Proposition Joe

Israel is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, what else is there to elaborate on? The sporting ban on South Africa played a large part in placing international pressure on South Africa to end their apartheid and I think that if global sport has the ability to influence the world in a similar matter today or tomorrow then they should place similar bans on countries that are guilty of such crimes. I mean, it's not really an outrageous proposition if people are willing to ban Iran who, while they are guilty of pretty serious human rights issues, don't commit the war crimes that Israel commits on a regular basis.

While some states may have serious issues with human rights abuses, I think that it is important not to demonize entire ethnic groups or religions. Israel deserves to be banned from any sports federation it may be apart of in the same way South Africa was boycotted.

Boston is not going to build a second Boston Garden sized arena. There is no use for another arena of that size and moving the Celtics or Bruins out of that area to utilize a new arena would be incredibly unpopular. I also don't see why they would need a venue of that size if the sport we're trying to accommodate is indoor volleyball which does not require capacities that large. If we're building a new Garden for the sake of building a new venue then that seems to run contrary to the cheap games idea. The question of renovating the arena or building a new Garden is really up to the Boston Bruins ownership anyways and isn't a necessary cost in the first place. There are a bunch of pockets of land for things to go in Boston, particularly if you are talking about a temporary venue.

Ok so going back to those prospective venue plans, I made this map which plots out the venues name dropped so far (along with other major venues in the city and infrastructure upgrades mentioned as well). As far as I know, the only special venues that would need to be constructed at this point would be a velodrome and the aquatics center. If some people who have more knowledge about venue plans and Olympic scheduling could clarify how much venue space would be required for the remaining events, or point me in the direction of a good resource to find the information myself, that would be helpful.* The events of interest would be: Basketball, indoor volleyball, wrestling, badminton, boxing, rugby, shooting, tennis, and weightlifting. I am also unclear on the language used to describe the venue plan in Franklin Park in regards to the modern pentathlon and equestrian, because they describe renovating White Stadium and that damage may occur to the public golf course nearby. Some clarification on how equestrian and pentathlon venues are typically arranged could be helpful to find out what they may be thinking about or planning there. * I also think that it would be useful for this sort of information to be collected and placed in a sticky somewhere in this forum, as I feel that would help with discussions on this particular sub-forum.

There are currently no plans to do either of the things that I mentioned. The state transportation plan that you linked was never fully funded and is out of date. The Red-Blue Connecter in particular was also never mentioned in that proposal. The problem here is that the people trying to organize the Olympics in Boston are saying that current transportation plans are enough to handle the influx from the Olympics when that isn't true and misses the point of hosting the Olympics. The only legitimate argument for going through the process of hosting the games is so that the city can receive some infrastructure upgrades that it wouldn't normally get. If the transportation plan for the games is the same as the transportation plan without the games then why are we doing this at all??? Also the current plans for transportation improvements are already severely lacking when accounting for current demographic shifts and expected increases in ridership and population. If you try to host an Olympics in Boston while only investing in some DMU vehicles then the rapid transit system, especially the Green Line spurs and the downtown core stations, will have major congestion issues.

Projects and spending from the State Transportation Bill have nothing to do with the Olympics. Some projects there might help somewhat with transportation in the region, but there will be other necessary projects to improve transit to handle capacity issues that the system would face in the future with or without an Olympics. If the MBTA doesn't get things like improved signal systems or the Red-Blue Connector then there is literally no reason to support the Olympics.

I have seen nothing anywhere about Mitt Romney actually working with the Boston bid or running for any political office.

Choosing Dubai would be a mistake because it would have the same problems as Doha in regards to labor, lack of legacy, and corruption

I figure that Baku would try to style themselves as both European and Middle Eastern in the same way that Turkey might. There is a benefit in styling a bid as being part of a new frontier. Also the chances of any of the Arab Gulf states hosting the Olympics is pretty much 0% at this point thanks to the World Cup debacle in Qatar.

Putting an Olympic Stadium near Castle Island is obviously a joke, thats like putting a stadium on Liberty Island. Again, Beacon Park and Newmarket would be the two locations where an Olympic Stadium and larger Olympic Park would be viable.

I would be skeptical of trying to build anything or increase development in Franklin Park. Olmstead's necklace has already been scared by quite a few terrible developments that I wouldn't welcome another potential disaster. IMO the key areas to look at for a Bostonian stadium are the now vacated CSX rail yards in Allston, Newmarket for some sort of redevelopment plan, and the Bayside Expo Center. I suppose Boston could also bend the rules a bit and stick the stadium in the Lower Broadway section of Everett (using the same land that is causing that fuss about the Wynn Casino). As for archery in Fenway Park, I don't think thats a total mismatch because I've seen proposals from different corners of the internet include archery at Fenway so there is something that is making people try to connect the two. (Also handball at Matthews Arena seems to be a popular match as well for some reason.) Maybe people want to see arrows shot at targets in front of the Green Monster?

It's on the wrong side of the continent unfortunately; there aren't any other major or notable population centres nearby.

I would hardly call Dallas and Houston historical cities, at least in the way a city like Boston is historic. Dallas and Houston are the standard Western American style of cities that began their rapid growth after WWII, which means that they are sprawling and car dependent so their design is lousy and unfriendly. This is changing and as the cities continue to grow in the upcoming century they will become more dense, more sustainable, and more walkable for example; however, all of these qualities already exist in a city like Boston right now. Although pairing Dallas up with the abomination that is Houston is a bit unfair as Dallas is much bit better than Houston, Dallas still can't compare to any East Coast city (or San Francisco or future LA).

West Village H? I live there right now. Although I don't think there needs to be more dorms for universities. They are more than capable fo building them on their own and many students will wish to live off campus anyways. As long as students want to live off campus there will be issues with gentrification and in order to address that you need to build up the supply of housing.

And its not like Boston is a super-dense Singapore and can't deal with extra population. Boston lost a lot of housing in the West End, Jamaica Plain, and Roxbury during the Urban Renewal Period and has been slowly trying to fix all the urban planning mistakes made during that period. Boston is more than capable of handling it and needs it.

Boston has a housing crisis due to a lack of housing and many neighborhoods are facing issues with gentrification. I see the influx of housing as another potential legacy for the games like upgrades to our transportation network. Boston dorms also don't really need upgrading. Many universities are building or planning new dorm projects right now so they don't really need the incentive or impetus to upgrade their on-campus housing. I suppose using campus housing would be a good back up in case a full village couldn't be constructed though.

I put together this rough map of potential venues and stuff. http://goo.gl/maps/TgGJu I picked the stadium site at the South Bay Shopping Center for a couple reasons. First, that type of development is awful and no one is likely to miss it much. And secondly, it stands between two rail right of ways. One is the Red Line which is a heavy rail line. The other is the Indigo Line corridor which is presently a commuter rail line (with a stop being planned for Newmarket right where the stadium would be) but that could be upgraded to a heavy rail line for the Olympics and leave a good transportation legacy for the city (providing much needed infrastructure improvements and providing transit for transit starved areas in the city.) If there isn't enough room in the venues in the map then additional ones could be built in the space over the Mass Pike, as Chris mentions above. Decking over the Mass Pike would also leave a pretty decent legacy for the city after the Games. Right now those projects are falling apart due to expense or arguments with MassDot, so having something like the Olympics could pull together a lot of the government agencies in order to get the development going.

There is no land available in the South Boston Waterfront District. The land near the Exhibition Center is going to be used for expansions to the BCEC and hotels. The parking lots to the north of the BCEC are all slated to be a part of the Seaport Square development. The land near the Harpoon Brewery and Dry Dock Square is owned by Massport, and they probably/most likely need it so I don't think that land would be available. Saying that, even those locations on the map are not simple. Five of them are not within Boston's city limits. Boston stopped annexing its suburbs earlier than most other cities so these locations are not too far away from the city center and all of the ones outside of Boston's borders are also near MBTA stations. The North Allston location near Barry's Corner requires a lot of cooperation with Harvard. Frankly, their master plan for the area is totally falling apart so there might be an opportunity to use the area but its still a total question mark. The MBTA has not been positive about moving MBTA maintenance facilities in the past. With the state behind an Olympic bid they might put pressure on them but its still a logistical issue that would need to be figured out, so Brickbottom and the two South Boston rail yards south of South Station are not sure things. Newmarket and the Bayside Expo Center would require eminent domain. I wouldn't have a problem with demolishing a bunch of big box stores or a the old, redundant convention center (Boston has three) but other might. Putting something over the South Bay Interchange would require a lot of infrastructural work. There was a supertall skyscraper that was proposed for the area that fell through because of issues with its height, so I guess its possible. Frankly, decking over that interchange would be the best legacy possible for any Olympics. And the South Boston land near Medal of Honor Park and Castle Island might be owned by MassPort, might not be owned by them. I have no idea whats going on with that. CSX is moving their Allston rail yard to Worcester which frees up that land, so thats the only land thats just totally open and inside Boston city limits. So yeah, getting a stadium site is tough. However, it's not impossible and if Boston can get that done it instantly elevates their bid to the top of American cities because comparing Boston's history, sports, and culture to say, Minneapolis, is an exercise in cruelty for Minneapolis. And this all also not going into any substantial or overly controversial eminent domain. If you allow that, and I would be very wary of that happening, then that opens up more possibilites.

Quickly threw together a map of some large areas of land that would be the best bets for a stadium location in the Boston area. Surprisingly, all of them are located near an MBTA station except for one in South Boston. http://goo.gl/maps/QqSXM [Locations in Boston's city limits are in blue, in Everett in orange, and in Revere in yellow]

The MENA (Middle East and North Africa) have not yet hosted an Olympic Games despite being a large and significant region of the world. (For the purposes of this discussion, we will be talking about Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and the Sudan.] There are considerable problems with a lot of these countries and hosting the Olympic Games should not be their primary (or even hundredth) concern, but I think its interesting to try to establish what countries and cities would be viable in the future. Israel and Palestine cannot host an Olympic Games and it should be obvious why. Palestine is currently being occupied and Israel has significant domestic issues in regards to how it treats its ethnic minorities. Furthermore, an Israeli bid to host the Olympics would not be internationally supported; it would be as if Apartheid South Africa attempted to bid for the games, there would be massive international protest. Lebanon (Beirut) is also not a viable candidate do to unrest and dangers resulting from the I/P conflict. In regards to the Arab Spring, many countries are far too unstable to host. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen range from politically uneasy to civil war. None of these states will be able to host the games in the near future let alone the next 50 or so years. Tunisia and Egypt might be able to bid in the middle of the century if a lot of things go right for them, and I mean a lot. Sudan and Bahrain are committing genocides against their ethnic minorities and are thrown right out as potential candidates. Iraq is obviously also unstable and unsuitable because of obvious reasons. Jordan and Morocco have experienced protests, but not on the level of a lot of other countries, with them its a wait and see approach in regards to if they will remain with their current regimes or if future protests might topple their monarchies, but with Algeria they are very much on the brink of instability. Iran is an international pariah and also unstable. So with that said, the countries that aren't total political catastrophes are Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. However, the list is going to be slimmed down even more when you consider climate issues. Looking at Qatar and Doha (the World Cup and SOG bids), the IOC doesn't want to move the summer games to the winter and FIFA feels as if it isn't safe to hold sporting events in the summer. It seems as though it won't be possible to hold an Olympics in the Persian Gulf regions (Which would rule out Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain, and any coastal Iranian cities in the future). The rich, oil nations of the gulf also extensively use slave labor to construct their developments which also presents a moral issue that can prevent their bids from gaining steam as well. So the list is now Turkey and Azerbaijan, both of which are bidding for an Summer Olympics in 2020. Frankly, neither of these cities are traditionally considered Middle Eastern cities, especially Istanbul which is more European. Honestly, a Middle Eastern Olympics doesn't seem like a real possibility until at least the later half of this century unless Istanbul or Baku want to self identify themselves as such.