Boston 2024

[FYI]

What don't you get. Cuz it's obvious that you can't comprehend the differences. :-P

As the saying goes; "cut your losses & move on". Or maybe you don't understand that either.

[Roger87]

Boston will be part of the history as the perfect example of a "stillborn mess" for an Olympic bid. The USOC is already looking bad, what would make any difference if simple cut off this problem. In any way, better stop this joke early before the humillation explodes in a terrible way.

[yoshi]

Just what is it that's made this such a colossal fail? Simple unwillingness to pay by Boston taxpayers?

[Quaker2001]

Just what is it that's made this such a colossal fail? Simple unwillingness to pay by Boston taxpayers?

Aside from the low support numbers and having had to replace their organizing committee head, it's things like this.. Details Uncovered in Boston’s 2024 Olympic Bid May Put It in Jeopardy

And this.. Boston Council Holding Hearing On City’s 2024 Olympics Bid

And this.. Boston 2024 stretches its definition of walkable Olympics

Not to mention.. Boston 2024 faces tall task in securing venues

There are all these changes with the bid because it wasn't thought through. What was sold as the original plan has gone through so many changes for all sorts of reasons, but mostly due to poor planning. And it just continues to snowball while there is such a large percentage of the population who oppose the effort. All of this put together continues to be their downfall.

[zekekelso]

There are all these changes with the bid because it wasn't thought through. What was sold as the original plan has gone through so many changes for all sorts of reasons, but mostly due to poor planning.

Oh for fricks sake... you don't actually believe this nonsense do you? Exactly how many Olympics plans have survived from first concept through to execution without changes. That doesn't indicate "poor planing". It shows willingness to change an adapt.

Boston has a financing problem. Boston has a problem in that taxpayers don't trust the organizers. Boston has a problem in that it isn't in the same class of cities as Paris and Rome no matter how good the plan. But to blast them for - oh noes - changing their plans? That's just dumb.

[Quaker2001]

Oh for fricks sake... you don't actually believe this nonsense do you? Exactly how many Olympics plans have survived from first concept through to execution without changes. That doesn't indicate "poor planing". It shows willingness to change an adapt.

Boston has a financing problem. Boston has a problem in that taxpayers don't trust the organizers. Boston has a problem in that it isn't in the same class of cities as Paris and Rome no matter how good the plan. But to blast them for - oh noes - changing their plans? That's just dumb.

That's what you call it? A willingness to change and adapt? Is that why they replaced John Fish as the head of the committee (who I said a while ago may have been mis-cast in this role)? You really think these changes in the venue plan are about willingness rather than necessity even though it might not serve them well?

Let's be fair about where we're at here.. the USOC has not reached the day of decision with Boston, so what we're seeing now may not matter in the long run. That's assuming Boston makes it to the 2017 vote in the first place. But why, you ask, am I questioning the planning?..

Boston 2024 faces tall task in securing venues

That's why. This is not an indoor arena or some other easily replacable aspect of the bid we're talking about. This is the main stadium. Maybe they'll get this deal done and it'll be a moot point. But that this is even in question smells an awful lot like the West Side Stadium deal with NYC 2012 and we know how that turned out. At least they had a backup plan (which, in some respects, perhaps should have been their plan A to begin with).

There's a large leap from adapting to improve your plan and making changes that may or may not be in the best interests of the bid when the support is precarious at best. And yes, between the financing and the organization, it's all a part of a misguided effort that the USOC never should have signed up for in the first place.

[Nacre]

Oh for fricks sake... you don't actually believe this nonsense do you? Exactly how many Olympics plans have survived from first concept through to execution without changes. That doesn't indicate "poor planing". It shows willingness to change an adapt.

It isn't a binary situation. Yes, all cities hosting any kind of event have to make some changes. For Boston, though, there is almost nothing concrete in the whole bid and they have been making contradictory promises the whole time. The "walkable" Olympics being an obvious example. No public funding is another issue, when they have in fact been planning on having various governments foot the capital and security costs from the very beginning.

Part of that is not the fault of the bid committee and is simply a product of the fact that Boston has few existing venues. (Or at least few of the big venues.) That in turn does not reflect well on the USOC, though, for failing to see past Boston 2024's the smoke and mirrors.

Compare Boston's situation to that of Paris, where we don't even need to see their plan to know most of what they will be doing.

[woohooitsme83]

Hey, Quincy is totally walkable from the Boston Common. Idk what you guys are talking about, 3 hours is do-able

[stryker]

More changes. Handball at the DCU Center in Worcester (that will be a traffic nightmare). Archery at Harvard Stadium?! No replacement venue for field hockey yet but I would bet on Nickerson Field at Boston University. The Conte Forum at Boston College will host wrestling and judo. Matthews Arena at Northeastern will host weightlifting. Boxing, volleyball, table tennis, and taekwondo would be held at the BCEC. Fencing would be held at the Paul Tsongas Arena in Lowell. Kayaking would be held on the Deerfield River.

[baron-pierreIV]

Unless the Paris bid folds, all those Boston 2024 changes ain't gonna matter sh*t come September 2017.

[FYI]

^exactly. That's assuming Boston is still around by then, too.

[stryker]

Very interesting read here from the Boston Globe. The revised bid will be revealed on June 30th and while the USOC is supportive of the changes, what's notable here is the USOC is finally noting that they need to see a boost in public support for the bid, in particular, by September. I interpret this as Boston has until then to get public support up for the revised bid or the USOC will drop the bid. If they indeed wait until September, that also says if Boston is dropped then there won't be a replacement. That's not a bad thing considering the uphill battle the USOC faces to land the Olympics in a race where Paris and Rome are in and Europe is a heavy favorite to land the Games.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/24/top-usoc-officials-review-new-boston-plans/Y2CAtwOaxb13vhurw7mbqL/story.html

[aquaman617]

More changes. Handball at the DCU Center in Worcester (that will be a traffic nightmare).

Not necessarily. Worcester's Union Station, with direct rail link to downtown Boston, is less than a 1/4 mile from DCU Center. Sure, there will be an uptick in traffic around events, but given that most handball fans will be from outside the US and given the option of a direct rail link or driving, how many of them do you think will be driving?

Overall, I think some of the moves are good (beach volleyball, volleyball, sailing), some not so good (fencing). I view this phase of the bid more about ginning up popular support statewide and getting various state politician$ on board in advance of the September deadline. I don't see these locations as being iron-clad choices before the IOC decision in 2017 (a few may change, as they always do as the final bid gets refined).

[cslopes54]

Perhaps this is what Boston needs to do now. "Some moves are good, some not so good" It starting to sound more of a realistic plan; and perhaps there'll be a greater public support with venues spread out and bringing infrastructure into surrounding areas. Worcester to Boston is a 45 min(the farthest venue so far)drive I honestly dont think its that bad.

[Quaker2001]

Not necessarily. Worcester's Union Station, with direct rail link to downtown Boston, is less than a 1/4 mile from DCU Center. Sure, there will be an uptick in traffic around events, but given that most handball fans will be from outside the US and given the option of a direct rail link or driving, how many of them do you think will be driving?

Overall, I think some of the moves are good (beach volleyball, volleyball, sailing), some not so good (fencing). I view this phase of the bid more about ginning up popular support statewide and getting various state politician$ on board in advance of the September deadline. I don't see these locations as being iron-clad choices before the IOC decision in 2017 (a few may change, as they always do as the final bid gets refined).

Perhaps this is what Boston needs to do now. "Some moves are good, some not so good" It starting to sound more of a realistic plan; and perhaps there'll be a greater public support with venues spread out and bringing infrastructure into surrounding areas. Worcester to Boston is a 45 min(the farthest venue so far)drive I honestly dont think its that bad.

Again though, it begs the question.. all these changes that they're making in an effort to gain support, do they make the bid better or worse in the eyes of the IOC? I tend to think it's the latter.

Let's be fair about 1 thing here though. What Boston's bid was to start will not matter to the IOC. It's not something they will take into consideration. That's only fodder for us and we all know we'll be dissecting and discussing it that way because that's what we do. So someone here who makes the argument "well, it used to be a walkable Olympics, but now it's more spread out", that's irrelevant. Boston needs to find a balance between what's good for them and what could get them elected, Paris (and now Rome) notwithstanding. Maybe Agenda 2020 will make these changes more appealing. I have no doubts though.

Good for a rail link to Worcester. It's an hour (more if you're taking the train) outside of Boston. That's an awful lot of athletes and spectators that are involved with that. If the Boston organizers perceive this as a good solution, perhaps it says something there aren't enough areas in or near Boston proper that their solution is an hour away.

[WarpedReality]

Good for a rail link to Worcester. It's an hour (more if you're taking the train) outside of Boston.

I think we can assume that a special train will be run nonstop to Worcester similar to the special trains to Foxborough for the Patriots and Revs. The Lakeshore Limited does the trip in 63 minutes. It would probably be exactly an hour if the stop in Framingham were omitted.

Are the bid supporters compromising what they hoped to offer the IOC? Of course, but if the IOC were merely interested in a gold-plated games they would select Paris over any American city apart from New York. Boston 2024's challenge is to create an the leanest games that still satisfies the minimum requirements. Thus far, they are on the correct path, but the biggest hurdles remain outstanding (velodrome, athletics stadium).

What is the most intriguing is the fact that Rich Davey stated on the radio this week that endorsed Evan Falchuk's proposed ballot question that would preclude commonwealth tax dollars from funding anything other than transportation infrastructure related to the Olympics.

[FYI]

The thing is, as far as readiness is concerned, Paris' bid is anything but "gold-plated". They already have most of the facilities in place. In that aspect, Boston is the one that needs the most shiny, new venues in to be built, including the main stadium.

If the bid ain't good enough, is doesn't matter what U.S. city it is. As we saw with 2012, even New York City couldn't cut the mustard against Paris & London. And by the looks of things again, we're gonna have four European cities against one U.S. city that doesn't have it's act together again. In comparison, New York 2012 had most of its house in order in comparison, & they're support numbers were stronger & it still wasn't enough. So much less for Boston in this really.

[Usa2024olympics]

I guess Americans do want the Olympics but once it gets closer to us, we tend to shy away.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-olympics-united-states-20150628-story.html

[woohooitsme83]

I guess Americans do want the Olympics but once it gets closer to us, we tend to shy away.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-olympics-united-states-20150628-story.html

Well, who doesn't want the Olympics on home turf? It's just that I don't feel that Boston should represent after the hot mess that it's in now. (Or maybe I'm just biased and bitter?)

[Roger87]

Well, who doesn't want the Olympics on home turf? It's just that I don't feel that Boston should represent after the hot mess that it's in now. (Or maybe I'm just biased and bitter?)

Not. It's understandable that reaction. Boston bid is a full Titanic Sinking.

[WarpedReality]

If it's not just Bostonians, but all Americans who are wary of hosting the Olympic, it suggests that LA would not fair any better in the current political climate.

[FYI]

Maybe, maybe not. However, out of all the alpha U.S. cities that could win over the IOC, L.A. was/is always the one that was in a better position to do so, mostly due to the fact that they have virtually all the facilities & infrastructure in place. Would've meant less work & money to pull it off. Contrast that to all the work & headache that it would've meant for Chicago 2016 & Boston 2024, it's no wonder the populance in those areas were/leery. So if Los Angeles were next to falter, that means no U.S. Olympics (at least Summer ones anyway) anywhere in the near-term.

[WarpedReality]

FYI,

It is precisely my fear that it is no longer feasible to host the Olympics in the USA.

[Quaker2001]

I guess Americans do want the Olympics but once it gets closer to us, we tend to shy away.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-olympics-united-states-20150628-story.html

Americans like the idea of hosting an Olympics. We don't like the idea of being on the hook for paying for it.

Maybe, maybe not. However, out of all the alpha U.S. cities that could win over the IOC, L.A. was/is always the one that was in a better position to do so, mostly due to the fact that they have virtually all the facilities & infrastructure in place. Would've meant less work & money to pull it off. Contrast that to all the work & headache that it would've meant for Chicago 2016 & Boston 2024, it's no wonder the populance in those areas were/leery. So if Los Angeles were next to falter, that means no U.S. Olympics (at least Summer ones anyway) anywhere in the near-term.

FYI,

It is precisely my fear that it is no longer feasible to host the Olympics in the USA.

It's feasible, it just needs to be a city and a bid in the right time and place. Boston and 2024 is not it. Their sell was that they have a bunch of infrastructure projects in progress, so why not slip an Olympics in there. Oh yea, and we want to build a $350 million temporary stadium. The irony is that of the 3 recent Olympic bids, it was New York - in spite of the collapse of the West Side Stadium project - that probably offered the best plan. But the timing was all wrong and obviously the competition was about as strong as it would get.

There's a line of thinking for Los Angeles that they restored faith in the Olympic movement back in 1984 and they could do it again when it's desperately needed. Certainly it's not that simple, but they're in a better position to do so than virtually any other city in the country. Maybe at some point the USOC needs to acknowledge this and give them a shot. The irony is that if they keep putting forward other cities, eventually they may wind up with LA as their pick anyway and by the time they do, the odds of a US city winning will be stronger than they ever were with New York, Chicago, or Boston.

[FYI]

FYI,

It is precisely my fear that it is no longer feasible to host the Olympics in the USA.

I meant that though, in reference to public support (in L.A.'s case), which seems to be what you were getting at about at with that article.

Like I said earlier, out of all the U.S. major cities, L.A. is in the best position to have gone with a bid due to it's existing positives. The city could've handed it, public opinion aside. Again, the same really can't be said of Boston, Chicago or any other major U.S. city ATM, considering all of the other major obstacles that they would have to overcome first. Something that L.A. Is very much ahead in that category.