Jump to content

aquaman617

Members
  • Posts

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by aquaman617

  1. Any Games is going to have similar security threats. Terrorists are looking for maximal impact. What better way than committing a terrorist act while hundreds of news cameras are running? It wouldn't matter if the Games are in Boston, or London or Timbuktu, ISIS or al Qaeda or whomever will likely try to disrupt them somehow.
  2. The IOC would never insult China by re-opening the bid process. Bidding is closed.
  3. New Haven?? Putting one event over 100 miles away is hardly worthwhile, nor has it been in any plan I've heard of.
  4. Based on... what? Everything I have heard about venue location in Boston is that they plan on heavily using university infrastructure. Harvard, MIT, BU and Northeastern are all within a three mile radius of one another. The planned stadium site (assuming it's Cabot Yard) is a mile from downtown and about a half mile from the planned Village. All are reachable by public transport. Aside from rowing, sailing, and things like BMX, Boston's bid is about as compact as any American city's bid could be. LA's sprawls out over dozens of miles, in comparison. About the carnival-like atmosphere, it may well come to pass, but that may be a said of every American bid. As someone who is not a native Bostonian, I can tell you that the level of reserve and the belief in "the proper way things ought to be done" is stronger here than any place I have ever lived. It is not in the New England DNA to be brash and crass and bold the way it might be in a place like Atlanta.
  5. (Former) Arrogant NY-er here, as well. LOL What I meant by this was that Boston, as great a city as it is, sits in the shadows of other cities in the northeast. Of the three major cities in the northeast, Boston, NYC, and DC, NYC is the undisputed business and cultural leader and DC is the seat of government. Boston is a supporting cast members in a lot of ways. Boston has as good, if not better, cultural amenities than almost any city in the US (symphony, opera, museums, dance companies, etc.) and it has great tourist assets. I would put it ahead of San Francisco and Chicago in terms of cultural heft, but doesn't get nearly the same recognition largely, I think, because it's in such close geographic proximity to two cities that get all the attention. I don't think a Boston Olympics would cause Boston to leap into the NYC-London-Paris tourist club, hardly, but it would raise its profile considerably. It could also give Boston a chance to establish a new brand in the global business community, especially in growth industries where Boston has some strengths - the sciences, pharma, robotics, etc. That's what I meant by having the greatest potential among the four candidate cities. While Boston is undergoing a lot of urban renewal, it will never transform the way Barcelona did and I don't think it could if it tried, but I think it has the greatest upside potential of the four US cities to re-image itself.
  6. Even though I'm gay, I think outraged would be a bit of an overstatement. I find it completely vexing when people try to link being gay to pedophilia. I just disagreed with your statement that the Russians paid lip service during the Games. They did nothing of the sort. They simply side stepped their (and their leader's) own bad history around gay and lesbian issues.
  7. Lip service? Like when Putin said that gays and lesbians were allowed to be in Sochi as long as they stayed away from the children? Implying that gays and lesbians are either pedophiles or that they are looking for recruits is not paying lip service, that outright hostile.
  8. Something we can agree on. But I don't think Boston could capitalize on a full Barcelona-effect (Barcelona went from industrial backwater to a top global city in the span of a decade), but of the 4 US cities still in the running, I think Boston has the greatest upside potential for a Games to have a transformational impact. The other three cities have fairly well-established international images. Boston does as well, of course, but its reputation is strongest among those who have a reason to be familiar with it (e.g., people in certain fields, education, medicine, finance, high tech). An Olympics could really cause people unfamiliar with all Boston has going for it (great neighborhoods, growing waterfront, arts, harbor islands, etc.) to take a deeper look. San Francisco, perhaps, could as well. I'm not sure the same could be said of LA, and certainly not of DC.
  9. I can only conclude that you are willfully misreading what I wrote. What I said was that for just about every host city traffic and disruption are one of the first arguments the "No" people raise. What makes this argument weak is that most people in the host city work around that, either by leaving their city or by telecommuting. Athens went notoriously empty when it hosted. London didn't go as empty as Athens did, but there were a lot of complaints from London's theatre companies, local businesses, etc., that the Olympics caused a big drop off in standard resident and tourist activity for those few weeks. I did not advance any "argument" that Boston must empty out before it can host. I was talking about every host city and that the residents of those cities often leave of their own will just to avoid the big headache they believe is coming their way. About cost, again, I made no argument about federal money. I simply said that security costs for the Games (especially after 9/11) are often borne by the host nation's government, not the host city. This was the case in London, Beijing, Athens, Salt Lake, Torino (and of course, Sochi). I said nothing about Boston needing or getting billions in federal $$ to pay for the Games. You're the one who made that link, not me.
  10. I agree - *if* the people say No (something that has not yet happened), they say No. Other than the handful of people who make up this No Olympics enterprise, the people of Boston have not *already* said No as the article implies.
  11. The title is completely misleading - the city of Boston has most certainly NOT said "hell no". (At least not yet.) That said, articles like this drive me crazy, regardless of which city's bid it is about. NIMBY cranks will always pop out of the woodwork when a big proposal like a Games or a major spending program comes up. "Oh my god, the traffic!!!" [Lamest argument against. You'll probably be on vacation those weeks anyhow.] "Security costs are outrageous!!!" [Federal governments largely covers those costs, not the host cities.] "We should focus our efforts on better schools, building our own infrastructure, creating jobs, etc." [OK, so when we raise taxes to build better roads or schools or whatever, you'll be on board, right?? Didn't think so.] About the IOC's attention on Boston, maybe John Fish knew some inside info when he made the statement that he was about 75% sure Boston would be the USOC's choice?
  12. Chile, Argentina and New Zealand are the only countries south of the equator that have the right climate and winter sports infrastructure for hosting a Winter Games. (I'm not sure Australia has regulation height ski mountains with reliable snow cover.) But, regardless of climate and infrastructure, the IOC would be ensuring itself the least-watched Winter Games ever if it decided to run a winter sports festival while the northern hemisphere is spending its days at the beach.
  13. It wouldn't surprise me if the USOC invited 35 candidate cities just to drum up some publicity across the country about a potential 2024 bid. Each of those 35 cities (especially the smaller ones with no chance) probably had one or two stories in the local papers or on the local evening news about being invited to bid for the Olympics. I would be shocked if anyone within the USOC saw Rochester or Jacksonville as a realistic candidate city.
  14. If Berlin gets into this, I'd view them as the strongest candidate. Not unbeatable, of course, but after reunification, not hosting since Munich in '72, and being one of the strongest Olympic powerhouses, I think they'd be the ones to beat.
  15. To the TV viewer, Atlanta's excessive commercialism was invisible - no logos in the arenas or on jerseys, etc. The criticism around Atlanta's commercialism was about the atmosphere immediately outside the venues - many likened it to a carnival fairway: tacky souvenirs, cheap tee shirts, vendors hawking knock-off goods, etc.
  16. One more moment - London Closing Ceremonies: Eric Idle doing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" was pure genius. And when I mentioned AAF earlier, I meant the Julie Anthony version. She was amazing.
  17. After the 2008, 2018, 2020 and 2022 run, I can't see an east Asian city hosting any sooner than 2034. Again, each bid unique with its own stronger and weaker candidates, but I think the IOC will intentionally keep the Games out of Asia for a few cycles.
  18. An interesting take on how Boston could use the Olympics as a platform for enriching its institutions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-brian-c-mitchell/growing-up-bostons-colleg_b_6020684.html?utm_hp_ref=college&ir=College
  19. - the Chinese printing blocks segment in Beijing - Klypsedra, Athens - the undersea portion of Sydney - Pendemonium, London - the Beijing segment with the giant oars - Advance Australia Fair, Sydney - such a great song - the Cirque de Soleil-like segment with the bungee cords, Albertville - cauldron lighting, Barcelona - projection trick, Atlanta - athletes parade, Torino (they marched in to a long segment of classic 70's disco; I thought it was cool retro fun) I need to add an 11th - the cauldron lighting in Sydney
  20. I stand corrected. I just read that Tokyo's plan was to increase it's 55k seater to an 80k seater.
  21. Honestly, though I support a Boston bid, an 80,000 seat stadium would be better. That said, Tokyo's stadium plan for 2020 is, I believe, around 55,000. Barcelona was in the 70,000 range, Montreal's stadium was around 60,000, Seoul's around 65,000. I always thought the USOC choice would come down to LA v. Boston because they are so different in style. While LA re-uses the Colosseum, it's plan is very spread out and very car dependent. Boston would lack a permanent stadium like LA would have, but all of its venues (save one or two) would be within a four mile radius and completely accessible by public transport or within walking distance of key tourism locales and transport hubs. LA presents a very west coast bid, Boston presents a very east coast bid. An interesting contrast.
  22. That's not true. There is a $13b cost for the state-wide transportation bill, $5b of which will be spent in the Olympic zone. $5b is direct public cost. Now, there is no direct public outlay FOR the Olympics, it is money that will be spent in that neighborhood anyhow, but you cannot say that $5b spent on transit (which will end up helping a Games) does not have to be repaid by the taxpayers of Massachusetts. It absolutely does. I understand your enthusiasm, but don't pretend there will be no cost to taxpayers. There will be.
  23. I think you're confusing the situation. The $5b in infrastructure cited is most certainly coming from public debt (the $13b transport bill was passed thru state-issued bonds, aka public debt). But it is not public debt incurred for the purpose of hosting a Games. It is infrastructure funds already dedicated to a section of the city where the planning committee plans on placing venues.
×
×
  • Create New...