Jump to content

aquaman617

Members
  • Posts

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by aquaman617

  1. That is utterly preposterous. If this is the plan, Boston deserves to lose (and will, mightily) - I would be surprised if the Boston organizers were so dumb. In all likelihood, this was blather from some on-air personality trying to fill air time. Foxboro will not serve this purpose (for a number of reasons) if Boston got the Games.
  2. Of course this is true, but it is also true that the IOC has not gone 3 cycles without a summer Games in Europe because it was not technically possible to host many summer Games outside Europe until recently. Asia: Until the 1980's, only Japan was capable of hosting. Korea was able by the end of that decade. China only rejoined the movement in 1984 and was only deemed capable in with 2008. No other Asian countries are truly viable hosts (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, India, etc., are extremely unlikely hosts, ever). Australia: aside from Japan, it was the only viable host in the far east time zone. Two-time host for a country with a population smaller than California's. Africa: has never been able. Only RSA is even remotely possible. I'd contend they won't be truly on par with others until some time in the 2030s. South America: only became viable with 2016. North America: Aside from Europe and Japan, North America was really the only other option the IOC had until 1988. Even then, there were no Summer Games in North America between 1932 and 1968, a 36 year gap. Nine summer Games cycles. North America has only begun to pull even with Europe in terms of hosting in recent decades. I'm not at all denying that IOC is very Euro-centric - that's demonstrably true - but with the rise of emerging economies and major cities outside Europe, combined with the importance of American TV revenue streams, Europe is no longer the only belle at the ball like it used to be.
  3. My heart is with Boston, but I'd be excited if Berlin prevailed in the end. Hamburg? Meh.
  4. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/16/poll-percent-support-boston-olympics-percent-oppose/i7hPCpItSRogNVBRp1Gq1L/story.html Public support for Boston 2024 has grown from 48% to 55% since October with no significant PR push or disclosure of bid details as of yet. One caveat - MA residents are 60+% against the Games if taxpayers will be expected to pay.
  5. I wouldn't be so confident that Europe has a lock on 2024. It could very well be the North America's turn in many IOC members' minds. Potential 2026 bidders will start coming to the fore in the next year (remember, the 2024 US candidate cities have been making their intentions known since 2012-2013). Only North America, Asia and Europe can host the Winter Games. I don't see a US city making too much noise about going for 2026 right now and, if the USOC *really* wants 2024, it may discourage a place like Denver from putting too much effort forward for 2026. Canada would be the wild card here, but would they expect to win having just hosted in 2010? After the 2018-2022 cycle, I see a moratorium on Asia for a few cycles. It would seem (from this far out), that Europe will be almost unbeatable for the 2026 Winter Games. While appealing from a continental perspective, I think the delays and issues around Rio's prep, I honestly don't think the IOC will be looking to put the Games in an emerging economy like South Africa for at least a couple more cycles. I should stress that I don't think the IOC would take an inferior US bid over a technically superior European one. But if two bids had similar technical merit, geography may be the deciding factor. Assuming only European locations will be the bidding for 2026, North America may have the edge on 2024.
  6. Lincoln Park in Chicago is much wider than Boston's Esplanade. The Esplanade is simply too narrow to host any events (maybe 300 feet at its widest). Another problem with the Esplanade is access: Storrow Drive, a major traffic artery, runs along its length and in order to access the Esplanade, there are only three or four narrow footbridges over Storrow. I know a temporary crossing could be built, but that would raise security concerns (hundreds of pedestrians crossing over an open road - I hate to say it, but talk about a soft target). In order to hold the July 4th fireworks, Storrow is closed down for the day. That can't be done for several weeks to accommodate an event or two. I would prefer a beach volleyball venue somewhere near UMass Boston's campus - perhaps L Street Beach or somewhere like that. It would also be about a 10 minute walk from the main stadium.
  7. How likely is it that someone will have tickets to two or three events in the same day? I've never been to the Games, but I'd imagine if I had tickets for Athletics, that would pretty much eat up an entire day, with watching various heats and field events and that I wouldn't be racing off to catch women's fencing or the Pakistan-New Zealand field hockey match somewhere else. But, even if that was the case, the events are not *that* far from one another. Remember all those arguments that Boston is too small?? LOL The farthest flung potential location (within the city - not counting whitewater) is perhaps Conte Forum (women's basketball) at Boston College. On the absolute worst day with the absolute worst traffic and the slowest delays on the T, it would take under an hour to get from Boston College to the TD Garden (gymnastics). You can walk from the BCEC (tae kwon do, boxing, wrestling, etc.) to the proposed stadium location in under 10 minutes. A five minute walk from the Beacon Yards location (assuming that's where the aquatics center will be) to the T, and you'll be down town in 15 minutes. I'm not saying the venue plan is perfect, it will take some exquisite planning to have it execute flawlessly, but compare this to LA's venue plan, which would have entailed *at a minimum* an hour in a car - not even public transport - then getting parking, etc., to get from the west side to events at Stub Hub or even farther down in Long Beach. While Boston's plan lacks an Olympic Park, it squeezes more venues into a smaller radius than any modern Games to date.
  8. This may all be the case, we don't know, but there's another scenario you're not permitting: perhaps of the four, Boston's bid just appeared to the USOC as the most winnable at the IOC level? Personally, I think the USOC membership was likely torn between LA and Boston. SF and DC each had a sprawling venue plan and included potential builds of permanent stadia for various local sports teams, not the best thing if one assumes the 2020 initiative has any meaning. LA doesn't need any new venues, and it sounds like Boston proposed either temporary venues or ones that local universities would pay for and would be taking over after the Games (i.e., both cities proposed "No White Elephants" venue plans). I think the thing that caused Boston to prevail over LA, despite its proven track record, was that there is no compelling reason for LA to host again so soon, and the USOC (perhaps rightly) assumed the IOC would yawn at the prospect of a third Games in LA.
  9. I, too, think Paris would be a fantastic host and could easily wipe away the competition with a solid bid, but they haven't even made their intentions clear. I suppose I'm as guilty as a lot of people here with respect to speculating at times, but the past few pages of this thread seem to be putting a cart waaay before its horse. (My mistake, it is the Paris thread that seems to be getting a bit ahead of itself)
  10. I have to admit, I'm pretty shocked by the result. I was actually beginning to love the idea of SF (perhaps my 2nd favorite city). I was never enamored with the DC bid. LA would have been solid, but the conditions for hosting were not unique enough to warrant a three-peat within such a short period of time. But now the hard part comes - the Boston organizers need to start putting their plan, or whatever they showed the USOC to win this, out to the public and start ginning up popular support.
  11. Uh, not quite on the TeamRik comment, but... I think I've found the issue. I was reading the threads on the Future Games Bids forum which all seem to have go silent about a week or so ago. I did not see that there is now a 2024 Bids forum and all these discussion migrated over here. Carry on.
  12. i'm surprised that there has been so little chatter about the 2024 Games after the USOC's meeting last week. I know no one here has the inside track, but has that ever stopped anyone from commenting before?? LOL
  13. Some people are jerks, some attempt to beat down opposition by overcompensating, some are ill informed, some are judgmental *ssholes. That can be demonstrated by just about any number of anonymous bulletin board poster from any place. It has no bearing on what a city or its people are about.
  14. Triathlon will not be cut. It's a relatively new sport (came in 2000, I believe), has a lot of public interest (Ironman, mini-triathlons, etc.) and is a youth-oriented sport. Equestrian, on the other hand, while grand, is much more a 1%-er sport. Very few kids sitting at home are going to see it on TV and think they want to be the next gold medalist equestrian like they do with sports that are more relevant to them like triathlon, gymnastics, snow board, etc.
  15. But why Marseille when you have Le Havre or Calais or even Biarritz so much closer to Paris than Marseille?
  16. One of the opposition group leaders about-faces and supports Boston's bid: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/12/10/leung/onYoWVeT7LDfsKZxUKJzKP/story.html
  17. Can't speak for the other cities, but there is a rail line to Gillette that runs on game days. World Cup matches were played in Foxboro. I don't see why it would be insufficient for early round Olympic matches.
  18. This venue plan is all over the place. Literally. It's one thing to put equestrian and sailing events some distance from the host city center, but marquis events like swimming?
  19. Bach will go hat in hand around Europe and North American looking for anyone else to host before Sapporo '26 will happen.
  20. Allegedly, Boston's plan is to have 90% of its venues within 3.5 miles of the city. Most compact Games since Athens in 1896: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/11/26/class-rings-boston-2024-olympic-bid-would-harness-local-colleges-to-host-events/
  21. This is as good a place as any to put this. It sounds like all 4 US bids are proposing budgets under $5 billion. http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2014/11/us_cities_urged_to_keep_price_tags_down_for_2024
  22. Agreed. And I don't see what's so revolutionary about the proposal to allow events outside the host city. Doesn't that already happen? Sailing, rowing, canoe, whitewater, etc. are almost always outside the host city's limits. Or are you guys interpreting this to fit, say, the San Francisco 2024 issue, where the host city may only house a few of the venues and others spread out over a vast swath of terrain?
  23. That's very true, and given the layers of security added after both Munich in '72 and post 9/11, it's more likely that a terrorist group would strike soft targets away from the Games venues within the host city or, as you said, in other places not covered by a massive security detail.
×
×
  • Create New...