Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

if everyone in this thread just agrees to agree with you will you please stop? i'm not sure how many more pages of you posting the exact same post on the damn bus drivers getting lost we can take. i

Why do you like to repeat yourself multiple times? Its very annoying.

In sum....

I'm just curious as to everyone's thoughts on Boston. Have they ever made a bid before? Why not?

Boston is very nice. They have nice people and a great culture. But whenever I go there, it always seems super small and everything is so close together. They do have a bunch of colleges so that could be used for many events. But I see the idea of Boston hosting, the same as Dallas or Philly. They're not as big as Chicago or New York so hosting the games would be much more difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston is very nice. They have nice people and a great culture. But whenever I go there, it always seems super small and everything is so close together. They do have a bunch of colleges so that could be used for many events. But I see the idea of Boston hosting, the same as Dallas or Philly. They're not as big as Chicago or New York so hosting the games would be much more difficult.

That's what we tried to tell him. I don't know if a 3rd version will get thru. I think it gets into his head that there's a certain empty plot of land that Google Earth has shown him; then thrown in a few "Beautiful Mind" computations, the idea burrows in his mind that this is possible despite the fact that actual people on the ground have run the route before and have moved on.

And I think if it something he doesn't like to hear, he just soldiers on regardless.

Crusader, other than the Big 4 and perhaps Philly, ALL the OTHER U.S. cities are non-starters. So why even bother.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at what the Qatari's are doing with the World Cup, they are deliberately building stadiums with removable second tiers. Indeed the 86,000 seat Lusoil Stadium is due to have a capacity of 20,000 post 2022. Whilst the inclusion of a running track creates challenges, in these days of modern architecture it might not be insurmountable.

The 2022 idea looks good on paper; and of course, Qatar will go with this 'spread the wealth' idea because what would they do with ten 40,000+ stadia after July 2022?? But in reality, it's not cost-effective. Just look at the plans for London's basketball venue. Seemed like a good idea for it to move the whole thing to Rio. But after cost computations, Rio 2016 has realized that it is actually cheaper to just build a new stadium rather than transport this whole massive thing--and thus have bailed out on getting the structure.

So, this modular idea is only good if you've computed everything afterwards and/or I think if it's transported within a 500 mi radius. Any destination more distant than that renders it impractical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All major cities have central land availability questions - if you rule out a potential bidder because of this you might as well rule out 90% of them.

Exactly. There are many cities that should be ruled out as potential Olympic hosts. The Olympic stadium must be within the city limits. If there isn't room for one or the city is unable to make room for one, that city cannot host. This is not just an issue of the stadium either, the majority of venues must be within comfortable travel times of the OV. Not every city can find a satisfactory answer to this problem.

I don't believe Boston can accommodate these demands and I don't believe they'll go to the truly extraordinary lengths that would be required of them just to host a 2-week party.

I.e. throwing their city into chaos, upending city-planning and bull-dozing who knows what just to squeeze in Olympuc venues....

Aargh. "Olympic venues."

And "bulldozing...."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with the USA is because of the history of legal immigration, there are pockets of culture wholly different from elsewhere in the USA like Irish Boston, Cuban Miami, Texan Dallas, Mo-town Detroit, Scandinavian Minnesota etc and in my mind a bid focusing on one of this elements could be as equally enticing as considering a city simply based on its size. The larger the city the greater its character has been diluted.

So that's your sell? Focus on 1 pocket of culture in a city as opposed to a place like New York which literally has dozens of pockets of culture? That's somewhat what Atlanta did. Those were more about the South than they were about America (which had just hosted the Olymopics 12 years earlier).

Either way, you still should be focusing on what the IOC wants. Are they going to be enticed by a smaller city because of the 1 or 2 cultural aspects they can offer? That's not the direction they'll be going in the past few decades. And I don't see them changing their general mindset if other countries are still sending out their top cities.

Rather than discuss the technical merits of a city who could potentially host, you like the others (Quaker2001, Sir Rols, Athensfan) seem the sort who want to turn it into a personal attack when challenged with an opposing view.

I have no interest in conversing with this type of poster on any site, because they have nothing to offer that would increase my interest in the discussion.

I'm touched that I'm listed first in that. Please tell me where I've turned a viewpoint into a personal attack. Some cities, try as they might, as simply not destined to be Olympic hosts. That's not an indictment against that city and many of them, including a city like Minneapolis, could host a successful Olympics. But the matter is them being selected by the IOC. It's a very costly endeavor just to try and in tough economic times, it's tough to ask these types of cities to commit tens of millions of dollars and potentially get nothing out of it. At least with New York (I don't know about Chicago), a lot of infrastructure improvements and new stadiums got built since 2005, many of which were spurred on by the Olympic bid. So that's the takeaway they get from the 2012 bid.

The problem though is that you have 4 or 5 people here that say Minneapolis doesn't have a shot, yet you want to keep discussing them because you think there's something there. It doesn't mean we have to quash all discussion of these cities, but you're on an island out here and you seem to be offended we won't listen to your viewpoint. And I'll maintain the same line of thinking I've been saying.. if you can present to me a scenario where Minneapolis could be competitive to win an Olympic bid, I promise you I would gladly entertain it. The fact remains though that Minneapolis is not 1 of the more prominent American cities, especially in the context of the IOC's bid process, and yes, that all but makes it a non-starter for them to win.

As for post games, The New England Revolution are one of the few remaining MLS teams to play in an NFL stadium alongside Seattle. The Gillette is a 68,000 seater yet in their entire history the Revolution have only averaged 15,596 per season. Building an 80,000 seater downtown and then scaling it back would give the Revolution its own sense of identity rather than being a mere size show to the Patriots. Of course both are owned by Robert Kraft so he would need to see the advantage of doing so, but there has been some vague talk about the Revolution wanting their own MLS sized home.

See, this is what you and Kernowboy and Blacksheep don't seem to understand.. if it was advantageous for the Revolution to move closer or into Boston, why haven't they done it already? Why hasn't Bob Kraft pulled the trigger on that? (That's a rhetorical question, we know why.. why build a 2nd stadium when you already have 1 for your team to play in that's only a decade old?) Then there's the question of ownership. Let's say there was room in Boston to build a stadium of that size (in a manner that would get the IOC interested).. who is responsible for building it? And who would own it afterwards? Bob Kraft owns Gillette Stadium. So if he's not in control of this one and/or it's not built properly for his MLS team, he may not be interested. Once again, if you want to have this discussion, I'm happy to have it, but you need to take these factors into account (just like the folks in Philadelphia who think Temple should build a stadium) in order to make it a workable plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not supporting the Boston2024 idea but I'm not throwing it out either. But I do have an idea for the olympic stadium. It's probably a long shot but I could see them copying the Atlanta idea and building a track and field, ceremonies, etc stadium for the olympics and then renovating it for the Red Sox to replace fenway park. I understand the stadium would look ugly, but it's just an idea. But then we'll run into the same problem, where to put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. There are many cities that should be ruled out as potential Olympic hosts. The Olympic stadium must be within the city limits. If there isn't room for one or the city is unable to make room for one, that city cannot host. This is not just an issue of the stadium either, the majority of venues must be within comfortable travel times of the OV. Not every city can find a satisfactory answer to this problem.

I don't believe Boston can accommodate these demands and I don't believe they'll go to the truly extraordinary lengths that would be required of them just to host a 2-week party.

I.e. throwing their city into chaos, upending city-planning and bull-dozing who knows what just to squeeze in Olympuc venues....

Aargh. "Olympic venues."

And "bulldozing...."

Just so you don't continue to waste your time, I have blocked you through all possible avenues

So that's your sell? Focus on 1 pocket of culture in a city as opposed to a place like New York which literally has dozens of pockets of culture? That's somewhat what Atlanta did. Those were more about the South than they were about America (which had just hosted the Olymopics 12 years earlier).

Either way, you still should be focusing on what the IOC wants. Are they going to be enticed by a smaller city because of the 1 or 2 cultural aspects they can offer? That's not the direction they'll be going in the past few decades. And I don't see them changing their general mindset if other countries are still sending out their top cities.

I'm touched that I'm listed first in that. Please tell me where I've turned a viewpoint into a personal attack. Some cities, try as they might, as simply not destined to be Olympic hosts. That's not an indictment against that city and many of them, including a city like Minneapolis, could host a successful Olympics. But the matter is them being selected by the IOC. It's a very costly endeavor just to try and in tough economic times, it's tough to ask these types of cities to commit tens of millions of dollars and potentially get nothing out of it. At least with New York (I don't know about Chicago), a lot of infrastructure improvements and new stadiums got built since 2005, many of which were spurred on by the Olympic bid. So that's the takeaway they get from the 2012 bid.

The problem though is that you have 4 or 5 people here that say Minneapolis doesn't have a shot, yet you want to keep discussing them because you think there's something there. It doesn't mean we have to quash all discussion of these cities, but you're on an island out here and you seem to be offended we won't listen to your viewpoint. And I'll maintain the same line of thinking I've been saying.. if you can present to me a scenario where Minneapolis could be competitive to win an Olympic bid, I promise you I would gladly entertain it. The fact remains though that Minneapolis is not 1 of the more prominent American cities, especially in the context of the IOC's bid process, and yes, that all but makes it a non-starter for them to win.

See, this is what you and Kernowboy and Blacksheep don't seem to understand.. if it was advantageous for the Revolution to move closer or into Boston, why haven't they done it already? Why hasn't Bob Kraft pulled the trigger on that? (That's a rhetorical question, we know why.. why build a 2nd stadium when you already have 1 for your team to play in that's only a decade old?) Then there's the question of ownership. Let's say there was room in Boston to build a stadium of that size (in a manner that would get the IOC interested).. who is responsible for building it? And who would own it afterwards? Bob Kraft owns Gillette Stadium. So if he's not in control of this one and/or it's not built properly for his MLS team, he may not be interested. Once again, if you want to have this discussion, I'm happy to have it, but you need to take these factors into account (just like the folks in Philadelphia who think Temple should build a stadium) in order to make it a workable plan.

Again what is it with people who are blocked wasting their time bothing to reply to comments are made. Your comments are not welcome, not of interest and even read.

If you have this amount of time to waste more fool you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not supporting the Boston2024 idea but I'm not throwing it out either. But I do have an idea for the olympic stadium. It's probably a long shot but I could see them copying the Atlanta idea and building a track and field, ceremonies, etc stadium for the olympics and then renovating it for the Red Sox to replace fenway park. I understand the stadium would look ugly, but it's just an idea. But then we'll run into the same problem, where to put it.

Would the RedSox being prepared to accept and tolerate the hand wringing associated with leaving their spiritual home?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the RedSox being prepared to accept and tolerate the hand wringing associated with leaving their spiritual home?

I don't know. But their going to need a new stadium someday, and having a past olympic stadium could change their opinion.

Just so you don't continue to waste your time, I have blocked you through all possible avenues

Again what is it with people who are blocked wasting their time bothing to reply to comments are made. Your comments are not welcome, not of interest and even read.

If you have this amount of time to waste more fool you.

I find their comments very interesting. They seem to know a lot about the games and can back up their ideas. Unlike some people who spew random ideas and instead of backing them up, find ways to slither around them by changing the topic or insulting another idea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find their comments very interesting. They seem to know a lot about the games and can back up their ideas. Unlike some people who spew random ideas and instead of backing them up, find ways to slither around them by changing the topic or insulting another idea.

Like who?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again what is it with people who are blocked wasting their time bothing to reply to comments are made. Your comments are not welcome, not of interest and even read.

If you have this amount of time to waste more fool you.

Says the guy who is blocking me and still taking the time to reply to my posts.

I'm not supporting the Boston2024 idea but I'm not throwing it out either. But I do have an idea for the olympic stadium. It's probably a long shot but I could see them copying the Atlanta idea and building a track and field, ceremonies, etc stadium for the olympics and then renovating it for the Red Sox to replace fenway park. I understand the stadium would look ugly, but it's just an idea. But then we'll run into the same problem, where to put it.

Would the RedSox being prepared to accept and tolerate the hand wringing associated with leaving their spiritual home?

This is for everyone else here who may or may not understand the concept of ownership.. the Red Sox don't have to accept and tolerate anything. They own and operate Fenway Park. The only way they're leaving there is if their ownership group chooses to do it. And I don't see that as a possibility because the team owns the stadium. Not like in Atlanta where the city owned and operated Fulton County Stadium. The Red Sox had looked into building a new stadium next door to Fenway some years ago. They determined it wasn't feasible. If there was more room and they could have done what the Yankees did and build a new stadium next door, it would have been done already. Much like the Cubs with Wrigley, they're going to stay where they are probably until the stadium literally crumbles to the ground. Atlanta worked because the Braves were in search of a new stadium (remember that Fulton-County was built as a multi-purpose stadium to share with the Falcons, so once they left for the Georgia Dome, it made that stadium less than desirable for baseball), so it was a sensible plan for them especially given the location. I know Olympic purists and traditionalists hate that the stadium in its original form stood for only a few months, but at least it gets used no less than 81 times a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Quaker2001 is still talking to himself. I can imagine he'd tried to start an argument in an empty room.

For the record I didn't bother to read what you wrote, and simply noticed that you included a comment of mine at the top of your response - what you wrote was irrelevant to me as I now you've crossed the line whatever you say is pointless. It probably was a rejigging of recent comments you've made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMFG, this i-dot cleary suffers from dementia! :wacko:

I know, right? It's funny.. I'm talking to myself according to him, yet every time I post, he responds to that post saying he's not responding to my posts anymore. This is why I don't use the ignore feature on this site.

And that last comment was a response to PotatoChips who brought up an interesting idea, but one that would never even be brought to the table unless the current (or a future) Red Sox ownership group has a complete change of heart. Besides, if there was a location to build a full-sized stadium, the Red Sox probably would have looked into it a while ago rather than staying in their "lyric little bandbox" they've called home for a century now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMFG, this i-dot cleary suffers from dementia! :wacko:

Making an abusive comment highlighting a condition which can strike down anyone, and which sadly a number of posters will probably know/know of friends or family who have suffered from this condition, tells everybody on this forum exactly the type of person you are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Quaker2001 is still talking to himself. I can imagine he'd tried to start an argument in an empty room.

For the record I didn't bother to read what you wrote, and simply noticed that you included a comment of mine at the top of your response - what you wrote was irrelevant to me as I now you've crossed the line whatever you say is pointless. It probably was a rejigging of recent comments you've made.

Any reason why you're a complete a**hole

Link to post
Share on other sites

Making an abusive comment highlighting a condition which can strike down anyone, and which sadly a number of posters will probably know/know of friends or family who have suffered from this condition, tells everybody on this forum exactly the type of person you are.

Yeah, right. Whatever. Like you're such a morally, holy person by constantly demeaning & insulting anyone that challeges your "weak" arguments. Please spare me your utter hypocrisy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...