the greater Los Angeles area — two National Historic Landmarks, two
venerable stadiums built at the same time 90 years ago — says a lot
about the role of politics and leadership in determining the fate of our
communities and institutions.
the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum are aging structures, relics of a
bygone era in many ways, facing unprecedented new challenges.
construction of a brand new state-of-the-art stadium to house two
National Football League teams either in the city of Industry or, more
likely, in downtown L.A. a short distance from the Coliseum.
No
more Super Bowls, no more World Cups, fewer if any big concerts and
other major special events that help pay the bills for any facility that
is costly to operate.
For the Coliseum, everything is not coming up roses these days.
It
reeks of scandal, with its top executives caught with their hands in
the till, contracting with businesses they held a stake in, charging all
kinds of questionable expenses to the Coliseum and, worst of all,
running the stadium into the ground with deficits and no business plan.
The
Coliseum — home to the Olympic Games in 1932 and 1984, a World Series
and Super Bowls — faces an uncertain future, with USC pressing to take
control away from the city-county-state commission that runs it — a
conflict-prone joint ownership that has a lot to do with why the
Coliseum lost two National Football League teams and has so many
problems.
Then, there’s the Rose Bowl, the pride of Pasadena.
It
was formally dedicated on Jan. 1, 1923 — five months before the
Coliseum was opened — with the first Rose Bowl game, which USC won 14-3
over Penn State.
Like the Coliseum, it has been the site of many
great events, including the Super Bowl, FIFA World Cups and national
college football championship games, as well as the annual New Year’s
Day game.
But rather than sitting content with past glory,
officials began planning for the future three years ago when momentum
first began to build for a new NFL stadium in the region.
They
issued $152 million in bonds to provide for badly needed renovations,
including wider tunnels, safety improvements, modernized bathrooms and
concession stands, a rebuilt press box, a new scoreboard, a
state-of-the-art video board, and thousands of premium seats that will
sell for high prices to help pay for the renovations.
With the
plan in place, 30-year leases were signed with the Tournament of Roses
for the Rose Bowl game, and with UCLA to continue playing its home
football games at the stadium.
“We anticipated the NFL coming
back to Los Angeles and that there would be a great new venue with all
the bells and whistles of a modern stadium,” said Darryl Dunn, general
manager of the Rose Bowl.
“Our thought process was there was a
significant chance we would lose some of the special events we had been
getting, so we would have to do something. We knew we had a great
college football venue and built our economic model based on that,
knowing that we had an old stadium with a lot of infrastructure needs.”
Now, the Rose Bowl’s future seems as secure as the Coliseum’s is not.
It
isn’t just the difference in how publicly owned stadiums are run, and
it isn’t just the difference between how Pasadena and Los Angeles are
run.
(CLICK HERETO READ THE END OF MY SUNDAY COLUMN FOR THE LA TIMES COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS IN PASADENA, BURBANK AND GLENDALE)
Great article—Pasadena is L.A. 100 years ago in the present with all the great homes and respect for architecture a prime concern. L.A. is modern day Havana with everyone in it looking for a life raft the hell out of it.
It’s not even just the well-known mid-size cities like Pasadena and Glendale; even the older, small towns on the north side of the SGV (Sierra Madre, Monrovia) or the newly incorporated cities in the western SFV (Calabasas, Westlake Village, even Agoura Hills) are more livable at the residential level, thanks largely to redevelopment that focuses on local needs, than the originally suburban communities that have since been absorbed into Los Angeles, in the northeast (Eagle Rock, Highland Park) and in the SFV (North Hollywood to Woodland Hills).
It comes down to local control, even by what passes for a local elite – with all their personal prejudices and interests — in more likely to produce something livable than the cess pool of 15 little kings beholding to development interests that – allegedly – “run” Los Angeles…
Looking back, the Valley secession/ incorporation effort might have done better if they focused on one or two new “small” cities in the northeast or northwest valleys, absent anything the grifters in City Hall and downtown cared about – they might have been more willing to let Sunland-Tujunga or Sylmar go, as opposed to the entire SFV, and at least there could have been a test case for breaking up the larger city.
Probably still would have failed due to the city-wide vote, but “another San Fernando” presumably would have attracted less opposition from the PTB than “another Philadelphia.”
“Looking back, the Valley secession/ incorporation effort might have done better if they focused on one or two new “small” cities in the northeast or northwest valleys, absent anything the grifters in City Hall and downtown cared about – they might have been more willing to let Sunland-Tujunga or Sylmar go, as opposed to the entire SFV, and at least there could have been a test case for breaking up the larger city.”
Absolutely, each suburb in the SFV is larger than
most cities where the people control what happens to them. Almost two milion people should
not be a “district of a laarger entity of 15 districts. Chatsworth, Nrthridge, West Hills, Canoga Park, Woodland Hills, Tarzana, Reseda, Sherman Oaks, North Hollywood, etc, etc, etc..
In facft, if the secession had taken place, I think the division into separate entities would
have eventually ocurred.
The Villaraigosa administration has amply demonstrated that Los Angeles is too large and must be broken down into smaller autonomous divisions — like New York. The borough system has been contemplated in the LA City Charter before and the need for some version of it has become more and more clear.
How would such a break up work? Well, the truly regional services of the City of Los Angeles would be jointly owned and operated by the constituent cities, but as to local issues: police, fire, zoning/planning, public safety regulation, etc, the cities would operate much like Pasadena and Glendale. Initially, however, Water, Power, Sanitation, Sewer, Harbor, Airport services could be rendered by a regional Los Angeles entity, collectively owned and operated by the constituent smaller cities. Is this model foreign to us? No. Right now representatives of Los Angeles County cities sit on the Board of the MTA, the MWD, and other regional service providers. The DWP, Harbor, Airports, and Sanitation Departments of the City would simply become regional providers.
I for one, think that one issue that could grow out of OCCUPY LA is a convention of people throughout the City that recognize that we have to destroy the existing LA City Council. They are a dysfunctional mess and with the campaign contribution cases coming out of the Supreme Court, we have lost our government to wealthy interests who continue to rob our children of their future. That is why I think OCCUPY LA, is the right place to begin and the older community activists should get down to City Hall to tap into the energy of young people who sense that their lives are being harmed but do not have the experience or knowledge of government to figure out what to do next.
Let’s go!