Future of the Coliseum

Re “Why Not Give the Coliseum to USC?” Commentary, Nov. 20:

I was certainly surprised to see the subhead, “L.A.’s white elephant needs a landlord that can put it to good use,” on Frank del Olmo’s commentary. I believe some writer said that about the Sports Arena when the Forum was built to take the Lakers and Kings to Inglewood in 1968. Now, almost 30 years later, the Sports Arena has retained USC basketball, secured the Los Angeles Clippers, the IHL Ice Dogs, hosts capacity Latin music events, as well as record-setting concerts by Bruce Springsteen, U2, Madonna, Billy Joel, etc.--and the Kings and Lakers are again looking for a new state-of-the-art arena. This only underlines my definition of “state of the art”: Here today; gone tomorrow.

How does one change the misconception that the Coliseum is a white elephant and in a bad location, if the press continually plays the “ostrich” and refuses to acknowledge that this bum rap is just that--a bum rap. How better to revitalize Los Angeles than focus on its inner city?

Del Olmo is right--soccer is on the rise in our city. The Coliseum is the leading soccer stadium in the nation.

As I reported to Councilman Mike Hernandez’s Community and Economic Development Committee, the much-maligned Coliseum Commission has pulled off the “Miracle on Figueroa Street” by keeping both the Coliseum and Sports Arena free of public subsidy. What better gift can we give to the citizens of our city and county?

MARGARET FARNUM

Chief Administrative Officer L.A. Coliseum Commission

* Giving the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to USC and taking it out of the hands of the tripartite governing body doesn’t automatically make it a viable sports complex. What about the private management company, Spectacor, that was supposedly going to turn things around? When the Rams moved to Anaheim 15 years ago, it should have been a warning that the Coliseum’s commercial viability had ebbed.

Anyone who has been to a modern football stadium knows that the sight lines in the Coliseum are below par, placing the people in the stands much too far from the action on the field. Lowering the field did little to alleviate this problem. It is embarrassing to think that we sunk $100 million into renovating a structure that had outlived its usefulness. Just because federal earthquake funds were available didn’t mean we had to spend them on a landmark no one has any use for.

MARK NAUGHTON

Los Angeles

* I agree with Robert A. Jones (Essay, Nov. 15) that the Coliseum is the best site for a new professional football team in Los Angeles. Local officials seem to be blind to the overwhelming arguments in its favor.

However, I am extremely offended by Jones’ statement that “the neighborhood sucks.” Mr. Jones, do the Natural History, Science and Industry and African American museums “suck”? How about the IMAX theater, the University of Southern California and the new mosque? Do they “suck”? Are you aware of the ambitious plan now under way to revitalize and improve Exposition Park?

Like many other neighborhoods in Los Angeles and in other American cities, the Coliseum area does have crime and does present safety concerns for visitors and residents alike. In this sense, most of L.A. “sucks.” These concerns, however, can be ameliorated by more activity in the area and, even at the present, are greatly outweighed by the many positive attractions of the area.

CURTIS C. ROSEMAN

Torrance