Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am actually hoping that the USA never hosts again until the bid city and USOC can come up with a plan that works for the benefit of its citizens rather than NBC, the USOC and the IOC. Oh, and the real estate developers that are campaign contributors of mayor Walsh.

Careful now- what other projects can you think of which give such a perfect excuse for redevelopment of real estate in mixed ownership at multiple-square-kilometre scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussion from the Paris thread . . .

That's my point. They should bid for 2026 instead of 2024.

Summer Games

...

2) Boston's metro transit is already at full capacity for summer.

...

Winter Games

...

2) Winter is the down season for Boston, so there would be less stress on public transit.

...

You have this backwards. Boston's T system is at maximum capacity between September and May, when the city's population increases by a few hundred thousand college and grad school students. Summer is the T's down time - the college students are mostly all gone, the high school and junior high kids who use the system to get to school aren't riding, and there is a constant cycle of regular T users who are away on vacation any given week. Yes, summer tourists pick up some of the slack, but not much. I'd guess there is excess daily capacity of a few hundred thousand riders per day on the T when a Summer Olympics would be held. I don't have hard #s, but I've been riding the T for 20 years and this is the pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about analytical skill, but the perspective we are arguing from. I view the Olympics through the prism of urban planning. And thus what works for the host city, whereas you seem to view it from the perspective of what works for the Olympics themselves.Which is perfectly reasonable. It's just that you are analyzing the bids with a different criteria than I am.

I really don't care if the USA never hosts the Olympics again. In fact I am actually hoping that the USA never hosts again until the bid city and USOC can come up with a plan that works for the benefit of its citizens rather than NBC, the USOC and the IOC. Oh, and the real estate developers that are campaign contributors of mayor Walsh.

I would think you've seen enough of my posts to know that's not the case. There's a lot of posters here that like to envision a city bidding for the Olympics with little to no regard for what it means for the city and their long term goals for urban development. So we are most definitely on the same page in that regard to look at any bid from the standpoint of what makes sense for the city. And that's why I have questioned Boston repeatedly to ask whether or not this makes sense for them.

Here's where the disconnect comes so far as this discussion is concerned. You're talking about the idea of a Boston Winter Olympic bid (and I get it's a hypothetical situation we're talking about) based on what you perceive would be the best strategy for them. As much as I disagree with you on that point, we have a baseline of what a Boston Winter bid would look like based on what their Summer bid looks like. And I think you're looking past that reality when making the case. And unlike a lot of folks here when making a case for a city, with Boston we have an actual bid - in the present, no less - to get a sense of how they're operating. It's easy to argue that things SHOULD be done differently, but based on what I'm seeing with this Summer bid, I don't think a Winter bid would succeed unless they took a different tact, and I'm not sure that would happen.

As for your last point, I agree 100% with this. The nature of GamesBids is that it's often presumed that a big city wants to host an Olympics and we're almost taken aback when people aren't on board with that (case in point the Paris thread). But yes, the problem with most Olympic bids is that they don't work within the framework of urban development, so a lot of the efforts are forced and the end result is a bad legacy beyond all the billions of dollars that potentially need to be spent. That's why NYC 2012, for all the faults and flaws that eventually sunk them, was an Olympic bid in the right time and place. It just wasn't destined to work. But the legacy of that failed bid is that it spurred on a number of projects that were initially either tied to and/or suggested by the Olympic bid and they went forward anyway. So yes, maybe we shouldn't bring the Olympics back here until the right time and place presents itself. And I'm with you that Boston 2024 doesn't seem like it, let alone that some of the leadership of the bid is big-time contractors and developers who seem like they are the ones who would benefit from a Boston Olympics than the citizens they're supposed to be working on behalf of.

Clearly my sense of humor doesn't translate. I said that to point out all of the issues that cause Denver (and Seattle) to be an unlikely city to get a referendum in favor of hosting passed. I pointed them out because I don't think those two cities are viable bidders.

If you're going to throw out the R word there, don't ignore the fact that a referendum for Boston has been floated out there and it's put some people in an odd position of trying to suppress that possibility, less a Boston bid be in trouble. So it's not just places like Denver and Seattle that would have to deal with that. Virtually any city with Olympic aspirations will have to deal with naysayers. Some stronger than others. As we're seeing with Boston though, a referendum doesn't just magically happen on it's own. So for a city like a Denver, maybe they wouldn't get a referendum passed, but who knows if there would be a referendum in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful now- what other projects can you think of which give such a perfect excuse for redevelopment of real estate in mixed ownership at multiple-square-kilometre scale?

Doesn't mean it's a wise project though. Case in point, Vancouver..

Olympic Village proves to be a costly lesson for Vancouver

The Olympics are an expensive endeavor. If planned and executed properly, it can certainly be beneficial for the host city. But that's not always the case.

Specifically as Boston is concerned, part of their sell for an Olympics is that a lot of urban development initiatives have already been planned and funded, so they would go along well with an Olympics. The flipside of that argument though is since these projects are going on anyway, what does the Olympics add? How does Boston benefit from those extra expenditures? This is similar to what I brought up about NYC 2012. The initial plan was to redevelop the Hudson Yards area for the new stadium/expanded convention center. As we all know, that plan went down in flames, but that area is now being developed for other purposes which in the end will probably be of greater benefit to the city. So NOT getting the Olympics is what made that possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean it's a wise project though. Case in point, Vancouver..

Olympic Village proves to be a costly lesson for Vancouver

And that was just for a successful Winter Olympics. That's the problem with the Summer Olympics -- too many phacking athletes, 10,500 of them + the coaches, and the attendants and 17,500 press!! I mean really only maybe 6 mega-cities in the world could absorb the crush of some 3-4,000 units immediately being available. If the stupid IOC cut down the SOGs to say 7,000 athletes, you could get more medium-sized cities bidding because the numbers aren't a jar to the system. But the stupid IOC doesn't see this. They'll have to sometime if they want to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that was just for a successful Winter Olympics. That's the problem with the Summer Olympics -- too many phacking athletes, 10,500 of them + the coaches, and the attendants and 17,500 press!! I mean really only maybe 6 mega-cities in the world could absorb the crush of some 3-4,000 units immediately being available. If the stupid IOC cut down the SOGs to say 7,000 athletes, you could get more medium-sized cities bidding because the numbers aren't a jar to the system. But the stupid IOC doesn't see this. They'll have to sometime if they want to survive.

Yeah, it's the *athletes* that are the problem. Not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The athletics tournament itself is not the problem. It's the masses of corporate associates, media, security, etc.

I do wonder how much of the media presence is really necessary and how much of it is just a perk, though. Why do the broadcasters need to have studios and legions of support staff in the actual host city? In this era of telecommuting surely a lot of that could be done remotely with a film crew on site and the analysts back in the home country.

The corporate people never seem to actually show up to watch the events either. Empty VIP seats has been a recurring theme for the Olympics anyway, so perhaps they could cut back on corporate ticket and hotel allocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that was just for a successful Winter Olympics. That's the problem with the Summer Olympics -- too many phacking athletes, 10,500 of them + the coaches, and the attendants and 17,500 press!! I mean really only maybe 6 mega-cities in the world could absorb the crush of some 3-4,000 units immediately being available. If the stupid IOC cut down the SOGs to say 7,000 athletes, you could get more medium-sized cities bidding because the numbers aren't a jar to the system. But the stupid IOC doesn't see this. They'll have to sometime if they want to survive.

Some manage to make it work better than others. But as zeke alluded to, perhaps the answer is to accept a better solution for housing. Use college dorms rather than build a village from scratch. Easier to leave a legacy that way rather than cut off the number of athletes at the Games. This being the IOC, I don't exactly have the utmost faith in them deciding which sports, if any, would get cut from the program.

The athletics tournament itself is not the problem. It's the masses of corporate associates, media, security, etc.

I do wonder how much of the media presence is really necessary and how much of it is just a perk, though. Why do the broadcasters need to have studios and legions of support staff in the actual host city? In this era of telecommuting surely a lot of that could be done remotely with a film crew on site and the analysts back in the home country.

The corporate people never seem to actually show up to watch the events either. Empty VIP seats has been a recurring theme for the Olympics anyway, so perhaps they could cut back on corporate ticket and hotel allocation.

I remember being at 1 of the nights of short track at the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake. The entire front row of seats on the side opposite the finish straight was empty. And that arena, being as poorly set up for an international ice surface as it was, made being down lower that much more important. So I sat in those seats for about half the night until whatever corporate sponsor had those seats finally showed up. Definitely does not look good when the good seats are unoccupied.

As for the media.. that's somehow of a necessary evil. There are certainly that don't need to be on site, folks like bloggers and other fringe media who maybe don't belong. But you can't tell broadcasters who are paying the IOC for the privilege of covering the event that they're not welcome in the host city. Broadcasters don't *need* to have a presence in the host city, but it sure makes for a better looking broadcast if they can say they are there rather than having their hosts and announcers call the action off of TV monitors. I mean, this is the Olympics we're talking about. It's supposed to be the pinnacle of sports television.

Beyond everyone you see on the air is everyone working behind the scenes. Used to be there was just TV to worry about. Now most countries have tons of TV hours plus they're streaming everyone online. Needless to say that requires a lot of infrastructure, both at the venues and at the broadcast center.

The media is responsible for reporting on the Games to the rest of the world. Probably a smart move to give them a very favorable impression of the host city and of Olympic operations. Not like they need to be housed in 5-star hotels, but if some accommodation is reserved for them and the fans/spectators maybe suffer a little as a result, that's a trade-off that needs to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Boston 2024 calls for statewide referendum for Olympic bid

Boston 2024 will only continue with its Olympic bid if a majority of people in Massachusetts and in Boston support the bid in a statewide referendum proposed for November 2016.

“What that is saying is that: let the voters vote — not just the voters of Boston — but a referendum statewide,” Boston 2024 chairman John Fish said, according to the Boston Herald. “What we will commit to is if the statewide referendum passes but the voting bloc in Boston doesn’t want the Olympics, we won’t host the Olympics.”

A Boston radio station survey of 504 registered voters in the city area resulted in 36 percent support earlier this month, down from 44 percent in February and 51 percent in January in similar polls from the same radio station.

“The success of our bid for the Olympics depends on the support of residents, and we should only move forward in a way that will bring the greatest benefit to the city and its neighborhoods,’’ Boston mayor Marty Walsh said in a statement. “Over the next year, I encourage residents to engage in a conversation to learn more about what the Olympics could mean for Boston and the entire Commonwealth, and to put forward any suggestions or concerns.’’

The deadline to submit 2024 bids to the International Olympic Committee is Sept. 15. IOC members will vote to choose the 2024 Olympic host city in 2017.

Rome and Hamburg, Germany, are other confirmed bidders. Paris may also bid to host the Games on the 100-year anniversary of its 1924 Olympics.

Boston beat out Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., in a U.S. Olympic Committee decision to choose a 2024 U.S. bid city in January.

http://olympictalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/24/boston-2024-olympics-vote-referendum-support/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the referendum is likely after the IOC deadline. Do I hear someone mention Kraków?

It would also be the same for Paris if their numbers are shaky. It takes a while I think to get a largely-participated referendum in place, if the organizers want an accurate reading. So, the IOC will also have to be patient and not think that their deadlines are the be-all of everything. They will have to bend their rules a little if they want an extravaganza that is truly liked by the hosting populace.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Bosting will be holding a referendum in November 2016. It's a shame if people don't support the bid, a lot of money will have already be spent on the bid, and I fear this will upset even more people. It's best to host a referendum before bidding, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Bosting will be holding a referendum in November 2016. It's a shame if people don't support the bid, a lot of money will have already be spent on the bid, and I fear this will upset even more people. It's best to host a referendum before bidding, isn't it?

Well I think the bidding committee is hoping that the Rio games will inspire Boston. Also they have more time to eat their message straight and get the public support up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Bosting will be holding a referendum in November 2016. It's a shame if people don't support the bid, a lot of money will have already be spent on the bid, and I fear this will upset even more people. It's best to host a referendum before bidding, isn't it?

It'll take time to set up a state-wide referendum (that can just be added to the Nov 2016 election and not its own voting); and they are hoping to have gotten the message out and in the after-glow of Rio. Bain Capital Mgmt Group (Romney's firm) is spearheading the Boston bid has mucho buckaroos. They know what's needed to be spent, going into the game.

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

The referendum will be after the IOC candidacy deadline, but before the 2017 selection.

The timing of the process is interesting in that it never gives potential candidate cities the opportunity to hold a referendum during the afterglow of a successful Games of the same season. That is probably, in realistic terms, a very good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lack-of-public-support-may-doom-bostons-bid-for-2024-olympics-1427827053

From the Wall Street Journal. Interesting that it noted that discussions have been held with San Francisco and Los Angeles about reviving their bids although it also mentions if Boston fell through the USOC would likely sit out 2024. Apparently, the USOC has also just come and denied everything in the WSJ report. Wouldn't surprise me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco would be another foolish mistake. They think they're having problems with Boston's support, it's a walk in the park compared to the mess a San Francisco bid would've entailed in that category. There's a reason why Boston was chosen instead. Los Angeles was the only logical choice outta the four in many factors overall. But the USOC was more afraid of the "been there, done that" factor. Wonder if they're kicking themselves in the a$s now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco would be another foolish mistake. They think they're having problems with Boston's support, it's a walk in the park compared to the mess a San Francisco bid would've entailed in that category. There's a reason why Boston was chosen instead. Los Angeles was the only logical choice outta the four in many factors overall. But the USOC was more afraid of the "been there, done that" factor. Wonder if they're kicking themselves in the a$s now.

No question they are. If Boston drops out, so long as the IOC has another good candidate or 2, I don't think they're going to go into panic mode the way they did for the 2022 race. Sucks for them to not have a US bid (which probably isn't going to win anyway), but they can move on quickly from that. The USOC, not so much. Not that it's necessarily a wasted opportunity, but obviously it doesn't look good that they made such a terrible choice and for Boston so publicly to reject an Olympics - if it comes to that - is not going to help the causes of other cities who might be interested.

** should amend that to say "of other AMERICAN cities who might be interested"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lack-of-public-support-may-doom-bostons-bid-for-2024-olympics-1427827053

From the Wall Street Journal. Interesting that it noted that discussions have been held with San Francisco and Los Angeles about reviving their bids although it also mentions if Boston fell through the USOC would likely sit out 2024. Apparently, the USOC has also just come and denied everything in the WSJ report. Wouldn't surprise me.

Can't access the friggin article. It requires a subscription.

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...