Boston 2024

[rinserepeat]

Yeah, but how many of us would actually take that round about route? I would stick to the more direct option, even if it continues to mean riding in mixed traffic. True, such a system of paths would be a good thing, but I don't see a lot of longer distance riders purposefully selecting a longer route much of the time.

if I have the kid with me, I'm taking off-street paths as much as possible.

I would like to see beach volleyball at Moakley Park. It's across the street from a real beach, and fairly close to both JFK/UMass/Olympic Village and Andrew stations. That might be good for a velodrome, too, though I'd kind of like to see that at Franklin Park.

for selfish reasons I'd prefer the velodrome to be at Franklin Park too... it's ok if it's at Assembly, but only if the T creates a "bike car" on the orange line.

 

[rinserepeat]

this is interesting:

What do you make of the bid to bring the Olympics to Boston?

I can’t comment on the specifics of the bid. No one has seen it. The piece that the proponents have focused on is transportation. They’ve said correctly that most of the [projects and improvements] are in the bond bill that passed last year. But bond bills are just Monopoly money. Each year, we can do two and a quarter billion—that’s our [bond cap] limit right now—so you can do $11 billion over five years. The needs are much, much greater than that. They are correct in saying that most of the projects have been authorized, but, back to the point I was making, we don’t have the funding available, we can’t pay for them. Olympic officials are going to say, “where is your revenue stream to do all of this” in 2017 when they pick a winner.

http://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/the-tax-man-goeth/

 

[HalcyonEra]

Beach Volleyball is slated for Boston Common but regular Volleyball is absent. I suppose that it could be held in one of the venues already listed like the Garden or Conti Forum but if they are already proposing sports for those venues it probably would have already been mentioned along with.



No I meant New Haven because they have a large tennis arena near a college campus that can be used for housing, I honestly forgot about Newport.

Having places like Springfield, Holyoke, and even Newport near Boston can be real useful for giving a Boston bid a leg up on the competition. The question is are these locations viable for hosting a few games or a group stage and how much do you want to risk spreading things out.

The argument for spreading tennis out to the periphery is mainly that while Boston's bid is playing up its walkability, it's also playing up its low cost and sustainability. The Boston bid team should try to minimize the amount of temporary venues they need to build and I suppose the location of tennis is one of those hard decisions they have to make.

I was in suburban London on business in 2012 during the Olympics and thought I could catch a soccer game but most of the games while I was there were hours away. They used 6 stadiums, including some as far away as Wales and Scotland. Gillette, a new stadium and even if they were to consider Fenway are not going to cut it. The smallest site had a capacity of 32,500 which eliminates any college venue except maybe Alumni stadium, which would still leave the area a few sites short.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics

 

[Deetroyt]

this is interesting:



http://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/the-tax-man-goeth/

Agree, a good read, something everyone in the state should probably read. Just to stay informed. Though as he mentioned in the interview, the media can't MAKE the public pay attention.

 

[stellarfun]

Globe on stadium cost. Basically saying Manfredi is blowing smoke.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...outh-boston/U8nsaAiY4qUbQgEQJNP7tN/story.html

Also, the Boston committee (reluctantly it seems) to make more information public next week.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-bid-public/46fnxDFhEXDBvjcw4j6GmN/story.html

Also, Suffolk's construction recusal.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...n_fish_i_m_giving_up_billions_for_olympic_bid

 

[Equilibria]

Globe on stadium cost. Basically saying Manfredi is blowing smoke.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...outh-boston/U8nsaAiY4qUbQgEQJNP7tN/story.html

That's not really what it says. It's not even all that negative. It just raises some issues with the concept while curiously leaving out a couple of very important points.

First, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about:

"No one should think it’s cheaper than building a stadium; the requirements are the same for life safety, fireproofing, egress — everything has to work and be to code, meaning the way you build it is not going to be that much different from a permanent stadium,"

Yes, it is. The cost savings don't come from going skimpy on structural steel, the cost savings come from not including fancy suites, retractable roofs, and other luxury items that drive up the cost of American stadiums. The Patriots, for example, could probably build a permanent stadium for $500 million. Collegiate programs do this cheaply all the time - Baylor, for example, just built a $250M stadium that holds 45,000, and it's considered fairly top-of-the-line.

In addition to being sporting venues, your typical NFL stadium is also an office building and has a complex warren of team facilities, none of which would have to be replicated in a temporary facility.

None of this is to say that a temporary Olympic Stadium would be much less expensive than a bare-bones permanent one, but it will be far, far less expensive than the $1 billion the American public thinks of as a price floor for a "stadium" these days.

Second, whatever Manfredi or Boston 2024 say, the reason to build temporary isn't cost. The reason is that under current IOC spending regulations, operating funds can only be used to pay for temporary facilities. If you want to keep public money away from this venue, it pretty much has to be temporary. You'd think the Globe would, you know, read the Boston Business Journal article on this same subject and include that nugget of critical information. Or perhaps the Boston.com article that quoted it.

 

[George_Apley]

^ Yeah. The whole article kind of misses the point entirely.

 

[fattony]

Second, whatever Manfredi or Boston 2024 say, the reason to build temporary isn't cost. The reason is that under current IOC spending regulations, operating funds can only be used to pay for temporary facilities. If you want to keep public money away from this venue, it pretty much has to be temporary. You'd think the Globe would, you know, read the Boston Business Journal article on this same subject and include that nugget of critical information. Or perhaps the Boston.com article that quoted it.

This.

If Kraft or anyone else wanted to buy a permanent stadium they would have bid it that way. Since no one wants that, they have to go temporary or the city/state/whomever has to buy a white elephant.

 

[c_combat]

I've been out of Boston for a little bit now... can someone explain why there is a huge movement against the Olympics in the city?

 

[datadyne007]

I've been out of Boston for a little bit now... can someone explain why there is a huge movement against the Olympics in the city?

It's pretty much the same anti-development crowd we're used to in Boston (those that yearn to make Boston a peaceful suburb) mixed in with some new "omgzors the T sux how culd we host the Olympics?????" and "omg the traffic is terrible here already" people. My Facebook feed is an interesting cross section of the debate. I apparently have a pretty equal amount of pro and anti friends.

 

[George_Apley]

It's pretty much the same anti-development crowd we're used to in Boston (those that yearn to make Boston a peaceful suburb) mixed in with some new "omgzors the T sux how culd we host the Olympics?????" and "omg the traffic is terrible here already" people. My Facebook feed is an interesting cross section of the debate. I apparently have a pretty equal amount of pro and anti friends.

Plus your general Olympic doomsdayers. They're the funniest.

 

[cden4]

I'm pro-development, pro-density, pro-growth, pro-transit, etc but anti-Olympics. Sure we could benefit from infrastructure improvements that would need to be done in order to host the games, but in the end it would be hugely expensive. No host city has come out ahead financially from hosting the Olympics. It's a lot of money for basically some good publicity for the city for a few weeks. Boston doesn't need the publicity. It already has a pretty good global reputation (just look at all the international students and housing buyers we attract.)

 

[c_combat]

I figured as much... Do these people realize there is 0% chance these problems will get addressed without a big kick in the ass such as an Olympics? At least that's really how I see it. It's hard enough trying to get Massholes to fix anything on their own when it comes to Boston. Maybe the Big Dig was just too traumatic for 'em.

 

[underground]

I'm pro-development, pro-density, pro-growth, pro-transit, etc but anti-Olympics. Sure we could benefit from infrastructure improvements that would need to be done in order to host the games, but in the end it would be hugely expensive. No host city has come out ahead financially from hosting the Olympics. It's a lot of money for basically some good publicity for the city for a few weeks. Boston doesn't need the publicity. It already has a pretty good global reputation (just look at all the international students and housing buyers we attract.)

I understand your reasoning if we were getting a Sochi/Beijing/Montreal style proposal, or if we as a city were in an Athens style financial environment, but Boston's basically a 180 on all fronts. As long as the promises coming out of the proposal are met, I've got no problem with it. Of course, promises made aren't necessarily promises kept.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

I'm pro-development, pro-density, pro-growth, pro-transit, etc but anti-Olympics. Sure we could benefit from infrastructure improvements that would need to be done in order to host the games, but in the end it would be hugely expensive. No host city has come out ahead financially from hosting the Olympics. It's a lot of money for basically some good publicity for the city for a few weeks. Boston doesn't need the publicity. It already has a pretty good global reputation (just look at all the international students and housing buyers we attract.)

Few Olympics make money, but I'm pretty sure all sources indicate the 1984 LA Games made money ( a lot) and were the first money making summer games since like 1942. 1996 Atlanta games also made money, but it was negligible. However, as a whole Atlanta itself benefitted in many ways. Some of those benefits however were not sustainable in that city (too big and sprawling, not enough business, etc.) I also believe SLC winter games made money.

The huge money losers have been the more recent Olympics in Athens, Sydney, Beijing, London, Sochi, and that huge outlier that was Montreal 1976.

These recent ones are also why the IOC has changed their stance on a lot of things and are pushing for a smarter built Olympics that is geared to benefit the local city long term, as opposed to the lavish overbuilt but ultimately useless facilities. Boston has that small walkable footprint and used it to it's advantage in their bid.

I think the above plus the ability shown by past USA games to turn profits is what gives Boston that upper hand going in. Our track record as a nation is pretty strong I not losing our shirts hosting the games. This succeeding not only would benefit us a a host city, but also is a nice cold steak on the black eyes the IOC has suffered over the last decade and a half. It renews trust and global appeal in the Olympic games. This global political move seems to be missed by a lot here in the hub. We can't see beyond Beacon Hill and our own political issues and problems.

 

[Arlington]

Is money spent on police overtime a "loss"? Sure, its money we wouldn't have otherwise spent, but those police are going pay taxes on it and spend a whole lot of it locally on stuff like a new kitchen or motorcycle.

From a Keynesian perspective, Olympics are only a net-loser if your net tourism profits go down--if we repel too many Cape Cod vacationers or spend (way) too much to attract their Olympic replacements.

The money "lost" on the Olympics is mostly being spent local "winners" who take construction jobs, service jobs, etc. And if we build stuff we need (and not White Elephants like Athens did), then our loss is really just money spent early.

I'm not saying the Os are a can't-lose proposition, but a lot of what is a "loss" depends on where you draw the circle around the costs and revenues.

 

[Shepard]

The debate about net loss or net gain is completely senseless, once you realize that costs (does it matter whose money? do any and all expenses count, or just certain categories?) and benefits (benefits to whom? how do you measure economic gain?) ...can be defined a million different ways. And you or I will always define them based on what we want the final tally to prove.

 

[Ruairi]

Boston doesn't need the publicity. It already has a pretty good global reputation (just look at all the international students and housing buyers we attract.)

I disagree with this. I moved to the area 7 years ago, having lived all over the world. Boston is an after thought when it comes to American cities. The main reason for this IMO is the way local government is set up. Most people around the world have heard of Harvard, very few could tell you where it is, Same for MIT. There's no joined up thinking, no promotion of greater Boston. If you say Harvard is in Boston you get corrected.

Most people see Boston as a hardworking blue collar city with very little reason to visit. If you are going to visit the East coast of America, you are going to visit NYC or DC, not cities like Boston or Philadelphia, sure you've heard that there is some historical stuff in these cities but is it really worth it.

Nobody has heard of the Charles River or the Isabella Stewart Gardiner Museum or the BSO, First night, the 4th celebrations on the esplanade, the public gardens, the beautiful old architecture in the back bay and Beacon Hill. All anyone knows is that theres a common and a cheers bar and they saw the Departed and that math movie with Robin Williams oh and their good at baseball but I've no idea how that's played.

I think Boston, with it's history, culture and sport is one of the worlds best kept secrets. There is nowhere near the amount of tourists and foreign investment there should be considering the calibre of the city (greater Boston, not Boston).

The Olympics would be a great way for greater Boston to present it's self as one of the greatest cities in the world. If you don't think it is, try living in a few of the others.

edit: (except for winter, I still haven't got used to that! )

 

[George_Apley]

^ That's interesting. I find that Boston is one East-coast stop of very many travelers from Europe. Maybe they don't know the names of the sights, but they do come...

 

[Equilibria]

^ That's interesting. I find that Boston is one East-coast stop of very many travelers from Europe. Maybe they don't know the names of the sights, but they do come...

I've heard the same thing in Europe, actually. A guy in France once told me that Boston was the only American city he liked. Not much of a sample, of course.