baron-pierreIV Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 I highly doubt they would. Hmmmmmm. LA's not building a new one. In their last plan for 2016, it was going to be USC. Boston is relying on Harvard and Boston U. The IOC turned down Chicago and New York's plans which were each planning on a new one. So either they like the idea of dorms or I guess never shall the twain meet in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympian Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 i'd love to see the games in boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 ^That's an interesting point. And what is Dallas proposing on that front? Seems like that aspect is neither here nor there when it comes to U.S. bids. *Baron, that's an interesting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 Hmmmmmm. LA's not building a new one. In their last plan for 2016, it was going to be USC. Boston is relying on Harvard and Boston U. The IOC turned down Chicago and New York's plans which were each planning on a new one. So either they like the idea of dorms or I guess never shall the twain meet in the US. I'm going to paste a post I wrote in response to someone on SSC... A little out of date but a huge document here on the IOC Village requirements: http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/files/Technical_Manual_on_Olympic_Village.pdf See the Chapter starting on Page 60 to see diagrams of past Olympic villages, diagrams of ideal layouts, space requirements for facilities within the village. If a bid reckons it can do all this using dorms, good luck to it. But I think it could be difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 I'm going to paste a post I wrote in response to someone on SSC... If a bid reckons it can do all this using dorms, good luck to it. But I think it could be difficult. Rob, that's in an ideal world...if u're going to have to build a Village from scratch. The IOC (and these self-appointing organizations) can and always ignore/bypass their own requirements if they really wish a certain city to host. Heck, if the next similar organization to it, namely the f*cked-up FIFA picks an inferno like Qatar to host their premier tournament, the IOC can do with university dorms. How did they manage before LA 1932? The whole village idea has to be within the realm of practicality. Besides, they endow the university-dorms-turned-villages with ALL the security and amenities accorded to a Village started from scratch. Why, if you remember, Jacques-Baby R. stayed at the Univ. of Utah dorms-turned Salt Lake 2002 Village in his first Olympics as IOC president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 ^^ And that was an example in that technical document. It all depends if a University's dorms are sufficient enough in size to house all 15,000+ athletes and officials. No point scattering them throughout university housing around the city. But if they choose a University which has sufficient accommodation in a central location, this could be the basis of an Olympic plan, where say the Main Stadium, although not ideally next to the village is say 10-20 km at most away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 And if a city meets the minimum demands insofar as the sports venues, the IBC and the general hotel rooms (minimum 45,000; media - 17,000 beds), I think a tweaked, not-perfect Village set-up in a university setting will not be a deal-breaker. Otherwise, you will only get $44 billion (Beijing) or $50 billion 'perfectly-venued' Games like Sochi...and those include repressive anti-homosexual laws. So, take your pick. (And that manual is really intended for 3rd world countries like Azerbajian, say North Korea, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, etc. -- if they should be lucky enough to be picked as hosts and have NEVER done anything on that scale, will need such a Manual...so that it's all spelled out in b&w. Whereas 1st world countries like the US, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, etc., where standards of lodging are not doubted and have hosted a few of these events, don't have to be told how to do these things.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 If you look at the specialty built village rooms in Sochi, I'll take Harvard dorms instead any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 If you look at the specialty built village rooms in Sochi, I'll take Harvard dorms instead any day of the week. I was about to say. But it's all in the furnishings though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted August 3, 2013 Report Share Posted August 3, 2013 Fun new Forbes Fact: The WORLD'S 50 Most Valuable Sports Teams 2013 #6 - New England Patriots - $1.635 Billion (only 2 US Teams above #4 New York Yankees & #5 Dallas Cowboys) #11 - Boston Red Sox - $1.312 Billion (#7 LA, #8 Washington, #9 NY) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 Fun new Forbes Fact: The WORLD'S 50 Most Valuable Sports Teams 2013 #6 - New England Patriots - $1.635 Billion (only 2 US Teams above #4 New York Yankees & #5 Dallas Cowboys) #11 - Boston Red Sox - $1.312 Billion (#7 LA, #8 Washington, #9 NY) What has this to do with the Olympics? The NY Times also just sold the Boston Globe for only $70 million. American football and baseball are NOT Olympic sports. LA didn't have a pro football team when it hosted in 1984. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeamRik Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 What has this to do with the Olympics? The NY Times also just sold the Boston Globe for only $70 million. American football and baseball are NOT Olympic sports. LA didn't have a pro football team when it hosted in 1984. The typical negative attitude responses you guys come back with to every post by anyone is as boring as the day this thread began... If you could read it said "Fun Forbes Fact".. and by 2024 Baseball will probably be back since they are campaigning very hard for Women's Softball which deserves a slot. And the owner of the Red Sox purchased the Boston Globe, the NY Times took a HUGE loss on that since they purchased it for $1.1 Billion in 1993 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 I was about to say. But it's all in the furnishings though. Blame the Russian branch of IKEA, or whatever budget furnishing chain they used (which is more likely, since they seem to go all Russian on this one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 Well, it means they've got a good start on the football and Rugby stadiums (7s in an NFL Stadium would be good) And having an existing sporting economy, skills and know-how isn't going to hurt. But I'd be surprised if baseball gets the nod as the new sport. Sounds like everyone's got their work cut-out to beat wrestling, and baseball has many of the same problems it had when it was dropped. Maybe the Red Sox's ground could be utilised to host something like archery instead as London did with Lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 The typical negative attitude responses you guys come back with to every post by anyone is as boring as the day this thread began... If you could read it said "Fun Forbes Fact".. and by 2024 Baseball will probably be back since they are campaigning very hard for Women's Softball which deserves a slot. And the owner of the Red Sox purchased the Boston Globe, the NY Times took a HUGE loss on that since they purchased it for $1.1 Billion in 1993 What do you want from us, Rik? I get that you're all about positive attitudes and tuning out the skeptics, but if that's what you're looking for, you're in the wrong forum. For better or worse, this place is all about skepticism and a lot of that is borne out of folks over-zealously trying to promote their cities. We get that you're passionate about Boston and no one is trying to hold that against you, but forgive the rest of us if we're not as enthusiastic as you want us to be about Boston. I'm pretty sure I speak for a lot of people here when I say that we eagerly anticipate seeing and hearing about what Boston has to offer in terms of an Olympics bid. Until then though, it's just a concept in theory that many of us here question whether or not it will work in reality. Again, it's going to take a lot more than support and positive energy to convince the USOC that Boston should be their candidate for an Olympic bid. To note about baseball.. they can campaign all they want, but if the IOC wants MLB players in the Olympics and won't take baseball back without them, it's not going to happen. Which is a shame since it probably screws softball out of the slot they probably do deserve. What has this to do with the Olympics? The NY Times also just sold the Boston Globe for only $70 million. American football and baseball are NOT Olympic sports. LA didn't have a pro football team when it hosted in 1984. For the sake of correctness.. not only did LA have a pro football team in 1984, they had 2 of them. The Rams had been there for a generation at that point and had just moved to Anaheim (they left the Coliseum after the 1979 season in part because the capacity was too large and it meant their games were frequently blacked out on TV). And the Raiders moved into the Coliseum from Oakland in 1982, so they were there as well by the time of the `84 Olympics. But I'd be surprised if baseball gets the nod as the new sport. Sounds like everyone's got their work cut-out to beat wrestling, and baseball has many of the same problems it had when it was dropped. Maybe the Red Sox's ground could be utilised to host something like archery instead as London did with Lords. I had mentioned it earlier.. I think Harvard Stadium would be a perfect venue for archery. Built in a similar shape to Panathinaiko Stadium in Athens which hosted archery in 2004. Not sure what else they could use Fenway Park for though since if it's for something other than baseball, they'd probably need to send the Red Sox on a road trip much longer than the 2 1/2 weeks. They have played soccer matches there before, so that could be a possibility as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 For the sake of correctness.. not only did LA have a pro football team in 1984, they had 2 of them. The Rams had been there for a generation at that point and had just moved to Anaheim (they left the Coliseum after the 1979 season in part because the capacity was too large and it meant their games were frequently blacked out on TV). And the Raiders moved into the Coliseum from Oakland in 1982, so they were there as well by the time of the `84 Olympics. Well, goes to show how much American football ISN'T on my radar. So they as well not have been there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 4, 2013 Report Share Posted August 4, 2013 Well, goes to show how much American football ISN'T on my radar. So they as well not have been there... I bet if it was a pro figure skating team we were talking about, you'd know everything there is to know about them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisValentine Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 I had mentioned it earlier.. I think Harvard Stadium would be a perfect venue for archery. Built in a similar shape to Panathinaiko Stadium in Athens which hosted archery in 2004. Not sure what else they could use Fenway Park for though since if it's for something other than baseball, they'd probably need to send the Red Sox on a road trip much longer than the 2 1/2 weeks. They have played soccer matches there before, so that could be a possibility as well. Thats actually relatively easy. Including the All-Star Break in July, the Red Sox were away from Fenway for a full 2 weeks this year. I'm sure the team would grumble a little, but you could tack on one more series to the road trip. That gives you a full 18 days when you throw in an off day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Thats actually relatively easy. Including the All-Star Break in July, the Red Sox were away from Fenway for a full 2 weeks this year. I'm sure the team would grumble a little, but you could tack on one more series to the road trip. That gives you a full 18 days when you throw in an off day. The Braves were on the road for 2 1/2 weeks during the 1996 Olympics. The Dodgers were on the road for all but 2 days of the 1984 Olympics. Scheduling the Red Sox isn't the issue, although I'm guessing the IOC would want them out of town for the duration of the Olympics.. last thing the IOC needs is a sporting event in town that's going to attract 37,000 people a night. Yea, the team would grumble, but tell it to the 2002 Utah Jazz or the 2010 Vancouver Canucks. The Canucks that year went from January 27th to March 13th without playing a home game. My issue is more with using Fenway Park for a sport other than baseball. Usually when a baseball stadium holds a non-baseball event, they have at least 2 or 3 days on either end to get the field ready and return it to use for baseball. That's what would happen if the Boston wanted to use Fenway as an Olympic venue. Obviously a lot depends on the sport, but it's not like they can have the Red Sox play a home game on a Sunday and expect Fenway to be Olympic-ready by Tuesday. That's where it's anything but relatively easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cslopes54 Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Going back to that question. Where would Boston build its Olympic stadium? I've been searching around and thought this could be a good option for the bid project: It's the Franklin Park White Stadium. It's located in Jamaica Plain 10 mins / 4miles from downtown Boston, now is this distance a big deal? So the park seems huge, white the stadium area on the north, some trees to the left, a zoo on the right and a big golf course below. Wikipedia says it is owned/governed by the city of Boston, Parks department. I don't know if Harvard would be up for major demolitions and renovations for a big stadium in the area when they already have a historical stadia in place (?) this could be feasible ? There isn't many options for this venue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 "It's located in Jamaica Plain 10 mins / 4miles from downtown Boston, now is this distance a big deal?" No, not at all. Previous Olympic hosts had farther distances, like 6, 8 to 10 miles from Downtown to their Olympic stadium. So 4 miles would actually be a big deal in a positive way, being so close to Downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Well, it means they've got a good start on the football and Rugby stadiums (7s in an NFL Stadium would be good) And having an existing sporting economy, skills and know-how isn't going to hurt. But I'd be surprised if baseball gets the nod as the new sport. Sounds like everyone's got their work cut-out to beat wrestling, and baseball has many of the same problems it had when it was dropped. Maybe the Red Sox's ground could be utilised to host something like archery instead as London did with Lords. Fenway Park for archery? That sounds like a total mismatch to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Fenway Park for archery? That sounds like a total mismatch to me. As opposed to putting archery in the Lord's Cricket Grounds? You've got transportation problems with Franklin Park. But you've got problems with just about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proposition Joe Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 I would be skeptical of trying to build anything or increase development in Franklin Park. Olmstead's necklace has already been scared by quite a few terrible developments that I wouldn't welcome another potential disaster. IMO the key areas to look at for a Bostonian stadium are the now vacated CSX rail yards in Allston, Newmarket for some sort of redevelopment plan, and the Bayside Expo Center. I suppose Boston could also bend the rules a bit and stick the stadium in the Lower Broadway section of Everett (using the same land that is causing that fuss about the Wynn Casino). As for archery in Fenway Park, I don't think thats a total mismatch because I've seen proposals from different corners of the internet include archery at Fenway so there is something that is making people try to connect the two. (Also handball at Matthews Arena seems to be a popular match as well for some reason.) Maybe people want to see arrows shot at targets in front of the Green Monster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceman Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 In my opinion, The capacity of Matthews Arena seems better suited for something like taekwondo or table tennis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.