Jump to content

Recommended Posts

god you are ridiculous stop tearing everything apart seriously...

Come on, man. The whole point of these sorts of discussions is to tear everything apart. Because thats what happens when *anyone* is bidding for *anything.* Thats how bidding works. I was on both sides enough in college to understand that; anyone who wants to demolish your bid is really your best friend.

Another thing to note: all the (known) possible main stadium locations both have extra pricetags in them (Cabot & eminent domain, Beacon & highway rerouting)

Not entirely correct. Cabot, yes. But the highway around Beacon is getting rerouted no matter what, so thats not really an Olympic cost. Boston could pass a resolution banning any future Olympic bids, and the Mass Pike is still going to get rerouted.

The only way this would be an Olympic cost is if the reroute would be altered due to the Olympics. For example, if they want to put some support facilities under the highway, or some concourses connecting the park to the north and Commonwealth Ave to the south, or possibly some rail connections.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely correct. Cabot, yes. But the highway around Beacon is getting rerouted no matter what, so thats not really an Olympic cost. Boston could pass a resolution banning any future Olympic bids, and the Mass Pike is still going to get rerouted.

The only way this would be an Olympic cost is if the reroute would be altered due to the Olympics. For example, if they want to put some support facilities under the highway, or some concourses connecting the park to the north and Commonwealth Ave to the south, or possibly some rail connections.

Would it look aesthetically pleasing to have a generic elevated highway as the entrance to an Olympic Park (assuming since Beacon Park seems big enough)? Most tourists will probably take the Green Line (?) walk a block or two and see a giant sign with "BOSTON OLYMPIC PARK --->" on it, attached to a cement thing with cars zooming across it. Of course, it is possible to beautify it a bit, but that would require money... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it look aesthetically pleasing to have a generic elevated highway as the entrance to an Olympic Park (assuming since Beacon Park seems big enough)? Most tourists will probably take the Green Line (?) walk a block or two and see a giant sign with "BOSTON OLYMPIC PARK --->" on it, attached to a cement thing with cars zooming across it. Of course, it is possible to beautify it a bit, but that would require money... ;)

No, it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. But that section of the Mass Pike is elevated in part because it had to contend with the rail yard. There will still be a rail line (the Worcester Line, I think) running parallel there, but it is not physically impossible to address it. Once the Pike is over the Worcester Line tracks, it can slope down to street level. If an entrance from the BU side was needed (I think it is), you could deck over the visually offensive part and make a broad pedestrian park on top of the Pike / Worcester Line and connect BU with Beacon Park. The High Line in NYC was once a pretty ugly rail line and now it's one of the top amenities in that part of Manhattan. I'm not saying to replicate it at Beacon Park, but the combination of sound engineering and good landscaping can work wonders where blight is an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old stadium was also in Foxboro. Kraft owns both teams and has stated he wants a downtown stadium in Boston. The problem is land and a contribution from the city. If the city can use eminent domain to grab the land and then pays for the stadium for the sake of hosting the Olympics I'm pretty positive he'd be OK with it. As long as it was either reconstructed for football or had retractable stands, anyway.

Therein lies the issue. If Boston were to construct a soccer specific stadium, where does Kraft fit into that? Right now, it's his team and it's a stadium he both owns and operates. Needless to say, the Revs would be better off elsewhere, but again, the owner obviously has a say in that. Obviously with an Olympic bid involved, that makes it an even more intriguing situation, so I don't know what the solution is to that dilemma. Because at the end of the day, this is Robert Kraft we're talking about.

The Sounders have the highest attendance because they play in a downtown stadium in a walkable city full of hipsters. Boston is also walkable and full of hipsters, but the stadium is way out in the suburbs with little mass transit access. A downtown stadium would be great for the Revolution and Patriots.

The original incarnation of the Sounders that played in Seattle were 1 of the highest drawing clubs in the league, particularly during the mid-70s when the NASL was booming. So this is hardly a new phenomenom that a soccer club in Seattle is doing well. Yes, it helps them that they play their games in a location well suited for them. But they're literally drawing nearly double the next best team in the league. Again, you can't just put it on the stadium when they're drawing in the 40,000 range and the next highest team is in the low 20s.

That being the case, I have to wonder why he wants a new stadium for the Revolution if his real interest is in getting people to the ancillary shops he owns in Foxboro.

Maybe Boston would be better off with a temporary stadium they could simply tear down after the games.

Again, it goes to the point I made earlier. The Revolution want a soccer specific stadium because that's what the majority of their competitors have. The issue is with ownership.. what's best for Kraft? Does he make more money keeping the team in Foxboro or by moving them closer to Boston? A lot would depend on who owns and operates the stadium, let alone how it's funded. That's not a small factor in these things, especially in the larger context of an Olympic bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everyone in the US is used to major sports stadiums being visible from afar, an island in a sea of parking. The first time they go to Fenway, it's jaw dropping cool. You are right in the middle of the city... you turn a corner.... and suddenly there's a ballpark. (Almost) everyone loves it.

I have no idea if Boston '24 plans something like that. But how awesome would it be to have an Olympics that is actually part of the fabric of the host city... not a special zone separated from the city. I know, I know, security, buffer zones, etc. But they can find a way. Fenway hosts the world series, they have the Superbowl in downtown New Orleans... it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everyone in the US is used to major sports stadiums being visible from afar, an island in a sea of parking. The first time they go to Fenway, it's jaw dropping cool. You are right in the middle of the city... you turn a corner.... and suddenly there's a ballpark. (Almost) everyone loves it.

I have no idea if Boston '24 plans something like that. But how awesome would it be to have an Olympics that is actually part of the fabric of the host city... not a special zone separated from the city. I know, I know, security, buffer zones, etc. But they can find a way. Fenway hosts the world series, they have the Superbowl in downtown New Orleans... it can be done.

There are plenty of stadiums (both baseball and football) that have been built in recent years that are in or close to downtown. Fenway is hardly alone in that regard. The charm and appeal of Fenway is that it's been around for more than a century. The location aspect of it, while cool (other stadiums are closer to the city center than Fenway), isn't necessarily the drawing card.

I agree it would be great for a city to integrate an Olympics like that. The problem, aside from the obvious that you mentioned, is that unlike a Super Bowl or a World Series, you're dealing with numerous venues and a lot more people. That's the challenge. Easier said that done. I saw the link that aquaman posted that shows the head of their bid committee. Definitely strikes me as being a Doctoroff-esque type, someone who is well connected within the city and knows the lay of the land very well. Even still, how many times have we said that Boston may or may not be well-suited for the requirements of hosting an Olympics? Let's not forget how close the Patriots were to leaving Massachusetts because they couldn't get a stadium deal in Boston. So to ask the city to build everything that would be required of an Olympic bid.. maybe they can find a way, but it won't be easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therein lies the issue. If Boston were to construct a soccer specific stadium, where does Kraft fit into that? Right now, it's his team and it's a stadium he both owns and operates. Needless to say, the Revs would be better off elsewhere, but again, the owner obviously has a say in that. Obviously with an Olympic bid involved, that makes it an even more intriguing situation, so I don't know what the solution is to that dilemma. Because at the end of the day, this is Robert Kraft we're talking about.

The original incarnation of the Sounders that played in Seattle were 1 of the highest drawing clubs in the league, particularly during the mid-70s when the NASL was booming. So this is hardly a new phenomenom that a soccer club in Seattle is doing well. Yes, it helps them that they play their games in a location well suited for them. But they're literally drawing nearly double the next best team in the league. Again, you can't just put it on the stadium when they're drawing in the 40,000 range and the next highest team is in the low 20s.

Again, it goes to the point I made earlier. The Revolution want a soccer specific stadium because that's what the majority of their competitors have. The issue is with ownership.. what's best for Kraft? Does he make more money keeping the team in Foxboro or by moving them closer to Boston? A lot would depend on who owns and operates the stadium, let alone how it's funded. That's not a small factor in these things, especially in the larger context of an Olympic bid.

Would it look aesthetically pleasing to have a generic elevated highway as the entrance to an Olympic Park (assuming since Beacon Park seems big enough)? Most tourists will probably take the Green Line (?) walk a block or two and see a giant sign with "BOSTON OLYMPIC PARK --->" on it, attached to a cement thing with cars zooming across it. Of course, it is possible to beautify it a bit, but that would require money... ;)

As Aquaman said, the main reason there's an elevated viaduct at the moment is to cross over the tracks by the rail yard. But if you look at the layout at the moment (apple maps has a nice 3D view), you can see that the highway returns to ground level just after passing over the tracks, which is beyond the Beacon Yard area. In fact, before that one elevated section, the highway's below-grade.

However, I could see the Olympic bid altering the layout; perhaps the new course would remain below-grade the whole way.

Therein lies the issue. If Boston were to construct a soccer specific stadium, where does Kraft fit into that? Right now, it's his team and it's a stadium he both owns and operates. Needless to say, the Revs would be better off elsewhere, but again, the owner obviously has a say in that. Obviously with an Olympic bid involved, that makes it an even more intriguing situation, so I don't know what the solution is to that dilemma. Because at the end of the day, this is Robert Kraft we're talking about.

Kraft has been advocating for an urban stadium for the better part of a decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of stadiums (both baseball and football) that have been built in recent years that are in or close to downtown. Fenway is hardly alone in that regard. The charm and appeal of Fenway is that it's been around for more than a century. The location aspect of it, while cool (other stadiums are closer to the city center than Fenway), isn't necessarily the drawing card.

<snip> Let's not forget how close the Patriots were to leaving Massachusetts because they couldn't get a stadium deal in Boston..

I've been to many of them. Can't think of any that have the same experience as Fenway (other than Wrigley). It's not just "how close is the park to the center of downtown" but how integrated the park is into the city. All the modern downtown parks I've been to are clearly in a "ballpark zone." Which park(s) am I missing?

As for your second point, it's worth remembering that the Patriots *didn't* get a stadium in Boston. A lot of it was local politics, but the city didn't give them what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to many of them. Can't think of any that have the same experience as Fenway (other than Wrigley). It's not just "how close is the park to the center of downtown" but how integrated the park is into the city. All the modern downtown parks I've been to are clearly in a "ballpark zone." Which park(s) am I missing?

As for your second point, it's worth remembering that the Patriots *didn't* get a stadium in Boston. A lot of it was local politics, but the city didn't give them what they want.

Yankee Stadium.

I see what you're getting at here. I remember when the new Yankee Stadium was built (and subsequently when I've taken people there for the first time), 1 of the amazing things about the ballpark is that you're literally right across the street from apartment buildings. So similar to Fenway and Wrigley, Yankee Stadium is similar in that regard, especially similar to Wrigley which is right in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

That all said, notice that you're talking about 2 stadiums more than a century old and another whose general location dates back more than 90 years. So goes the axiom "they just don't make them like they used to." That's the charm of those ballparks that they were constructed at a time and in ways you don't see anymore. When they talked about building a new Fenway Park, it would have been in the same spot, but would it have the same character as the original? Not a chance. And the only reason the Yankees were able to build a new stadium is because they had the space nearby to do so. If the same was true of Fenway or Wrigley, I'm fairly confident we would have seen the same thing.

These days, new stadiums are often part of larger complexes. They require parking, something Fenway and Wrigley didn't have to be concerned with. Stadiums don't get built in areas like that these days. What you find so appealing about Fenway comes from years of history and tradition. Even if a stadium were to be constructed in a similar location and fashion (which is an almost impossible sell to begin with), that experience you so desire isn't going to be there.

And yes, the history of Kraft and the Patriots and city of Boston is fairly well known. The planned mega-complex that could have been a new home for the Patriots never happened. Nor did a new Fenway Park. That's why I'm curious to see how the powers that be can sell an Olympics. Again, I'm encouraged by seeing who this guy in charge is because he's a well-connected real estate developer. But the question is how does he succeed where others have failed, to say nothing of the fact this is a much larger endeavor than buidling a new stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned the possibility of recycling elements from one stadium into another. I can't speak to designing a stadium that can be deconstructed and recycled into something else, but when Austin built our new performing arts center, the Long Center, a few years ago, they recycled 65% of the original material from the old Palmer Auditorium. The new building is 95% recycled materials. More here:

http://thelongcenter.org/about/sustainability/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god, such drama. LOL

Yes, I said I didn't think retrofitting a stadium for soccer was a big deal. The conversation has shown me that I was being, perhaps, a bit glib. Rather than "not a big deal" I probably should have said not impossible. Expensive, definitely, especially if the goal is to keep the athletics oval with moveable seats like Stade de France. I'm not a stadium designer - far from it - but I could see a less expensive path being to make a large infield with a track oval and a front row set-back such that the first row seats are perhaps 10 or so feet above the playing field. Once a Games is over and the track is no longer needed, you could in-fill the lower level of the stadium, just guessing here, 50 feet (?) on all sides giving you a gradual slope for the inner-most 12 rows of seats for a soccer layout.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge about how these things work will call me naive, and perhaps I am. But what I describe above was what I was thinking when I said "no big deal".

The main stadium was always going to be a major challenge for a Boston bid. No question.

RBd0DiE.pngThe slanty line things are suppose to be seat thingies (except the flat one in the first; that's the track).

First Chart: Olympic Mode

Second Chart: Soccer (football) Mode

Third Chart: American Football Mode

(Note: I am not an architect of any sort, so this design may be highly inaccurate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RBd0DiE.pngThe slanty line things are suppose to be seat thingies (except the flat one in the first; that's the track).

First Chart: Olympic Mode

Second Chart: Soccer (football) Mode

Third Chart: American Football Mode

(Note: I am not an architect of any sort, so this design may be highly inaccurate)

It is. For starters, a regulation track is not oval. It's two semi-circles connected by straightaways. Without getting the shapes and scaling correct, the diagram is not very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is. For starters, a regulation track is not oval. It's two semi-circles connected by straightaways. Without getting the shapes and scaling correct, the diagram is not very useful.

HAHAHA Did you really just say that? You just lost quite a bit of credibility and REALLY fell into my wheel house... the literal definition and name for any and ALL Olympic track & fields has the word OVAL in it.

IAAF TRACK AND FIELD OLYMPIC FACILITIES MANUAL:

a 400m Standard Oval Track as described under Chapter 2.1.1.1 has 8 oval and 8 straight lanes (minimum 4-6, maximum 9)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHA Did you really just say that? You just lost quite a bit of credibility and REALLY fell into my wheel house... the literal definition and name for any and ALL Olympic track & fields has the word OVAL in it.

IAAF TRACK AND FIELD OLYMPIC FACILITIES MANUAL:

a 400m Standard Oval Track as described under Chapter 2.1.1.1 has 8 oval and 8 straight lanes (minimum 4-6, maximum 9)

Back off pal. Obviously it's an oval in the literal sense, but it's not an egg-shaped continuously bending circle like woohoo proposed. AthensFan is right that it is two straightaways connected to semi-circles. Also, woohoo's diagram does not include the beginning of the 100m/110m Hurdles track, which juts out from one of the straightaways. Woohoo's proposal is very inaccurate, and AthensFan was pointing out that fact, not being snarky. Relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHA Did you really just say that? You just lost quite a bit of credibility and REALLY fell into my wheel house... the literal definition and name for any and ALL Olympic track & fields has the word OVAL in it.

IAAF TRACK AND FIELD OLYMPIC FACILITIES MANUAL:

a 400m Standard Oval Track as described under Chapter 2.1.1.1 has 8 oval and 8 straight lanes (minimum 4-6, maximum 9)

Real mature, Rik. And wheel house? Do you even know what that expression means?

Athensfan is correct.. an athletics track is called an oval. It's not actually an oval as depicted in the diagram woohoo posted. Although in his defense, the shape of the playing surface actually pretty close to what he posted. Here's what the last few Olympic stadiums have looked like..

oly-stad_2218832b.jpg

120405113750478.jpg

525081.jpg

So yes, woohoo's diagram isn't that inaccurate. It's just not the track specifically that's that oval shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back off pal. Obviously it's an oval in the literal sense, but it's not an egg-shaped continuously bending circle like woohoo proposed. AthensFan is right that it is two straightaways connected to semi-circles. Also, woohoo's diagram does not include the beginning of the 100m/110m Hurdles track, which juts out from one of the straightaways. Woohoo's proposal is very inaccurate, and AthensFan was pointing out that fact, not being snarky. Relax.

HAHA Don't tell me to back off... He attacks me on a daily basis about things I have a great deal of knowledge about and he just did it to Woohoo.

A track is not and never has been two semi-circles, it is One continuous oval with a straightaway layered on top. He pointed out no fact, the straightaway is optional and only required from one side, something I know since I professional train on one everyday.

If you were smart enough you could really just look up the definition or the dimensions or look in the Olympic Facilities Manual or IAAF Facilities Manual, oh wait those are mine.

Real mature, Rik. And wheel house? Do you even know what that expression means?

Athensfan is correct.. an athletics track is called an oval. It's not actually an oval as depicted in the diagram woohoo posted. Although in his defense, the shape of the playing surface actually pretty close to what he posted. Here's what the last few Olympic stadiums have looked like..

oly-stad_2218832b.jpg

120405113750478.jpg

525081.jpg

So yes, woohoo's diagram isn't that inaccurate. It's just not the track specifically that's that oval shape.

No actually that would make me Accurate since Athensfan said it was not an oval and was not called an oval. Which it is... there is no Olympic Track statement that will tell you it's a none continuous oval or that it has "two semi-circles with two straight aways" like athens stated he is 110% incorrect

And of course I know what wheelhouse means and since I am a Professional Track & Field Athlete my statement was Correct ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to that Wikipedia thing, in common English use, something that resembles two semi-circles connected by straightaways IS an oval. Some of you find the goofiest things to argue about. Next up, is a square a rectangle?

Interesting, in those pictures of recent stadiums, the field of play for Athletics (as opposed to the 400m track) is a loop with continuously curving sides. I wonder if that's part of the standard, or just the way stadium architecture works best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHA Don't tell me to back off... He attacks me on a daily basis about things I have a great deal of knowledge about and he just did it to Woohoo.

A track is not and never has been two semi-circles, it is One continuous oval with a straightaway layered on top. He pointed out no fact, the straightaway is optional and only required from one side, something I know since I professional train on one everyday.

If you were smart enough you could really just look up the definition or the dimensions or look in the Olympic Facilities Manual or IAAF Facilities Manual, oh wait those are mine.

No actually that would make me Accurate since Athensfan said it was not an oval and was not called an oval. Which it is... there is no Olympic Track statement that will tell you it's a none continuous oval or that it has "two semi-circles with two straight aways" like athens stated he is 110% incorrect

And of course I know what wheelhouse means and since I am a Professional Track & Field Athlete my statement was Correct ;-)

Wow, I think I need a couple of advil this post is making my head hurt so much. That last line of yours.. good gravy. So all of a sudden you're a professional track & field athlete and therefore you're an expert on geometry? If you're going to fire back at Athensfan, at least get his quotes right when you do so because otherwise it makes you look like a fool. And you've done it so many times over, I think that ship has sailed at this point. There have been several posters here who have gotten accused of the pot calling the kettle black or people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but I have to say you top them all. Seriously, stop accusing other people of being wrong when A.) they're not wrong and B.) you're not right. You accusing someone else of not having credibility?.. you are just about the last person who has any claim against someone else's credibility here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slanty line things are suppose to be seat thingies (except the flat one in the first; that's the track).

First Chart: Olympic Mode

Second Chart: Soccer (football) Mode

Third Chart: American Football Mode

(Note: I am not an architect of any sort, so this design may be highly inaccurate)

The problem is that adding seating inside/over the track increases seating. The Revolution are not going to want to pay the maintenance costs of a 100,000 capacity stadium. So converting an athletics stadium to a smaller football stadium would essentially require the stadium to be completely reconstructed. Even in the case of the lower bowl the engineers would have to rebuild it to change the angle of the seating.

If your diagram was intended to show something else then I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to that Wikipedia thing, in common English use, something that resembles two semi-circles connected by straightaways IS an oval. Some of you find the goofiest things to argue about. Next up, is a square a rectangle?

Interesting, in those pictures of recent stadiums, the field of play for Athletics (as opposed to the 400m track) is a loop with continuously curving sides. I wonder if that's part of the standard, or just the way stadium architecture works best.

Here's Sydney..

T0006_Telstra-Stadium-O-990x465.jpg

Note that the front straight of the track is closer to the stands than the back straight because of the jumps. Contrast that with Atlanta and Los Angeles where the jumps were on the inside of the track..

centennial-olympic-stadium1.jpg

7768086510_d6bdb05214_m.jpg

So I don't think there's necessarily a set formula to it, much like the water jump for the steeplechase can go inside or outside. The track is obviously a fixed size and shape, but elements of the rest of the playing surface are flexible.

And yes, we do find the oddest things to argue about here, don't we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the main stadium have to be (somewhat) circular? I know New York 2012 proposed a rectangular stadium, but was the playing field also rectangular? (and did the seats curve around a circular playing field (if it was circular?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if only MasterCard were a TOP sponsor, they could show it off as TWO circles... (I don't think the 5 interlocking circles would work.)

mastercard252logo2_zpse5a3c726.jpg

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...