Boston 2020 Olympics

^ Yes, and Chicago proposed a second village for the summer games near the proposed cycling course in Wisconsin.

The ban on joint bids is solely for cities in different countries. Albany-Lake Placid and Reno-Tahoe City are both potential joint bids for 2022.

But there's no branding advantage to including the name of the second (smaller) city in the bid or the games branding itself. It's cumbersome and weighs the imagery down. That's why the current Olympics are not Vancouver/Whistler 2010.

The ultimate point here is the opportunity to build lots of legacy housing in Boston proper should not be lost in the unlikely event of something like this.

PS: Quebec City's mayor just announced a 2022 Winter Olympic bid, and for some reason, Lebanon, Maine is interested as well.
 
jass said:
Vancouver has two olympic villages. One, right off downtown, in an area that looked like our south boston waterfront looks like today. The other is 2 hours away near the mountain.

Google maps has a good deal of information and streetview imagery of the vancouver olympics
Click to expand...

Vancouver has two Olympic villages because it has two main Olympic locations, Vancouver city and Whistler. Whistler is remote enough to warrant a vaillage for the events taking place there. The individual sports federations -- which have huge influence over the IOC -- would require the organizers to have a local village near the ski/sledding events in the mountains if there's an appreciable distance from the core village. They would never permit a games' organizers to force their athletes to get on a shuttle bus the morning of their competition and drive two hours up to Whitsler for a day trip of competing.
 
the Mapquest link doesn't work for me -- it says "Error in processing error code"
 
HenryAlan said:
I don't think building on the Arboretum would be such a good idea. There are plenty of derelict areas in Boston that could benefit from the development associated with an Olympic Village complex. The so-called seaport, South Bay, New Market, maybe the Harvard property in Allston?
Click to expand...

Don't forget northpoint too!
 
Ron Newman said:
the Mapquest link doesn't work for me -- it says "Error in processing error code"
Click to expand...

It didn't work for me either, but you can figure out the location by looking at the link: bussey street in 02131.
 
palindrome said:
Don't forget northpoint too!
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing! What a perfect spot for an Olympic Village - it would provide the investment boost needed to get it finished, and would presumably finish with an excellent product.

massnative said:
I think this is a great location for an Olympic Stadium (capacity: 90,000-100,000) with easy acess to I-93 and Rte.1 and we can lower the capacirty from 90,000 to 16,000 for the New England Revolution's stadium. The Community College Station (Orange Line) is the closest "T" Station.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.383005,-71.053133&spn=0.007053,0.013754&t=h&z=16
Click to expand...

Plenty of space, but that's a heavily used industrial port. Couldn't just be sacrificed for two weeks of games, and the Revolution. Plus, it's not very well connected with the rest of the city.
 
Uh, surrounded by onramps and viewable by no one save the drivers on the Zakim and the residents of Spaulding Rehab and the Charles Street Jail? Nah.

The "second flame" thing is specific to Vancouver, anyway, necessary because the flame must be visible, but the Vancouver stadium is indoors. Most Olympic cities display the flame from the top of the stadium.
 
I like the precedent they've set, though. Usually the glamour of the flame is lost in the stadium. Perhaps North Point could be integrated into a larger Olympic campus, with a staidum open ended and in sight of the torch. You have to admit, though, that it looks like it was built for some type of monument.
 
Well, the idea of putting it in the Charles or the Harbor would be nice, maybe. The reflection would be sublime, and the lighting would be unique.
 
Yeah, the damn jail took prime real estate. The water around the canal could be an incredibly intimate space. Looking at Google Maps, could the land where the baseball field currently are be used for an Olympic Stadium, to be deconstructed to a much smaller state post-games? A little land reclamation might be necessary but no one can deny that an Olympics focused around the Charles would be one of the most phenomenal games ever hosted.
 
That little island park is the perfect type of setting for the olympic torch...but I also agree with cz in that the location is all wrong. It needs to be able to be seen by all. Maybe we could have a nice little island park like this added on to the Charles River Esplanade?

If not that, then how about in front of Fan Pier in the small harbor with the ICA overlooking? If that were to happen maybe the developer say "Shit, we better put something nice there instead of all these precast-palaces we had planned"...probably not, but a guy can dream right?

If the torch wasn't to be located on the water somewhere, then how about the Common? It could be located in between the State House and the Brewer Fountain. In my opinion, that could be the perfect location. It's in the Common, at a high traffic area next to the mass transit hub.
 
250px-1800_beacon_hill.jpg
 
Maybe we could put the entire olympic village in a 2,020' Calatrava highrise tower at the end of long wharf with the Olympic flame on top. It would be unfortunate for this board though as about 80% of the contributors would heart attack/stroke/jizz themselves to death
 
^ You wish.

Think about this: when it went up, the Prudential Tower was the tallest office building outside New York.

Think how much economic clout Boston must have had back then.

You wish.

(I wish.)
 
Is it alright if I hope Boston doesn't bid in 2020, rather, that they bid sometime like 2032, so that I can manage all of the design, construction, and planning for the Games?
 
Thumbs up on the 2032 idea. By then, I'll either be dead, retired to somewhere warm, or in jail, so I won't have to deal with it.

Two of three of those sound quite appealing.
 
according to my life expendiency chart I should be dead by 2032! So not in my life time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top