Jump to content

aquaman617

Members
  • Posts

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by aquaman617

  1. I don't think there was significant talk about Toronto as possibility until around the time of the Pan Ams, which also coincided with the demise of Boston's bid. Was there some talk, sure, but Toronto is one of those cities that always seems to toy with the idea for a while - or at least has every Olympic cycle since the 90's. It was only around the time of the Pan Ams that the talk and speculation became more firm. I still think they'll hold out, and it would be wise for them to do so. I'm sure the IOC would choose a solid bid from an American city over Toronto, primarily because it has to prime the US money pump, and Canada recently hosted Vancouver 2010.
  2. Very very doubtful. Once Paris got into the race, the likelihood of any other contender winning went to near zero. In my opinion.
  3. My biggest pet peeve can't be attributed to the Games, but a bit to the media: Eric Heiden. The guy won 5 gold medals in a single Games - on his own national soil - and all anyone ever talks about when they discuss Lake Placid is the hockey team. I understand the drama of the hockey team's win, but Eric Heiden is probably one of the US' top winter Olympians ever and the guy's unbelievable athletic achievement has been reduced to a footnote.
  4. The USOC should just sit out 2024. I was a big supporter of the Boston bid, but it pained me to see the mis-steps, one after another, that its leadership committed. Someone on local TV last night attributed it to the fact that the B24 leadership was all corporate types who have never needed to consider politics and winning over people. I'm not sure that's 100% true, but there is an element of truth to it. Boston's bid really started to fall apart due to factors beyond its control: this past winter's record snowfalls and the impact on local transportation was more than enough for the No campaigners an opening. I hoped, but never truly believed Boston would have won (especially against Paris), but I was hoping we'd have at least gotten a decent bid together, gotten some good urban planning out of it, and perhaps set us up for a repeat bid in 4 years. Oh well.
  5. Boston Harbor was in the initial bid document to the USOC, however, it doesn't get the same wind that the area down around New Bedford gets. Sailing events in Boston might have had a pretty backdrop, but could have sucked from a competition standpoint. Of all the 2.0 plans, moving sailing is one of the least troublesome for me. I'd like to see them nail the velodrome and aquatics center locations. And I don't understand how gymnastics and basketball can share an arena. I could see using TD Garden for gymnastics the first week and a half, then bringing the basketball medal rounds in on the last few days, but I don't see how they can share a venue for the duration of the games.
  6. I think the real competition will be between Paris and Hamburg. I expect Rome's bid to fizzle on its own accord. Boston has been on life support since February.
  7. Not necessarily. Worcester's Union Station, with direct rail link to downtown Boston, is less than a 1/4 mile from DCU Center. Sure, there will be an uptick in traffic around events, but given that most handball fans will be from outside the US and given the option of a direct rail link or driving, how many of them do you think will be driving? Overall, I think some of the moves are good (beach volleyball, volleyball, sailing), some not so good (fencing). I view this phase of the bid more about ginning up popular support statewide and getting various state politician$ on board in advance of the September deadline. I don't see these locations as being iron-clad choices before the IOC decision in 2017 (a few may change, as they always do as the final bid gets refined).
  8. While limited access points may be good for security/access purposes in the normal operation of the site, they could also be a concern for security/access purposes in case of an emergency. I would imagine that planners must be making sure access points would be of a decent enough size for mass evacuations and/or emergency vehicle access should that need arise.
  9. Moving the tennis from one location 3 miles from downtown to another location 3 miles from downtown that is equally accessible to public transportation is a neutral move. Add to it that the relocated tennis venue will help Boston 2024 bolster its legacy argument within the city can be only be to its advantage. Unlike Harvard, the tennis club where that was chosen is enthusiastic about the prospect of hosting Games events and the Games will provide new tennis facilities and sports fields as a legacy for an inner city neighborhood that can benefit from it. Harvard would not benefit as much, nor would the community abutting Harvard's campus.
  10. Assuming Providence becomes part of Boston's game plan, there's no way Boston will give away the marquee events of gymnastics and the basketball finals. No way. Echoing DamC's post, I could see Providence's use as limited to smaller sports or prelims in other arena sports.
  11. I think it way premature to say the USOC should pull the plug. They may, eventually, but from what I hear, there is an updated bid in the works that B2024 and the USOC have been working on (expected to be detailed toward the end of June). Let's see what comes out of that before we remove life support. Putting some prelims in Providence would be better for the spectators (downtown Providence has much more charm than downtown Worcester), but it would cause Boston 2024 to deal with 2 state legislators, 2 city halls... I think the people of Providence would enthusiastically jump through hoops to have a few Olympic events in their city, but their state and city leaders could make this a tricky thing to negotiate.
  12. Every render I have seen seems to include little to no greenery. It just looks like it will be a brick and pavement wasteland with no grass or trees to soften it up. I would expect there should be all kinds of palms and flowering plants incorporated in the design, but I'm seeing very little of that. Am I missing something?
  13. What I meant about the timing of the job as baseball commissioner, I know it came to him during the prep period for the LA Games. What I meant was the 84 Games could have ended up a colossal failure (transportation problems, some act of violence or terrorism, expanded boycott beyond the Warsaw Pact countries, etc.). LA was not in the history books as a success until almost 6 months after he had signed his contract with MLB. Is there a history of adding local organizing committee heads to the IOC? As BR2028 asked, has Coe? Has Mitt Romney? I'm not being belligerent - I actually think their experiences would be invaluable in terms of advising the selection committee.
  14. Peter Ueberroth was already selected to head up MLB before the '84 Olympics even took place and were shown to be a success. I don't doubt that the criticism of Samaranch here is valid, but unlike Richard Gere in "An Officer and a Gentlemen," Ueberroth had somewhere else to go - and a handsomely paid somewhere else, at that.
  15. The referendum will be after the IOC candidacy deadline, but before the 2017 selection.
  16. And I'd even say that muggings are pretty rare. Pickpocketing is almost unheard of in the US. (Now watch, I'll show up work today to find my iPhone has been swiped from my pocket.)
  17. I don't anyone here said that a Boston win was a foregone conclusion. But, anyhow, congrats to Hamburg!
  18. Can someone update the title of this thread to just "Boston 2024" or something? The old title seems a bit... old.
  19. IMO, Berlin would be a stronger candidate for Germany to put forward. As the capital of a reunified Germany, it should be able to craft a much stronger, more appealing, and more forward-looking narrative than Hamburg. And Berlin as host would allow Germany (and the IOC) to showcase how much the city has transformed in recent decades. *If* Paris were to be in the race with a decent bid, I don't see Hamburg prevailing. Berlin could, at least, give Germany a shot.
  20. You have this backwards. Boston's T system is at maximum capacity between September and May, when the city's population increases by a few hundred thousand college and grad school students. Summer is the T's down time - the college students are mostly all gone, the high school and junior high kids who use the system to get to school aren't riding, and there is a constant cycle of regular T users who are away on vacation any given week. Yes, summer tourists pick up some of the slack, but not much. I'd guess there is excess daily capacity of a few hundred thousand riders per day on the T when a Summer Olympics would be held. I don't have hard #s, but I've been riding the T for 20 years and this is the pattern.
  21. Agreed (but I deleted your slam against Tony, which I don't condone). I can see a lot of pressure to hold the next 2 SOGs in Europe and North America (not necessarily in that order), their two most popular and lucrative markets. The timing works against South Africa at least until 2032, in my opinion, and against Australia until 2036 or later, again, in my opinion. Europe's getting a SOG in that time period is almost assured. And if you're the IOC, the specter of renewing a US broadcast deal post-2032 would likely be looming much larger in the IOC members' heads than a lot of people here seem to think. If you're the IOC, and you recognize that (1) NBC's broadcast contract is your lifeblood, and (2) NBC will recoup a huge % of their investment in that contract when the US hosts and would be more eager to up the ante for the next contract cycle, do you (A) hold off on granting the SOGs to the US until the very last year of your current contract with them, or ( you award the US the SOGs in the middle of the contract? Scenario A puts the IOC in a weaker bargaining position to negotiate a new and highly favorable long-term contract with a US broadcaster, IMO. Bypassing the US in 2024 and 2028 but only giving the SOGs to the US in the last year of their deal with NBC tells all US broadcasters, "OK, the US won't get another SOG probably until 2052... but let's negotiate a new contract through 2048." With a US Games off the table for the duration of the next broadcast contract, the value of that contract drops. If the IOC was savvy, they'd give either 2024 or 2028 to the US so as to dangle out there the lure of another US Games (SOG and/or another WOG) before the next broadcast contract would be up for renewal in 2048 or 2052. In my opinion, the IOC's revenue stream become less certain if the US is put off until 2032, regardless of whatever host Africa puts forth.
  22. The historical examples you've cited, though, aren't quite the same as Paris' hosting two global events in consecutive years. But I agree that '24 is Paris' best shot, perhaps ever, at hosting the Games. I think they'd be fools to pass it up, but then this is a Games forum... I'm sure somewhere there's an Expo forum where people are scratching their heads wondering why Paris would bother with the SOG!
×
×
  • Create New...