On to 2028

[marvin martian]

The Homeless Olympic…

… shopping cart 100 meter dash and cardboard box high jump.

Team looting

Asian assault course

Men's tampon trials

AK-47 biathlon (shooting and looting)

Sidewalk feces slalom (long course)

Should be exciting!

 

[Couchpotato]

It’s more than that. It is investing in facilities that have absolutely no use outside of the Olympics
Swimming Stadiums
Bicycle Velodrome
Canoe/Kayak course

These facilities are abandoned as soon as the Olympics are over

This is exactly my point. Plus the housing for all the people associated with the Olympics all the infrastructure required to support all those people etc. What does the IOC make from each Olympics? I would even be fine with there being some sort of cost for each country to participate in the Olympics for building and maintaining facilities.

The IOC was paid over 7 billion dollars by NBC to air the Olympics. Sounds like seed money for them to purchase land and start building an Olympic village

 

[rightwinger]

The IOC was paid over 7 billion dollars by NBC to air the Olympics. Sounds like seed money for them to purchase land and start building an Olympic village

That is the glory of the IOC
They do not have to actually DO anything.
They just accept bribes to award Olympics, draw lavish salaries and perks and sit back and make Olympic cities do all the work

 

[Couchpotato]

True. This is why you need to rotate it through cities that already have the infrastructure in place (for the most part). They also need to encourage cities to partner with other municipalities in the region. In 96, soccer matches were played not only in Atlanta but also in Miami, DC and in Alabama for example.

Or the IOC which was paid over 7 billion dollars for the broadcast rights can just fund the building of the sites. Why should the taxpayer have to pay a dime in order for the IOC to make 7 billion? Can you explain why it's better that the host country foots the bill to build stadiums, housing, and all the infrastructure associated with the Olympics so that it can all be left to rot (for the most part) once the 2 weeks of the Olympics is over? How is that better than the IOC just purchasing property building it all once and then maintaining it, which would lead to better facilities, at an exponentially lower cost.

 

[candycorn]

It’s more than that. It is investing in facilities that have absolutely no use outside of the Olympics
Swimming Stadiums
Bicycle Velodrome
Canoe/Kayak course

These facilities are abandoned as soon as the Olympics are over

That isn’t true in every case although it is true enough in some cases. Which, again, is why they need to stop taking bids from every city and limit it to a rotation of cities with proven capacity. Then, as a city like, just to name one, Egypt ascend and can put together a bid that makes sense in the ways I described in the OP, they get considered.

 

[candycorn]

Or the IOC which was paid over 7 billion dollars for the broadcast rights can just fund the building of the sites. Why should the taxpayer have to pay a dime in order for the IOC to make 7 billion? Can you explain why it's better that the host country foots the bill to build stadiums, housing, and all the infrastructure associated with the Olympics so that it can all be left to rot (for the most part) once the 2 weeks of the Olympics is over?

For the fourth time, this is why the IOC needs to stop the practice of having cities that have no plan for sustainability bid on the games.

How is that better than the IOC just purchasing property building it all once and then maintaining it, which would lead to better facilities, at an exponentially lower cost.

It probably isn’t a good idea to have the IOC buying massive amounts of property.

The LA28 games is being privately funded.

 

[Couchpotato]

That isn’t true in every case although it is true enough in some cases. Which, again, is why they need to stop taking bids from every city and limit it to a rotation of cities with proven capacity. Then, as a city like, just to name one, Egypt ascend and can put together a bid that makes sense in the ways I described in the OP, they get considered.

So instead of having 1 site we will have a rotation of 5 sites? 10 sites? How does that lead to better facilities or make any fiscal sense? A city is supposed to maintain a site for the 20 years in between their turn to host the games? That wont happen. It will fall to disrepair and then they will just spend as much and maybe more bringing it back when their turn comes around again as it would to just build an entire new site. 40 years? Forget it.

 

[Couchpotato]

For the fourth time, this is why the IOC needs to stop the practice of having cities that have no plan for sustainability bid on the games.

It probably isn’t a good idea to have the IOC buying massive amounts of property.

The LA28 games is being privately funded.

Thats the exception not the rule.

 

[candycorn]

So instead of having 1 site we will have a rotation of 5 sites? 10 sites? How does that lead to better facilities or make any fiscal sense? A city is supposed to maintain a site for the 20 years in between their turn to host the games?

Ummm no.

Like in 1984, when they built the aquatic center, it was on the UCLA campus (perhaps it was USC). The pool was used by the UCLA swim team for decades (and is still being used I believe).

The velodrome that was built in 1982 for the Games was used until 2003. It was demolished and upgraded and will be used in 2028. In non-olympic years (and probably during it), it’s hosted training, NCAA competitions championships, World championships, etc...

I don’t know if you’re being moronic on purpose or not but this is what I mean by existing infrastructure; its used after the Games. You build that same velodrome in Qatar, you don’t end up getting the NCAA championships, because muslim nations don’t have a large female contingent (if any) in their colleges, you get smaller events. So that would be an example of what the IOC should view with a jaundiced eye. Hence my repeated discussion of sustainability.

As for the upkeep between the games, If UCLA/USC doesn’t need a new aquatic center, for example--I’m not sure if they are building one or not--one doesn’t get built. Perhaps Pepperdine or UCSB need one? The Softball diamond in the OP, for example, is up and running in OKC. IT won’t be built and will be used well before and well after the games.

That wont happen. It will fall to disrepair and then they will just spend as much and maybe more bringing it back when their turn comes around again as it would to just build an entire new site. 40 years? Forget it.

Umm...you’re not thinking.

 

[rightwinger]

Ummm no.

Like in 1984, when they built the aquatic center, it was on the UCLA campus (perhaps it was USC). The pool was used by the UCLA swim team for decades (and is still being used I believe).

The velodrome that was built in 1982 for the Games was used until 2003. It was demolished and upgraded and will be used in 2028. In non-olympic years (and probably during it), it’s hosted training, NCAA competitions championships, World championships, etc...

I don’t know if you’re being moronic on purpose or not but this is what I mean by existing infrastructure; its used after the Games. You build that same velodrome in Qatar, you don’t end up getting the NCAA championships, because muslim nations don’t have a large female contingent (if any) in their colleges, you get smaller events. So that would be an example of what the IOC should view with a jaundiced eye. Hence my repeated discussion of sustainability.

As for the upkeep between the games, If UCLA/USC doesn’t need a new aquatic center, for example--I’m not sure if they are building one or not--one doesn’t get built. Perhaps Pepperdine or UCSB need one? The Softball diamond in the OP, for example, is up and running in OKC. IT won’t be built and will be used well before and well after the games.

Umm...you’re not thinking.

LA is capable of hosting the games with minimal investment in new structures

They still have the original Colosseum from the 1932 games as well as the Rose Bowl, NFL Stadiums, Staples Center and other college facilities that can host lesser events

They also have substantial hotel and restaurant facilities to handle the influx of visitors

I do worry about local roads and highways handling additional traffic

 

[candycorn]

LA is capable of hosting the games with minimal investment in new structures

They still have the original Colosseum from the 1932 games as well as the Rose Bowl, NFL Stadiums, Staples Center and other college facilities that can host lesser events

They also have substantial hotel and restaurant facilities to handle the influx of visitors

I do worry about local roads and highways handling additional traffic

Yeah, this is what I’m talking about. There are perhaps 12 cities around the world that are almost turn-key ready. As time goes on, of course, other cities join that group.

I equate it to this;

The national association of Realtors has a convention every year I guess. They “award” a city their presence. I don’t know what their criteria is but I really doubt they will have it in, for example because I was there the other day, Winslow, Arizona. Why? Because the existing infrastructure isn’t there. Winslow may want the games but they are just not physically capable of hosting 8-10 thousand realtors.

The Olympics have a “convention” if you will, every four years. They “award” a city their presence. Their stated criteria seems to be one thing..a big bag of money from the organizing committees of the cities and they don’t seem to care about the citizens of the cities who will have to pay for the scaling-up.

So it makes sense to limit the bids to cities (I prefer nations and even regions myself) that already have the scale.

 

[candycorn]

Thats the exception not the rule.

You’re probably right about this. That needs to change. This is why I think the IOC really needs to limit the bidding to cities that have a sound plan, just not a big bag of money.

 

[rightwinger]

You’re probably right about this. That needs to change. This is why I think the IOC really needs to limit the bidding to cities that have a sound plan, just not a big bag of money.

A large portion of that money goes to IOC Officials

 

[marvin martian]

LA is capable of hosting the games with minimal investment in new structures

They still have the original Colosseum from the 1932 games as well as the Rose Bowl, NFL Stadiums, Staples Center and other college facilities that can host lesser events

They also have substantial hotel and restaurant facilities to handle the influx of visitors

I do worry about local roads and highways handling additional traffic

Oh don't worry, the mayor of LA said it's going to be a "car-free" Olympics.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh don't worry, the mayor of LA said it's going to be a "car-free" Olympics.

I think it will have to be
LA needs to invest in light rail or monorail between parking areas and major Olympic venues
Keep the Olympic central area as pedestrian only

 

[candycorn]

A large portion of that money goes to IOC Officials

Oh yeah....

Barcelona was a vanity play for Juan Antonio Samaranch. As I recall, he had a vision that his health would be failing near 1992 so he wanted to see the games in Spain.

 

[marvin martian]

I think it will have to be
LA needs to invest in light rail or monorail between parking areas and major Olympic venues
Keep the Olympic central area as pedestrian only

How about they get the piles of human shit off the sidewalks first, then we can talk about monorails?

 

[rightwinger]

How about they get the piles of human shit off the sidewalks first, then we can talk about monorails?

Seems they will do both

 

[marvin martian]

Seems they will do both

Right.

LOL

 

[rightwinger]

Right.

LOL

Any other concerns Skippy?

Good to see you are so concerned with the plight of the homeless