Jump to content

ChrisValentine

Members
  • Posts

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisValentine

  1. As a longtime Boston resident (well, now I live just outside), I have to agree that it would be nice to see something on the Esplanade, but that its just not practical. Anytime they do anything at all there, it is a logistical nightmare. The Olympics... its just not practical. It'd probably be easier to just float a barge out onto the river nearby and hold something on that. So, thats not particularly practical, either. My only concern with the bid layout is that I really think they're underutilizing the Beacon Park train yard redevelopment. I'm guessing they're worried about getting that all sorted out in time, but I can't help but think that the current proposed location for the Stadium (Widdett circle) is worse from almost every angle.
  2. If the games are privately funded, as the planners state they will be, what money will be diverted?
  3. That article is so poorly founded that it approaches 'not even wrong' territory. Honestly, I think that my opinion of Boston's chances are actually bolstered by how poor the arguments are against it that have been presented so far.
  4. Those renderings are very underwhelming. Only in one of them can you even remotely tell its Boston (the 3rd picture has the Prudential and Hancock towers waaaay in the background)
  5. Yeah, most of the discussion is centering around the redevelopment of that area of the city, which is happening either way, regardless of any Olympics or none.
  6. There's no technically about it. The stadium is most definitely well within the municipal borders of Boston, and also happens to be near the old CSX train yards that have popped up continually as a possible site for an Olympic Village.
  7. Most metrics will result in similar lists, more or less.
  8. The guy has repeatedly said he's not going to run and, in his own words, the GOP should nominate "someone who can win."
  9. It was not that big of a deal. There was no flooding of buildings or anything like that. Just a precautionary "boil your water for a few days." And for all the supposed runs on water that were in the area, I had no trouble finding bottled water. However, it was an election year, and the Governor wanted to look like he saved us all from disaster.
  10. Actually, Boston has a pretty damn great water system, with the main lines presently around 26 years old, an absolutely gargantuan treatment plant, and a reservoir system that could support a population roughly 3 times its current service area (at least, thats how much it was when I was studying it back in '09, but its not like our population is increasing that quickly). Plus, California's kinda infamous right now for budgetary woes and shortfalls, whereas MA's... well, its not the poster boy of fiscal responsibility, but its not California.
  11. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/07/olympic-officials-upbeat-about-u-s-bid-after.html Written from a Boston-Centric view, but basically, only LA and Boston sent people to meet with the USOC last week.
  12. Only if Logan could handle it. If the plan takes into consideration supporting airports, one would imagine that those supporting airports would also receive arrivals in such style, as needed.
  13. My point was that we already have the technology to revolve that specific hurdle, and we're 10 years out from the games.
  14. I have to disagree with this specific concern. Not with the concern in general about people flying into smaller airports, I get that there's issues with that (traveling into the city itself being chief among them), and that its not always possible for certain international flights. But with the specific concern about searching for flights. I have 3 counter points: - When I search for flights on Kayak, it gives me the option of looking at neighboring airports for any flight. I'm sure there's booking sites that still don't do this, but its not an unknown feature. - Booking sites will only get better within the next decade, and I have no doubt that, by the time people are booking flights for the 2024 Olympics, the algorithms will be intelligent enough for the sites to give results for supporting airports, especially for something as involved as the Olympics. Or even some other solution that we currently haven't even imagined. - I would imagine that Logan and the Olympic Committee themselves would take steps on their end to most efficiently allocate the load between the various airports, even before we get to the issue of how things will show up on the booking sites.
  15. Logan has plenty of ancillary airports. Bradley, Providence, Manchester, Worcester, and Hanscomb could be utilized; Bradley's already a large international airport, and Providence does do some international flights. Of those 5, Providence Airport is already directly connected by commuter rail, and its been a perennial plan to connect Manchester, too (Worcester's connected, but the airport is far from the train station). I would imagine Prov and Man getting decent upgrades (another perennial plan) to help take up the slack. The cons about restaurants, hotels, star power, and weather are less cons for Boston than they are pros for LA. Obviously, every city in the world is going to have less star power than LA. I won't be surprised to learn that LA has more high end restaurants and hotels than Boston, simply because LA is huge. As for the difficulty in getting around the city... well, yeah, thats a problem for all the ancillary economic activity that comes with the games. But, of course, I doubt Mike's Pastry's is going to complain if they're working overtime to make sure everyone gets their cannollis (nor will Modern, for that matter). For all the grief that Boston gets for its street layout, thats really only an issue around the North End. Sure, the Financial district is just as convoluted... but its a financial district. The areas likely to be a center of Olympic activity are all fairly gridlike when it comes to their streets. And the 'oldness'... well, that will definitely be a con if Boston ends up being the US bid, though I do think that Boston can share its colonial charm without sounding too pathetic next to cities 5 times as old. But within the US, its definitely a pro for Boston. Unless there's a surprise Plymouth, Jamestown, or St. Augustine bid hiding in the works. There's absolute disadvantages and relative disadvantages. And the relative disadvantages vary when comparing the city nationally and internationally.
  16. Again, my point isn't that there aren't negatives or that the argument in favor of the Olympics (in my opinion, the argument boils down to "Its the Olympics!" which is good enough for me) is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be made. Just that the local columnists are not addressing the actual negatives, but rather setting up strawmen to tear down, rather than actual concerns. For example, say that the Curly Haired Boyfriend wrote, instead "It would seem that the Olympic planners have decided to address the scarcity of large open spaces in Boston by splitting up the Olympic Village into several smaller 'sub-villages.' However, every indication is that the IOC does not like this sort of approach, so that is another hurdle for Boston to overcome. And the idea of building the stadium over the Beacon Park railyard (just to use my personal favorite)? They better get their act together quickly, or totally screw up MassDOTs rerouting plans there, leading to institutional bickering..." Thats the sort of legitimate objections I'm not seeing from the local media.
  17. Not at all, and I think you'll find that my attitude towards the whole discussion is quite different than assuming that anyone who raises questions is a hater. The questions raised here, for example, tend to be very valid and insightful. I'm talking about the articles that get published in the local Boston newspapers, which tend to boil down to "Boston's too crowded, the Big Dig sucked, and we'll lose as much money as Sochi." If any of those columnists were to bother to look at the discussions here, they'd probably be able to present much better arguments against the Olympics.
  18. I'll start taking the anti-booster articles seriously when they start presenting their arguments seriously and take into consideration the actual proposed solutions for the various problems, rather than just restrict themselves to eye-catching hyperbole. For example, does Boston need an Olympics-sized aquatics facility? Of course not. Do any of the major universities in the urban core need a new one? Yes, most could stand an upgrade. Every article I've ever seen trashing the idea of a Boston Olympics has been written as though the whole project would be built like a boilerplate Olympic Village that needs to be plopped down whole cloth regardless of its environment. I've never seen an argument against the Olympics that says "Yes, the committee has proposed utilizing student housing at University X, but they have not taken into consideration that that university is hosting the international bipartisan cisgendered future third world leaders conference that same year." Its always "they can't build an athlete's village in the Common."
  19. I don't really see how that is relevant to my post. I'm saying that the Patriots *definitely* wouldn't move to Boston (well, maybe a 0.01% chance), so the only options left is the Revs. And Kraft has been open to the idea of moving the team to the urban center, and has been talking about it for years now.
  20. If we're talking Boston, any urban stadium built for after Olympic use would definitely be a soccer stadium. There's no real need for the Patriots to move to the city.
  21. Well, in the United States... yes. Honestly though, 'sports capital of the world' seems like a very meaningless phrase, unless every major country in the world followed the same sports.
  22. As Aquaman said, the main reason there's an elevated viaduct at the moment is to cross over the tracks by the rail yard. But if you look at the layout at the moment (apple maps has a nice 3D view), you can see that the highway returns to ground level just after passing over the tracks, which is beyond the Beacon Yard area. In fact, before that one elevated section, the highway's below-grade. However, I could see the Olympic bid altering the layout; perhaps the new course would remain below-grade the whole way. Kraft has been advocating for an urban stadium for the better part of a decade.
  23. Come on, man. The whole point of these sorts of discussions is to tear everything apart. Because thats what happens when *anyone* is bidding for *anything.* Thats how bidding works. I was on both sides enough in college to understand that; anyone who wants to demolish your bid is really your best friend. Not entirely correct. Cabot, yes. But the highway around Beacon is getting rerouted no matter what, so thats not really an Olympic cost. Boston could pass a resolution banning any future Olympic bids, and the Mass Pike is still going to get rerouted. The only way this would be an Olympic cost is if the reroute would be altered due to the Olympics. For example, if they want to put some support facilities under the highway, or some concourses connecting the park to the north and Commonwealth Ave to the south, or possibly some rail connections.
×
×
  • Create New...