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".

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.

z12853714O.jpg

But seriously..

Yes zeke, we know it's preliminary and not an official bid book. But it speaks to LA having a plan in place and something to work with. Does Boston have anything resembling that? Does San Francisco? Or DC? I kept harping on Dallas for a while because they had a concept based around Fair Park, so at least it was a starting point. Obviously it's moot now because the USOC still wasn't interested.

You're right, this plan of LA's may wind up not coming to fruition for any number of reasons. Wouldn't be unlike LA for that to happen. But they have still laid down the gauntlet that this could be what they have to offer. So I doubt anything that LA offers would be half-assed. And the thing is.. you talk about wanting to discuss the potential of a great Boston bid versus a half-assed LA bid. Well, kinda hard to conceive of what that great Boston bid is. Doubtful that LA produces something half-assed when we already have an idea of what they're capable of.

Not to turn this into the usual high school locker room discussion, but do you have something against LA or this plan? You're going to compare it to the utter dog vomit posters here produce to try and offer a point? Come on, you're better than that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Consider the source, & it's quite their typical style. Anyone downgrading LA, in comparison to what is left, as far as the USOC is concerned, has to be bias, delusional or both. The funny thing is, not that long ago, they were arguing how LA's "superstar power" would win over any other international bid. Go figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate is silly. No one here has any inside track to any one of the four on the short list and no one here can say where all four are in their planning development. All we know is that LA released for a short time what appears to be a fairly detailed plan. Not a final proposal, but a plan. Just because LA made their's public for a while and the other cities did not does not mean that only LA has a plan. It just means that LA's is the only one that was published.

What we do know is that the USOC felt comfortable enough with the 4 cities on the short list and what they showed the USOC that they made it onto that short list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC had a awesome plan with a west side stadium. Unfortunately, they couldn't deliver. LA may have an awesome plan, lets see how much they can deliver.

NYC never had an awesome plan. Not before the West Side Stadium blew up on them and certainly not after. At times, it seemed like a good plan, but it was never destined to be the winner against strong European competition. Again, thank you for pointing out the obvious. No one is handing this to LA right now (actually that's a lie, a couple of people have done just that). But right now, they have that and Boston has.. San Francisco has.. So even if Boston comes up with a plan, they're in the same position as LA that they have to execute it. So I still give LA a big edge in that Boston and if it still needs to be explained why, you're nuts.

This whole debate is silly. No one here has any inside track to any one of the four on the short list and no one here can say where all four are in their planning development. All we know is that LA released for a short time what appears to be a fairly detailed plan. Not a final proposal, but a plan. Just because LA made their's public for a while and the other cities did not does not mean that only LA has a plan. It just means that LA's is the only one that was published.

What we do know is that the USOC felt comfortable enough with the 4 cities on the short list and what they showed the USOC that they made it onto that short list.

I've said, and again this is just my opinion, that Boston and San Fran and DC were kept in the running based more on potential than anything. Forget the fact that LA has a plan. To me, it's so much easier to envision LA coming up with a plan than Boston or San Francisco. That's what I (and others here, I'm sure) use to put LA in front of the rest of the pack. The fact that they have a plan in place only adds to that.

Right now, it's my guess that the Boston folks (along with SF and DC) are probably considering a few different things. But Boston has been more about exploratory efforts thus far than anything. We here (and we're relative idiots when it comes to these things) have thrown out a number of different ideas, but none that seems like they would fit the bill. Which is not surprising because again, it is difficult to envision Boston coming up with the plan that beats out LA's plan (don't say it zeke, save the keystrokes). I said it before and I'll say it again.. prove me wrong, John Fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quake, it may be obvious to you that LA might not be able to deliver everything in that PDF. It's not obvious to at least one poster... The one I was addressing in my post.

And while you said to save the keystrokes, how can you say it will be hard for Boston to beat LAs plan, just after saying its obvious we don't know what LAs final plan will be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quake, it may be obvious to you that LA might not be able to deliver everything in that PDF. It's not obvious to at least one poster... The one I was addressing in my post.

And while you said to save the keystrokes, how can you say it will be hard for Boston to beat LAs plan, just after saying its obvious we don't know what LAs final plan will be?

Love how this site works that you feel the need to address the 1 outlier that chooses to be different rather than the majority that all agrees with you. Ahh GamesBids, you rarely fail to further a stereotype.

And how can I say that? Re-read my post for that answer. I don't need LA's plan to know they're a city better suited to hosting an Olympics than Boston. I know that's not always what determines a winner, but it's the same conversation we've been having here for years now.. LA - has many existing facilities that could be easily used for Olympic purposes. Boston - dense, tightly packed city that doesn't have as much in place to offer and would probably have to spend more money for the effort. I know the Boston supporters here don't want to here it, but it's the truth and that's what they need to overcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quake, does anyone not agree that, all other things being equal, LA is better suited to host than Boston? For Boston to be chosen, first KA needs to fall down, then Boston has to deliver something great

If we all agree with that, then why are you asking me "how can you say it will be hard for Boston to beat LAs plan"? You just answered that yourself.

I don't think LA (or KA if you want to call it that) is going to fall down. I don't think Boston is going to be able to deliver a great plan. You just said why you agree with that. Is it possible that Boston can rise up where LA falls? Absolutely. But I'd say the likelihood of that is pretty low. And let's not forget the other very obvious point (which we've brought up before, the since we're trying to turn this into the obvious thread).. the USOC may not bid even if there is a city out there with a good plan. That applies equally to LA and Boston (and SF and DC).

Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC had a awesome plan with a west side stadium. Unfortunately, they couldn't deliver. LA may have an awesome plan, lets see how much they can deliver.

That really was not an awesome plan. A west side stadium was going to be a logistical nightmare.

I love that you're touting New York, whose stadium plan was pure fantasy and famously collapsed before the IOC vote, but you're seriously questioning LA who already has the land and the stadium, but just needs to make some renovations.

And let's not forget the other very obvious point (which we've brought up before, the since we're trying to turn this into the obvious thread).. the USOC may not bid even if there is a city out there with a good plan. That applies equally to LA and Boston (and SF and DC). [/font][/color]

That's absolutely true. A lot depends on how the USOC reads the IOC and what emerges from Agenda 2020. If the USOC feels the deck is stacked against them, they won't bid no matter how great the proposals are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

My point was that we already have the technology to revolve that specific hurdle, and we're 10 years out from the games.

This is really late, but:

What I meant was that just because we have (or will have) the technology does not mean all agencies will follow/use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been looking at some news articles for the 2024 olympics and it seems boston is looking at a more regional bid. As of right now I'd take this with a grain of salt, but given the lack of space in boston, one could reason that a regional bid is more likely.

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/07/22/sports/olympics/will-maine-sites-be-included-in-regional-boston-2024-olympics-bid/

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/07/10/fall-river-2024-summer-olympics-letter/

http://wpri.com/2014/07/10/mayor-on-2024-olympics-why-not-fall-river/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been looking at some news articles for the 2024 olympics and it seems boston is looking at a more regional bid. As of right now I'd take this with a grain of salt, but given the lack of space in boston, one could reason that a regional bid is more likely.

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/07/22/sports/olympics/will-maine-sites-be-included-in-regional-boston-2024-olympics-bid/

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/07/10/fall-river-2024-summer-olympics-letter/

http://wpri.com/2014/07/10/mayor-on-2024-olympics-why-not-fall-river/

This is nothing new nor out of the ordinary. A lot of host cities have had satalite cities host some of the Olympic events. But they're usually the secondary events, like listed in these articles; soccer, sailing, equestrian, mountain biking, etc. For the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid, mountain biking was proposed all the way up in Wisconsin. And in Atlanta 1996, sailing was held in Savannah, some 250 miles away. Not to mention, a lot of times there's no choice but to farm out some of these events bcuz there's no suitable venue within or even nearby the host city for them, like in Atlanta's case with the sailing.

But it's the CORE (the marquee events) of the Olympics that are the ones that are held much closer together & in the heart of all the action. You can't spread everything around too thin, otherwise you start to lose the appeal & what makes the Olympics so special in the first place. Plus, in doing so, would also create more logistical issues. And what's really interesting, is that Los Angeles' 2024 proposal is more compact than their 2012 & 2016 attempts, & much moreso than their actual 1984 Games. If Boston finds themselves in the end that they need to go with a "regional" effort bcuz space is very "limited" in Boston proper, then we might as well just nominate Los Angeles 2024 now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston's new slogan:

OUR sewers aren't exploding!

Actually, it was a water pipe that distributed tap water, not a sewer network that carried dirty water away. Also, in defense, Boston isn't exactly the newest city, so I'd expect some pretty old water pipes on the verge of exploding, also. The average age of a broken water main is 47 years, the one that ruptured, was 100. This is actually a nationwide problem, and not just exclusive to Los Angeles.

Get yo' facts straight! :angry:

  • 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...