baron-pierreIV Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) But how will that proposal be viewed by the IOC voters? In that regard, Boston is taking a risk. Oh, the IOC rank and file will have to follow suit. Otherwise, if results prove otherwise, it would show that their organization is just another FIFA. I am hopeful though that the ideas put forward by Agenda 2020 will bear fruition because it's essentially the same body that will vote on the results. I think like say, the US Congress, the leaders who pushed through Agenda 2020 will be able to whip the less involved ones into shape and make the reforms mean something. The secret will be convincing the IOC that the biggest "white-elephant"-seeming new infrastructure and venues really will have a realistic raison d'etre. For example, Boston will have to explain why building a temporary $400 million Olympic Stadium is the way to go vs. renovating Harvard's stadium -- and that this is in response to the IOC's "needs." And then, that response, in the IOC voter's mind, will be weighed against, say, Paris' (hypothetically) est. $85 million renovation for their Stade de France. On that point of course, Boston is sunk. But that's the USOC's choice and timing. Edited February 19, 2015 by baron-pierreIV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 ...This is where the whole concept of Agenda 2020 will get put to the test though. This new line of thinking from the IOC allows a city like Boston to craft their proposal differently. But how will that proposal be viewed by the IOC voters? In that regard, Boston is taking a risk. But it's also why talking about how different things are with Agenda 2020 might be a bit premature. And why we have to see it all play out before we know what the changes truly mean. And perhaps this is Boston's only chance to beat a city like Paris. Even if Paris bids using mostly existing arenas and venues, Paris' hosting does nothing to broaden the family of potential candidate cities: there aren't many cities in the world that already have multiple existing venues like a Paris or London or Tokyo. A winning bid from a city like Boston which plans on using many temporary venues, though, could be a model for other future hosts that fall out of the Alpha-Alpha category. I'm not saying it's a winning strategy, but it gives Boston an argument to make before the IOC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I don't think that the IOC is really all that interested in 'broadening the family' of potential candidate cities, unless they have absolutely no other choices. Their main focus is their image, & which city/country would best fit the image they're trying to sell at any given time. As long as the IOC has the Alpha cities of the world lining-up to stage their circus (especially when everyone worthwhile ran away from 2022), then that's who they're gonna go with. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Oh, the IOC rank and file will have to follow suit. Otherwise, if results prove otherwise, it would show that their organization is just another FIFA. I am hopeful though that the ideas put forward by Agenda 2020 will bear fruition because it's essentially the same body that will vote on the results. I think like say, the US Congress, the leaders who pushed through Agenda 2020 will be able to whip the less involved ones into shape and make the reforms mean something. Agreed. The 2024 Olympics will be the test-bed for Agenda 2020, and the IOC will be looking for a host which can display the new principles most effectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 FYI, perhaps you're right, but if the IOC is looking to make inroads to places like Africa or Asia or Latin America, a Paris Games could reinforce the notion that a city must spend Alpha amounts before it's considered. If I were advising the Boston organization, I'd tell them to start courting third world IOC members and other aspiration all hosts (Eastern and Central Europe) on the notion that a bid using temporary venues lowers their own barriers to entry and serves as a better model for sustained growth. But you're right, whether the IOC members actually vote consistent w Agenda 2020 is a big question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 FYI, perhaps you're right, but if the IOC is looking to make inroads to places like Africa or Asia or Latin America, a Paris Games could reinforce the notion that a city must spend Alpha amounts before it's considered. I don't see how, though. Especially if a Paris Games was truly transparent on sustainability, then no notions should be further developed. And also when Asia has hosted plenty of Games already & are slated for two more & are still lining up for more no matter what. Rio is hosting next year & Latin America as a whole will have hosted twice by then. So the only inroads left that the IOC would have to make is one for Africa, the last continent still left without a Games. The IOC still has an image to maintain. And by still going to these Alpha cities whenever they have a great opportunity to do so, then I believe that they'll take it. Let's also keep in mind that the notion of cities having to spend 'Alpha amounts' came about from this smallish summe resort city out by the Black Sea in Russia. And not by London which was the last Alpha city that hosted the Summer Olympics. And if we really wanna talk about costs, I don't see how Boston would spend any less than Paris would TBH. And Boston would be very likely to spend as much as London 2012 did, if not more. All notions aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Oh, the IOC rank and file will have to follow suit. Otherwise, if results prove otherwise, it would show that their organization is just another FIFA. I am hopeful though that the ideas put forward by Agenda 2020 will bear fruition because it's essentially the same body that will vote on the results. I think like say, the US Congress, the leaders who pushed through Agenda 2020 will be able to whip the less involved ones into shape and make the reforms mean something. The secret will be convincing the IOC that the biggest "white-elephant"-seeming new infrastructure and venues really will have a realistic raison d'etre. For example, Boston will have to explain why building a temporary $400 million Olympic Stadium is the way to go vs. renovating Harvard's stadium -- and that this is in response to the IOC's "needs." And then, that response, in the IOC voter's mind, will be weighed against, say, Paris' (hypothetically) est. $85 million renovation for their Stade de France. On that point of course, Boston is sunk. But that's the USOC's choice and timing. And you would trust the IOC rank and file to do that? You're giving them more credit than I would. As much as Agenda 2020 is a new line of thinking and it's probably going to wind up with some newer and/or different cities bidding, this is still the IOC we're talking about. This is not a collaborative effort that determines who the host cities are. It's done by secret ballot where the majority rules. I agree that they will want to avoid the types of hosts where the city would be littered with white elephants after the games, but I'm not sure the other extreme of temporary facilities is the answer either. Agreed. The 2024 Olympics will be the test-bed for Agenda 2020, and the IOC will be looking for a host which can display the new principles most effectively. I'm not sure I agree with that. Again, when it comes down to a vote, each voter has to weigh the merits of these principles, but also where they want to put their quadrennial party. So in that regard, it remains to be seen what they are looking for, and I'm sure it hasn't changed that many of these voters will make their choices in their own self interests. FYI, perhaps you're right, but if the IOC is looking to make inroads to places like Africa or Asia or Latin America, a Paris Games could reinforce the notion that a city must spend Alpha amounts before it's considered. If I were advising the Boston organization, I'd tell them to start courting third world IOC members and other aspiration all hosts (Eastern and Central Europe) on the notion that a bid using temporary venues lowers their own barriers to entry and serves as a better model for sustained growth. There's some logic to that, but still, is that going to make a case for Boston when it comes down to the actual vote? Because if you're making that sell, will a win by Boston necessarily open the door for certain locations to get an Olympics. By the same token, would a win by Paris close a door for them. The idea of 'barriers to entry' to me is more about cities bidding than it is choosing a winner. The IOC is still going to want the biggest, grandest spectacle they are offered. But that's also relative to this 1 particular vote. I don't think there will be serious reprecussions going forward based on 1 city being picked over another. You can certainly make that case for Sochi, but it won't apply in the same way here IMO, Agenda 2020 or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 There is no way in hell the average IOC voter is going to select a "lesser" city, just to prove that the IOC is willing to put the Olympics in a lesser city. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 There is no way in hell the average IOC voter is going to select a "lesser" city, just to prove that the IOC is willing to put the Olympics in a lesser city. Yes. Thank you. The only country that's getting away with that is South Africa, but obviously we know the modus operandi behind that one. Let's also remember that the concept of a bigger Olympic host and one that's more Agenda 2020-friendly are not mutually exclusive. Even a more notable city like Paris can still take some lessons from Agenda 2020, apply them to their bid, and then the IOC is getting the best of both worlds. But again, this is the fine line that Boston has to figure out when they're trying to interpret this new way of thinking because if they judge it wrong, it's not going to get them votes, and that could be tough enough to do in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 There's some logic to that, but still, is that going to make a case for Boston when it comes down to the actual vote? Because if you're making that sell, will a win by Boston necessarily open the door for certain locations to get an Olympics. By the same token, would a win by Paris close a door for them. I didn't say it was a strong argument, but that it is perhaps Boston's only chance at beating a more Alpha city like Paris. I'm no fool, the IOC will likely go for flash and dazzle regardless of Agenda 2020, but if I were looking at the hand dealt to Boston compared to the hand dealt to (European capital) and had to make a distinguishing argument, appealing to the tenets of Agenda 2020 could be one of the only arrows in Boston's quiver. Again, I'm not saying it'll be the winning argument with the IOC, but a city like Boston will go down in quick defeat against Berlin or Paris if it fights the battle on their field of choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olympiaki-agones Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Baron, if Boston wins, do you think they will have, at least, entertaining ceremonies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Baron, if Boston wins, do you think they will have, at least, entertaining ceremonies? I think that's a given, especially the closing ceremony. As far as the Opening Ceremony, as long as they avoid doing a similar one as London, and stay away from stupid crap like the trucks and cheerleaders in the opening ceremony from Atlanta, they'll do fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Baron, if Boston wins, do you think they will have, at least, entertaining ceremonies? I hope so. Maybe, something like this? The new musical HAMILTON (a rap musical) that's just opened at the Public Theater in NY, by the guy who wrote IN THE HEIGHTS. (Thank God, the show is sold out until May -- so that means I won't get to see it when I go to NYC for 1 week in April.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 http://www.wbur.org/2015/02/18/boston-olympics-poll-support-dwindling It's just one poll so it could be an outlier, but I'll be interested to see if other polls begin to show a pattern here. Regardless, the organizers have a major PR job ahead of them. The number to watch is the undecideds. I don't see how this bid goes forward without a referendum. It would be a major setback for the USOC if after passing on bidding for 2020 and 2022, getting a new revenue sharing deal with the IOC, and selecting a candidate city that the bid never even gets to the final vote. There's still plenty of time to swing public opinion with the upcoming statewide committee meetings, but one has to wonder if come July the numbers opposing an Olympics in Boston continue to grow making the likelihood of getting a majority to vote yes slim in a prospective referendum, does the USOC politely tell Boston that isn't going to work out and another candidate will be chosen (I would say Los Angeles given that they seem to be the one city that could be ready and have an application file by the IOC deadline). Pure speculation here but I have to wonder right now if there are some backchannel calls with the Southern California Committee for the Olympic Games to gage the potential for an L.A. bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 It's 2 degrees and there is 7 feet of snow on the ground. Boston is cranky.. The don't want to think about anything other than getting rid of this damn snow. That's got to be pushing the support needle down a bit It's 2 degrees and there is 7 feet of snow on the ground. Boston is cranky.. The don't want to think about anything other than getting rid of this damn snow. That's got to be pushing the support needle down a bit. Boston is the USOC candidate. You can't switch now, even if the negative support stays, how do you know support will be higher elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I hope so. Maybe, something like this? The new musical HAMILTON (a rap musical) that's just opened at the Public Theater in NY, by the guy who wrote IN THE HEIGHTS. (Thank God, the show is sold out until May -- so that means I won't get to see it when I go to NYC for 1 week in April.) Hmmmm. I wonder if Boston can produce an entertaining OC without too much of an NYC / LA filter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Hmmmm. I wonder if Boston can produce an entertaining OC without too much of an NYC / LA filter. Well, Boston is not an entertainment center. It will have to rely on the LA/NYC talents. Remember the RFPs are put out internationally but when winnowed down, they go domestic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well, Boston is not an entertainment center. It will have to rely on the LA/NYC talents. Remember the RFPs are put out internationally but when winnowed down, they go domestic. Come on... we can throw out Aerosmith, the BSO, New Kids... Gronk. What more entertainment do you need? Question... espeically to the non-Americans... wouldn't you love a opening ceremony with these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7g3RuoreRc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well, it's all too early to speculate. May not even happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Come on... we can throw out Aerosmith, the BSO, New Kids... Gronk. What more entertainment do you need? Question... espeically to the non-Americans... wouldn't you love a opening ceremony with these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7g3RuoreRc lol no on Gronk. He's a hot piece of ass, but I don't want him or American football in the opening ceremony. And no I wouldn't want a Celtic Punk band in the opening ceremonies. NO mainstream musical talent in the opening ceremony! I want an opening ceremony to the level of class like the ones in Sydney, Athens, Beijing, and Sochi. I would like to see Rhapsody In Blue played somewhere in the opening ceremony, probably a segment focusing on the industrialization of Boston to modern times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Not gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMarkSnow2012 Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 lol no on Gronk. He's a hot piece of ass, but I don't want him or American football in the opening ceremony. And no I wouldn't want a Celtic Punk band in the opening ceremonies. NO mainstream musical talent in the opening ceremony! I want an opening ceremony to the level of class like the ones in Sydney, Athens, Beijing, and Sochi. I would like to see Rhapsody In Blue played somewhere in the opening ceremony, probably a segment focusing on the industrialization of Boston to modern times. Rhapsody in Blue- wrong city for me. Try Pornograffitti maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I would like to see Rhapsody In Blue played somewhere in the opening ceremony, LA did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 LA did it. LA did this, they didn't do what I was actually referring to, which was a segment similar to Sydney's "Eternity" or Sochi's industrialization segment which came after the revolution segment. Sure it was used over 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean it can't be re-used in a new light. Oh and to add to what I just said, Aaron Copland's Hoedown was used in the Opening Ceremony of LA in 1984 and SLC in 2002, I don't think people made a huge deal over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 I still don't get the connection between RHAPSODY in BLUE and Boston. Did it premiere in Boston?? I understand HOEDOWN, but that's really a very short passage. Except for the theme from CHEERS , there really aren't great musical themes extolling Boston...so IF THIS happens, I imagine there will be a lot of ORIGINAL music for very original ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.