Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually, here's another thought.

zeke, since there seem to be more than a couple of people here that think San Francisco is in a different league than Boston, can you explain to us why you think they're not? San Francisco has their issues, some of which may not be solvable, but do you really think Boston is that much closer to San Francisco in the grander scheme of things than most of us here are giving them credit for?

The cites are roughly the same size (Boston is ever so slightly bigger) and I believe have similar "iconicness".

You earlier post mentions football and baseball.. neither of which are Olympic sports.

You mention D-1 colleges. I assume you are counting Stanford for SF, but it's really too far away for anything but soccer. Boston's colleges might not be football powerhouses (again, not an Olympic sport) but BU, BC, Northeastern and Harvard all have many facilities that could host Olympic sports, and are right there in/near central Boston.

Speaking of Olympic sports, Boston has two of the most iconic locals in the world of Olympic sports - the Boston marathon course, and sailing at Newport. Boston might now have two MLB teams, but it does have the Head of the Charles.

Boston has a large NBA/NHL-sized area in the middle of Boston. SF does not (for now.)

Neither city has an Athletics/Ceremonies stadium. Boston has more need of one than SF.

Both cites to some degree suffer from a cramped location; both have excellent transportation networks. Both have huge amounts of convention space for hosting "minor" sports.

SF has more air traffic and more hotel rooms. So it's a bit ahead of Boston. I just don't see it categorically different. And if we were to go by air travel and hotel rooms, Orlando and Vegas would be near the top of the list.

"SF: 4,455.560"

IDK where you got that figure, but out of the 8 counties that make up the San Francisco Bay Area, that statistic looks like it clearly ignores Santa Clara County, which would then take the SFBA into the 6.5 million range.

But even with that aside, it still doesn't negate all the other aspects of what San Francisco really has to offer compared to Boston.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Sure you can draw the boundary bigger to get SF's number up. You can do the same for Boston.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boston, Massachusetts is taking the first big steps towards looking into the feasibility of a Summer Games bid for the earliest year 2024. On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the MA State Senate file a Re

Oslo was an abortion - Boston is a miscarriage.

We prefer "Masshole" to "total douche".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/san_francisco_bay_area

In general, a major metropiltan area is about a 50 mile radius from the core city, which is where San Francisco's is. How far would you have to go to get Boston's to SF's 7.1 million? 100 miles, 200 miles? By that point, it's no longer the Greater Boston area, but New York's area.

But again, even population aside, you're still ignoring all the other positive attributes that San Francisco really has than Boston, which would have a greater appeal to the fastidious IOC. But in the end, both places could be moot anyway, & we may not see a bid from either place the way things are going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the population, there's several different measures.. you could go by Metropolitan area or Primary Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area. By any of those measure, Boston and San Fran are pretty close to each other. So that's going to be a wash.

In terms of air travel.. SFO is ranked 7th in terms of total passenger traffic. BOS is 19th. And that's not even accounting for Oakland which is 36th. So more than "a bit ahead of Boston." And since you brought up Orlando and Las Vegas.. in terms of hotel rooms, yes. Not in terms of air travel. And if we're just looking at international passenger movements, SFO is 7th on that list. MCO and LAS.. nowhere to be found in the top 10th.

Numbers aside, if we're talking about iconic American cities, Boston is on that list, but I think they lack the International appeal that San Francicso has. Again, Boston isn't lacking for selling points, but I'd still put SF ahead of them in the pecking order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Mayor hasn't said no. He's a very intelligent guy and won't say a thing until he has all the information he needs. The city council has introduced a hearing to discuss and this whole city is talking. It's far from a no but cautiously moving forward towards doing a study.

Well, hate to tell you this, but he already did say something. Not a firm yes or no, but it was anything but a positive response. When your mayor calls something "far-fetched," that's anything but encouraging. Once again though.. you keep talking about having information and hearings and this study and how Boston is taking its first big step towards an Olympics bid. San Francisco took those first steps 10 years ago. They bid once and got shot down. So they tried again with an improved bid. And now they're looking into it again with the benefit of having been through this process twice before.

One more time for the peanut gallery.. I'm not dismissing Boston. I would love for Eric Reddy and his committee to put something together for Thomas Menino (not to much the rest of us here) to look at and mull over. But this is a severely uphill battle that Boston is behind on their preparation for. Regardless of how they compare to any other city out there, San Fran or whoever else.. I too remain very skeptical about their ability to even put themselves seriously in the race, let alone being competitive in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the population, there's several different measures.. you could go by Metropolitan area or Primary Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area. By any of those measure, Boston and San Fran are pretty close to each other. So that's going to be a wash.

Well, not really. If we really want to measure the two areas equally, then San Francisco comes out way ahead no matter how you measure it. You could fit the entire Bay Area into the state of Rhode Island. In order for Boston to come up with those same figures, not only would you have to include Rhode Island, but also the entire state of Massachusetts'. That's an area 10x's the size of the Bay Area. Pull that same enourmous area of square miles into the Bay Area's, (which would then also include the Sacramento & Fresno areas) & suddenly their numbers ballon up closer to the 12 million mark.

And as has been pointed out with the 3 airports, a larger metropolitan area has more of the amenities & infrastructure in place needed to more comfortably pull off a Games. It was already noted in one of the Boston articles that the area only boasts 30.000 hotel rooms, under the USOC's guidelines of 45,000. So in more than just the stature, does San Francisco jump ahead of Boston. Not saying that they couldn't do it, but they would have more work cut out for them than San Fran.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not really. If we really want to measure the two areas equally, then San Francisco comes out way ahead no matter how you measure it. You could fit the entire Bay Area into the state of Rhode Island. In order for Boston to come up with those same figures, not only would you have to include Rhode Island, but also the entire state of Massachusetts'. That's an area 10x's the size of the Bay Area. Pull that same enourmous area of square miles into the Bay Area's, (which would then also include the Sacramento & Fresno areas) & suddenly their numbers ballon up closer to the 12 million mark.

I kinda hate to use Wikipedia as my source for information, but if you can come up with actual data to dispute what they say, please feel free to prove me wrong..

The Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States are measured by the United States Office of Management and Budget. According to them, the 2012 estimate of the Boston MSA (defined mostly as Boston-Cambridge-Newton but stretching into New Hampshire and Rhode Island) is a population of 4,640,802. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward ranks just behind them with 4,445,560. And since you made a point about how much area we're covering, it's certainly worth noting that the Boston MSA is 4,674 square miles. San Francisco's is 6,984.

Now if we're talking combined statistical areas, that expands Boston's reach to include Providence, Worcester, plus much of New Hampshire. The numbers there are 7,601,061 for Boston and 7,563,460. Yes, it's worth noting that Sacramento is a separate MSA and CSA (on their own, they're actually the 18th largest CSA in the country). You say Boston would have to include Rhode Island in those figures.. why can't they? Does that mean New York can't include New Jersey and Connecticut in their metro areas? Or cities like Chicago and Philadelphia to include their neighboring states?

I'm still with you on the San Francisco vs. Boston debate here, but the numbers say the population is comparable unless you want to try and manipulate how we're measuring. Unless you're being selective how you measure this, the metropolitan area of Boston has around the same number of people as the metropolitan area of San Francisco

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say Boston would have to include Rhode Island in those figures.. why can't they?

I'm not saying that they can't, I was just using them as a reference. But if we're including Providence in Boston's figures, then why can't San Francisco use San Jose's in theirs (especially when they're both about equal distance from both respective places)? Which that figure from MSA doesn't include Santa Clara County, but IS defined as part of the San Francisco Bay Area, but yet it's not included in that figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no look out here's that TeamRik again! :ph34r: Don't worry I won't try and spoil your fun, I can finally take this thread for what it is; fact-less banter. And that's no fun or helpful to anyone.


I just wanted to remind all you California dreamers, or well educate you that Los Angeles has bid for the Summer Olympics the most times out of any US City... 9 times... and they lost every time except for of course 1932 and 1984... and why is that?.. Because NO OTHER CITIES BID! - 2nd most Detroit (7), 3rd most Philadelphia (4) & Chicago (4) lost, lost, lost!

It be nice if we could actually be constructive and support each other or we should just go back to the nineteen fifties where 6 or 7 US cities all bid against each other four Olympics in a row and not any of them won!..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no look out here's that TeamRik again! :ph34r: Don't worry I won't try and spoil your fun, I can finally take this thread for what it is; fact-less banter. And that's no fun or helpful to anyone.

I just wanted to remind all you California dreamers, or well educate you that Los Angeles has bid for the Summer Olympics the most times out of any US City... 9 times... and they lost every time except for of course 1932 and 1984... and why is that?.. Because NO OTHER CITIES BID! - 2nd most Detroit (7), 3rd most Philadelphia (4) & Chicago (4) lost, lost, lost!

It be nice if we could actually be constructive and support each other or we should just go back to the nineteen fifties where 6 or 7 US cities all bid against each other four Olympics in a row and not any of them won!..

Rik.. unfortunately, that description applies to a lot of threads here. If you were hoping for more than that, sorry this site isn't what you expected. But when the topic is Olympic bidding, useless and discussion will often be the order of the day, especially when we're talking about a prospective hopeful like Boston as opposed to an established official bid like Tokyo or Madrid. If you're asking folks here to be constructive and supportive, please keep in mind this is a site where people have brought up cities like Tulsa as Olympic hopefuls. It's a little hard to be supportive of an idea like that which is so ridiculously outlandish, it's not even worth discussing. Boston is certainly not in that category, but permit us to be skeptical of something like a Boston Olympic bid (let alone that it's still very much in the "exploaratory" stage) instead of trying to be realistic, even if that reality makes Boston an unlikely candidate for an Olympic bid. Not to speak for anyone else here.. that's certainly no reason to suppress discussion of Boston, but again, please try and excuse those of us who don't quite share your enthusiasm.

That aside, thank you for the condescending tone with regards to Los Angeles as if we didn't know the history. Yes, we're aware that LA ran unopposed for both 1932 and 1984. I fail to see what your point is though? That 1984 bid ran unopposed because the IOC was in such desperate straits to have a successful Olympics. And Los Angeles was that and more, in spite of the Soviet-led boycott. Different times in Olympic bidding today. This is anything but a popularity contest. It's a highly politicized process, especially when you get to the International level.

The USOC has altered their version of the process as well. Used to be that it was open bidding and anyone interested could make their case. Doesn't work that way anymore, and that's for the better. They don't have to listen to any city they don't find appealing. Those cities won't even have an opportunity to make their case. That's what every city, big or small, is now up against. If you want us to respect your posts here, even if this is a thread about Boston, please understand that's how most of us view Boston in the grander scheme of this very long and slowly-developing process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rik, LA has a passion for sport and specifically for the Olympics that fuels multiple bids. This can only be viewed as a comparative strength when juxtaposed with cities who try a bid once or twice and call it quits.

1984 was a huge success that provided a workable new model for the embattled Olympuc movement that had previously been on the skids prior to LA's Games.

Regarding the repeat bids, an LA bid has not been submitted to the IOC since the '84 Games. The composition if the IOC and its objectives have shifted considerably in the last several decades. There is no way to know for sure how the IOC of 2017 would respond to an LA bid without submitting one. As with any bid, there are strengths and weaknesses.

Of course it will be interesting to see what other cities offer in contrast to LA. They will have their opportunity to present a more appealing total package. Variety alone, however, will not be sufficient. There must be a great technical plan, charismatic, intelligent leadership, strong financial and governmental support as well as a compelling bid narrative.

No one is anointing LA just yet, but it does seem probable that they will field a highly competitive bid. So far we have not seen similar indications from other cities, but there is time for that to change.

At the end of the day, it is also quite possible that the USOC will forego 2024 altogether. If I were you, I wouldn't get too upset just yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

This certainly casts a wide net for those affected, because it is such an international draw. I can bet that many foreign visitors were injured today.

Edited by Soaring
Link to post
Share on other sites

Appalling events yesterday but London endured its own 7/7 event to successfully hold the 2012 Olympics

On a seperate note, I have just found this articule about the MLS Revolution and owner Robert Kraft looking to a soccer specific stadium of 20-25,000 seats just to the north of downtown Boston in the undeveloped Interstate area.

http://www.boston.com/sports/soccer/articles/2010/07/18/new_stadium_could_kick_start_revolution_somerville/

As people have suggested a NYC Olympic stadium could be downsized for a new Cosmos MLS team, there's no reason why Boston couldn't do the same especially as Kraft seems to be keen to get his MLS team into Boston

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

After explosion, it won't be easy for Boston

What the heck does that have to do with anything. London suffered transit bombings the day after they were awarded the 2012 Olympics, but hosted last summer just fine. Madrid suffered the worst terroist attack in Western Europe back in 2004, but yet they're on the 2020 Olympic short-list. So your "argument" is neither here nor there, to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck does that have to do with anything. London suffered transit bombings the day after they were awarded the 2012 Olympics, but hosted last summer just fine. Madrid suffered the worst terroist attack in Western Europe back in 2004, but yet they're on the 2020 Olympic short-list. So your "argument" is neither here nor there, to say the least.

It means that i would skip city where people were killed during the sport event for some time. There are more cities in USA, as you know :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that i would skip city where people were killed during the sport event for some time. There are more cities in USA, as you know :P

But we're talking about an event 11 years in the future, where the host won't be chosen for another four years. I can't see the bombings being a factor at all - apart perhaps the Bostonian citizens' attitudes for whether they want to bid. And I could see that being more: "Yes, we'll bid, we won't let such events cow us!" than being scared off (well, the latest announcement shows they're anything but scared off).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...