Sure you could make the argument that using a disused arena like the Sports Arena for it makes some sense. But I fail to see how installing a temporary pool in a soccer stadium makes more sense than using an already existing permanent one that already has a stadium built for it (I know they'd have to do some referbs, but when they are done it stays there and can continue to be used just like last time), unless you meant to say it makes more cents (in regards to the installer of the temporary pool). And the fact that it will kick LAFC out of it's own stadium for a season just makes it a doubly stupid thing to do. So no, I don't think it makes a ton of sense. Using the already existing grass surface for something that is played on grass so there is minimal disruption to the team, now that makes a ton of sense.
I could give a rat's arse about LAFC frankly. My perspective was merely from an olympics standpoint. The only upside I pointed out for LAFC is they could get some construction costs on their stadium picked up by someone else. From a business standpoint $100M from someone else has to be considered - right? Renovating the existing pool facility might make some sense too. But frankly would be wasted money since there are only a bout 2-3 swimming events (worldwide) a year needing that type of facility and therefore it would be basically obsolete/mostly vacant after the olympics - just like it has been for years. The trend is and will likely continue to be temporary (at least fro seating) swimming pools for the olympics. In London for example the pool ramains but during the games the venue had a capacity of 17,500. The two temporary "wings" have been removed, reducing the capacity to a regular 2,500. In Beijing the structure had a capacity of 17,000 during the games that is being reduced to 7,000. In fact they dedesigned a large portion to contain numerous water rides and slides, a wave pool, and spa areas. I'm also not certain why they would have to be displaced for an entire season. But I didn't dive into those details. Let's be honest all this bantering is useless. LA is far from being awarded the olympics. I love soccer a shit ton, but swimming was my life for 18 yrs. I think we can move on from this discussion.
Well, here's the thing: it doesn't matter whether you care about LAFC or not. And I'm not being rude. It doesn't matter whether I do either. The only thing that matters is LAFC's opinion because LAFC is the one privately financing the stadium, the one who will be the primary tenant, and the one that will be displaced by this. That's only if the cost of the roof is for a roof they want, and not for a temporary full roof to make the swim venue indoors. But even if that $100M is for the roof they want, is $100M worth being displaced for a season? It's not just a straight $100M profit. In addition to the rent they will have to pay, they will loose out on all the revenue that is generated from controlling your own venue. A swimming pool in LA is not like baseball stadium in Greece. The current pool gets used year round by the public. That is a useful lasting thing. That is part of the reason that London left their pool in. Even if you're not holding a competition there, it is useful to the public. And the thing already exists, they're not building something new, just refurbishing it. It is, however, unfortunate that this wasn't planned better with USC's new swimming facility, which opened in Feb 2014... I already mentioned why above. But to re-iterate, the LA Olympic document that was posted said they want 6-9 months lead up time on the Olympics to start installing the pool. That puts it at a January minimum start for when the stadium can no longer be used. Now the question is how soon after the Paralympics ends (which is August 24th) can the venue be returned to a playable grass surface. Even with the most conservative estimates, you have to figure it's not going to be until October. So, sure, maybe they'd have it back for the last month. But really at that point it's probably better to finish out the season in the stadium they've been playing in for the previous 7 months.
I got the timeline you had previously sited. I just don't think it was accurate. The other temporary pools I showed didn't take 6-9 moths to install...not even close. Look at the facilities they were used in. Those buildings get used year round by other tenants and events. If they said you would only have to play 2 maybe three homes games in another "home" stadium and then have 3-4 away games, would you be willing to give it up for $100M in stadium upgrades paid for by someone else? Basically 2 - 2.5 months of your season. I forget does MLS have Olympics stoppage in their calender - I don't think so, but if they did makes it even better scenario for you. I'm done debating something that may or may not even happen. It's all hypothetical at this point.
So on one hand, you're saying that the Olympic Committie did it's due diligience in selecting a soccer stadium over an existing swim stadium, but on the other hand, you're saying they couldn't even bother to call up the installer to get an estimate of how long it'll take to be installed? And now you're making it clear you never read the document. It's not 6-9 months for the installation, it's being installed 6-9 months before the games start. This is to enable them to hold a test event 4-5 months prior to the games. So unless you're suggesting that they install the pools, hold the test event, remove the pools, reinstall the grass pitch, and finally install the pools again, it's going to be impossible to play soccer there for those 6-9 months prior to the games. Yes, and why don't you look at those facilities and compare them to a soccer stadium... and then maybe you'll get why it's not the same thing installing them in an arena with a concrete pad to put the pools on and a soccer pitch with grass on top of a sand base. Not to mention that an arena's floor is normally a max of 30.5 meters (IIHF hockey rink size, though in the US it's smaller as the NHL rink size is 25.9 m), whereas a soccer pitch is 64 m minimum. Now this cozy arena setup where fans get a good view of the pool is going to have the spectators twice as far away.
I know there was some talk on here of the stadium not being built by 2018 but 2020 as the Olympic bid paperwork indicated. When they announced the name this week they confirmed they will start MLS play in 2018 so I assume the stadium's target date will also be 2018.
So, it looks like there was a special meeting of the LA Memorial Coliseum Commission yesterday. According to the minutes what was covered was: Anybody know what happened? The minutes from the July 30th meeting still haven't been posted, so not expecting these ones any time soon. Also wondering if #7 is the aforementioned project or a separate project that USC is working on.
http://ridley-thomas.lacounty.gov/index.php/soccer-expo/ "On Thursday, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission, which governs the operation and maintenance of the Sports Arena, approved an addendum to the environmental impact report on the 15-acre site slated for construction." "Commission President and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas hailed the 3-0 vote, as well as new details about the LAFC’s commitment to hire local workers." "Groundbreaking could take place between August and September next year."
Bit surprised they don't anticipate groundbreaking until August/Sept. I guess the Sports Arnea now has an event scheduled for Oct 10-11, though. So I guess demolition won't start in October.
I just don't think people really understand the amount of work that goes into the "pre construction" process of building something. An EIR alone can take up to a year. And anything that requires state involvement will be slow. If they can begin demolition fall of '16, I imagine it will be tight, but doable to make March of 2018 opening. A faster construction schedule costs more money. It's all about the ownership willingness to spend in order to meet a deadline. Another thing people don't realize: Construction speed = $$$
They already have the EIR, it just needs to be amended. Which is much simpler and quicker than starting from scratch. They also don't have to wait for the EIR to be complete before starting demolition. My interpretation was that construction would begin then, not demolition. They don't normally hold groundbreaking ceremonies until after demolition is complete.
Exactly it wouldn't make sense. Politicians are behind this project. We will here much more about the stadium next year. I know the official colors might be announced before the end of the year or by spring.
Even amendments can take time. And never underestimate politics and NIMBYs. For a point of reference, Sacramento is doing an EIR amendment in the Railyards redevelopment area for their proposed MLS stadium. It's going to take 6-8 months. The Railyards is bare dirt, isolated (no NIMBYS). The only change is a traffic analysis. They don't have to wait for an EIR to start demo, but they often do
Yes, but it's quite different to go from railyards which have 0 spectators to a MLS stadium with 18,000 spectators. The LAFC stadium site is right next door to a 93,607 seat stadium, so dealing with 22,000 fans (an increase of less than 4,000 from the Sports Arena) is no problem.
Famous last words. You're obviously familiar with EIRs then Hint: they are never "no problem". Hopefully it is though.
I was talking about traffic. 22,000 fans is no problem when the site already deals with far more than that for USC football games (they averaged 73,272 in 2014).
Sure there's also going to be an increase noise. But again, when there's a 90,000+ seater right next door, there's not much to complain about with a 22,000 stadium. NIMBYs, if there are any (you'd think if there were, they would be making their presence known by now), aren't going to have much of a leg to stand on. I'm not saying that this is going to be the simplest thing ever (we all know nothing is simple when dealing with bureaucracy), just that it will be quicker and easier (note these are all relative terms, not absolute ones) than doing a full EIR from scratch and that going from an existing sporting venue to another sporting venue on a site with an even larger venue helps the process. All I'm saying is there is no need to be pessimistic about it. It will be approved eventually, so there's no need to delay demolition until then.
----- If the price is right, LAFC will find a way - My actual overall concern is with Olympic Soccer now has both a mens and women torney. I don't see how they ca only use the Rose Bowl, unless everything is double hitters. If LAFC is going swimming and SHC is rugby, where else can soccer play ? Fullerton is probably too small even with temps-- maybe rugby should go there. Back in 1984, 3 venues were used outside of LA (Stanford, Harvard,Annapolis). I think this time, we need to keep all the soccer in California at the minimum to keep the $ in our state. Therefore, we can use New Stanford, Avaya, the Murph in SD, maybe even Fresno State or Sacramento if the Republic get theirs built. You can mix and match the various size stadiums for both mens or women teams and their respective popularity.. Brazil vs. USA may fill San Diego, but say Slovenia vs. New Zealand may be just fine at Fullerton for example...
22K stadium in downtown LA, close to the metro in 2018 is ridiculously low IMO. I know they can play bigger games at the coliseum, but they should start with a capacity closer to 27K like the LA Galaxy as opposed to 22K
Looks like there is a bunch of LAFC Stadium stuff on the agenda for the Coliseum Commission's next meeting (Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 2:30 p.m). You can see the agenda here: http://lamcc.lacounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=alHTEb92bBI=&portalid=17 They will also be approving the minutes from all the previous meetings that haven't been approved yet, so hopefully we will be able to see those documents soon.