Coliseum Control Needs to be Given to USC
 |
| The aging Los Angeles Coliseum |
The indictments this past week of three
former managers of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum underscores the
obvious – USC needs to take full control over the aging landmark. Currently, a commission composed of appointed
representatives from the city, county, and state levels runs the Coliseum. This has led to a corrupt, bureaucratic mess
that has embarrassed one of the most prominent venues of American sports.
Under
the watch of managers who have taken millions of dollars from the venue, the
Coliseum has become virtually irrelevant on the Los Angeles landscape. This is why control needs to be given to
USC. There are some things that work
well with government control, such as healthcare and transit. Unfortunately, venue operations are not one
of these things. With the exception of
USC football games, the stadium has struggled to bring in major events. Big concerts and soccer matches have gone to
the Rose Bowl in Pasadena or the Home Depot Center in Carson, rather than the
stadium in Exposition Park. Because of
mismanagement, promoters view the Coliseum as a bad place to conduct
business.
The
Coliseum is 88 years old and has been in a state of disrepair for the past
decade. Take a trip to the aging venue
and you will quickly realize that the place needs a major renovation. That isn’t to say that the Coliseum isn’t
great, however. It has hosted two
Olympics, a World Series, and two Super Bowls.
It has also been the longtime home of USC football. The Coliseum Commission promised USC several
years ago to make improvements that would bring the venue back to its prior
renowned state. Failed business plans
and the aforementioned corruption has put the stadium in a situation where it
can’t afford to make the promised repairs.
On
the other hand, it is pretty well established that USC has plenty of
money. While you could argue that other
(in particular, public) schools are wasting their money by improving sports
venues, improvements to the Coliseum would benefit USC’s campus. The school has been working for several
decades to rid itself of the stigma that it is in a bad neighborhood. The university has gone out of its way to
help the surrounding community, even when it could have exerted its influence
to drive out undesirable members of the neighborhood. Improvements to the Coliseum would just be an
extension of these plans. If USC were
able to turn the Coliseum into a thriving venue once again, the surrounding
neighborhood would certainly benefit from the added economic activity.
With
the NFL possibly making a return to Los Angeles in the next two years, a team
will need a temporary place to play while a new stadium is under
construction. The only viable locations
in the area are the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl.
The Rose Bowl is another aging venue and
it has neighbors that don’t like drunken fans getting near their mansions. The Coliseum Commission has driven out every
long-term tenant except for USC. The
Raiders, Rams, Lakers and Clippers (both at the commission operated Sports
Arena), and UCLA have all had disputes with the commission that have led to
them taking their teams elsewhere.
Several potential NFL owners have said that they will negotiate with USC
to play at the Coliseum, but not the embattled commission.
USC
needs to be handed the keys to take over the Coliseum. On the surface, it may seem wrong to give a
private entity control over a public venue.
However, USC has proven over the years that it is committed to building
the surrounding community. Hundreds of
millions of dollars need to be spent if the Coliseum is going be a top-tier
venue in Los Angeles again. USC has this
money, along with a vision and commitment to making the Los Angeles Memorial
Coliseum a great place to spend an afternoon.
I agree that USC could do a lot of great things with the Coliseum, but there remain a number of potential hurdles. You mention that the stadium has become essentially irrelevant in Los Angeles, but that's not just because of the management. There really aren't enough teams to go around to play there. UCLA would be foolish to move from the Rose Bowl, and AEG and other major players are far too ahead of the game for the Coliseum to have any chance at hosting an NFL team once one returns to L.A. With almost no prospective tenants, USC might not want to absorb the costs of managing the facility with only the school's football team playing there.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the Coliseum is, as you write, a landmark. Many of the structural qualities of the building are precious to many city officials and others, and effectively renovating the building while keeping the prized tunnels and many other features intact is a tall task.
I'm apprehensive to allow USC to take control of the Coliseum for different reasons. Despite the fact that I will champion my diploma from this school on every job interview and say with a smirk how great USC is, this school does a lot of bad in terms of pushing out the local community when it gets another piece of land. While USC's expansion can certainly be felt to the North of campus, where local residents are continually being pushed out of their homes and denied rentals from tenants looking to rent to students, it is likely that control of the Coliseum will be USC's grand entrance into imperializing to the South. If you regard USC as a private organization, which it is, then it seems incredulous that we are all standing around allowing the school to push out communities and cultures that have been here for hundreds of years. While one could make the argument that a greater USC presence in downtown Los Angeles will only promote higher education that much more, you must also ask the question, how many people from these poor communities fringing USC are directly benefitting from this school? USC is positively an imperialist in downtown LA.
ReplyDeleteHow much is enough for USC? When will they stop pushing the borders of campus out farther? I've heard rumors that if a professional football team is established in downtown LA, then USC will march its way all the way downtown towards LA Live to create a seamless path of gentrified upper-class ethos. The thought scares me.
Read this article and then reflect on the idea of USC having control of the Coliseum: http://www.laprogressive.com/occupy-homes/
It seems that a lot of USC's budget has been going on towards the plans to expand campus to the North. While the large donations the school have been racking up each year, I'm not sure if taking over the Coliseum would be the appropriate allocation of these funds at this time. President Nikias has made it clear with his crackdown on the student social scene and the continued gentrification of the area that his focus is turning this school into an Ivy. Yes this is a football school and the Coliseum is a landmark but it has been operating fine for what it serves for, which is essentially USC football, the X-Games, and large concerts. Meanwhile, with an NFL stadium planned and awaiting city approval, it looks like renovations on the Coliseum are far from forefront of the city's attention.
ReplyDeleteI would much rather see USC own the Coliseum than the city of Los Angeles. In fact, I have a bone to pick with Los Angeles and the committee that maintains the Coliseum. Quite frankly, I believe they both are inadequate in maintaining the venue. One thing that really upsets me is how they refuse to hold music festivals, e.g., Electric Daisy Carnival, Together As One, etc. These venues could get them hundreds and thousands of dollars, yet they have the audacity to reject these events!
ReplyDeleteBut beyond this issue, I feel that USC would bring much better events to the area and overall it may SAVE the Coliseum. Yes USC is conquering this area, but I find this to be a good thing. As you said, if USC was not here in this area it would just be a bunch of poor people. USC is fixing this area and attempting to make it the great area it once was. We should not fight this, but embrace it.
I am currently doing a project researching the USC Master Plan and its role with the Jefferson Park/University Park community. While I do think USC's potential full-time management of the Coliseum is a good idea, the amount of new issues it provides the University is dangerous. The current argument from community leaders is that USC is taking over their community and no doing enough to invest back in it (affordable housing, local jobs, etc.) The University is raising $6 billion, but is not make adequate investments in the community. I think that the Coliseum would be a great additional for USC, but we need to acquire it correctly and correctly make amends with the community.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, USC should somehow get control of the coliseum. It would be even better if the school didn't have to pay an exorbitant amount for it. USC should agree to be a "caretaker," so to speak, and (legally) promise that they will pay for renovations. We all know the school has enough money. Plus, the coliseum is where we play our home games anyways so it has sentimental value to the USC community as well.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the community, I don't think there needs to be too much concern for that. Without USC flipping the bill on this thing, the city of LA, and especially the surrounding community, will not be able to take care of the stadium because there just aren't enough resources at their disposal to allocate that much for a stadium only used for raves and football games.
Personally, I think USC shouldn't do anything right now. They should wait to be asked because it will happen. For now spend the extra money on a bunch of Rosetta Stones for the libraries. Now there's an investment.
I completely agree with Jeremy on that USC should acquire the coliseum without the hefty price tag coming along with it. The coliseum is not only landmark for the LA but a good symbol of our school. What better ownership than a school with a reputation who can improve the quality of the location as well as create a new vision for the landmark. I think that others will simply tear it apart and not make correct use of it. There is so much attachment I think among the USC community with the coliseum that they would take such good care of it and make sure it serves a purpose. Taking ownership of the stadium will only have a greater and more positive impact on potential games, shows, etc. I think it's something USC should really take into serious consideration for the near future.
ReplyDelete