Jump to content

TeamRik

Premium Members
  • Content Count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TeamRik

  1. Despite the mayors questionable opinions, Boston's potential bid certainly has had recent surge of articles and media attention. Some aren't even trying to be modest. A quick Google search of "2024 Olympics" brings up numerous articles about (mostly) Boston and/or DC. The chairman of Boston's committee even claims to have a 75% chance of being chosen by the USOC. Very, very bold.

    Anywho, I found this article from a few months back. Not sure how accurate it is but it cites a split position of support.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/06/26/olympic-size-split/x3YTGa4KR2u7XkufU58WoM/story.html

    Not denying those statistics in the least but I do know for a fact that less than 20 people took that Globe Online Poll... I followed it when it came out and saved the results on questionpro but I am unfortunately having problems with my account... I have the results for all the online polls that every media outlet took...

    Also that 75% comment comes from the inside, I know for a fact that things are being kept hush hush by the request of the IOC to each of the cities. There is much more going on behind the scenes then any of us know about and soon bits and bits will be revealed.

    Two Recent Articles

    Boston Business Journal: "New Allston station could play key role if Boston hosts the 2024 Summer Olympics

    http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/10/new-allston-station-could-play-key-role-if-boston.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_11+(Industry+Sports)"

    Boston Magazine: "Mayor Walsh and Governor Patrick Expected to Attend Event Pushing for Olympics to Come to Boston It’s a show of good sportsmanship."

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/10/01/2024-olympics-boston-mayor-walsh/

    Two Recent Articles

    Boston Business Journal: "New Allston station could play key role if Boston hosts the 2024 Summer Olympics

    http://www.bizjourna...ndustry Sports)"

    Boston Magazine: "Mayor Walsh and Governor Patrick Expected to Attend Event Pushing for Olympics to Come to Boston It’s a show of good sportsmanship."

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/10/01/2024-olympics-boston-mayor-walsh/

  2. Not sure where to post this, but seeing how Boston is claiming to be the Olympic-Park-City and Walking-and-Transit-Olympics, this should be appropriate.

    In an article by LA Times, it mentions how the compactness of Boston itself (and the venues) would cause a congestion catastrophe. The DC committee site also claims to be the most "walkable city in America". And that got me thinking as to how each city stacks up transit-wise. So, according to walkscore.com, NYC is actually the most walkable with a score of 88. Next comes SF with 84, then Boston with 80, then all the way down to 7th place is DC with a score of 74. Los Angeles, however is not in the top 10, but rather in 18th place.

    In transit-friendliness, NYC is, again, ranked first followed by SF, Boston, and DC respectively. LA is ranked in 9th place with a score of 50.

    In bike-friendliness, SF is 2nd, Boston 5th, DC 6th, and NYC being 9th, and LA in a position around the 30's.

    City Walkscore Transitscore Bikescore Estimated distance between farthest venues/cluster

    Boston 79.5 80.5 67.8 ~20min

    LA 63.9 49.9 54.0 ~30min

    SF 83.9 80.5 70.0 ~40min

    DC 74.1 70.4 65.3 ~60min

    I guess the scores are only limited to each city's limits, so the table above probably isn't entirely accurate :/

    Walkscore and all of the News Articles about this topic also list The Future’s Most Walkable Cities:

    1. Boston

    2. Washington, D.C.

    3. New York City

    4. Miami

    5. Atlanta

    6. Seattle

    7. San Francisco

    8. Detroit

    9. Denver

    10. Tampa

    11. Los Angeles

    12. Phoenix

    13. Houston

    14. Portland

    15. Chicago

    Least Walkable: San Diego, Kansas City, San Antonio

    And when broken down even more by city Cambridge is #1 and Boston is in the top 5.

    Percentage of Commuters who actually walk to work:

    Cambridge - 25%

    Boston - 15.5%

    DC - 11.9%

    San Francisco - 9%

    Los Angeles - 3.6%

    Boston came in at No. 3 now, but is set to be king among walkable towns in the future. Boston itself is walkable, but so is its chief suburban next door neighbor, Cambridge. But even Harvard's hometown has become so pricey that its driving people out to the next walkable suburb.

    "Somerville is really lined up to just explode and take the overflow of Cambridge," Leinberger said.

    He pointed to the Assembly Row project, which will add more apartments, shopping, restaurants and a new stop on the Orange Line of the T that is planned to open in the fall of 2014.

    Awesome PDF "Foot Traffic Ahead: Ranking Walkable Urbanism in America’s Largest Metros" - http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/foot-traffic-ahead.pdf

  3. NECN interview with Dan O'Connell, President of Boston 2024, to share some of the plans, hurdles, and potential long lasting benefits. "Benefits of 2024 Olympics in Boston"

    "The City of Boston will be utilized as the Olympic Park, (the Greenway, Common, Public Gardens, Emerald Necklace, Franklin Park, University owned properties, Underutilized Public Land) 27 of the 32 venues will be located within 10km of each other walkable, never done in any city and can't be accomplished in DC or LA"

    http://www.necn.com/news/politics/Benefits-of-2024-Olympics-in-Boston-277364281.html

  4. "Atlanta enjoys one of the strongest Olympic legacies of modern times, despite a chaotic Games which suffered from transport problems, criticism for commercialisation and a fatal pipe bomb. Heavy sponsorship of Atlanta’s 1996 Games meant the city made a profit and was left without large debts and incurred $5 Billion in economic impact. The two main stadia constructed for the event transitioned well, having been designed with after-use in mind, and are now home to the city’s baseball and football teams.

    Atlanta’s inner-city benefitted most from the legacy. The Centennial Olympic Park was the centerpiece of the downtown revitalisation, attracting a number of high rises and museums along its periphery. At the time of construction, the Park was the largest urban green space to be created in the U.S. in 25 years, and today attracts millions of visitors annually. 20 percent of the tax generated from the Games was channeled into regeneration of the city’s poorer areas.

    • Like 1
  5. Back off pal. Obviously it's an oval in the literal sense, but it's not an egg-shaped continuously bending circle like woohoo proposed. AthensFan is right that it is two straightaways connected to semi-circles. Also, woohoo's diagram does not include the beginning of the 100m/110m Hurdles track, which juts out from one of the straightaways. Woohoo's proposal is very inaccurate, and AthensFan was pointing out that fact, not being snarky. Relax.

    HAHA Don't tell me to back off... He attacks me on a daily basis about things I have a great deal of knowledge about and he just did it to Woohoo.

    A track is not and never has been two semi-circles, it is One continuous oval with a straightaway layered on top. He pointed out no fact, the straightaway is optional and only required from one side, something I know since I professional train on one everyday.

    If you were smart enough you could really just look up the definition or the dimensions or look in the Olympic Facilities Manual or IAAF Facilities Manual, oh wait those are mine.

    Real mature, Rik. And wheel house? Do you even know what that expression means?

    Athensfan is correct.. an athletics track is called an oval. It's not actually an oval as depicted in the diagram woohoo posted. Although in his defense, the shape of the playing surface actually pretty close to what he posted. Here's what the last few Olympic stadiums have looked like..

    oly-stad_2218832b.jpg

    120405113750478.jpg

    525081.jpg

    So yes, woohoo's diagram isn't that inaccurate. It's just not the track specifically that's that oval shape.

    No actually that would make me Accurate since Athensfan said it was not an oval and was not called an oval. Which it is... there is no Olympic Track statement that will tell you it's a none continuous oval or that it has "two semi-circles with two straight aways" like athens stated he is 110% incorrect

    And of course I know what wheelhouse means and since I am a Professional Track & Field Athlete my statement was Correct ;-)

  6. It is. For starters, a regulation track is not oval. It's two semi-circles connected by straightaways. Without getting the shapes and scaling correct, the diagram is not very useful.

    HAHAHA Did you really just say that? You just lost quite a bit of credibility and REALLY fell into my wheel house... the literal definition and name for any and ALL Olympic track & fields has the word OVAL in it.

    IAAF TRACK AND FIELD OLYMPIC FACILITIES MANUAL:

    a 400m Standard Oval Track as described under Chapter 2.1.1.1 has 8 oval and 8 straight lanes (minimum 4-6, maximum 9)

  7. Well, design and research is out of the window. What about construction and implementation? I'm pretty sure you do not represent your entire school's student's opinions by saying that they don't mind breaking their back and bone researching, testing, and designing hundreds of hours into developing an innovate way to save money on adjusting seat positioning.

    LOL that's how you get credits for big projects at school a lot more fun when you are planning for something that may actually be built! Thats how that first Boston Logo was designed dont you know LOL

  8. Regardless of where Boston ranks in terms of academics and innovation, that does not directly correlate to an Olympic bid. I wish it did as it would help Boston's efforts, but - and I say this as someone who would love Boston to pull together a winning bid - Boston's reputation as being an innovation center does nothing to solve issues around site identification, development, financing, and getting the political will to get it done.

    Obviously but He said Boston had never won most innovative so I was making it clear that they had... and it does have to do with building a stadium that could fit in a location and be reduced in size for after that is in itself innovation.

    And nothing has been left with holes.. he takes a statement and says oh that was 17 years ago... NO ****! I was stating that if we had more than double the attendance in 1997 we could build it back to that number now that soccer is even more popular especially with a more local stadium. I wasnt saying oh we were #1 before so we should be now just that we havent always been so low

  9. You're going to cite attendance figures from 17 years ago? Do you understand why some of us think you're making less than compelling arguments in support of Boston?

    I've had this discussion elsewhere about soccer.. Americans are into the World Cup more than they are into the sport itself. So I doubt we'll see much of an uptick in ticket sales for MLS. Even still, the Revs ranked 16 out of 19 franchises in attendance last year. Yes, they would benefit greatly from a soccer specific stadium. Could that happen in some form related to an Olympics? Sure. And perhaps Boston proper (or at least something closer to the city than Foxboro) could use such a stadium. The problem with urban planning initiatives involving the Olympics though is that you have to think long term. At some point within the next year, Boston needs to offer up a plan for how they would present a 2024 Olympics knowing the the decision on the host city isn't made until 2017. If someone else were to come up with a plan, say, for a soccer stadium that could be built and filled immediately, how does that mesh with an Olympic bid? It's an issue we've heard a lot about in New York. I won't claim to know anything about sites being considered for casinos, but again, that's what the city needs to weigh.. do we hand that land over to casino developers or do they hold it back for sports and/or Olympic-related construction. Again, that's where all this planning needs to be forward thinking. To come up with an Olympic plan, you can't do that first and figure all these other details out later on.

    god you are ridiculous stop tearing everything apart seriously... I was simply stating that there is certainly room for GROWTH! Especially since this is the most viewed World Cup of all time...

    I'm just going to respond to posts like I did about the stadium and not respond to you breaking down each syllable because it's stupid and call me some more names call me a child and yet I have never come at you or miss quoted you

  10. Who does name the most innovative cities in the world? Seems like another one of those lists we've been discussing elsewhere that provide a little useful information, but don't exactly mean much in the grand scheme of Olympic bidding.

    And sure, there are a lot of smart kids in Boston. Would like to think it would be someone more than college students trying to develop an Olympic plan, but here's the thing.. let's say the folks in Boston come up with a great plan for Boston to host the Olympics. Can you sell that to local businesses and politicians and get them on board? That new Falcons stadium you referenced has a price tag of $1.2 billion. It's one thing to have a plan. Like woohoo said though, it's another thing entirely to implement a plan like that and to fund it.

    The company is called 2thinknow... the statistics are used my all city governments in the world that are researched and by global media like Forbes, Business World, Fast Company, Reuters, The Boston Globe, NY Times, Huff Post, Entrepreneur etc. etc. etc. And they use over 162 different city indicators like GDP and every other possible city performance from Architecture to Arts to Business to Advertising Etc....

    And I did not mean the would be working on the Olympic Plan I meant they have some pretty amazing ideas and designs that could be used to help do something that has yet to be done. I was just telling people to check out the stadium because its cool! And we really cant say that Mr. Kraft wont pay for it outright at least the portion that would be his in the end. The companies taking over the London Stadium are paying for 60+ percent of the retrofitting currently

  11. Gillette Stadium - owned and operated by Bob Kraft. So unless a hypothetical stadium in Boston is built to Kraft's liking (I'm sure he'd fund some of it) and he's given the keys to it after the Olympics, that's not going to fly. Considering how close the Patriots were to leaving the Boston area entirely before building the new stadium in Foxboro, it's a tough sell to think the Pats would move into Boston.

    And in case you didn't realize it, the New England Revolution share Gillette with the Patriots (as they are both owned by Bob Kraft). They average 14,000 in attendance. So they would be much better served playing in a smaller stadium. The Sounders average the best attendance in the league because they have the strongest following, not simply because they play in a higher capacity stadium.

    I think tickets after this world cup will really pick up?... in 1997 New England Rev had the #1 MLS Attendance with 22,000... but it would still be more conducive in the city. There are definitely no plans to move the Patriots here.

    We also have to remember that a couple of these places are sites being considered for the Casinos no?

  12. Sure, Boston may be innovative (not the most in the worls, though IMO), but that doesn't mean that they have the money to research and implement said innovation.

    Be sure to let the people who name the most innovative cities in the world that :-) it's been #1 (2009-2013) , #2 (2007-2008, 2014) and it's always in the top 10...

    The students at our schools would do it for free if the rest of the committee would finally let people in the loop to help like they promised with the Logo design and then decided to great another BS one

  13. I have no proof or evidence, but I bet you are better off building a 100% temporary Olympic stadium, tearing it down, then building a soccer-specific stadium on the spot... than you are in building some sort of downsizable/transformable compromise. But nobody would ever propose such a thing as it sounds wasteful.

    I bet if there were no safety concerns they could just design two stadiums one large and one small but make interchangeable parts so when you take most of the large one down you could use the same materials to build the smaller one in the same location... that would be pretty amazing

  14. Ok. That post convinces me there's a serious lack of maturity at work here.

    You've gotten several well-reasoned responses and rather than engaging in adult conversation you fire off highly emotional retorts that are irrationally dismissive.

    It's a shame. Would've been nice to have a real exchange.

    Someone should be saying that to you as well since YOU are and always have been the only ones in here to dissect my posts into whatever the hell you want it to sound like. And yet you accuse me of doing it to you when I havent misquoted any of you. The only response you ever have to me is by misquoting me you never come up with facts to go against my point.

    Have a great day...

  15. Rik, I have to admit, you fit right in here when you completely mis-represent a person's point like that. When did I say it's not possible? When did I say I don't want a Boston Olympics? Enough of this rhetoric that Boston is the most innovative city out there and anything is possible. Be realistic for a change.

    A lot of people here are offering up potential sites and other ideas for a Boston Olympics. Doesn't mean they're all good ideas. I still don't think you're fully comprehending what it takes to host an Olympics because you need to keep asking the question "is this worthwhile?" Even if you find a place to put a stadium and innovative way to design it and a legacy plan for after the Games, is it worth the time, effort and money as opposed to another project that might use those resources? That's the question we're asking. No one is trying to stop you from dreaming big and imagining what could be, but again, not everyone is as gung ho for a Boston Olympics as you are, and if you're looking for a place with people who all think that way, this isn't that place. We're all more than happy to continue to ask the questions and come up with ideas. There wouldn't be a 70+ page thread otherwise. But again, like Athens said, you have consistent been pumping up Boston as if it's the greatest city in the world and the perfect Olympic host. Just because you think that does not mean the rest of us who disagree with you are being negative.

    Keep dissecting my posts into your own meanings. I like how you have no clue who I am but you keep making statements about my knowledge or what I do.

    The plans for London were not released until March of last year and they are under way and paid for.

    And I haven't commented on the people talking about different areas because they're being PROACTIVE! Which is what I was saying, instead of saying NO say well maybe if we did this or if you tried this. I wasnt saying just be positive at all and I never said we were the best City or the best possible host. by far I think Paris should win.. .

    I have also said a million times that we should be the first US city to bid for a YOUTH Olympics... I'll go back to my actual work on this instead of a thread that has no affect on any of this process its a pure waste of time but when you get ignorant emails it's hard to not respond ;-)

  16. Rik, don't confuse negativity with being realistic. You keep talking about "keeping an open mind" but it takes more than happy thoughts for a city to pull off an Olympics. Okay, so some of the cities and stadiums you mentioned provide a template for how it could work. The question you need to ask is can Boston make that work, and if so, is it a worthwhile endeavour for them? It does Boston and the folks working on this no good to minimize these issues as if they're no big deal. You're right that it's not going to cost millions of dollars to bid, but that's easy for you to say when it's not your time and effort going into making this work. We get that you have high hopes for this and think Boston can pull it off, but forgive the rest of us for not being as positive as you are about the prospect of a Boston Olympics.

    It's not my time or effort? hummm

    I wasn't minimizing anything I was stating that its FAR from Impossible and anything in this city is possible we have the most innovative minds in the world...

    Instead of saying its not possible when you have no clue why not say think of ways that it could be... and if you don't want a Boston olympics why post in here at all?

    Do you read what you write? You absolutely made this Boston-specific. The whole THREAD is Boston-specific.

    I can see you're quite enthusiastic, but there are a lot of concrete, practical hurdles Boston must address. You can't just gloss over them and say "We'll figure it out somehow. We're the most innovative city in the world!" -- a dubious claim at best.

    Did you miss the fact that there are separate paragraphs? There is NOTHING Boston specific about saying part of bidding is putting away money for retrofitting if that is the legacy plan.. WE ARENT BIDDING YET, NO ONE IS! lol ...

  17. I think the whole notion of a "future- proof" anything reeks of hubris, but that's neither here not there. Turning an 80,000 seat Olympuc stadium with a track into a 30,000 soccer stadium with seats close to the FOP is not easy.

    Boston is "setting money aside" for retrofitting a stadium even though they don't know if they're the USOC's candidate? That sounds curious. Whose money and how much?

    LOL I never said anything about Boston I love how you always change peoples statements... I said ALL OLYMPICS... if there is retrofit planned during the bid and building of new stadiums than money is put aside before hand assuming they keep ownership.. London has not happened yet because more than 30 other companies were bidding to take over the stadium, which has now been settled.

    And London was truly the first Stadium that really really even considered doing that so how do you know how hard it is really? They had it all worked out until others wanted to take it over..

    LOL I never said anything about Boston I love how you always change peoples statements... I said ALL OLYMPICS... if there is retrofit planned during the bid and building of new stadiums than money is put aside before hand assuming they keep ownership.. London has not happened yet because more than 30 other companies were bidding to take over the stadium, which has now been settled.

    And London was truly the first Stadium that really really even considered doing that so how do you know how hard it is really? They had it all worked out until others wanted to take it over..

    I think the whole notion of a "future- proof" anything reeks of hubris, but that's neither here not there. Turning an 80,000 seat Olympuc stadium with a track into a 30,000 soccer stadium with seats close to the FOP is not easy.

    Boston is "setting money aside" for retrofitting a stadium even though they don't know if they're the USOC's candidate? That sounds curious. Whose money and how much?

    Not to mentian Londons Plan was ONLY made public in March 2013 ;-)

  18. Exactly. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is a big deal and it will be very expensive.

    Whether one retrofits the lower stands or opts for movable stands to get closer to the FOP, keep in mind that Boston would still be eliminating at least 50,000 seats of their 80,000 seat stadium post-Games. Logic would suggest those are the upper seats.

    Basically, they would remove the 50,000 upper seats altogether and then either retrofit the lower 30,000 seats or design them to be movable. Either way, the amount of labor, construction and expense means they would ostensibly be REPLACING a large stadium with a second smaller one -- not just making a few minor modifications.

    It's a huge undertaking. I only see it happening one of two ways:

    A.) somebody ponies up a huge sum of cash.

    B.) Boston is so starstruck by the Olympic Games that they ignore the reality of the situation, move forward and end up paying the piper later amid a great deal of hew and cry.

    Otherwise they need to accept that such major changes may not be practical post-Games.

    I feel like everyone’s just trying to be negative for no reason...

    I can name 30 stadiums around the world large and small that accomplish all these concerns...We also have colleges that have this technology and if a college can have a football stadium with its entire field that rolls outside so the grass can grow in the sun and not get ruined inside then they can do something as little as move seats! Which they also do in that stadium...

    There are stadiums that can be ovals and then move into a circle lol.. Like the Saitama Super Arena: https://www.saitama-arena.co.jp/e/facility.html

    Sydney’s ANZ Stadium was “designed with the digital revolution in mind. The stadium was FUTURE proofed with the necessary infrastructure and cabling so it could respond to ongoing future advances in technology.

    The moveable seating tiers were a FURTHER innovation to allow for maximum flexibility. The stadium can be easily transformed from athletics to rugby, cricket, soccer and AFL, as well as used for concerts and trade shows.”

    This is BOSTON the most INNOVATIVE city in the world, this is literally the smallest of our worries, just ask any MIT student (even though this is old technology) and you will have a way to do it.

    The main issue is getting the rest of Boston to be open minded and go as far as we can without losing our shirts there is no reason to not at least TRY... we already know its not going to cost millions to bid

    You also forget that part of the bid is putting away money for all these retrofits afterwards like London has, they made money and have steadily been re-outfitting each arena for public use the way they planned from the beginning obviously it costs money that’s why you figure that out BEFORE the Olympics and put the money away before hand.

  19. Olympic Agenda 2020 - Working Groups

    http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Agenda2020/OlympicAgenda2020-Working_Groups_Members.pdf

    1. Bidding Procedure* (Notice #1 ;-) )
    2. Sustainability and Legacy
    3. Differentiation of the Olympic Games
    4. Procedure for the Composition of the Olympic Programme
    5. Olympic Games Management
    6. Protecting Clean Athletes
    7. Olympic TV Channel
    8. Olympism in Action Including Youth Strategy
    9. Youth Olympic Games
    10. Culture Policy
    11. Good Governance and Autonomy
    12. Ethics
    13. Strategic Review of Sponsorship, Licensing and Merchandising
    14. IOC Membership
  20. They say they're in favor of that but their actions speak differently. Either way, this is still a competition. Until we see the IOC make a decision along those lines in terms of a host city, I remain skeptical that's what they actually want. It should be what they want given the climate of potential bid cities out there, but all it takes is for that 1 bid to promise to go above and beyond and the IOC will be drawn to them. Tokyo was in a favorable position to do what they want because their competition was weak. Let's see what would happen if this theory is truly put to the test rather than them just talking about it

    Except for the fact that they have never put together 14 Working Groups with venue experts etc. to change and work on all of these factors which started to work this month, which will be presented to the executive board in July then worked on till it's announced to the rest of the board in December...

  21. Well duh, there's a minimum requirement. As long as they meet that, they can downsize (or upsize) all they want (as long as the IOC gives an 'OK'). But does that necessarily mean the IOC supports it?

    NO you can't downsize or upsize all you want LOL THAT WAS THE POINT OF MY POST! ... people in this room can't read

    Lets move on you will all see the big changes coming which is why Boston or DC were even considered ;-)

  22. So what you're saying is that the IOC will almost certainly choose the most elaborate bid in any given race, & any cost cutting can only be done after winning. Not a setup likely to help bids get through referendums :/

    Not what I said at all... I said FUTURE bids...

×
×
  • Create New...