Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The host city needs to be a destination that others from all around the world would want to attend. Familes in London, Netherlands, Australia, etc aren't going to travel all the way to the U.S.A. to visit Tusla OK or Dallas Texas, I'm sorry. Those cities don't tell a story. Their endless amounts of open land doesn't make them international destinations.

Boston has history, culture and can tell that story. It's an international destination and the world would embrace a Summer Games in our city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying my best to figure out how many hotel rooms are in Boston. I've got a decade old figure of 15k, and a year old article of 4k under construction/planned. I know, first hand, that there are hotels newer than 2001, so lets just set the upper estimate at (including under construction) under 25k. Those figures are for the city proper, not including the various other municipalities that have been conglomerated into Boston. Of the ones with convenient transit access to the city, Newton, Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, Revere, and Quincy have a substantial total. Possibly enough to bring the number up to 45k already, I'm not sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the MCCA, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, Boston currently has over 35,000 hotel rooms with more than 6,000 new ones on their way. In 12 years from now and a bustling new South Boston waterfront, I could only guestimate that our hotel totals would be up to 45-50,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the MCCA, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, Boston currently has over 35,000 hotel rooms with more than 6,000 new ones on their way. In 12 years from now and a bustling new South Boston waterfront, I could only guestimate that our hotel totals would be up to 45-50,000.

Got a link handy? (I couldn't find anything easily on their website) And is that within the city limits, I presume? If so, then not only will Greater Boston have enough, they'll be well over, by the time 2024 rolls around, regardless of the Games themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MCAA Annual Report (2010):

http://www.massconvention.com/download/annual_reports/MCCA%20Annual%20Report_0606.pdf

MCAA:

HISTORY, CULTURE, CUISINE, AND ENTERTAINMENT... BOSTON HAS IT ALL.

http://www.massconvention.com/visiting.html

I couldn't find any single reference to the total number of rooms available, though the list of events by # of rooms booked is fairly illustrative. In 2010, the city apparently had no difficult in hosting events that required anywhere from 5k to 41k hotel rooms, and, honestly, I don't think most residents ever even noticed. So, the hotel room matter seems to be fairly under control.

What quality is expected for the accommodations for the athletes themselves? Would college suit style buildings be sufficient (or even dorm style)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading into this topic a bit and you all make very intreging arguments both for and against Boston's bid and they are all very convincing. Your all bringing up valid points. Some of you from miles away from the "Hub" and from some of you right down the street from Beacon hill. I will say this there are multiple factors at play here in 2024.


-The USOC is coming off of a deal with the IOC over copyright rights which hindered New York and Chicago from even getting out of the starting blocks, and i believe that really played a major factor in that decision.
-Currently The IOC seems to be leaning towards a "unkown gem" status. They seem to be over the hype and expensive of the games taking place in huge metropolis's like London, Athens and Beijing. Sochi 2014, seemed to be the turning point in the IOC's focus of finding Unkown cities that were using the Olympics as a springboard *Cough* Barcelona-nomics much *Cough*. With Rio, and then Pyongchang all using their games as spring boards into international acclaim. With that being said, if Istanbul is chosen over Tokyo; it would almost be safe to say that any bid from a country or city with little to no Olympic strong Olympic history could host (It wouldn't shock me if Lisbon or Panama City threw their hat into the ring). So we shall see...

-The USOC i believe is trying to find a host that going to be an obvious choice for 2024, they're decision to not bid in 2020 was not a suprise, a country coming out of a recession and a country already upset with over spending doesn't exactly say "Olympic Host CIty".

That being said in the overall scale of the IOC and where they may be heading, here are some things to consider with a Boston bid.

-Transportation: Any Bostonian will tell you that the T is a double edged sword. It serves the city well and it's flawless to traverse from the suburbs of Allston into the heart of Downtown in less than 30 minutes. The kicker here is how this compact tight system might not be able to handle the crowds, try getting onto the T after a Red Sox Game gets out. Now take that idea and Amplify it to 25 Venues across the city and you have possibly one of the biggest logistical nightmares imaginable. The T will have to have some major upgrades in service and possibly more lines if they are even to consider pulling off such a logistical feat.
-Funding: The Commonwealth is one of the most advanced states in the country in terms of health care, public services and education. But this all comes at a very pretty penny and at times Massachusetts is referred to as "Taxachusetts". That being said, trying to convince the taxpayers that an increase in taxes in order to afford needed upgrades in order to host an international sporting event is a necesary expense. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it wont be easy. Your ganna have to convince the people of Cape Cod, The Berkshires and the North and South Shores that this is going to benefit them in the long run.
-Venues: Although it may seem plentiful right now, you have to remember that there are multiple events taking place all at the same time with multitudes of sports. Not to say that the numerous state and local colleges around the hub of Boston (BC, BU, NE, MIT, HVD) wouldn't be able to house these sports. But at what cost? Will they be as willing as Georgia tech was in Atlanta or will the price be prohibitively too expensive? It's far to early to tell.
-The Legacy: Boston is a city of thinkers, innovaters and progressiveists. I think that the games of Boston will not only be about the past and how the Hub became the "Athens of America" but how the dumping of tea in Boston Harbor and how the Olympic movement of today are somehow connected. It wont be a hard task to accomplish and convince the IOC. If anything Boston seems like the only Viable contender. (I'm sorry, i don't see how Philidelphia, Detroit, San Fran, Los Angeles or New York have much to offer.). Will Boston be able to compete with the Likes of Durban, Osaka, Lisbon or Jakarta? That remains a mystery to be seen.

Overall i'm putting my support behind Boston as the best shot the USOC has at securing the games. Boston is a classical love story of innovation and Progression meeting the love of Sport. But i believe that Boston needs the parameters down before they even get to the big show of the IOC.
Boston needs:
-A clear idea of venues, stadium and locales. In writing. No possibilities, but rather Guarantees that the games will have an Olympic Stadium and so on.
-Support from the citizens.
-A real look at how to upgrade the Transportation situation in Boston.
-A clear direction, and goal.

Just my thoughts guys. Sorry for any spelling mistakes! It's a bit late.
If there are any other Bostonians out there i wanna hear what you think Boston Needs to do to Guarantee the games. There is always room for progress and the more ideas we throw out there the deeper and more complex we can get with this topic. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having too much fun playing Sim City Olympics with this idea...

http://binged.it/UG5q2y

I base the capacities of my various Village Residences on Northeastern University's International Village, which houses 1200 students in a 50,000 sq ft footprint, while still leaving the first floors available for non-housing uses (dining halls during the games, most likely, possibly mixed uses afterward). All are placed near subway stops, most are near universities, and I think only one of my buildings calls for the demolition of any existing building (there's a lot of below-grade highway and train tracks in Boston, just begging to be decked over). I operated under the assumption that all the universities will refuse to allow athletes to be housed on their campuses, requiring all new construction (as a worst case scenario).

Anyway, this comes out to 16,400 beds, which is close enough for me before I go to bed (I rounded every building's capacity down to the nearest hundred anyway, so the actual capacity there would likely be greater). I also personally prefer for the village to be dispersed through the city, so that no one area is full of monumental residential buildings.

What do people think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maritime Kid, you have some interesting ideas. As of now, I can't say that I agree that Boston is the US' best hope. Nor do I think that Boston (or any US city) is likely to meet the IOC's "unknown gem" criteria as you describe it. The IOC clearly wants spectacular Games that tell a story and make a meaningful human connection. I think they will expect the very best the US has to offer and will be unlikely to vote for a bid that seems at all "second-tier". Boston has to convince them that it belongs in a race with the likes of Paris, Durban, et al. We'll see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston is a very unfriendly city, unless you are form there or the north east.

I't really a bore.

Elitist liberals are the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maritime Kid: (I'm sorry, i don't see how Philidelphia, Detroit, San Fran, Los Angeles or New York have much to offer.).


Oh really.......nice job Boston. But you'll welcome the world....riiiiiiiight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone here (and by anyone, I'm really talking about the regulars.. you know, those who were posting here before there was a Boston thread) find it odd that in a little over a month, we've spawned a 22-page thread on Boston and by my rough count, there are at 5 or 6 people who joined GB specifically to discuss Boston, several of which went into very lengthy posts discussing the virtues of a Boston bid. Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but when I see someone come on here and say that San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York don't have much to offer, something just doesn't quite seem right.

To all of the new posters here.. Boston2024, boston_2024, TeamRik, ChrisValentine, and now MaritimeKid (am I missing anyone else here?), I admire the passion for the city of Boston and how they would make a good Olympic host. But let's tone it down here a bit, shall we? We know a potential Boston organizing committee would have to play to some of these things, but let's not make it out to seem like Boston is God's gift to the Olympic movement and that other cities are crap by comparison

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading into this topic a bit and you all make very intreging arguments both for and against Boston's bid and they are all very convincing. Your all bringing up valid points. Some of you from miles away from the "Hub" and from some of you right down the street from Beacon hill. I will say this there are multiple factors at play here in 2024.

-The USOC is coming off of a deal with the IOC over copyright rights which hindered New York and Chicago from even getting out of the starting blocks, and i believe that really played a major factor in that decision.

-Currently The IOC seems to be leaning towards a "unkown gem" status. They seem to be over the hype and expensive of the games taking place in huge metropolis's like London, Athens and Beijing. Sochi 2014, seemed to be the turning point in the IOC's focus of finding Unkown cities that were using the Olympics as a springboard

Some good points in your post, but I want take issue with this one. I see absolutely no evidence for the IOC being "over" taking the Games to huge cities, and if anything I'd argue the opposite seems to be happening and countries seem to be taking the hint that the IOC won't settle for second-best. We need to first separate the Summer and Winter Games because their requirements are so different.

Assuming we're talking about the Summer Games we have:

Beijing - pop. 20m

London - pop. 9m

Rio - pop. 6m

And assuming we're going with conventional wisdom and ruling out Madrid for 2020, as so many seem to be doing, we're looking at either Istanbul or Tokyo for 2020, populations 13m and 30m respectively.

Countries have taken the hint and more or less stopped bidding with smaller cities. Manchester, Birmingham, Leipzig, Lille, Osaka all proving to be dead ends and their nations putting forward London, Paris, Tokyo and quite possibly Berlin instead.

The IOC is not looking for "unknown gems" so much as it's exploring new frontiers - continents it's never been to before. If South Africa had a metropolis comparable to London or Paris do you think we'd be talking about Durban now? I don't. Durba's big selling point is that it's in a new frontier nation, not that it's an unknown gem.

And Rio's hardly an unknown gem either. But it is a new frontier.

London and Beijing provided record profits, record ticket sales, merchandise sales, sponsorship for the IOC. They might be forced in the future to go smaller for the Summer Games if the big hitters aren't there. But I see no appetite for smaller cities or "unknown gems" as far as the Summer Games goes. Boston cannot think otherwise, or else it'll be making a very hard job all the harder for itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading into this topic a bit and you all make very intreging arguments both for and against Boston's bid and they are all very convincing. Your all bringing up valid points. Some of you from miles away from the "Hub" and from some of you right down the street from Beacon hill. I will say this there are multiple factors at play here in 2024.

Overall i'm putting my support behind Boston as the best shot the USOC has at securing the games. Boston is a classical love story of innovation and Progression meeting the love of Sport. But i believe that Boston needs the parameters down before they even get to the big show of the IOC.

Well said sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone here (and by anyone, I'm really talking about the regulars.. you know, those who were posting here before there was a Boston thread) find it odd that in a little over a month, we've spawned a 22-page thread on Boston and by my rough count, there are at 5 or 6 people who joined GB specifically to discuss Boston, several of which went into very lengthy posts discussing the virtues of a Boston bid. Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but when I see someone come on here and say that San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York don't have much to offer, something just doesn't quite seem right.

To all of the new posters here.. Boston2024, boston_2024, TeamRik, ChrisValentine, and now MaritimeKid (am I missing anyone else here?), I admire the passion for the city of Boston and how they would make a good Olympic host. But let's tone it down here a bit, shall we? We know a potential Boston organizing committee would have to play to some of these things, but let's not make it out to seem like Boston is God's gift to the Olympic movement and that other cities are crap by comparison

I don't think anyone posting on here has shot down any other city in comparison. I would love if ANY city in the U.S. can play host to an event of this magnitude in our near future. We don't think Boston is God's gift to anything but we are very proud of our city and what it has to offer. Any resident should have pride in the city in which they live.

Other cities I would love to see pitch for a games would be Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, Austin, Miami and Chicago even though they just announced they weren't going to bid again. I think any viable city in our nation should lay the groundwork and conduct a feasibility study to really see who has the best shot.

Boston's not perfect in every way and it has it's share of problems like any other U.S. city. The Olympics give that city a chance to reinvent itself and in theory, make it even better than it was before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone here (and by anyone, I'm really talking about the regulars.. you know, those who were posting here before there was a Boston thread) find it odd that in a little over a month, we've spawned a 22-page thread on Boston and by my rough count, there are at 5 or 6 people who joined GB specifically to discuss Boston, several of which went into very lengthy posts discussing the virtues of a Boston bid. Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but when I see someone come on here and say that San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York don't have much to offer, something just doesn't quite seem right.

To all of the new posters here.. Boston2024, boston_2024, TeamRik, ChrisValentine, and now MaritimeKid (am I missing anyone else here?), I admire the passion for the city of Boston and how they would make a good Olympic host. But let's tone it down here a bit, shall we? We know a potential Boston organizing committee would have to play to some of these things, but let's not make it out to seem like Boston is God's gift to the Olympic movement and that other cities are crap by comparison

Woah, Slow down. Listen Conspiracy theorist. Relax. :lol: there are no ills will being intended by myself. The others i don't know. This dicussion and topic had peaked my interest as it was being discussed by a local group of mine and the opinions were being high flung. I wanted to research the topic and came across this thread and decided to imput my two cents. thats all. :lol: Understand that my opinions are just that; opinions. I'm not an expert on the topic or have any real expert knowledge to add to the conversation. But i did want to discuss the idea with other individuals and thats why i'm here. Don't get me wrong. You guys are really freaking good at playing devils advocate and whatnot and i think that needs to be very much apart of the conversation.

RobH: i agree with you about that. my opinion about the "Unkown Gems" theory is just that a Theory. I'm just making speculation but you have to remember that RIo wasn't exactly the front runner and i remember peoples shock at such a win. Especially when other more optimal bid options were on the table. There are probably some clear politics at play in the chambers of the IOC but again thats just opinion.

Populataion numbers are a funny thing to talk about so it's really hard to pinpoint exact numbers for these things. Boston City Proper is only home to 48 square miles and 676,000 People. I'm barely talking about third tier cities in China in this case but the true "Metro Boston" area contains 7.6 Million people, a bit more than rio as you stated above. I think discussing population numbers are a bit unessasary and a brash way of truely estimating a citys capacity. You also have to remember that Boston has a huge issue in terms of population with the "College Effect". The city has multiple apartments and locales and our population swells at the beginning of each new Semester. So it's really difficult to nail a true "Population Capacity" with Boston as it fluctuates so frequently.

True, The NOC's are looking at their possibilities and i agree they are choosing to rule out smaller cities in an attempt to really nail the bids. But i believe that the USOC is really shying away from Chicago and New York as options because i think the failings of the past are what they are considering here and it being almost 28 years after Atlanta, the USOC i think is going to try and pour their heart and soul into actually winning this time around. Will that include Boston in the mix? i think it would be to early for anyone to speculate at this point. I don't think that any other city in the USOC shortlist at current will have the backing financially from the numerous colleges that would view this as a perfect excuse to use endowment and ask for more from their alumni. :lol:

The dicussion of "Where would the Olympic Stadium be built" Has also been thrown around a good amout in this forum. Again, Indicating a really good point that needs to be addressed. Gillette is out of the question, it isn't Viable. The distance between Foxboro and Downtown Boston (Although close, is not close enough), the logistics would be barish and a nightmare and there are plenty of other locales worthy of such a situation. The four in my mind that would even make any logical sense would be Nickerson Field, Alumni Stadium, Harvard Stadium and possibly Suffolk Downs. Now before i get eaten alive with these ideas. They would need massive updates and stadium adjustments. I think Harvard is the only place that would actually take such a challenge on. and make an attempt at this. They have the money and the alumni backing for something that would leave such a legacy, especially if they knew what it would leave on the city itself. Although i think the Kraft Family would be smart at turning Suffolk Downs into a stadium and using such an event for causation for building there. These are just ideas, Remember the Olympic Green in Beijing was a huge Neighborhoood prior to its transformation, and Queen Elizabeth park was a failing industrial sector in London before the Queen skydived into it. The old addage of "If we build it, they will come" does reign true in these cases. And whose to say that the South Boston waterfront which has been dotted with parking lots for years wouldn't become the site of such a project.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MK said: But i believe that the USOC is really shying away from Chicago and New York

I think you are twisting a lot of things to fit your dream; the statement above is exactly backwards.

MK said: the USOC i think is going to try and pour their heart and soul into actually winning this time around

Soooooooooooo the USOC was just not that into winning last 2 times? You are not making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RobH: i agree with you about that. my opinion about the "Unkown Gems" theory is just that a Theory. I'm just making speculation but you have to remember that RIo wasn't exactly the front runner and i remember peoples shock at such a win. Especially when other more optimal bid options were on the table. There are probably some clear politics at play in the chambers of the IOC but again thats just opinion.

Maybe Rio was a shock to the US media, but fir bid watchers it was pretty clear they were the ones to beat by the time they were getting standing ovations in all their bid presentations in the lead up to the vote. The big shocks of the vote were Chicago going out first and Madrid lasting till the final round, but again, a big part of that was probably Rio's backers ensuring they'd win by taking out the only real likely challenger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah, Slow down. Listen Conspiracy theorist. Relax. :lol: there are no ills will being intended by myself. The others i don't know. This dicussion and topic had peaked my interest as it was being discussed by a local group of mine and the opinions were being high flung. I wanted to research the topic and came across this thread and decided to imput my two cents. thats all. :lol: Understand that my opinions are just that; opinions. I'm not an expert on the topic or have any real expert knowledge to add to the conversation. But i did want to discuss the idea with other individuals and thats why i'm here. Don't get me wrong. You guys are really freaking good at playing devils advocate and whatnot and i think that needs to be very much apart of the conversation.

Glad to see you found my post so amusing. Like I said, I admire your passion for Boston (although again, it seems odd that so many brand new posters are coming here in support, and very strong support at that, of Boston), but the hyperbole is a little much. The Olympics would make Boston the "Athens of America"? The Boston Tea Party and the Olympic movement are related? And then my personal favorite.. Boston seems the only viable contender and that Philadelphia, Detroit, San Fran, Los Angeles, and New York don't have much to offer? I've lived my whole life in NYC. I know I'm probably not going to see an Olympics here in my lifetime for plenty of reasons, but that's insulting to say that New York has nothing to offer. And if you're looking at potential competitors to a Boston bid, certainly Durban is in the conversation. But not Osaka, Lisbon, and Jakarta. Try Tokyo and Madrid and Paris. That's what they're up against.

I'm not trying to thwart discussion on Boston. I just think it's taking it a little too far to sell Boston as "the birthplace of America" (close, but not quite). Or to compare the Olympics to the Gay Games as a basis to go off of. It's hard to swallow some of these pitches when those claims are being made and someone's first ever post in this forum says that Boston is the only viable contender. We're all about personal opinions here and none of us are experts, but come on..

True, The NOC's are looking at their possibilities and i agree they are choosing to rule out smaller cities in an attempt to really nail the bids. But i believe that the USOC is really shying away from Chicago and New York as options because i think the failings of the past are what they are considering here and it being almost 28 years after Atlanta, the USOC i think is going to try and pour their heart and soul into actually winning this time around. Will that include Boston in the mix? i think it would be to early for anyone to speculate at this point. I don't think that any other city in the USOC shortlist at current will have the backing financially from the numerous colleges that would view this as a perfect excuse to use endowment and ask for more from their alumni. :lol:

Again, opinion here, but I don't see it that way. The USOC isn't shying away from Chicago and New York as options. Chicago and New York are shying away from the USOC as an option. They took their 1 shot and now they're not interested anymore. I don't think it says much to cite their failings when a lesser city in Atlanta won. It's all about circumstance, and the field probably isn't going to get any less competitive going forward. I'm sure they USOC would love to pour their heart and soul into winning (as opposed to the 2012 and 2016 bids?.. were they not trying to win there)? Boston has a lot of things going for them, and I'm certainly not trying to take that away from them. They do have history, they do have a number of colleges and universities in addition to pro sports history. If you want to discuss the merits of their bid, I'm more than happy to participate in that discussion. But keep in mind that you cannot view a prospective Olympic bid entirely in a vacuum, because when it comes down to it, this is a competition. And all that's going to matter in the end is how does Boston or whoever else stack up against the other competitors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul: The failings of Chicago and New York are what i'm pointing to... Chicago bid in 2016, they failed and said they didn't want to continue bidding again. It's been said in this forum already. In Terms of NYC, I don't know for sure. As i've said before this is all opinion. Many of the sites listed in NYC's bid no longer exsist as locales that are buildable. They have either already been redeveloped or have fit another purpose. There isn't as much buildable land in NYC that doesnt come at a premium and i think that may hinder NYC's chances. Again, Not fact just opinion.

Not that the USOC wasn't anticipating winning....But the Big roadblock and grudge that hindered NYC and Chicago from getting the games, the Revenue Sharing agreement between the USOC and IOC wasn't finalized. Now that that has been squared away i feel like the USOC's chances of secureing a games have dramatically increased compared to their bids in 2012, and 2016.

Rememeber this is all speculation and opinion. I'm no expert, but an observer. Remember that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see you found my post so amusing. Like I said, I admire your passion for Boston (although again, it seems odd that so many brand new posters are coming here in support, and very strong support at that, of Boston), but the hyperbole is a little much. The Olympics would make Boston the "Athens of America"? The Boston Tea Party and the Olympic movement are related? And then my personal favorite.. Boston seems the only viable contender and that Philadelphia, Detroit, San Fran, Los Angeles, and New York don't have much to offer? I've lived my whole life in NYC. I know I'm probably not going to see an Olympics here in my lifetime for plenty of reasons, but that's insulting to say that New York has nothing to offer. And if you're looking at potential competitors to a Boston bid, certainly Durban is in the conversation. But not Osaka, Lisbon, and Jakarta. Try Tokyo and Madrid and Paris. That's what they're up against.

I'm not trying to thwart discussion on Boston. I just think it's taking it a little too far to sell Boston as "the birthplace of America" (close, but not quite). Or to compare the Olympics to the Gay Games as a basis to go off of. It's hard to swallow some of these pitches when those claims are being made and someone's first ever post in this forum says that Boston is the only viable contender. We're all about personal opinions here and none of us are experts, but come on..

Oh no, It's not that Chicago or NYC can't host the games. I believe that NYC will host the games within this century. I think that we shall see it within our lifetimes. The question is are they going to now? 2024 is all in the planning stages and we haven't seen any real competitors throw their hats into the ring. Who is to say that we might see a pair up of Osaka, Lisbon, Panama City, Boston and Quinto. On this same theory who is to say that we wont see NYC, Paris, Durban, Shanghai and Berlin battling. Its far to early to say as you said, its a matter of the right place at the right time. and having the idea IOC members are going to want to go along with. It's a hard line to walk. The diffrent statistical possibilities are endless. That is for sure.

In my opinion the same was said about Atlanta back in 1988, but 8 years later they were in the center of the attention. The reason im giving reasons why Boston would work is because thats the discussion of the thread. :lol: . if this was a "Detroit 2024, or Philidelphia 2024" thread the themes and discussons would be the same. But your right. Their are many US cities that have the opportunity to host a spectacular games, it is just in my opinion that i think Boston would fit the bill. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Rio was a shock to the US media, but fir bid watchers it was pretty clear they were the ones to beat by the time they were getting standing ovations in all their bid presentations in the lead up to the vote. The big shocks of the vote were Chicago going out first and Madrid lasting till the final round, but again, a big part of that was probably Rio's backers ensuring they'd win by taking out the only real likely challenger.

Of course thats always the case. It was clear to the US media that Chicago not being selected was a huge upset. But as you said, bid watchers saw the climate and saw the writing on the wall early on. Although i believe the Revenue Sharing Agreement had alot to do with the loss of both NYC and Chicago. I feel though that this time around the Stars will align for the USOC. It'll be 28 years after Atlanta and 14 years after a North American Olympic games. The timing seems about right. If anything i think that Boston, NYC, Los Angeles, Philly and San Fran seem like the only contenders this time around. And i only vouch behind Boston because i think the climate in terms of Money being spent and public support for such an endeavor are to get more sympothy and backing here in Boston than in money strapped California or in varied NYC And Philidelphia.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...