Boston 2020 Olympics

Shepard said:
Does the IOC require a "gated city" Olympic Village setup? If that's the case, the sprinkling athletes around various dorms throughout the city wouldn't do at all.

If we needed a new "village" I'd love to see it built on industrial waterfront Everett/Chelsea with a rapid transit link. Or, tear down South Bay Shopping Center...
Click to expand...

The way to do it is base the village around a portion of the river. We could incorporate BU, MIT, and Harvard, closing off sections of the esplanade in order to unify the three sections. The river banks would make for great running and training areas for some of the athletes.
 
SF should be building housing there, not Olympic wastes of space. SF has a desperate shortage of housing.
 
underground said:
I've seen soccer during the London games up in Manchester and Glasgow, so I'd guess using Foxboro and the DCU center wouldn't be out of the question.
Click to expand...

In the '84 Olympics, hardly any of the soccer was played in L.A. -- it was all over California, including as far away as Palo Alto.
 
bigeman312 said:
The Redskins moved to FedEx Field and the Nationals moved to Nationals Park. The only full-time tenant of RFK remaining is the DC United (MLS), and their fans are crying out for a soccer specific stadium - them and the Revs are the only teams without them, I believe. So tearing down RFK and building there would not only not be an issue, but something we may see by 2024 anyways.
Click to expand...

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/11/dan-snyder-hints-at-potential-new-stadium/

I fully agree.

Matthew, I'm with you on that point - I think that in general the Olympics are a wild waste of space - but Hunter's Point may not happen without the added impetus. That's the rationale London used in the East End.
 
underground said:
What's that? You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you over our top ranked hospitals.
Click to expand...

I posted that knowing that this would require a longer post :). I may live where I live, but I'm very loyal to the Boston Area and fully acknowledge how great it is in a lot of areas, not just hospitals, but also Universities and as a hub for high-tech and biotech. I think Boston should fight harder for companies to base their HQ there to increase it's profile in the corporate world. In the vernacular sense of the world, Boston is certainly already "world class".

My point has to do with the ambition and arrogance that cities have about their place in the world. An example would be the endless boosterism in Chicago - people there wanted the 2016 games as a confirmation of what they already believe to be true - Chicago is still every bit the "White City" that it was at the end of the 19th Century. The 2016 bid was tied to the brief period after the 2008 election when Chicago saw itself as an unofficial Capital of the US (Obama's operation as President-Elect was centered there). Chicago wants to be THE American city.

Boston is very comfortable maintaining the "Athens of America" reputation it already has - as the chief American city for education, research, and technology. That's very different, though, from having the ambition to, for 2 weeks anyway, represent the whole country to the world.

San Francisco, while it has basically the same population that Boston does (CSA), is on the Pacific and is trying to compete with the East Asian cities as a great city in that part of the world. The symbol of that, to me, is the International Terminal at SFO - the only terminal in the US that compares to those in Singapore, Japan, China, etc. Because those places are much more dynamic than Europe these days, SF has to keep evolving to keep up. It wants do be THE gateway city to the US from the Pacific (LA has other stuff going), which is a much more "world class" identity than having great higher education and healthcare.

I'm not saying that Boston isn't "world class", I'm simply ruminating on what sense of self the Olympics require from their host cities. I find it much more palatable to live long-term in Boston, but I think SF, DC, or Chicago would be better hosts for an Olympics.
 
czsz said:
Beijing even held equestrian events in Hong Kong, presumably because there was more interest there and not because it was incapable
Click to expand...

Nope, it was incapable. Beijing was unable to guarantee the horses used for the equestrian events would not be subject to equine diseases.

Hong Kong, which has hosted horse races for decades, hosted the events because of its ability to meet sanitary standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_at_the_Summer_Olympics


However, your larger point is correct - plenty of events are typically held outside the official host city - the '96 Olympics saw canoeing, soccer, and other events in TN, AL, DC, and elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Summer_Olympics

*Apologies for the gratuitous use of Wikipedia.
 
bigeman312 said:
To start, they all have more existing venues closer to the city with better access to them. Sampling of the top 4 existing venues, within 1/2 hour drive of downtown for each:
Click to expand...

But really any of those four cities would likely end up with a new "Olympic Stadium" for the signature events (maybe Chicago gets away with tweaking soldiers field). So the difference isn't that big. And the baseball stadiums will all have limited use anyway (you're not going to run horses around the outfield during the day and play baseball there at night).
One advantage Boston has is that the venues you listed are all within 5 miles of each other. Wrigley to US Cellular must be at least 10 miles apart and the Rose Bowl is ~15 miles from Dodger Stadium or the Staples Center. I've never lived in NYC so I can't comment about how far apart those venues are...
 
Matthew said:
Ah yes, using the Olympics as an excuse to fix the MBTA. Somehow I think that this story will end up with an extra $2 billion in debt sneaking its way onto the books, and a few years later we'll see fare hikes and service cuts to cover it.
Click to expand...

Well you got a better idea? Ideally, we should just invest in fixing it without the pressure of the Olympics to motivate things, but so far that hasn't happen. What has happen in the past is Olympics have been a major motivator to make cities do stuff. Many times no the most productive stuff, but Boston is a city that been stuck where pretty much any decent sized project to be measure in decades.

If it takes the Olympics to make Boston do something - even if the risk is Boston in 2026 quietly dump 2 billion dollars of debt on the MBTA, at least it still means something got done, built, and hopefully fixed. It seems the alternative is probably seeing the MBTA exactly the same as it is now... Fine, I exaggerate, but right now the best case scenario is the MBTA building the GLX kicking and screaming with a couple of new OL and RL cars with little else done after roughly a quarter of a person's lifetime.

Balancing the two scenario of massive debt but major construction or miniscule increments with a high chance that of nothing or worse. I'll take the first option. I prefer to chance it to see some things change within my lifetime.

Of course, it is not on the table. So all I can do is hope Curtatone runs for governor or something along those lines.
 
As someone said, the Olympic stadium in London will be downsized and made into a soccer stadium. Maybe Kraft is preparing himself, and when building a 20-30k seat stadium designs it so it can expand to 60-70k for an opening ceremony in the future. Maybe all it entails is putting some supports in place that can be built on later. Then, between all the universities that could add decent size facilities (NEU, BU, BC , Harvard, MIT, Tufts- all of which have gyms and stadiums of various capacities) you actually may not have as much of an uphill climb.

I think I get most excited, as many seem to be, about the possibilities for transportation investment. GLX built with a Chelsea/logan spur. Grand Junction Rapid transit NS-Allston. Heavy Rail D-Line (connected from the Blue)? Light rail Silver Line? That's where most of the money would need to go, and where we most want it to.
 
czsz said:
^ Re: Montreal...yeah, I remember visiting and thinking it was a really overwhelming, desolate landscape. I've also visited the Beijing park...it, too, was overwhelming and empty (not to mention creepily totalitarian, with giant cameras mounted everywhere and the official Olympic theme song being belted out over PA speakers).

I wonder why cities feel the need to build these giant parks rather than integrate the games completely with the urban fabric. London's done a great job sprinkling its venues around as much as possible but still wound up building a massive park. Is it something the IOC requires? Obviously it makes getting around the games easier while they're on, but considering the role "legacy" plays in these bids, it might be arguable that a decentralized games would be superior.

...

mass88: Your arguments are spot on but a little outdated. The IOC has already picked the three finalists for 2020: Istanbul, Tokyo, and Madrid. Neither the US nor anywhere in Africa bid for that round, so of course we can count out cities in those places until 2024 or 28.
Click to expand...


That's what I was saying, the 2020 games are going to be given to either Tokyo, Madrid or Istanbul based on the IOC's voting. Also, that a 2024 bid from an African nation, if it's a decent one, will probably get picked since Africa has never hosted the games.

I meant to say Africa for 2024, not 2020.
 
bigeman312 said:
To start, they all have more existing venues closer to the city with better access to them. Sampling of the top 4 existing venues, within 1/2 hour drive of downtown for each:

Chicago -
1. Soldier Field (NFL, in the city, good public transit access)
2. U.S. Cellular Field (MLB, in the city, good public transit access)
3. Wrigley Field (MLB, in the city, good public transit access)
4. United Center (NBA/NHL, in the city, good public transit access)

LA -
1. LA Coliseum (big NCAAF, in the city, decent public transit access)
2. Dodger Stadium (MLB, in the city, good public transit access)
3. Staples Center (NBA/NHL, in the city, good public transit access)
4. Rose Bowl (big NCAAF, 20 minutes from downtown, poor public transit access)

NYC -
1. Metlife Stadium (NFL, 25 minutes from downtown, decent public transit access)
2. Madison Square Garden (NBA/NHL, in the city, good public transit access)
3. Yankee Stadium (MLB, 25 minutes from downtown, good public transit access)
4. Citi Field (MLB, 25 minutes from downtown, good public transit access)

Boston -
1. Fenway Park (MLB, in the city, good public transit access)
2. TD Garden (NBA/NHL, in the city, good public transit access)
3. Harvard Stadium (small NCAAF, in the city, decent public transit access)
4. Alumni Stadium (small NCAAF, in the city, decent access to public transit)

Which would you choose? Boston is the only one without 4 existing Olympic-capable stadiums, or even 3 for that matter.

EDIT: I was being generous to Boston
Click to expand...

You are not going to see an NFL stadium such as Soldiers Field, or Met Life Stadium being used for track and field. The modifications needed would be very time consuming and severly cut the capacity of the venues. The IOC has a minimum capacity limit. The lower bowls in each stadium would be pretty much cut out. Then you have to figure the Bears, or Jets and Giants would be out of a stadium for at least half the season.
 
^ That graphic looks like an earthquake shockwave chart. Hopefully their OOC knows better than to use something like it for SF!

I don't feel like hosting most of the Bay Area Olympics outside of SF proper would really fly, either. You're not going to sell the IOC on San Jose.

At least the commenters seem enthusiastic; huge contrast to anything you'd see muttered by Bostonians in reaction to a local bid.
 
Boston. Host the Olympics?


Bwahahahaha!


Bwahahahaha!


Stop - you're killing me!


But seriously, folks... I'm old enough to remember when this came up back in the 1970s-80s. They were talking about putting up athletes in college dorms all over Boston/Cambridge, and using Harvard Stadium. Now we're talkin' world class!

But even more seriously.... do you know what this would mean? The entire effort would revolve around State Reps getting jobs for family members. The Massachusetts political establishment is so very extraordinary in that their criminal ambitions are so petty. And the boosterism that got Atlanta the 1996 Olympics? That doesn't exist in Boston. In The Hub of the Universe, we're too good for that sort of yokelism. Atlanta had Coca-Cola behind it. Who will Boston have - a cupcake shop?

The truth is, Boston is a small city that thinks small.
 
JonFrum said:
They were talking about putting up athletes in college dorms all over Boston/Cambridge, and using Harvard Stadium. Now we're talkin' world class!
Click to expand...

Because most Olympic villages aren't dorm like and most Olympics don't use temporary housing or existing sporting facilities not nearly as august as Harvard Stadium? London included temporary housing in cruise ships and had to bring in soldiers for security who were housed, despite being in the middle of London, in tents.

But even more seriously.... do you know what this would mean? The entire effort would revolve around State Reps getting jobs for family members. The Massachusetts political establishment is so very extraordinary in that their criminal ambitions are so petty.
Click to expand...

I love the people on this forum who think Boston is any more corrupt than, say, South Africa or Greece. The Olympics were held in China four years ago, where the rule of law is a punchline. But someone's kid might get to cut the line to become an ice cream cart worker in the Olympic Park! Can't have the Olympics here!

And the boosterism that got Atlanta the 1996 Olympics? That doesn't exist in Boston. In The Hub of the Universe, we're too good for that sort of yokelism.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the self-confidence of large, cosmopolitan cities makes them yokelish -- I can't stand all those yokels in New York. And no one in Boston has any kind of outlandish pride in the place.

Atlanta had Coca-Cola behind it. Who will Boston have - a cupcake shop?
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe Boston is so wealthy and prosperous when a cupcake shop is apparently the only major corporation headquartered there! Also, isn't it amazing how McDonald's seems to move its headquarters every two years, because you apparently need to be a local corporation to sponsor an Olympics?

The truth is, Boston is a small city that thinks small.
Click to expand...

Boston population - 600k
Atlanta population - 400k
Boston CMSA population - 7.6m
Atlanta CMSA population 5.7m

Who is thinking small here?

There are lots of reasons why Boston hosting an Olympics is unthinkable, but you didn't name any of them.
 
I personally really hope Boston doesn't host the Olympics. Sure, getting the bid means that Boston would increase spending on infrastructures, stadiums, and housing, but what happens after they leave? The city will surely get an influx of tourists that would spend but I highly doubt the amount of money flowing in would fund the cost of meeting the Olympic standard. Plus when the event is over, the crowd is gone, the transit system would thus be underused until and if the population ever hits the sufficient amount to support it. The city would be saddled with the burden of paying for extra security during that period, maintaining any new buildings constructed that can't be privatized and sold, paying a higher maintenance cost for the new transit system, etc. etc.

No thanks. Bring on the World Exposition Fair.
 
czsz said:
Because most Olympic villages aren't dorm like and most Olympics don't use temporary housing or existing sporting facilities not nearly as august as Harvard Stadium? London included temporary housing in cruise ships and had to bring in soldiers for security who were housed, despite being in the middle of London, in tents.



I love the people on this forum who think Boston is any more corrupt than, say, South Africa or Greece. The Olympics were held in China four years ago, where the rule of law is a punchline. But someone's kid might get to cut the line to become an ice cream cart worker in the Olympic Park! Can't have the Olympics here!



Yes, because the self-confidence of large, cosmopolitan cities makes them yokelish -- I can't stand all those yokels in New York. And no one in Boston has any kind of outlandish pride in the place.



It's hard to believe Boston is so wealthy and prosperous when a cupcake shop is apparently the only major corporation headquartered there! Also, isn't it amazing how McDonald's seems to move its headquarters every two years, because you apparently need to be a local corporation to sponsor an Olympics?



Boston population - 600k
Atlanta population - 400k
Boston CMSA population - 7.6m
Atlanta CMSA population 5.7m

Who is thinking small here?

There are lots of reasons why Boston hosting an Olympics is unthinkable, but you didn't name any of them.
Click to expand...


Your understanding of the needs of an Olympic host are profound. Atlanta was absolutely hammered in the international media for their effort - they just weren't good enough. And that's in spite of the fact that they had the CEO of one of the world's great brand names - Coke - behind them. It may not mean anything to you, but it's the local business leaders who get things done. Who's going to make the big push to raise money for Boston - Prudential insurance? Oops! they're gone. Fidelity? Shrunk down to a shell. Sorry, but universities and hospitals won't get the job done.

And by the way - putting world-class athletes in crappy dorm rooms spread out over miles? That won't fly. Athletes want to get together and party when they're at the Olympics. These aren't high school kids on a bus trip. The whole point is that Boston would have no Olympic village is you're putting athletes in college dorms in Boston and Cambridge. Where''s the security?
 
Atlanta was hammered because people considered it a provincial, third-tier city, and because it shockingly indulged commercialism to the extent no previous host city had. In part, it was the overparticipation of brands like Coke (or at least their overconspicuousness) that made Atlanta so reviled (though people have gotten more used to the corporate nature of the Olympics since). There were other, minor mistakes Atlanta made (like allowing a free-for-all flea market which many visitors found ugly and annoying) which won't be repeated by any other host city ever again.

My point about Atlanta was solely that, if population were the criterion, Boston is far from too small to host.

Boston's not lacking in local money; this is one of the wealthiest metros in the country. Just because there isn't a marquee Fortune 500 name behind an effort doesn't mean it won't succeed, given the same amount of money. Boston's likely competition at the US stage would include cities like Philadelphia and DC, which don't have many local Cokes either. San Francisco may have Silicon Valley heavyweights, but when was the last time they invested in their region like traditional corporations do? Right.

Beyond the USOC selection of a US host city, Boston would be representing the US and have a fundraising reach well beyond New England.

And yes, of course Boston would have to build an Olympic Village for athletes (or expand some other, existing facility). The question is what you do with all the other people - security personnel, volunteers, etc. You need lots more housing, and this is where a flexible stock like dorms come in handy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top