Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

I'm less in tune with columns in the Boston media, aside from what's been posted on here. And yes, I'm familiar enough with Shaughnessy than to take his word as gospel. It's hard for him (and others) to get into specifics though when the Boston committee hasn't really provided much in terms of concrete plans. Right now, what the committee has is a concept of, like you said, "It's the Olympics!," and a few thoughts on what it could do for the city. So it's that general theory that's being attacked. It's not like a local sportswriter is going to point to the pitfalls of, say, the Beacon Park railyard location if that's not actually on the committee's radar. At some point, the committee will have to provide specifics. And the Shaughnessys of the world probably will come back then and say "see, I told you this was a bad idea." That's why I say to John Fish and company, prove everyone wrong. Where people are trying to shoot you down now, they're going to be coming at you that much harder down the line when this whole thing gets a lot more serious. That's the type of scrutiny they're going to be up against. Not that it's different in Los Angeles or DC or San Fran, but the winner of this competition will be the city that can best address those concerns.

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".

, I can much more easily imagine an Olympics in Los Angeles than in Boston.

Of course you can more easily envision it... the scr*wed up and released their plan. If you had seen similar info from Boston, it'd be a lot easier to visualize too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to see the plans to start getting into Boston-specific pros and cons. You can certainlly get more than DS's generic "Olympics Sucks" schtick.

Cons can start with Logan. It can't possibly handel the necessary international traffic. So people have to route through JFK/EWR? Yick. More cons: Lack of 5* hotels and restaurants; lack of "star power"; getting around the North End is near impossible (anyone want to guess what the line will be like outside Mike's Pastry???), a chunk of Boston's tourist appeal is it's "oldness", which the rest of the world laughs at. And while summer weather in Boston is nicer than much of the US, it isn't Southern California.

Pros: Youth, enthusiam (note to Dan - volunteer potential is a huge strength of Boston, not a weakness), classical culture, local enthusiam for Sport... and especially non-traditional sport. etc.

There's a ton we could discuss already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can more easily envision it... the scr*wed up and released their plan. If you had seen similar info from Boston, it'd be a lot easier to visualize too.

You don't need to see the plans to start getting into Boston-specific pros and cons. You can certainlly get more than DS's generic "Olympics Sucks" schtick.

Cons can start with Logan. It can't possibly handel the necessary international traffic. So people have to route through JFK/EWR? Yick. More cons: Lack of 5* hotels and restaurants; lack of "star power"; getting around the North End is near impossible (anyone want to guess what the line will be like outside Mike's Pastry???), a chunk of Boston's tourist appeal is it's "oldness", which the rest of the world laughs at. And while summer weather in Boston is nicer than much of the US, it isn't Southern California.

Pros: Youth, enthusiam (note to Dan - volunteer potential is a huge strength of Boston, not a weakness), classical culture, local enthusiam for Sport... and especially non-traditional sport. etc.

There's a ton we could discuss already.

Except I don't think Boston can put together a plan that makes an Olympics work there. I said it in January 2013 when this thread first appeared on our collective radar. We didn't need LA's release to envision their plan because we still had a baseline from what they offered for 2016.

That's a lot of cons you're listing there. Among others to bring up are the issue of where to put an 80,000 seat stadium and what to do with it after the games. Yes, there are pros, but I don't think it's enough to overcome a sub-standard technical plan. We learned that the hard way in 2005 here in NYC that all the style in the world can't make up for a lack of substance. So again, it comes down to the same question we've had about Boston for 18 months now.. can all of these exploratory efforts produce a concept that will entice the USOC and also works for the city. Like I keep saying.. prove me wrong, John Fish. As a New Yorker, I may scoff at the idea of Boston as an Olympic bidder, but if they have the goods, I'll give credit where credit is due.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cons can start with Logan. It can't possibly handel the necessary international traffic. So people have to route through JFK/EWR? Yick. More cons: Lack of 5* hotels and restaurants; lack of "star power"; getting around the North End is near impossible (anyone want to guess what the line will be like outside Mike's Pastry???), a chunk of Boston's tourist appeal is it's "oldness", which the rest of the world laughs at. And while summer weather in Boston is nicer than much of the US, it isn't Southern California.

Logan has plenty of ancillary airports. Bradley, Providence, Manchester, Worcester, and Hanscomb could be utilized; Bradley's already a large international airport, and Providence does do some international flights. Of those 5, Providence Airport is already directly connected by commuter rail, and its been a perennial plan to connect Manchester, too (Worcester's connected, but the airport is far from the train station). I would imagine Prov and Man getting decent upgrades (another perennial plan) to help take up the slack.

The cons about restaurants, hotels, star power, and weather are less cons for Boston than they are pros for LA. Obviously, every city in the world is going to have less star power than LA. I won't be surprised to learn that LA has more high end restaurants and hotels than Boston, simply because LA is huge.

As for the difficulty in getting around the city... well, yeah, thats a problem for all the ancillary economic activity that comes with the games. But, of course, I doubt Mike's Pastry's is going to complain if they're working overtime to make sure everyone gets their cannollis (nor will Modern, for that matter). For all the grief that Boston gets for its street layout, thats really only an issue around the North End. Sure, the Financial district is just as convoluted... but its a financial district. The areas likely to be a center of Olympic activity are all fairly gridlike when it comes to their streets.

And the 'oldness'... well, that will definitely be a con if Boston ends up being the US bid, though I do think that Boston can share its colonial charm without sounding too pathetic next to cities 5 times as old. But within the US, its definitely a pro for Boston. Unless there's a surprise Plymouth, Jamestown, or St. Augustine bid hiding in the works.

There's absolute disadvantages and relative disadvantages. And the relative disadvantages vary when comparing the city nationally and internationally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can understand, you can't blame all the critics from being worried. The Boston Committee hasn't exactly given off much useful information (as Quaker said). All the editors have to work with are things related to bidding, recent news, recent IOC favoring patterns, and past Olympics. That's when Sochi comes into mind...

Logan has plenty of ancillary airports. Bradley, Providence, Manchester, Worcester, and Hanscomb could be utilized; Bradley's already a large international airport, and Providence does do some international flights. Of those 5, Providence Airport is already directly connected by commuter rail, and its been a perennial plan to connect Manchester, too (Worcester's connected, but the airport is far from the train station). I would imagine Prov and Man getting decent upgrades (another perennial plan) to help take up the slack.

Unfortunately, most people are simply going to search for "flights from Airport X to Boston International Airport". The first result that comes up? Boston Logan. Only the experienced ones will check the "include nearby airports" box or even do research on the best alternative. Everyone else, AKA the majority of people, will simply attempt to book a flight to a crowded Logan full of people attempting to see the Olympics. Sure, websites can direct users to another airport, but that may only lead to confusion. Besides, the numerous online booking websites, airline booking sites, travel agencies, etc, may lead to a complex of problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, most people are simply going to search for "flights from Airport X to Boston International Airport". The first result that comes up? Boston Logan. Only the experienced ones will check the "include nearby airports" box or even do research on the best alternative. Everyone else, AKA the majority of people, will simply attempt to book a flight to a crowded Logan full of people attempting to see the Olympics. Sure, websites can direct users to another airport, but that may only lead to confusion. Besides, the numerous online booking websites, airline booking sites, travel agencies, etc, may lead to a complex of problems.

The international arrivals/departures wouldn't not be a huge an issue as the domestic arrivals/departures. Logan's international terminal is currently getting an upgrade. There is an under-utilized terminal (terminal A) that can surely handle more passenger traffic, perhaps TSA can install a temporary customs control there. Or do a pre-boarding customs check in less security risk countries (Canada, UK, Japan, etc) though not sure how that can be efficiently implemented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, most people are simply going to search for "flights from Airport X to Boston International Airport". The first result that comes up? Boston Logan. Only the experienced ones will check the "include nearby airports" box or even do research on the best alternative. Everyone else, AKA the majority of people, will simply attempt to book a flight to a crowded Logan full of people attempting to see the Olympics. Sure, websites can direct users to another airport, but that may only lead to confusion. Besides, the numerous online booking websites, airline booking sites, travel agencies, etc, may lead to a complex of problems.

I have to disagree with this specific concern. Not with the concern in general about people flying into smaller airports, I get that there's issues with that (traveling into the city itself being chief among them), and that its not always possible for certain international flights. But with the specific concern about searching for flights. I have 3 counter points:

- When I search for flights on Kayak, it gives me the option of looking at neighboring airports for any flight. I'm sure there's booking sites that still don't do this, but its not an unknown feature.

- Booking sites will only get better within the next decade, and I have no doubt that, by the time people are booking flights for the 2024 Olympics, the algorithms will be intelligent enough for the sites to give results for supporting airports, especially for something as involved as the Olympics. Or even some other solution that we currently haven't even imagined.

- I would imagine that Logan and the Olympic Committee themselves would take steps on their end to most efficiently allocate the load between the various airports, even before we get to the issue of how things will show up on the booking sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The international arrivals/departures wouldn't not be a huge an issue as the domestic arrivals/departures. Logan's international terminal is currently getting an upgrade. There is an under-utilized terminal (terminal A) that can surely handle more passenger traffic, perhaps TSA can install a temporary customs control there. Or do a pre-boarding customs check in less security risk countries (Canada, UK, Japan, etc) though not sure how that can be efficiently implemented.

They already do it in major Canadian airports, but let me tell you, it is not that simple. When I had a layover through Vancouver, they had a whole terminal specified for US, so having these checks isn't as simple as putting up a few temporary booths.

- When I search for flights on Kayak, it gives me the option of looking at neighboring airports for any flight. I'm sure there's booking sites that still don't do this, but its not an unknown feature.

But not everyone uses Kayak...

Google Flights

iUNbzif.png

Kayak

exSamxU.png

TripAdvisor

KsYLvYD.png

Expedia

HXDtuox.png

Hipmunk

QqCLanO.png

Adioso

OjRJz0O.png

Hopper

TWlcP7Z.png

Travelocity

dDPZq84.png

BookingBuddy

pgPPZDo.png

Orbitz

sgFKDA8.png

(but to be fair, Google Flights and TripAdvisor both offer "nearby airports" within advance search)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with this specific concern. Not with the concern in general about people flying into smaller airports, I get that there's issues with that (traveling into the city itself being chief among them), and that its not always possible for certain international flights. But with the specific concern about searching for flights. I have 3 counter points:

- When I search for flights on Kayak, it gives me the option of looking at neighboring airports for any flight. I'm sure there's booking sites that still don't do this, but its not an unknown feature.

- Booking sites will only get better within the next decade, and I have no doubt that, by the time people are booking flights for the 2024 Olympics, the algorithms will be intelligent enough for the sites to give results for supporting airports, especially for something as involved as the Olympics. Or even some other solution that we currently haven't even imagined.

- I would imagine that Logan and the Olympic Committee themselves would take steps on their end to most efficiently allocate the load between the various airports, even before we get to the issue of how things will show up on the booking sites.

95% of Olympic passenger traffic will come into the major airports like Logan. That's where there will be parties and vans waiting to receive them and take them to their lodging. Only 5% would probably come into the smaller airports -- certainly just the domestic ones because Customs and Immigration would only be operating at Logan. Hartford maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

95% of Olympic passenger traffic will come into the major airports like Logan. That's where there will be parties and vans waiting to receive them and take them to their lodging. Only 5% would probably come into the smaller airports -- certainly just the domestic ones because Customs and Immigration would only be operating at Logan. Hartford maybe.

Only if Logan could handle it. If the plan takes into consideration supporting airports, one would imagine that those supporting airports would also receive arrivals in such style, as needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PVD and MHT can handcle overflow domestic passengers, but neither is equiped to handel international (other than from Canada and Ireland, which can pre-screen). BDL is the only other New England airport equiped, those it currently doesn't have regular flights that use the international arrivals building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Logan already handles more than 80,000 daily passengers. Presumably a significant portion of this traffic involves locals who are already aware of the alternatives and can switch to a different New England airport when the Olympics are in town. That way, the smaller airports can provide relief without actually needing to be advertised to Olympic tourists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this discussion is getting caught in the trap where we're trying to measure Boston against itself. The question is how well do they stack up against the competition. If that competition is LA, the answer is not very well. Even if Boston comes up with some creative solutions (PVD makes some sense.. MHT not so much), they're still going to be lacking in this area compared to LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no sense in comparing Boston to LA heads up. If LA puts forth a A+ bid, they get the USOG nod. When looking at a possible Boston bid, you assume LA falls apart for some reason... then the quesion is whether not Boston's bid is viable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no sense in comparing Boston to LA heads up. If LA puts forth a A+ bid, they get the USOG nod. When looking at a possible Boston bid, you assume LA falls apart for some reason... then the quesion is whether not Boston's bid is viable.

I'm confused here.. weren't you the person you told me I should be more skeptical about LA and not to assume they have an edge?

There are 2 separate questions here. 1 is whether or not a Boston bid is viable. 2 is if they are viable, can they beat LA. Obviously if the answer to number 1 is no, then there is no 2, but the assumption has to be that LA is out there. Whether or not it's an A+ bid remains to be seen. Either way, if Boston does have a viable bid, eventually it's going to be compared to LA. My money is on LA winning that battle, but I don't think we need to work under the assumption they fall apart in order to look at Boston. And I'm not just saying that because that's what you implied to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused here.. weren't you the person you told me I should be more skeptical about LA and not to assume they have an edge?

Be skeptical and don't assume they will be able to deliver a great bid. They (like any city) have a ton of obsticals to overcome. But if they do, I don't see how the USOC could pick another city over them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be skeptical and don't assume they will be able to deliver a great bid. They (like any city) have a ton of obsticals to overcome. But if they do, I don't see how the USOC could pick another city over them.

Gotcha.. so don't assume they will deliver a great bid, but assume that if they bid, it's going to be great and can't be beaten. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be skeptical and don't assume they will be able to deliver a great bid. They (like any city) have a ton of obsticals to overcome. But if they do, I don't see how the USOC could pick another city over them.

Then can we assume/compare/favor based on preliminary documents and prior knowledge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha.. so don't assume they will deliver a great bid, but assume that if they bid, it's going to be great and can't be beaten. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Nope. Do't assume they will deliver a great bid. Maybe they don't deliver any bid. Maybe they deliver a half-assed bid (yeah, Farmer's Field fell through, but we'll figure something out) maybe they deliver a great bid.

To me, if we are talking about Boston (or SF or DC) we have to assume first that LA doesn't deliver a great bid. Then what?

Great Boston bid vs half-assed LA bid is absolutely a possibilitiy. Probably the most interesting one to discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Boston bid vs half-assed LA bid is absolutely a possibilitiy. Probably the most interesting one to discuss.

Hm. Not so sure. Based solely on the preliminary document, LA has already shown their bid is not "half-assed." They're clearly in it to win it.

Boston has to top that. Tall order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Key words being preliminary and document. It's a PDF... Not that far removed from the fantasy plans gamesbids posters cook up.

Light years away from being a done deal.

That is ridiculous. If you think the fantasy GB competitions are anything like LA's document, then you haven't looked at either one for more than 30 seconds.

It's a preliminary document with the endorsement of a whole lot of very powerful movers and shakers in LA government, business, entertainment and sports organization. When all those people put their name to it, there's significant weight.

Of course it isn't a done deal. Nothing is or can be at this point. But it is a very well-thought out preliminary plan. I don't doubt some changes will have to be made, but I see no reason to dismiss the whole thing as pure "fantasy."

To quote Eisenhower "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything." You have to start with a good plan even if you have to make significant changes along the way. LA has done that and seems to me to be well-positioned to move forward. Boston is scrambling to come up with something.

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...