Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what the committee has said for rejecting LA in the past. And the US doesn't want cities doing it over and over again. LA does receive more international tourism, but it owns the media industry, what do you expect? It portrays itself a lot. In terms of landmarks however, and actual places, monument in San Francisco and Washington DC are more globally recognized. Besides, maybe, the Hollywood sign.
I'm just trying to figure out how you're making statements like SF and DC would "attract more foreign viewers" and DC and SF are "more globally recognized". I'm guessing you can back up these claims with facts and statistics? Where's the link?
The Hollywood sign is not our only landmark...very typical of someone who knows little about Los Angeles.
I'm just trying to figure out how you're making statements like SF and DC would "attract more foreign viewers" and DC and SF are "more globally recognized". I'm guessing you can back up these claims with facts and statistics? Where's the link?
Los Angeles only has 'Disneyland', which is a themepark and 6th most toured place. San Francisco's attractions including the bridge and port areas are the eight most toured, S.F. also has the world's most iconic bridge and California's most recognizable landmark. Washington D.C. is the fifth.
Los Angeles merely has more tourists going to it for what I believe to be 'media' reasons. Disneyland, Hollywood, and some movie studious. Not exactly the prime idea of 'landmarks' the Olympic committee is looking for when thinking about iconic cities to hold the Olympics.
Simply, the Olympics doesn't want to look like 'more of the same', which is why hosting in LA would only be done as a 'backfall/ Plan B' thing. There's nothing new in LA that would warrant a return. Meanwhile, California's more iconic city and the Nation's capital seems like good choice if its hosted in the US. Unless the Olympic committee wants people to go to Disneyland while they're going to the Olympics, its landmarks make little sense to rely on.
Do you really think LA is more globally recognizable than San Francisco or Washington D.C.? Again, besides the Hollywood sign? You show people a skyline of houses in LA, or the skyline, and you think they'll recognize it faster than the Lincoln Memorial or the White House and the Trans-America pyramid or the Golden Gate Bridge?
Los Angeles only has 'Disneyland', which is a themepark and 6th most toured place. San Francisco's attractions including the bridge and port areas are the eight most toured, S.F. also has the world's most iconic bridge and California's most recognizable landmark. Washington D.C. is the fifth.
Los Angeles merely has more tourists going to it for what I believe to be 'media' reasons. Disneyland, Hollywood, and some movie studious. Not exactly the prime idea of 'landmarks' the Olympic committee is looking for when thinking about iconic cities to hold the Olympics.
Simply, the Olympics doesn't want to look like 'more of the same', which is why hosting in LA would only be done as a 'backfall/ Plan B' thing. There's nothing new in LA that would warrant a return. Meanwhile, California's more iconic city and the Nation's capital seems like good choice if its hosted in the US. Unless the Olympic committee wants people to go to Disneyland while they're going to the Olympics, its landmarks make little sense to rely on.
Do you really think LA is more globally recognizable than San Francisco or Washington D.C.? Again, besides the Hollywood sign? You show people a skyline of houses in LA, or the skyline, and you think they'll recognize it faster than the Lincoln Memorial or the White House and the Trans-America pyramid or the Golden Gate Bridge?
Disneyland isn't even located in Los Angeles, what are you talking about?
You merely gave me a list of tourist attractions, from Wikipedia at that. Where's the evidence that foreigners recognize landmarks in DC and SF more? You speak as if LA has never hosted the Games before. We've hosted the Games twice, the Committee clearly saw something worthy in LA.
I never said LA is more globally recognized than SF and DC. I don't have facts that would back up that claim. I said the Hollywood sign isn't the only recognizable "image" of Los Angeles. There's DTLA, the Walk of Fame, the Chinese Theatre, Capitol Records, Griffith Park, the Coliseum, Walt Disney Concert Hall, the Santa Monica Pier, etc. I can go on, but I think I've made my point.
Disneyland isn't even located in Los Angeles, what are you talking about?
You merely gave me a list of tourist attractions, from Wikipedia at that. Where's the evidence that foreigners recognize landmarks in DC and SF more?
I never said LA is more globally recognized than SF and DC. I don't have facts that would back up that claim. I said the Hollywood sign isn't the only recognizable "image" of Los Angeles. There's DTLA, the Walk of Fame, the Chinese Theatre, Capitol Records, Griffith Park, the Coliseum, Walt Disney Concert Hall, the Santa Monica Pier, etc. I can go on, but I think I've made my point.
TransAmerica ranks 9th in world's most recognizable skyscrapers.
Okay, maybe not Washington DC as much, but it's still the nation's capital with the historical Government landmarks.
Point is, LA isn't as recognizable. Its recognizable, more so in name and the fact that it owns the media for the world to see, not by the places located in the city.
TransAmerica ranks 9th in world's most recognizable skyscrapers.
Okay, maybe not Washington DC as much, but it's still the nation's capital with the historical Government landmarks.
Point is, LA isn't as recognizable. Its recognizable, more so in name and the fact that it owns the media for the world to see, not by the places located in the city.
Also, Disneyland is in the LA Metro region.
These are opinionated articles, I'm talking REAL facts.
Los Angeles is very much recognizable. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have made the short list and it wouldn't have hosted the games twice already (not saying image is all that matters to the Committee).
Disneyland is not considered a Los Angeles landmark. It is in Anaheim, located in Orange County.
These are opinionated articles, I'm talking REAL facts.
Los Angeles is very much recognizable. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have made the short list and it wouldn't have hosted the games twice already (not saying image is all that matters to the Committee).
Disneyland is not considered a Los Angeles landmark. It is in Anaheim, located in Orange County.
They're polled and surveyed, not opinion.
I'm not saying LA isn't recognizable, but what the committee is looking for is four things: revenue, recognizably, legacy and capability. LA gets the Olympics in the past because it was big, and it was a major city with much wealth. But times are changing, and the committee wants America to have a more relevant city hosting.
LA is a little too suburban and overdone. This isn't my opinion really, its quite obvious when you look at how the committees bid with cities.
I'm not saying LA isn't recognizable, but what the committee is looking for is four things: revenue, recognizably, legacy and capability. LA gets the Olympics in the past because it was big, and it was a major city with much wealth. But times are changing, and the committee wants America to have a more relevant city hosting.
LA is a little too suburban and overdone. This isn't my opinion really, its quite obvious when you look at how the committees bid with cities.
How do we know they're polled with foreigners. On one list, the Golden Gate Bridge comes in third. On another, it comes in tenth...and they're not opinionated?
Now you're saying Los Angeles isn't relevant enough to host???? Wow. If we weren't relevant enough, they wouldn't have written us a letter asking us to bid and we wouldn't have made the short list. I'd love for the Olympics to come to Los Angeles over San Francisco (only because I live in Los Angeles), but I'm not going to say ridiculous things like San Francisco isn't recognizable and isn't relevant. After that statement, I realize you're just another LA hater who makes absurd statements.
Good day, sir. I won't be going back and forth with you after that statement.
How do we know they're polled with foreigners. On one list, the Golden Gate Bridge comes in third. On another, it comes in tenth...and they're not opinionated?
Now you're saying Los Angeles isn't relevant enough to host???? Wow. If we weren't relevant enough, they wouldn't have written us a letter asking us to bid and we wouldn't have made the short list. I'd love for the Olympics to come to Los Angeles over San Francisco (only because I live in Los Angeles), but I'm not going to say ridiculous things like San Francisco isn't recognizable and isn't relevant. After that statement, I realize you're just another LA hater who makes absurd statements.
Good day, sir. I won't be going back and forth with you after that statement.
You really think Travel and Leisure made up statistics to keep Los Angeles down? Don't flatter yourself, they wrote letters to 30 other cities along with Los Angeles asking them all to bid. All I think the other poster was trying to say is, unlike other countries, America has several large and dynamic cities capable of hosting the Olympics, so why would they give it to LA for the 3rd time when other cities are just as capable of hosting and have more to gain from hosting? San Francisco, because it's the tech capital of the world, is probably the second most relevant city in the US after NYC right now. It would be a great city to host. The only problem with SF is that there isn't much room to host the Olympics. DC would also be a great city to host with several areas of the city being revitalized where the Olympic village could be. The only problem with DC is that because it is owned by the federal government, Congress would most likely have to appropriate funds to help build the village, which is probably something they wouldn't be keen on doing, seeing that our debt is so huge. Boston could be good, but it could be really bad too. I might be slightly biased, but I think because of it's location and having more facilities capable of hosting than any other city in the nation, DC has the best shot. But you never know.
]You really think Travel and Leisure made up statistics to keep Los Angeles down? [/b]Don't flatter yourself, they wrote letters to 30 other cities along with Los Angeles asking them all to bid. All I think the other poster was trying to say is, unlike other countries, America has several large and dynamic cities capable of hosting the Olympics, so why would they give it to LA for the 3rd time when other cities are just as capable of hosting and have more to gain from hosting? San Francisco, because it's the tech capital of the world, is probably the second most relevant city in the US after NYC right now. It would be a great city to host. The only problem with SF is that there isn't much room to host the Olympics. DC would also be a great city to host with several areas of the city being revitalized where the Olympic village could be. The only problem with DC is that because it is owned by the federal government, Congress would most likely have to appropriate funds to help build the village, which is probably something they wouldn't be keen on doing, seeing that our debt is so huge. Boston could be good, but it could be really bad too. I might be slightly biased, but I think because of it's location and having more facilities capable of hosting than any other city in the nation, DC has the best shot. But you never know.
Yes!!!! You would think Providence, Rhode Island is more cultural than NYC reading T & L. That publication is a joke.
You really think Travel and Leisure made up statistics to keep Los Angeles down? Don't flatter yourself, they wrote letters to 30 other cities along with Los Angeles asking them all to bid. All I think the other poster was trying to say is, unlike other countries, America has several large and dynamic cities capable of hosting the Olympics, so why would they give it to LA for the 3rd time when other cities are just as capable of hosting and have more to gain from hosting? San Francisco, because it's the tech capital of the world, is probably the second most relevant city in the US after NYC right now. It would be a great city to host. The only problem with SF is that there isn't much room to host the Olympics. DC would also be a great city to host with several areas of the city being revitalized where the Olympic village could be. The only problem with DC is that because it is owned by the federal government, Congress would most likely have to appropriate funds to help build the village, which is probably something they wouldn't be keen on doing, seeing that our debt is so huge. Boston could be good, but it could be really bad too. I might be slightly biased, but I think because of it's location and having more facilities capable of hosting than any other city in the nation, DC has the best shot. But you never know.
Did I say they were making up the statistics? We were specifically talking about stats in regards to foreigners, and I asked how we would know if that info is coming straight from foreigners. I song know what you're talking about. I'm aware they sent letters to multiple cities... You missed my point in writing that they sent one to Los Angeles. I mentioned the letter because the other poster was saying LA wasn't good enough to be chosen, and so I brought up the letter. I wasn't trying to boast and brag about Los Angeles. I NEVER said SF and DC shouldn't host, so get off my back in regards to that.
What do you mean why would they give it to Los Angeles? If they weren't considering the city, it would be off the list. ALL the cities, including Los Angeles and the foreign ones, are capable of hosting, so you don't flatter yourself. The number of times clearly doesn't matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
