Eh. I don't think so for three reasons.Has to be pretty hosed, right about now.
Yeah, I think the Olympic selection committee will get along famously with Trump.Eh. I don't think so for three reasons.
1. The vote isn't until September.
2. Trump may not be president in September
3. The US could just bribe the IOC for the olympics like everyone else does.
Really the only infrastructure left from the last olympics is the colosseum and even that is going to be retrofitted should LA get the olympicsHow much of the 1984 infrastructure could be repurposed for 2024? Would it be appreciably more than 0%?
The USA could host the World Cup at the drop of a hat because of our NFL and College Football stadiums. The same isn't necessarily true of the summer olympics - not a ton of demand for a velodrome - but it's gotta be true to at least some degree.
L.A. Has a modern indoor velodrome built in 2004, independent of any Olympic Games or bid*...but let's stick to the "Velodromes are chronic 'white elephants' narrative, because people just believe it....not a ton of demand for a velodrome - but it's gotta be true to at least some degree.
Technically true but misleading--the Olympics in general were critical to the financing. Velo Sports Center was built in cooperation with the USOC and USA Cycling as the national training center (as well as the Paralympic training site). It's a unique case--indeed it's the only Olympic-quality indoor velodrome in the nation--because USA Cycling does need exactly 1 facility to train in. If velodromes were making money, there'd be more built.L.A. Has a modern indoor velodrome built in 2004, independent of any Olympic Games or bid*...but let's stick to the "Velodromes are chronic 'white elephants' narrative, because people just believe it.
It will hurt the bid no doubt. Selecting the winning city isn't based on technical factors, it's an emotional, relationship based decision. The selection of cities like Sochi, Rio and Athens should tell you all you need to know about the importance of having the best bid in terms of ticking the official boxes around the relevant qualifications. So Trump will hurt b/c half the voters are European and he's busy alienating them.
It's a shame too, b/c LA is uniquely qualified to profitably host the games. All of the infrastructure is built - no white elephants like in other cities. The sponsorship revenue will set records b/c of the location in the US and bid leadership that is, suffice it to say, pretty savvy about how that market operates. All of the transit infrastructure that cities have committed to in recent Olympiads is already funded per a 71% majority for a $120B ballot initiative last year. Boston was a bad idea at the time and more so in retrospect. Having to invest in significant infrastructure funded by a skeptical populace is not a promising combo for winning the bid, let alone executing the games in a sustainable manner.
LA would make money on those games and should be the clear choice for an org that needs a safe pair of hands at this point. But I'd be surprised if Paris doesn't win unless something changes with DJT.
It's stuff like this that makes me think that the rest of the world is really right about us being uneducated fools.It's a shame too, b/c LA is uniquely qualified to profitably host the games. All of the infrastructure is built - no white elephants like in other cities.
I don't know at you need to turn this into jingoism/stupidity. Paris has submitted a proposal with an infrastructure estimate of 3 billion euros (around $3.2 billion at today's rates). LA's bid is budgeted at around $1.4 billion. Paris unquestionably has more building to do (aquatics, village, etc.).It's stuff like this that makes me think that the rest of the world is really right about us being uneducated fools.
While LA has most of the infrastructure in place, this is not unique. There are a few other cities in the world that have that stuff too . . . and one of them is a large city in France.
LA has better arenas and the baseball stadiums. Paris has better options for the rest of the sports. Stade de France is better than LA's Colosseum, Roland Garros is better than StubHub Tennis Center, the French national velodrome is better than LA's VELO Sports Center, etc. The new stadium in Inglewood will probably be better than whatever PSG does with Parc des Princes, but it should be a fairly close fight and the Inglewood stadium will probably only be used for the ceremonies anyway.
LA's budget does not include security costs paid by the feds, both bids will use temporary aquatics centers, Paris will likely use a private sector development project for the village, et al. Moreover even if LA's bid is marginally cheaper than that of Paris, it is not really a selling point since both of them would be very affordable. If LA has 92% of what it needs in place and Paris has 90% the difference does not matter. What the IOC wants to avoid is another Athens or Rio spectacle of white elephants.I don't know at you need to turn this into jingoism/stupidity. Paris has submitted a proposal with an infrastructure estimate of 3 billion euros (around $3.2 billion at today's rates). LA's bid is budgeted at around $1.4 billion. Paris unquestionably has more building to do (aquatics, village, etc.).
Wait, is this actually a thing? It's been a few years since Ive been there, but the last thing Paris strikes me as needing is more Metro lines. They're small and old but they cover every inch of the city. Short of NYC, I've always thought it to have the most comprehensive coverage of any major city. Is this about new locations for Olympic structures that are outside the current grid?Paris 2028 gives Paris more time to finish their additional subway lines, have a few marginal racists die off, and minimize riots or terrorist threats to the games. They also have far more infrastructure to build.
There should be betting lines for this. And there are. Mid-market price has Paris at 1.64/1 (38%), Los Angeles 4.7/1 (18%), Budapest 6/1 (14%, no shorting option available), Hamburg and Rome longshots.
Wait, is this actually a thing? It's been a few years since Ive been there, but the last thing Paris strikes me as needing is more Metro lines. They're small and old but they cover every inch of the city. Short of NYC, I've always thought it to have the most comprehensive coverage of any major city. Is this about new locations for Olympic structures that are outside the current grid?
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/feb/12/paris-23-billion-euros-grand-express-metro-expansion-unify-cityThe Grand Paris Express
As part of the “Grand Paris” strategy to better connect the French capital’s banlieues with its centre and manage the city more inclusively, work is underway on “the most ambitious new subway project in the Western world,” according to the Atlantic. The Grand Paris Express will expand the century-old Métro system to include four new lines, 68 stations and more than 120 miles of track.
The expansion, which has been costed at approximately €26bn, is expected to increase the metro’s ridership by almost 40%. It’s also hoped that the project will reduce Paris’s traffic problems and improve connections – both physically and socially – between the suburban banlieues and the central area within the Boulevard Périphérique ring road. Travel between different banlieues – which currently sometimes requires going into central Paris and back out again – should also be made easier.
“Not even one in five of the region’s residents live inside the French capital’s boundaries,” Grabar writes. “The region’s transportation system hasn’t caught up to this reality.” While metro stations abound within Paris, the communities beyond the Boulevard Périphérique are poorly served by either the Métro or RER rail network.
The project is due to be completed by 2030.
After floating this potential outcome, both Paris and LA organizing committees say that are fine with this as long as they get the 2024 games. Both say 2028 isn't an option.And now Bach has publicly floated that trial balloon (simultaneous awarding of '24 and '28 games) and has instructed the IOC VPs to explore it seriously. The fact that he's put that out in public makes it pretty much a fait accompli, IMO. Even though I'm apparently just a jingoistic idiot, it's clear that the IOC couldn't afford to piss off either of these two uniquely qualified cities.
Only questions now, as mentioned above, is who gets '28 and what sweeteners does the IOC offer them.
It may not be the city directly that gets the "compensation", but rather the national Olympic Committee of the compromising party...It's been pretty clear for a while that the only questions of interest are who gets '24 and what does the other city get in compensation from the IOC.
Maybe a little in it for the USOC (if LA goes to 28) but the costs and risks will be at the city level, so that's where the lion's share of any relief should flow to.It may not be the city directly that gets the "compensation", but rather the national Olympic Committee of the compromising party...
Los Angeles has reached an agreement with Olympic leaders on terms that will pave the way for hosting the Summer Games in 2028 instead of 2024, according to a source close to the negotiation.
It has been expected that L.A. would agree to go second, if only because local bid officials expressed a willingness to consider the option. Paris officials, by contrast, had consistently pushed back against waiting another four years.
Details of the agreement were not yet available, so it remained unclear to what extent LA 2024 was able to achieve significant concessions, such as additional funding for operations and youth programs in the city.
Under the terms of the deal, the IOC will advance funds to the Los Angeles organizing committee to recognize the extended planning period and to increase youth sports programs leading up to the Games. The IOC contribution could exceed $2 billion, according to LA officials. That figure takes into account the estimated value of existing sponsor agreements that would be renewed, as well as potential new marketing deals.