Jump to content


Premium Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TeamRik

  1. This doesn't chime with what you claimed earlier which was the point I was addressing. A few posts back you said the IOC wanted everything smaller. I pointed out their host city selections show the opposite - there's a gap between what they claim they want and their actions.

    Now, it seems to me it's Tokyo pushing for these changes in the venues plan, not the IOC. The IOC is working with Tokyo and has said it will sign off on venue changes if the IFs are happy with them. That's not a signal the IOC is pushing for smaller games or will begin to buck its own trend by selecting host cities with more austere venue plans. All it shows is they're willing to be flexible with hosts already selected, which is nothing new.

    That's a subtle but important difference in the context of this thread. If Boston is to put forward a more conservative plan (which is laudable if a bigger plan would be excessive for the city's future needs), it needs to understand that that may not work to its ultimate advantage.

    I never said that was what the IOC wanted in regardes to Tokyo actually.

    And the IOC has been talking about downsizing future bids for months

  2. Yes, of course they COULD, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are forced to.

    What? Why would the be forced to? You can go above and beyond all you want but people shouldn't be stupid enough to blame the Ioc for that every city is going to want to try and be the best on some form and building huge buildings has always been the way of the world for everything.

    And my point was Tokyo decided on their own to downsize and the IOC said absolutely! As long as the plans got approved for each individual sport like they had to do with their original bid...

  3. Yes, but there's a big, big difference between tweaking a host's venues to reduce costs after it's been awarded the big prize vs the IOC choosing the bid with the most temporary/responsible venue plan. The former happens quite often, the latter hardly ever.

    London, for example, moved things around a bit after we won the bid by bringing a couple of existing venues into play and removing a couple of builds from the Olympic Park. But our plan was, and even remained after the tweaks, the most ambitious in the five-city field. Tokyo, similarly, beat a very solid looking Madrid venue plan with a lot of existing venues and is building probably the most ambitious new national stadium anywhere in the world. Rio beat a similarly austere Madrid bid, and a Chicago bid offering a downsizable main stadium of the kind Boston may be proposing.

    There's a gap between the IOC's own rhetoric and who it selects as hosts. Maybe that gap will close under Bach, we'll have to wait and see, but I wouldn't take the desire for a smaller Games at face value. The IOC loves to feel like it's making an imprint on cities and the federations love a legacy for their sport. That's a heady combination that leads to big bids being selected time and again.

    Tokyo won because there was no fear of government or financial collapse or horrible violent protests... And quite frankly they don't deserve anything until they clean-up Fukashima and there are 6 venues being changed the main stadium was the least of their concerns and recieved no warnings yet on their changes like the Canoe, Basketball and Tennis received

  4. Sochi did whatever the hell they wanted and if you say otherwise you're truly clueless on the subject and they just told Tokyo yesterday they could downsize whatever they want and make things temporary to lower costs as long as they get each thing approved with the sports federation it would affect. ;-)

  5. It feels like none of you follow the current IOC decisions, meetings, conversations with Rio, Tokyo or any of their plans or "requirements" especially when it comes to Temporary or Legacy because everything people have listed has been the opposite to what they want. They are very much for less expenditures of funds and are in favor of perm/temporary structures that can be reduced in size and they are making the athletics program Smaller!

  6. I've been discussing this topic just as long as you have. We'll see how it works out.

    I was referring to to the acknowledgement that the space is adequate

    A more visual perspective:

    dVTR89r.jpgIt fits! (barely :mellow:)

    You cut out half of the space it goes all the way down to past the Transportation Department the ENTIRE Tow Lot.. so it would more than fit in any direction with space to spare especially to the left

  7. I don't know, that area of the city looks large enough. I compared the London Stadium, its around 800 feet wide, 1000 feet long, and the shortest side of the yard is around 1000 feet, if you assume the perimeter as such:


    W 4th St.

    Dot Ave.

    Bypass Rd.

    Thats a pretty decently sized area.

    Precisely! Thank you for being a new voice to express that, they don't listen ;-) They also don't follow the IOC's quest to change the OLD way they did things ;-)

  8. Because this is the last place you will find any factual information about the bid, process, USOC or IOC.

    people liked to attack me here which is why I stopped posting on here and have just enjoyed reading the crazy talk haha but I have quite a bit of knowledge on all of this ;-)

    That report/project with Suffolk downs mentioned was neat and had some cool ideas but it's by a third, fourth, fifth party so who knows how much of it will become fact.

    There have been a few third party and news articles about the seaport district again where others groups made possible village/stadium designs. It would be a great location if it became available and had the right acreage

    It baffles me that because they did not make locations and ideas public that you think we have no plans in the works LOL they would have never picked a four city short list after many USOC & IOC visits to Boston if we had nothing in the works. Everyone knows how negative this city has become so the last thing they're going to do is announce partial plans

  9. That's the big question. Based on the recent feasibility study, Boston doesn't have an answer yet.

    actually they do have one option they're exploring... there is a large plot of land owned by the MBTA unused that they're looking into and it's a great location on the waterfront and by the cruise ship terminal

  10. Talk in the local sports and development communities is that Bob Kraft is looking for a site to build an appropriately-sized stadium within a few miles of downtown Boston for the Revs. I've heard from some architect friends that the plan is to build an under-30,000 seater that could be adapted to a larger use and than "right-sized" again after a Games. Don't forget, both London's and Atlanta's main stadia were largely temp structures that were designed to be downsized after their Games. Meanwhile, the Bird's Nest sits empty 95% of the time and Athens' venues are growing weeds.

    This has been the plan since day one... its extremely amusing to read all these posts about how boston is planning no main stadium or track which has never once been their mission ;-)

  11. I have no idea how official this is (not very, most likely), but its an interesting presentation.


    A few too many typos and figures are a bit off.

    That was pretty neat but like you said the figures are way off and we don't need to build any new hotels but we do already have many planned before then. Also how do you figure you can build a park across the Charles river when boats have to get through? LOL

  12. The old one looks more cultural (unlike the new logo). Besides, the (supposed) "representative" of the committee (on Gamesbids forums) said that the sails were suppose to represent the flames, but they'd have to change it because it was against IOC policy. They could have just modified the old logo slightly to prevent trouble (as long as the meaning is still present)...

    Of course he said that :-) what they should have done is followed through with their promise on Facebook to hold a logo design contest, many many people were interested including myself... I liked the old one when we used it for the gay games but it should have never been recycled the new one is pretty confusing to me even the colors there is really nothing Boston about it

  13. that would be it's only possible justification i guess.

    unless as i mentioned they want to be associated with the united states military.

    Or Citizens Bank! And the first one was not a flame it's sails for a sail boat and it is the IDENTICAL logo we used for our bid to host the 2014 Gay Games.... They needed to change it the day after they used it

  14. Greater Boston has 51,000 Hotel Rooms actually, as well as 30,000 Dorm Rooms and Ample Docking Space for Cruise Ships all of which are approved, accepted and used at the Olympic Games.

    And this just out!...

    "Panel calls Olympics in city feasible but says space for venues uncertain"
    Boston has enough hotel rooms, security expertise, and cultural cachet to host the 2024 Summer Olympics but would face a challenge finding space for an 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium and a 100-acre Olympic Village, according to a special commission’s draft report.

  15. Dallas the "small" problem of pursuading the local and state legistalture to pony up $billions to bring in a bunch of fereigners who play sissy sports (i.e. not football).

    With Congression controll over Washington DC, and the current disfunction in Congress, there's no way they can put forth a coherent bid.

    Boston will have the support it needs... just a matter of whether they are large enough to be credible.

    Finally, there is LA. LA could bid and could win. But to they have the people who place who will push forward and make it happen.

    until people on our bid committee say things like: "I wouldnt let my family go to the Sochi Winter Olympics"


  16. Like Nacre it depends on how Boston will utilize the games. We know Philly is out, Chicago is not participating, and Boston vs DC vs LA seems to be the likely run, so out of all these cities who do you all think will develop the best plan? My bets are on LA rumors point that the current LA river revitalization project will be combined with a 2024 games.

    DC seems to be far and away the most organized and serious, if LA won it would be just because they're LA and have had the games before but LA is not the LA it once was like people still have trapped in their heads... I think if Boston would actually work together as they really have since appointing their community it could be quite an amazing and dynamic bid, before it was just pipe dreams and arguments now it seems to be realistic teamwork, we have the means of building anything we need for these games and are the most innovative city in the country our largest obstacle is creating believers everyone can post 100 times about stadium, stadium, stadium but we have more creative, innovative minds in this city than anywhere.. It would benefit the committee to utilize those minds rather than create their own

    And our next 10 years of approved transportation overhauls & upgrades proves what we can accomplish, and the projects we have completed while the rest of the country was in recession does as well, Boston was the only city to not halt or cancel projects during that time

  17. Regardless of where an Olympic stadium goes, what is it going to be used for after the games? NFL teams hate track equipped stadiums, so I have a hard time seeing the Patriots agreeing to play there. An association football/soccer team (the Rev) would have the same issue. Boston College seems like the only reasonable user to me (since Harvard probably won't be interested.)

    The Patriots have a the #7 top ranked Stadium they certainly don't want or need a new one, however Robert Kraft and The New England Revolution have been planning on building a stadium EXACTLY like this and have been looking for the right location for quite some time...

  18. I think we should be the first US city to bid or host to the Youth Olympics now personally.... especially since DC is more on the ball in a month than Boston in over a year...
    Just Sayin' Pick it up or Give it up... it can be done no doubt but not with the wrong people, or being secretive, sticking to your word and working with the community is more important than 1,000 posts a day on Twitter.
    In fact the hosts that win their bids are usually the countries that post less but with bigger and better meaningful announcements.

  19. It's really just say anything against Rik huh? Lol it Boston has been used and will be used again. As I mentioned above, If we bid. It was the women's 2008 Olympic marathon trial course where Deena Kastor won. The Day before Boston Marathon a separate looped course through Boston and Cambridge was created since everyone and there mother knows Boston course is not WR classified.

  20. The reason Boston's Marathon has not been used as the US Olympic trials is that it is that the USTFA considers it a little too early. Don't they usually hold it around mid- or late May & the winners would have enuf time to recover for the July-August Oly runs?

  21. Bummer missed opportunity on the 2016 Olympic Marathon Trials Bid, I suggested we throw our name in there since we have had them here before and all the Boston Marathon support and them going for an extra 9,000 slots next year etc..

    Bidding: Cincinnati, NYC, L.A. & Houston

    Should for sure put it on the list of things to do for 2020 no doubt..

  22. What has this to do with the Olympics? The NY Times also just sold the Boston Globe for only $70 million. American football and baseball are NOT Olympic sports. LA didn't have a pro football team when it hosted in 1984.

    The typical negative attitude responses you guys come back with to every post by anyone is as boring as the day this thread began... If you could read it said "Fun Forbes Fact".. and by 2024 Baseball will probably be back since they are campaigning very hard for Women's Softball which deserves a slot.

    And the owner of the Red Sox purchased the Boston Globe, the NY Times took a HUGE loss on that since they purchased it for $1.1 Billion in 1993

  23. Fun new Forbes Fact:

    The WORLD'S 50 Most Valuable Sports Teams 2013
    #6 - New England Patriots - $1.635 Billion
    (only 2 US Teams above #4 New York Yankees & #5 Dallas Cowboys)

    #11 - Boston Red Sox - $1.312 Billion
    (#7 LA, #8 Washington, #9 NY)
  • Create New...