Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aquaman617

  1. For a US bid, I could see a Philadelphia, Dallas, or San Diego bid being quite appealing. If the US wanted to put forth a candidate, that is.
  2. Five European Games out of eight? I'd say that's even less likely to happen than Lima 2032.
  3. I'd rather not get into politics here. My understanding is that Mitt Romney is working behind the scenes with the Boston organizing committee.
  4. 2024: Paris (if they bid); Boston or LA if Paris is out 2028: Toronto; Berlin if US hosts in 2024 2032: Durban; Istanbul if not Durban I just don't think Durban will be ready before '32. If Durban gets the Commonwealth Games in 2022, that puts off 2024 and probably 2028 - they would need to be putting together a '28 bid while still prepping for the '22 Commonwealth Games. I don't know the extent to which there is a true continental rotation in the IOC's mind. If so, then Melbourne or Sydney would be a slam dunk - but I just don't see an Oceania Games again for another few decades. Giving Australia (30 million people?) the same weighting in a continental rotation as Asia (3 billion?), Europe (750 million) and the Americas (800 million) just doesn't compute to me.
  5. SF is the most beautifully sited city I've visited. Stunning views, great terrain, etc. It would be a beautiful host city if it ever got to that point.
  6. I remember it, but only because I was on the Cape and the grocery stores down there had a run on bottled water for those heading back to the Boston area. As is typical, the media blew it out of proportion. I think drinkable water service was disrupted in about a dozen towns for a couple of days. IIRC, people still had water for things like washing, gardening, etc. Let's get back on topic...
  7. LA should host - they've managed to get both swimming and volleyball in one venue!
  8. Totally agree. Walsh is a politician. He's not going to go too far out on a limb. But his participation at the USOC meetings last week is, to me, a pretty strong indicator.
  9. Doesn't mean much of anything, but there was no better place to put this news story... http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/07/29/mayor-walsh-boston-very-good-position-host-olympics/3fXI5THAaoSKL0S9qBnF5I/story.html
  10. I think you need to tune up your sarcasm detector
  11. Well, if this was the standard, then we wouldn't be talking about LA, either. But we are. DC would also need to work with a rather difficult Congress, which essentially lords over the District. It would be one thing to authorize federal funds for security at an LA Games, it would be an entirely different thing for some of these guys to create the impression that they were spending billions in taxpayer money to host Georgetown cocktail parties for the IOC.
  12. It is kind of strange how silent the board is about Washington DC. Talk about SF only picked up a tiny bit over the past 2 weeks, but otherwise nothing.
  13. Cliffs Notes version: "Dear IOC, if you insist on ever-bigger spectacles, every potential European or North American bid city will be challenged by an ever skeptical populace (see: Salzburg, Munich). Keeping on your current path will mean that only corrupt authoritarian regimes with no regard for public opinion, budget, or legacy will be able to host (see: Sochi, Almaty, Beijing)." This document was a good read. Thanks for posting it.
  14. This whole debate is silly. No one here has any inside track to any one of the four on the short list and no one here can say where all four are in their planning development. All we know is that LA released for a short time what appears to be a fairly detailed plan. Not a final proposal, but a plan. Just because LA made their's public for a while and the other cities did not does not mean that only LA has a plan. It just means that LA's is the only one that was published. What we do know is that the USOC felt comfortable enough with the 4 cities on the short list and what they showed the USOC that they made it onto that short list.
  15. Boston is desperate for additional housing and absolutely needs improvements to its public transit system. Everything I've seen about Boston's bid (except the negative articles) plan on addressing these two issues and have them as part of the Games' legacy. Of course, Dan Shaughnessy ignores that and just starts up his complaint machine.
  16. Why just put forth LA? Based on an article from a notoriously negative crank? The things Dan Shaughnessy highlights have been known and are what every potential Olympic city faces: headaches related to building the facilities, 2 weeks of traffic, the potential for wasteful spending, etc. Nothing in this opinion piece is unique to Boston.
  17. You may be right, I wouldn't know. My knowledge about the planned Boston stadium is based solely on newspaper articles. You know what they say about believing everything you read. I'm sure the Boston planning committee is fully aware of the minimum requirements and will propose accordingly.
  18. No, they would not want a 100k seater. They play in a 60k seater now and most of it sits empty. I believe Boston's plan was to propose a 60-70k seat main stadium (Tokyo's '20 stadium seats 55k, IIRC) and then pare it back to 30k seats after the Games. Again, I'm not a stadium designer and have no relation to Boston's bid, but it's possible (and yes, expensive) to start out with the core of an oval stadium, add rows on the outer walls of that oval to reach Games capacity then, once the Games are over, remove the outer rows and in-fill the field. Yes, it would be very expensive to do.
  19. LA is rarely ranked among the top sports-crazed cities in the world, or even when such listings are limited to US cities. Within the US, the most commonly cited sports-mad cities are: Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and Chicago. Globally, London and Melbourne, the four US cities are usually considered the big daddies of sports. But all this is silly. The question should be is LA a good location for sport and the Games in particular. Yes. I've heard it said of Dallas: "It's a great place to live, but you wouldn't want to visit there."
  20. No, it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. But that section of the Mass Pike is elevated in part because it had to contend with the rail yard. There will still be a rail line (the Worcester Line, I think) running parallel there, but it is not physically impossible to address it. Once the Pike is over the Worcester Line tracks, it can slope down to street level. If an entrance from the BU side was needed (I think it is), you could deck over the visually offensive part and make a broad pedestrian park on top of the Pike / Worcester Line and connect BU with Beacon Park. The High Line in NYC was once a pretty ugly rail line and now it's one of the top amenities in that part of Manhattan. I'm not saying to replicate it at Beacon Park, but the combination of sound engineering and good landscaping can work wonders where blight is an issue.
  21. Article in today's Boston Globe about John Fish, who is heading Boston's Olympic bid committee: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/06/28/little-boy-who-couldn-pushes-boston-dream-big/PWsjjY5yrKbgNlFHJ9BgTP/story.html
  22. Regardless of where Boston ranks in terms of academics and innovation, that does not directly correlate to an Olympic bid. I wish it did as it would help Boston's efforts, but - and I say this as someone who would love Boston to pull together a winning bid - Boston's reputation as being an innovation center does nothing to solve issues around site identification, development, financing, and getting the political will to get it done.
  23. I wasn't thinking retractable. I was thinking that once a Games is over, the track could be removed and you could just fill in part of the infield with a dozen or sow rows of seats in order to configure it for soccer.
  • Create New...