Boston 2020 Olympics

Matthew said:
7743885712_b61a57a922.jpg
Click to expand...

Montreal? It's amazing a city Montreal's relatively small size (compared to, say, Mexico City or Seoul) was able to host the Summer Olympic Games. Probably the best analogue to Boston (and a cautionary tale).

Apparently DC and Philadelphia are gearing up for the 2024 and 2028 bids. And the IOC has always had an eye on San Francisco. Obviously Chicago, NY, and LA are in an upper tier, but -- just as an intellectual exercise -- what do the others have that Boston doesn't (or more to the point, what downsides does Boston have that they don't?)
 
Yeah. It's pretty depressing there. Not in ruins, just crumbling a bit, it's still being used. The brutalism is extremely depressing. It's an alien landscape of concrete and giant-scaled complexes and overpasses, totally in contrast with the rest of Montreal.

The Olympics are a fiasco and a drain on resources. I don't know if we'd repeat the mistakes of the 70s, though it seems likely. I would rather the Olympics stayed far away from here.
 
We can forget about Boston, or any city besides Madrid, Istanbul, or Tokyo getting the 2020 games. You have to think the IOC will want another Olympics in North America in either 2024 or 2028. 2020 will go to an African nation should one be able to put up a decent bid.

I think Boston is simply too small to handle the massive crunch of people that would come into the city during the games. You have a good number of fans that will travel from all over the world. Those people will not stay the whole time. You have the athletes, the coaches, the delegation, media, and support staff for the teams and media that will be in the area for the duration of the games.

I don't know if anyone went to Atlanta back in 1996, but the venues were spread out too far without proper infrastructure. That was one of a few big knocks against the games and why the 1996 Olympics are not looked upon favorably.


London is very smart in what their venues will become. The O2/North Greenwich Area already gets heavy use with concerts, sporting events, etc. using the arena year round. The aquatic center has tons of temporary seating that will be removed, I think the capacity is going from 17,500 during the games to 3,500 post games. The Olympic Stadium is going to be chopped down and one of the London Football Clubs (either West Ham of Tottenham) will most likely move in. It's a perfect situation considering Tottenham have been after a new stadium for a while now. Earl's Court already sees use for other sporting events, conventions, speeches, etc. Wimbledon, is well Wimbledon. The beach volleyball arena is all temporary and will be taken down.

Compared to Beijing and the fact that most of their venues were built for the games, London is going to be in fantastic shape for future use of their venues.
 
^ 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.
 
Wouldn't this means Boston hosting a decentralized Olympics has an advantage? Our urban fabric is compact. So our version of spread out buildings (likely across university campuses to the waterfront) would feel much better than Atlanta, especially if the MBTA is invested the way it should be with the Olympics as a great excuse for this city to finally fix it.
 
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.
 
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...
 
The giant Olympic Park with all the venues put together is a bigger problem than a gated village alone. With the latter, Boston could convert it into a student village that could serve multiple universities at once...a lot of German cities have these. It could even be sold off and used as a private dorm complex, like what the GrandMarc was originally proposed to be.
 
czsz said:
Obviously Chicago, NY, and LA are in an upper tier, but -- just as an intellectual exercise -- what do the others have that Boston doesn't (or more to the point, what downsides does Boston have that they don't?)
Click to expand...

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
 
To be clear, I acknowledged that Chicago, LA, and NY were in a different league. My question was about Philadelphia, DC, and SF.
 
I would rather just see a concerted effort on investing in infrastructure for growth than infrastructure to try and fit a square peg in a round hole for the olympics. There is so much security and headaches and everything. If we could somehow channel the focus, energy, and long term goals that the olympic cities must develop to invest in infrastructure without the 2 weeks of craziness I think the city would be better off in everyway.

Its a shame that we would need a 2 week event held 20 years from now to make people see the value in increasing transit infrastructure of all kinds, affordable hotels, and dense residential areas. Why can't we just have that anyway?
 
^ I think a lot of the freaking out over additional traffic / craziness and the international spotlight catalyzes investment in infrastructure like no rational argument about present-day needs ever would. It's one thing when the local press is for something and the timescale is infinite, because local residents are staying put and it doesn't matter whether that new subway opens today or tomorrow. But when every reporter in the world is watching, when there's panic over whether your city can really handle the crush, and you only have a few years to build, things can't get deferred as easily.
 
choo said:
I would rather just see a concerted effort on investing in infrastructure for growth than infrastructure to try and fit a square peg in a round hole for the olympics. There is so much security and headaches and everything. If we could somehow channel the focus, energy, and long term goals that the olympic cities must develop to invest in infrastructure without the 2 weeks of craziness I think the city would be better off in everyway.

Its a shame that we would need a 2 week event held 20 years from now to make people see the value in increasing transit infrastructure of all kinds, affordable hotels, and dense residential areas. Why can't we just have that anyway?
Click to expand...

Because politics and the ability to cater to the politicians "BUILD MONOLITH LEGACY" fetish
 
bigeman312 said:
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...

According to the wiki, Harvard stadium has a "Max" capacity of around 57,000. It's "current" Capacity is 30,000. I'd assume that with some modification that 57,000 shouldn't be too difficult to reach. With major modification (a la Soldier Field- Chicago), It could probably be greatly increased. 57,000 is as good as any stadium on your list except the NFL stadiums (and it's not far off from most of those) and the Rose Bowl.

Alumni Stadium has a current capacity of around 44,000. More than Fenway Park, United Center, Wrigley, TD Garden, MSG, Staples Center, U.S. Cellular Field, etc.

I'm certain that if an Olympic Bid were put in by Boston, both Harvard and BC would welcome the opportunity to use some of the Olympic money for upgrades to their facilities. Especially BC who has one of the worst stadiums of any team of their caliber.

Don't forget that Gillette Stadium has an existing commuter rail stop and would only be 20-30 minutes from downtown if special express trains were run to Foxboro for the Olympics. It may even be a good opportunity for the MBTA to upgrade some of the rolling stock, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

And for smaller events (Judo, Wrestling, Table Tennis, etc), Agganis Arena and Matthews Arena could fill in some of the blanks. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for the DCU Center (Worcester), Verizon Center (Manchester), Tsongas Arena (Lowell) and Dunkin Donuts Center (Providence) to host some preliminary events either. Brockton, Manchester, Worcester, Lowell and Providence have some outdoor stadiums that could host preliminary events as well. And going a little bit overboard here, but Somerville may have a Baseball or Soccer stadium by then too.

Harvard and MIT already have excellent aquatics facilities although I'm not sure they meet seating requirements.

If hotel capacity in the city is a problem, Worcester and Providence would be able to handle a good bit of the overflow and they're right on transit lines. Since it is the summer Olympics, some of the city's dorms could be used as temporary housing for international visitors.

No, Boston isn't on par with NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago. But I do think it could host and wouldn't have to do as much work as many seem to think it would. Personally, I really like Chicago as an Olympic city. Soldier Field is one of my favorite venues and it's in an excellent location (too bad Meigs Field was converted to a park before an Olympic Bid... perfect spot for a village). There's no reason, in my opinion, that Philadelphia, DC, or SF would make a much better host than Boston. In fact, SF may have some of the same issues as London as far as weather is concerned (cool mornings and evenings... fog, drizzle).

*Edit* What I think would be most important for Boston to host an Olympics are transit upgrades. The system would need to be much more dependable. Frankly, I'd welcome that aspect of the Olympics; but not much else.
 
^ If SF hosted you'd like see venues across the Bay Area, and only San Francisco proper is really all that affected by the fog (plus there's barely any rain in the summer and it's not like the weather issues were a problem for London). The rest of the area is usually sunny and warm. I still can't think of a reason why there would be a breakout favorite between DC, Boston, SF, or Philly...
 
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.
 
Most likely, the soccer venues would be spread around the country, World Cup-style, and not just New England, which I believe is standard practice. A certain number of other events can be held outside the host city -- Beijing even held equestrian events in Hong Kong, presumably because there was more interest there and not because it was incapable -- but I'm not sure Worcester could be used all that intensely. What would Foxboro be for, if not soccer? It's a great asset, but I would assume the Olympic Stadium and athletics would be kept in the city...
 
czsz said:
^ If SF hosted you'd like see venues across the Bay Area, and only San Francisco proper is really all that affected by the fog (plus there's barely any rain in the summer and it's not like the weather issues were a problem for London). The rest of the area is usually sunny and warm. I still can't think of a reason why there would be a breakout favorite between DC, Boston, SF, or Philly...
Click to expand...

SF also has something that Boston, at least does not: A huge, prominent blighted and abandoned industrial area that they can use for a purpose-built Olympic Stadium/Park. You can't just use an NFL stadium for this because of the track radius, I think - even Rio is having to rebuild their soccer/track stadium for the purposes of the games.

Boston used to have an open SB Waterfront that could have hosted multiple new facilities, but as that gets built up (into something much more useful than an Olympic Park) it isn't left with many possible locations in Boston proper. I'm not familiar with Philly or DC (which would probably tear down RFK Stadium and build there, then move the Redskins in after the games), but SF has Hunter's Point and will have Candlestick Point as existing redevelopment sites that can accommodate multiple venues within city limits.

The problem for SF is that the Bay Area is geographically huge in a way most people don't realize. It's 50 miles from Berkeley (where I live) to San Jose, and they'd probably want to put venues up in Marin, Sonoma and Napa as well (Equestrian, Whitewater, Archery...). The transportation system here would have real problems moving people over that distance. It would really be like having not 1 or 2 special venues in Worcester or Providence, but actually having large portions of the games in those places with a need for a constant flow of people between them and, say, Allston for the main Olympic Park.

Frankly, I would support Chicago, SF or DC as the next US host site, simply because the Summer Olympics have become much more about showcasing national pride than about a particular city opening itself to the world - the Chicago 2016 bid was deeply tied to Obama. SF - and I know this from living here - simply has more world-class ambition than Boston does.
 
Equilibria said:
I'm not familiar with Philly or DC (which would probably tear down RFK Stadium and build there, then move the Redskins in after the games), but SF has Hunter's Point and will have Candlestick Point as existing redevelopment sites that can accommodate multiple venues within city limits.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top