Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The render was posted on Boston 2024 organizing comittee on Facebook. The stadium would take place in Castle Island which is a greater joke. Again April fools but I'm in love with the design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Nacre, I think he is talking about easy to access stadiums in a similar design of the main stadium that can be used for ceremonial practice. Also, the IOC enjoys having the Olympic Stadium around a warm up track and other main facilities. For this to work an Olympic Park would have to be constructed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Question I've been mulling over, in light of the increased skittish-ness that many potential host cities have been having:

How outside the realm of possibility would it be for Boston to use Gillette Stadium? I know back when the idea of Boston bidding was first kicked around, everyone agreed that Gillette was too far away, because the IOC likes stuff to be in the city itself. However:

- The stadium has direct rail access to Boston the station is right next to the parking lot), a ~40 minute ride currently.

- The land around Gillette is almost entirely owned by the Patriots (or, more accurately, Bob Kraft), and he has developed it into a very tight-knit complex of entertainment and retail venues, called Patriot Place.

I could see Patriot Place being temporarily repurposed during the Olympics, with some of the stores being converted into whatever the Olympics needs, and then put back to normal afterward. Its also a fairly easily contained area, so security would not be too difficult (nor would it be anything the existing security is not familiar with). Plus, if they don't want to put it in Boston, there's plenty of parking space on which to build a temporary Velodrome.

Again, this is an idea on how to present a more economical bid. While the IOC probably doesn't want more economical bids, it does seem that the publicity from cities dropping out from various bids would nudge them in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a main stadium, no. Gillette could (and should) certainly be used as a soccer football venue. But that's about it. It's no good as an athletics venue. And it's too remote to be used as the venue for the ceremonies. Keep in mind that in addition to spectators, you need to get all the athletes and the thousands of performers to the stadium and have a place to stage them. So Gillette really isn't serviceable as either venue. They do need something closer and more purpose-built to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How outside the realm of possibility would it be for Boston to use Gillette Stadium?

It's completely and utterly impossible.

1) There is no athletics track.

2) It isn't even close to being big enough.

3) The IOC may be willing to accept smaller clusters than it has in the past, but they are never going to be OK with a main stadium all by itself.

4) Gillette is 21 miles from Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's completely and utterly impossible.

1) There is no athletics track.

2) It isn't even close to being big enough.

3) The IOC may be willing to accept smaller clusters than it has in the past, but they are never going to be OK with a main stadium all by itself.

4) Gillette is 21 miles from Boston.

Points 1 & 2: Fair enough.

To points 3 & 4: People keep saying that over and over, but my point is that, if the list of candidates is sparse enough, and Boston has a bid that has numbers that all work just fine, is it really that certain that the IOC wouldn't bend on this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Points 1 & 2: Fair enough.

To points 3 & 4: People keep saying that over and over, but my point is that, if the list of candidates is sparse enough, and Boston has a bid that has numbers that all work just fine, is it really that certain that the IOC wouldn't bend on this point?

They would be willing to bend if it made sense. Because of points 1 and 2, Gillette doesn't really make that much sense. And keep in mind that list of candidates is likely to include Los Angeles, so that's what they're up against. When LA is offering a fairly centrally located stadium, Boston can't offer a relatively remote stadium option in response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A winnable Olympic bid is much more than having "a bid that has numbers that all work just fine". If Boston's solution is to use this outdated, far-flung stadium as their main centerpiece, then they might as well pack it in & go home. That's like Dallas or San Fran using Cowboy's or Levi stadium, it's a non-starter.

Especially when Los Angeles has uped their game plan, so as of now, even with a 'sparse list of candidates', they're a much better option as far as a venue plan is concerned. The IOC could make exceptions if a plan is feasible in the first place. But gilette ain't feasible to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A winnable Olympic bid is much more than having "a bid that has numbers that all work just fine". If Boston's solution is to use this outdated, far-flung stadium as their main centerpiece, then they might as well pack it in & go home. That's like Dallas or San Fran using Cowboy's or Levi stadium, it's a non-starter.

Especially when Los Angeles has uped their game plan, so as of now, even with a 'sparse list of candidates', they're a much better option as far as a venue plan is concerned. The IOC could make exceptions if a plan is feasible in the first place. But gilette ain't feasible to begin with.

Well, the stadium is not that outdated, it'll be 22 years old in 2024. If thats too outdated, then the Olympics would just be an excuse to build a new larger stadium at Olympic specs.

It's not like Boston is actually going to be the US city. I'll give them props for making it this far, but unless your name is Chicago or NYC, LA has this one in the bag.

Based on what? LA's got lots of land, and they proved in '84 that they were capable of hosting a profitable games. Other than that, what is so clearly superior about LA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the stadium is not that outdated, it'll be 22 years old in 2024. If thats too outdated, then the Olympics would just be an excuse to build a new larger stadium at Olympic specs.

Based on what? LA's got lots of land, and they proved in '84 that they were capable of hosting a profitable games. Other than that, what is so clearly superior about LA?

Their linked plan? It's breathtaking.

I know we all want a games in our hometown, but LA would be perfect for the event and their plan shows they are willing to add something to it. Not to mention they are using the river redevelopment and restoring many old and historic stadiums. LA would bring a unique culture and vibrancy to the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do tend to jump the gun too often, mr.bernham. Yeah, LA so far has given us the most detailed and glossy glimpse of their bid plan. But that's a far cry from saying they're over the line.

Personally, I'm still deep down hoping for a fresh contender. I'd like to see if Boston can get through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their linked plan? It's breathtaking.

I know we all want a games in our hometown, but LA would be perfect for the event and their plan shows they are willing to add something to it. Not to mention they are using the river redevelopment and restoring many old and historic stadiums. LA would bring a unique culture and vibrancy to the games.

It was breathtaking? Odd word to describe it. I think it was pretty cool to see, but it certainly didn't take my breath away.

And no, LA is not perfect for the event. There's a lot of work they'd need to do, much moreso than for `84. It does seem like they have a coherent and workable plan in the works, but it's all said than done. Plus, when you're talking about "restoring many old and historic stadiums".. no. As Athens said, they would restore the Coliseum. Most of the rest would rely on existing venues that would need little to no major changes.

Well, the stadium is not that outdated, it'll be 22 years old in 2024. If thats too outdated, then the Olympics would just be an excuse to build a new larger stadium at Olympic specs.

Based on what? LA's got lots of land, and they proved in '84 that they were capable of hosting a profitable games. Other than that, what is so clearly superior about LA?

22 years is not outdated, but it's also not brand new either. Again, if it were centrally located (and not owned by Bob Kraft), that would be less of a factor. It's certainly more than capable of hosting events though.

And yes, that's a big advantage Los Angeles has. It gives them options that they're all about urban sprawl and have places to put things. Plus, they also have a lot of pre-existing venues, mostly because of the colleges in the area. Yes, Boston isn't lacking for colleges, but most of them don't have big facilities. Whereas L.A. has, say, Pauley Pavillion and the Galen Center (in addition to Staples Center), Boston counters with the much smaller Conte Forum. So Boston, in comparison to LA, would need to build or upgrade a lot of their venues to make it all work for an Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do tend to jump the gun too often, mr.bernham. Yeah, LA so far has given us the most detailed and glossy glimpse of their bid plan. But that's a far cry from saying they're over the line.

Personally, I'm still deep down hoping for a fresh contender. I'd like to see if Boston can get through.

I would like to see how far they make it too, the problem is like FYI said the city lacks many large venues that wouldn't have to be upgraded in order to host. Another problem is that the Boston games would lack a central hub within the heart of the city. Boston itself is too dense, and as we saw with NYC it can hurt the actual bid. Furthermore Boston lacks the card NYC holds, this card lets NYC get away with a more spread out games, it's a luxury Boston does not have.

I'm still open to what Boston planners have in mind and I hope they can find a smart solution to creating a games close to the city center while keeping a nice hub.

It was breathtaking? Odd word to describe it. I think it was pretty cool to see, but it certainly didn't take my breath away.

And no, LA is not perfect for the event. There's a lot of work they'd need to do, much moreso than for `84. It does seem like they have a coherent and workable plan in the works, but it's all said than done. Plus, when you're talking about "restoring many old and historic stadiums".. no. As Athens said, they would restore the Coliseum. Most of the rest would rely on existing venues that would need little to no major changes.

Breathtaking for me, I honestly set expectations low and expected the city to brag about '84. LA impressed me greatly and when I saw the document my breath was taken away, I was surprised. The plan was very well put together and they did not push the success of '84 down your throat. They were sensible and put a vibrant look on LA and the bid.

The sun? The beaches? The people? The culture? How is LA not perfect? :P Sure LA needs work, but what city doesn't? You yourself pointed out that their bid utilizes existing venues and restores/upgrades others. The biggest challenge I see to LA's works will be the river and making sure Farmers goes through.

In response to other venues they are restoring. Looking at their venue plan the first two that stick out to me are the Coliseum and Uytengsu Aquatics Center. So it was wrong and incorrect for me to say that many buildings would be restored, but the Coliseum is not the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do tend to jump the gun too often, mr.bernham. Yeah, LA so far has given us the most detailed and glossy glimpse of their bid plan. But that's a far cry from saying they're over the line.

Personally, I'm still deep down hoping for a fresh contender. I'd like to see if Boston can get through.

I'm probably feeling like mr .berham and would love to see LA hosting again, mainly on a great plan but also the fact they could ride on the fact that Americans feel comfortable as the city with a stable pair of hands.

But also feeling that, yes lets see what else is there and as can be seen, it's time for a Northern city to have a turn and Boston would be perfect. A great history and would be popular. But still in the know that LA is a safe fallback and I would be comfortable with LA as US bid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breathtaking for me, I honestly set expectations low and expected the city to brag about '84. LA impressed me greatly and when I saw the document my breath was taken away, I was surprised. The plan was very well put together and they did not push the success of '84 down your throat. They were sensible and put a vibrant look on LA and the bid.

The sun? The beaches? The people? The culture? How is LA not perfect? :P Sure LA needs work, but what city doesn't? You yourself pointed out that their bid utilizes existing venues and restores/upgrades others. The biggest challenge I see to LA's works will be the river and making sure Farmers goes through.

In response to other venues they are restoring. Looking at their venue plan the first two that stick out to me are the Coliseum and Uytengsu Aquatics Center. So it was wrong and incorrect for me to say that many buildings would be restored, but the Coliseum is not the only one.

I think a lot of us set low expectations and were pleasantly surprised. But if our views of LA's bid are based on those initial expectations, I think we need to focus more on what they had, not what we thought they'd have. A lot of us (myself included) were talking about how they could differentiate the bid from 1984. Well, in hindsight, maybe we should have known better that they would be able to offer that.

And easy there if you're going to wax poetic about LA. They have their issues to deal with. It's far from perfect. They have work to do ahead of them. So let's temper the enthusiasm just a bit before we're declaring them the winner even though yes, they're fairly likely IMO to emerge as the USOC's candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the stadium is not that outdated, it'll be 22 years old in 2024. If thats too outdated, then the Olympics would just be an excuse to build a new larger stadium at Olympic specs.

Well, that's just it, though. IS the city of Boston "interested" in building a new, larger stadium at Olympics specs much, much closer to the city? If yes, that's great. They're a likely contender. If no, then there's not much here to go with, & brings us back to square one, as far as a Boston 2024 candidacy is concerned.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...