Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This was interesting:

Musing on the commercial atmosphere of the Atlanta Games, Gary Smith of Sports Illustrated wrote, "When you select, for cash and convenience, a landlocked city with little vestige of its past, one whose identity is tied to the mega-corporations it has enticed, in a country full of enterprising scrappers-over, say, Athens, which just happens to be the birthplace of the Olympics, not to mention of Western civilization, and the locale where one might look to plant the Centennial Games if ideals were what was at stake-well, then, don't you deserve all the plywood and tent poles you get?"

(Source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/events/1996/olympics/weekly/960729/opencer.html)

- See more at: http://www.southernspaces.org/2006/whatwuzit-1996-atlanta-summer-olympics-reconsidered#sthash.iVTso0tM.dpuf

All hail Atlanta's "fabulous" plywood and tent poles!

This was charming too:

When the Closing Ceremonies were over, Crumpacker stated bluntly in his final "'Packer's Journal" entry, "I'll miss Atlanta like a boil on the butt." In spite of these Games' organizational problems, "The athletes and their performances rose above the corporate clutter and county-fair schlock of downtown Atlanta like a brightly colored hot-air balloon. Above it all."

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/At-last-looking-at-Atlanta-in-rearview-mirror-3130462.php) - See more at: http://www.southernspaces.org/2006/whatwuzit-1996-atlanta-summer-olympics-reconsidered#sthash.iVTso0tM.dpuf

In other words, any success Atlanta enjoyed was the result of the athletes performances, not the lackluster organization.

So, Zeke, I'm still waiting for your proof that the IOC loved Atlanta. You've got plenty of examples from me. "Cheap and tawdry" "plywood and tent poles" "boil on the butt." Yet still you claim the IOC wasn't disappointed. Sounds a bit insane, frankly.

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".

Again... Profitable that is what the IOC cares about. Atlanta was a Profitable Games and did so on only a $1.5 Billion budget

All Games are profitable for the IOC. They don't pay for the Olympic Parks and transport infrastructure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again... Profitable that is what the IOC cares about. Atlanta was a Profitable Games and did so on only a $1.5 Billion budget

If they cared about profitability, they probably wouldn't have chosen Beijing who spent $40 billion on their Olympics or Sochi who spent $50 billion (their initial budget was much lower, but I doubt they were seeking profit). The IOC cares about leaving a legacy. Sadly, they don't care at what expense that comes.

Again, you're talking about an Olympics held nearly 20 years ago that was delivered at a fraction of what it would cost now. Yes, Atlanta turned a profit on their Olympics. Much tougher to sell a city, even one such as Los Angeles, that their next Olympics would turn a profit as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Atlanta enjoys one of the strongest Olympic legacies of modern times, despite a chaotic Games which suffered from transport problems, criticism for commercialisation and a fatal pipe bomb. Heavy sponsorship of Atlanta’s 1996 Games meant the city made a profit and was left without large debts and incurred $5 Billion in economic impact. The two main stadia constructed for the event transitioned well, having been designed with after-use in mind, and are now home to the city’s baseball and football teams.

Atlanta’s inner-city benefitted most from the legacy. The Centennial Olympic Park was the centerpiece of the downtown revitalisation, attracting a number of high rises and museums along its periphery. At the time of construction, the Park was the largest urban green space to be created in the U.S. in 25 years, and today attracts millions of visitors annually. 20 percent of the tax generated from the Games was channeled into regeneration of the city’s poorer areas.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta's legacy was extremely worthwhile, you're not wrong. Whether the IOC would want to emulate the '96 Games is a more questionable point though. There's enough anecdotal evidence, some of which Athensfan has posted, which would suggest not. I'll be interested to see what the Agenda 2020 process throws up, and whether it's then followed through by the IOC as a whole when it comes to the votes.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 other thing to keep in mind about Atlanta..

As much as the Olympics helped revitalize their downtown, it will have taken only 20 years for the Braves to abandon the stadium that was built and then converted for them for the Olympics (which is an issue of location.. never was in a good spot being far away from the nearest MARTA stop, so the Braves are headed to greener pastures in the suburbs) and for the GWCC folks and the Falcons to build a new stadium to replace the Georgia Dome. An Olympic host doesn't have to go so for as to have a building like the L.A. Coliseum last a century, but to get more than 20-25 years out of a stadium shouldn't be too much to ask for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right no one knows exactly what the IOC wants, but all one has to look at is the past winners to see what advantages they had that losing bids don't. The last winners, Rio and Tokyo, had an advantage of having their venues within close proximity to each other that I believe gave them a huge advantage. I personally would have liked to have seen Madrid win for 2020 but they had so much going against them, one of them being that the sailing competition would have been held over 300 miles away in Valencia, while Tokyo and Istanbul were right off the coast.

And I keep hearing people bring up this Agenda2020 like it's going to change so much. I highly doubt it will make a huge difference in the way the IOC votes on who hosts the Olympics.

One thing that won't change is that the Olympic games are to be held by a city, not a country, state, nor metropolitan. The Winter Olympics is an exception of course, and even Summer Olympic cities are allowed to have some events outside the city limits. Boston can have events around city limits if it chooses, but the O/C ceremonies have to be within city limits. They will have to build an olympic stadium within city limits because it will reflect badly on the bid if it chooses Gillette Stadium as the location for the ceremonies. I don't see the city putting forth the money to build a stadium it will rarely use after the games.

Should we list the venues over the years that were not held in the city proper? And I'm not talking about the soccer venues throughout the country.

And incorrect about the stadium. It does not need to be within the geographical boundaries of the city. Let's say for example that a Boston Olympic bid were to put the main stadium near the site of the current Harvard Stadium. Technically that's in Cambridge, not Boston. But it's much closer to the city center than, say, Stadium Australia is to Sydney. The key is for the stadium to be accessible. That's why Gillette is no good. It's out in the middle of nowhere with poor access, particularly if you're talking about the Opening Ceremony of an Olympics where you have all the spectators, the athletes, the performers, and the media. So that's probably around 100,000 peopole you need to account for. As long as they can find a suitable and sensible location for it, whether or not it's in the city limits of Boston is virtually meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^It was my impression that the Charter states that the Ceremonies must occur within the city proper. Obviously Sydney and Sochi both broke this supposed rule, so I'd like to have some clarification about it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^It was my impression that the Charter states that the Ceremonies must occur within the city proper. Obviously Sydney and Sochi both broke this supposed rule, so I'd like to have some clarification about it all.

I think you just answered your own question there. The IOC creates the charter. They can choose to ignore if it they choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvard Stadium is technically in the Allston neighborhood of Boston. Cambridge is across the river.

There's no technically about it. The stadium is most definitely well within the municipal borders of Boston, and also happens to be near the old CSX train yards that have popped up continually as a possible site for an Olympic Village.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NECN interview with Dan O'Connell, President of Boston 2024, to share some of the plans, hurdles, and potential long lasting benefits. "Benefits of 2024 Olympics in Boston"

"The City of Boston will be utilized as the Olympic Park, (the Greenway, Common, Public Gardens, Emerald Necklace, Franklin Park, University owned properties, Underutilized Public Land) 27 of the 32 venues will be located within 10km of each other walkable, never done in any city and can't be accomplished in DC or LA"

http://www.necn.com/news/politics/Benefits-of-2024-Olympics-in-Boston-277364281.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where to post this, but seeing how Boston is claiming to be the Olympic-Park-City and Walking-and-Transit-Olympics, this should be appropriate.

In an article by LA Times, it mentions how the compactness of Boston itself (and the venues) would cause a congestion catastrophe. The DC committee site also claims to be the most "walkable city in America". And that got me thinking as to how each city stacks up transit-wise. So, according to walkscore.com, NYC is actually the most walkable with a score of 88. Next comes SF with 84, then Boston with 80, then all the way down to 7th place is DC with a score of 74. Los Angeles, however is not in the top 10, but rather in 18th place.

In transit-friendliness, NYC is, again, ranked first followed by SF, Boston, and DC respectively. LA is ranked in 9th place with a score of 50.

In bike-friendliness, SF is 2nd, Boston 5th, DC 6th, and NYC being 9th, and LA in a position around the 30's.

City Walkscore Transitscore Bikescore Estimated distance between farthest venues/cluster

Boston 79.5 80.5 67.8 ~20min

LA 63.9 49.9 54.0 ~30min

SF 83.9 80.5 70.0 ~40min

DC 74.1 70.4 65.3 ~60min

I guess the scores are only limited to each city's limits, so the table above probably isn't entirely accurate :/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where to post this, but seeing how Boston is claiming to be the Olympic-Park-City and Walking-and-Transit-Olympics, this should be appropriate.

In an article by LA Times, it mentions how the compactness of Boston itself (and the venues) would cause a congestion catastrophe. The DC committee site also claims to be the most "walkable city in America". And that got me thinking as to how each city stacks up transit-wise. So, according to walkscore.com, NYC is actually the most walkable with a score of 88. Next comes SF with 84, then Boston with 80, then all the way down to 7th place is DC with a score of 74. Los Angeles, however is not in the top 10, but rather in 18th place.

In transit-friendliness, NYC is, again, ranked first followed by SF, Boston, and DC respectively. LA is ranked in 9th place with a score of 50.

In bike-friendliness, SF is 2nd, Boston 5th, DC 6th, and NYC being 9th, and LA in a position around the 30's.

City Walkscore Transitscore Bikescore Estimated distance between farthest venues/cluster

Boston 79.5 80.5 67.8 ~20min

LA 63.9 49.9 54.0 ~30min

SF 83.9 80.5 70.0 ~40min

DC 74.1 70.4 65.3 ~60min

I guess the scores are only limited to each city's limits, so the table above probably isn't entirely accurate :/

Walkscore and all of the News Articles about this topic also list The Future’s Most Walkable Cities:

1. Boston

2. Washington, D.C.

3. New York City

4. Miami

5. Atlanta

6. Seattle

7. San Francisco

8. Detroit

9. Denver

10. Tampa

11. Los Angeles

12. Phoenix

13. Houston

14. Portland

15. Chicago

Least Walkable: San Diego, Kansas City, San Antonio

And when broken down even more by city Cambridge is #1 and Boston is in the top 5.

Percentage of Commuters who actually walk to work:

Cambridge - 25%

Boston - 15.5%

DC - 11.9%

San Francisco - 9%

Los Angeles - 3.6%

Boston came in at No. 3 now, but is set to be king among walkable towns in the future. Boston itself is walkable, but so is its chief suburban next door neighbor, Cambridge. But even Harvard's hometown has become so pricey that its driving people out to the next walkable suburb.

"Somerville is really lined up to just explode and take the overflow of Cambridge," Leinberger said.

He pointed to the Assembly Row project, which will add more apartments, shopping, restaurants and a new stop on the Orange Line of the T that is planned to open in the fall of 2014.

Awesome PDF "Foot Traffic Ahead: Ranking Walkable Urbanism in America’s Largest Metros" - http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/foot-traffic-ahead.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the mayors questionable opinions, Boston's potential bid certainly has had recent surge of articles and media attention. Some aren't even trying to be modest. A quick Google search of "2024 Olympics" brings up numerous articles about (mostly) Boston and/or DC. The chairman of Boston's committee even claims to have a 75% chance of being chosen by the USOC. Very, very bold.

Anywho, I found this article from a few months back. Not sure how accurate it is but it cites a split position of support.

...Forty-seven percent back the Olympic bid, according to the survey, while 43 percent are opposed. And the gap, it seems, is only narrowing...

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/06/26/olympic-size-split/x3YTGa4KR2u7XkufU58WoM/story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the mayors questionable opinions, Boston's potential bid certainly has had recent surge of articles and media attention. Some aren't even trying to be modest. A quick Google search of "2024 Olympics" brings up numerous articles about (mostly) Boston and/or DC. The chairman of Boston's committee even claims to have a 75% chance of being chosen by the USOC. Very, very bold.

Anywho, I found this article from a few months back. Not sure how accurate it is but it cites a split position of support.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/06/26/olympic-size-split/x3YTGa4KR2u7XkufU58WoM/story.html

Not denying those statistics in the least but I do know for a fact that less than 20 people took that Globe Online Poll... I followed it when it came out and saved the results on questionpro but I am unfortunately having problems with my account... I have the results for all the online polls that every media outlet took...

Also that 75% comment comes from the inside, I know for a fact that things are being kept hush hush by the request of the IOC to each of the cities. There is much more going on behind the scenes then any of us know about and soon bits and bits will be revealed.

Two Recent Articles

Boston Business Journal: "New Allston station could play key role if Boston hosts the 2024 Summer Olympics

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/10/new-allston-station-could-play-key-role-if-boston.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+industry_11+(Industry+Sports)"

Boston Magazine: "Mayor Walsh and Governor Patrick Expected to Attend Event Pushing for Olympics to Come to Boston It’s a show of good sportsmanship."

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/10/01/2024-olympics-boston-mayor-walsh/

Two Recent Articles

Boston Business Journal: "New Allston station could play key role if Boston hosts the 2024 Summer Olympics

http://www.bizjourna...ndustry Sports)"

Boston Magazine: "Mayor Walsh and Governor Patrick Expected to Attend Event Pushing for Olympics to Come to Boston It’s a show of good sportsmanship."

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/10/01/2024-olympics-boston-mayor-walsh/

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

Today was a huge day for the Boston 2024 Movement The Committee had a busy legislative day at the State House and then a Press & Media conference.

A projected budget was announced of $4.5 Billon not including $5 Billion in infrastructure and they listed all of the proposed venues most of which I had previously mentioned especially the Olympic Stadium going by the Highway in South Boston.

I know you will all say none of this will work and the IOC will hate it etc. etc. but honestly I am willing to bet that this is the new way the IOC does want to do it and I truly believe Boston is the frontrunner for the USOC's pick..

I can also guarantee that most if not all of these locations and options are already locked in as being available because that was what Boston was waiting for, the USOC has asked the cities to be quiet and discreet until things were locked in.

Boston 2024 Partnership offers details about where Olympics venues would be located:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/10/boston-2024-partnership-offers-details-about-where.html?ana=twt&page=all

- The goal would be to build a Summer Games that is almost entirely reliant on public transit, with no new parking spaces at the venues.

-a projected budget of $4.5 billion — a price tag that would be covered through a combination of ticket sales, broadcast rights payments and sponsorships. That figure doesn't include a tally of at least $5 billion in public infrastructure investments — such as extra tracks at an expanded South Station and a new West Station in Allston — that the Partnership's backers say are on track to happen anyway.

Widett Circle: The partnership is eyeing Widett Circle, a roughly 100-acre area for the Olympic stadium — a place that's now largely used to store towed cars and salt piles, hard by the Southeast Expressway. O'Connell says the Partnership is talking about construction of a 60,000-seat stadium for ceremonies as well as track and field competitions that would be temporary in nature, to be disassembled after the Games. The site, sandwiched between the Andrew and Broadway T stops on the Red Line, then would be primed for commercial redevelopment. The Dorchester Avenue stretch along the Fort Point Channel could be turned into a grand "Olympic boulevard" that could allow spectators to walk from South Station to the stadium (assuming the USPS finally agrees to leave its Fort Point station for new digs in Southie).

UMass Boston: The Olympics would need at least 6,000 units to host some 16,000 athletes in a secure environment. These would go at the BaySide Expo site, now owned by UMass Boston. Most would be portable modular units that could be moved to other locations, including other universities. About 2,000 would remain on site for the former commuter school's use as the university looks to build up residential options for its growing body of undergraduates.

Franklin Park: These would take place at Franklin Park, which has the benefit of animal care operations on site thanks to the zoo's presence. O'Connell concedes that this could disrupt the public golf course there, but says that funds from the Olympics could be used to restore the course in better condition after the Games are over. He also discussed using the Olympics as a way to spur new rapid bus transit into that area.

The Boston Convention & Exhibition Center: Several events would take place there, including table tennis, judo and tae kwon do. The BCEC's $1 billion expansion, scheduled to open long before 2024, would play an important role in accommodating all the activities.

The Boston Common: A beach volleyball facility would be built above the Boston Common garage. The marathon and long-distance cycling race would end by the park at Charles Street. (The Boston Marathon route, apparently, isn't flat enough for an Olympic competition.)

MIT: Archery and fencing could be hosted at MIT's campus, with MIT eyeing the possibility of a new building dedicated to fencing.

Allston: Harvard Stadium would be used for field hockey games, while BU's Agganis Arena and Nickerson Field, on the other side of the proposed West Station, would play a key role in games as well.

Outside Route 128: There are some events that the Partnership could not locate in or close to Boston. That includes rowing, which would take place on the Merrimack River in Lowell. (The Charles River's bridges would get in the way, per Olympics guidelines.) Gillette Stadium in Foxborough would be needed for soccer games, which would likely take place throughout the entire three-week stretch of the Games and in other facilities in the region as well.

  • 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...