GBModerator Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Boston will be bidding for the 2024 Olympic Games, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) announced Thursday from Denver International Airport en route to a Friday meeting with the city. The city was selected from a group of four including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington – all of which made presentations to the USOC last […] View the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 “This bid uniquely combines an exciting, athlete-focused concept for hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games with Boston’s existing long-term vision." I think it's such a shame the USOC picked Boston. LA was in such a big revitalization spurt. It would've blended really well with Agenda 2020 and whatnot. LA doesn't really hold unique to that, though, and so does Boston, but that statement really seems like it's like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woohooitsme83 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Who knows if LA, or any other city, will go through the same opportunity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I was surprised this was actually mentioned on the news bulletin as I was driving down the coast. Well, I would have been happiest if it was SF, but Boston was always a close second in my hopes. At least it wasn't LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsnotmypuppy Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Based on the admittedly limited information out there it seems the USOC has gone for the bid needing the most venue construction. Interesting. I would have thought that based on the 20/20 guidelines Los Angeles (which is a vastly different city than it was in 1984 - mainly for the better) would have fit that bill with San Francisco next in line. I was also hoping for a West Coast Games just because it's easier for us Aussies to get there ;P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Boston's not going to win. It's going down like NYC and Chicago. Bunch of amateurs there at the USOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Boston's not going to win. It's going down like NYC and Chicago. Bunch of amateurs there at the USOC. I guess thats what they get for changing the administration every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Based on the admittedly limited information out there it seems the USOC has gone for the bid needing the most venue construction. Interesting. I would have thought that based on the 20/20 guidelines Los Angeles (which is a vastly different city than it was in 1984 - mainly for the better) would have fit that bill with San Francisco next in line. I guess USOC is gambling that the IOC might want to prove their reforms have substance. A smaller city like Boston hosting a Games sustainably within the 2020 Agenda and coming out of it with no white elephants, would have a bigger impact on other potential bidders going forward. If the IOC selected LA, it wouldn't be proving much at all. All it would prove is what we already know; that LA can host a low cost Games without much construction. It doesn't necessarily draw in other potential hosts or show that Agenda 2020 is having a real effect. The IOC's big task is to prove their Games can still be hosted in cities which aren't mega-cities, or backed by totalitarian governments. London was sustainable but you couldn't plonk our Olympic Park in s smaller city and have it being a sustainble place, Tokyo will be sustainable but nor will a Games in that city prove much about Agenda 2020, and LA would fall into the same category as those two places. Boston, on the other hand, could be a great decision (equally it could be a disaster, but it has the potenial to give the IOC a narrative they might like). Still lots of question marks, but can see the logic behind this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanMUC Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Well, I'm surprised, but interested how this will work out. Now watch Germany pick Hamburg :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_D Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Well, I'm surprised, but interested how this will work out. Now watch Germany pick Hamburg :-) i dont think that Germany will bid, german people dont like spending for such events as we saw in Munich for 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I guess USOC is gambling that the IOC might want to prove their reforms have substance. A smaller city like Boston hosting a Games sustainably within the 2020 Agenda and coming out of it with no white elephants, would have a bigger impact on other potential bidders going forward. If the IOC selected LA, it wouldn't be proving much at all. All it would prove is what we already know; that LA can host a low cost Games without much construction. It doesn't necessarily draw in other potential hosts or show that Agenda 2020 is having a real effect. The IOC's big task is to prove their Games can still be hosted in cities which aren't mega-cities, or backed by totalitarian governments. London was sustainable but you couldn't plonk our Olympic Park in s smaller city and have it being a sustainble place, Tokyo will be sustainable but nor will a Games in that city prove much about Agenda 2020, and LA would fall into the same category as those two places. Boston, on the other hand, could be a great decision (equally it could be a disaster, but it has the potenial to give the IOC a narrative they might like). Still lots of question marks, but can see the logic behind this decision. While this may seem plausible, I seriously doubt that this was the main driving force, or even a minor one, behind Boston's election. Especially when the Boston metropolitan area is by no means "small". It's the sixth largest metro area in the country right behind San Francisco & Washington, with a lot of urban infrastructure & larger than the metro areas of Berlin, Hamburg & Rome (all potential 2024 possibilities). It seems that the USOC's reluctance of electing L.A. was that same old discussion that we have around here, is the still "been there, done that" angle of Los Angeles. Not to mention that Boston's location in the northeast corridor, close to other larger major urban areas of the country in the TV time-friendly time zone of the Eastern U.S. was also what the USOC board found attractive about Boston. It was just a new face of the U.S. that the USOC could show the IOC that looks like must've been the logic behind their ultimate decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 While this may seem plausible, I seriously doubt that this was the main driving force, or even a minor one, behind Boston's election. Especially when the Boston metropolitan area is by no means "small". It's the sixth largest metro area in the country right behind San Francisco & Washington, with a lot of urban infrastructure & larger than the metro areas of Berlin, Hamburg & Rome (all potential 2024 possibilities). It seems that the USOC's reluctance of electing L.A. was that same old discussion that we have around here, is the still "been there, done that" angle of Los Angeles. Not to mention that Boston's location in the northeast corridor, close to other larger major urban areas of the country in the TV time-friendly time zone of the Eastern U.S. was also what the USOC board found attractive about Boston. It was just a new face of the U.S. that the USOC could show the IOC that looks like must've been the logic behind their ultimate decision. According to the 2010 census Boston is the tenth largest: 1. NYC 2. LA 3. Chicago 4. Dallas-FTW 5. Houston 6. Philadelphia 7. DC 8. Miami 9. Atlanta 10. Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 The Combined Statistical Areas of San Fran, Wash DC & Boston are fourth, fifth & sixth respectively. For Boston, that means the areas of Providence, RI, Portland, ME & southeast NH are included in Boston's numbers, since all those areas are about fifty miles away from Downtown Boston & undoubtedly would be used in some fashion or another with their bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 ..but still, even at tenth place, the point is that's still not 'small'. So no point in splitting hairs there, bernham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.bernham Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 The Combined Statistical Areas of San Fran, Wash DC & Boston are fourth, fifth & sixth respectively. For Boston, that means the areas of Providence, RI, Portland, ME & southeast NH are included in Boston's numbers, since all those areas are about fifty miles away from Downtown Boston & undoubtedly would be used in some fashion or another with their bid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas ..but still, even at tenth place, the point is that's still not 'small'. So no point in splitting hairs there, bernham. Oh no it is not small at all. It's still bigger than Atlanta was in 1996 and Boston being a hub for many different economic fields makes it even bigger. Still no sense in portraying the city as close to the sizes of Houston, Dallas, or Philly. You know what, just disregard that last bit. It's ridiculous nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Statistical_Area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 If Philly were in there, it could've cancelled out Boston's pros (since they're quite similar in terms of educational and cultural assets), and maybe SF could've squeaked thru. I think Philly's a grander city than Boston in a few respects. Ah, am just ruminating in what could've been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Uh oh........now we are comparing Boston and Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 If Philly were in there, it could've cancelled out Boston's pros (since they're quite similar in terms of educational and cultural assets), and maybe SF could've squeaked thru. I think Philly's a grander city than Boston in a few respects. Ah, am just ruminating in what could've been. Obviously I'm a little biased on this one, but I think Philly and Boston are very similar in that regard and could have made a really strong case. I know there had been efforts in the past to get them in the mix, but I guess it just wasn't in the cards Uh oh........now we are comparing Boston and Atlanta. Now? People here have been comparing Atlanta to every city that might bid for the Olympics already. To the crowd here, it's a cautionary tale that people like to use as an insult.. "you know, you don't want to be like Atlanta or else the IOC voters might have a gag reflex." As if these cities are too ignorant to know their history and learn from it. It's going to continue. There will be no lack of Boston/Atlanta comparisons here going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diana Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm pleased that Boston was selected! Look forward to an interesting couple of years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think this is a dangerous choice- I think to win the Games you have to go with your major world cities- NY,LA, Chicago, maybe Washington. Up against lets say Paris, Berlin, Istanbul, Rome, even a Budapest or Toronto I think Boston will struggle. Same with Hamburg. But who knows, we are having 3 Asian Games in a row, so anything is possible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think this is a dangerous choice- I think to win the Games you have to go with your major world cities- NY,LA, Chicago, maybe Washington. Up against lets say Paris, Berlin, Istanbul, Rome, even a Budapest or Toronto I think Boston will struggle. Same with Hamburg. But who knows, we are having 3 Asian Games in a row, so anything is possible! Ok, come on, seriously, Budapest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 toronto!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 yes....toronto and budapest are the major cities in major olympic nations, budapest an imperial capital. Boston is the 6th or 10th biggest city of the US (see earlier debates) with pretty much no international profile. I rate it a near zero chance, and it is no coincidence that a relatively unknown city in the US is being compared to Atlanta already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsnotmypuppy Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 After a night of pondering (not really) I have realised that the selected city is irrelevant. This is a USA bid. As long as you have a decent stadium plan (or pretty temp stadium) and enough five star hotels the IOC will be happy regardless of the actually location of the stadium and hotels. For those 100+ people who will actually decide the host of the 2024 Games it will be a simple decision - USA or not USA. Boston. San Fran. LA. DC. It doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.