 2028 will give a few more years for LA to beef up it's transportation (including airports) and accommodations before it invites the world in.

(_and to touch on your last point, the fact that 2028 safely puts the games out of reach of a Donald Trump presidency can't be seen as a huge minus in the eyes of the IOC_)


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

boston2015 said:


> I used to live in Paris and I will never forget LA 1984... I was waking up at night to watch the LA olympics live from France.
> My heart is in Paris, I love LA and California.
> Both cities are amazing candidates. The games are not what they used to be, but LA and Paris are smart cities and have the power to... make the Olympics great again :bash::banana::storm:
> Who should go first? Both cities can be ready. After Paris 1924, Paris 2024 would be cool. I hope they can reach an agreement and show the world that making things intelligently and responsibly is still possible in 2017.


I agree completely. I got into this thread because the typical post was something like "Paris for sure; LA sukks". We may not have changed any minds but at least those people have almost completely stopped posting.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

RobH said:


> I played the John Williams Olympic fanfare in my youth orchestra, but I've never been up the Eiffel Tower.
> 
> Next...


Really happy? hug


Anyway...



parcdesprinces said:


> Is it Atlanta '96 again? :drool: bow
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:baeh3:


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

The Master at work! ^^ National Treasure. 

Next?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Thanks for the links redspork! :cheers: Regarding the "sausage making" aspect of this deal, this seems to me to be the only obvious hurdle to overcome:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Baboulinet (Nov 3, 2008)

pesto said:


> Btw, to repeat myself: I have not criticized France for its lack of innovation. I HAVE criticized the decision of the Paris committee to focus so tightly on historic buildings, neighborhoods, etc., in its Olympic campaign. It seems much too narrow when in fact there are numerous tech companies, new architecture, etc., which could have served as a complement to the historic treasures.


Ok troll.



pesto said:


> LOL. Best laugh of the week.
> 
> The LA freeway system is a wonder of the world, *not like the laughable afterthought that London, Paris,* etc., *have tried to build when they finally entered the 20th century*. *Berlin and Frankfurt by contrast have vastly superior freeway systems as befits a much richer country.* (lol) Remember that mass transit was originally put in to allow poor workers to get to their jobs.
> 
> C'mon, try it just once and see. You might like it!


This and all your "eurabia" garbage.
Write all the bullshit about Paris you want but please stop saying you don't criticized France and paris you pitiful hypocrit.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Oh, noes. I hope the CEO of Paris 2024 - a former athlete as 2012's Sebastian Coe was - isn't going to be a clone of the person who vetted most of the decisions for the 30th Olympiad of the modern era.



> *Paris 2024 Olympic medals could be separated into four pieces*
> 
> By Nick ZaccardiJul 12, 2017, 10:56 AM EDT
> 
> ...


*Philippe Starck Stool:*


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

I sure hope Casey makes good decisions. I hope he has reliable judgment. 

I'll be somewhat more confident about LA 2028 if Wasserman believes things like a Cirque du Soleil-ized Oympic games have been done to death over the past few decades. 




> *Wasserman’s world *
> 
> By Bruce Schoenfeld, Correspondent
> Published May 8, 2017, Page 1
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Baboulinet said:


> Ok troll.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your problem is not bad English, it's bad thinking.

Again, notice I said that saying things that are true are excluded. If you have spent 10 minutes on the Peripherique you know that Paris has NO FREEWAYS at all in the city proper and had to cram in highways at the edge of the city where they could and with little thought for banking curves, width of lanes, upgrades and downgrades, shoulders, proper merger lanes, etc. I can't even believe you are Parisian since I have worked for years in Paris and never heard a local say anything good about it.

Highways outside the core are better but often only two lanes each way, which is hardly comparable to the 4-6 lanes typical of the LA urban areas and which move millions daily.

This is not a moral issue; it is just a fact about cities that were built before the advent of automobiles. Manhattan has no freeways except on the perimeter and those are death traps; the other boroughs tend to have less than ideal freeways as well. In London you don't get real freeways until the outer (3rd) ring. Same for many older US and European cities.

Of course, this is counterbalanced by excellent rail systems.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

pesto said:


> notice I said that saying things that are true are excluded.


Which is a problem dear since most of your posts about Paris/France (e.g. the one quoted about freeway systems and ton other posts) are far from being "the truth", but only your own little opinion based on your own prejudices and your ignorance, big difference! 


hno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> Which is a problem dear since most of your posts about Paris/France (e.g. the one quoted about freeway systems and ton other posts) are far from being "the truth", but only your own little opinion based on your own prejudices and your ignorance, big difference!
> 
> hno:


Please be specific about what is not true. I try to get as specific as I can about the Peripherique, London, NY, etc., as well as LA but you seem to prefer winks, vomiting and insinuation to the statement of facts. (And, btw, I only got onto freeways after two other people had raised the issue touting the glories of the Paris system and the horrible condition of the LA freeways).

Again, look at the IOC who practically copied my posts re French security issues (no wonder, I was literally quoting Holland and Pietrasanta), funding risk, popular support, the Paris committee reliance on historic sites and other issues.

By contrast other posters said things such as "every city has the same security risk", "masses of people can get blown to pieces anywhere", etc. Oddly the IOC (and security agencies everywhere) do not take that approach; they act like adults, assess risks and take appropriate actions.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Several months since last January's parade in Pasadena (I remember at the time thinking they risked ending up with egg on their face) and a few years since before 2017 - when a Boston or Chicago, but not LA, had to be the US city nominated by the USOC- I believed it was presumptuous for any city - based on protocol and tradition - to want to host the games after having previously hosted them as recently as the 1980s. 

That wasn't helped by a sense the Olympics - an event that, after all, focuses on athletic endeavors, not travel agents or the tourist, convention and airline industries - should always have a different city as a location and background. 

I guess this is the next best thing to the idea that the IOC should designate one city - perhaps Athens - to be a permanent site for the Olympic games.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Though it's a little anti-climactic, the bids are still bidding! Today LA 2024 and Paris 2024 showed off their presentation rooms in Lausanne and posted some photos to Twitter. I like the comparison as it shows what each bid brings to the table and what their themes are! Anyways, from Twitter:

*Paris 2024* https://twitter.com/Paris2024










































*LA 2024* https://twitter.com/LA2024











































The last few photos are showing attendees playing an LA 2024 themed VR game on the "Oculus Rift" headset. It's an Archery game, and allows you to try out your hand at Archery at LA 2024 venue outside the new LA Stadium. I gotta say it looks pretty cool, and if LA 2024 brings it to the public via the Oculus Rift and maybe the Steam video game marketplace, that'd be pretty cool! :cheers:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> *Paris 2024* https://twitter.com/Paris2024
> 
> 
> *LA 2024* https://twitter.com/LA2024



Seemed the Paris site made more references to Los Angeles than the LA site made references to Paris. Up until now, the attitude between the two groups has been more of the opposite.

I've admired the LA people sounding more magnanimous about the bidding for 2024, somewhat turned off by the Paris people seeming to be more insular in their approach. 

I was wondering if some of that was due to my responding as a biased LA homer. I guess not. With the shoe on the other foot, I don't care for a hint of the LA committee getting into a "me, me, me" mindset. 

I really do like the thought of both Paris and LA working together symbolically and tactically in promoting the two Olympic summer games after Tokyo 2020. 

Since more than one city has never shared a winning bid of the IOC in over 90 years - since Paris 1924 and Amsterdam 1928 - another form of innovation in 2017, of thinking outside the box, is overdue.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

californiadreams said:


> *Philippe Starck Stool:*


An even bigger Oh Noooo. I've actually sat on one of those stools.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

People like Starck, who was a part of the last Olympic games held in France, often do goofy things. They have a way of undermining the seriousness of an event. Too much "hey, mom, look at me! I'm weird, hip, cool and freaky!"

That approach may be good for a public event honoring, say, hemp growers, new-age millennials or faddists into alternative foods. But it doesn't make the best of fits for the Olympics. Even more so since that approach has been done by most games for at least 25 years.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

redspork02 said:


> The Master at work! ^^ National Treasure.
> 
> Next?


 :drool:

(Tomorrow, 14 of July is our (us Frenchies) national day (aka Bastille Day :happy




parcdesprinces said:


> parcdesprinces said:
> 
> 
> > Pour toi mon Yabbounet :yes::
> ...



:bowtie::gunz:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> An even bigger Oh Noooo. I've actually sat on one of those stools.


His long suit is designing toilets. But I'm not going anywhere with that.

Generally, French minimalism is quite good. Marked by an evocative elegance that almost pushes it out of the minimalist regime.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!

And of course many thanks to the Marquis de Lafayette in helping us fight the bloody British.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

The earliest or even first decision coming out of the Paris 2024 committee may be Tony Estanguet selecting Philippe Starck to design the medals for the 2024 summer games. Starck created the torch for Albertville 1992. 

By the way, Starck's design for a toilet is quite good. Easier to clean and keep hygienic. 

These are the early decisions that will give a better sense of the way the 2024 and 2028 games will turn out. The biggest early decision made by the two committees will be the design they choose for their official logos. I wouldn't mind Paris changing theirs but think Los Angeles should stick with theirs---uncommon since its design is figurative and more literal instead of the overly abstract and hipster ones created for most games during the past many decades. However, now sure what is or isn't allowable under IOC rules.

I still recall when the Lisa-Simpson logo was unveiled by the people responsible for 2012. At that time, I didn't think it was necessarily a preview of how things would go from that day forward. Until even the last moment of the 2012 games. 

That's why the early decisions made by an Olympic committee can be more revealing about what its future games will be like than what I assumed back in the early 2000s.

*
Starck torch for 1992:*


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

californiadreams said:


> *
> Starck torch for 1992:*


They go together like bride and groom -- a turnip-turd and a toilet! _Quelle tres, tres Olympique_!! 

I'll design the toilet paper!! :lol:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Resists....unnecessary....joke....about....knitemplar's.....book.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Logos and torches will differentiate Paris 2024 from Los Angeles 2028. Another thing will be the so-called Olympic mascots of the two games.

Wasn't a big fan of Sam the Eagle of the 1984 games, but I forgot another one of the "huh?" aspects of the 2012 games. I recall the one for 1996 being similarly weird. 

Some of the ideas and decisions made by people on these Olympic committees lead me to wonder what the hell were they thinking or smoking at the time?!



> *NBC didn't show Sochi's nightmarish Olympic mascots at Opening Ceremony*
> 
> By: Chris Chase | February 7, 2014 10:35 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> > But when the mascots made an appearance at Friday night’s Opening Ceremony, they lost their cuddly characteristics and instead turned into that nightmare you had about Chuck E. Cheese characters coming to life. It’s like your Teddy Ruxpin wandered onto the set of Honey I Blew Up The Kid.
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


Ahhh...Misha....


parcdesprinces said:


> *BONUS *(who cares anyway devil):
> 
> *[From 0:31]*
> 
> ...



:happy:




parcdesprinces said:


> I'm Proud, France was there :cheer: !!!!!! (France, as well as 13 other nations, has competed under the olympic flag)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

I just posted earlier, as I've done in the past, about my being interested in this thread and wanting to contribute to it in the hopes it will be scrolled through by people on a Los Angeles Olympic committee during the next several years, presumably right up until 2028.

Don't know anywhere else on the web where a plain-spoken discussion exists about the Olympic summer games, particularly as they involve LA and other relevant host cities. 

I'm aware of a thread dedicated to the LA bid at gamebids.com. But much of it comes off like a flame-bait trollfest. Would be better if LA28 and IOC officials never browse through that one.

You wonder why I don't sound more hopeful or optimistic about future games? 

I've posted many examples of ongoing, unstoppable characteristics of pretty much all the summer (if not winter too) games going back a long time. Yet you wonder why I'm not full of smiles and optimism? Or why I shouldn't be apprehensive of what Los Angeles 2028 will end up being similar to?

You even mention the very recent example of Estanguet and Philippe Starck. Yet you still seem bothered that a person is concerned about the quality of ongoing Olympic games, particularly a future LA one, and is more skeptical than optimistic? 

I guess I could put on a smiley face and do a ha-ha routine as Mr Bean did at the start of the 2012 Olympics.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Why not start your own thread called "Olympics Ceremonies: The Best and Worst" or whatever name you want? I'm sure there are many who are interested and would post their opinions. This would be more to your liking since it will attract those really interested in those ceremonies.

This site is about 2024, and now about how LA and Paris are working to secure the bid, not a free-range monologue on every Olympics that ends with "I hope Casey or Estanguet don't make the same mistakes" as a feeble tie-in to 2024.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

pesto said:


> The same to you. To the barricades. Liberte, etc.
> 
> You seem to be enjoying complaining about me.


:angel: :|


Oh, and this is for you my dear Pesto :yes: (enjoy! :cheers:



parcdesprinces said:


> :horse::horse::horse:
> 
> :cheers:
> 
> ...



:runaway:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> This site is about 2024, and now about how LA and Paris are working to secure the bid, not a free-range monologue on every Olympics that ends with "I hope Casey or Estanguet don't make the same mistakes" as a feeble tie-in to 2024.


So in your mind this thread has to be about the idiotic politics associated with the Olympics and the pros and cons of lame IOC rule-making and maneuverings you seem so fascinated by?

Who cares about that crap? Maybe you and some others do. But it's now time to move on. 

It's Paris 2024, Los Angeles 2028. 

However, if legitimate hints start cropping up in the next several weeks that suggest the opposite of that will occur, or that the IOC may go forward with a traditional one-city-only award in September, then I'll grant you that your great interest in blah-blah blahing about politics will have a purpose once again. 

But since that hasn't happened, the IOC so far appears to be still finalizing the details of what it announced the other day.

Paris 2024, Los Angeles 2028. 

So the crap about which city is better or not, or which politician is better or not, or which IOC policy is bad or not, or which country has better governance for security or not, or which city government or bid committee does A, B or C better or not, is becoming almost totally irrelevant as of 7-15-17.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

parcdesprinces said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *parcdesprinces*
> :horse::horse::horse:
> 
> ...



If the Paris 2024 host committee can duplicate the dignity and grandeur (and maturity) of that recent event, Paris's games will bring back some of the original prestige associated with the Olympics. 

2012 and 2016 didn't achieve that, and a potentially anime-ized games in 2020 look iffy right now. So the ball may now have to land in Paris 2024's court.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> of that recent* yesterday's *event






:colbert:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

That proves big money isn't required to achieve something appropriate for an occasion. Even when mixing trendy newness with the traditional. 

The setting and basic format of a military band playing on a part of the Champs-Elysees are more impressive to me - and likely was also much less expensive - than the overdone, big-money effort that went into the opening of 2012 across the Channel.

If Paris 2024's committee is inspired by things like that brief yet fitting segment of the city's commemoration of Bastille Day, they'll come up with a great summer event after the games of 2020.




> *Daft Punk* are a French duo formed in 1993 by Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo and Thomas Bangalter.[5][6][7][8] The duo achieved significant popularity in the late 1990s as part of the French house movement and had continuous success in the years following, combining elements of house music with funk, techno, disco, rock music and synthpop influences.[2][6][7][9] They are also known for their visual stylization and disguises associated with their music; the duo have worn ornate helmets and gloves to assume robot personas in most of their public appearances since 2001 and rarely grant interviews or appear on television. The duo were managed from 1996 to 2008 by Pedro Winter (also known as Busy P), the head of Ed Banger Records.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ The young Macron was enjoying that apparently (LOL, look at his face/smile :laugh... While the older Donald.... not that much apparently... :dunno:


Anyway, he (_Trumpounet©PdP_) seems to have enjoyed his visit in Paris, and that's the most important IMHO (diplomacy, etc, etc). :yes:




parcdesprinces said:


> Gentil Donaldounet :hug:
> 
> #BestFriendsForever


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

californiadreams said:


> I'm aware of a thread dedicated to the LA bid at gamebids.com. But much of it comes off like a flame-bait trollfest. Would be better if LA28 and IOC officials never browse through that one.


There's a lot more than just the LA thread at games bids (which I agree, has become a real cluster*ck). 

But there's lots of threads directly sharing, comparing and rating different views on the ceremonies et al. You really should feel free to drop in and contribute and throw your views into the mix - heaven knows, we could do with some new blood over on GamesBids. And you might get a better reception posting your ceremonies views there. Have a look at some of these:

Oly Fan Survey - favourite ceremonies

Oly fan Survey - Look of the games

Oly Fan Survey - logos

Oly Fan Survey - Mascots

Rio 2016 Opening ceremony - verdicts and reviews

London 2012 Opening ceremony - verdicts and reviews


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

parcdesprinces said:


> Anyway, he (_Trumpounet©PdP_) seems to have enjoyed his visit in Paris, and that's the most important IMHO (diplomacy, etc, etc).


Watching that video and seeing those images of Paris's Bastille Day have made me realize even more that my being based in LA isn't the reason whatsoever why I've been disappointed in previous Olympic games. 

If Paris 2024 ends up being like a bigger version of YESTERDAY'S Bastille Day memorial, I'll be really pleased. It will make me once again have higher regard for the Olympic games.

However, let me qualify that. I actually would have been more irritated if any of the Olympics since at least 1996 had been hosted by an LA-based committee. 

Some parents are easier on the mistakes made by their own kids instead of the mistakes made by others. I'm just the opposite. 

But the indisputable success of all "kids" (or any Olympics) will leave me with a sense of gratitude. Although that gratitude will admittedly be stronger if it involves LA 2028 instead of (or not only) Paris 2024. 

Regardless, it will be great if the two cities can sort of inspire the other and help improve one another.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

SirRols said:


> There's a lot more than just the LA thread at games bids (which I agree, has become a real cluster*ck).
> 
> But there's lots of threads directly sharing, comparing and rating different views on the ceremonies et al. You really should feel free to drop in and contribute and throw your views into the mix - heaven knows, we could do with some new blood over on GamesBids. And you might get a better reception posting your ceremonies views there. Have a look at some of these:


Thanks for the details. I may have scrolled through some of those threads in past years but offhand don't recall too much about them. 

But your mentioning them does make me realize another aspect of being a fan of the local team. Or a so-called homer. My interest in dealing with all things Olympics has been affected by the idea of a future games taking place in LA. 

However, I do notice your location indicates you're based in Sydney. Since the 2000 games were so successful and popular with Sydneyites, I have been curious what people there would say and think about hosting another summer games. 

I believe the IOC should start considering the idea of rotating games among a narrower, more select group of cities throughout the world. The long-time notion that sites have to be different!, different!, different! has sort of run its course.


----------



## SirRols (Dec 7, 2011)

californiadreams said:


> Thanks for the details. I may have scrolled through some of those threads in past years but offhand don't recall too much about them.
> 
> But your mentioning them does make me realize another aspect of being a fan of the local team. Or a so-called homer. My interest in dealing with all things Olympics has been affected by the idea of a future games taking place in LA.
> 
> ...


Well, despite the notion that we hosted the games in fairly recent memory, and thus should have most of the facilities intact and waiting, it's not such an easy feat. Even when Athens was lagging and it was suggested that Sydney could step in for 2004, that was quickly squashed on the head as being impossible - by then many of the facilities had already been repurposed and refitted into post-games modes - refitting them for a games again was not an option for many - and the village had long since passed into use as a residential suburb. To try it again now is an order of magnitude even more difficult - whole precincts we had in 2000 - like the Darling Harbour zone - have been completely rebuilt since then and the stadium is now not really in a state to be reconfigured back to athletics without massive cost and disruption. And again the village problem - not really any scope for development of another village type area in the vicinity of the 2000 Olympic park. If Sydney ever WAS to try again, I'd like to se it try a more city-centred plan, closer to our CBD and using the Moore Park precinct, as we'd proposed for 1996 (before Melbourne gazumped us for the bidding rights by the AOC).

Even apart from that, I doubt there'd be the appetite for a bid from Sydney. Not only been there, done that, but the stars aligned and we got it very right at the time and don't wanna tempt fate. And politically, I don't think a bid would go down well at all with the populace. Sydney's moved on and has far more other major infrastructure projects going on at the moment. Plus, the cliche in Australia (not that I would agree) is that Sydneysiders are superficial and aren't as passionate for sports as some of our other capitals. And, personally, I just feel that my city has had it's time. It's only fair that other cities get to experience it. I do believe the games should be a once-in-a-lifetime thing for any city.

It's pretty well accepted that Brisbane or Melbourne will be our next candidates. Brisbane is the AOC (Australian Olympic Committee's) choice - it hasn't hosted before, has already started the preparations in gearing for a bid, is a growing city and has the best climate for staging a games in the July to September window. Melbourne, on the other hand, has the passion and desire to host - it's one of the few cities in the world like LA in that it has much of the infrastructure and facilities in place to do it quite easily without much extra building and spending and to top that off it's acknowledged as our most sporting-mad city. It really is always champing at the bit for another chance to host. Its drawback is that it's bloody cold in the IOC's preferred July-to-September hosting period. The IOC would need to be flexible on that for it to have any chance or to be able to offer a good experience. My concern though is that the IOC has already set a precedent for knocking back other bidders who proposed summer games outside that time window. Still, they may need to go back on their words from those cases if they want to ensure a pool of future hosts.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> So in your mind this thread has to be about the idiotic politics associated with the Olympics and the pros and cons of lame IOC rule-making and maneuverings you seem so fascinated by?
> 
> Who cares about that crap? Maybe you and some others do. But it's now time to move on.
> 
> ...


Again, why not get away from the stupid things that the IOC and I are concerned with and start a thread focusing on the ceremonies? I really think this is a good idea and would be the best for you since you could share your thoughts with others knowledgeable in these areas.

Seriously, why don't you do it? I can't think of any reason you would not want to do this.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

But prognosticating on Ceremonies seven and eleven years from now? And what does that accomplish? - what does it really accomplish?? :uh:

(And there are only so many templates that will actually be used


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

I mentioned above that no one is going to have any clue what the ceremonies are like for years nor anything intelligent to say about them until after the games. 

I am serious when I say that he should start a thread focusing on ceremonies; there have to be a lot of people that enjoy the reminiscing or pointing out what they liked or disliked. Some people's comments are actually very interesting (like Kenni, for example, not to leave others out).

But it just seems silly to stick personal aesthetic rants into the middle of discussions on how the financing, PR, venues, related transit and hospitality issues, city clean-up and improvements, etc., that are going on. Those will be heating up for 2024 and simmering for 2028. 

In fact, it would even be interesting to leave the two together since they are so intertwined.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

californiadreams said:


> The IOC, if they're really serious about Agenda 2020, but taking it to the next level, would drop altogether the idea of bid cities always having to be completely different. Among the major cities in Australia, wouldn't it make more sense for Sydney to be the one to step up to the plate again? I wonder if that city's government and residents would rally around that idea.


The Olympics when won gives that city a sense of pride. A flag / a monument / a medal to wear signifying it as an "Olympic City"

we stil have the start line for the marathon painted and then repainted on the road outside North Sydney Oval, and where the Blue line showing the marathon track winds its way through the road system and wouldnt be run over by constant traffic it still remains.

would i like another Olympics? nope. The Olympics was the catalyst of Goods and Services prices going through the roof and was the beginning of the end of making Sydney an affordable city to live in and ranking int he top 5 most expensive in the world. The governments reaction to G&S prices going up before the Olympics? "they will go up to cash in on the Tourist dollar and then afterwards will decrease again". It never happened. Medium house prices in Sydney have now topped AU$1.1 million (US$800k) and are continuing to grow.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> The Olympics when won gives that city a sense of pride. A flag / a monument / a medal to wear signifying it as an "Olympic City"
> 
> we stil have the start line for the marathon painted and then repainted on the road outside North Sydney Oval, and where the Blue line showing the marathon track winds its way through the road system and wouldnt be run over by constant traffic it still remains.
> 
> would i like another Olympics? nope. The Olympics was the catalyst of Goods and Services prices going through the roof and was the beginning of the end of making Sydney an affordable city to live in and ranking int he top 5 most expensive in the world. The governments reaction to G&S prices going up before the Olympics? "they will go up to cash in on the Tourist dollar and then afterwards will decrease again". It never happened. Medium house prices in Sydney have now topped AU$1.1 million (US$800k) and are continuing to grow.


It's a pretty long stretch to blame the Olympics for higher prices for housing and such. Most economists not working for the IOC or local committees believe there isn't much effect either way, excluding a few real disasters which had serious adverse effects due to huge expenditures. After all, it's a two week event with athletes staying in a Village and visitors staying in hotels and short-term rentals.

In any event, escalating prices for housing and such are a worldwide phenomenon in cities large and small.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

SirRols said:


> Even when Athens was lagging and it was suggested that Sydney could step in for 2004, that was quickly squashed on the head as being impossible - by then many of the facilities had already been repurposed and refitted into post-games modes - refitting them for a games again was not an option for many -
> 
> Even apart from that, I doubt there'd be the appetite for a bid from Sydney. Not only been there, done that, but the stars aligned and we got it very right at the time and don't wanna tempt fate. And politically, I don't think a bid would go down well at all with the populace.


That surprised me. I've never looked into the specifics of Sydney post-2000, but thought another games there would be easier to put together and would be more readily welcomed by Sydneyites. Mainly because the 2000 Olympics got very little to no negative press and feedback, before, during and after the games. Nothing in the way of talk about abandoned or rusting facilities. The publicity about the way people in Sydney treated 2000 was just the opposite in what has been said (and seen) about the way people in Rio responded to last year's games.

However, I still think the IOC should, if not move fully towards the idea of choosing a site like Athens to be the permanent location of future Olympics, at least start narrowing down the field of upcoming hosts to only certain cities throughout the world. I thought Sydney would or should be one of them. But apparently that list would need to be whittled down some more.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

As for OLYMPIC ceremonies, this is the way they looked the last time Paris hosted the games:





[/URL]


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Thread now reopened after a light clean up.

Direct personal comments about other forum users should be shared via PM, not in the discussion thread. Please keep it civil and stay on topic. Thanks.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

californiadreams said:


> However, I still think the IOC should, if not move fully towards the idea of choosing a site like Athens to be the permanent location of future Olympics,


A permanent home for either the Summer or Winter Olympics is NOT viable; hence the IOC has not given it serious consideration.

The main question is what happens to the venues, hotels and OV (if there is one) between the Games? They will just sit empty, gather dust, and/or be vandalized. Just look at the decrepit facilities from Athens 2004 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/g...s-olympic-2004-venues-10-years-on-in-pictures 

Perhaps a less dire version of that will await any so-called "permanent" home to an Olympic Games -- whereas new or upgraded facilities in rotating cities are a plus and a boon for the local populace.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Knitemplar said:


> The main question is what happens to the venues, hotels and OV (if there is one) between the Games? They will just sit empty, gather dust, and/or be vandalized. Just look at the decrepit facilities from Athens 2004
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/g...s-olympic-2004-venues-10-years-on-in-pictures
> 
> Perhaps a less dire version of that will await any so-called "permanent" home to an Olympic Games -- whereas new or upgraded facilities in rotating cities are a plus and a boon for the local populace.



Some of the images of venues used for the 2004 games are really sad, evoking some of the same reactions one has after looking at the big mess left over on the day after a big-time Christmas or party-crazed New Year's. Even more so given how much time and money were put into creating those facilities. All for an event that lasts no more than two weeks and comes around perhaps no less than 50 to 100 years to the same place.

What's the point?!

But I originally did buy into the old-time notion that a host city should not be duplicated until after several decades had been allowed to pass, if not way longer. That's why the USOC until just a few years ago, and only until after its hands had been tied and forced, chose Los Angeles to represent the US in an Olympic bid instead of Boston. Or Chicago or New York, etc, instead of LA.

The IOC does need to stop treating the Olympic games like a promotional device for the airline and travel industry. Or as a tool for tourists the world over who have a major case of wanderlust.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

I've created a thread for all general Olympic discussion, which can be found here. Anyone wishing to spout about IOC policies, trends with the games/hosting, or other commentary about past events should take their thoughts to that thread.

From here forward please remain on topic regarding this specific bid and the candidates involved. Thank you.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

been off for a bit (looks like I missed out on some things! :lol, quiet on the Olympics front lately! Just some odds and ends regarding the media for LA 2024:

I saw in the IOC Evaluation PDF that LA 2024 had given them a previously unreleased render - the International Broadcast Center at Universal Studios!










This is in addition to the Media Press Center which was already released in the phase 3 bid book for LA 2024:










It'd be great to get the high resolution renders online, but as it looks like LA 2024 is done putting renders onto Facebook that sadly we won't be getting the renders themselves anytime soon. 

But with those two I think we've pretty much seen renders of everything! The only missing piece is the Media Village. That'll be across the street from the MPC at USC, basically behind the "camera" of the MPC rendering. While we haven't seen a render for it we have LA 2024 did release a drone video shot by USC of the development. USC actually released their latest drone video chronicling July construction at their new "USC Village"






From what I've read it sounds like the first stores will open this weekend and the whole facility will be open in August in time for Fall Semester at the school. With a Starbucks, Grocery Store and Department Store in house should have plenty of amenities for any journalists seven or eleven years from now :cheers:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> USC actually released their latest drone video chronicling July construction at their new "USC Village"


Good thing too. Areas like that were fairly weak when Los Angeles last hosted an Olympic games. 

Another portion of the city that hopefully will be in better shape should LA have the games in 2028 are the parking lots west of the Coliseum. A museum funded by the guy who made Star Wars will be built there. That should offer a better segue for the stadium.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Yes, the Lucas Museum and LAFC's new stadium will fill large areas of Expo Park and most of the other museums will have gone through considerable rehab since 1984.

Much of Fig leading up to DT will also be new housing and of course the Expo Line will run along there. One block in either direction has some hope but the rest of that area needs serious work. Hopefully the Mexican and Salvadoreno communities can be gotten involved in sprucing up Vermont and adjacent areas.

The biggest issue will be the derelicts who occupy an expanding Skid Row and now can be found in just about every part of town. Interesting to see what choices Garcetti and the City Council make and what cover stories will be used for political purposes.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

http://fortune.com/2017/07/17/los-angeles-hosting-summer-olympics/

There’s going to be a lot of trash journalism like this over the next decade.

Talk at length about Rio and other prior disasters, high ticket prices, the city has other problems, etc. But skim over that the city is not at risk until after the private money is gone and in any event the state is signed up as well. And ignore that most venues are in place which ties-in to the idea that a huge loss is very unlikely.

What is legitimate is that the populace generally are not big winners. The winners are the travel oriented businesses plus the brand value to LA. Normally I would say this is small since the city is already very well known. But I can see an argument that the “new LA” of density, transit, high tech, artistic and culinary sophistication, etc., is not yet well known and the Olympics will help focus attention on these developments.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

Knitemplar said:


> A permanent home for either the Summer or Winter Olympics is NOT viable; hence the IOC has not given it serious consideration.
> 
> The main question is what happens to the venues, hotels and OV (if there is one) between the Games? They will just sit empty, gather dust, and/or be vandalized. Just look at the decrepit facilities from Athens 2004
> 
> ...


I would think Los Angeles is well poised to be a permanent home to the Summer Olympics. Aside from having the Olympic Culture well established, all these questions are answered with LA. 

The venues are privately maintained by elite sporting organizations, the Olympic and Media Villages are regularly used by prestigious, top global university alumni, and hotels in LA are of no shortage with a rapidly expanding inventory driving LA's current boon.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

pesto said:


> What is legitimate is that the populace generally are not big winners. The winners are the travel oriented businesses plus the brand value to LA. Normally I would say this is small since the city is already very well known. But I can see an argument that the “new LA” of density, transit, high tech, artistic and culinary sophistication, etc., is not yet well known and the Olympics will help focus attention on these developments.


I made this argument in the other forum and I'm guessing that because they're all not in or from LA they rejected it sticking with the usual and baked image of LA. But I feel the Olympics present an opportunity for LA to re present itself to the world as a matured, modern, youthful, technology driven, cultural urban metropolis. Los Angeles has also matured enough to celebrate its history. High on that list and making a serious impact would be the Space Shuttle Endeavor in its new Samuel Oschin Museum hovering around the Coliseum sightlines, likely to have an even greater presence than the Lucas. 

This has even been built into the LA2024 verbiage, "the new LA". This is also a striking difference between LA and Paris. LA and California are booming, unemployment is low, and the California economy is leading the US economy in growth, exceeding the GDP of France. Contrast that to Paris. Unemployment is high and the French economy is stagnant.


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

Speaking of University Village, the anchors will be Trader Joe's and Target.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> I made this argument in the other forum and I'm guessing that because they're all not in or from LA they rejected it sticking with the usual and baked image of LA. But I feel the Olympics present an opportunity for LA to re present itself to the world as a matured, modern, youthful, technology driven, cultural urban metropolis. Los Angeles has also matured enough to celebrate its history. High on that list and making a serious impact would be the Space Shuttle Endeavor in its new Samuel Oschin Museum hovering around the Coliseum sightlines, likely to have an even greater presence than the Lucas.
> 
> This has even been built into the LA2024 verbiage, "the new LA". This is also a striking difference between LA and Paris. LA and California are booming, unemployment is low, and the California economy is leading the US economy in growth, exceeding the GDP of France. Contrast that to Paris. Unemployment is high and the French economy is stagnant.


Agree with this. Paris does have the advantage of being a national capital which allows it to use all of France to keep it running. So I would expect plenty of big spending for the Games regardless of whether significant change arises from Macron's agenda.

As you say, LA's biggest benefit is letting the world see how it has changed. But that focuses the spotlight on the very visible homeless who populate pretty much every open spot in town and are not going away. The transit, high rise, shopping, tech, etc., are going to be there, but so are the tents and encampments if the city doesn't take action.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RuFFy said:


> I would think Los Angeles is well poised to be a permanent home to the Summer Olympics.


That idea would be a sea change from not all that long ago when the USOC and the IOC (and even observers like me) clung to the mindset that cities and countries that formerly hosted the games couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to be a nominee all over again, much less actually awarded one, unless way more than at least 50 or more years had past since that city or, less so, country last housed the Olympics.

That mindset is one reason why Boston 2024 - or Chicago 2016 - was considered very appropriate and very logical until as recently as 2015 or 2009. 

At least until a rejection of slash-and-burn, newness-is-great, novelty-is-great entered the equation and forced the IOC's (and USOC's) hand.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> Agree with this. Paris does have the advantage of being a national capital which allows it to use all of France to keep it running. So I would expect plenty of big spending for the Games regardless of whether significant change arises from Macron's agenda.
> 
> As you say, LA's biggest benefit is letting the world see how it has changed. But that focuses the spotlight on the very visible homeless who populate pretty much every open spot in town and are not going away. The transit, high rise, shopping, tech, etc., are going to be there, but so are the tents and encampments if the city doesn't take action.


So by 2028, London, Paris and LA will be the Trifecta of the Three-peat Olympic cities. Tokyo and Athens tie as 2x hosts. The shortest gap between repeat hostings would probably be 1984 - 2028; so 44 years; and the longest would be Athens 1896 - 2004; 104 years. I don't know what that proves other than Olympism is very strong in these three cities -- but it doesn't mean anything else. St. Moritz, Lake Placid and Innsbruck hold up the Winter end w/ 2 hostings each -- but the 2nd hostings didn't make the cities super-cities either. So, it's really nothing but for bragging rights -- nothing else.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Knitemplar said:


> *So by 2028, London, Paris and LA will be the Trifecta of the Three-peat Olympic cities.* Tokyo and Athens tie as 2x hosts. The shortest gap between repeat hostings would probably be 1984 - 2028; so 44 years; and the longest would be Athens 1896 - 2004; 104 years. I don't know what that proves other than Olympism is very strong in these three cities -- but it doesn't mean anything else. St. Moritz, Lake Placid and Innsbruck hold up the Winter end w/ 2 hostings each -- but the 2nd hostings didn't make the cities super-cities either. *So, it's really nothing but for bragging rights -- nothing else.*


Yep, LA and Paris are going to become new members of a _very_ exclusive club in world sports, alongside founding member London: the only cities to have hosted three Summer Olympics. While like you say nothing tangible comes out of that, it's certainly an excellent talking point when these three cities want to position themselves as Global Centers for Finance/Culture/Entertainment, and what have you (not that they need it per se :lol.

Thanks for bringing that up btw! It calls attention to one of my favorite little factoids from this whole bid process. Should LA end up hosting 2028 instead of 2024, then LA will be one of only 3 cities to host 3 Summer Olympics... *without ever having won a contested bidding contest*! 1932 and 1984 LA was the only bid (after Tehran pulled out in '84), and here they would lose their first choice. LA, always there when you need 'em! :lol:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Knitemplar said:


> So, it's really nothing but for bragging rights -- nothing else.


Maybe for smaller cities wanting to enter a bid and become known as one of the hosts of the Olympic games. But Rio 2016 shows the value of that bragging is much less today than in the past. 

Even more so when other hosts like Atlanta 1996 can brag too, but without any really warm, fond memories to go with that bragging.

Would be good to have people in a city wanting to host a games because they and their Olympic committee have a more practical, realistic, down-to-earth reason for doing so. Because they really like an international sporting event because it's a sporting event. 

But if they're in it for publicity and the supposed glory of the games, or to make nice-nice with the tourist and airline crowd, or to please the local chamber of commerce, or to thrill travelers devoted to always seeing new backdrops on their trips around the world, it would be better for a city to want to host the Rotary or Kiwanis Club, the Red Cross, the European Union, NATO, the IMF, the World Cup, the Asian games, etc, etc.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

aquamaroon said:


> Yep, LA and Paris are going to become new members of a _very_ exclusive club in world sports, alongside founding member London: the only cities to have hosted three Summer Olympics. While like you say nothing tangible comes out of that, it's certainly an excellent talking point when these three cities want to position themselves as Global Centers for Finance/Culture/Entertainment, and what have you (not that they need it per se :lol.
> 
> Thanks for bringing that up btw! It calls attention to one of my favorite little factoids from this whole bid process. Should LA end up hosting 2028 instead of 2024, then LA will be one of only 3 cities to host 3 Summer Olympics... *without ever having won a contested bidding contest*! 1932 and 1984 LA was the only bid (after Tehran pulled out in '84), and here they would lose their first choice. LA, always there when you need 'em! :lol:


The other two balancing factoids between Olympic Summer AND Winter host cities are that:

1. Except for Atlanta, all US Olympic host cities are either 2 or 3-named (St. Louis, Los Angeles, Lake Placid, Squaw Valley, Salt Lake and At-LA-nta).

2. Both the Summer and Winter lists have one city each named in honor of a Christian saint -- St. Louis 1904 and the 2 hostings by St. Moritz!


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Knitemplar said:


> 2. Both the Summer and Winter lists have one city each named in honor of a Christian saint -- St. Louis 1904 and the 2 hostings by St. Moritz!


And not too many years from today, the city of Beijing will be able to claim having hosted both a summer and winter games. For the first time in Olympic history. And with those two games being held only 14 years apart from each other.

Since this thread is to stick with the topic of the 2024 games, I'll say that China was at the Olympic games for the first time since 1952 at the games of the 23rd Olympiad in Los Angeles 1984. Los Angeles is supposed to host the 34th Olympiad of the modern era. 

Not sure if that's enough to pass muster in this thread.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

RuFFy said:


> This has even been built into the LA2024 verbiage, "the new LA". This is also a striking difference between LA and Paris. LA and California are booming, unemployment is low, and the California economy is leading the US economy in growth, exceeding the GDP of France. Contrast that to Paris. Unemployment is high and the French economy is stagnant.


Stagnant still means growth in the case of France. The economy of France is growing, slowly but it's growing. It's economy is bigger than before the global crisis. 
GDP of California is (or was*) bigger than the GDP of France because of the rather low value of the euro (*not sure if it will be still true as the value of the Euro is improving).

If unemployment is high in France, it's mainly because of the rigidity of the labor market (and high labor taxes). 
With laxer and more open rules, unemployment would be much lower in France.

Anyway who knows how French economy will be in 2024. Maybe it could be booming.

I know that you have concerns about the Olympic village.
Real estate in Paris is doing quite well.


> *Prices of property in Paris go through the roof *
> 27 June 2017
> 
> New figures show the price of property in the French capital have risen sharply over the last 12 months, which is changing the profile of homeowners in the French capital.
> ...


https://www.thelocal.fr/20170627/price-of-property-in-paris-goes-through-the-roof

Office market as well, sign of an healthy economy. The idea of Paris as a cesspole without activity is quite funny. It's a major world city and it's growing.


> OFFICES IN THE GREATER PARIS REGION
> The office take-up in the greater Paris region has reached 663,900 sqm (7 million sq ft) over Q1 2017, up by 27% vs Q1 2016.


http://www.immostat.com/single-post/2017/04/07/New-ImmoStat-Results-for-Q1-2017



pesto said:


> Agree with this. Paris does have the advantage of being a national capital which allows it to use all of France to keep it running. So I would expect plenty of big spending for the Games regardless of whether significant change arises from Macron's agenda.


As it was said numerous times, Paris has already most of infrastructures. We doesn't need to spend much.
Most of the other constructions are independent of the Olympic game. 

Even the Olympic village is part of redevelopment that will be built, no matter if Paris has the Olympic games or not.

Just look one of the surrounding neighborhood (Saint-Ouen Les Docks)
Rue des Bateliers (2008) 








Rue des Bateliers (2016)









The area of the Olympic village will be served in one decade by 6 rapid transit lines, linking most major hubs of Paris metropolitain area. 








> *Kengo Kuma Wins Competition to Design Metro Station in Paris*
> Jessica Mairs | 24 March 2015
> Japanese firm Kengo Kuma & Associates has won a competition to design the Gare Saint-Denis Pleyel, one of three key stations that will be built to serve a new stretch of the Paris Metro.
> 
> ...


https://www.dezeen.com/2015/03/24/kengo-kuma-train-station-paris-metro-gare-saint-denis-pleyel-france/


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> I made this argument in the other forum and I'm guessing that because they're all not in or from LA they rejected it sticking with the usual and baked image of LA. But I feel the Olympics present an opportunity for LA to re present itself to the world as a matured, modern, youthful, technology driven, cultural urban metropolis. Los Angeles has also matured enough to celebrate its history. High on that list and making a serious impact would be the Space Shuttle Endeavor in its new Samuel Oschin Museum hovering around the Coliseum sightlines, likely to have an even greater presence than the Lucas.
> 
> This has even been built into the LA2024 verbiage, "the new LA". This is also a striking difference between LA and Paris. LA and California are booming, unemployment is low, and the California economy is leading the US economy in growth, exceeding the GDP of France. Contrast that to Paris. Unemployment is high and the French economy is stagnant.



Yes. An interesting aspect is that LA is limited in what it can spend since it is not a national (or even state) capital bringing in funds from the whole country, and pretending that this makes it a thriving economy. This ability to direct taxes makes national capitals fat at the expense of the rest of the country. You wonder how London would be doing economically if the capital were in Manchester or how Berlin would look if the capital were in Stuttgart. 

Since the LA bid is private and taxpayer monies from the whole country aren't being funneled into it, the public expenditures will have to be lower. I would expect that cleaning, repairing and such will dominate the spending.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

californiadreams said:


> And not too many years from today, the city of Beijing will be able to claim having hosted both a summer and winter games. For the first time in Olympic history. .


Nah!! Actually, the city of Karuizawa in Japan is *the first city in history *to host both Summer and Winter Olympic events - NOT Beijing. So, Karuizawa has 3 claims to fame:

- the 1964 Equestrian events were hosted there
- Curling events for Nagano 1998; and
- the city where the present Emperor Akihito met the future empress Michiko!!
- would've been great if something else was lined up for 2020! 

Even Beijing can't top that provenance!!


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> shame noone came to see the time trials on saturday.


They were 45K actually.. but indeed that was disappointing.. ( at least according to the stadium operator)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

There were never 45k in there! Not all at the same time anyway. :lol:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

*Before* :cheers:*:*



RobH said:


> http://www.footiemap.com/?wc=1998


*After *:cheers2:*:*


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

RobH said:


> There were never 45k in there! Not all at the same time anyway. :lol:


"45K" during the whole day ... (at least that what they said..) :dunno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> "45K" during the whole day ... (at least that what they said..) :dunno:


The FIRST law of PR: it doesn't matter how many people were there; it matters how many people the media said were there.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> You're so 2014 (if not 2013)! hno:


Well, for sure I am way behind the times. Or maybe way ahead, it's so hard to say these days.

So it IS complete and some theory claims that it is a good thing architecturally? It perfectly captures (or maybe searingly repudiates) the energy and turbulence of the Spirit of Our Times?


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

It's like Soldier Field all over again.

Anyhow, Alan Abrahamson had a few words to post today:

http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/07/24/nevertheless-ioc-persists/


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> It's like Soldier Field all over again.
> 
> Anyhow, Alan Abrahamson had a few words to post today:
> 
> http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/07/24/nevertheless-ioc-persists/


What can you say? Pretty much dead on. France has issues that Macron may have some trouble with. Maybe not, but there are concerns.

The Olympics have serious worries about security, popular support and its erosion as deficits emerge, etc. Same thing we have talked about for some time and the evaluation committee noted in their report.

Abrahamson could be right on. But I believe he misses the key point: that if you are stuck with Paris, better to get it over with first. Let it be the last of the Olympics done in the old way, with elites offering up taxpayer money without consulting the taxpayers. Then let LA be the first of the privately funded, technically savvy Olympics. If Paris comes up with issues (unlikely as it may be) you can emphasize that these shortcomings have been remedied for the LA Games.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RuFFy said:


> It's like Soldier Field all over again.
> 
> Anyhow, Alan Abrahamson had a few words to post today:
> 
> http://www.3wiresports.com/2017/07/24/nevertheless-ioc-persists/


Soldier Field was ruined by its reconstruction. It went from recognizable, old-time classical to generic, bland NFL. 

A renovation of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena just a few years ago also resulted in it looking more generic. However, in that case, the stadium's appearance, mainly its skybox structure, ended up reminiscent of the design seen at any stadium of a typical college. 

I'm worried about what USC has in store for the LA Coliseum. Not a whole lot of confidence there. 

The Coliseum, after all, is supposed to be a major venue for....

The 2028 Olympics. 

Notice the on-topic segue!


----------



## Pierre de Coubertin (Sep 25, 2016)

Is there anywhere the IOC evaluation report?

Could anyone put the link to download it?

Thx

Edit: I 've just found it.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> Well, for sure I am way behind the times. Or maybe way ahead, it's so hard to say these days.
> 
> So it IS complete and some theory claims that it is a good thing architecturally?


Functionally I think it's great, and internally I think the renovated stadium looks awesome. Externally it looks like a great white blob without much elegance or style. So....architecturally great? No, wouldn't go that far. A decent solution to getting a pillarless roof over that stadium and bringing it up to modern standards? Yep.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

RobH said:


> Functionally I think it's great, and internally I think the renovated stadium looks awesome. Externally it looks like a great white blob without much elegance or style. So....architecturally great? No, wouldn't go that far. A decent solution to getting a pillarless roof over that stadium and bringing it up to modern standards? Yep.


I agree.... Except about its exterior, I think it's great.. and regarding the interior, I tend to agree with Pesto... (i.e. it indeed looks "unfinished" to me too):



parcdesprinces said:


> A really great, IMHO, photoshopping (made by Helloherve (info-stades.fr), thanks to him) synthesizing and answering the major issues pointed out regarding the new Vélodrome.
> 
> i.e. :
> 
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Oddly, I agree with everyone. It does looks a bit blobby outside but there is also a vitality to it. Not elegant but looks dynamic like it might be ready to move.

Inside, unfinished. Maybe some theory on "everything is a work in process" is at work but I would guess that it was just cheaper. If you WANT the unfinished look it should be unfinished in a more dramatic way, not leaving the viewer wondering. :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Well, what do we have here...




> Dakota Smith‏Verified account
> @dakotacdsmith
> 
> *At Buzzfeed event, Garcetti on Olympics: "(IOC) making it so financially attractive that we would be stupid not to take 2028."*





> Dakota Smith‏Verified account @dakotacdsmith 2h2 hours ago
> Replying to @dakotacdsmith
> 
> *Also says: “The bid is all but done. We have won. 2024... is not most likely to happen.”*


https://twitter.com/dakotacdsmith


So...wow!! I guess "that's all folks"?

Garcetti is a pretty polished politico so it's unlikely he'd just blurt this out. For him to speak so freely most likely means that things are going to move very fast from now on! Given the first quote I'll be very interested to know what financial "sweeteners" LA was able to gain from the IOC. But otherwise, from the looks of things looks like this competition is getting close to a wrap! :cheers:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> Well, what do we have here...
> 
> So...wow!! I guess "that's all folks"?


That's what it looks like. Perhaps the first, earliest hint of what has been going on behind closed doors. 

Garcetti implying the IOC is offering such a good deal that it would be crazy to turn it down is the most interesting aspect. Until now, the only thing that has been considered a given or done deal was a duo award in September, with Los Angeles probably getting 2028. But the idea of inducements for 2028 has been challenged by the IOC.

More hopeful news for an event in the future that has already gotten way too overgrown:



> *IOC insiders pour cold water on cricket's hopes of 2024 Olympic return*
> 
> * 26 July 2017 10:53 *
> 
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> Well, what do we have here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As you say, CEO's (Garcetti, Bach) do not talk about deals publicly unless they are going to happen, and they shouldn't make off-the-cuff remarks about process (cf. Trump who is not good at this).

Sounds to me like the deal was done 4-6 months ago and the PR is just continuing to wind out the releases. I would guess 20 times I have had to hold back public filings because PR did not want to risk leaks of information prior to their pre-planned cycle of momentum building.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

...


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

aquamaroon said:


> Well, what do we have here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol:


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

Next


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

and Next...........









_IOC President Thomas Bach (centre) with LA Mayor Eric Garcetti (left) and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo celebrating double-allocation approval (IOC Photo)_



> Garcetti said, however, in a concessionary tone that his city will likely accept the 2028 edition.
> 
> “Next week we’ll announce our intentions if we are to go for ’28 instead of ’24, Paris will get the other.”


GAMES BIDS ARTICLE


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

redspork02 said:


> and Next...........
> 
> GAMES BIDS ARTICLE



At first I thought the writer at gamesbid.com was incorrect when stating that no other city in Olympic history will have waited as many years leading up to the games awarded to it as Los Angeles 2028. Or eleven years. 

I originally thought the time frame for the upcoming formal announcement would be identical to the early 1920s. Or the last time when the IOC decided to go with a joint award, of Paris 1924 and Amsterdam 1928. 

Nope, not correct. Amsterdam 1928 had to wait seven years after being chosen by the IOC in 1921. Or similar to the time frame now facing Paris 2024.

The Los Angeles 2028 committee therefore will have more years to deal with their upcoming event than any other host committee in modern Olympic history.

I wonder how that will affect - if at all - the quality of the 2028 games? Extenuating or unforeseen circumstances notwithstanding.




> In 1921 Paris was selected for the 1924 Summer Olympics on the condition that the 1928 Summer Olympics would be organized in Amsterdam. This decision, supported by the Netherlands Olympic Committee, was announced by the International Olympic Committee on 2 June 1921.
> 
> The decision was disputed by the Americans, but their request to allocate the 1928 Summer Olympics to Los Angeles was without success in 1922 and again in 1923.[4] Los Angeles was eventually selected as host city for the 1932 Summer Olympics.[5]


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

Will LA 2024/28 attempt another Charter amendment as it did in 1984?


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Maybe there should be a new thread -- Los Angeles 2028??


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

As soon as it is official, we will close this bid thread and open two new ones, (as oficial host cities) Paris2024 and LA2028.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ :banana::banana:


:happy:


----------



## Zaz965 (Jan 24, 2015)

Kenni, are these two cities official ones?


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

Zaz965 said:


> Kenni, are these two cities official ones?


That's what we're waiting for, the oficial "gong".  (announcement)


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Wow congratulations to both Los Ángeles and Paris.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

-Corey- said:


> Wow congratulations to both Los Ángeles and Paris.


"Congratulations" or "Our prayers are with you in this time of troubles"? :lol:

More seriously it does seem an unbelievable triumph for LA: wasn't even selected as the US candidate; came in late and with no government funding or backing other than Garcetti's verbal support; blew away all the other competitors in terms of venues in place, financing, technical savvy; and per what has been said will be reaping such a windfall from the IOC that a huge profit seems assured.

And, of course, no shame in sharing with Paris, one of the great cities of the world!


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

*Deal that would designate L.A. as host of 2028 Olympics is ‘very very close,’ Mayor Eric Garcetti says*



> Discussions on the Los Angeles/Paris deal began just hours after the IOC approved the joint awarding plan on July 11 in Lausanne. Even before the vote, Garcetti, LA 2024 chairman Casey Wasserman and USOC officials indicated they were receptive to hosting the 2028 Games. The Los Angeles stance was in direct contrast to Paris officials who insisted they were interested only in the hosting the 2024 Games, in large part because of concerns about the limited availability of land proposed for the Olympic Village and a desire to hold the Games on the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Olympics.
> 
> Once an agreement on the 2028 Games is reached, the deal will presented to the city council. The council’s sub-committee on Los Angeles Olympic bid chaired by Council president Herb Wesson would likely review the agreement before it was presented to the full council.


http://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/2...-is-very-very-close-mayor-eric-garcetti-says/


----------



## Zaz965 (Jan 24, 2015)

Kenni said:


> That's what we're waiting for, the oficial "gong".  (announcement)


:grass::grass:


----------



## swifty78 (Nov 10, 2002)

so great that the 2 cities been selected, both were such worthy candidates and one losing out would have been painful!


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

*33 years ago today*, the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games started:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Kenni said:


> *33 years ago today*, the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games started:


I didn't realize the large screens back in 1984 flashed an image of Disneyland, along with cities like Paris, Sydney, Rome, Beijing. The crowd holding hands indicates that must have been the final segment of 1984's opening. 

Most of any ceremony will be overlooked by TV cameras.

I hope the games of 2028 try to be more worldly and international than most of the recent Olympics have been. 2016 was Brazil, Brazil, Brazil. 2012 was UK, UK, UK. 2008 was China, China, China.

Since America has already hosted 3 summer Olympics, and since the US hosted a games as recently as 1996, I'd favor the Los Angeles committee trying to be as non-provincial and non-local-homer as possible. There has been enough of that over the past 20-plus years of the Olympics.

At the end of 1984's opener, people dressed in native costumes reflecting their original countries entered the LA Coliseum. That's the type of internationalism that I've missed seeing in the format of other ceremonies. 










Others admittedly, however, may prefer things like a Paul McCartney warbling "Hey, Jude" at the end of an Olympic opener. But what Jude has to do with the summer games will always baffle me.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

@californiadreams , yo do realize olympics are a bit more than just two ceremonies? or you don't?


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Now that you mention it, another way that 1984 could have been represented - as other Olympic games can be too (but often aren't) - is to use images of the athletes at a games.

Kenni could have symbolized Los Angeles's previous Olympics with a photo like this one. But would the effect have been as obvious and recognizable?











The rank-and-file of a games - its volunteers - can be used to represent an Olympics too. But using the image of that also doesn't make the games it's supposed to reflect immediately obvious or clear.




> *1984 Los Angeles Olympics volunteers reunite 33 years later*
> 
> http://abc7.com/video/embed/?pid=2257653
> 
> ...


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Personally, I think this is a more meaningful and appropriate type of legacy for an Olympic games (a sports event, after all---not an event for people competing in the world of real estate, travel or government) to leave behind - or to offer to the future - instead of things involving brick and mortar, tourist head counts and improved transit.




> *Los Angeles 2024 holds celebratory reunion for volunteers of 1984 Olympic Games *
> 
> By Daniel Etchells
> Saturday, 29 July 2017
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> @californiadreams , yo do realize olympics are a bit more than just two ceremonies? or you don't?


He doesn't.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> "Congratulations" or "Our prayers are with you in this time of troubles"? :lol:
> 
> More seriously it does seem an unbelievable triumph for LA: wasn't even selected as the US candidate; came in late and with no government funding or backing other than Garcetti's verbal support; blew away all the other competitors in terms of venues in place, financing, technical savvy; and per what has been said will be reaping such a windfall from the IOC that a huge profit seems assured.


It looks to me like Garcetti has got this pretty much spot on. He seems to have leveraged a bit extra from the IOC without coming across as strong-arming them, and to be honest it was never in his interests to do so.

No surprise - as I've kept saying (and despite some LA supporters insisting otherwise), given their repeated bids since the early 2000s, LA were never likely to bail on the chance of taking 2028 if it was offered to them. But pushing for a little extra was always worthwhile.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

And here we go girls and boys....

*BREAKING: Paris to host 2024 #Olympics, #LosAngeles 2028*
https://twitter.com/insidethegames/status/892065720510689280



> A major announcement is expected to be made by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) later today.
> 
> This is expected to see Paris proposed as host of the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games before Los Angeles receives hosting rights for the 2028 edition.
> 
> ...


http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1053489/ioc-poised-to-announce-2024-and-2028-olympic-hosts


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

And.... It's official!

LA has pulled out of the 2024 Olympic host race, leaving Paris the last city standing for 2024.

LA2024 is now LA2028!










LA 2024's whole internet presence has changed too! LA24.org has been replaced with LA28.org and all their social media accounts have changed over to LA 2028. So LA is all in for '28! :cheers:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

For our friends in London and parts unknown, here's a link to the press event video on Facebook :cheers:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/la2028/videos/?ref=page_internal


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Another reason why history is sort of repeating itself, referring to Paris and Amsterdam in 1924 and 1928, and Los Angeles getting the games by default in 1977, is that this type of (pardon my French) merde and hokum won't be occurring at the IOC's meeting in Lima when they formally announce the games of 2024 and 2028:






There's something unseemly and kind of desperate about fans of the Olympics in various cities playing rah-rah for their host committee being given the games. Makes me think of kids, and adults too, acting way too hyped up about an upcoming Christmas, only to see December 25 come and go with a sense of letdown. 

By contrast, it's nice and somehow more appropriate - more worldly, if you will - for Paris and Los Angeles to be spared that pile of (again, pardon my French) merde. 

The reaction of "yes, of course, that makes the most sense" would be the rule instead of the exception if the IOC stopped treating the bid process as though it's a version of the Academy Awards or The Lotto. It would be the rule, not the exception, if the IOC started filtering and pre-selecting certain cities, rotating them from a list, instead of thinking a candidate had to be totally brand new.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> LA 2024's whole internet presence has changed too! LA24.org has been replaced with LA28.org and all their social media accounts have changed over to LA 2028. So LA is all in for '28!


Kind of nebulous territory the Paris and LA committees are in right now. Technically (and I guess legally) both Los Angeles and Paris still have to be considered bid cities, or merely candidate cities. Nothing official - not yet signed, sealed and delivered - until the September meeting in Lima, Peru.

The logo at the end of this video released today by the LA group says "Olympic games 2028."


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

There goes our 2028 Olympic plans up in smoke and likely our 2032 chances as well. The IOC should have made their plans to award 2 games at once known rather than changing the rules after the deadline for submission had passed. Toronto had been gearing up for a 2028 run since around 2010 by bidding and winning the 2015 Pan American Games, gaining experience, building infrastructure, etc.

7 years of plans down the drain and no hope that the summer Olympics will return to north America till about 2036. Not very professional on the IOC's part, but nothing they do surprises me any more. These people still don't practice gender equality. Any way, congratulations Paris and LA.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

LA24.org is now la28.org...Twitter; Facebook etc....

Edit: Beat me to it Aqua.....Thats why you're the best!!!! LOL

_------------------

The IOC released a copy of the 2028 Olympic Contract. 

Olympic.org

FRONT Page with a pic of LA.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

isaidso said:


> There goes our 2028 Olympic plans up in smoke and likely our 2032 chances as well. The IOC should have made their plans to award 2 games at once known rather than changing the rules after the deadline for submission had passed. Toronto had been gearing up for a 2028 run since around 2010 by bidding and winning the 2015 Pan American Games, gaining experience, building infrastructure, etc.
> 
> 7 years of plans down the drain and no hope that the summer Olympics will return to north America till about 2036. Not very professional on the IOC's part, but nothing they do surprises me any more. These people still don't practice gender equality. Any way, congratulations Paris and LA.


Thanks for the congratulations.

Bach noted that the bidding process for 2028 does not open until next year so I'm not sure what you are referring to. The decision to change the rules was part of an open discussion held on this issue a few months back due to the very bleak outlook for 2028 candidates. Bach used a "bird in the hand" analogy to note that none of the possible bidders for 2028 other than Paris or LA were anywhere near being bona fide candidates. This is why the IOC voted to select LA now rather than end up with 4 years of reviewing candidates unlikely to compare to either of those candidates. 

As for Toronto specifically, it was noted by a poster that very few of the major facilities for the Pan American Games were adequate for Olympics purposes due to location or other issues; major rebuilds were required. It was also noted that public support was very dubious in Toronto since the attempt at a bid for 2024 was quickly withdrawn in the face of public opposition.


----------



## S.T.Y AP (Jan 7, 2009)

Congratulations LA


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

S.T.Y AP said:


> Congratulations LA


and PARIS!! 

"We Did it!!"" - Quote from LAs very own: Elle Woods. - Legally Blonde


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm glad they did the smart thing and gave the Olympics to maybe the two most qualified cities in the world that haven't hosted in decades.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

The Los Angeles committee has moved fast. Even their web site listed on Google still shows 2024 and links to their old address of la24.org instead of la28.org. They need Google to redirect the browser to the new address.




> *LA 2024 | Los Angeles 2024 Olympic Bid*
> 
> https://la24.org/
> 
> The official site of the LA24 Exploratory _Committee_ to bring the 2024 _Olympic_ and Paralympic Games to _Los Angeles_.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

The most amazing thing about this video is the attractive, young-looking woman interviewing the guest says she attended track and field at the 1984 Olympics. Damn! She looks like she'd have been something like only 4 years old at that time.








But the segment's fresh-looking image of the LA Coliseum in 1984 and such a youthful-looking person having been personally involved with the 23rd Olympiad of the modern era are why it would have been uncool to not award the 2024 games to Paris.


----------



## S.T.Y AP (Jan 7, 2009)

Tokyo2020 > Paris2024 > LA2028

That's a good sequence!
Can't wait :cheers:


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

RobH said:


> Bit late for me.  I assume I'll wake up tomorrow to see two new threads from Kenni though kay:


*Just to make things right, we will not create the threads until it becomes oficial, and that is on September 13th, IOC meeting in Lima, Perú.*

Personally, I want to congratulate Paris, and our friends.... the french people; and our beloved city, Los Angeles. 

:cheers:


----------



## milquetoast (Jul 31, 2007)

.
.​


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Kenni said:


> *Just to make things right, we will not create the threads until it becomes oficial, and that is on September 13th, IOC meeting in Lima, Perú.*
> 
> Personally, I want to congratulate Paris, and the our friends.... the french people; and our beloved city, Los Angeles.
> 
> :cheers:


Good call Kenni, and in the meantime as an LA supporter... *let's celebrate!* :banana: Thought this might be fun... 


*LA Olympics through the years!*

*1932*



































*1984*


























_link to purchase map if you're interested!_









*2028*




































So time moves on and styles change, but LA (and the Coliseum) are there for the Olympics! :cheers:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Kenni said:


> :cheers:


Isn't he dead already (? :dunno... Anyway, for sure he will be a great last Olympic flame holder at the Coliseum...in 2028...if he's still alive... :happy:

:yes:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> Isn't he dead already (? :dunno... Anyway, for sure he will be a great last Olympic flame holder at the Coliseum...in 2028...if he's still alive... :happy:
> 
> :yes:


By 2027, he'll be 67 years old.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

Shouldn't be Michael Phelps be the obvious choice? He is the greatest Olympian ever after all. :2cents:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm thinking about all the 1992 USA Dream Team, with Magic Johnson being the last flag bearer.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

Knitemplar said:


> so that, and this is the crux of de Coubertin's original philosophy -- *at one time in an earthling's lifetime, a magical thing called the Olympic Games will come within 500 miles of his/her existence and s/he will not HAVE to mortgage their house in order to go to some, more distant city to experience the Games. * It was an improvement over the ancient Greek model when competitors and fans had to come from miles around the Mediterranean world in order to attend the events @ old Olympic.
> 
> This cost-cutting practice of returning to past hosts denies that experience to millions of inhabitants of our planet simply because of the bottom line. And I place the blame on the IOC for not putting their foot down to stop the gigantism of the Games.


I didn't know that about de Coubertin. That's an important consideration. 

The tradition during Olympic ceremonies, at least over 10 years ago, was to highlight his role as creator of the modern games. Quotes of his and his image often would be flashed on screens or scoreboards. But I don't recall much or any of that occurring at the past two summer games. However, I may be wrong because TV cameras miss a lot of what's going on in a stadium.

He probably wouldn't be thrilled at the way professionalism of certain participants, such as in basketball, has entered the games and run against his belief that only amateurs should be involved.

The IOC has also allowed the event to become bloated.

Some of this needs to be factored in on whether the idealism of having the games held in places as far and wide as possible is still realistic.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> While costs have necessitated the m.o. of returning to host cities where most of the installations are already in place, this practice kills the original rationale of taking the Games to new places on the planet -- so that, and this is the crux of de Coubertin's original philosophy -- *at one time in an earthling's lifetime, a magical thing called the Olympic Games will come within 500 miles of his/her existence and s/he will not HAVE to mortgage their house in order to go to some, more distant city to experience the Games. * It was an improvement over the ancient Greek model when competitors and fans had to come from miles around the Mediterranean world in order to attend the events @ old Olympic.
> 
> This cost-cutting practice of returning to past hosts denies that experience to millions of inhabitants of our planet simply because of the bottom line. And I place the blame on the IOC for not putting their foot down to stop the gigantism of the Games.


A nice sentiment but not that relevant in today's world where you can fly (for example) to California from Europe for under E 300. The problem is the costs when you get there. 

As for giving everyone a chance, Barcelona, Rome, Paris, London and proposals for Madrid, Milan, Germany, etc., are all in one tiny corner of the globe. So the present system isn't giving much to Africa, LatAm, or Asia in any event.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> A nice sentiment but not that relevant in today's world where you can fly (for example) to California from Europe for under E 300. The problem is the costs when you get there.
> 
> As for giving everyone a chance, Barcelona, Rome, Paris, London and proposals for Madrid, Milan, Germany, etc., are all in one tiny corner of the globe. So the present system isn't giving much to Africa, LatAm, or Asia in any event.


True to a certain extent; and of course, when the Baron conceived of the Modern Era Games, I don't know if he was up-to-date on his Jules Verne visions of later 20th-century travel. The thing is, the intention is laudable -- and I still think rotating the Games allows people to get to know other cultures in the proper setting of a global village-coming together. They just have gotten to be soooooooo big.


----------



## Rover030 (Dec 6, 2016)

redspork02 said:


> https://twitter.com/REDSPORK02/status/893947984244744192
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> ...


I honestly don't get the criticism. They somehow equate LA to Rio while LA has all the facilities and the government won't be paying for them anyway. The only thing the government will be paying for is infrastructure improvements, which will benefit almost everybody, cause even if you don't take the metro, someone else will and traffic still improves.

And of course it sucks for locals who dislike sports, but you can probably take unpaid vacation, rent out your house, go to the other side of the world for 3 weeks and still make a profit.

The only thing I would fear as a local is that the profits this Olympics are going to generate are not going to you/the local government, but to the private bid committee (right?)


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Rover030 said:


> I honestly don't get the criticism. They somehow equate LA to Rio while LA has all the facilities and the government won't be paying for them anyway. The only thing the government will be paying for is infrastructure improvements, which will benefit almost everybody, cause even if you don't take the metro, someone else will and traffic still improves.
> 
> And of course it sucks for locals who dislike sports, but you can probably take unpaid vacation, rent out your house, go to the other side of the world for 3 weeks and still make a profit.
> 
> The only thing I would fear as a local is that the profits this Olympics are going to generate are not going to you/the local government, but to the private bid committee (right?)


Yep, personally I agree with you, and I think many Angelenos do as well. It's a little complicated, but the anti-Olympics sentiment here in Los Angeles isn't being pushed by the usual NIMBY home-owning crowd that worries about any big event (i.e. concerns about traffic, waste of tax dollars, etc.).
Basically, the Olympics is being used as a cudgel by the far left of LA politics as a way to hit at the things they really care about. And I don't mean "left" in the American sense, with our more conservative politics (the mainstream left in the US is somewhat equivalent to the center or even center-right in Western Europe). I mean like, ACTUAL communists and anarcho-syndicalists that want to "seize the means of production" and "smash the global patriarchy/neo-colonialist agenda". These folks are against essentially ANYTHING where rich people use their money in a big public way, and have a deep abiding mistrust of the "system". In this case, the biggest issues that have gotten this group's attention is the treatment of minorities and the homeless by the LA Police Department, and the unyielding march of big money developers into what have traditionally been communities of lower income people of color. So, their argument is that even IF the Olympics would be a financial benefit to LA, it would only serve to embolden the LAPD to run the city as a police state and target disadvantaged minority communities and the homeless. In addition, they feel it would also be a giant boon to gentrifying developers who would push working class Angelenos out of their neighborhoods and replace their homes with high rise luxury condos.
So essentially, the #NOlympicsLA crowd sees the Olympics in LA as a tool to further the agenda of the ruling class of 1%-ers who want to run LA as a fiefdom for the wealthy, white and connected. You can agree with them or not! But that's basically where they are coming from :dunno:


----------



## breakitdown (Sep 16, 2014)

pesto said:


> A nice sentiment but not that relevant in today's world where you can fly (for example) to California from Europe for under E 300. The problem is the costs when you get there.
> 
> As for giving everyone a chance, Barcelona, Rome, Paris, London and proposals for Madrid, Milan, Germany, etc., are all in one tiny corner of the globe. So the present system isn't giving much to Africa, LatAm, or Asia in any event.


True, times have changed. And I know it's not comparable to visiting the Olympics itself, but these days you can watch everything on tv, internet, social media and so on.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

breakitdown said:


> True, times have changed. And I know it's not comparable to visiting the Olympics itself, but these days you can watch everything on tv, internet, social media and so on.


You are right that it isn't comparable: TV/new media is much better than being there in person. That's why they put multiple video boards in the stadium, so as to make the in-person experience a little more comparable to the home experience).

Re-play, commentary, various angles, ability to skip through dead time (the great majority of time in most events). No traffic, no obnoxious people next to you, no inflated prices for food, etc. Or just change the channel if the competition is lopsided or delayed by injuries, local conditions, etc.

This is the golden age of media and the in-person experience is going to be less and less important as time goes by. Which makes it important to establish your brand worldwide, not just within 25 miles of your stadium.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

breakitdown said:


> True, times have changed. And I know it's not comparable to visiting the Olympics itself, but these days you can watch everything on tv, internet, social media and so on.


Eh. Still not the same. You can't honestly say that you're an international sports fan if you haven't at least spent a few hours or done one Olympics (even if you only took in one minor event). 

Actually, it's good for those who actually want to go and experience the event in the flesh.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> Eh. Still not the same. You can't honestly say that you're an international sports fan if you haven't at least spent a few hours or done one Olympics (even if you only took in one minor event).
> 
> Actually, it's good for those who actually want to go and experience the event in the flesh.


What about the billions of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian and other working class sports fans who can't make the trek or afford the tickets? 

In any event, there aren't nearly enough seats to fill to allow 8B people, or even a small fraction of that, to attend matches after family, corporate, officials, etc., are accounted for.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> What about the billions of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian and other working class sports fans who can't make the trek or afford the tickets?
> 
> In any event, there aren't nearly enough seats to fill to allow 8B people, or even a small fraction of that, to attend matches after family, corporate, officials, etc., are accounted for.


Really? Just because I riffed off BdeC's original (but not central) philosphy re spreading his Modern Era Games around the planet, doesn't mean you count everyone in as interested. :nuts: Just because the experience is available physically doesn't mean everyone is going to take it. hno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> Really? Just because I riffed off BdeC's original (but not central) philosphy re spreading his Modern Era Games around the planet, doesn't mean you count everyone in as interested. :nuts: Just because the experience is available physically doesn't mean everyone is going to take it. hno:


You said that a person can't be an "international sports fans" if he doesn't attend the Olympics, although many soccer, cricket, baseball, handball, etc., fans with minimal resources can't possible go to an Olympics in person. I think that your comment fails to recognized that status of a couple of billion people who really love sports.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

It's official!











> LA 2028‏Verified account @LA2028 1h1 hour ago
> 
> *It's unanimous 🎉
> 
> The LA City Council has given approval for #LA2028 with a vote of 1️⃣2️⃣-0️⃣*


https://twitter.com/LA2028



> *Los Angeles City Council Vote Unanimously Approves Olympics In 2028*
> 
> By Robert Livingstone | Published Aug 11, 2017 2:44 PM in Featured, 2028 Olympic Bid News
> The Los Angeles City Council Friday voted in favor of approving key documents that now clears a path for LA to host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Members supported the plans unanimously by a vote of 12-0.
> ...


https://gamesbids.com/eng/featured/...l-vote-unanimously-approves-olympics-in-2028/


Some photos from the LA City Council vote today:










https://twitter.com/HerbJWesson/status/896034086120153088









https://twitter.com/coschaput/status/896033605855494144

























https://twitter.com/LA2028









https://twitter.com/mhdcd8/status/896090422698590208









https://twitter.com/sfutterman/status/896088642485080064


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

All that said, it was definitely a more combative vote today than the last time...

The #NOlympicLA folks came to the meeting today and were incensed they couldn't get public statements in. Herb Wesson on the City Council declared that since they had public debate for the 2024 vote that was adequate. On the one hand I agree, if the anti-Olympics were this motivated they should have tried and nip this in the bud a year and a half ago and not a month before the vote. That said... never a good look to silence protestors! LA Times reporter Emily Albert Reyes has a good Twitter feed for updates and video of the NOlympics protest. 

The LA Times is also taking the editorial stance of "this may or may not be a good idea". Here are some articles from today and yesterday (behind a paywall):



> *L.A. City Council endorses 2028 Olympics bid, accepting responsibility for any cost overruns http://lat.ms/2wQgBeG*





> *Op-Ed: Six reasons to worry about the 2028 Olympics*


latimes.com


So wariness is starting to creep in, and the constant barrage of negative IOC news for the past five years or so is starting to make its mark.

All that said, it still feels like the city is behind the Games. The latest poll put public support at 83%, which sounds about right. And the anti-Olympics movement hasn't gained a TON of steam yet. Here is a screen grab from one of Ms. Reyes' videos showing the protest at LA City Hall:










I count... twelve protestors? Maybe a few more behind that column? In a city of 4 million people and a county of 10 million, not a lot! That said, eleven years is a bit of time, and public sentiment can sour. So it'll be on LA 2028 to continue public outreach and getting LA reassured and excited for the Olympics! :cheers:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> All that said, it was definitely a more combative vote today than the last time...
> 
> The #NOlympicLA folks came to the meeting today and were incensed they couldn't get public statements in. Herb Wesson on the City Council declared that since they had public debate for the 2024 vote that was adequate. On the one hand I agree, if the anti-Olympics were this motivated they should have tried and nip this in the bud a year and a half ago and not a month before the vote. That said... never a good look to silence protestors! LA Times reporter Emily Albert Reyes has a good Twitter feed for updates and video of the NOlympics protest.
> 
> ...


Good luck. This is America and LA is about 80 percent left and far left. I guarantee protests (mostly by rich white people wearing bandanas) arguing for black and Chicano power, homeless rights, police brutality, maybe some complicated economic theories about corruption and waste. 

The left seems to be OK since the city council was unanimous and they are mostly Democrats in real life. But there will be some far left opposition in the hardcore districts that will oppose the Olympics as being detrimental to poor people one way or another. If the economy goes south could be a chance for a real socialist to actually get elected.

Garcetti has obviously anticipated this (who hasn't?) and talked up health, money for youth sports and rec, repair the streets, get the homeless out of our yards, etc., all issues which resonate to the urban poor. Combined with no city funds being spent and no people evicted from anything and it looks pretty good.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

aquamaroon said:


> So wariness is starting to creep in, and the constant barrage of negative IOC news for the past five years or so is starting to make its mark.


Interesting change of pace over these past several months and few years. 

I remember when the city of Los Angeles sponsored a float themed to the 2024 Olympic eight months ago in the Rose Parade, I thought it was a case of jumping the gun and very likely would makes its supporters look and feel very embarrassed after the IOC's meeting in September.

I know the USOC quite recently believed no American city should be chosen to represent a US bid for the games if that city had already hosted the games in the recent past, including less than 40 years ago.

The bidders in Chicago for the 2016 games back in 2009 looked so sadly provincial when the IOC announced Rio would get the 2016 games and the crowd gathered in Chicago's Dealey Plaza acted surprised and shocked. I still recall all the commotion about Barack and Michelle Obama flying to that IOC meeting and their big-time hyping of the US bid still not being enough for Chicago to survive past even the first round.

After last year's big-whoop-de-doo games in Brazil and the problems that have struck the organizer's of the 2020 Olympics in Japan, I flinched at the thought of Paris and LA having to go through a combination of Chicago in 2009 - or sad-sack provincialism - and what Tokyo went though in 2013 - or overly-joyous provincialism. 

The soberness and dignity of the selection process in 2017 will hopefully translate into greater soberness and dignity of the two games that follow 2020.

If the LA bid had even a fraction of the overreach of Tokyo 2020 or a similarity to Paris 2024 with its need for a costly Olympic village, I'd lose my confidence in Los Angeles 2028. So much so I'd find myself feeling exactly like the anti-Olympics crowd in Boston.

This doesn't even raise the issues of terrorism or natural disasters - such as Japan's Fukushima - putting a huge monkey wrench in the plans for Los Angeles before or during the 2028 games. 

I hope Casey Wasserman treads very carefully and shows way better judgment over the next eleven years than his counterparts did in 2016 and 2012.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

https://compete.kotaku.com/paris-olympic-committee-will-consider-esports-for-the-2-1797678847

While the LA committee and city council have been busy, Paris has been active as well. 

"The Paris Olympic bid committee will consider esports for inclusion as a medal event in the 2024 Olympic Games, according to Tony Estanguet, the committee’s co-president."

I find it hard to believe but maybe he's getting some kickbacks from video game vendors.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

The design of the LA Coliseum's peristyle, I believe crafted by architect John Parkinson in the 1930s, with its cauldron and exterior sign are kind of like the symbolic stomping grounds of the Olympics. Of course, there is Olympia in Greece for the actual historic grounds. But for a truly active representative of the games, and of the modern games in particular, the LA Coliseum really is the only thing going. 

There is the stadium used for the 1936 Olympics still standing in Berlin, and it has its own heroic, traditional cauldron. That stadium conceivably could be used for a future games. 

But with Tokyo's 1964 stadium having been torn down (but at least its historic cauldron being preserved), no other Olympic stadium connects the past, present and future (assuming the 2028 games are held there) the way the LA Coliseum does. 

I hope USC doesn't screw it up.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

A little quiet on the Olympics front, but a tiny bit of news: The LA 2028 Media Village is finished!

USC this week opened up the finished "USC Village", a $700 million mixed use development adjacent to the campus. They released a fly through video of the finished product (seems a little sterile since it just opened of course :lol:






For our purposes, this is where the media will be staying for the 2028 Olympics. And with this done, I believe that all the dwellings required for the Games are ready to go! And in general, this means that the Media Village, Media Press Center and Athlete's Villages are completed. The only remaining facility in that vein left to be built are the additions to the International Broadcast Center, which will be held in brand new studios on the NBCUniversal lot in Burbank, and will begin construction relatively soon I believe (their construction isn't directly related to the Olympics just FYI). :cheers:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

aquamaroon said:


> A little quiet on the Olympics front, but a tiny bit of news: The LA 2028 Media Village is finished!
> 
> USC this week opened up the finished "USC Village", a $700 million mixed use development adjacent to the campus. They released a fly through video of the finished product (seems a little sterile since it just opened of course :lol:
> 
> ...


Ok, I'm too lazy to look: what's the difference between the Media Village, the International Broadcast Center and the Media Press Center? And why are they so far apart?

And, more importantly, where do we send the hookers?


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

pesto said:


> Ok, I'm too lazy to look: what's the difference between the Media Village, the International Broadcast Center and the Media Press Center? And why are they so far apart?
> 
> And, more importantly, where do we send the hookers?


sure thing! Basically:

*Media Village* - where the journalists stay during the Olympics i.e. a big hotel

*Media Press Center* - Basically that's the news room for the Olympics. It's where the journalists can work during the Games to type up their articles, have meetings and set things up, etc. It also has a press room where the Athletes and dignitaries can hold press conferences and be interviewed.

*International Broadcast Center* - that's where the various TV channels from around the world can set up and broadcast the Games back home. So that's where NBC, BBC, NHK etc. all build their TV news sets and coordinate on air coverage of the Games (think Bob Costas' show each night during the Olympics)

And regarding the distance, you're right, usually the Media Press Center and International Broadcast Center are one and the same (that's how Paris is doing it for example). However, given LA 2028's commitment to using already built facilities, it didn't make sense to build a Newspaper style newsroom on the Universal lot. And considering that the Annenberg journalism center is brand new AND right across the street from where the media will be staying, it just made sense to separate the MPC and IBC this way :cheers: (and the IBC is still just a Metro stop away! Take the expo line to 7th street then the red line to Universal City and you're right there)


ETA: Oh and regarding the hookers, well I know of a little motel in Inglewood... :lol:


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The narrative of Paris' bid has very clearly been one of global cooperation, sustainability, and sport in the city (contrasting with recent "Olympic Park" Games). That has included focussing on modern Paris, on hosting events tied to World Refugee Day and other UN/IOC joint initiatives, on launching apps and games and on getting people out to try sport on Olympic Day. This has been a far more rounded effort than Paris 2012 or, particularly Paris 2008 which could be more fairly accused of being tourist brochures.

Mike Lee has done much to ensure 2024 feels different.

Yes, Paris is _using_ historical sites in their venue plan but so did London, Rio and Beijing - all to great success. But they've not focussed on that to the exclusion of everything else, far from it. Perhaps American media outlets have focussed on this aspect of Paris' offering though - I guess it's an easy talking point.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> Interesting point. It is clearly safer to talk about ecology than social issues like diversity, immigration and such. But my sense is that ecology has become boring (or at least, not hip and sexy) compared to the human issues which are now the topics of interest to young people.
> 
> Maybe diversity is a little too real in London and Paris.


Literally have no idea what you're talking about with London, but again, just because you miss things, doesn't mean they don't happen...

http://www.aipsmedia.com/2017/06/20...orld-refugee-day-olympics-olympic-games-unhcr
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/techfugees-partners-paris-2024-olympic-paralympic-bid-joséphine-goube
http://www.paris2024.org/medias/presse/press_release_-_08032017.pdf


----------



## Baboulinet (Nov 3, 2008)

Brenn86 said:


> pesto can't really post something about LA without put an insult on Paris's bid...
> 
> What an idiot.


Yes but who cares ? 
2024 olympics will be in Paris.

Fencing in the stunning Grand Palais
Equestrian next to the iconic Palace of Versailles (Longchamp would be great too...  ) 
Tennis in prestrigious Roland-Garros
etc ...

And haters gonna hate.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> The narrative of Paris' bid has very clearly been one of global cooperation, sustainability, and sport in the city (contrasting with recent "Olympic Park" Games). That has included focussing on modern Paris, on hosting events tied to World Refugee Day and other UN/IOC joint initiatives, on launching apps and games and on getting people out to try sport on Olympic Day. This has been a far more rounded effort than Paris 2012 or, particularly Paris 2008 which could be more fairly accused of being tourist brochures.
> 
> Mike Lee has done much to ensure 2024 feels different.
> 
> Yes, Paris is _using_ historical sites in their venue plan but so did London, Rio and Beijing - all to great success. But they've not focussed on that to the exclusion of everything else, far from it. Perhaps American media outlets have focussed on this aspect of Paris' offering though - I guess it's an easy talking point.


It's hard to believe that you are arguing that Paris hasn't focused on the Eiffel Tower, Versailles, the Grand Palais, etc., in their ads. They have even talked at length about games actually taking place in them, security issues, etc.

For sure eco issues and a "one world" theme have been present as well, but themes re ethnicity and diversity in Paris, new multi-ethnic communities, or modern developments in Paris have been largely lacking from what has hit the US or world media. Everything seems to start and end with La Tour, including their logo.

And the IOC read it this way as well, praising Paris' great historic tradition and LA's innovation and emphasis on trying to bring youth back to the Olympics. It may very well have been this thinking (moving from a sound historical tradition to a new world of innovation) that the IOC had in mind as their medium-term strategy.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Literally have no idea what you're talking about with London, but again, just because you miss things, doesn't mean they don't happen...
> 
> http://www.aipsmedia.com/2017/06/20...orld-refugee-day-olympics-olympic-games-unhcr
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/techfugees-partners-paris-2024-olympic-paralympic-bid-joséphine-goube
> http://www.paris2024.org/medias/presse/press_release_-_08032017.pdf


I was referencing the comment made by the Londoner above. You are right that I don't know anything about the PR strategies for the London bid and am happy to remove my comment if what he said is wrong and in fact diversity and immigration are strong sellers in London.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Baboulinet said:


> Yes but who cares ?
> 2024 olympics will be in Paris.
> 
> Fencing in the stunning Grand Palais
> ...


Voila, my point exactly. Notice the reference to events at the Grand Palais, Versailles, Longchamps and Roland-Garros (the infant here at about 100 but reference as "prestigious" not "new and exciting"). This was the constant theme and was effective. 

My point was not that it wasn't effective but that it is a shame that Paris could not point out its newer accomplishments (social diversity, tech, new media, new architecture, etc.) so as to attract the diminishing interest of younger people.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> It's hard to believe that you are arguing that Paris hasn't focused on the Eiffel Tower, Versailles, the Grand Palais, etc., in their ads.


Not saying that all all, I was making the point that really haven't focussed on that at the exclusion of everything else. I'm not even sure it's been the main focus, though it has been a major selling point of course. You could equally say LA gone the easy route by focussing on the sun/beach culture with their logo emphasising that, but that too wouldn't show the efforts LA has gone to in emphasising other aspects.



> I was referencing the comment made by the Londoner above. You are right that I don't know anything about the PR strategies for the London bid and am happy to remove my comment if what he said is wrong and immigration and in fact diversity and immigration are strong sellers in London.


Thing is, I'm not quite sure what OnwardsAndUpwards meant by that comment. London's strategy would maybe fail with the now more risk-averse IOC, but that would have more to do with the venue plan than the narrative. If we're actually transporting London's bid to today, Brexit would make things very tricky, but London is as responsible for that as California is for Trump, so it'd be a national issue impacting locally rather than a reflection of the city's view of itself. The major cities, just as in the US, are generally more liberal on these issues and that hasn't changed since 2005 even if nationally things have swung away from that in both our countries.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RobH said:


> London's strategy would maybe fail with the now more risk-averse IOC, but that would have more to do with the venue plan than the narrative. If we're actually transporting London's bid to today, Brexit would make things very tricky, but London is as responsible for that as California is for Trump, so it'd be a national issue impacting locally rather than a reflection of the city's view of itself. The major cities, just as in the US, are generally more liberal on these issues and that hasn't changed since 2005 even if nationally things have swung away from that in both our countries.



In terms of politics, I don't know exactly how a bid in 2009 for the 2012 games would be necessarily affected by current trends, including Brexit. 

However, Danny Boyle is presumably (or likely) a "luvvie," while Coe was a member of UK's Conservative Party. So the choices made by both of them for various aspects of 2012 have to be chalked up to their personal tastes. Not sure what Mike Lee's political persuasion is.

I hope that people like Casey Wasserman, Janet Evans, etc, will have far different preferences than those two people from 2012 had. 

If 2028 ends up with some of the major characteristics of 2012, I'll be really irritated and disappointed. Embarrassed too by how that would reflect indirectly on Los Angeles.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Danny Boyle had nothing to do with London's bid. Did you actually read my post before writing your usual stock response?


----------



## RuFFy (Aug 29, 2008)

pesto said:


> I guess the comment on PR logic didn't strike you.
> 
> It's an interesting point how different the two cities are in age, don't you think? When preparing a visual document, LA has no choice but to focus on images of things less than 100 years old (excluding mountains, oceans, etc.).
> 
> ...


I largely agree here. I'm not sure why Paris passed on such a good opportunity that could have helped fuel a more positive narrative to the general public. I believe Paris has huge public infrastructure projects that promise to connect parts of the city that provide new development opportunities and connectivity to underserved, poorer parts of the city. The athletes village will be directly connected to a rail expansion that is a part of that plan. I remember watching a video about the Grand Paris project (I may be wrong on that name) that had similarities to measure m and r in Los Angeles. In that video they talked about the project as one that would elevate Paris to a more cosmopolitan and connected city, specifically mentioning being more like London. I think Paris missed a huge opportunity there. That lifestyle is a direct pipeline to a very important Olympic demographic. Los Angeles effectively utilized these measures and changing of the city to wrap itself as cool, and new and were at the center of LA's bid. In Paris, not so much. But had Paris gone that route it would have perhaps left LA in the dust.


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

RobH said:


> Danny Boyle had nothing to do with London's bid.


I know. But most of the political assumptions and politicians who've been considered a part of Olympic bids, actual games and the IOC in general - and exaggerated as to their importance in the process - by onlookers have been made by people such as you.

However, you may not be among that crowd if you weren't so naive to have been shocked - shocked!, I tell you! - when Barack Obama, much less his wife who tagged along with him too - at the IOC's meeting for the 2016 games didn't result in pay dirt for Chicago and the US.

But your evoking 2012 did make me look up Sebastian Coe's political background. I actually thought he and Danny Boyle probably shared the same bad-funky hipster preferences when it comes to politics. But, of course, people's personal tastes transcend their politics.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> Not saying that all all, I was making the point that really haven't focussed on that at the exclusion of everything else. I'm not even sure it's been the main focus, though it has been a major selling point of course. You could equally say LA gone the easy route by focussing on the sun/beach culture with their logo emphasising that, but that too wouldn't show the efforts LA has gone to in emphasising other aspects.
> 
> None so blind....
> 
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RuFFy said:


> I largely agree here. I'm not sure why Paris passed on such a good opportunity that could have helped fuel a more positive narrative to the general public. I believe Paris has huge public infrastructure projects that promise to connect parts of the city that provide new development opportunities and connectivity to underserved, poorer parts of the city. The athletes village will be directly connected to a rail expansion that is a part of that plan. I remember watching a video about the Grand Paris project (I may be wrong on that name) that had similarities to measure m and r in Los Angeles. In that video they talked about the project as one that would elevate Paris to a more cosmopolitan and connected city, specifically mentioning being more like London. I think Paris missed a huge opportunity there. That lifestyle is a direct pipeline to a very important Olympic demographic. Los Angeles effectively utilized these measures and changing of the city to wrap itself as cool, and new and were at the center of LA's bid. In Paris, not so much. But had Paris gone that route it would have perhaps left LA in the dust.


Exactement mon ami. It's just plain blocking and tackling, not rocket science. Yet Paris chose otherwise (and some even deny that they did so, which is just goofiness!).


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/...cle_52f420cc-8c15-11e7-8775-7b17231ac254.html

An article regarding the effect of the Olympics on downtown LA (which is experiencing a major building boom and population growth).

One interesting aspect is that the whole Fig corridor between LA Live and Expo Park will be lined with a street fair featuring entertainment, art works and displays. And probably churros and Korean tacos. 

There will be over 8000 hotel rooms DT by then, but with the Purple and LAX Lines done, the hotels of Ktown, Beverly Center, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, NoHo and LAX area will also be in play (as will those in LB, South Bay and the Valley for those focusing on events local to those venues).

And, given the way things are now, there will be a security cordon around the whole DT area.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> I know. But most of the political assumptions and politicians who've been considered a part of Olympic bids, actual games and the IOC in general - and exaggerated as to their importance in the process - by onlookers have been made by people such as you.
> 
> However, you may not be among that crowd if you weren't so naive to have been shocked - shocked!, I tell you! - when Barack Obama, much less his wife who tagged along with him too - at the IOC's meeting for the 2016 games didn't result in pay dirt for Chicago and the US.
> 
> But your evoking 2012 did make me look up Sebastian Coe's political background. I actually thought he and Danny Boyle probably shared the same bad-funky hipster preferences when it comes to politics. But, of course, people's personal tastes transcend their politics.


Isn't there a new thread for your ramblings about prior Olympics that really have no connection to 2024?


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> Isn't there a new thread for your ramblings about prior Olympics that really have no connection to 2024?


You do realize Los Angeles gets 2028, so what do your ramblings about California have to do with Paris 2024?

Moreover, Paris is geographically very close to London. So the influence of 2012 may very easily spill over to the games of 2024 across the Channel. 

Also, the organizers of 2024 probably will keep in mind the last time France hosted an Olympics, the games of Albertville 1992. The past based on things like that could very well - and regrettably - influence the future.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> You do realize Los Angeles gets 2028, so what do your ramblings about California have to do with Paris 2024?
> 
> Moreover, Paris is geographically very close to London. So the influence of 2012 may very easily spill over to the games of 2024 across the Channel.
> 
> Also, the organizers of 2024 probably will keep in mind the last time France hosted an Olympics, the games of Albertville 1992. The past based on things like that could very well - and regrettably - influence the future.


Moderators? Sebastian Coe, Albertville, London, the UK Conservative Party in 2009. With a hope that LA does better tossed in as an afterthought.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> *You do realize Los Angeles gets 2028, so what do your ramblings about California have to do with Paris 2024?
> *
> Moreover, Paris is geographically very close to London. So the influence of 2012 may very easily spill over to the games of 2024 across the Channel.
> 
> Also, the organizers of 2024 probably will keep in mind the last time France hosted an Olympics, the games of Albertville 1992. The past based on things like that could very well - and regrettably - influence the future.


The plan is that until the vote both Games are being discussed here. Except by you.

Seriously, London and Paris are close together is a rationale for dragging in poor Sebby again? hno:


----------



## californiadreams (Jun 23, 2015)

pesto said:


> The plan is that until the vote both Games are being discussed here. Except by you.
> 
> Seriously, London and Paris are close together is a rationale for dragging in poor Sebby again? hno:


If you notice, Rob H raised the matter of a past bid involving London. Which was no less relevant than some of the other posters who've complained about you repeatedly trash taking about Paris 2024.

As for Sebastian Coe, he deserves to be talked about---as the type of head of an Olympic organizing committee that any host city should want to avoid at all costs. 

If someone like Casey Wasserman doesn't agree with that or isn't able to avoid being an LA-based clone of Coe - or a French clone of him for 2024 - then I don't expect 2028 in particular to turn out all that impressively.


.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

californiadreams said:


> If you notice, Rob H raised the matter of a past bid involving London. Which was no less relevant than some of the other posters who've complained about you repeatedly trash taking about Paris 2024.
> 
> As for Sebastian Coe, he deserves to be talked about---as the type of head of an Olympic organizing committee that any host city should want to avoid at all costs.
> 
> ...


I would never doubt that this is a fascinating discussion. :lol: 

But WRONG THREAD. It is really a discussion of your opinion of prior Games with an off-hand, "hope LA 2024 doesn't make the same mistakes". This does not make it relevant to 2024/28 any more than your saying "hope the Russians don't make the same mistakes" makes it relevant to FIFA 2018.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Programme of the IOC Session, Lima



> The latest schedule of the IOC Session shows the shortest ever election of Olympic host cities.
> 
> 
> LA and Paris were essentially confirmed as 2028 and 2024 hosts at the Extraordinary Session in Lausanne. (IOC)
> This is not surprising as the Session is all but a confirmation hearing for Paris and Los Angeles for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games. The two cities signed a tripartite agreement with the IOC in Lausanne at the Extraordinary Session this July, deflating the intrigue that typically accompanies the Session.


Article


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Programme of the IOC Session, Lima
> 
> Article


Interesting to see who comes in 3rd. :lol:


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

Today's the official day.  

IOC meeting in Lima, Peru......to make it official.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)




----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)




----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Today's the big day!! :cheers:



















For those interested, here is the schedule for today and how to watch the session live (times EST):



> Tune in tomorrow as the final city presentations and official IOC vote will be live streamed on the Olympic Channel on YouTube. The IOC Session will begin approximately 10 a.m. ET, with the Los Angeles Bid presentation and IOC vote scheduled to take place around 2 p.m. ET.
> 
> IOC Session Schedule | Wednesday, September 13, 2017
> 
> ...


http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Field-Ho...028-Final-Presentation-Official-IOC-Vote-Live

Olympic Youtube Channel


Also, Insidethegames is doing a Live Blog of the whole session. Exciting day :cheers:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

I'm picking Boston and Rome. Say, what?


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Here is a direct link to the IOC youtube stream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wQab6DaNGg

Paris is up first and currently presenting! LA will go in about 20 minutes.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)




----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

French former athlete and former minister Guy Drut .....Live ! :cheers:

.....and now, President Macron (in French :bowtie !! 


:happy:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Annea Hidalgo, our socialist mayor...has a terrible English accent...not surprising though from a Spanish Lady.


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

^^ I noticed that! Interesting to hear the mayor of Paris kick off her speech _en espanol_. Let's see what the mayor of _la ciudad de los angeles_ does! :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

And now we "Follow the Sun"...!


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

And now... LA! :cheers:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> Annea Hidalgo, our socialist mayor...has a terrible English accent...not surprising though from a Spanish Lady.


Es mas importante lo que dices que como lo dices.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Thanks LA for the French (co-official language of the IOC/Olympics :bowtie subtitles in the video...or maybe that's due to my YT parameters. :dunno:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

parcdesprinces said:


> ...or maybe that's due to my YT parameters. :dunno:


nope was on all the feeds as far as I can tell! :cheers:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Mayor of LA can speak French, and Spanish :hug:


:yes:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

I like your mayor! I want the same in Paris!!! Can't we exchange our mayors?


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Both presentations are done! (for LA, basically the same presentation as last time)

And now Bach is on stage, guess the vote is next!


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

C'est officiel/this is official! Champagne !!!!!!!!









:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

And... It's done!!

*Paris, France will host the Games of the XXXIII Summer Olympiad in 2024*

*Los Angeles, United States will host the Games of the XXXIV Summer Olympiad in 2028*






:banana:  :cheers:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

:cheer::cheer::cheer::cheer::cheer:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)




----------



## eVANDOpriyanto (Nov 1, 2011)

*Once Again, Congrats for Paris 2024 & LA 2028... :applause:*


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

time for two new threads


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)




----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> time for two new threads


Why don't just change its name/title?? 
I know Kenni is all for closing threads and then create new ones, but to me that's a pity since numerous of ourselves, SSC-users, have posted quite a few interesting messages in this thread, so why make them "unreachable" anymore? :dunno:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

*More pictures*


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> Why don't just change its name/title??
> I know Kenni is all for closing threads and then create new ones, but to me that's a pity since numerous of ourselves, SSC-users, have posted quite a few interesting messages in this thread, so why make them "unreachable" anymore? :dunno:


I agree; I think everyone is interested in what's going on in each and it's almost like we are Siamese Twins now. Or maybe blood brothers or kissin' cousins.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)




----------



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

Bad news for lovers of architecture and Olympism:

-The same cities,

-The same buildings, stadiums and much ephemeral architecture.

-Ceremonies that highlight values ​​and culture of great countries already known ..

-A process of 15 days for its own citizens, accustomed to large events, those who will complain about traffic and tourists ..

And that does not end here:

After London, Paris and LA, will come *Berlin 2036*, the centenary games and the reconciliation.

*Melbourne *also wants to be Olympian in 2040 and fears that *Sydney* will make him compete ... although *Sochi* will be removing rust from all his empty white elephants .. who knows ..

Latin America will be other games, and they will not give it to an economy like Buenos Aires ... who will it be? *Mexico 2044* ... Perhaps they will return to Ameria, but further north ... *Vancouver* or another opportunity to* Montréal*?

The games must return to Europe..CIO owes a few games to Rome *2048* ... although who says that London does not want its Centennial ..

Spectacularity, multiculturalism and the Olympic spirit, has died definitively today.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ :yawn:

ohno


----------



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ :yawn:
> 
> ohno


I come to mind a bad joke about the venue of the Paralympic Games and the place where Napoleon is buried ... :cheers::lol::nuts:


----------



## Union Man (Sep 25, 2009)

Now it's all official, can this thread be renamed to Paris 2024 and a new thread created for LA 2028?


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> Why don't just change its name/title??
> I know Kenni is all for closing threads and then create new ones, but to me that's a pity since numerous of ourselves, SSC-users, have posted quite a few interesting messages in this thread, so why make them "unreachable" anymore? :dunno:


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Union Man said:


> Now it's all official, can this thread be renamed to Paris 2024 and a new thread created for LA 2028?


That's a pretty good idea! Seems to be the best solution... each Olympics gets its own dedicated thread as they should, while at the same time preserving all the 2024 talk from bidding stage to Games in one thread :cheers:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

slipperydog said:


>


:yes:! grouphug


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

Union Man said:


> Now it's all official, can this thread be renamed to Paris 2024 and a new thread created for LA 2028?


I suggest two new ones be opened. Why? so that the information isn't lost as this was the last candidate cities thread. 

So, please....a friend from France please open your oficial host city 2024 thread, and one f us from LA the oficial host city 2028.


----------

