Jump to content

Maritime Kid

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Maritime Kid

  • Rank
  1. Thank you for ending a numbers fued. It really was starting to get out of control. Enough with the Semantics. Its unessasary and a complete waste of breath and typing by both of you. Your not adding anything new to the conversation. -___- Rikk, This is all well and good and i agree that there would be alot of interest and support behind a games in Boston but Chris is correct. The logistics of such a feat are on a Scale that Boston has not ever dealt with before.This isn't a "Lets go guys" and we have the games. Look back at NYC 2012's bid book and the cracks were seen from page one. The point
  2. This bickering between Quaker and Rikk has gone on for far too long. I realize you both have strong spearheaded opinions and thats wonderful. But both of you need to just agree to disagree. Here we are arguing over skematics and semantics on an event almost 14 Years off in the future. This Thread should be about Why we believe its Fesable. Thats the argument (As far as i have read throughout this thread) is : "Is Boston Able to Hold a worldclass sporting Event at the scale of the Olympic Summer Games". The argument is completly up for debate and we all have pros and cons. Of course those who a
  3. Very well stated. The only major issues are as stated, a suitable Olympic Stadium, Transportation upgrades and Public Support. These are all to be hashed out in due time. But i'm glad that the discussion is being initiated.
  4. I did, As much as Northeasten has alot of uses, i feel like the Olympic Village has to be a Centric place. It's a nice idea to have the village spread out like the many dorms and housing complexes along Alston, cambridge and brigton. But i feel like a true to life Village in the north of the city near wonderland would make the most sense. Turn some down trotten housing into new complexes and support such an athletes village, but then again; if one college was ready to make some housing updates i don't see why BC, BU or Harvard couldn't pick up the responsibility.
  5. Hold up relax. You don't know that NYC isn't going to bid. They were just handed this letter by the USOC a few days ago. How do you know that they aren't. Post a link to prove this credibility. Again, you have no proof of this either. The climate in two years time may be diffrent. As i've stated we don't know yet. Its far to early to even Hypotosize who is going to run. Don't say "Osaka, Lisbon, Jakarta arent going to bid" when it hasnt even been discussed by NOC's yet. thats abit foolish no? They have much to offer. Its the climate that those cities have and the diffrent variables affecting
  6. Of course thats always the case. It was clear to the US media that Chicago not being selected was a huge upset. But as you said, bid watchers saw the climate and saw the writing on the wall early on. Although i believe the Revenue Sharing Agreement had alot to do with the loss of both NYC and Chicago. I feel though that this time around the Stars will align for the USOC. It'll be 28 years after Atlanta and 14 years after a North American Olympic games. The timing seems about right. If anything i think that Boston, NYC, Los Angeles, Philly and San Fran seem like the only contenders this time ar
  7. Oh no, It's not that Chicago or NYC can't host the games. I believe that NYC will host the games within this century. I think that we shall see it within our lifetimes. The question is are they going to now? 2024 is all in the planning stages and we haven't seen any real competitors throw their hats into the ring. Who is to say that we might see a pair up of Osaka, Lisbon, Panama City, Boston and Quinto. On this same theory who is to say that we wont see NYC, Paris, Durban, Shanghai and Berlin battling. Its far to early to say as you said, its a matter of the right place at the right time. and
  8. Paul: The failings of Chicago and New York are what i'm pointing to... Chicago bid in 2016, they failed and said they didn't want to continue bidding again. It's been said in this forum already. In Terms of NYC, I don't know for sure. As i've said before this is all opinion. Many of the sites listed in NYC's bid no longer exsist as locales that are buildable. They have either already been redeveloped or have fit another purpose. There isn't as much buildable land in NYC that doesnt come at a premium and i think that may hinder NYC's chances. Again, Not fact just opinion. Not that the USOC was
  9. Woah, Slow down. Listen Conspiracy theorist. Relax. there are no ills will being intended by myself. The others i don't know. This dicussion and topic had peaked my interest as it was being discussed by a local group of mine and the opinions were being high flung. I wanted to research the topic and came across this thread and decided to imput my two cents. thats all. Understand that my opinions are just that; opinions. I'm not an expert on the topic or have any real expert knowledge to add to the conversation. But i did want to discuss the idea with other individuals and thats why i'm here.
  10. I've been reading into this topic a bit and you all make very intreging arguments both for and against Boston's bid and they are all very convincing. Your all bringing up valid points. Some of you from miles away from the "Hub" and from some of you right down the street from Beacon hill. I will say this there are multiple factors at play here in 2024. -The USOC is coming off of a deal with the IOC over copyright rights which hindered New York and Chicago from even getting out of the starting blocks, and i believe that really played a major factor in that decision. -Currently The IOC seems to
  • Create New...