Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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".

Because this is the last place you will find any factual information about the bid, process, USOC or IOC.

people liked to attack me here which is why I stopped posting on here and have just enjoyed reading the crazy talk haha but I have quite a bit of knowledge on all of this ;-)

That report/project with Suffolk downs mentioned was neat and had some cool ideas but it's by a third, fourth, fifth party so who knows how much of it will become fact.

There have been a few third party and news articles about the seaport district again where others groups made possible village/stadium designs. It would be a great location if it became available and had the right acreage

It baffles me that because they did not make locations and ideas public that you think we have no plans in the works LOL they would have never picked a four city short list after many USOC & IOC visits to Boston if we had nothing in the works. Everyone knows how negative this city has become so the last thing they're going to do is announce partial plans

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.

Here's my feeling though.. the IOC has a potential mess on their hands with the 2022 Olympic bid cities. And they don't seem to think anything is wrong. So I don't know what it's going to take for them to acknowledge the negativity that's going on in Brazil right now. So if the IOC can still get their lavish games from someone, they won't settle for something more conservative. More than that, Boston's first job is to sell themselves to the USOC.and beat out the domestic competition. Los Angeles seems to have a plan that is pretty lavish, but at the same time, probably won't bankrupt the city/state (although they've already down that for themselves). That's what Boston needs to deal with first.

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.

So here's the question with something like that.. would that stadium get built in the next few years, before the host for 2024 is decided? Would Kraft be willing to wait to see the outcome of the domestic vote to see if that stadium would get use for an Olympics? It's 1 thing to purpose-build a stadium for the Olympics and then change it. It's another to build the stadium, convert it for the Olympics, and then change it back to what it originally was. That's still an expensive proposition right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my feeling though.. the IOC has a potential mess on their hands with the 2022 Olympic bid cities. And they don't seem to think anything is wrong. So I don't know what it's going to take for them to acknowledge the negativity that's going on in Brazil right now. So if the IOC can still get their lavish games from someone, they won't settle for something more conservative. More than that, Boston's first job is to sell themselves to the USOC.and beat out the domestic competition. Los Angeles seems to have a plan that is pretty lavish, but at the same time, probably won't bankrupt the city/state (although they've already down that for themselves). That's what Boston needs to deal with first.

So here's the question with something like that.. would that stadium get built in the next few years, before the host for 2024 is decided? Would Kraft be willing to wait to see the outcome of the domestic vote to see if that stadium would get use for an Olympics? It's 1 thing to purpose-build a stadium for the Olympics and then change it. It's another to build the stadium, convert it for the Olympics, and then change it back to what it originally was. That's still an expensive proposition right there.

I have heard that the plan is to relocate the Revs away from Foxboro regardless of an Olympic bid. Foxboro is a great stadium, but even with direct rail access from Boston, it is not optimal for it's core supporters (urban immigrants and suburban families who are spread out over a several hundred square miles).

No one is going to build a 90,000+ seat fixed stadium within Boston's urban area without a dedicated tenant. I heard that the Bird's Nest and Athens' stadium still cost tens of millions a year in upkeep alone - not to mention the debt financing - and sit empty most of the time. Unless the Patriots are going to move, there is no need for a big stadium like that. The Sox aren't going to move and a huge stadium like that is too big for them and the Revs.

I don't know enough to say that the plan is start small (for the Revs), go big (for the Games) and then go back to small, or whether it is just to start big and then go small after. But downsizing to fit the Revs after a Games is almost certainly the plan.

There's also Suffolk Dowbs, long rumored to be the Krafts' choice for a Revs stadium. Plus it's mentioned (though not for a stadium) in that report linked earlier.

Yes, Suffolk Downs is often talked about for the Revs' new stadium. As are New Market, Somerville and the Seaport. A benefit of all four is that the are all located within a relatively short distance from major public transportation lines (subway, bus and heavy rail).

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bit.ly/1pQqpza (Boston Globe)

Article about possible venue locations. Though where the author got her sources from is beyond be. Her description of the stadium is too small for Olympics standard and the location too small for the stadium itself.

I don't know, that area of the city looks large enough. I compared the London Stadium, its around 800 feet wide, 1000 feet long, and the shortest side of the yard is around 1000 feet, if you assume the perimeter as such:

I-93

W 4th St.

Dot Ave.

Bypass Rd.

Thats a pretty decently sized area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, that area of the city looks large enough. I compared the London Stadium, its around 800 feet wide, 1000 feet long, and the shortest side of the yard is around 1000 feet, if you assume the perimeter as such:

I-93

W 4th St.

Dot Ave.

Bypass Rd.

Thats a pretty decently sized area.

Precisely! Thank you for being a new voice to express that, they don't listen ;-) They also don't follow the IOC's quest to change the OLD way they did things ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been discussing this topic just as long as you have. We'll see how it works out.

I was referring to to the acknowledgement that the space is adequate

A more visual perspective:

dVTR89r.jpgIt fits! (barely :mellow:)

You cut out half of the space it goes all the way down to past the Transportation Department the ENTIRE Tow Lot.. so it would more than fit in any direction with space to spare especially to the left

Link to post
Share on other sites

By comparison, the London stadium barely fits in the lot too. A stand alone Olympic Stadium doesn't need a whole bunch of space surrounding it like an NFL Stadium does. There's no real need for a massive parking lot or concourse area, especially considering that the stadium will probably be downsized after the Games anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A neat little graphic and I hope Boston has found a solution. But it's worth pointing out a few things about the London Stadium, which show the flaws of just drawing a black circle on a map:

1. Unlike normal stadiums the footprint of the stands is minimal in London. And in order to get such a tiny footprint above ground (i.e. between the waterways) the stadium concept had to be turned inside out. The stands are the only thing you've shown on that diagram with the little black circle, but in reality the stadium footprint covered the whole of that peninsula. Food concourses and ticket checkpoints were set outside of the stands rather than within them, and all the back-end facilities you'd have with an 80k stadium were buried underground across the peninulsa.

In reality, therefore, London' stadium footprint is the brown area on this map, with the toilet and food facilites above the brown area, and hundreds of rooms for stadium staff built under the brown area on the so-called podium level. If you're going to draw anything over potential stadium sites you need to either choose a normal stadium with the facilities in the stands, or use the brown area as your footprint if you're using London as a model....

london-olympic-stadium-seating-plan_1.jp

2. In a broader sense, the space London's stadium occupied was larger still. You need a fair amount of room for crowds of 80,000 to feel comfortable and the area immediately surrounding the stadium in the south of the park as well as the access via the shopping centre and the Greenway provided that. Looking at the above pictures, you'd need to close off a lot of roads in that area for a week to allow for crowd dissipation safely. Of course, that might not be a problem, but it's worth bearing in mind. Despite what crofan says, you do need a lot of room around any venue which will see 80k people leaving in one go.

1b111.jpg

3. Warm up track. Easy to forget but you're going to need one in close vicinity. Again, if you're going to use London as a point of comparison it's worth pointing out that they had to build a temporary bridge across to an area outside the Olympic Park to fit this in. Here's an under construction photo:

olympic-stadium-and-warm-up-track-80574.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The site in Boston everyone is discussing is ideal - there are two subway stations within a few minutes' walk of the site, South Station (commuter rail) is about 10 minutes away. On top of which, the UMass campus, proposed site for the athlete's village is a five minute shuttle ride away, and the BCEC (convention center - proposed media center and potential sports venue) is down the street.

The problems with the site are: although mostly owned by government bodies (MassPort, the MBTA, etc.), the city would need to re-route some heavy rail lines around the perimeter of the property, and in order to make it a comfortable fit like London's plan, some land will need to be taken by eminent domain. We also shouldn't underestimate the resistance some of the neighbors may feel about putting a 30,000 seat stadium (post Games) two blocks from their homes. I don't think any of these concerns are insurmountable or unique - just about every city bidding for the Games faces them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As Rob has pointed out....it's NOT just fitting the Stadium structure. You need another 2 or 3 acres for the warm-up track; PLUS:

- there has to be an auxiliary stadium closeby capable of seating at least 10,500 bodies. This is going to be the holding tank for the athletes before marching in.

PLUS, you will need equal amounts of sheltered space for the OC performers and the props.

PLUS, you will need some more space for TV trucks, emergency vehicles on standby, etc., etc.

PLUS, you will also need space for sponsors' tents.

In other words, unless they find a way to shoehorn everything into that tight Boston lot, it's not going to cut it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As Rob has pointed out....it's NOT just fitting the Stadium structure. You need another 2 or 3 acres for the warm-up track; PLUS:

- there has to be an auxiliary stadium closeby capable of seating at least 10,500 bodies. This is going to be the holding tank for the athletes before marching in.

PLUS, you will need equal amounts of sheltered space for the OC performers and the props.

PLUS, you will need some more space for TV trucks, emergency vehicles on standby, etc., etc.

PLUS, you will also need space for sponsors' tents.

In other words, unless they find a way to shoehorn everything into that tight Boston lot, it's not going to cut it.

Agreed. Hence what I said about taking some additional land via eminent domain. The maps used above show the smallest possible parcel. The lot size could easily be three or four times the size presented.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, there is an ideal setting for open stadia. I believe a No-So axis gives the best positioning with regard the movement of the sun. U just can't set it the other way becuz that's what the land allows. So I hope Boston does not make that fatal mistake.

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/outdoorplayingareas

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

The site in Boston everyone is discussing is ideal - there are two subway stations within a few minutes' walk of the site, South Station (commuter rail) is about 10 minutes away. On top of which, the UMass campus, proposed site for the athlete's village is a five minute shuttle ride away, and the BCEC (convention center - proposed media center and potential sports venue) is down the street.

The problems with the site are: although mostly owned by government bodies (MassPort, the MBTA, etc.), the city would need to re-route some heavy rail lines around the perimeter of the property, and in order to make it a comfortable fit like London's plan, some land will need to be taken by eminent domain. We also shouldn't underestimate the resistance some of the neighbors may feel about putting a 30,000 seat stadium (post Games) two blocks from their homes. I don't think any of these concerns are insurmountable or unique - just about every city bidding for the Games faces them.

Good post & thanks for that explanation.

Not knowing Boston, but knowing London, I could see the obvious flaws with just drawing the outline of the stands of London's stadium on a map. But it seems from your explanation things could be workable. And to draw another comparison with London, the land situation sounds awkward to be but not insurmountable if the will is there. London's Park straddled several boroughs, so the land had to be cobbled together from several local authorities, not to mention moving and compensating businesses already on site.

It seems Boston may have found a site. Now it needs to work out if it's practical to get everything together and how muich support and opposition there may be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The site isn't ideal in that it fails the "Can Bob Kraft make a crapload of money off it" test.

Ding ding ding. But he can at this location (or he should be able to). The Revs would host at least 17 games per season and they would probably sell out each one given the convenience to public transport and the proximity of its fan base to this location. A huge chunk of the Revs' fan base lives within a 20 minute subway ride to this site. And, being so convenient to downtown Boston, I could easily see people heading over to see a game after work like they do with the Red Sox. In addition, the stadium would be able to serve as an outdoor venue for smaller concerts in the summer and for outdoor hockey tournaments in the winter. Occasionally, Fenway Park hosts concerts or outdoor hockey, but they only open it to those activities a few times per year. Kraft can make money here, definitely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ding ding ding. But he can at this location (or he should be able to). The Revs would host at least 17 games per season and they would probably sell out each one given the convenience to public transport and the proximity of its fan base to this location. A huge chunk of the Revs' fan base lives within a 20 minute subway ride to this site. And, being so convenient to downtown Boston, I could easily see people heading over to see a game after work like they do with the Red Sox. In addition, the stadium would be able to serve as an outdoor venue for smaller concerts in the summer and for outdoor hockey tournaments in the winter. Occasionally, Fenway Park hosts concerts or outdoor hockey, but they only open it to those activities a few times per year. Kraft can make money here, definitely.

Very important point here. Lets assume that the stadium would be serviced only by the Broadway Red Line MBTA station (it would probably also use Andrew, but thats a few blocks further away). The surrounding neighborhoods directly serviced by the same line are pretty diverse, and there's many immigrant neighborhoods. I don't know the exact demographics for soccer popularity in Boston, but I'm assuming its a safe bet to target immigrant neighborhoods. The other such neighborhoods are similarly easily accessed by a 2-seat trip on the subway (other than anything on the Blue Line, which does not directly connect).

Link to post
Share on other sites

u26rDCi.png

Notes: 1) The Stadium Peninsula does not include the warm-up track

2) Although it is not shown, the area surrounding the proposed location is mostly residential area

3) Based on Google Streetview, the commercial area around the proposed location does not look very welcoming

4) Are the lots in the purple box part of the rail yards?

  • Like 1
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...