Jump to content

Boston Selected To Bid For 2024 Olympic Games


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
“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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
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...
×
×
  • Create New...