woohooitsme83 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Here is a map I made using the one provided by the Boston Herald. The major venues look too far from each other to me, but in short I hope it changes to become more 'walkable'. Could anyone from Boston explain how much the city parks could be used as venue locations? Personally I would like to see more venues along the harbor or in the parks and by the Charles River. https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zqlAYFuHE5Xg.knvHWJ6b-NI8 I couldn't find any overlays (apparently they're non-existent in custom Google maps) so here's some transit and biking overlays that'll hopefully make it look more walkable: Here's a slightly more bolded one: http://i.imgur.com/gLS6a4r.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 I couldn't find any overlays (apparently they're non-existent in custom Google maps) so here's some transit and biking overlays that'll hopefully make it look more walkable: Here's a slightly more bolded one: http://i.imgur.com/gLS6a4r.png Thanks for making those. It still looks fairly spread out if walking is to be the main mode of transport. Like I said earlier, more venues in the parks would help. Then again I'm not too familiar with Boston, could a local give a run down on their plan and just how comfortably walk-able it would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquaman617 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 I'm not sure, many of the polls say that the majority does not want it, but it's a very slim margin. Here is a map I made using the one provided by the Boston Herald. The major venues look too far from each other to me, but in short I hope it changes to become more 'walkable'. Could anyone from Boston explain how much the city parks could be used as venue locations? Personally I would like to see more venues along the harbor or in the parks and by the Charles River. https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zqlAYFuHE5Xg.knvHWJ6b-NI8 Also, according to a poll by the Boston Herald: Yes - 13% No - 63% Maybe - 2% Indifferent - 23% source: http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/01/where_do_you_stand_on_the_2024_summer_olympics_possibly_being So I'm thinking that if a vote were held in the next month or so, 'No' would win. The yes is just too small of a number, even if you add those who are up in air about it. Still, I hope that Boston is our candidate. We may not win with her, but it would be more humiliating to try and find a new city and send the wrong message to the IOC. But if they do pull out...we should have gone with LA. How likely is it that someone will have tickets to two or three events in the same day? I've never been to the Games, but I'd imagine if I had tickets for Athletics, that would pretty much eat up an entire day, with watching various heats and field events and that I wouldn't be racing off to catch women's fencing or the Pakistan-New Zealand field hockey match somewhere else. But, even if that was the case, the events are not *that* far from one another. Remember all those arguments that Boston is too small?? LOL The farthest flung potential location (within the city - not counting whitewater) is perhaps Conte Forum (women's basketball) at Boston College. On the absolute worst day with the absolute worst traffic and the slowest delays on the T, it would take under an hour to get from Boston College to the TD Garden (gymnastics). You can walk from the BCEC (tae kwon do, boxing, wrestling, etc.) to the proposed stadium location in under 10 minutes. A five minute walk from the Beacon Yards location (assuming that's where the aquatics center will be) to the T, and you'll be down town in 15 minutes. I'm not saying the venue plan is perfect, it will take some exquisite planning to have it execute flawlessly, but compare this to LA's venue plan, which would have entailed *at a minimum* an hour in a car - not even public transport - then getting parking, etc., to get from the west side to events at Stub Hub or even farther down in Long Beach. While Boston's plan lacks an Olympic Park, it squeezes more venues into a smaller radius than any modern Games to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cslopes54 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/ Boston ranks in the top for Walkability, Public Transportation and Bike friendly. Very compact city which actually makes it easy to walk around, but the subway and commuter rail really need an upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/ but the subway and commuter rail really need an upgrade. Otherwise, one would have to walk from Copley Square to Lowell or to Widett Circle to get to some events in 2024. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 I hope a vote doesn't happen. Let Boston work on their plan and build something up, judging their most recent renderings on their site Boston might just have been our best choice. I do agree that if a vote happens Boston will not happen and the USOC would either not bid or have to find a new city. If they don't have a vote and the public maintains their current approval ratings of the bid then I don't think the IOC will be impressed come the international phase. Define "a vote happens" Are you talking about a referendum? What specifically do you think might occur that "Boston will not happen" and that the USOC would have to find a new city? Do you think they're morons? That they're spent all this time evaluating the candidates and didn't consider something like that? For those of us here who thought Boston was a question mark, it's understandable we're looking at the USOC right now wondering why they chose Boston. But we're just a bunch of folks in an Internet forum. We're blowing these approval ratings and polls out of proportion. Every city once it gets to this stage will have those who strongly support it and those who oppose it. We haven't gotten a real sense of public approval. When we do and if the numbers don't look good, then maybe we can discuss how Boston pushes forward from that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Could you elaborate on the benefits of hosting? The problem as I see it is that the negatives are objective (diverting money from education/transport/etc to stadiums, disruption of commerce and tourism, etc) while the benefits are subjective (pride, prestige, etc.) It's inevitable that people are going to focus on economics rather than self-confidence. This is the same question I've been asking. We all know that Boston has a good narrative going in terms of its colleges and universities along with the city's history. That's great, but what is the Olympics going to do for Boston? What is Boston going to do for the Olympics? We're hearing all about a temporary stadium and modular housing and all these other efforts that don't seem like they're going to leave a lasting legacy to the city. They're talking about money that's going to come from private sources, but are they getting something from their investment? Again, I get that the USOC obviously sees something there and think it's their best shot at a win. But like I've been saying for almost 2 years now.. I want to see more. I'm still unconvinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 How likely is it that someone will have tickets to two or three events in the same day? I've never been to the Games, but I'd imagine if I had tickets for Athletics, that would pretty much eat up an entire day, with watching various heats and field events and that I wouldn't be racing off to catch women's fencing or the Pakistan-New Zealand field hockey match somewhere else. But, even if that was the case, the events are not *that* far from one another. Remember all those arguments that Boston is too small?? LOL The farthest flung potential location (within the city - not counting whitewater) is perhaps Conte Forum (women's basketball) at Boston College. On the absolute worst day with the absolute worst traffic and the slowest delays on the T, it would take under an hour to get from Boston College to the TD Garden (gymnastics). You can walk from the BCEC (tae kwon do, boxing, wrestling, etc.) to the proposed stadium location in under 10 minutes. A five minute walk from the Beacon Yards location (assuming that's where the aquatics center will be) to the T, and you'll be down town in 15 minutes. I'm not saying the venue plan is perfect, it will take some exquisite planning to have it execute flawlessly, but compare this to LA's venue plan, which would have entailed *at a minimum* an hour in a car - not even public transport - then getting parking, etc., to get from the west side to events at Stub Hub or even farther down in Long Beach. While Boston's plan lacks an Olympic Park, it squeezes more venues into a smaller radius than any modern Games to date. All I was saying is that I think their plan should include more temporary venues in their parks and along their waterfront, utilizing the cities natural beauty. Define "a vote happens" Are you talking about a referendum? What specifically do you think might occur that "Boston will not happen" and that the USOC would have to find a new city? Do you think they're morons? That they're spent all this time evaluating the candidates and didn't consider something like that? For those of us here who thought Boston was a question mark, it's understandable we're looking at the USOC right now wondering why they chose Boston. But we're just a bunch of folks in an Internet forum. We're blowing these approval ratings and polls out of proportion. Every city once it gets to this stage will have those who strongly support it and those who oppose it. We haven't gotten a real sense of public approval. When we do and if the numbers don't look good, then maybe we can discuss how Boston pushes forward from that If a referendum does happen I don't think the people of Boston would vote yes. All of the polls we have seen show the opposition leading, though the margins vary. A victory for the proponents would be very hard to get at this point in time, though I'm sure in the months leading up to the campaign the bid team will be pushing the bid hard. However, this also buys up time from creating a better plan and promoting the bid nationally. Having strong national support for a bid is one of those things the US must have if we want to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 All I was saying is that I think their plan should include more temporary venues in their parks and along their waterfront, utilizing the cities natural beauty. The Charles River cannot be used for waterfront events such as rowing which are the only ones suited well for a riverfront park like the Esplanade. I am guessing the Esplanade was ruled out as a venue location due to the difficulties posed by Storrow Drive, which would certainly need to be shut down as is done for the Pops' 4th of July concert and other large events. Closing Storrow Drive on holiday or weekend is one thing, but closing it for 3 straight weeks is quite another. Nonetheless, the bid committee has definitely showcased the beauty of Frederick Law Olmsted's Emerald Necklace by placing events in Boston Common and Franklin Park. The Olympic village is planned to be right at the shore of Dorchester Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Here is a map I made using the one provided by the Boston Herald. The major venues look too far from each other to me, It's actually quote compact. Create similar maps for Beijing/London/Rio at the same scale and you'll see. PS - You should give zero (none, zip) credibilty to any self-selecting online poll like the Herald poll above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisValentine Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Could you elaborate on the benefits of hosting? The problem as I see it is that the negatives are objective (diverting money from education/transport/etc to stadiums, disruption of commerce and tourism, etc) while the benefits are subjective (pride, prestige, etc.) It's inevitable that people are going to focus on economics rather than self-confidence. If the games are privately funded, as the planners state they will be, what money will be diverted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 If the games are privately funded, as the planners state they will be, what money will be diverted? Well, really, the time and efforts of the various City Departments -- i.e, police, etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 If the games are privately funded, as the planners state they will be, what money will be diverted? There's a 0% chance the games will not use public money. Even before winning the bid the organizers were talking to the state lottery board about diverting funds for the Olympics. http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/12/24/boston-olympic-bids-ma-state-lottery-connection-bain-company-kotzeff-explored-partnership/ It's simply not feasible for Boston to host with a total budget of $4.5 billion. London spent the equivalent of over a billion dollars just on security for the games in 2012. Between the high focus on homeland security in the USA and the continued growth of the games, Boston might spend $2 billion just on security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 If the games are privately funded, as the planners state they will be, what money will be diverted?Yeah, but that's still not really a "benefit." That's just something nice the planners shook into their plan. It's not benefitting the city nor is it pointing it towards a negative direction. If private money pays off the games 100% and does not divert away, would that not be the same as Boston just not hosting. There would be no difference other than a free "two week party" in terms of finance for the taxpayers if other factors such as an economic boost* is not entered in.*apparently proven to not be associated with the Olympics(?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 If the games are privately funded, as the planners state they will be, what money will be diverted? The initial budget will be privately funded. But any cost overruns (and there's a pretty darn good chance there will be) will likely need some sort of public guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stir.ts Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 5 billion budget is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binary Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 thank you for that astute analysis stir .ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Money1983 Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 I've actually heard the term "CAVEmen," which stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything. That also applies to those who oppose the bid without even looking over the master plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 It's actually quote compact. Create similar maps for Beijing/London/Rio at the same scale and you'll see. PS - You should give zero (none, zip) credibilty to any self-selecting online poll like the Herald poll above. All I'm saying is that it would be nicer if it was even more dense, given all the cities parks there is no reason it shouldn't be or couldn't be more dense. The Charles River cannot be used for waterfront events such as rowing which are the only ones suited well for a riverfront park like the Esplanade. I am guessing the Esplanade was ruled out as a venue location due to the difficulties posed by Storrow Drive, which would certainly need to be shut down as is done for the Pops' 4th of July concert and other large events. Closing Storrow Drive on holiday or weekend is one thing, but closing it for 3 straight weeks is quite another. Nonetheless, the bid committee has definitely showcased the beauty of Frederick Law Olmsted's Emerald Necklace by placing events in Boston Common and Franklin Park. The Olympic village is planned to be right at the shore of Dorchester Bay. Did I ever say the river should host water events? Chicago had non-water events in the parks that lined their waterfront. Boston looks like they could put a few of those types of venues there and by the harbor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Did I ever say the river should host water events? No, but the Esplanade is extremely narrow between Storrow Drive and the river. There isn't enough room to put anything without closing Storrow Drive unless the event takes place in the Charles River. And the easiest way to make support for the bid to disappear would be to propose closing Storrow Drive on any business day. The bid team made the smart decision and found other beautiful places to put events. Not to mention the fact that it would be far more expensive to build venues on the Esplanade instead of reusing preexisting structures at colleges/universities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 All I'm saying is that it would be nicer if it was even more dense, given all the cities parks there is no reason it shouldn't be or couldn't be more dense. Uh, maybe because Boston doesn't believe in tearing up parks for sporting events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 No, but the Esplanade is extremely narrow between Storrow Drive and the river. There isn't enough room to put anything without closing Storrow Drive unless the event takes place in the Charles River. And the easiest way to make support for the bid to disappear would be to propose closing Storrow Drive on any business day. The bid team made the smart decision and found other beautiful places to put events. Not to mention the fact that it would be far more expensive to build venues on the Esplanade instead of reusing preexisting structures at colleges/universities. I'm sure they could fit at least one temporary venue there without closing the street, put a venue or a live site or such in Back Bay Fens, Beach Volley Ball on the beach and stuff on Marine Park. That's what I mean, utilize the parks even more. Uh, maybe because Boston doesn't believe in tearing up parks for sporting events? They have no problem tearing up the Commons, Harvards fields, etc. Not to mention it's all temporary, it's not like the stuff will be there forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpedReality Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Storrow Drive is no mere street. It is a 4 lane limited access highway! As for the Back Bay Fens? Those are preserved wetlands! Didn't you bother to at least look up "fen" in the dictionary? Can we please drop the canard that you are somehow smarter than the bid organizers? Does Boston have beautiful public parks? Yes it does! Does Boston's bid utilize those parks? Yes it does! Just because they use parks in a manner different than the way you think is best is not a fault on the bid's part. There are events planned for the Common and Franklin Park. Other parks (Arnold Arboretum, the Fens, Jamaica Pond, etc) were designed for preservation instead of recreation (in contrast to the Common, Franklin Park and Esplanade). They thought beach volleyball on the Common will be much better than if it were at the Esplanade. I'm guessing this is due to the Storrow Drive issue, but it is entirely subjective which park is better suited for volleyball. Also, we must remember that the premise of the bid is to keep costs down by reusing existing facilities. This is why there won't be any construction of temporary venues on top of parkland if there is already a suitable preexisting alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Storrow Drive is no mere street. It is a 4 lane limited access highway! As for the Back Bay Fens? Those are preserved wetlands! Didn't you bother to at least look up "fen" in the dictionary? Can we please drop the canard that you are somehow smarter than the bid organizers? Does Boston have beautiful public parks? Yes it does! Does Boston's bid utilize those parks? Yes it does! Just because they use parks in a manner different than the way you think is best is not a fault on the bid's part. There are events planned for the Common and Franklin Park. Other parks (Arnold Arboretum, the Fens, Jamaica Pond, etc) were designed for preservation instead of recreation (in contrast to the Common, Franklin Park and Esplanade). They thought beach volleyball on the Common will be much better than if it were at the Esplanade. I'm guessing this is due to the Storrow Drive issue, but it is entirely subjective which park is better suited for volleyball. Also, we must remember that the premise of the bid is to keep costs down by reusing existing facilities. This is why there won't be any construction of temporary venues on top of parkland if there is already a suitable preexisting alternative. Calm down, here in the south we call wetlands what they are, and Storrow Drive has a corner section that could hold...hell a damn live site. And also these are my thoughts, I would personally like to see more sport venues in their parks. That is my preference and I'm just suggesting sites or areas that they could put those venues if they wanted. Also the whole reason Boston will have a ton of temporary venues is because they don't have enough pre-existing ones so it would make sense to put those temporary venues in exisiting open space that is already close to the village and stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 Calm down, here in the south we call wetlands what they are, and Storrow Drive has a corner section that could hold...hell a damn live site. And also these are my thoughts, I would personally like to see more sport venues in their parks. That is my preference and I'm just suggesting sites or areas that they could put those venues if they wanted. But it's your preference based on what??? If you are suggesting Olympic events in the Fens... leads me to belive you have no idea what the Fens are like. So how you can have such an opinion that the Olympics shoudl be there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.