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.
Hol up Hol up Hol up..... 'Wouldnt extra olympic venues already be in place'? Why?
We already have venues for all of our sports teams and college teams. I dont understand this part tof your comment LA has venues in part because its already hosted the games, sprawls for 10,000 square miles and was building new stadiums at the time anyway....
Gillette, TD Garden (recently voted best arena in the NBA by media poll) and Fenway are some of the best/most famous venues in sports. Why would we be looking to build new ones for no reason? Two of those venues were less than 20 years old when the bid was being discussed...
we just keep 3 Olympic quality arenas on deck just in case the IOC wants to have a cup of coffee? Nnnnnaw....
but also i dont think theres a city that people didn't know of that they then knew about because of the Olympics. Maybe Atlanta but Atlanta in 1996 is in no way comparable to Boston in 2015 or 2024. It was wiiiide open land all over and in need of a Boston and it was an opportunity for the US to do some racial equity/justice healing PR.
So Los Angeles sprawls for a large area? Well, that's a new take I've never heard before, let me go do some research...
Oh wait, Boston's urban area (where Olympic venues overwhelmingly would be located) actually "sprawls" out to a larger area than Los Angeles with a drastically lower density (4.3 million in 1870 sq mi vs. 12 million in 1740 sq mi).
For stuff like shooting and equestrian, they'd have all of New England to use if they wanted. Is converting existing waterways and common areas into Olympic venues really that heavy of a lift for a supposed global sports capital?
Also, if a city does build an Olympics specific venue and is unable to monetize it after, does that say more about the city or the Olympics?
So Los Angeles sprawls for a large area? Well, that's a new take I've never heard before, let me go do some research...
Oh wait, Boston's urban area (where Olympic venues overwhelmingly would be located) actually "sprawls" out to a larger area than Los Angeles with a drastically lower density (4.3 million in 1870 sq mi vs. 12 million in 1740 sq mi).
For stuff like shooting and equestrian, they'd have all of New England to use if they wanted. Is converting existing waterways and common areas into Olympic venues really that heavy of a lift for a supposed global sports capital?
Also, if a city does build an Olympics specific venue and is unable to monetize it after, does that say more about the city or the Olympics?
fam.....los angeles CSA is 34,000 sqaure miles. So 5 Massachusetts'. Or 3x our CSA. The urban Area is 2300 square miles Bostons is 1650 square miles .
You are known world wide for urban sprawl. Massachusetts's basically the opposite of LA as its very low density outside of the central city to the point of exurban and not really sprawl. There are basically. no subdivisions and the like. Sprawl for most of us just means large land area.
Los Angeles has long been famous for its sprawl, but this has to do more with its status in history as the "poster child" of large cities that grew up with suburban-style patterns of development, rather than how it ranks in sprawl among American metro areas today, now that suburban and exurban-style development is present across the country.[16] The Los Angeles–Orange County metro area was the most densely populated "urbanized area" (as defined by the United States Census Bureau) in the United States in 2000, with 7,068 inhabitants per square mile (2,729/km2).[17] For comparison, the "New York–Newark" Urbanized Area had a population density of 5,309 per square mile (2,050/km2).
Cmon now.
The water ways- i know LA doesn't really have em- but they gets used for a lot of things. That being said we would be able to avail some water ways like we do for the Head of the Charles.
I think the issues come from the Stadium venue that was mentioned in my comment that you glazed over.
I'm fine with Seattle being excluded, but it's a proven NBA city that simply didn't want to subsidize the last owner, who clearly wanted to take the team away anyway.
I'm waiting for the day we finally get the CHAZ/CHOP Supersonics..
fam.....los angeles CSA is 34,000 sqaure miles. So 5 Massachusetts'. Or 3x our CSA. The urban Area is 2300 square miles Bostons is 1650 square miles .
You are known world wide for urban sprawl. Massachusetts's basically the opposite of LA as its very low density outside of the central city to the point of exurban and not really sprawl. There are basically. no subdivisions and the like. Sprawl for most of us just means large land area.
Los Angeles has long been famous for its sprawl, but this has to do more with its status in history as the "poster child" of large cities that grew up with suburban-style patterns of development, rather than how it ranks in sprawl among American metro areas today, now that suburban and exurban-style development is present across the country.[16] The Los Angeles–Orange County metro area was the most densely populated "urbanized area" (as defined by the United States Census Bureau) in the United States in 2000, with 7,068 inhabitants per square mile (2,729/km2).[17] For comparison, the "New York–Newark" Urbanized Area had a population density of 5,309 per square mile (2,050/km2).
Cmon now.
The water ways- i know LA doesn't really have em- but they gets used for a lot of things. That being said we would be able to avail some water ways like we do for the Head of the Charles.
I think the issues come from the Stadium venue that was mentioned in my comment that you glazed over.
Other than equestrian and shooting, Olympic venues were overwhelmingly confined to that area, and most people familiar with metro Los Angeles know that its flanked on on three sides by cities denser than Los Angeles itself (Alhambra, Long Beach, Inglewood, Santa Monica, Huntington Park, South Gate, Hawthorne and others).
Compare that with cities that border Boston like Newton or Watertown, and its becomes clear that the opposite of what's being asserted here is true!
Los Angeles know that its flanked on on three sides by cities denser than Los Angeles itself (Alhambra, Long Beach, Inglewood, Santa Monica, Huntington Park, South Gate, Hawthorne and others).
Compare that with cities that border Boston like Newton or Watertown, and its becomes clear that the opposite of what's being asserted here is true!
my good sir...Cambridge and Everett Somerville Chelsea are all denser than Boston and directly abut it.
idk what accounts for the difference but half of boston's "urbanized area" (maybe that is different than urban area?) is literally forest with no sewage systems or roads. Or like this
and its all incorporated land and much of it is state forests.
my good sir...Cambridge and Everett Somerville Chelsea are all denser than Boston and directly abut it.
idk what accounts for the difference but half of boston's "urbanized area" (maybe that is different than urban area?) is literally forest with no sewage systems or roads. Or like this
and its all incorporated land and much of it is state forests.
Great, but Los Angeles has multiple cities whose population crosses the 100,000 mark that abut or are very near the city and are denser-Downey, El Monte, Inglewood, Long Beach, Norwalk, and then probably about two dozen in the 50-100,000 range denser than the core city.
The entire hater "sprawl" narrative that's really popular on this forum revolves around the premise that people in the real world are walking around and thinking Los Angeles and San Bernardino are joined at the hip as a singular enitity. I invite anyone to spend some time in southern California to see how true that is.
True, but CSAs use counties to quantify and counties are often bigger out west. San Bernardino county alone is over 20,000 square miles but the populated bit is a fraction of that. If you only look at places where people actually live, urban area, LA fits 15.6 million people in 2700 contiguous square miles. Meanwhile Boston fits 7.4 million in 3400 contiguous square miles.
True, but CSAs use counties to quantify and counties are often bigger out west. San Bernardino county alone is over 20,000 square miles but the populated bit is a fraction of that. If you only look at places where people actually live, urban area, LA fits 15.6 million people in 2700 contiguous square miles. Meanwhile Boston fits 7.4 million in 3400 contiguous square miles.
LA packs a population equivalent to the entire Boston CSA within a 20 mile radius of downtown. It’s a lot more compact than people think.
True, but CSAs use counties to quantify and counties are often bigger out west. San Bernardino county alone is over 20,000 square miles but the populated bit is a fraction of that. If you only look at places where people actually live, urban area, LA fits 15.6 million people in 2700 contiguous square miles. Meanwhile Boston fits 7.4 million in 3400 contiguous square miles.
Step 1: Take the largest land area possible that could technically be associated to the words "Los Angeles."
Step 2: Pretend like the average joe living life in Huntington Beach or Burbank see this area as one unified city.
That's how you get to the "sprawl" narrative.
Anyway, back on topic, most of the Olympic venues for Los Angeles were in that tight UA, a few exceptions were equestrian in San Diego county, marksmanship in Chino, and I believe rowing in Ventura.
I think most people look at this poll and think “which city has the most famous professional teams, involved fans, and has had the most success in professional sports?”
But there are so many cities where College sports are bigger than professional sports. Like, I bet the UGA game does as well as the Falcons game in the Atlanta market. Probably better as you move away from ATL.
And then there’s sports cities / metros by youth involvement and the output of talent. E.g Greater Boston, which leads this poll, produces some of the best hockey talent on the planet. But is below most major metros in football, baseball, basketball talent. Cities like LA, Miami, Atlanta produce far more talent across major sports.
All of that to say, I can see a few different angles. But because professional sports are the largest, and are the money maker, I’d assume most interpret this poll that way. And for professional sports, I’d go Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, and LA in no particular order. Smaller cities like Cleveland, or less successful markets like Detroit, have incredible fans. But they haven’t had the success, nor do they have the money or National attention like the five I mentioned.
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.
