Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Well I do remember seeing an article a while back titled "what if LA had gotten chosen" or something like that, and it suggests that support would've been around the 80% mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI,

If public opinion is unfavorable, then the Olympics are not feasible. The recent poll shows that opposition to hosting the Olympics is not much different in the rest of the country from what it is in Boston.

LA's advantage is that it has some preexisting venues that can dramatically decrease the cost. However, an LA Olympics will still be a multi-billion dollar endeavor. Taxpayers would still exposed to the financial risks entailed, so this advantage is a bit overrated. LA may have another advantage because it has successfully hosted the games in living memory, thereby earning the public's trust to keep its promises. However, until I see a poll showing California taxpayers willing to chuck money at an Olympics, I will continue to regard LA as an even more inferior candidate than Boston.

Quaker2001,

Despite the serious missteps by the leaders of Boston 2024, I still think the time is still ripe for an Olympics there. It's not just because of a few coincidental infrastructure projects, but there are some massive land use changes occurring over the next decade. Firstly, UMass Boston is transitioning from being a commuter school to a residential university, which entails a mass expansion in student housing. This has made the construction of an Olympic Village at Columbia Point a fabulous idea. Student dormitories are the perfect legacy for athlete housing. Secondly, CSX has recently left the Beacon Park railyard in Allston. That is a massive parcel of land near the athletic facilities for Harvard with BU not too far away either. A perfect place for locating venues. Lastly, the Revolution are itching for an urban stadium and would be the second best legacy for an Olympic stadium after an NFL team. All this pairs well with major transportation infrastructure plans featured in every city planning document: The expansion of South Station into an adjacent area currently occupied by a USPS facility and the development of DMU rapid transit along the Framingham and Fairmount commuter rail lines. An extremely ambitious mayor would dare pair the 2024 Olympics with a North-South Rail-link, but that would be icing on the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I do remember seeing an article a while back titled "what if LA had gotten chosen" or something like that, and it suggests that support would've been around the 80% mark.

I searched for, but cannot find the article to which you refer. If you find, I would appreciate it if you shared it. What I do know is that Eric Garcetti and the LA 2024 boosters kept a much lower profile than Marty Walsh and Boston 2024 did. Perhaps this was done to save his political future if it blew up in his face? I don't know. Regardless, Angelenos were never exposed to the same degree of media attention that Boston got so we will never know exactly how they would fare if chose by the USOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I searched for, but cannot find the article to which you refer. If you find, I would appreciate it if you shared it. What I do know is that Eric Garcetti and the LA 2024 boosters kept a much lower profile than Marty Walsh and Boston 2024 did. Perhaps this was done to save his political future if it blew up in his face? I don't know. Regardless, Angelenos were never exposed to the same degree of media attention that Boston got so we will never know exactly how they would fare if chose by the USOC.

I've looked too. It might've been in LA curbed or something. Also could've been along the lines of "should LA replace Boston", but I've given up.

Here are Bostons new plans! https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/29/boston-unveils-ambitious-new-olympics-plan/jfVx6cejFvsKS2ccqbcQ0K/story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the serious missteps by the leaders of Boston 2024, I still think the time is still ripe for an Olympics there. It's not just because of a few coincidental infrastructure projects, but there are some massive land use changes occurring over the next decade. Firstly, UMass Boston is transitioning from being a commuter school to a residential university, which entails a mass expansion in student housing. This has made the construction of an Olympic Village at Columbia Point a fabulous idea. Student dormitories are the perfect legacy for athlete housing. Secondly, CSX has recently left the Beacon Park railyard in Allston. That is a massive parcel of land near the athletic facilities for Harvard with BU not too far away either. A perfect place for locating venues. Lastly, the Revolution are itching for an urban stadium and would be the second best legacy for an Olympic stadium after an NFL team. All this pairs well with major transportation infrastructure plans featured in every city planning document: The expansion of South Station into an adjacent area currently occupied by a USPS facility and the development of DMU rapid transit along the Framingham and Fairmount commuter rail lines. An extremely ambitious mayor would dare pair the 2024 Olympics with a North-South Rail-link, but that would be icing on the cake.

Very serious missteps. So I don't know how easily we can play the "what if these bid leaders were actually competent" game and look at that hypothetical. Maybe it says something about how all this has played out how ripe Boston is for an Olympics. The public support is simply not there. We don't know for sure what it would have been in LA, but I still like the odds better there than I would from Boston for all the reasons we've discussed in the past 215 pages of this thread. You say that UMass and BU and Harvard could use these facilities. Guess what.. USC and UCLA already have a lot of these facilities. As you said, the Olympics are a multi-billion endeavor, so maybe it's not such a bad thing to have these elements in place, particularly where it doesn't require a temporary pop-up stadium.

And as for the Revolution, we've brought this up before. It would be a great legacy for them to move into Boston proper as part of a new stadium build. But, remember that the team is owned by Robert Kraft. Playing in a stadium owned outright by Robert Kraft. In an area that Kraft is trying to develop, remote as it may be. So the question of ownership comes into play if the team were to move. Who owns the stadium? Who is paying for it? It is worth moving from Foxboro to Boston if they're playing in a stadium not purposely designed for them and where they are a tenant who has to pay rent?

Saying that Boston has a lot of infrastructure projects that work well alongside the Olympics is a misnomer. That was the argument with NYC 2012. And you know what was getting built around here then? Sports stadiums. And a lot of them. So to pile the Olympics on top of that would have been an easier sell. But bad timing and obviously the collapse of the West Side Stadium deal sunk it. That was a city ripe for an Olympics. Boston is not. I don't think it ever will be given the needs of the Olympics and a lack of existing venues to make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I do remember seeing an article a while back titled "what if LA had gotten chosen" or something like that, and it suggests that support would've been around the 80% mark.

Support for the Olympics in Los Angeles will be high as long as no local taxpayer money is used. If the host city contract is signed making the public liable for cost overruns I strongly suspect support will plummet just like Chicago's approval rating dropped after Mayor Daly signed the host contract agreement.

The basic view of California taxpayers is that they deserve services without paying taxes for them, which is how the state nearly went bankrupt in the first place.

Secondly, CSX has recently left the Beacon Park railyard in Allston. That is a massive parcel of land near the athletic facilities for Harvard with BU not too far away either. A perfect place for locating venues.

Lastly, the Revolution are itching for an urban stadium and would be the second best legacy for an Olympic stadium after an NFL team.

The impracticality of all this stuff has been discussed before.

1) Delaying development of post-industrial facilities for the sake of hosting an Olympics is not economically sound. No private developer is going to want to buy the land and then wait seven years to start construction on their own project. This is only viable if it done by the government as happened in London, which means using taxpayer money.

2) Converting an athletics stadium to an MLS stadium is going to be more expensive than building a temporary Olympic stadium and a separate football/soccer stadium. Look at what has happened in London with their stadium. The cost of conversion is estimated at the equivalent of $400 million dollars. The cost of the most luxurious new MLS stadiums is roughly $200 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I hear, LA's getting a new soccer team based in a new stadium that is replacing the old sports center in Exposition Park. The preliminary plans for LA had the aquatics center (former sports center) be converted into a soccer stadium! So yeah, that's LA's version of Boston's Revolution stadium ordeal. Sorry for hijaking the thread >.< (Maybe the team has some inside information? hehe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meet Boston 2.0 and the new concept. For all the times we've talked about having a couple of venues outside the compact core for an Olympics, this is a little more than a couple of venues. Not coming football and the TBD golf venue, I count no less than 9 sports outside of Boston.

Boston 2024 releases Olympic bid version 2.0 (photos)

boston-2024.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston 2.0... You've got handball, shooting, fencing and Taekwondo as the real movers. The boating events were never going to be in Boston (and aren't traditionally in the host city) as well as football. Quincy isn't walkable, but is essentially Boston (it's on the subway line). Plus Rugby in Gillette.

Not awesome, but not terrible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boston 2.0... You've got handball, shooting, fencing and Taekwondo as the real movers. The boating events were never going to be in Boston (and aren't traditionally in the host city) as well as football. Quincy isn't walkable, but is essentially Boston (it's on the subway line). Plus Rugby in Gillette.

Not awesome, but not terrible.

Why do they even need to be out of the city limits anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do they even need to be out of the city limits anyway?

Because it will be cheaper to use preexisting venues (Tsongas Arena, DCU center, etc...)

They have 138 million budgeted for a 2 billion dollar insurance policy. I don't know if this is realistic. Regardless, there's no hope of popular support increasing until the ink is dry on an insurance contract that is large enough to safeguard the taxpayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The boating events were never going to be in Boston (and aren't traditionally in the host city) as well as football.

Umm, no. Sailing was INITIALLY slated for Boston Harbor. Which would've made for an outstanding backdrop! But noooo, they ruined that aspect now by planning it in New Bedford, simply for the sake of the state populance to perhaps accept the bid more.

And the next two Olympics are going to have the sailing venues right in the CITY (as well as some past Olympics).

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1025932/world-rowing-reacts-positively-to-confirmation-of-tokyo-2020-venue

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_da_Gloria

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agios_Kosmas_Olympic_Sailing_Centre

The only time the sailing venue isn't "traditionally" (which wouldn't be the right word for it in this instance) in the host city itself is when that particularly city it located (hundreds of) miles away from the coast (ie Atlanta, Beijing, London).

And soccer isn't even in the same category, when that IS *traditionally* farmed out to other cities based that the sport itself requires multiple, large stadiums that no one city ever has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And soccer isn't even in the same category, when that IS *traditionally* farmed out to other cities based that the sport itself requires multiple, large stadiums that no one city ever has.

London had more than enough stadiums to host football/soccer in the city. Rio does too. But it's an awful lot of tickets to flog in a marketplace that is already usually flooded with tickets for the low prestige sports, and it's a nice bone to throw to the other cities in the country that didn't get to host.

Personally I don't really understand why Americans are so obsessed with the idea of "bringing the games home." We've hosted a bunch of times before, and it's never a national rallying point the way it is in other countries. We don't want to be bothered with paying taxes to do the games the right way and end up stuck with a bunch of useless sporting venues that are not important in our country. The athletes have to say that they want the games at home for PR reasons, but does anyone really believe they would mind competing in Paris instead of Boston?

If a city like Los Angeles has most of the venues in place and can afford to do a good job of hosting then great. If not then it's very OK to skip bidding for a few cycles. Especially with anti-American sentiment still very high due to our missteps in the Middle East. To be honest I'd love to see the federal government declare that they will refuse to support an Olympic bid for three summer cycles. Then the USOC can begin to groom an eastern or midwest city (I would prefer Philly, but Chicago, Boston or NY would work too) to be a long term partner in developing infrastructure and a clear plan to avoid a repeat of the Boston 2024 mess.

I heard an interesting theory from a former Bostonian today: the original leaders of Boston 2024 are mostly property developers and construction people who want to develop Widgett Circle. He thinks they never expected to win the domestic bidding process, and were simply trying to use the bid to get the city to support their plan to develop the area. That's why they have a fully developed and funded plan for that one area, and did almost no preparatory work on the other stuff. It seems crazy, but it also seems to fit the facts.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't really understand why Americans are so obsessed with the idea of "bringing the games home." We've hosted a bunch of times before, and it's never a national rallying point the way it is in other countries. We don't want to be bothered with paying taxes to do the games the right way and end up stuck with a bunch of useless sporting venues that are not important in our country. The athletes have to say that they want the games at home for PR reasons, but does anyone really believe they would mind competing in Paris instead of Boston?

(Raises hand)

Yea, I believe that. Great Britain won 65 medals in London. That's more than double what they won in 2004 in Athens. China won 51 golds in Beijing, up from 32 the previous Olympics. And Greece has won 30 gold medals in their Summer Olympic history. 16 of those, more than half, we won in Greece-hosted Olympics. Don't know if it's the home crowds or what, but yes, athletes aren't just saying they want a home Olympics to say it. Yes, most American athletes would much rather compete in Boston than Paris.

If a city like Los Angeles has most of the venues in place and can afford to do a good job of hosting then great. If not then it's very OK to skip bidding for a few cycles. Especially with anti-American sentiment still very high due to our missteps in the Middle East. To be honest I'd love to see the federal government declare that they will refuse to support an Olympic bid for three summer cycles. Then the USOC can begin to groom an eastern or midwest city (I would prefer Philly, but Chicago, Boston or NY would work too) to be a long term partner in developing infrastructure and a clear plan to avoid a repeat of the Boston 2024 mess.

This goes back to what I keep saying.. the USOC needs to find a city in the right time and place if they're going to bid. Boston and 2024 does not seem like it. The USOC felt differently and they're going for it, but we're seeing where that effort it so far. It would be nice for them to find a long-term partner, but again, how do you ask a city to put together a plan for an Olympics that makes sense for both the purposes of trying to woo the IOC and what's in the best interests of the city AND to put that on hold for 4 years if the IOC selects another city as host. That's a nearly impossible task to accomplish.

I heard an interesting theory from a former Bostonian today: the original leaders of Boston 2024 are mostly property developers and construction people who want to develop Widgett Circle. He thinks they never expected to win the domestic bidding process, and were simply trying to use the bid to get the city to support their plan to develop the area. That's why they have a fully developed and funded plan for that one area, and did almost no preparatory work on the other stuff. It seems crazy, but it also seems to fit the facts.

You also heard that theory from me. I've been saying that for a while now. And the irony is that the plans for Widett Circle are contingent on acquiring the land and that may prove more difficult there than anywhere else in the Olympic plans. I said it from the start it seemed a little fishy (pun totally intended) that he leader of the bid was a big time real estate developer. Seems like those types would benefit more from an Olympics than your average Joe citizen, so it's not really a shocker when some of those folks are the ones who are balking at an Olympic bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, no. Sailing was INITIALLY slated for Boston Harbor. Which would've made for an outstanding backdrop! But noooo, they ruined that aspect now by planning it in New Bedford, simply for the sake of the state populance to perhaps accept the bid more.

Boston Harbor was in the initial bid document to the USOC, however, it doesn't get the same wind that the area down around New Bedford gets. Sailing events in Boston might have had a pretty backdrop, but could have sucked from a competition standpoint.

Of all the 2.0 plans, moving sailing is one of the least troublesome for me. I'd like to see them nail the velodrome and aquatics center locations. And I don't understand how gymnastics and basketball can share an arena. I could see using TD Garden for gymnastics the first week and a half, then bringing the basketball medal rounds in on the last few days, but I don't see how they can share a venue for the duration of the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also heard that theory from me. I've been saying that for a while now. And the irony is that the plans for Widett Circle are contingent on acquiring the land and that may prove more difficult there than anywhere else in the Olympic plans. I said it from the start it seemed a little fishy (pun totally intended) that he leader of the bid was a big time real estate developer. Seems like those types would benefit more from an Olympics than your average Joe citizen, so it's not really a shocker when some of those folks are the ones who are balking at an Olympic bid.

I think the Boston group took its cue from Atlanta. The first co-president of the Atlanta bid group was the CEO of (am too lazy to go to my books; have been doing so much research already for another subject) of Cousins Properties. And then Billy Payne was actually a real estate lawyer. So, yes, real estate developers will be involved somehow especially in putting together an Olympic village (not unless a university will provide that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

London had more than enough stadiums to host football/soccer in the city. Rio does too. But it's an awful lot of tickets to flog in a marketplace that is already usually flooded with tickets for the low prestige sports, and it's a nice bone to throw to the other cities in the country that didn't get to host.

That's spliting hairs, though, isn't it. Perhaps it helps in their cases bcuz they're both, large soccer-mad countries, & in their respective largest cities, especially in London's case. But that still doesn't make any bit of difference, nor helps, in cities like Boston or Atlanta.

Boston Harbor was in the initial bid document to the USOC, however, it doesn't get the same wind that the area down around New Bedford gets. Sailing events in Boston might have had a pretty backdrop, but could have sucked from a competition standpoint.

That may be so, but Boston harbor was intially chosen for a reason. And I was merely countering the point that sailing is not always flung out from the host city. Considering how Boston is likely to compete with some of the top European cites, (not to mention the real reason why several of these venues are being moved in the first place), they need all the help they can get with all those pretty renders to woo-over the IOC. They could've afterall, done the "bait-&-switch" with the sailing venue AFTER they perhaps won the Games like some cities have been doing as of late. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Raises hand)

Yea, I believe that. Great Britain won 65 medals in London. That's more than double what they won in 2004 in Athens. China won 51 golds in Beijing, up from 32 the previous Olympics. And Greece has won 30 gold medals in their Summer Olympic history. 16 of those, more than half, we won in Greece-hosted Olympics. Don't know if it's the home crowds or what, but yes, athletes aren't just saying they want a home Olympics to say it. Yes, most American athletes would much rather compete in Boston than Paris.

I never cared where I was competing when I ran the 800m and played basketball in high school. Even at that level you tune out everything but the track/court/field/whatever and your competitors. But high school and the Olympics are obviously very different and it's certainly possible I'm wrong. I am not a very social or emotional person, and people who are may experience the crowd differently.

I suspect that the better results for hosts is mostly due to a spike in funding for sports and the crowd's influence on judges, but I have no actual proof of that.

This goes back to what I keep saying.. the USOC needs to find a city in the right time and place if they're going to bid. Boston and 2024 does not seem like it. The USOC felt differently and they're going for it, but we're seeing where that effort it so far. It would be nice for them to find a long-term partner, but again, how do you ask a city to put together a plan for an Olympics that makes sense for both the purposes of trying to woo the IOC and what's in the best interests of the city AND to put that on hold for 4 years if the IOC selects another city as host. That's a nearly impossible task to accomplish.

It doesn't if it is a temporary project on privately owned land. It does if it is a long term partnership, particularly with public land or a public institution. Consider Los Angeles' situation with USC and their stadium. The stadium is available for any Olympic cycle that LA needs it. A city and state can also reach an agreement over the use of things like dorm rooms with a public university.

The lack of a large public university is a huge blow to Boston. (Which you know, of course. I don't mean to imply otherwise.) A city like Philadelphia with two medium sized public universities is almost a necessity for an Olympics in this country. It's the only plausible way for a city to have permanent venues and infrastructure in place with a sound legacy and also rights of use.

It's a bit ironic that the private sector gets all the credit for LA 84 when the public sector was responsible for providing most of the big ticket existing venues. I think that might be misleading some people in the public. (Not you, Quaker, but the man on the street.) Atlanta is a better example of a privately funded games, and that was not nearly as successful.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never cared where I was competing when I ran the 800m and played basketball in high school. Even at that level you tune out everything but the track/court/field/whatever and your competitors. But high school and the Olympics are obviously very different and it's certainly possible I'm wrong. I am not a very social or emotional person, and people who are may experience the crowd differently.

Cathy Freeman 2000

Konstantinos Kenteris 2004

Liu Xiang 2008

Mo Farah 2012

Tried to mix in some success stories with failures there, but I think you get the idea. You'll be hard pressed to convince me that the venue made no difference for any of those athletes, particularly Freeman who took a victory lap with both the Australian and Aboriginal flags. Those were bigger stories because it was in front of the home crowd and they are bigger names and bigger stories because of it. So yea, very possible that you're wrong on this one. I know I'm cherry picking the biggest names here, but I could find you some lesser names in plenty of sports whose wins were much bigger because they were in front of the home crowd.

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...