Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sometimes I think that some people make way too much a deal about these logos. In the event that Boston ultimately wound up with the Olympics, the actual Games logo would be different. I can see where more criticism of those logos would be justified, since that is the logo that those particular Games would always be associated with. But this is just the bid logo. It still doesn't look as bad as some previous bid logos.

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".

The old one looks more cultural (unlike the new logo). Besides, the (supposed) "representative" of the committee (on Gamesbids forums) said that the sails were suppose to represent the flames, but they'd have to change it because it was against IOC policy. They could have just modified the old logo slightly to prevent trouble (as long as the meaning is still present)...

Of course he said that :-) what they should have done is followed through with their promise on Facebook to hold a logo design contest, many many people were interested including myself... I liked the old one when we used it for the gay games but it should have never been recycled the new one is pretty confusing to me even the colors there is really nothing Boston about it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how official this is (not very, most likely), but its an interesting presentation.

http://issuu.com/figureground/docs/praud_boston_olympics_february_2014

A few too many typos and figures are a bit off.

That was pretty neat but like you said the figures are way off and we don't need to build any new hotels but we do already have many planned before then. Also how do you figure you can build a park across the Charles river when boats have to get through? LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was pretty neat but like you said the figures are way off and we don't need to build any new hotels but we do already have many planned before then. Also how do you figure you can build a park across the Charles river when boats have to get through? LOL

Well, in all fairness, the only boats that go up and down the Charles at that point are recreational.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed reaction to Boston's selection as one of four surviving US 2024 Olympic contenders

There has been a mixed reaction in Boston to news that the city is one of four contenders still in the race to mount a United States bid for the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, along with Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington D.C.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2024/1020732-mixed-reaction-to-boston-s-selection-as-one-of-four-surviving-us-2024-olympic-contenders

------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to burst the joy bubble of the Bostonians (or former Bostonians) here, but it seems like a Boston 'lympics is still iffy at this point (especially in terms of local government support).

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Tourism and competitive for every college and non college rowing, sailing etc....

That falls under 'recreational.'

Sorry to burst the joy bubble of the Bostonians (or former Bostonians) here, but it seems like a Boston 'lympics is still iffy at this point (especially in terms of local government support).

Thats nothing new. There's certainly plenty of local concern about the bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^hmmm...

But while there has been an overwhelmingly positive reaction in the other three locations, the response in the Massachusetts capital has been mixed, with Mayor Martin J Walsh admitting the bid will only continue if it is deemed beneficial for the city.

It's not local concern that is the problem, it's the government concern. No support = no bid.


(I suppose no local/public support could be an issue, too *cough* Krakow *cough*)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Living here, my experience is that most people are expressing support. That said, one of Boston's charms is that it is a city that operates on its own (sometimes narrow-minded) terms. If the USOC and IOC will only go for a city that will bankrupt itself building a Beijing-style mega Olympic park, then Boston will be out. Not only does it not have the hundreds and hundreds of open acres for it, and it's not going to bulldoze entire neighborhoods, but Boston is a very conservative city (conservative in its demeanor). I actually find Boston's attitude about this refreshing and something the Games needs: the host city is the one that has to live with the legacy of a Games - hosting should serve the IOC but also the long term needs of the host city. If a winnable bid can be fashioned that serves Boston's transportation, housing, commercial and venue needs once the carnival leaves, then Boston will be all in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Living here, my experience is that most people are expressing support. That said, one of Boston's charms is that it is a city that operates on its own (sometimes narrow-minded) terms. If the USOC and IOC will only go for a city that will bankrupt itself building a Beijing-style mega Olympic park, then Boston will be out. Not only does it not have the hundreds and hundreds of open acres for it, and it's not going to bulldoze entire neighborhoods, but Boston is a very conservative city (conservative in its demeanor). I actually find Boston's attitude about this refreshing and something the Games needs: the host city is the one that has to live with the legacy of a Games - hosting should serve the IOC but also the long term needs of the host city. If a winnable bid can be fashioned that serves Boston's transportation, housing, commercial and venue needs once the carnival leaves, then Boston will be all in.

Boston is taking a very conservative approach to all this. That's probably good for the city, but it's probably not going to entice the USOC either. Unfortunately for Boston though, this is a competition. As much as the appeal of the city is taking into consideration, if 1 city offers a more compelling plan than the others, they're going to be the winner. This is still the IOC you're dealing with here. Rarely do they take into account the needs or wants of the host city. So if someone out there offers a mega Olympic park, then Boston doesn't have a shot. The advantage of bids from the United States is that there tends to be a lot more infrastructure and venues in place than many of the foreign competitors. But that being the case, Boston is lacking in that area. They don't have a large scale stadium to serve as the main venue, so that would have to be built from scratch, probably a temporary venue like Chicago proposed. And the other venues in town also may not serve the IOC's needs as well. I would love to see them push forward to see what they can put together, but I still get the sense that when it comes down to it, their exploratory efforts will come to the conclusion that Boston simply cannot make the Olympics work for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston is taking a very conservative approach to all this. That's probably good for the city, but it's probably not going to entice the USOC either. Unfortunately for Boston though, this is a competition. As much as the appeal of the city is taking into consideration, if 1 city offers a more compelling plan than the others, they're going to be the winner. This is still the IOC you're dealing with here. Rarely do they take into account the needs or wants of the host city. So if someone out there offers a mega Olympic park, then Boston doesn't have a shot. The advantage of bids from the United States is that there tends to be a lot more infrastructure and venues in place than many of the foreign competitors. But that being the case, Boston is lacking in that area. They don't have a large scale stadium to serve as the main venue, so that would have to be built from scratch, probably a temporary venue like Chicago proposed. And the other venues in town also may not serve the IOC's needs as well. I would love to see them push forward to see what they can put together, but I still get the sense that when it comes down to it, their exploratory efforts will come to the conclusion that Boston simply cannot make the Olympics work for them.

I generally agree with the idea that they'll only do it on their terms, but I do think there's more room for a more... restrained Olympics than some might think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally agree with the idea that they'll only do it on their terms, but I do think there's more room for a more... restrained Olympics than some might think.

There is, but only if the IOC will vote for it. Therein lies the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally agree with the idea that they'll only do it on their terms, but I do think there's more room for a more... restrained Olympics than some might think.

Boston can sell that. But are the USOC and IOC willing to buy it? Again, if there's another city out there offering them the world and Boston is offering a "restrained Olympics," who do you think is going to win that battle? If it ever comes to pass that the IOC is looking for a smaller, more intimate Olympics, than yes, maybe Boston can play that card. But like zeke said, Boston can't rely on existing infrastructure as well as LA can. So unless they're willing to offer something that is not restrained, I don't see how they can pull it off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Restrained Olympics" aka 'austerity Games'. We know how that angle worked out for Madrid. The IOC might like to talk about more 'reasonable' Games these days, but I seriously doubt that they mean that they want to be 'restrained' as a result.

Besides, if they're even remotely interested whatsoever in doing that, they'll do it maybe for a compelling candidate like South Africa, for example. But I doubt that they'll do it for the only country in the world (which also happens to have the largest economy in the world, for the moment), which has hosted the most Olympic Games than any other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaker, no argument from me. IF (and this is a big "if" because I think LA will be the USOC's choice), but if Boston were to be the US' candidate city, it's only real chance of winning would be convincing the IOC that its future health and growth are better served by established cities in highly desirable media markets (US, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc) that don't have to take enormous financial risks to stage an amazing Games. I will admit that the IOC is going to be continually tempted by the bright shiny bauble, but if it senses that it has just about reached "peak Games" in terms of lavishness, a more conservative bid from a city like Boston could be a winner. But I agree that if a Buenos Aires or a Shanghai or a Paris were to bulldoze 1000 acres of contiguous space to put up a huge Homebush-type mega campus, a plan more restrained plan like Boston's (or like Barcelona's) would come up short.

I see the Rio spin as a deciding factor. If the media narrative about the IOC leading up to and after Rio is as damning as FIFA is getting (i.e., huge global organization made up of millionaires making third world countries spend themselves into oblivion with no legacy), we could very well see the IOC pull back a little and look for a less opulent - err, well, perhaps a less bankrupting - setting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Restrained? Yes. Lacking a big stadium for opening and/or athletics? No

Talk in the local sports and development communities is that Bob Kraft is looking for a site to build an appropriately-sized stadium within a few miles of downtown Boston for the Revs. I've heard from some architect friends that the plan is to build an under-30,000 seater that could be adapted to a larger use and than "right-sized" again after a Games. Don't forget, both London's and Atlanta's main stadia were largely temp structures that were designed to be downsized after their Games. Meanwhile, the Bird's Nest sits empty 95% of the time and Athens' venues are growing weeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk in the local sports and development communities is that Bob Kraft is looking for a site to build an appropriately-sized stadium within a few miles of downtown Boston for the Revs. I've heard from some architect friends that the plan is to build an under-30,000 seater that could be adapted to a larger use and than "right-sized" again after a Games. Don't forget, both London's and Atlanta's main stadia were largely temp structures that were designed to be downsized after their Games. Meanwhile, the Bird's Nest sits empty 95% of the time and Athens' venues are growing weeds.

This has been the plan since day one... its extremely amusing to read all these posts about how boston is planning no main stadium or track which has never once been their mission ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely - temporary venues have proven to be still a very expensive venture, it has little impact on the construction costs. Sure - downsizing makes it more feasible in the long term, but initially - during those crucial seven years, and in the years following - there would be little difference.

Haven't been following this proposal much - is there any particular site in Boston that would be home to such a venue? And perhaps other venues?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely - temporary venues have proven to be still a very expensive venture, it has little impact on the construction costs. Sure - downsizing makes it more feasible in the long term, but initially - during those crucial seven years, and in the years following - there would be little difference.

Haven't been following this proposal much - is there any particular site in Boston that would be home to such a venue? And perhaps other venues?

That's the big question. Based on the recent feasibility study, Boston doesn't have an answer yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the big question. Based on the recent feasibility study, Boston doesn't have an answer yet.

actually they do have one option they're exploring... there is a large plot of land owned by the MBTA unused that they're looking into and it's a great location on the waterfront and by the cruise ship terminal

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...