Jump to content

aquaman617

Members
  • Posts

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by aquaman617

  1. Nothing official yet... http://olympictalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/02/south-africa-2024-olympic-bid/
  2. From what I've seen, though, Boston's plan is not to convert the main stadium at Widett Circle to a football stadium when the Games would be over. The NE Revolution have announced an interest in building a stadium on a site adjacent to Widett Circle. Boston's plan is a 100% teardown as far as I know.
  3. But two months ago, several people on this board were touting the renovation of the Los Angeles river as one of the key legacies of another LA Games. Talk about peripheral to the Games. I was never all that impressed, but it sure seemed to impress folks around here. At least a renovated Dorchester Ave in Boston would have a Games and post-Games use and would be a great benefit to the city. Plus the transformation of Widett Circle, linking together two neighborhoods separated by an elevated highly and an industrial zone, by transforming it into a mixed use commercial/residential area with a MLS stadium is something that will not happen without the Games. (The MLS stadium might, but the other components will not.) It's not nearly as impressive as the transformation of sections of the East End after 2012, and it's not leaving behind the remnants of a giant hulking stadium for tourists to come and gawk at for a few years until the memories of a particular Games fade, but it also does not mean that there is no legacy built into the planning.
  4. I didn't say it was a strong argument, but that it is perhaps Boston's only chance at beating a more Alpha city like Paris. I'm no fool, the IOC will likely go for flash and dazzle regardless of Agenda 2020, but if I were looking at the hand dealt to Boston compared to the hand dealt to (European capital) and had to make a distinguishing argument, appealing to the tenets of Agenda 2020 could be one of the only arrows in Boston's quiver. Again, I'm not saying it'll be the winning argument with the IOC, but a city like Boston will go down in quick defeat against Berlin or Paris if it fights the battle on their field of choice.
  5. FYI, perhaps you're right, but if the IOC is looking to make inroads to places like Africa or Asia or Latin America, a Paris Games could reinforce the notion that a city must spend Alpha amounts before it's considered. If I were advising the Boston organization, I'd tell them to start courting third world IOC members and other aspiration all hosts (Eastern and Central Europe) on the notion that a bid using temporary venues lowers their own barriers to entry and serves as a better model for sustained growth. But you're right, whether the IOC members actually vote consistent w Agenda 2020 is a big question.
  6. And perhaps this is Boston's only chance to beat a city like Paris. Even if Paris bids using mostly existing arenas and venues, Paris' hosting does nothing to broaden the family of potential candidate cities: there aren't many cities in the world that already have multiple existing venues like a Paris or London or Tokyo. A winning bid from a city like Boston which plans on using many temporary venues, though, could be a model for other future hosts that fall out of the Alpha-Alpha category. I'm not saying it's a winning strategy, but it gives Boston an argument to make before the IOC.
  7. With all due respect, potentially partnering with the lottery commission to license a special Games-related lottery as a means of raising $$ is not using state funds. And relying on the federal government for security costs is standard practice for US-hosted Games. Neither of which is using MA-state funds, nor does either come remotely close to your claim that they are trying to get the state to foot the bill.
  8. I'd be interested in reading whatever stories you've been reading about the Boston group trying to get the state of MA to foot the bill. Can you provide a link?
  9. I was the one who said I thought a strong by Paris would win easily (including over Durban). It's just my opinion. You have your opinion, too. My god, move on.
  10. I agree 100% (or close to it). Earlier I essentially said that 2024 was Paris' to lose and was met with skepticism. You said it better than I did. Regardless of the lure of a Durban bid, the IOC will feel the need to shore up its base in 2024, whether that be the Europe or the US. A strong European or American bid in 2024 will be far more desirable to the IOC than anything South Africa can pull off. I am fully confident that if Paris bids, they will win and will do so by a long shot. Durban would be a speed bump on the path to Stade de France.
  11. I think a South African bid has to be more than just credible. It has to be desirable to the IOC. I think after Sochi, Rio, Pyeonchang and, possibly, Almaty (though I think Beijing will prevail), the IOC will desire something more tried and true, something more stable, a place it thinks it *needs* to be, something that re-establishes its cred among its 1st world membership. To me, that says 2024 will be in Europe (possibly the US if European cities' bids falter). Durban and South Africa may get its shot, but I am a strong believer that it will absolutely not be 2024 and likely not 2028, either.
  12. IMO, if Paris gets in he race with a decent bid, it will be the one to beat. It would easily wipe away Boston, Hamburg, Rome and Durban. Easily. The only competition I could see for Paris would be if Germany selects Berlin over Hamburg and the IOC allowed itself to be swept up in some kind of reunification nostalgia. (Perhaps nostalgia's not the right word.) I just don't understand the pessimism some are expressing here about a Paris bid.
  13. I completely disagree about Boston's strength. I think a halfway decent bid from Paris or Berlin would be almost impossible for Boston to beat. I find it tough to believe that France would go back to the IOC with any city other than Paris. Boston's best shot is if Paris stays out and Germany bids with Hamburg. I don't think Rome will be an unbeatable contender. And I don't see the IOC swooning over Durban at its first attempt at bidding - assuming South Africa even gets to that point with a bid.
  14. Ouch. Bach's dig at Rio: maybe on the day of the Opening Ceremony we will be able to thank construction workers directly. In other words, they will still be on scaffolds when the torch is lit. (LOL)
  15. My post was in the context of this thread. True, Melbourne hasn't made an official bid.
  16. I know we've debated whether or not it's a certain continent's "turn" in the minds of the IOC, but it would strike me as particularly blind for anyone in Melbourne to think the IOC would place a fourth Games in a row in one of the farthest east time zones, away from Europe and the Americas. If I were advising Melbourne, I'd tell them to keep their powder dry until '32 or '36.
  17. So you think the people on the organizing committee have done absolutely no homework about the minimum requirements of the IOC and volleyball's governing body? Come on, give them some credit. I have been inside the BCEC on a few occasions. I'd guess the ceiling is at least 50' high.
  18. I didn't see anything about handball, you're right, but volleyball is planned for the BCEC (convention center). I've heard the basketball prelims are going to be spread out a bit to regional arenas, but have not heard anything concrete. Romney is already involved with the Boston 2024 bid team, AFAIK.
  19. OK, everyone just has to stop reviving the notion that Foxboro is going to play a major part. It. Will. Not. It may be used for football/soccer, but it will not be the athletics stadium nor will it be used for ceremonies.
  20. Boston's legacy is about not saddling the host city with unsustainable white elephant projects, like Athens and Beijing. Boston doesn't have a surplus of arens and huge stadia because it doesn't really need them. It's universities are not like Ohio State or Michigan where a 90,000 seat football stadium is a given. A Harvard football game is never going to pull in more than Harvard Stadium can already hold. MIT will never need a 20,000 seat arena. They're just not those kinds of schools. So what legacy will the Games leave Boston? Thousands of housing units, not only in the form of college dorms, but middle class housing, which is desperately needed. It will spur on quicker improvements to Boston's public transit system. And by developing Widett Circle, it will provide a platform for commercial and residential growth in a former industrial area, closing the gap between two of the city's fastest growing neighborhoods (South End and South Boston). What legacy could Boston leave the Games? To show a new way (newer than LA's hosting would have been): hold the Games, incorporate projects that will overall benefit the host city, and leave a minimal footprint when the circus leaves town. If done successfully, I'm sure it would inspire many more medium-sized cities to bid and provide assurance to many European countries that hosting does not have to wreck your city or its finances. Hynes is a no-go. It straddles an interstate. There would be tons of security concerns with a public road running, literally, underneath a venue.
  21. Jumbo-tron showing a live event taking place across town, in all likelihood.
  22. Sorry, but there's simply no way they would spend several hundred millions of dollars on a temporary stadium immediately adjacent to downtown and multiple public transportation centers, but then locate the most televised aspect of the entire Olympic week to a (not much bigger) stadium with a smaller in-field 30 miles down the road. I have to believe that this is all just air-time filler that some airhead on CBS blathered out during the football pre-game show.
×
×
  • Create New...