zekekelso Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 From practical and aesthetic standpoints, Providence is a much better option than Worcester. But state politics will come into play. Western MA representatives are already saying they want some of the games if there is to be any state money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Sure feels like they are short a major arena. I wonder if there isn't an unannounced plans for one of the colleges (or the new Wynn casino) to build one. Does Boston have any modern arenas other than TD Garden and the university arenas? It honestly does seem a little strange to me. I wonder if this is actually a downside to having the full four sports teams. (Five if you count the Rev.) In Seattle we have two modern suburban arenas in the 6,500-9,000 seat range for our two minor league hockey teams. If we had an NHL team we would need a 16,000-20,000 capacity arena and it would end up being shared with an NBA team. Meanwhile there wouldn't be enough fan support to maintain the minor league teams and their two arenas. So adding an NHL team might actually reduce the demand for arenas. Interesting to ponder. It would be a bit sad if Boston spent billions of dollars hosting and didn't end up with a single new permanent arena or stadium. Part of Boston's pitch was having universities in the area that could offer up facilities. But that's the problem with Boston.. a lot of their college arenas are on the smallish side. So yea, Boston's plan has volleyball in a temporary set-up at the convention center, and they're not even using Conte Forum (BC's basketball/hockey arena) as a primary venue because it's further from downtown. So in terms of legacy they will have new dorms from the Athletes Village and a larger convention center from the IBC/MPC. I think legacy wise it will be similar to Atlanta where only things like dorms and maybe a new park here or there will remain. Yeah but that really doesn't scream: "WOW! look what the games did to us! Whoopie! Brand spanking new dorms! This will become the envy of all cities and totally attract more bids from other nations!" After all, the IOC is probably looking for cities to try to drag interest from others this time 'round *cough* 2022 *cough*. I don't really think new dorms will exactly motivate a nation to get on board to the bidding train. Atlanta seems like it got a lot more out of the Olympics than Boston would. Atlanta did get 2 new stadiums (granted, both of them are about to lose their primary tenants), the Olympic Park, and a lot of other smaller improvements. Boston isn't getting that much in that regard and it seems like a lot of the infrastructure improvements that might get tied to the Olympics are going to happen anyway. I still have trouble seeing the IOC getting excited about this, support levels and referendums aside, because now that we've seen their plans, I still don't see this being a winner in the IOC's eyes. Not entirely sure what the USOC was thinking either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 It's a catch 22. Building new stadiums just for the sake of building them is a terrible idea. Conversely I don't think that there's anything deplorable about following in the model of Los Angeles and using mostly existing structures. But Los Angeles didn't just host for the sake of hosting. It also served a greater purpose: showing how the games can be economically affordable with good planning. The concern for me is that Boston needs to find some other reason for hosting if it isn't going to leave a physical legacy of new parks, mass transit, stadiums, etc. American nationalism and desire to get the games back on US soil by any means possible is not a good enough reason for the IOC to give the games to Boston. I kinda find it ironic how Boston's promoting itself as a city of innovation but they can't seem to figure out how to deal with the damn legacy. Boston can build a stadium for the uni's there. I mean, that sounds better than "let's host a two week party, then rip all the stuff relating to sports apart and reuse it into something entirely different!" The narrative of innovation and Olympic "catalyst" is good enough I suppose (it does sound like they're trying to use the games as an excuse to show off all their tech to compensate for the lack of average-joe recognition though...), but their post-game plan really doesn't appeal to me. Unless i was the mayor of some smaller city (and was inspired by Boston's successful hosting), I don't think I'd be swayed to bid if I look at what Boston has become post games. I think people tend to overlook how important the legacy aspect of a bid is when getting to that final pitch to the IOC voting group. How the Olympics can have a lasting impact on the host city/country and vice versa. It's how London beat out Paris, and how a risky Rio bid beat out the safe Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago bids. I'm actually impressed at Boston's venue plan, it's compactness and connectivity is a big plus. I still think getting people around Boston's confusing street layouts will be challenging but seeing how compact the venues will be, focusing on walkability could be advantageous. It's a fairly solid plan if it weren't for all the temporary venues. What the USOC failed to see however are the intangibles. What legacy will the Olympics leave in Boston and what legacy will Boston leave the Olympics? That's where I see the missed oppoortuntiy was by not choosing LA, which is currently undergoing a wave of transformation. It would've set a new model for the Olympics (again) by focusing on sustainability and the use of existing venues, most of which weren't yet built during the '84 games. Plus, restoring the LA River would've been a huge stamp for the Olympics. But now that Boston is the one moving forward, we'll just have to see what the bigger European cities come up with especially what their legacy plans are. Boston seems to be on its way towards a referendum like most of the bidding European cities so it looks like Boston isn't a sure bet. That's the question I'm asking here. It's like we've said before.. Boston has a lot of history and could have a good narrative to tell, but I'm just very uninspired by this plan of theirs. And then you add in the fact there seems to be somewhat tepid support for this and I don't see it being a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 What legacy could Boston leave the Games? To show a new way (newer than LA's hosting would have been): hold the Games, incorporate projects that will overall benefit the host city, and leave a minimal footprint when the circus leaves town. If done successfully, I'm sure it would inspire many more medium-sized cities to bid and provide assurance to many European countries that hosting does not have to wreck your city or its finances. Yeah, but LA kinda did do that for their 2024 plan. Even more so than Boston. The LA River? Check. Greener redevelopment? Check. An actual legacy that would scream Olympics? Check. I don't think the IOC wants a city to just forget the Olympics. They want the games to change the city and still have it's name swirled in there for free advertising. The 'America's Olympic Park' thing LA offered was beautiful. Scrapping venues doesn't make the city sound proud to have hosted the Olympics and the rather tepid support isn't helping either. I like Boston's plan quite a great deal but the legacy really concerns me. I suppose the one thing that Boston had over LA's plan is that it Boston is "smaller" thus it could inspire more of the "smaller" cities to bid, more than LA at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Boston's legacy is about not saddling the host city with unsustainable white elephant projects, like Athens and Beijing. Boston doesn't have a surplus of arens and huge stadia because it doesn't really need them. It's universities are not like Ohio State or Michigan where a 90,000 seat football stadium is a given. A Harvard football game is never going to pull in more than Harvard Stadium can already hold. MIT will never need a 20,000 seat arena. They're just not those kinds of schools. So what legacy will the Games leave Boston? Thousands of housing units, not only in the form of college dorms, but middle class housing, which is desperately needed. It will spur on quicker improvements to Boston's public transit system. And by developing Widett Circle, it will provide a platform for commercial and residential growth in a former industrial area, closing the gap between two of the city's fastest growing neighborhoods (South End and South Boston). What legacy could Boston leave the Games? To show a new way (newer than LA's hosting would have been): hold the Games, incorporate projects that will overall benefit the host city, and leave a minimal footprint when the circus leaves town. If done successfully, I'm sure it would inspire many more medium-sized cities to bid and provide assurance to many European countries that hosting does not have to wreck your city or its finances. That sounds more like a reason to not go to other cities than it does to go to Boston. The message of "we don't have what you need, but use what we've got and we'll find in the gaps with temporary facilities" doesn't sound like a winning message. And again, it begs the question why not LA or San Fran that DOES have those kinds of facilities and they were offering up a lot of the same infrastructure improvements that we're seeing from Boston. So is an Olympics going to spur development in Widlett Circle. If that's the case, they've got a shot, but I remain unconvinced. Which brings me to.. From practical and aesthetic standpoints, Providence is a much better option than Worcester. But state politics will come into play. Western MA representatives are already saying they want some of the games if there is to be any state money. This has a good shot at becoming a total boondoggle. Boston's plan is based around a compact Olympics (aside from a couple of venues like the Tsongas Center and Gillette Stadium). If they start altering their venue plans to include locations that are much further from Boston, that's going to completely destroy their initial concept. And if politics get in the way of what is best for Boston and their Olympic hopes (sounds an awful lot like where folks here are concerned about a Denver winter bid), that's a big problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamC Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Looking at London's stadium, it seems like it's actually less wasteful to build a 100% disposable stadium than one that will be transformed into something afterward. Except what they're doing to London's stadium is NOT what was planned when they conceived it. That's they had to rebuild the whole lower tier + a new roof, because the seats where not retractable and the roof was meant to last only a few months. But if they include their legacy plans from the conception (Atlanta, Manchester's Commonwealth Games stadium) it should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 What legacy could Boston leave the Games? To show a new way (newer than LA's hosting would have been): hold the Games, incorporate projects that will overall benefit the host city, and leave a minimal footprint when the circus leaves town. If done successfully, I'm sure it would inspire many more medium-sized cities to bid and provide assurance to many European countries that hosting does not have to wreck your city or its finances. Temporary venues have been used before, and the Los Angeles method of using sponsors is now standard for any Olympics. London had a greater inflation-adjusted contribution from sponsors than Los Angeles and Atlanta did, and they also used some temporary venues. And while Boston would get new housing and/or dorms, that's true for any other city the IOC could choose as well. From a purely financial perspective, the Olympics are a waste of money even if only existing venues are used and nothing new is built at all. What makes it worth it for some cities is the opportunity to create needed transportation infrastructure, public land, tourist amenities, etc. So what is the long-term benefit to Boston for hosting? What is the benefit for the IOC for choosing Boston? Boston is a wonderful city, and if they can figure out a solid plan for the games and resolve the transportation, venue and funding issues I'm sure they will do a good job of hosting. But they don't seem to have a great plan right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 How's this for narrative? Boston will host the first truly five ring circus. All these temporary venues would really give the impression of a circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 The temporary stadium sounds like a good idea but I touched on this in another thread; the concept of scaling down a 60,000-70,000 seat stadium to something around the 20,000 mark really hasn't been done. London had a plan to do it but as we've seen that changed. Qatar promises to scale down its stadiums after the World Cup. I'll believe it when I see it. The most recent example is the Asiad Main Stadium in Incheon for last year's Asian Games. The stadium's plans called for scaling it down from 60,000 to 20,000 but again, those plans are on hold. So it sounds like a good idea in theory, but where is there an actual successful model of doing so? It's harder and more costly than many think. Case in point, the temporary basketball arena for London was great in terms of not leaving a white elephant behind, but the plans for reusing it (some said at Glasgow or even transporting it to Rio) never materialized. If you cannot scale down and reuse a 12,000 seat arena, how are you going to do the same with a 60,000 seat stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 If you cannot scale down and reuse a 12,000 seat arena, how are you going to do the same with a 60,000 seat stadium? The IOC just better get used to the idea that Athletics is JUST a stupid, unsustainable, money-sucking "sport" and just ditch it. That's how you can solve the downsizing problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 The IOC just better get used to the idea that Athletics is JUST a stupid, unsustainable, money-sucking "sport" and just ditch it. That's how you can solve the downsizing problem. And where exactly would they hold the ceremonies if not for a stadium big enough to accommodate athletics? It's a disaster waiting to happen if they're holding them out in Foxboro and have to move 85,000 people to and from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 You can't hold the ceremonies in Foxboro. Gillette is haunted by ball deflating gnomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Some of you cynics are wondering Boston is bidding if the odds are against them. Here's one reason: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/01/26/2024-boston-olympic-bid-boston-2024-chief-executive-rich-daveys-salary/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 A bit off topic but regarding an athletics track, how feasible would it be to do the same thing at Gillette Stadium as what was done at Hampden Park for the Commonwealth Games? I realize the transportation issue, but if it was closer, would installing a track on a platform be viable or would it take away too many seats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 OK, everyone just has to stop reviving the notion that Foxboro is going to play a major part. It. Will. Not. It may be used for football/soccer, but it will not be the athletics stadium nor will it be used for ceremonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 A bit off topic but regarding an athletics track, how feasible would it be to do the same thing at Gillette Stadium as what was done at Hampden Park for the Commonwealth Games? I realize the transportation issue, but if it was closer, would installing a track on a platform be viable or would it take away too many seats? Hampden Park is famously ovular for a football stadium which meant an unusually small amount of seats were lost with the platform solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Why don't they just make it 40,000 seats and give it to the Boston soccer team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 A bit off topic but regarding an athletics track, how feasible would it be to do the same thing at Gillette Stadium as what was done at Hampden Park for the Commonwealth Games? I realize the transportation issue, but if it was closer, would installing a track on a platform be viable or would it take away too many seats? Not feasible at all. As noted, the size, shape, and structure of Hampden Park made it less than difficult to make a conversion. Gillette is not built that way. And obviously it's a moot point because of the distance and location, which is the real killer, but remember that the stadium is owned and operated by Robert Kraft. No shot in any way whatsoever that he would agree to modify the stadium and hurt the bottom line for the Patriots. Why don't they just make it 40,000 seats and give it to the Boston soccer team? Do the Revs want that? Is this what they're looking for? Again, Kraft owns the team and the stadium they play in. Maybe he doesn't want them to play in a stadium built and owned by the city, let alone to make that plan based on the possibility that Boston lands the 2024 Olympics, because what if they don't? It's easy for us to look at a situation like this and think the timing and the circumstances are ideal, but it's not always the case. It's not that simple to say something like this should happen because on the surface it seems like a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Do the Revs want that? Is this what they're looking for? Again, Kraft owns the team and the stadium they play in. Maybe he doesn't want them to play in a stadium built and owned by the city, let alone to make that plan based on the possibility that Boston lands the 2024 Olympics, because what if they don't? It's easy for us to look at a situation like this and think the timing and the circumstances are ideal, but it's not always the case. It's not that simple to say something like this should happen because on the surface it seems like a good idea. It doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Maybe they could do an auction thing for the stadium like London and Atlanta did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 It doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Maybe they could do an auction thing for the stadium like London and Atlanta did. Who is 'they'? We tend to throw out cities and concepts like this as if they're people. I'm sure someone at some point broached this possibility. For whatever reason(s), it didn't happen. And Atlanta's stadium was not an auction thing. They planned for the stadium to be convertible into a baseball stadium, so it was just a matter of how the costs would be paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Just saw on twitter that part of the next phase for the boston bid is a new logo. Hopefully the new one is along the lines of their old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted January 28, 2015 Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 Why don't they just make it 40,000 seats and give it to the Boston soccer team? No MLS team is going to want to play in a stadium with a track in it even if their owner doesn't already own another stadium. Which means it would have to be rebuilt after the games anyway. Rebuilding the stadium would cost more than scrapping it, so it doesn't make sense to build a stadium for the Rev for free. Some of you cynics are wondering Boston is bidding if the odds are against them. Here's one reason: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/01/26/2024-boston-olympic-bid-boston-2024-chief-executive-rich-daveys-salary/ The question is why did the USOC choose Boston? They presumably would not have chosen them if they thought that Boston's bid was simply being run by local construction companies and politicians eager to make money off the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Coast Lions Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Mitt Romney will not be running for President of the USA in 2016 I wonder where he will be the President of Boston 2024 bid or not or will Sarah Palin will leading the Anchorage Alaska USA bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics Games after all she is a sports manager. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Mitt Romney will not be running for President of the USA in 2016 I wonder where he will be the President of Boston 2024 bid or not or will Sarah Palin will leading the Anchorage Alaska USA bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics and Paralympics Games after all she is a sports manager. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html No. Just.. no. If you're actually wondering that, you need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.