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".

But LA is giving them what they want in terms of stadium size.

Good for LA. You do realize that the size of the main stadium is one of about a thousand elements to the bid that the USOC is going to consider, right? The success or failure of these bids is going to come down to a lot more than stadium size. Is it to LA's advantage that they're giving the USOC what they want (which is different than what they require)? It probably is. Both don't dismiss Boston on that basis, particularly when it's the number the the IOC is looking for anyway. To that point..

The issue that Boston boosters need to understand is that Boston would not be building a plan that makes sense for Boston. In order to actually win the race, the bidder needs to create a plan that meets the IOC's wish list. They have said that they will change this, but there are constraints on their ability to actually make changes because other organizations such as the sports federations, sponsors and broadcasters have a big impact in what happens behind the scenes.

No one has ever used a temporary stadium before. There's no knowing whether the IOC voters will ultimately be willing to accept one.

This is where the waters get murky for Boston. How do they strike a balance between what they want and what's best for them versus what the IOC wants and what's best for them. Yes, we're potentially (or so we presume, way too early to tell) entering an era where the IOC might be more flexible on their requirements and work more with a city rather than giving them a list of conditions. Of course, they've got to get there first. That means being selected, first by the USOC and then the IOC.

At the risk of again sounding like a broken record.. this is still a competition. What does the IOC want? What does the USOC (if anything) want to offer them? We know the USOC is working with these cities to figure out those answers, but it's a lot to ask of a city to play the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston 2024 will have rowing right on city streets!!

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29761274

Sea levels are rising, the land is sinking. It's going to become a big problem for some cities on the US East Coast, so in Boston people are thinking the unthinkable - copying Venice and Amsterdam, and becoming a city of canals.

Two years ago, when the still vicious tail-end of Hurricane Sandy slammed into Boston, it was luck rather than planning that saved the city's streets from deep floods.

If it had hit four hours earlier, during the full-moon high tide, it is likely a storm surge would have inundated the city, submerging its low-lying areas under several feet of water.

The narrow escape concentrated minds, because there's another problem threatening to overwhelm the city's flood defences - climate scientists are predicting a sea-level rise on the US east coast of up to six feet (2m) by the end of the century.

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

Umm, Albertville's 1992 stadium was temporary.

The winter games "stadium" is just for the ceremonies. It doesn't even need to be a stadium. Several winter games have used the ski jump for the ceremonies.

The point is that no city has ever hosted with a temporary stadium for athletics, and in the past the IOC has not been pleased by plans for temporary main stadiums. Would they be willing to accept a temporary stadium for 2024? Maybe, but maybe not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying I'm just sharing this article as a point of information, not necessarily because I agree or disagree with the content one way or the other...

Boston Is Already Saying ‘Hell No’ to the 2024 Olympics


Here's a very interesting line from the article though..

Here is hoping that activists throughout the city of Boston are successful. I spoke with someone connected to the International Olympic Committee who told me that Boston has rocketed to the top of their consideration list because of how the city was able to shut itself down after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is completely misleading - the city of Boston has most certainly NOT said "hell no". (At least not yet.)

That said, articles like this drive me crazy, regardless of which city's bid it is about. NIMBY cranks will always pop out of the woodwork when a big proposal like a Games or a major spending program comes up. "Oh my god, the traffic!!!" [Lamest argument against. You'll probably be on vacation those weeks anyhow.] "Security costs are outrageous!!!" [Federal governments largely covers those costs, not the host cities.] "We should focus our efforts on better schools, building our own infrastructure, creating jobs, etc." [OK, so when we raise taxes to build better roads or schools or whatever, you'll be on board, right?? Didn't think so.]

About the IOC's attention on Boston, maybe John Fish knew some inside info when he made the statement that he was about 75% sure Boston would be the USOC's choice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is hoping that activists throughout the city of Boston are successful. I spoke with someone connected to the International Olympic Committee who told me that Boston has rocketed to the top of their consideration list because of how the city was able to shut itself down after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Honestly, I think the Patriots' Day attack serves Boston's bid very well. There's an excellent narrative of a city overcoming the terror of the bombing and celebrating the virtues of sport apolitically the subsequent year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is completely misleading - the city of Boston has most certainly NOT said "hell no". (At least not yet.)

Well, if you think about it, it's the people that makes up Boston, so in the long run if the people say no, then that keeps a heavy sway on the leaders' decisions (like Oslo).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be more interesting where exactly the person in the article is getting their information. A person "connected" to the IOC is not exactly someone IN the IOC. Also I could see how Boston could be one of the two front-runners, but DC? They're an even bigger bureaucratic mess than San Fran ever is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you think about it, it's the people that makes up Boston, so in the long run if the people say no, then that keeps a heavy sway on the leaders' decisions (like Oslo).

I agree - *if* the people say No (something that has not yet happened), they say No. Other than the handful of people who make up this No Olympics enterprise, the people of Boston have not *already* said No as the article implies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the IOC's attention on Boston, maybe John Fish knew some inside info when he made the statement that he was about 75% sure Boston would be the USOC's choice?

I don't see John Fish's name referenced there. I do see Laurence Fishburne though! But yea, I question that part as well. Somehow I doubt that the IOC has a 'consideration list.' Only wackos on Internet sites like GamesBids would give any credence to something like that.

It's "One reporter and one group of nobodies" saying Hell no. Sheesh.

And for what it's worth, this "expert" report tells us that "with DC and Boston said to be the front-runners".

Seems like yet another perhaps poorly researched Op-Ed column. Never intended to represent anything more than that by sharing it here.

Honestly, I think the Patriots' Day attack serves Boston's bid very well. There's an excellent narrative of a city overcoming the terror of the bombing and celebrating the virtues of sport apolitically the subsequent year.

I agree with that, but they still need to have some substance to their bid. I think they're getting there, but I still question how it's all going to play when put in front of the USOC. Because if the substance is lacking, all the narrative in the world won't do them any good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the IOC/USOC view Boston as the frontrunner, could that indicate that they are not keen on Los Angeles hosting a third time before any other American city has hosted the summer games? (Well, except for St Louis.) To be fair I think there could be some domestic grumbling about that, which could make it easier to get federal funding for an east coast city.

That said, articles like this drive me crazy, regardless of which city's bid it is about. NIMBY cranks will always pop out of the woodwork when a big proposal like a Games or a major spending program comes up. "Oh my god, the traffic!!!" [Lamest argument against. You'll probably be on vacation those weeks anyhow.] "Security costs are outrageous!!!" [Federal governments largely covers those costs, not the host cities.] "We should focus our efforts on better schools, building our own infrastructure, creating jobs, etc." [OK, so when we raise taxes to build better roads or schools or whatever, you'll be on board, right?? Didn't think so.]

The problem here is that if your argument is that most people in Boston will have to go on vacation for a month, then that means the city really will be paralyzed during the games.

The second problem is that the typical argument in favor of hosting the games in the US is that it would be privately funded. (Although in fact SLC 2000 cost the taxpayer about $1-1.5 billion.) If Boston is counting on a flood of federal money to pay for the games so the city won't have to divert money from things like schools, then the rest of the country will probably object.

Is it possible that Boston might be able to get $5-10 billion USD from the federal government? Maybe. But everything about this bid seems really uncertain, from the local support to the national support to the venue plans to the transportation plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the IOC/USOC view Boston as the frontrunner, could that indicate that they are not keen on Los Angeles hosting a third time before any other American city has hosted the summer games? (Well, except for St Louis.) To be fair I think there could be some domestic grumbling about that, which could make it easier to get federal funding for an east coast city.

The problem here is that if your argument is that most people in Boston will have to go on vacation for a month, then that means the city really will be paralyzed during the games.

The second problem is that the typical argument in favor of hosting the games in the US is that it would be privately funded. (Although in fact SLC 2000 cost the taxpayer about $1-1.5 billion.) If Boston is counting on a flood of federal money to pay for the games so the city won't have to divert money from things like schools, then the rest of the country will probably object.

Is it possible that Boston might be able to get $5-10 billion USD from the federal government? Maybe. But everything about this bid seems really uncertain, from the local support to the national support to the venue plans to the transportation plan.

*cough*Atlanta*cough*. Or was that a dream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean Boston would be a really cool place to have the games, I just can not see it happening without it becoming Atlanta 2.0. Not to mention an article that says DC is a front-runner is an article full of BS. I would say the front-runners (from info we have) are LA and Boston.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that, but they still need to have some substance to their bid. I think they're getting there, but I still question how it's all going to play when put in front of the USOC. Because if the substance is lacking, all the narrative in the world won't do them any good.

Absolutely true. We'll have to wait & see what Fish and friends release in December. Also, bear in mind that all we've gotten from LA2024 amounts to nothing more than a bunch of pretty pictures. We still have no idea where they will get the money to renovate the coliseum or other facilities. Granted, LA can definitely host the games more cheaply than Boston can, but LA still needs to get its ducks lined up. Also who knows what DC & SF have cooking? Probably nothing, but there's no way to know for sure.

Back to my original point: I think we can be reasonably certain that Boston will not be able to bid with a permanent 70,000 seat stadium with plans for a legacy. Current information suggests that Boston may build a temporary stadium and later use the site to build a modest soccer stadium for the Revolution. This aspect is probably the weakest point of the bid (assuming funding is found), but I really don't know if it is sufficient to sink everything (especially when Boston has such a strong narrative, not only regarding the bombing, but it definitely has a far richer sporting tradition than most of the country).

Link to post
Share on other sites

*cough*Atlanta*cough*. Or was that a dream.

It was a different environment, before 9/11, when costs were much lower. Just a few years later Salt Lake City was no longer able to fund the games privately, so it seems really, really unlikely that a summer games in 2024 would be able to. And I don't want to open up the whole Atlanta discussion again, but fairly or unfairly most people internationally hated the experience in Atlanta. I doubt Boston wants to follow in the footsteps of Atlanta even if they could.

Boston is a great city with a bunch of arguments in its favor. I think it has some potential along the lines of Barcelona in being a "hidden gem" that the rest of the world doesn't know about. But there are a bunch of practical problems that still need to be resolved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the IOC/USOC view Boston as the frontrunner, could that indicate that they are not keen on Los Angeles hosting a third time before any other American city has hosted the summer games? (Well, except for St Louis.) To be fair I think there could be some domestic grumbling about that, which could make it easier to get federal funding for an east coast city.

It was a different environment, before 9/11, when costs were much lower. Just a few years later Salt Lake City was no longer able to fund the games privately, so it seems really, really unlikely that a summer games in 2024 would be able to. And I don't want to open up the whole Atlanta discussion again, but fairly or unfairly most people internationally hated the experience in Atlanta. I doubt Boston wants to follow in the footsteps of Atlanta even if they could.

Boston is a great city with a bunch of arguments in its favor. I think it has some potential along the lines of Barcelona in being a "hidden gem" that the rest of the world doesn't know about. But there are a bunch of practical problems that still need to be resolved.

I think zeke was referring more to the fact that you forgot about Atlanta (ironic how that still happens.. as if people actually think Los Angeles was the last city in the United States to host a Summer Olympics) moreso than how good or bad Atlanta's Olympics were. As it relates to Boston, IMO it's neither here nor there.

I mean Boston would be a really cool place to have the games, I just can not see it happening without it becoming Atlanta 2.0. Not to mention an article that says DC is a front-runner is an article full of BS. I would say the front-runners (from info we have) are LA and Boston.

Once again, I feel obligated to ask.. what the fucksicle is Atlanta 2.0? What does that mean in the context of a Boston discussion? Are you saying Boston doesn't want to follow in their footsteps? No $h1t, sherlock. Thank you, captain obvious. Sorry for the snark here, but it just amuses me to no one that people here still feel the need to point out "well, you know, you don't want to be like Atlanta." As if these very generic parallels are what will leave the IOC with a bad taste in their mouths.

To Nacre's point.. yes, there are a lot of practical problems to deal with. Some of which may be too much to overcome. I don't know I'd call Boston a hidden gem because I don't see an Olympics transforming the city in the manner Barcelona experienced a resurgence in the post-Franco era, topped off by the Olympics.

To Atlanta's credit, they have one of the largest convention centers in the United States. In the immediate area, they had a football-sized stadium, an arena (which since has been replaced with a new arena around the same location), and their Olympic Park. So from a technical standpoint, say what you want about Atlanta as a host, but they had a lot of positives to their venue plan. That's where Boston is lacking and I don't know that they can come up with solutions to make it work. So aside from the costs of a 21st Century Olympics versus what Atlanta put together, the issues facing Boston are far different. And let's be fair about something.. it's not like LA, San Fran, and DC don't face similar issues in terms of practicality. Perhaps 1 of the other cities, particularly LA, is better equipped to overcome those problems, but these issues are hardly specific to Boston and them alone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the IOC/USOC view Boston as the frontrunner, could that indicate that they are not keen on Los Angeles hosting a third time before any other American city has hosted the summer games? (Well, except for St Louis.) To be fair I think there could be some domestic grumbling about that, which could make it easier to get federal funding for an east coast city.

The problem here is that if your argument is that most people in Boston will have to go on vacation for a month, then that means the city really will be paralyzed during the games.

The second problem is that the typical argument in favor of hosting the games in the US is that it would be privately funded. (Although in fact SLC 2000 cost the taxpayer about $1-1.5 billion.) If Boston is counting on a flood of federal money to pay for the games so the city won't have to divert money from things like schools, then the rest of the country will probably object.

Is it possible that Boston might be able to get $5-10 billion USD from the federal government? Maybe. But everything about this bid seems really uncertain, from the local support to the national support to the venue plans to the transportation plan.

I can only conclude that you are willfully misreading what I wrote. What I said was that for just about every host city traffic and disruption are one of the first arguments the "No" people raise. What makes this argument weak is that most people in the host city work around that, either by leaving their city or by telecommuting. Athens went notoriously empty when it hosted. London didn't go as empty as Athens did, but there were a lot of complaints from London's theatre companies, local businesses, etc., that the Olympics caused a big drop off in standard resident and tourist activity for those few weeks. I did not advance any "argument" that Boston must empty out before it can host. I was talking about every host city and that the residents of those cities often leave of their own will just to avoid the big headache they believe is coming their way.

About cost, again, I made no argument about federal money. I simply said that security costs for the Games (especially after 9/11) are often borne by the host nation's government, not the host city. This was the case in London, Beijing, Athens, Salt Lake, Torino (and of course, Sochi). I said nothing about Boston needing or getting billions in federal $$ to pay for the Games. You're the one who made that link, not me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a different environment, before 9/11, when costs were much lower. Just a few years later Salt Lake City was no longer able to fund the games privately, so it seems really, really unlikely that a summer games in 2024 would be able to. And I don't want to open up the whole Atlanta discussion again, but fairly or unfairly most people internationally hated the experience in Atlanta. I doubt Boston wants to follow in the footsteps of Atlanta even if they could.

Boston is a great city with a bunch of arguments in its favor. I think it has some potential along the lines of Barcelona in being a "hidden gem" that the rest of the world doesn't know about. But there are a bunch of practical problems that still need to be resolved.

Something we can agree on. :lol: But I don't think Boston could capitalize on a full Barcelona-effect (Barcelona went from industrial backwater to a top global city in the span of a decade), but of the 4 US cities still in the running, I think Boston has the greatest upside potential for a Games to have a transformational impact. The other three cities have fairly well-established international images. Boston does as well, of course, but its reputation is strongest among those who have a reason to be familiar with it (e.g., people in certain fields, education, medicine, finance, high tech). An Olympics could really cause people unfamiliar with all Boston has going for it (great neighborhoods, growing waterfront, arts, harbor islands, etc.) to take a deeper look. San Francisco, perhaps, could as well. I'm not sure the same could be said of LA, and certainly not of DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barcelona was always Spain's hidden gem -- and purposely put under wraps by Franco's gov't because it was/is the center of a separatist region that would/will break up the Spanish state. But it took a Catalan son kowtowing as a Falangist -- and the passing of El Caudillo, for Barcelona to shine. I'd say Barcelona was like a pus or pimple just waiting to literally burst onto the scene :lol: ; and the Olympic Games of 1992 was the lance to effect that miracle. And I was there too in 1992; so I was partially responsible for Barcelona's coming of age; well ahead of Woody Allen!! Ha!! B)

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barcelona was always Spain's hidden gem -- and purposely put under wraps by Franco's gov't because it was/is the center of a separatist region that would/will break up the Spanish state. But it took a Catalan son kowtowing as a Falangist -- and the passing of El Caudillo, for Barcelona to shine. I'd say Barcelona was like a pus or pimple just waiting to literally burst onto the scene :lol: ; and the Olympic Games of 1992 was the lance to effect that miracle. And I was there too in 1992; so I was partially responsible for Barcelona's coming of age; well ahead of Woody Allen!! Ha!! B)

That's the part of Barcelona's story I think that it would be difficult for another city to replicate. The term 'hidden gem' applies perfectly for them. It was urban renewal at its finest and the Olympics were the cherry on top that made them known to the rest of the world. Having been there myself for the first time last summer, I understand their story that much better now.

I'm not sure what Boston stands to gain long term from an Olympics though in that regard. Unfortunately, they're a few hours up the road from New York (in contrast to Barcelona which is nestled in its own corner of Spain on the Mediterranean and is an ideal vacation destination, especially during the summer). So I don't know what they're going to show off to the world that is going to get people to want to come there afterwards. I'll risk coming off as an arrogant New Yorker saying this because Boston is a great city and has a lot to offer, I'm just not sure they're suddenly going to turn into them international draw from hosting an Olympics simply because of their proximity to other large cities in the Northeast.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the part of Barcelona's story I think that it would be difficult for another city to replicate. The term 'hidden gem' applies perfectly for them. It was urban renewal at its finest and the Olympics were the cherry on top that made them known to the rest of the world. Having been there myself for the first time last summer, I understand their story that much better now.

I'm not sure what Boston stands to gain long term from an Olympics though in that regard. Unfortunately, they're a few hours up the road from New York (in contrast to Barcelona which is nestled in its own corner of Spain on the Mediterranean and is an ideal vacation destination, especially during the summer). So I don't know what they're going to show off to the world that is going to get people to want to come there afterwards. I'll risk coming off as an arrogant New Yorker saying this because Boston is a great city and has a lot to offer, I'm just not sure they're suddenly going to turn into them international draw from hosting an Olympics simply because of their proximity to other large cities in the Northeast.

(Former) Arrogant NY-er here, as well. LOL

What I meant by this was that Boston, as great a city as it is, sits in the shadows of other cities in the northeast. Of the three major cities in the northeast, Boston, NYC, and DC, NYC is the undisputed business and cultural leader and DC is the seat of government. Boston is a supporting cast members in a lot of ways. Boston has as good, if not better, cultural amenities than almost any city in the US (symphony, opera, museums, dance companies, etc.) and it has great tourist assets. I would put it ahead of San Francisco and Chicago in terms of cultural heft, but doesn't get nearly the same recognition largely, I think, because it's in such close geographic proximity to two cities that get all the attention. I don't think a Boston Olympics would cause Boston to leap into the NYC-London-Paris tourist club, hardly, but it would raise its profile considerably. It could also give Boston a chance to establish a new brand in the global business community, especially in growth industries where Boston has some strengths - the sciences, pharma, robotics, etc.

That's what I meant by having the greatest potential among the four candidate cities. While Boston is undergoing a lot of urban renewal, it will never transform the way Barcelona did and I don't think it could if it tried, but I think it has the greatest upside potential of the four US cities to re-image itself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Boston hosts a successful Olympics, it won't transform itself like Barcelona. It will transform itself like Boston. Because Boston is not Barcelona.

That said, I will say that being in the shadows of NYC & DC has always been a source of insecurity among Bostonians for ages. Hosting the Olympics will definitely help the city gain its swagger. In a way, that is happening anyway regardless of the Olympics. The recent proliferation of direct international flights to Logan airport is simply astounding.

  • 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...