WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Although Boston 2024 hasn't been up front on many things, signing the guarantee has been an exception. They have always indicated that they will be signing it. Unlike Chicago, nobody in Boston entertains the idea that the guarantee won't be signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 So okay, what is it exactly that you're trying to say then. That since Boston's bid has been 'up front all along' & that no one there 'entertains the idea' that the guarantees won't be signed, that once they do, all the majority naysayers will just quite happily jump on board then. Seems extremely far-fetched at best, & very disingenuous at worst. Or you're just going off on a tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think he's trying to argue that Chicago's support numbers were artifically inflated by the delaying of the decision re: the hot city contract and therefore, Boston isn't unique in the US in rejecting the Games. Don't know if I buy that really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I've just heard that the city won't select a developer for the stadium district until September 17, 2017, while the IOC vote is on September 15th. Thus they will go into the IOC having signed an agreement the city will be liable for all cost overruns without having even secured the private financing for the Widgett Circle development. Yikes. So if they can't find a private developer who is willing to commit $1-2 billion to build a deck over Widget Circle for the sake of winning the rights to develop the land above the deck many years later then either the entire project collapses after the vote Denver style, or Boston itself is committed to another Big Dig construction project with public funds. And since handing over $1-2 billion with a long term delay means a massive opportunity cost for the private financier(s) as well as a huge gamble on real estate values, they may very likely not have a private developer step forward. Just kill this thing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Yeah, I kinda get that. But I don't buy that either. I think you hit it more on by citing how London went over budget (not to mention Sochi's ridiculousness), & Brazil's protests last year over massive spending on sporting spectacles that have made people very, very leery lately. Not to mention the mass exodus from European cities from the 2022 Winter Olympics that have made a lot of people think (even the self-centered IOC finally - albeit somewhat that is), "what's wrong with this picture". But really in essence, I think they're just arguing a moot point at this juncture, since it won't really matter in the end anyway. When you have the French capital's numbers at around 75%, their political will now (which was in question for so long before), in one of the most prestiges cities in the world with world-class infrastructure, not to mention Hamburg & Rome, & an IOC most likely itching for a European Olympics after 2018, 2020 & 2022 all in Asia, this is really becoming more & more of a no-brainer now. ^ I think he's trying to argue that Chicago's support numbers were artifically inflated by the delaying of the decision re: the hot city contract and therefore, Boston isn't unique in the US in rejecting the Games. Don't know if I buy that really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Rob, your interpretation is correct.My knowledge is far shallower than the rest of you so I could be completely wrong, but if so I would appreciate knowing my thinking's flaws. I think if Pat Ryan and company teased the possibility that the bid would not be guaranteed by the taxpayers, it would inflate the support for the bid even after the contract was signed. Imagine that one is a Chicagoan who wants the games, but opposes open-ended public financing. It's June 17, 2009 and you read this in the Chicago Tribune: Ryan has said that Chicago will stick to its blend of limited public guarantees and private insurance against potential operating losses and let IOC voters decide if this model is palatable. This is going to make the skeptical Chicagoan say "Yes, I support the Olympics" when he is polled. This results in positive energy and vibes that sustain themselves even after Chicago changes its mind and signs the contract. It also causes the skeptical Chicagoan to spend 2 years dreaming of all the shiny new things the Olympics can bring to him risk-free. There is a sunk cost associated with those emotional investments. Homo Economicus might be able to change his mind when the contract is signed, but Homo Sapiens is a different creature. Even if only 10% of Chicagoans fall for the sunken cost fallacy, it explains the entirety of the difference between Boston & Chicago's poll numbers.Contrast this with a skeptical Bostonian who reads in the February 23, 2015 Boston Globe: To protect the city from loss, local Olympic organizers with Boston 2024 say they have already been working on an Olympic plan, to be finalized by mid-2017, that will reduce risk, indemnify the city, and convince Walsh that he can comfortably agree to be the backstop without significant risk to taxpayers. There is no doubt here that Boston 2024 plans for the IOC's standard contract to be signed. The skeptical Bostonian tells pollsters, "No, I oppose the Olympics coming to Boston" resulting in lower poll numbers for Boston. This creates the negative energy that has depressed Boston 2024 ever since the bid was publicized. However, when the contract is ultimately signed, it does not cause support to further deteriorate because signing the contract has surprised virtually no one. Nacre, I too read the business regarding the lack of a Master Developer until after the IOC votes (not to mention after the host city contract is signed). I agree, right now Boston 2024 is on the footsteps a Denver 1976 scenario if they ever manage to beat Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I don't think people are stupid though. They'd seen the cost of previous Games and the costs London was incurring. Perhaps you're right the two aren't directly comparable, but Chicago always seemed to have some energy, some feel-good factor. With Boston you feel they're lurching from crisis to crisis. I don't know, I just get the impression that Boston has its hardcore support and outside of that there's very little energy for this bid. I always felt with Chicago there was more to it than that. I have a feeling deep down, Bostonians know their city is really too small to host an OG; and it's just these boosters who are over-shooting. And the populace for the most part, really don't care to have the big show in town. That's what it boils down to. This is the disconnect between the people in favor of the bid that want to show of Boston to the world and prove a point that they're not just living in the shadows of New York (I've made a similar claim about Philadelphia) and the people against the bid who are perfectly comfortable with Boston's place in the world and don't need an Olympics to justify everything. And again, it goes back to the original leadership of the bid which centered around real estate developers who have a different stake in this than the rest of the population. Hence the hardcore support from them and the opposition from everyone else. That opposition was always there, but every misstep by the organizers (and there have been a lot of them) only strengthened the resolve of those who don't want to see the Olympics come to Boston, particularly where the plan to do so is highly flawed. I've just heard that the city won't select a developer for the stadium district until September 17, 2017, while the IOC vote is on September 15th. Thus they will go into the IOC having signed an agreement the city will be liable for all cost overruns without having even secured the private financing for the Widgett Circle development. Yikes. So if they can't find a private developer who is willing to commit $1-2 billion to build a deck over Widget Circle for the sake of winning the rights to develop the land above the deck many years later then either the entire project collapses after the vote Denver style, or Boston itself is committed to another Big Dig construction project with public funds. And since handing over $1-2 billion with a long term delay means a massive opportunity cost for the private financier(s) as well as a huge gamble on real estate values, they may very likely not have a private developer step forward. Just kill this thing now. For all of the issues in terms of lack of support that are at the forefront of all this, it's exactly this type of issue that makes the bid foolhardy even if there was support. It goes back to what we say that a long-term project like an Olympics is a risky endeavor anywhere, but in a situation like this, it's even more volatile. I wouldn't necessarily liken it to Denver 1976 on that aspect. This is more like NYC 2012 and they were able to find an alternative. Whether or not Boston would be able to do so is in question, and obviously if they were to win (as unlikely as that is), they would have to look for a plan B and they'd probably have looked into the contingency. Goes without saying it's probably a moot point anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 This is the disconnect between the people in favor of the bid that want to show of Boston to the world and prove a point that they're not just living in the shadows of New York (I've made a similar claim about Philadelphia) and the people against the bid who are perfectly comfortable with Boston's place in the world and don't need an Olympics to justify everything. LOL. Don't quit you dayjob and become a psychoanalyst.People support the Olympics for reasons other than trying to prove their place in the world. You think London and Paris bid for the Olympics because they need to prove their place in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 LOL. Don't quit you dayjob and become a psychoanalyst.People support the Olympics for reasons other than trying to prove their place in the world. You think London and Paris bid for the Olympics because they need to prove their place in the world. Well, the initial leader of the Boston organizing committee was the head of a major construction company, so forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of his motives for wanting to push for a Boston Olympics and yes, maybe offering a generalization here in light of the trainwreck this bid has become. Contrast that with the man who spearheaded the NYC Olympic effort and aligned himself with the city and was eventually named the deputy major. Different cities have different reasons for wanting to bid for an Olympics. I was talking about Boston, not London or Paris, but thank you for trying to pile a generalization on top of my generalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 LOL. Don't quit you dayjob and become a psychoanalyst.People support the Olympics for reasons other than trying to prove their place in the world. You think London and Paris bid for the Olympics because they need to prove their place in the world. It's not the only reason, but it's part of it. London has hosted three times. The first was as an imperial British Empire. Then in 1948 it was undergoing transition to a post-imperial state. And then 2012 showed the world the new Britain that influences the world through pop music, star football players, etc instead of through its navy. London is no longer a capital of empire, but it is still the world's best city and it reminded us all of that fact. There were other reasons for hosting too, but national pride is always part of the Olympics. France, on the other hand, has suffered humiliations since it last hosted in 1900. Pre-World War 1, France was the cultural center of the world. Now the world watches films made in America. French was Europe's lingua franca until after world war 2, but now the world uses the language of their hated rivals across the channel. Paris does not need to prove that it is a beautiful city. But I think French people do want to prove that Paris and France are modern powerhouses, and not museums. Hence the interest in La Defense and les grands projets in the city whereas Rome has almost nothing from after the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Well, the initial leader of the Boston organizing committee was the head of a major construction company, so forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of his motives for wanting to push for a Boston Olympics If you want to play the skeptic, just say he liked the idea of $billions and $billions in construction projects. No need to get into psychoanalysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 If you want to play the skeptic, just say he liked the idea of $billions and $billions in construction projects. No need to get into psychoanalysis. words of en eejot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 If you want to play the skeptic, just say he liked the idea of $billions and $billions in construction projects. No need to get into psychoanalysis. I was essentially agreeing with 2 other posters, plus another who was thinking along similar lines. Thank you for your contribution though. Please, tell me more about what I should or shouldn't say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 On the whole I always felt that Chicago's bid from its marketing and actual plan was much friendlier and warmer than Boston's. Despite the problems with Chicago's bid their logo seemed more warm and inspirinng to me. It was approachable, relatable, and inspiring. For Chicago they did not market that the games would make Chicago a global city, but instead that the games would make Chicago better and bring the world together. Whether you think those goals were realistic or not, you can not deny that the way Chicago marketed those goals was fantastic. Boston on the other hand has a very cold, shaddy, and shallow approach and feeling. Their logo is a cold, uninspiring thing, and the campaign lacks overall cohession and an inspiring motto. Their organization is shaddy AF and their reasons for wanting to host all stem from wanting to prove Boston is a global city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I was never sold on the Chicago bid as everybody here seems to be. I have a cousin who swears by CHicago (altho she was a No Olympics gal).. And I visited her last summer; and I thought Chicago is an OK city--but no New York. But on Chicago v. Boston, Chicago has bigger mass than Boston. I happen to like Boston; and if there were NO Paris this time, I think Boston could stage a great and beautiful Games. But whether a majority of the Bostonians can come on board or not, that's for them to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Well, you were still onboard at the time. And it was dubbed by some of the papers then as most likely "the best U.S. bid ever put forth". But I don't think that anyone really thinks that Chicago is New York. Although, I have heard some people dub Chicago as a "smaller version of New York" & throughout history as the "second city". Culturally speaking, Chicago is very different from New York. But from an architectural standpoint, the two cities do look pretty similar. But on a global scale, New York obviously eclipses Chicago & every other U.S. city. Hence, why our international friends here are always hoping in glee for a NYC Olympics for our next Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Culturally speaking, Chicago is very different from New York. But from an architectural standpoint, the two cities do look pretty similar. But on a global scale, New York obviously eclipses Chicago & every other U.S. city. Hence, why our international friends here are always hoping in glee for a NYC Olympics for our next Games. Absolutely. Summer Olympic host cities tend, at least in the 21st century, to be in the must-see tourism class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR2028 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Maybe as an American a NYC games does not interest me as much as Chicago...though I suppose if New York could plan it just right it would be really special and amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 For me the Olympics in NYC would be spectacular. Considering I grew up by the Jersey shore, which is relatively close to the city I've always wanted the games there. Hopefully the Olympics come soon but mayor de Blasio is against the games, at least he was last May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Just got back from 9 days in Chicago- and it definitely has the scale and 'attractions' worthy of an Olympic city. A Games centred along the foreshore would be very nice... However, a city riddled with no -go poverty and violent zones and decay always saddens the heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usa2024olympics Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 However, a city riddled with no -go poverty and violent zones and decay always saddens the heart. IOC still went with Rio who's reputation is even worse than Chicago's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 IOC still went with Rio who's reputation is even worse than Chicago's. Indeed- as I said saddens the heart to see. LA was pretty ugly too in parts- parts very close to the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 All major cities in the U.S. have rough areas, including New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Miami & Washington DC. Not just Chicago & L.A. Even London & Paris have their rough spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 I am sure they do- a terrible indictment on the society that has been created there. Having travelled to over 50 countries I still find it shocking that such large swathes of US cities are like that. It goes unsaid- as if it is some type of normality. It definitely isn't in Australia or Asia or most of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Well, I don't think it's a very fair assessment when you're comparing a nation of just 25 million (that's really in an isolated part of the world) to one that is a melting pot of differences of over 300 million. And it's not like that in Asia or most of Europe? Russia, other parts of Eastern Europe, China, India, Southeast Asia? I would beg to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.