Boston 2024

[Maritime Kid]

This bickering between Quaker and Rikk has gone on for far too long. I realize you both have strong spearheaded opinions and thats wonderful. But both of you need to just agree to disagree. Here we are arguing over skematics and semantics on an event almost 14 Years off in the future. This Thread should be about Why we believe its Fesable. Thats the argument (As far as i have read throughout this thread) is : "Is Boston Able to Hold a worldclass sporting Event at the scale of the Olympic Summer Games". The argument is completly up for debate and we all have pros and cons. Of course those who are going to be for are going to highlight the limelights and those who are against are going to point out their flaws. From now on i think it would be wise to discontinue personal attacks and focus not on facts or exact figures; but rather look on the fesability of it ever happening.

The best way i can explain it is this. Imagine if Golfito, Costa Rica said they were interested. We would research it. come up with conclusions and create our own opinions on why they can or cannot host, and from their interrogate or question each other of diffrent reasons why it would or wouldn't work. It doesnt have to come down to the numbers or exacts. We aren't the IOC and for sure this thread is not going to decide the Host City .

Understand that any international sporting event is considered a feat to be undertaken. Yes the Gay Games may not be as large or sell as many tickets as the Olympics, But that is to be expected. BUT! What the Gay Games provide is a logistical template for any city to look at and say "This worked here, but this didn't." The Same could be said for the International Fencing Competition, The FIFA World Cup, The Super Bowl and hell even the International Ping-Pong tournument. The fact is that their are logistics at play here. And believe it or not, they do play a crucial role in a citys ability to handle such an event.

Relax guys, take a chill pill. This should be a friendly conversation and debate. Not a tossle of words.

[TeamRik]

It's not about the Gay Games not meeting my standards. Where did I say anything like that? Stupid thing to say.

No, you were addressing hotel numbers. If you can't understand basic arguments about how hotels relate to ticket sales and about how the number of hotels available for a Gay Games doesn't "directly answer" the number of hotel rooms needed for an Olympics, that's not my problem.

Whatever Rik. I tried. It seems you want to take everything personally. I've not got the time for that.

ok READY!?

I HAVE CLEARLY shown FACTS & FIGURES that BOSTON - HAS, CAN and WILL have the CAPACITY to PROVIDE 45,000 HOTEL ROOMS as REQUIRED by the IOC and can ACCOMMODATE and HAS ACCOMMODATED MORE THEN THAT!...

The Gay Games topic was in regards to ATHLETES, CULTURAL MEMBERS THE BID PROCESS, OBJECTIVE, FUNDING, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, REQUIREMENTS...

This bickering between Quaker and Rikk has gone on for far too long. I realize you both have strong spearheaded opinions and thats wonderful. But both of you need to just agree to disagree. Here we are arguing over skematics and semantics on an event almost 14 Years off in the future. This Thread should be about Why we believe its Fesable. Thats the argument (As far as i have read throughout this thread) is : "Is Boston Able to Hold a worldclass sporting Event at the scale of the Olympic Summer Games". The argument is completly up for debate and we all have pros and cons. Of course those who are going to be for are going to highlight the limelights and those who are against are going to point out their flaws. From now on i think it would be wise to discontinue personal attacks and focus not on facts or exact figures; but rather look on the fesability of it ever happening.

The best way i can explain it is this. Imagine if Golfito, Costa Rica said they were interested. We would research it. come up with conclusions and create our own opinions on why they can or cannot host, and from their interrogate or question each other of diffrent reasons why it would or wouldn't work. It doesnt have to come down to the numbers or exacts. We aren't the IOC and for sure this thread is not going to decide the Host City .

Understand that any international sporting event is considered a feat to be undertaken. Yes the Gay Games may not be as large or sell as many tickets as the Olympics, But that is to be expected. BUT! What the Gay Games provide is a logistical template for any city to look at and say "This worked here, but this didn't." The Same could be said for the International Fencing Competition, The FIFA World Cup, The Super Bowl and hell even the International Ping-Pong tournument. The fact is that their are logistics at play here. And believe it or not, they do play a crucial role in a citys ability to handle such an event.

Relax guys, take a chill pill. This should be a friendly conversation and debate. Not a tossle of words.

I have done that More times then I can count!!! I have even apologized when every argument he turned personal.

I have moved on and have been positive... All of my posts last night were direct and unbiased - Pure figures

[Rob2012]

I HAVE CLEARLY shown FACTS & FIGURES that BOSTON - HAS, CAN and WILL

have the CAPACITY to PROVIDE 45,000 HOTEL ROOMS as REQUIRED by the IOC

and can ACCOMMODATE and HAS ACCOMMODATED MORE THEN THAT!...

The Gay Games topic was in regards to ATHLETES, CULTURAL MEMBERS THE BID PROCESS, OBJECTIVE, FUNDING, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, REQUIREMENTS...

Sorry Rik, I was only replying to your own words. You said the numbers for the Gay Games "directly answers any question of # of Hotel Rooms required". I'm not sure how else I was supposed to understand that sentence. As I said, maybe it was a typo and you were in fact referring to the village requirements as opposed to hotels, which would perhaps make more sense in context. I don't know.

It's good Boston has a good number of hotels within USOC's requirements, or will have by 2024. That puts it ahead of a good number of its domestic rivals, which at this stage is all that matters.

[ChrisValentine]

I don't think anyone should temper anyones enthusiasm nor do I think anyone has the right or responsibility to do so LOL.. and Being a member of ALL of these communities I do if fact know that these areas are "Ready, Willing & Pumped!" in the exploratory process of a Boston Bid. ALL of these locations have BIG ties with not only Current Local Olympic Heroes but are also Locations where Sports were Created and are cultivated to this very day.

But since you are not in the everyday I don't know how you can say what their feelings are, I made it clear that I was commenting on personal knowledge, just because something has not been put into the press does not mean that knowledge of the endeavor is unknown, especially to the people who may or may not be directly involved in making an event like this come to life.

I grew up in the Berkshires and the Pioneer Valley. I went to school in Boston. I'm marrying a girl from the Cape. I'm a product rep for a major company, with my territory being pretty much the entire state, and I'm constantly driving back and forth, from the North Shore to the South Shore to Worcester to Springfield, and all throughout Boston, speaking with small business owners and employees, people on the street, etc. etc. Suffice it to say, I've got a pretty good 'pan-Massachusetts' perspective on most issues.

I've yet to encounter anyone who's even *aware* of any of this, other than those that I've mentioned "Hey, Boston's considering looking into possibly bidding for the Olympics in 2024. That'd be pretty cool, huh?" When it comes to major projects in Massachusetts, the only thing that I've seen widespread interest in, from both citizens, business, and government, is the various casino proposals.

Now, if you do have any information about other parts of the state having great interest in the games, or even within the city, please share it. It would be a valuable resource to find other like-minded people who could, in some way, shape or form, contribute to the process.

[FYI]

In my opinion the same was said about Atlanta back in 1988, but 8 years later they were in the center of the attention.

I really get so fatigued when reading this same misconception from newbies that try to justify their own lesser-tier favorites. Not that Boston is really low on the totem pole, like the likes of Minneapolis or Atlanta in this case, but as you said, Atlanta won 1996 over 22 years ago.

The bidding climate was very different back then than it is now. The IOC was coming off a high from the very successful Los Angeles 1984 Games, & the competitors for the 1996 (other than the exception of maybe Athens, which weren't ready to host the Games anyway) weren't exactly stellar options either.

The IOC could only chose what was made available to them at the time. There was no Beijing, no Rio, no Paris, no London, no Tokyo, no Durban & no Istanbul. Put Atlanta in today's very competitive Olympic bidding climate & they, more than likely, wouldn't be as lucky to snag the Games. Atlanta back then, was merely in the very right place, at the very right time.

[FYI]

''Sochi 2014, seemed to be the turning point in the IOC's focus of finding Unkown cities that were using the Olympics as a springboard *Cough* Barcelona-nomics much *Cough*. With Rio, and then Pyongchang all using their games as spring boards into international acclaim''.

Sochi & PyeongChang are WINTER hosts, though. The criteria for the Winter Games are totally different than the Summer Games. Not to mention that Russia has a very strong "tradition" in Winter sports & it was finally time for the Russians to finally host the Winter Olympics.

Barcelona was the Hometown of then IOC president JAS. *cough* Polital influence much *cough*. And Rio is a new frontier located on a continent that had never before hosted the Olympics. Another situation where it was finally their time to host. A card that the United States simply can't play anymore.

[ChrisValentine]

Typo in my previous post: not 'both citizens, business, and government.' Should be 'tierce citizens, business, and government' (not that anyone uses tierce).

Oh, per the suggestion of keeping the Olympic Village more compact, I ran a new layout. Confining the development to the stretch of air rights between Back Bay Station and the I-90/I-93 interchange, including building over the Back Bay Station itself (a brutalist eyesore that is falling apart). Thats 842,000 square feet of space. Per my prior standard of 1,000 beds per 50,000 square feet, that allows for 16,847 beds; more than enough. All in a contiguous location running through Boston. I'm envisioning a series of buildings, with enclosed foot bridges running between them, to maintain a controlled and connected environment. Added bonus: they'd be adjacent to the Copley Center/Prudential Center shopping complex, which is already connected by such bridges. The legacy could be a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly complex spanning the length of the core of the city.

Another bonus is multiple parking facilities directly adjacent, that could be commandeered for the olympics, and easy rail access (the entire thing would be built on top of one of the main rail lines). The City could look into adding a station on the east end of the complex (if only for the games), in order to better facilitate access.

Also, while we're on the topic of space, could someone help me out with this:

Per the Technical Manual (linked to a few pages back), the requirements for bedrooms are 12 sq meters for a 2 bed. Quick conversion, works out to just over 129 square feet for every two beds. When you divide that into my '50,000' square foot benchmark, you come up with 774 beds in a 50,000 square foot area. Which is not all that far below my 1,000 bed benchmark.

That sounds all well and good, except I was basing my estimate on a structure that averages over 16 stories tall (admittedly, subtract the first few floors for other non-residential uses). According to this, you could nearly achieve the requisite space on one floor! Is my math off, or is the IOC just fine with packing the athletes in like sardines in comparison to what I was suggesting?

[TeamRik]

See, this is my thing. I was over everything that happened last month, except you have to come back and accuse us of having an agenda and twist facts when that is EXACTLY what you were doing from minute one. You talk about your "VAST amount of knowledge" and then tell ME to get off my pedestal? Oh.. and Gillette Stadium was NEVER under consideration to host a Super Bowl. That is a factually incorrect statement.

I'm done with this. I apologize if I've come off as harsh, but this will be the last thing I say on this matter. You're on an Olympics bid forum. I don't doubt your knowledge of all things Boston, but most of us here probably know a few more things about Olympic bidding than you're willing to give us credit for. Please respect that if you're going to compare the Olympic Games to another sporting event (doesn't matter what is if you're going to try and play that card here) that, especially in the context of an Olympics bid, is not the same.

You clearly don't know that much about Super Bowl Selection... And for your information since it's decided by the coaches of the NFL - ALL teams that have the capacity or money to build a stadium make the list :-) and since Gillette Stadium has the 2nd HIGHEST in Stadium Naming-Rights Deals delivering the most brand exposure on Broadcast TV that kinda puts them at the top of the list... They had even planned on roofing the stadium - the new stadium has sold out every game since opening.

And for your semantics and changing context.. Gillette Stadium holds more then 6 Super Bowls a Year :-)

Oh wait I collected some other information while I was on hiatus that I thought you would love..

Most Valuable Professional Sports Teams:

NFL - #2 - New England Patriots - $1.65 Billion

MBL - #3 - Boston Red Sox - $1 Billion

NBA - #4 - Boston Celtics - $730 Million

NHL - #4 - Boston Bruins - $350 Million

The Best States for.... (Massachusetts):

Business & Careers - #17

Labor Supply - #9

Regulatory Environment - #42

Economic Climate - #8

Growth Prospects: - #16

Quality of Life: #1

[TeamRik]

I grew up in the Berkshires and the Pioneer Valley. I went to school in Boston. I'm marrying a girl from the Cape. I'm a product rep for a major company, with my territory being pretty much the entire state, and I'm constantly driving back and forth, from the North Shore to the South Shore to Worcester to Springfield, and all throughout Boston, speaking with small business owners and employees, people on the street, etc. etc. Suffice it to say, I've got a pretty good 'pan-Massachusetts' perspective on most issues.

I've yet to encounter anyone who's even *aware* of any of this, other than those that I've mentioned "Hey, Boston's considering looking into possibly bidding for the Olympics in 2024. That'd be pretty cool, huh?" When it comes to major projects in Massachusetts, the only thing that I've seen widespread interest in, from both citizens, business, and government, is the various casino proposals.

Now, if you do have any information about other parts of the state having great interest in the games, or even within the city, please share it. It would be a valuable resource to find other like-minded people who could, in some way, shape or form, contribute to the process.

I also grew up in Pioneer Valley/Franklin County where I was an athlete.

I went to school and worked for a major advertising agency in Boston, was on the board of directors for Harbor to the Bay and Bostons bid for The Gay Games.

I currently live on the Cape where I am in training.

as I stated all three locations have house and sentate members who wrote & co-signed for the exploritory committee bill... and I did state that the general public is not who I was referring to.

And Boston is already capable for a longtime now to host 45,000 rooms and like someone else refereed without Boston natives even noticing or breaking a sweat.. We are one of the top 5 locations to host huge national conventions and we are at the top for hotel sales and luxury hotels

[ChrisValentine]

Rick, you might want to add some citations to your lists...

Here's the link to your most recent list:

http://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-business/list/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

I note that you leave out the category that Boston ranks second to last in... Business Start up costs.

But what does that have to do with the Olympics, anyway?

[TeamRik]

Typo in my previous post: not 'both citizens, business, and government.' Should be 'tierce citizens, business, and government' (not that anyone uses tierce).

Oh, per the suggestion of keeping the Olympic Village more compact, I ran a new layout. Confining the development to the stretch of air rights between Back Bay Station and the I-90/I-93 interchange, including building over the Back Bay Station itself (a brutalist eyesore that is falling apart). Thats 842,000 square feet of space. Per my prior standard of 1,000 beds per 50,000 square feet, that allows for 16,847 beds; more than enough. All in a contiguous location running through Boston. I'm envisioning a series of buildings, with enclosed foot bridges running between them, to maintain a controlled and connected environment. Added bonus: they'd be adjacent to the Copley Center/Prudential Center shopping complex, which is already connected by such bridges. The legacy could be a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly complex spanning the length of the core of the city.

Another bonus is multiple parking facilities directly adjacent, that could be commandeered for the olympics, and easy rail access (the entire thing would be built on top of one of the main rail lines). The City could look into adding a station on the east end of the complex (if only for the games), in order to better facilitate access.

Also, while we're on the topic of space, could someone help me out with this:

Per the Technical Manual (linked to a few pages back), the requirements for bedrooms are 12 sq meters for a 2 bed. Quick conversion, works out to just over 129 square feet for every two beds. When you divide that into my '50,000' square foot benchmark, you come up with 774 beds in a 50,000 square foot area. Which is not all that far below my 1,000 bed benchmark.

That sounds all well and good, except I was basing my estimate on a structure that averages over 16 stories tall (admittedly, subtract the first few floors for other non-residential uses). According to this, you could nearly achieve the requisite space on one floor! Is my math off, or is the IOC just fine with packing the athletes in like sardines in comparison to what I was suggesting?

Back bay is a great idea. South Station and North Station currently have 2 VERY large high rise buildings being built so it's definitely a concept the redevelopment would be familiar with and in favor of.. However I really dont think living quarters are even a remote hinderance on Boston.

Olympic Stadium & Public Transport are #1... and I think prime prime location is Southie & Fan Pier area which already looks sooo amazing.. I owned a condo in the Fort Point Channel and know there are some great HUGE lots still available like the proposed lot where they were going to expand the Convention Center

[ChrisValentine]

I also grew up in Pioneer Valley/Franklin County where I was an athlete.

I went to school and worked for a major advertising agency in Boston, was on the board of directors for Harbor to the Bay and Bostons bid for The Gay Games.

I currently live on the Cape where I am in training.

as I stated all three locations have house and sentate members who wrote & co-signed for the exploritory committee bill... and I did state that the general public is not who I was referring to.

And Boston is already capable for a longtime now to host 45,000 rooms and like someone else refereed without Boston natives even noticing or breaking a sweat.. We are one of the top 5 locations to host huge national conventions and we are at the top for hotel sales and luxury hotels

You said the *communities* were ready, willing, and able. Most people consider the general public to be the community (at least, I do). I'm not trying to detract from your knowledge of the state, but it seems to me that if your social network is composed of a great number of athletes, I almost take it for granted that they'd be eager for a Boston olympics. Oh, and the someone who referred to Boston natives not even noticing the packed hotels was me.

[TeamRik]

Rick, you might want to add some citations to your lists...

Here's the link to your most recent list:

http://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-business/list/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

I note that you leave out the category that Boston ranks second to last in... Business Start up costs.

But what does that have to do with the Olympics, anyway?

ummm everything on the link you just sent I wrote :-) and how exactly would that figure affect the games? LOL

[ChrisValentine]

Back bay is a great idea. South Station and North Station currently have 2 VERY large high rise buildings being built so it's definitely a concept the redevelopment would be familiar with and in favor of.. However I really dont think living quarters are even a remote hinderance on Boston.

Olympic Stadium & Public Transport are #1... and I think prime prime location is Southie & Fan Pier area which already looks sooo amazing.. I owned a condo in the Fort Point Channel and know there are some great HUGE lots still available like the proposed lot where they were going to expand the Convention Center

South Station Tower is in development hell, though there are a few smaller developments springing up around it. As for Fan Pier, the entire neighborhood has been planned out and is already under development.

There might be some locations in the Seaport that would be large enough left, but I'm not sure. To me, there best 'large' areas left are the East Boston Piers, the big vacant lot next to the South Boston power station, and, if the city's willing to pursue eminent domain options, Newmarket/South Bay Plaza.

[TeamRik]

You said the *communities* were ready, willing, and able. Most people consider the general public to be the community (at least, I do). I'm not trying to detract from your knowledge of the state, but it seems to me that if your social network is composed of a great number of athletes, I almost take it for granted that they'd be eager for a Boston olympics. Oh, and the someone who referred to Boston natives not even noticing the packed hotels was me.

Yes the communites are.. This Boston bid is not a NEW CONCEPT.. it has been explored many times before and the Communities have talked about it many times including when we have help Olympic Trials and other Championship events.. oh and they all supported the gay games bid including the city of boston, the governor, mayor, all the major sporting leagues, all the major colleges, and hotels all of which were willing and able to provide funding, fundraising and facilities but according to everyone that doesn't matter :-)

South Station Tower is in development hell, though there are a few smaller developments springing up around it. As for Fan Pier, the entire neighborhood has been planned out and is already under development.

There might be some locations in the Seaport that would be large enough left, but I'm not sure. To me, there best 'large' areas left are the East Boston Piers, the big vacant lot next to the South Boston power station, and, if the city's willing to pursue eminent domain options, Newmarket/South Bay Plaza.

All of the Waterfront is developed but not the other side next to and behind the convention center... Also Parking Lots can be converted into garages and buildings...

And it's time for updated building information because most of the projects that had problems of the 22 that broke ground last year and the 37 this year have been fixed and many new tenants have come forward. This week they BRA Approved the new 37 Story Tower being built connecting North Station & TD Bank

And the 60 Story Millenium Towers that have been in hurt for 5 years were just set back on Track this week as well...

[Quaker2001]

You clearly don't know that much about Super Bowl Selection... And for your information since it's decided by the coaches of the NFL - ALL teams that have the capacity or money to build a stadium make the list :-) and since Gillette Stadium has the 2nd HIGHEST in Stadium Naming-Rights Deals delivering the most brand exposure on Broadcast TV that kinda puts them at the top of the list... They had even planned on roofing the stadium - the new stadium has sold out every game since opening.

And for your semantics and changing context.. Gillette Stadium holds more then 6 Super Bowls a Year :-)

Rik, this isn't personal to me, but if you're going to insult me like that (for the record, I've worked in sports since I was in college, including for the NFL, so I think I know a thing or so here) and then spew a bunch of incorrect nonsense like that, then I'm going to be compelled to reply in kind. First off, the Super Bowl host site is decided by the OWNERS of the NFL, not the coaches. You do have to bid to host the game. You don't automatically make the list because your stadium has the capacity. Gillette has the 3rd largest naming rights deal in the NFL (behind MetLife Stadium and Reliant Stadium), but that means little in terms of their hosting a Super Bowl, and not just because they haven't bid for it.

Like I said, I'm done with this argument, but again, if you're going to try and tell me how the Super Bowl selection process works, don't take it personally where point out all your factual errors there.

[ChrisValentine]

ummm everything on the link you just sent I wrote :-) and how exactly would that figure affect the games? LOL

I know thats what you wrote, I was providing the source to your figures. Its always best to provide an authoritative source when providing quantitative facts like business rankings.

As for start up costs (again, 49th in the nation), that goes hand in hand with regulatory costs (42nd in the nation). There's lot of logistical paperwork that Massachusetts has to undertake any major project that other states do not have, that covers everything from starting a new small business to hosting the Olympic Games. Its not as though there's an Olympic organization already established in Boston, with is own, pre-existing Olympic Park that is just looking for a 'thumbs up' vote from the city and state. It is a very complex task in any environment; Massachusetts makes it a more complex task.

And please, I'm sick of arguing for all the *negatives* to an Olympic Bid. I want it to happen, but I'm not going to ignore the difficulties.

[TeamRik]

I know thats what you wrote, I was providing the source to your figures. Its always best to provide an authoritative source when providing quantitative facts like business rankings.

As for start up costs (again, 49th in the nation), that goes hand in hand with regulatory costs (42nd in the nation). There's lot of logistical paperwork that Massachusetts has to undertake any major project that other states do not have, that covers everything from starting a new small business to hosting the Olympic Games. Its not as though there's an Olympic organization already established in Boston, with is own, pre-existing Olympic Park that is just looking for a 'thumbs up' vote from the city and state. It is a very complex task in any environment; Massachusetts makes it a more complex task.

And please, I'm sick of arguing for all the *negatives* to an Olympic Bid. I want it to happen, but I'm

not going to ignore the difficulties.

The city has paperwork, not an issue getting it filled out and APPROVED...

oh really? where is your authentication to your figures? Since Gillette is ranked #2 :-)

http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/metlife-gearing-role-host-2014-super-bowl/238861/

[Rob2012]

Seems Rik's talking about exposure and Quaker's talking about pure $$$. You're both right, just talking cross purposes as far as I can see. Not sure what this has to do with the Games, though I suppose it shows a strong sponsorship market.

[TeamRik]

Boston's Building Boom Defies Weak Economy

22 Developments Broke Ground, Investing $1.6 Billion in Boston, and Creating 2,450 New Construction Jobs

Mayor Thomas M. Menino today recognized the 22 developments that broke ground in 2012, a total investment of $1.6 billion, which put 2,450 construction workers back on the job and will create 2,010 units of housing.

“Cranes crowd the city skyline because investors are bullish on Boston,” Mayor Menino said. “Thanks to a growing innovation economy, a young and energized population, and an educated workforce - Boston is booming.”

In 2012 projects broke ground in Allston/Brighton, Charlestown, Chinatown, the Innovation District, Jamaica Plain, the LMA, Mattapan, Roxbury, and South Boston. These projects have housing, hotel, athletic, municipal, office, and retail uses.

In addition, the Boston Redevelopment Authority board approved 37 projects in 2012 a total investment of $3.4 billion, which put 5,217 construction workers back on the job and will create 3,898 units of housing. These project approvals ensure Boston’s building boom will continue into 2013.

2012 Development Year in Review: Groundbreaking Highlights

• 22 projects broke ground
• $1.6 billion was invested in new development
• 2,450 construction jobs were created
• 4.6 million square feet is under construction
• 2,010 units of housing

Boston Wharf Tower: 319 A Street Rear

$100M project

202 units of housing, including 22 affordable

Boston Innovation Center, Innovation District

$5.5M project

Crucial part of Innovation District social infrastructure

Dudley Municipal Office Building, Dudley Square

$115M project

Future headquarters of Boston Public School Department

Longwood Center, LMA

$350M project

Cutting edge research and development facility

2012 Development Year in Review: Approved Project Highlights

• 37 projects were approved by the BRA Board
• $3.4 billion in planned development investment
• 5,217 construction jobs will be created
• 7.5 million square feet of approved development
• 3,898 units of housing

Millennium Tower and Burnham Building

$625 million project

500+ units of housing

Ground floor retail and office

New Brighton Landing

$500 million project

Future New Balance World HQs

59 Temple Place

$60 million project

Boutique hotel, restaurant, retail, and spa

http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1011270028105-3383/Downtown+Development+Fact+Sheet+February+2013.pdf

Seems Rik's talking about exposure and Quaker's talking about pure $$$. You're both right, just talking cross purposes as far as I can see. Not sure what this has to do with the Games, though I suppose it shows a strong sponsorship market.

Thank You For That....

[Quaker2001]

Seems Rik's talking about exposure and Quaker's talking about pure $$$. You're both right, just talking cross purposes as far as I can see. Not sure what this has to do with the Games, though I suppose it shows a strong sponsorship market.

Just realized that. If that's not a case of semantics, I don't know what is. So I think Rik and I should agree to disagree on that one.

[TeamRik]

Rik, this isn't personal to me, but if you're going to insult me like that (for the record, I've worked in sports since I was in college, including for the NFL, so I think I know a thing or so here) and then spew a bunch of incorrect nonsense like that, then I'm going to be compelled to reply in kind. First off, the Super Bowl host site is decided by the OWNERS of the NFL, not the coaches. You do have to bid to host the game. You don't automatically make the list because your stadium has the capacity. Gillette has the 3rd largest naming rights deal in the NFL (behind MetLife Stadium and Reliant Stadium), but that means little in terms of their hosting a Super Bowl, and not just because they haven't bid for it.

Like I said, I'm done with this argument, but again, if you're going to try and tell me how the Super Bowl selection process works, don't take it personally where point out all your factual errors there.

Your Figures and Link are from 2010-2011 numbers and Gillette is ranked 5th not 3rd on your very own sheet!... My Figures and Link are from 2012-2013 and have Gillette at 2nd oh and with a much high margin

Just realized that. If that's not a case of semantics, I don't know what is. So I think Rik and I should agree to disagree on that one.

I will AGREE again, and move on if you will... We are both here for the same reason and this silliness is not it.... right?

<Shakes Hand>

[Quaker2001]

3rd largest IN THE NFL. Citi Field is not an NFL stadium, and you can't really count Farmers Field since the stadium doesn't actually exist yet. Again, semantics. Although I stand by my earlier claims about the Super Bowl host selection process, even though that's neither here nor there

I will AGREE again, and move on if you will... We are both here for the same reason and this silliness is not it.... right?

<Shakes Hand>

No, I am not here for silliness. So yes, that works for me. Moving on...

[TeamRik]

3rd largest IN THE NFL. Citi Field is not an NFL stadium, and you can't really count Farmers Field since the stadium doesn't actually exist yet. Again, semantics. Although I stand by my earlier claims about the Super Bowl host selection process, even though that's neither here nor there

No, I am not here for silliness. So yes, that works for me. Moving on...

And Yes I agree, I mistated with "Coaches" when I totally meant "Owners" however I have read on numerous occasions that Gillette was going to be considered and that was part of the consideration on it's building plans, I never said they were ever close to winning one or to a vote but they were of consideration.

Ouch you didn't shake my hand back!!!... JK

[intoronto]

Guess who just became the third member of my ignore list LOL