Jump to content

Recommended Posts

52,000 seats is actually a pretty small NFL stadium. Maybe instead of NFL, it can be MLS? Just remove and replace the track with a soccer field?

Scaling is probably really off, though. 45,000 seats for an MLS stadium seems normal, right?

The smallest stadiums in the NFL by capacity are o.co Coliseum in Oakland (53,200 but expandable to over 64,000) and Soldier Field (61,500). So 60,000 is probably the unofficial minimum for an NFL stadium.

By comparison, the largest of the soccer specific stadiums in MLS is StubHub Center in LA at 27,000. And listed capacity for other teams maxes out at 38,000 in Seattle (although they typically draw more than that). So 45,000 for an MLS stadium is likely larger than what they would need.

If we're talking Boston, any urban stadium built for after Olympic use would definitely be a soccer stadium. There's no real need for the Patriots to move to the city.

Kraft owns the teams (both the Patriots and the Revolution) and the stadium and much of the infrastructure around the stadium in Foxboro. Once upon a time, Kraft looked at moving the team into Boston, but for better or worse, that didn't happen. Not that he's firmly entrenched with everything in Foxboro, staying there as opposed to moving into Boston isn't about need, but about desire. Does he want to do that at this point, particularly if he's not in control of the situation? Gillette Stadium was privately financed, so Kraft calls the shots. If that's not the case with a stadium in Boston, I'm not sure he'll want to be a part of that. It's 1 thing to move the Revolution there and try to improve their bottom line. Won't happen with the Patriots though. Not when new stadiums in the NFL are coming with a price tag of a billion dollars.

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".

Found this article today from the boston globe basically outlining all the problems we've gone over. Really, lets just get this over with and put forth LA.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/07/05/just-say-olympics-boston/f15joCgmUlUVI2uYkoHVZM/story.html

Stop the madness. Please. Can we have no more noise about the Olympics coming to Boston in 2024? Can we cease and desist with the preposterous notion that this is a reasonable, fiscally-feasible project?

We do not need the Summer Olympics. We already are a world-class city. What we need is bridge repair, housing, better public schools, an improved MBTA, and programs for the disenfranchised. We need better ways to get in and out of our city. We do not need an event that would strangle us financially and logistically for decades.

Along with Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., Boston is one of four American cities still alive in bidding for the 2024 Summer Games. Sometime next year, the US Olympic Committee will decide if it wants to advance a bid in front of the International Olympic Committee. That city would compete with bids from around the world and the ever-corrupt IOC will choose the 2024 host in 2017.


The piece included a laundry list of deal-breakers that Boston’s pro-Olympic folks apparently consider minor problems:We need to Just Say No to all Boston-Olympic nonsense. Several of my sports colleagues have explained the folly of this notion, but still I see an editorial headlined, “Olympic decision is tribute to hard work, civic cohesiveness.’’

“The exploratory committee determined that the Boston area . . . would need to add four major pieces of infrastructure: an 80,000-person Olympic Stadium, a 100-acre Olympic village to house 16,500 athletes, and special venues for cycling and aquatics.’’

Huh? Seriously? All we need is a little 80,000-seat stadium? That should be no problem. It’s like building a tiny guard shack in front of the New Garden on Causeway Street, right? Do the Krafts get to keep the place for their football/futbol teams when the Olympics are over?

Oh, I’m pretty sure we could tuck the $2 billion Olympic village somewhere into the Back Bay, or the South End. Wonder if resident parking stickers will work during the 2024 Games?

Get a grip, people.

Could Boston host the Olympics?

Of course we could.

Do we want to host the Olympics? Do we need to host the Olympics?

Absolutely not.

We already are on the global map. We’ve got the history, hospitals, institutions of higher learning, and the championship sports teams. We are not needy Atlanta, trying to make the big time and failing miserably in 1996. And we don’t spend public moneys on sporting venues or events.

Just for kicks, I ran the Olympic idea past a Boston business tycoon — a local lifer who has dealt with all the big shots on the business and political scenes.

“The Olympics in Boston would probably finish the city off for good,’’ he said, calmly.

It’s not as simple as assigning varied competitions to local colleges and arenas. You can’t have the swimming at Harvard just because Harvard happens to have an Olympic-size pool. You have to build a massive aquatic center with diving pools, warm-up pools, spectator stands, and media workplaces. You can’t feature the cycling at the Hampton Beach Casino. You have to build a velodrome. And what are you going to do with this Olympic village, aquatic center, and velodrome when the Olympics are over? Folks in Brazil just forked over millions of dollars for multiple soccer stadiums that will be empty when the World Cup is done.

No thanks.

Think the Big Dig was bad? This would be the Big Dig times 10. The world today is peppered with wonderful cities still paying for Olympic Games and wishing the five rings had never invaded their boundaries. Talk to folks in Montreal (1976), Atlanta (1996), Athens (2004), and London (2012). Rome was smart enough to withdraw from consideration for the 2020 Games and there’s a surge to pull out of bidding for the 2022 Winter Games.

Autocratic societies are the new best bet for the fussy/money-is-no-object IOC. Folks in China and Russia had no say in their international boondoggles with the IOC. After initial projections of $12 billion, Vladimir Putin’s Winter Games in Sochi cost $51 billion.

Transportation? We can’t get from Dorchester to Nantasket Beach on Friday afternoons in July. Try to imagine Boston in summer with the Olympics in town. Charlie Cards all around. Everyman would “ride forever ’neath the streets of Boston” and be “the man who never returned.’’

Let’s not even get started with the need for tens of thousands of “volunteers,” the accommodation of 15,000 journalists, and the massive task of counterterrorism.

Sorry to say this, but if you believe in the Olympics in Boston you are either hopelessly naive, or you stand to profit from the venture. Since I believe in the goodness of all mankind, I choose to believe that everyone in favor of this hideous project is simply naive.

The list of the naive would include an 11-member Boston Olympics exploratory committee headed by John Fish, who also happens to be the CEO of Suffolk Construction. In interviews with Globe columnist Shirley Leung, Fish has stated he would not recuse himself from bidding for Olympic construction if Boston was awarded the Games. Two weeks ago, he told Leung, “I wouldn’t say no to that. I want to be clear. It’s not about John Fish and Suffolk Construction.’’ More recently, Fish said he would give “serious consideration’’ to recusing himself from the bidding if his apparent conflict was a sticking point in Boston’s bid for the Games.

Everybody OK with that?

Stop now. Even a failed bid can cost tens of millions of dollars. Bid consultants will be getting rich while you sit in traffic.

No Olympics. Not In Our Back Yard. Not on Boston Common. Not at Revere Beach. Not with our tax dollars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this article today from the boston globe basically outlining all the problems we've gone over. Really, lets just get this over with and put forth LA.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/07/05/just-say-olympics-boston/f15joCgmUlUVI2uYkoHVZM/story.html

Why just put forth LA? Based on an article from a notoriously negative crank? The things Dan Shaughnessy highlights have been known and are what every potential Olympic city faces: headaches related to building the facilities, 2 weeks of traffic, the potential for wasteful spending, etc. Nothing in this opinion piece is unique to Boston.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may not be unique, but they are much more problematic. For the Olympic stadium alone:

Los Angeles already has one.

San Francisco could build something like Stade de France in Oakland for the Raiders.

Washington DC has a lot of land, needs to replace RFK stadium (another Atlanta solution?) and FedEx Field is big enough (85,000) that it could be used as the ceremonies stadium.

Boston has little land available and few blighted areas to regenerate, while the Patriots are very unlikely to move.

"Curly-haired boyfriend" is a hack, but most of his points are valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington DC has a lot of land, needs to replace RFK stadium (another Atlanta solution?) and FedEx Field is big enough (85,000) that it could be used as the ceremonies stadium.

No, you can't have the ceremony stadium in Landover. A 2012 Games would have been great for them, with a riverside stadium being converted to a new Nationals Park afterwords. Now they may have to go the Boston route and look for a future MLS stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you can't have the ceremony stadium in Landover. A 2012 Games would have been great for them, with a riverside stadium being converted to a new Nationals Park afterwords. Now they may have to go the Boston route and look for a future MLS stadium.

The redskins lease in fedex field ends in 2026. So in the two year time line they can take the track out if they want to. Also, DC united already has a planned stadium at Huntspoint which isn't too far from nationals park
Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot the Nationals had already gotten a new ballpark. Nevermind, then.

Downtown Washington DC to Fedex Field is only 12 miles. Surely that is acceptable if it is exclusively used for the ceremonies. Meanwhile RFK could be demolished and a temporary stadium for athletics constructed. Even if it isn't acceptable they still have an existing stadium to use as the site for their new Olympic stadium.

I don't think that bid would win, nor would I want it to. But I think it's clear that DC has a lot more to work with than Boston does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kraft owns the teams (both the Patriots and the Revolution) and the stadium and much of the infrastructure around the stadium in Foxboro. Once upon a time, Kraft looked at moving the team into Boston, but for better or worse, that didn't happen. Not that he's firmly entrenched with everything in Foxboro, staying there as opposed to moving into Boston isn't about need, but about desire. Does he want to do that at this point, particularly if he's not in control of the situation? Gillette Stadium was privately financed, so Kraft calls the shots. If that's not the case with a stadium in Boston, I'm not sure he'll want to be a part of that. It's 1 thing to move the Revolution there and try to improve their bottom line. Won't happen with the Patriots though. Not when new stadiums in the NFL are coming with a price tag of a billion dollars.

I don't really see how that is relevant to my post. I'm saying that the Patriots *definitely* wouldn't move to Boston (well, maybe a 0.01% chance), so the only options left is the Revs. And Kraft has been open to the idea of moving the team to the urban center, and has been talking about it for years now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this article today from the boston globe basically outlining all the problems we've gone over. Really, lets just get this over with and put forth LA.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/07/05/just-say-olympics-boston/f15joCgmUlUVI2uYkoHVZM/story.html

I'll start taking the anti-booster articles seriously when they start presenting their arguments seriously and take into consideration the actual proposed solutions for the various problems, rather than just restrict themselves to eye-catching hyperbole. For example, does Boston need an Olympics-sized aquatics facility? Of course not. Do any of the major universities in the urban core need a new one? Yes, most could stand an upgrade.

Every article I've ever seen trashing the idea of a Boston Olympics has been written as though the whole project would be built like a boilerplate Olympic Village that needs to be plopped down whole cloth regardless of its environment. I've never seen an argument against the Olympics that says "Yes, the committee has proposed utilizing student housing at University X, but they have not taken into consideration that that university is hosting the international bipartisan cisgendered future third world leaders conference that same year." Its always "they can't build an athlete's village in the Common."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every article I've ever seen trashing the idea of a Boston Olympics has been written as though the whole project would be built like a boilerplate Olympic Village that needs to be plopped down whole cloth regardless of its environment. I've never seen an argument against the Olympics that says "Yes, the committee has proposed utilizing student housing at University X, but they have not taken into consideration that that university is hosting the international bipartisan cisgendered future third world leaders conference that same year." Its always "they can't build an athlete's village in the Common."

"Trashing" is a key word here. You and Rik are thinking about this from the perspective of Boston boosters, and thus view people raising question about the bid are haters. For people administering the city this is a question of spending billions on Olympic venues and infrastructure instead of assistance to local businesses, healthcare, education, etc, and raising questions about the wisdom of Boston hosting is part of their jobs. (I'm including the media as the "fourth estate" in this.)

As for the Olympic Village, that's an issue with the requirements of the IOC.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start taking the anti-booster articles seriously when they start presenting their arguments seriously and take into consideration the actual proposed solutions for the various problems, rather than just restrict themselves to eye-catching hyperbole. For example, does Boston need an Olympics-sized aquatics facility? Of course not. Do any of the major universities in the urban core need a new one? Yes, most could stand an upgrade.

Every article I've ever seen trashing the idea of a Boston Olympics has been written as though the whole project would be built like a boilerplate Olympic Village that needs to be plopped down whole cloth regardless of its environment. I've never seen an argument against the Olympics that says "Yes, the committee has proposed utilizing student housing at University X, but they have not taken into consideration that that university is hosting the international bipartisan cisgendered future third world leaders conference that same year." Its always "they can't build an athlete's village in the Common."

Your rebuttal is very simplistic. You only address the venue issue. The primary thrust of the article is NOT that the venue problems are insoluble.

The focus of the article is this:

Olympics in Boston will divert huge quantities of valuable time and resources away from much needed civic improvements in service of a two-week party. The article doesn't say Olympics are impossible. It argues that Olympics are unwise because other areas of development are much more important for Boston right now.

This is where LA has a significant advantage. The biggest projects they are proposing (river, mass transit, urban housing development) are all things the city genuinely NEEDS. Rather than distracting LA from its needed improvements, Olympic preparation will enable LA to achieve its goals.

If you want to refute that editorial, you need to explain why the major projects needed for a Boston Olympics are in alignment with the city's current needs. Personally, I'm not convinced that's possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative article coming out of Boston. Probably Shaughnessy. /checks/ Yep, it's Shaughnessy.

Note to non-New Englanders: Shaughnessy is the ultimate sports hacks. Nobody has taken him seriously in at least the past 15 years. He just wrote his quad-annual "why soccer sucks" column. Even the hard core 'merica-hell-yes crown was mocking it. The same trite crap he's been recycling forever.

This Olympic article? Boston doesn't need an 80,000 seat athletics stadium, a 20,000 seat swimming pool, a veledrome? Boston has road and bridges to repair, hospitals that could use the money. No ship Sherlock. That's EVERY city. Instead, shouldn't we talk about Boston's unique strengths and weaknesses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may not be unique, but they are much more problematic. For the Olympic stadium alone:

Los Angeles already has one.

San Francisco could build something like Stade de France in Oakland for the Raiders.

Washington DC has a lot of land, needs to replace RFK stadium (another Atlanta solution?) and FedEx Field is big enough (85,000) that it could be used as the ceremonies stadium.

Boston has little land available and few blighted areas to regenerate, while the Patriots are very unlikely to move.

"Curly-haired boyfriend" is a hack, but most of his points are valid.

There have been rumors that Daniel Snyder is looking to replace FedEx. Perhaps that's what they do with the RFK site. But, similar to the Patriots and Gillette, it needs to be noted that FedExField is owned and operated by the Redskins. So that's somewhat of a gray area of what happens to the stadium post-Games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been rumors that Daniel Snyder is looking to replace FedEx. Perhaps that's what they do with the RFK site. But, similar to the Patriots and Gillette, it needs to be noted that FedExField is owned and operated by the Redskins. So that's somewhat of a gray area of what happens to the stadium post-Games.

And Snyder isn't exactly the easiest to negotiate with....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see how that is relevant to my post. I'm saying that the Patriots *definitely* wouldn't move to Boston (well, maybe a 0.01% chance), so the only options left is the Revs. And Kraft has been open to the idea of moving the team to the urban center, and has been talking about it for years now.

Your original post was that the Patriots have no "need" to move to the city. The Pats are in a position where their future can be dictated more by want than by need. If Kraft sees an opportunity, it's not impossible the Pats could move. Like you said, it's something they've talked about before. I don't think that will be the case and the solution is more likely for the Revs to move, but if we're talking about a large scale stadium being built in or close to Boston, maybe that's better suited for an NFL team than to downsize it for the Revs.

And Snyder isn't exactly the easiest to negotiate with....

Yes, hence the ownership situation I bring up a lot. It's not a small deal when certain NFL owners are involved, particularly in a situation like with the Pats or the Redskins where the stadium is owned by the team, not the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why just put forth LA? Based on an article from a notoriously negative crank? The things Dan Shaughnessy highlights have been known and are what every potential Olympic city faces: headaches related to building the facilities, 2 weeks of traffic, the potential for wasteful spending, etc. Nothing in this opinion piece is unique to Boston.

I'll start taking the anti-booster articles seriously when they start presenting their arguments seriously and take into consideration the actual proposed solutions for the various problems, rather than just restrict themselves to eye-catching hyperbole. For example, does Boston need an Olympics-sized aquatics facility? Of course not. Do any of the major universities in the urban core need a new one? Yes, most could stand an upgrade.

Every article I've ever seen trashing the idea of a Boston Olympics has been written as though the whole project would be built like a boilerplate Olympic Village that needs to be plopped down whole cloth regardless of its environment. I've never seen an argument against the Olympics that says "Yes, the committee has proposed utilizing student housing at University X, but they have not taken into consideration that that university is hosting the international bipartisan cisgendered future third world leaders conference that same year." Its always "they can't build an athlete's village in the Common."

While I agree that anything Shaughnessy says should probably be taken with a grain of salt, he's not totally wrong on this one. Not to harp on what Nacre and Athens said, but there's a difference between being anti-Olympics and trying to paint a realistic picture. Again, this article isn't the best example of that, but you guys have to understand that maybe this isn't destined to work out for Boston. You're right that Shaugnessy isn't providing much of anything useful here, but it's up to the folks working on this for Boston to sell it and offer it as a worthwhile project. That's not something I expect either of you to have an answer to, but at some point, John Fish is going to have to put that together. He's going to have to have a plan. He'll need to show he can execute that plan and get people behind it. So forgive the Shaugnessys of the world if they're not interested in backing this. It doesn't make them haters (well, this time it probably does, but still), it doesn't mean they're anti-Olympics, and it doesn't mean they're trying to trash the bid. Once again, I think you are underselling the massive undertaking an Olympics is. And yes, that's true of a lot of other cities, but right now, Los Angeles seems far better positioned to sell an Olympic bid than Boston does.

Chris, you're saying you haven't seen a good argument against the Olympics? Well, where's the good argument FOR the Olympics. LA seems to have the makings of that. Right now, it doesn't seem like Boston has that. My gut tells me the USOC has kept them in the running more because of the intangibles Boston has and the potential of what they could put together. And again, the question isn't just coming up with the right plan but to convince the powers that be how their money and resources should be used in comparison to other projects for the city. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, just trying to offer a dose of reality that Shaugnessy, as much of a hack as he may be, is probably right about until Boston and John Fish can show otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Olympics in Boston will divert huge quantities of valuable time and resources away from much needed civic improvements in service of a two-week party. The article doesn't say Olympics are impossible. It argues that Olympics are unwise because other areas of development are much more important for Boston right now.

This is where LA has a significant advantage. The biggest projects they are proposing (river, mass transit, urban housing development) are all things the city genuinely NEEDS. Rather than distracting LA from its needed improvements, Olympic preparation will enable LA to achieve its goals.

If you want to refute that editorial, you need to explain why the major projects needed for a Boston Olympics are in alignment with the city's current needs. Personally, I'm not convinced that's possible.

Boston is desperate for additional housing and absolutely needs improvements to its public transit system. Everything I've seen about Boston's bid (except the negative articles) plan on addressing these two issues and have them as part of the Games' legacy. Of course, Dan Shaughnessy ignores that and just starts up his complaint machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston is desperate for additional housing and absolutely needs improvements to its public transit system. Everything I've seen about Boston's bid (except the negative articles) plan on addressing these two issues and have them as part of the Games' legacy. Of course, Dan Shaughnessy ignores that and just starts up his complaint machine.

And how many other cities could make a similar claim, that they're "desperate" for housing and transportation upgrades? Boston is not unique in that regard. Okay, so it's being addressed. But it's still a valid question whether it makes sense to push for this in the form of an Olympic bid. In that regard, Shaugnessy's complaints aren't unreasonable. Sure, an Olympics could jump-start such projects, but can the case be made for Boston to spend billions of dollars to get there? That's the question that needs to be answered. It's not enough to simply address the concerns. A case has to be made that it's a wise investment in terms of money and resources. Certainly it's premature to write Boston off completely, but I remain very skeptical whether or not they're going to be able to come through, let alone provide a better offering than what Los Angeles is putting together. Remember, this is a competition. It's not enough for them to simply have a workable plan. It needs to be better than the competition for them to get so far as the USOC's approval, let alone how they'd compete with international competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly it's premature to write Boston off completely, but I remain very skeptical whether or not they're going to be able to come through, let alone provide a better offering than what Los Angeles is putting together. Remember, this is a competition. It's not enough for them to simply have a workable plan. It needs to be better than the competition for them to get so far as the USOC's approval, let alone how they'd compete with international competition.

Ask yourself why you are so skeptical of Boston, but you are completing buying everything LA is selling. Both should be treated with a healthly does skepticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask yourself why you are so skeptical of Boston, but you are completing buying everything LA is selling. Both should be treated with a healthly does skepticism.

I don't have to ask myself that question because I know the answer. I'm far from sold on Los Angeles (thank you for trying to mis-represent my thoughts on that one.. always appreciated on this site), but at least we've seen a glimpse of what they can offer. And I think it could work, IF (key word there) they can get the necessary support behind it. We've seen virtually nothing out of Boston other than exploratory efforts dating back a year and a half. And every time someone here tries to come up with a somewhat concrete idea of how to put an Olympics in Boston, at best our reaction here is "that looks interesting, but I don't think it's viable." Now to be fair to the situation, we had similar skepticism for a while about LA. Then one day, all of a sudden, we see a document that shows off their vision and a number of people here get really excited. No reason why Boston couldn't do the same and suddenly present a plan that no one here had thought of before. But the fact of the matter remains that LA has hosted 2 Olympics before and has a good deal of infrastructure in place to host another one. Boston does not. For all that could make the city appealing to the IOC, I just don't see them being able to put together a plan that works.

To John Fish and company.. prove me wrong. Prove all of us so-called "haters" wrong. But if we're trying to handicap this one and pick which city is more likely to woo the USOC, to me the odds are not in Boston's favor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Trashing" is a key word here. You and Rik are thinking about this from the perspective of Boston boosters, and thus view people raising question about the bid are haters. For people administering the city this is a question of spending billions on Olympic venues and infrastructure instead of assistance to local businesses, healthcare, education, etc, and raising questions about the wisdom of Boston hosting is part of their jobs. (I'm including the media as the "fourth estate" in this.)

As for the Olympic Village, that's an issue with the requirements of the IOC.

Not at all, and I think you'll find that my attitude towards the whole discussion is quite different than assuming that anyone who raises questions is a hater. The questions raised here, for example, tend to be very valid and insightful. I'm talking about the articles that get published in the local Boston newspapers, which tend to boil down to "Boston's too crowded, the Big Dig sucked, and we'll lose as much money as Sochi."

If any of those columnists were to bother to look at the discussions here, they'd probably be able to present much better arguments against the Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that anything Shaughnessy says should probably be taken with a grain of salt, he's not totally wrong on this one. Not to harp on what Nacre and Athens said, but there's a difference between being anti-Olympics and trying to paint a realistic picture. Again, this article isn't the best example of that, but you guys have to understand that maybe this isn't destined to work out for Boston. You're right that Shaugnessy isn't providing much of anything useful here, but it's up to the folks working on this for Boston to sell it and offer it as a worthwhile project. That's not something I expect either of you to have an answer to, but at some point, John Fish is going to have to put that together. He's going to have to have a plan. He'll need to show he can execute that plan and get people behind it. So forgive the Shaugnessys of the world if they're not interested in backing this. It doesn't make them haters (well, this time it probably does, but still), it doesn't mean they're anti-Olympics, and it doesn't mean they're trying to trash the bid. Once again, I think you are underselling the massive undertaking an Olympics is. And yes, that's true of a lot of other cities, but right now, Los Angeles seems far better positioned to sell an Olympic bid than Boston does.

Chris, you're saying you haven't seen a good argument against the Olympics? Well, where's the good argument FOR the Olympics. LA seems to have the makings of that. Right now, it doesn't seem like Boston has that. My gut tells me the USOC has kept them in the running more because of the intangibles Boston has and the potential of what they could put together. And again, the question isn't just coming up with the right plan but to convince the powers that be how their money and resources should be used in comparison to other projects for the city. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, just trying to offer a dose of reality that Shaugnessy, as much of a hack as he may be, is probably right about until Boston and John Fish can show otherwise.

Again, my point isn't that there aren't negatives or that the argument in favor of the Olympics (in my opinion, the argument boils down to "Its the Olympics!" which is good enough for me) is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be made. Just that the local columnists are not addressing the actual negatives, but rather setting up strawmen to tear down, rather than actual concerns.

For example, say that the Curly Haired Boyfriend wrote, instead "It would seem that the Olympic planners have decided to address the scarcity of large open spaces in Boston by splitting up the Olympic Village into several smaller 'sub-villages.' However, every indication is that the IOC does not like this sort of approach, so that is another hurdle for Boston to overcome. And the idea of building the stadium over the Beacon Park railyard (just to use my personal favorite)? They better get their act together quickly, or totally screw up MassDOTs rerouting plans there, leading to institutional bickering..."

Thats the sort of legitimate objections I'm not seeing from the local media.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm far from sold on Los Angeles (thank you for trying to mis-represent my thoughts on that one.. always appreciated on this site), but at least we've seen a glimpse of what they can offer.

I know I'm exaggerating here.... but don't give LA too much of an edge just because they scr*wed up and accidently leaked their plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm exaggerating here.... but don't give LA too much of an edge just because they scr*wed up and accidently leaked their plan.

It's not just about the plan. Based on the facilities and infrastructure in place, I can much more easily imagine an Olympics in Los Angeles than in Boston. The fact that LA released a plan merely puts them more into perspective. As much as we can talk about Boston being fresh and new and have an appeal to the IOC, I still question their ability to put together a technically sound plan. LA still has plenty of questions to answer, the least of which being our old standby question here of how do they put a fresh look on an Olympic bid. But those issues seem more easily solved than what Boston faces.

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...