Boston 2024

[BR2028]

Rowing was at Lake Lanier (so Canoe and Kayak were also there). Savannah hosted the Sailing events.

Okay. Thanks for that. I knew that Rowing was somewhere near Atlanta.

[Roger87]

More fire to add for the disaster.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/06/dan-shaughnessy-boston-olympic-bid-has-been-one-disaster-after-another/mz6V3eKfXgBtHWUwIzlzFJ/story.html

We need a volcano.

The 1908 Summer Olympic Games were originally scheduled to be held in Rome. The Rome 1908 committee (I believe it was fronted by Stephano Pagliuca and Giovanni Fish) secured the bid for the IV Olympiad and everything was all set until Mount Vesuvius erupted on April 7, 1906. The IOC relocated the Olympic Games to London.

At this hour, Boston needs some molten lava to stop the madness around the 2024 Olympic bid.

In six short months, Boston 2024 has become a punchline. Someday folks will look back at this misguided effort and compare it to “Gigli,” the PT Cruiser, and Google Glass . . . one more bad idea from the early part of the 21st century. Boston 2024 needs to be put out of its misery. The sooner the better...

Where’s Mount Vesuvius when we need it?

[Nacre]

It seems that Deval Patrick is still collecting a check through the bid committee. He is now drawing a fee through an opaque company called "Wabash Inc" officially led by his former chief of staff.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2015/06/pols_politics_deval_patrick_in_details_of_boston_2024_vendor

[BR2028]

Kill it...just end Boston's pain now.

[Nacre]

It does seem a bit bizarre. Surely the former governor can't be that hard up that he needs to go to such lengths just to bill them four or five hours work.

[BR2028]

The US is wasting precious time they could be spending getting LA ready or decide to just sit this one out.

[WarpedReality]

There's no "getting LA ready". LA's bid was lame, just like Madrid's, which is why they weren't chosen last January. The IOC wants exciting gold-plated hosts which isn't what LA has to offer.

If Boston's 2016 referendum fails, then the USOC won't bid. However, until referendum day, the USOC is married to this bid. Shutting it down now won't save the careers of anyone with the USOC. However, a successful turnaround (even though the possibility is very remote) would definitely bolster the USOC's reputations.

[FYI]

Is Boston's bid that "exciting, gold-plated host", though, especially when the USOC is going to put it up against the international likes of Paris, Rome & even Hamburg . And not when they're now talking about spreading the Games statewide after intially touting their "walkable" venue concept. Even with L.A. "been there, done that aspect", their reviitalize riverfront concept was new & fresh. So I wouldn't go as far as calling it "lame".

[baron-pierreIV]

The US is wasting precious time they could be spending getting LA ready or decide to just sit this one out.

But the USOC does NOT want to put LA forward this time. So, why keep harping on LA for 2024? I think that's a dead horse. The USOC will go with Boston..or bust for this round. And I can understand LA's "been-there-done-that" baggage. If I were an IOC voter (who had say, been to LA 1984), if faced with a choice of Paris, Rome, Hamburg and LA; I would vote (A) Paris; if Paris drops in Round one; I'd vote ( Rome; and LA would be last on my list -- simply because their hosting is still too recent.

So fuggedabout LA for now.

[Quaker2001]

There's no "getting LA ready". LA's bid was lame, just like Madrid's, which is why they weren't chosen last January. The IOC wants exciting gold-plated hosts which isn't what LA has to offer.

If Boston's 2016 referendum fails, then the USOC won't bid. However, until referendum day, the USOC is married to this bid. Shutting it down now won't save the careers of anyone with the USOC. However, a successful turnaround (even though the possibility is very remote) would definitely bolster the USOC's reputations.

Define successful turnaround. Do they have to win or just make it all the way to the 2017 vote? I agree the USOC has made their decision and it's Boston or bust. But where you say LA's bid was lame, what does that make Boston's bid that it's falling apart like this and we're questioning its survival?

Knowing what we know now having seen the past few months since Boston was selected, would the USOC still make the same choice? I doubt it. Maybe LA's bid would have had issues, but hindsight being 20/20, we now know what Boston's bid has become. Maybe they can turn it around, but the problem is that they seemed to offer the USOC some promises that it doesn't seem like they're going to stick to. So it's a little bit of bait and switch. Not that that doesn't happen all the time with these things, but Boston won that decision in January based on what seems like some false pretenses.

[WarpedReality]

The USOC has always had the deck stacked against it because it does not receive government support like its European peers. And yes, even if public support had not been a problem, Boston's bid certainly had its weaknesses vs Paris and the rest. I am sure many IOC members find the Stade de France a much more appealing venue than the temporary structure Boston proposed.

Nonetheless, every so often I pull up the leaked PDF of LA's bid and study it, trying to figure out why everyone here seems to want to marry it. However, I always reach the same conclusion. The bid lacks inspiration and contains itself by what has already been done rather than imagining what could be done. Even SF & DC put forth more compelling bids. If it was really obvious that Boston's bid was untenable back in January, the USOC's best course should have been to sit this round out. LA's bid relied on reduced cost of preexisting venues just like Madrid's bids and we know what happened to Madrid. Madrid also had to compete against the "staleness" issue coming so soon after Barcelona.

Regarding the LA river, I don't think it represents the heart of LA like the Hudson, Delaware, Potomac or Charles Rivers represent NYC, Philly, DC or Boston. Ultimately, it is an East Coast vs. West Coast thing. The population growth of east coast cities occurred when rivers will still economically important as transportation corridors (and barriers), which is why the health of those rivers is vital to the health of those cities. On the other hand, the LA river has been quite ancillary to LA's history for some time. In many ways, the plan is not to revitalize the river, but to simply vitalize it. Even before the pollution that came with industrialization, the LA river was not used for recreation or shipping like East Coast rivers are used.

I guess my most fundamental problem with the whole LA river concept is that it seems like LA is pretending to be something it isn't. LA is LA, a mecca for American media and built around automobile transportation. We got the LAest LA back in 1984 and I am certain that 50 to 80 years from now LA ought to get another opportunity to show its flair. However, that moment will come after the East Coast or Midwest have had a chance to show off a different aspect of America. And no, you cannot lift an aspect of Eastern cities (such as beautiful waterfronts) and plop it down in LA and call it "fresh and exciting". If appropriation of other cities' souls was the name of the contest, then Doha and Dubai would be leading contenders for these things, but they are not.

[WarpedReality]

Define successful turnaround. Do they have to win or just make it all the way to the 2017 vote? I agree the USOC has made their decision and it's Boston or bust. But where you say LA's bid was lame, what does that make Boston's bid that it's falling apart like this and we're questioning its survival?

Knowing what we know now having seen the past few months since Boston was selected, would the USOC still make the same choice? I doubt it. Maybe LA's bid would have had issues, but hindsight being 20/20, we now know what Boston's bid has become. Maybe they can turn it around, but the problem is that they seemed to offer the USOC some promises that it doesn't seem like they're going to stick to. So it's a little bit of bait and switch. Not that that doesn't happen all the time with these things, but Boston won that decision in January based on what seems like some false pretenses.

Boston's bid has serious problems, but lameness isn't one of them. The people at the helm of Boston 2024 are incompetents who don't understand how things are perceived by the common man. From day 1, they should have recognized that Boston is very insecure when it comes to public infrastructure in the wake of the Big Dig. Instead of spending months waffling by pretending that public money wouldn't be spent, the bid committee should have been honest about these things from the beginning. Then, they could have spent the next 6 months selling the public on this investment instead of failing to meet impossible expectations.

With hindsight, I think the USOC would have chosen to sit out this round.

And yes, it is definitely unfair for Boston 2024 to transform the bid like they are doing. The new bid with the venues spread all around will be lame just like LA's was. If the USOC knew about this before, they would haven't have bid this round.

[Quaker2001]

Boston's bid has serious problems, but lameness isn't one of them. The people at the helm of Boston 2024 are incompetents who don't understand how things are perceived by the common man. From day 1, they should have recognized that Boston is very insecure when it comes to public infrastructure in the wake of the Big Dig. Instead of spending months waffling by pretending that public money wouldn't be spent, the bid committee should have been honest about these things from the beginning. Then, they could have spent the next 6 months selling the public on this investment instead of failing to meet impossible expectations.

With hindsight, I think the USOC would have chosen to sit out this round.

And yes, it is definitely unfair for Boston 2024 to transform the bid like they are doing. The new bid with the venues spread all around will be lame just like LA's was. If the USOC knew about this before, they would haven't have bid this round.

Part of the problem is if that had been the sell from the start, the bid never would have gotten off the ground. So maybe they shouldn't have gotten into this at all, because at this point, this whole bid is - at the moment - 1 big joke. And it makes everyone involved look worse than if they hadn't tried in the first place.

The USOC seemed somewhat committed to putting forth a bid for 2024. So it doesn't seem like a case where they looked at Boston and that's what nudged them into bidding. For whatever they didn't like about LA, whether it was 1984 or something else that dissuaded them, I thought back in January they were more likely to win a vote than Boston. Obviously the USOC saw it differently, but it seems like that may have been a mistake.

You say the LA 2024 bid lacks inspiration. Well, in an age where Agenda 2020 is a thing - however ideology gets used - a bid that is centered around a pop-up stadium that leaves little to no legacy for its city and an incompetent organizing committee trying to sell that to its citizens was dead on arrival. And given all the other obstacles to a U.S.-hosted Summer Olympics, maybe LA as a fallback isn't such a terrible option while the USOC is looking for that city in the right time and place to put forward. Either way, this will probably be a 1-shot deal for Boston and they won't be likely to return for another shot.

[woohooitsme83]

Regarding the LA river, I don't think it represents the heart of LA like the Hudson, Delaware, Potomac or Charles Rivers represent NYC, Philly, DC or Boston. Ultimately, it is an East Coast vs. West Coast thing. The population growth of east coast cities occurred when rivers will still economically important as transportation corridors (and barriers), which is why the health of those rivers is vital to the health of those cities. On the other hand, the LA river has been quite ancillary to LA's history for some time. In many ways, the plan is not to revitalize the river, but to simply vitalize it. Even before the pollution that came with industrialization, the LA river was not used for recreation or shipping like East Coast rivers are used.

I guess my most fundamental problem with the whole LA river concept is that it seems like LA is pretending to be something it isn't. LA is LA, a mecca for American media and built around automobile transportation. We got the LAest LA back in 1984 and I am certain that 50 to 80 years from now LA ought to get another opportunity to show its flair. However, that moment will come after the East Coast or Midwest have had a chance to show off a different aspect of America. And no, you cannot lift an aspect of Eastern cities (such as beautiful waterfronts) and plop it down in LA and call it "fresh and exciting". If appropriation of other cities' souls was the name of the contest, then Doha and Dubai would be leading contenders for these things, but they are not.

I always thought the LA River stuff was a symbol of rebirth and progress. It never was particularly essential to the city itself* so the option of using the river as history is out the window. However, using it as a symbol of change and regeneration is totally plausible in LA's case imo, expecially with all that diversity stuff and whatnot.

*don't quote me on that one

[BR2028]

There's no "getting LA ready". LA's bid was lame, just like Madrid's, which is why they weren't chosen last January. The IOC wants exciting gold-plated hosts which isn't what LA has to offer.

If Boston's 2016 referendum fails, then the USOC won't bid. However, until referendum day, the USOC is married to this bid. Shutting it down now won't save the careers of anyone with the USOC. However, a successful turnaround (even though the possibility is very remote) would definitely bolster the USOC's reputations.

Actually a USOC member stated that it is not certain Boston will be the city in September, nothing is certain.

[BR2028]

If the US wants to bid just to start circulating around IOC circles and start forming some more connections and get stronger for 2028 then they should just switch to LA. At this point the USOC has to look at 2024 not as a real opportunity to host, but instead as an opportunity to further mend and improve their relationship with the IOC.

[WarpedReality]

Part of the problem is if that had been the sell from the start, the bid never would have gotten off the ground.

You say the LA 2024 bid lacks inspiration. Well, in an age where Agenda 2020 is a thing - however ideology gets used - a bid that is centered around a pop-up stadium that leaves little to no legacy for its city and an incompetent organizing committee trying to sell that to its citizens was dead on arrival.

We'll never know the outcome of a "sell from the start" strategy. I can easily see it failing as you describe, but also succeeding. For all the hemming and hawing Boston makes about the Big Dig, ask most Bostonian if they'd rather have the old Central Artery back in exchange for that $15 Billion and they'll probably decline. Despite the eye-boggling costs, the project was worth doing. Likewise, the Olympics would have built upon the Big Dig's legacy nicely. Bigger thinkers would have married the Olympics with a true North-South rail link between North and South Stations which would bolster a new permanent stadium for the Revolution near South Station. Bigger thinkers would have envisioned the Olympics as Boston's coming out party as we crawl out of New York's shadow. Stuff like that could have inspired Bostonians to support the bid with their tax dollars. Of course it could have backfired, but we have zero indication Californians would pay for an LA Olympics either.

Actually a USOC member stated that it is not certain Boston will be the city in September, nothing is certain.

USOC member stated that there is a possibility the US drops the bid entirely. She did not mention a possibility of bidding with an alternative city.

I always thought the LA River stuff was a symbol of rebirth and progress. It never was particularly essential to the city itself* so the option of using the river as history is out the window. However, using it as a symbol of change and regeneration is totally plausible in LA's case imo, expecially with all that diversity stuff and whatnot.

*don't quote me on that one

Ultimately, my thinking represents my biases as an easterner and more importantly as someone born and bred in Boston. Steeped in history, Boston is a place that respects tradition. Despite "liberal" voting patterns, the cultural attitude there is in many ways quite conservative. The old saying is that Boston is "Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots, And the Cabots talk only to God", which symbolizes our reverence toward history and institutions (the Lowells and Cabots are basically aristocratic families as far as Boston is concerned). I was probably too long-winded there, but my point is that when I see an olympics, I want to see a city show us its essence. And that essence is going to be intertwined deeply with its history and culture. From my view, "rivers" aren't in LA's soul and there's no plan to make them one.

However, as a symbol of change, I guess it is possible for the LA river to serve as a vanity project in that regard. I understand that the goal is to demonstrate that LA has turned a corner and grown past its adolescent fixation with automobiles. However, mature grown-up cities don't use water transportation anymore. They use rail. To be honest, I think LA has the potential to make an excellent bid and shed the "been there done that" legacy if the bid was linked strongly with the California HSR project. Here, we have a truly innovative and inspirational infrastructure project that will fundamentally transform how Angelenos interact with their surroundings in a way the LA river does not. It would probably be tempting to collocate the HSR terminal with major venues such as the T&F stadium with other venues sprinkled up and down the HSR corridor.

[zekekelso]

BR - I'm not sure I get your idea. Are you saying the USOC should switch their 2024 bid from Boston to LA?

[woohooitsme83]

However, as a symbol of change, I guess it is possible for the LA river to serve as a vanity project in that regard. I understand that the goal is to demonstrate that LA has turned a corner and grown past its adolescent fixation with automobiles. However, mature grown-up cities don't use water transportation anymore. They use rail. To be honest, I think LA has the potential to make an excellent bid and shed the "been there done that" legacy if the bid was linked strongly with the California HSR project. Here, we have a truly innovative and inspirational infrastructure project that will fundamentally transform how Angelenos interact with their surroundings in a way the LA river does not. It would probably be tempting to collocate the HSR terminal with major venues such as the T&F stadium with other venues sprinkled up and down the HSR corridor.

Hmmmmm.. Never heard of a ferry going down the river for actual non-tourist-trap transportation purposes, but the LA Metro has been growing quite nicely (I'm sure you can find one of my old ramblings as to how *amazing* the Metro is going to be in the future somewhere in this thread), and quite frankly, I don't think the river has anything to do with the transition between cars to trains. The river's suppose to be the masterpiece of an emerald necklace, or something, around LA County. I'd make more sense to have it as a symbol of green changes, and the changing mindset and ideas and overall culture and vibe that the area has undergone.

and I agree, the bid definitely should've implemented the CAHSR into itself.(I'm not exactly thrilled that I need to wait 10+ before I can hop on a direct train to the north). But it was probably too early in the phase to be adding crumbling statewide projects into the mix anyways (*sob*).

[FYI]

Even SF & DC put forth more compelling bids.

How do you figure. San Francisco didn't even have a solid plan for the main stadium & their proposed venue concept was the most spread-out out of the four U.S. 2024 candidates. Not to mention the potential NIMBY backlash that likely would've ensued had the USOC picked them, it would've made Boston 2024 look like a cakewalk now. And let's not forget how bureaucratic red-tape is always wrapped around San Francisco politics.

Many of those points could also be said for DC as well. So I don't see how either of those were more 'compelling' than L.A. The same word could've been said for Boston at the very beginning as well.

LA's bid relied on reduced cost of preexisting venues just like Madrid's bids and we know what happened to Madrid. Madrid also had to compete against the "staleness" issue coming so soon after Barcelona.

This isn't a very clear picture at all. While yes, Barcelona did handicap Madrid's bids, that issue alone, though, isn't what did them in. Neither was their emphasis on using preexisting venues (although, like many seem to like to use nowadays, that would seemingly work out very well with "agenda 2020" these days).

What did Madrid in for 2012 was the high competive European field that they found themselves in. London, Paris or Madrid? I think it's save to say which one of those three would most often get left behind.

For 2016, they were up against an exotic, new-frontier (not to mention two other credible, strong options). Plus the fact that the preceding 2012 Games were already slated for Europe (London 2012). Even big man JAS advised them of their long-shot odds, but they didn't listen nonetheless.

And for 2020, it was the combination of Spain's very weak economy, the Operation Puerto doping scandal looming over their heads, & the extremely weak & disingenuous narrative that the Olympics would somehow fix all of their problems. So Madrid had a mountain of obstacles to overcome to just simply dismiss them all with "staleness".

And no, you cannot lift an aspect of Eastern cities (such as beautiful waterfronts) and plop it down in LA and call it "fresh and exciting". If appropriation of other cities' souls was the name of the contest, then Doha and Dubai would be leading contenders for these things, but they are not.

So now you're comparing L.A. to the likes of Dubai & Doha. That's rather extreme, don't you think.

No one is "plopping down" aspects of "Eastern cities souls" & dropping them in on L.A. Just merely citing that they were trying something different that's never been done there before. Maybe to you it's not fresh & exciting, but calling it "lame" is certainly to the other extreme.

Obviously the people of L.A. think differently, especially when they're still going forward with the revitalization project despite not winning the USOC 2024 nod.

[woohooitsme83]

Obviously the people of L.A. think differently, especially when they're still going forward with the revitalization project despite not winning the USOC 2024 nod.

I've never seen a river, in real life, that has not been constrained by cement in someway in SoCal. Are waterfronts and grassy rivers suppose to be very common around the world?

[WarpedReality]

Look, I understand my subjective opinion of LA is rather extreme. Nobody needs to agree with me. However, there are way too many people who are too starry eyed about that bid when there were serious skeletons in its closet. Boston's biggest problem is that taxpayers don't want to fund what is essentially a two week party for the IOC. There is zero indication that LA's taxpayers are more willing to foot that bill. This is true even if the bill would be a bit smaller in LA. Also, just because LA may indicate that it wants to spend money on an appetizer, doesn't mean it wants an entree as well.

[FYI]

I don't see how "there are way too many people being starry-eyed" or wanting to "marry" L.A.'s proposal on here, though. One poster says that the USOC should just dump boston for L.A. & you seem to be taking it as if it's something sacred that the rest of us here share. I certainly don't see it that way, & from reading the thread, I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Yeah, we may have 'zero indication' that L.A. taxpayers would be more willing to foot the bill. However, outta the four options that the USOC had to chose from & all things considered, I still say that L.A. would've given them the least amount of headaches. And considering they're not exactly amateurs at this game, they should have a much better inclination than "zero indication".

And no, no one here needs to agree with anyone. But that's the beauty of forums like these, though. Isn't it.

[Usa2024olympics]

I do remember seeing an article a couple months back about what would've happened if LA did get the nomination, and the article mentions that the bid organization speculates that support would be around 80%.

[woohooitsme83]

A part of me wants Boston's plans TO BURN A PAINFUL DEATH IN THE FIERY RAGE OF FAILURE OF MISERY but I'm secretly hoping Boston makes it far ^.^