Jump to content

Recommended Posts

and the environmentalists certainly won't mind the clearing out of the forested-areas and nature preserves.


From Wikipedia:

Franklin Park, previously known as West Roxbury Park, was renamed in honor of Boston born patriot Benjamin Franklin, who documented in his will that he wished for a portion of his estate to be given to a worthy cause. The park brings together rural scenery, a woodland preserve, and areas for active recreation and sports. Franklin Park also has six miles (10 km) of roads and fifteen miles (24 km) of pedestrian and bridle paths to explore.

Much of Franklin Park is scenic and devoted to the general use and enjoyment of the public. Scarboro Pond and Ellicott Arch are popular sites within the park, as are the large forested areas. The park also has picnic areas, stone bridges, outcroppings of Roxbury Puddingstone, and old stone ruins, specifically the Long Crouch Woods of Roxbury—also known as "the Bear Dens."

problems solved, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC putting Boston on the shortlist of candidates for an American bid goes to show that the USOC still have no clue what the IOC wants in a perfect candidate to host the Olympics. There's absolutely no room to grow within Boston, and as a city I don't see them coming together to find a way to make that room for the games and have as many of the competitions and venues within the city limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC putting Boston on the shortlist of candidates for an American bid goes to show that the USOC still have no clue what the IOC wants in a perfect candidate to host the Olympics. There's absolutely no room to grow within Boston, and as a city I don't see them coming together to find a way to make that room for the games and have as many of the competitions and venues within the city limits.

Well, obviously it would be a greater Boston area bid to include Cambridge, Foxboro and whatever else other communities -- which are fine if they are all connected with Boston's metro lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC putting Boston on the shortlist of candidates for an American bid goes to show that the USOC still have no clue what the IOC wants in a perfect candidate to host the Olympics. There's absolutely no room to grow within Boston, and as a city I don't see them coming together to find a way to make that room for the games and have as many of the competitions and venues within the city limits.

That's not necessarily true.

For starters , no one knows exactly what the IOC wants because we don't know the results of Agenda 2020.

Next, you don't know what Boston showed the USOC to get them on the shortlist. You also don't know the degree to which Boston has since revised those plans.

Finally, being on the shortlist is not the same as being the candidate. The IOC will submit the single best option IFthey think it can win. There's a possibility they won't bid at all. The shortlist was just about whittling down the list to the most viable handful. Whether or not you personally believe Boston has what it takes is irrelevant. Based on the available options, the USOC felt they were one of the strongest possibilities. You don't have enough information to intelligently dispute that decision.

It is entirely possible that, despite being on the short list, Boston could be deemed incapable of winning by the USOC. Conversely, the bid could be better than you think and may play into criteria established by 2020.

I'm not a Boston supporter, but do think your post is ill-considered and lacks factual basis. I also have to say that it's becoming increasingly clear that you enjoy making sweeping negative proclamations in an incredibly overbearing way. Just what we need. [sarcasm.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC putting Boston on the shortlist of candidates for an American bid goes to show that the USOC still have no clue what the IOC wants in a perfect candidate to host the Olympics. There's absolutely no room to grow within Boston, and as a city I don't see them coming together to find a way to make that room for the games and have as many of the competitions and venues within the city limits.

To echo Athensfans' sentiments on this one.. it's easy to folks in the peanut gallery here to dismiss Boston that easily because you can't see it coming together. I still believe they were put on that shortlist based on their potential to put something together. It remains to be seen what they can offer, but I can't fault the USOC for being intrigued enough to give them a chance rather than to shut them down entirely like they did with Dallas. They obviously see something there that encourages them to continue the conversation. Maybe it'll amount to nothing, but clearly it's not as hopeless as you seem to think it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, obviously it would be a greater Boston area bid to include Cambridge, Foxboro and whatever else other communities -- which are fine if they are all connected with Boston's metro lines.

Would a Boston bid either without an Olympic Park or with an Olympic Park in the suburbs appeal to the IOC, though? Obviously it isn't impossible for Boston to win. It seems incredibly unlikely, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would a Boston bid either without an Olympic Park or with an Olympic Park in the suburbs appeal to the IOC, though? Obviously it isn't impossible for Boston to win. It seems incredibly unlikely, though.

I think the central point of Boston's bid is that "the city of Boston" is the Olympic Park. Or for you cycnics, Boston won't have an Olympic Park.

if Boston goes toe-to-toe with other cities with the same sort of proposal, they'll lose. The only way Boston wins is by having a plan that is different from everyone elses. If Boston can convince the powers that be that the whole concept of an Olympic park is a bad idea, then they've got a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the central point of Boston's bid is that "the city of Boston" is the Olympic Park. Or for you cycnics, Boston won't have an Olympic Park.

if Boston goes toe-to-toe with other cities with the same sort of proposal, they'll lose. The only way Boston wins is by having a plan that is different from everyone elses. If Boston can convince the powers that be that the whole concept of an Olympic park is a bad idea, then they've got a chance.

US Olympics never have Olympic Parks. Atlanta didn't have one, neither did LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a public square. It doesn't matter what they call it, it doesn't have venues. You know it's not an Olympic Park and so do I, you're just trying to be smart.

Yes. Yes I am.

To be fair, there are a number of venues in the immediate vicinity. So since the technical definition of an "Olympic Park" is open to interpretation, it's pretty close, even if it's not a Beijing or a Sydney or Seoul in that sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Yes I am.

To be fair, there are a number of venues in the immediate vicinity. So since the technical definition of an "Olympic Park" is open to interpretation, it's pretty close, even if it's not a Beijing or a Sydney or Seoul in that sense.

I did some digging, and the Olympic Park definition isn't as open to interpretation as it seems. In the 2020 Working Group Report, the IOC outlines the following definitions:

- Stand Alone Venue: A site of primary importance, operated by the OCOG, located within a secure perimeter, officially used to deliver the Olympic Games

- Precinct: A number (more than one) of venues or facilities in close geographical proximity within a secure perimeter.

- Cluster: A number (more than one) of venues in close geographical proximity, which do not require a secure perimeter.

- Zone: A large geographic area, to large to be considered a cluster, but still with a logical link between venues.

So, a precinct would be the "Olympic Park" with several venues, usually the stadium, aquatics centre and velodrome, all within a security perimeter that requires screening to access. Examples are the Olympic Green in Beijing, QEII Olympic Park in London, Barra Olympic Park in Rio.

A cluster would be Deodoro in Rio, with a bunch of venues with individual security screening, but within close proximity of each other. The Georgia Dome, Omni, Convention Center area in Atlanta or the LA Memorial Stadium area might be considered clusters, granted this concept wasn't really around back then. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these areas did not require a screening process to enter one large area of venues surrounded by a perimeter. In these cases, you entered each stadium separately.

Well, LA does because for 1932, Athletics and Swimming were held in that same block! And in 1984, with the Forum there, I think it was the Boxing venue. So the area around the LA Memorial Coliseum qualifies as an "Olympic park" in your estimation, ofan.

Again, this is not an Olympic Park because it doesn't fit the IOC's definition.

For those who kept a copy of LA2024's leaked plan, what kind of "park" does it have.

It looked to me like it was just the Stadium and Aquatic Centre together.

And for what it's worth, Tokyo looks to not be building a park, but rather focusing upon a zone and cluster concept.

BTW, here's the working group report that I mentioned: http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Host_city_elections/Final-report-2020-Working-Group-English.pdf

Look at page 9 for this info.

Edited by ofan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Olympics never have Olympic Parks. Atlanta didn't have one, neither did LA.

Yes, but the IOC obviously regreted choosing Atlanta, and that's kind of my point. I don't believe they would be eager for a repeat of the Atlanta model.

Los Angeles doesn't have an Olympic Park perse, but the USC campus fills the same function.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did some digging, and the Olympic Park definition isn't as open to interpretation as it seems. In the 2020 Working Group Report, the IOC outlines the following definitions:

So we have the definition of an Olympic Precinct. I don't see the words "Olympic Park" in there. Yes I'm intentionally being smart-alecky here, but if you're going to base a definition off of something official, better to use their term rather than offering up your own term and telling us to adhere to the IOC's definition.

Semantics. I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the IOC obviously regreted choosing Atlanta, and that's kind of my point. I don't believe they would be eager for a repeat of the Atlanta model.

Los Angeles doesn't have an Olympic Park perse, but the USC campus fills the same function.

People like to throw Atlanta as a cautionary tale. Tell us.. was what the "Atlanta model" that another city might repeat that the IOC wouldn't go for? We've heard comparisons to other southern U.S. cities and the over-commercialization and other elements that made Atlanta less than an unqualified success. I still don't get sometimes the generic "don't be like Atlanta" theory where there needs to be concern that a future bidder would do something in the Atlanta model and have it be held against them.

And remember also.. given the options at the time, Atlanta was the choice that made the most sense. In hindsight, might 1 of the other cities been better? That's debatable. Doubtful they would have been better off with Athens. Toronto would have meant 3 Olympics in Canada in 20 years. Melbourne means no Sydney. Manchester means no London. And Belgrade.. like anything needs to be said there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am guessing the last thing they regret is a Profitable Olympic Games, Something all of the US Games have been ;-)

The Atlanta Olympics cost less than $2 billion to stage. A future Olympics in the United States would easily cost 5 to 10 times that much. That's a tough burden for any city to shoulder. Just because the United States pulled it off before is no guarantee it would happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who kept a copy of LA2024's leaked plan, what kind of "park" does it have.

AsrwrFR.png

3uA0l66.jpg

O1JZJUW.png

Highlighted means that it is within the Olympic Park/USC for sure

Red underline means it's within Olympic Live for sure

Blue underline means that it is near the park/USC

Black underline means that I have no idea

(the LA84 Swim Stadium is located near the LA River on the provided cluster map,

and it seems like the current stadium will be replaced with an "Expo Center" during/post games?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the IOC obviously regreted choosing Atlanta, and that's kind of my point. I don't believe they would be eager for a repeat of the Atlanta model.

Los Angeles doesn't have an Olympic Park perse, but the USC campus fills the same function.

They weren't disappointed in Atlanta because of the venue plan. They were disappointed in the cheesy commercialism and organizational deficiencies.

Clearly, the world wants to move towards sustainable, cost-effective approaches. Like it or not, the IOC is going to have to start considering more responsible venue plans (unless they're willing to stick with Russia, China and the Middle East). That will mean fewer parks.

It is possible that the 2024 field will be so weak that any US candidate would win. I am not making that prediction, I'm just saying it's not totally out of the realm if possibility. The biggest challenges are likely to come from France, Italy, Germany and potentially South Africa. All of them are looking questionable right now. If none of them bid, the US bid will be free to do things a bit differently. That could end up birthing a new model that could be very good for the Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly what did the IOC do to make it "obvious" they regretted choosing Atlanta?

It was the only Olympics Samaranch did not declare "the best ever." I also read a quote from Rogge years ago (during the 2016 bid process) where he said flat out "The Atlanta Games, those were not good Games."

I don't know that it's fair to say the IOC "regrets" choosing Atlanta, but I think it's totally fair to say they were disappointed by the Games that resulted. Based on my impression of the media coverage of the time, I'd say they had good reason.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...