Boston 2020 Olympics

[kennedy]

When you think about it, the city will have little control over the events. I was under the impression that local OC's are essentially private corporations, or state organizations, using a city as the label. It is very possible that although Menino, or other crooked Boston pols, would be on the committee, more rational voices from around the state and country might be able to balance them out. Of course, they still have to work in the city, and appease the unions, NIMBYs, and general nay-sayers...

 

[ant8904]

My experience colors my attitude, but I'll own up to being a pessimist. Here's why:

I'm not opposed to the Olympics in Boston, I just think they're not viable. Sorry if that's negative, in your opinion. I just think it's the reality of the situation, in my opinion.

+1. It's not being pessimistic, it's being more realistic. Sure, it's easy to say, Boston will be ready with the given time but seeing from experience, it is much harder to get things going in this city. It took decades to get Fan Pier off and decades for other projects, the MBTA failed to upgrade significantly for decades, squabbling delayed the Big Dig, etc. You can dream all you want but I'm going to base my judgement on past events and those past events just don't look good.

You're not opposed, but you do sound like saying let's not even try. Let's do that 15 year scenario, and 5 years from now, everyone still still say that it needs 15 years more. Those obstacles are real, but in the bidding process, cities don't start 15-22 years before and then make a bid. I'll be honest, I have doubts, unless someone is willing to pour lots of money to pay for a ton of upgrades to infrastructure and thus sidestepping the issue of construction and politics in financing, Boston will have a hard time. However, Boston is still regarded as a world class city with an international name. If Boston thinks big, it can think big.

To propose that Boston should go for an olympics for 2028 or 2032 for more time is ridiculous. Cities don't make bids like that, they make bids like this, about 10 years before its time. Many cities fail, but in the course of going through the bid, gain much experience, exposed many weakness, and made alot of promises and even began many projects to improve the city. By the next round of bidding, those cities try again and in much better shape. Prague did that for this round of bidding. Beijing did that (though controversial Beijing is) too.

Realism is a fine viewpoint, but realism will not bring change, just learn how to work the status quo. Realism works well in many fields, but if you want to see Boston be a city that can host an Olympics, be a city that can build and maintain a decent transportation system, a city that can build skyscrapers like it used to, then to have that mentality, it need to act like such a city even if it fails in the end. A realistic view will not foster that mentality, just assume this is permanent, but that will never get us an Olympics or even a subway that doesn't break down everyday.

No matter the outcome of Boston's bid for a 2020 Olympics, Boston will come out stronger. If Boston is to retain its status as a world class city, we need to continue to think big, even if this city have not in a long time.

 

[bbfen]

When you think about it, the city will have little control over the events. I was under the impression that local OC's are essentially private corporations, or state organizations, using a city as the label. It is very possible that although Menino, or other crooked Boston pols, would be on the committee, more rational voices from around the state and country might be able to balance them out. Of course, they still have to work in the city, and appease the unions, NIMBYs, and general nay-sayers...

This is what I'm saying. You seem to recognize the challenge isn't in having the actual event. It's in preparing Boston for it. I have less faith that your rational voices can balance out the aforementioned CRAZY, but again-----I'm tempered [spoiled?) by my personal experiences with each.

I do appreciate the conversation and debate though.

 

[bbfen]

You're not opposed, but you do sound like saying let's not even try. Let's do that 15 year scenario, and 5 years from now, everyone still still say that it needs 15 years more.

What I'm saying is, it needs to start today. Immediately. And it will still last 15 years.

However, Boston is still regarded as a world class city with an international name. If Boston thinks big, it can think big.

But the people with the influence$ and abilitie$ in this conversation don't want Boston to think big. They want it to stay the way it is. Provincial.

If you think that isn't true or hasn't hurt Boston over the years, I have two words for you: Bob Kraft.

By the next round of bidding, those cities try again and in much better shape. Prague did that for this round of bidding. Beijing did that (though controversial Beijing is) too.

Beijing is run by godless commies, where the games were a mandate for national pride and lawsuits didn't stop progress. Boston is run by godless commies, where lawsuits are a mandate for national pride and progress doesn't matter.

If Boston is to retain its status as a world class city, we need to continue to think big, even if this city have not in a long time.

I like living here as much as the next person, but like my mother used to say, "Boston is the center of Boston."

Anyway, I think I'll decline to post more about this for a while. My opinions articulated enough.

 

[ant8904]

What I'm saying is, it needs to start today. Immediately. And it will still last 15 years.

The thing is, you seem to be also saying that this city should not bid till after some point in that 15 years, basically not bid till after we are partly in the plan (I guess 8 years into the 15 year plan in at 2018 for 2028) or finish it, making it Olympic ready and long after the bid window closed for either year.

Olympic bids do not work like that. Cities don't start improvements now for the Olympics but hold off on bidding for 8-15 years. You're much more likely to get improvements while bidding then trying to motivate improvement projects before bidding.

But the people with the influence$ and abilitie$ in this conversation don't want Boston to think big. They want it to stay the way it is. Provincial.

If you think that isn't true or hasn't hurt Boston over the years, I have two words for you: Bob Kraft.

Isn't the act of studying to make an Olympic bid a big thing? So somehow the provincial minded people only are discussion about making a bid and being provincial at the same time? Obviously there's are people actually up there who have enough influence to submit the idea for consideration.

Beijing is run by godless commies, where the games were a mandate for national pride and lawsuits didn't stop progress. Boston is run by godless commies, where lawsuits are a mandate for national pride and progress doesn't matter.

I knew I should have left Beijing out, I didn't have time to research outside of Prague and Beijing of other cities using the bid to gain experience and become stronger (and hopefully in a better position next bid). If you going to counter my point that "by the next round of bidding, those cities will be in better shape," I would appreciate it if you actually attack that than just attacking Beijing. Saying Beijing doesn't have to deal with the obstacles of Boston as they will jail any opposition means nothing about Prague and other cities who went through the bidding process, failed, but started many improvement projects and commitments. Not to mention experience in making stronger bids.

I like living here as much as the next person, but like my mother used to say, "Boston is the center of Boston."

Anyway, I think I'll decline to post more about this for a while. My opinions articulated enough.

That's great. Articulate your opinions that Boston needs 15 years of preparing like it already bidding before even trying to bid (at the end or partway though) when cities only have 10 years while bidding and can try again.

I do not see how saying "Boston is the center of Boston" refute my point that if Boston is to retain its reputation, it needs to continue to think big (like just bidding for the Olympics) or how just pointing the flaw of Beijing while ignoring the main point or the example of Prague counters my point that bidding will strengthen Boston by forcing the city to make promises and start projects as it bid.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

But the people with the influence$ and abilitie$ in this conversation don't want Boston to think big. They want it to stay the way it is. Provincial.

If you think that isn't true or hasn't hurt Boston over the years, I have two words for you: Bob Kraft.

I don't get the Bob Kraft reference.

 

[Beton Brut]

^^ Me either? He's about as good of a corporate citizen as I know of in Greater Boston. Maybe he should be our Bloomberg and run for Mayor (although he's need to move out of Brookline).

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

My experience colors my attitude, but I'll own up to being a pessimist. Here's why:

Timeline It's hard to imagine being ready in 10 years. It would be 1 full year to assemble a team, 2.5 of planning, 1.5 of lawsuits, 2 of replanning, 1 of more lawsuits, and then 1 more to finish planning details. Build out in a year? 15 years to plan and execute sounds more realistic to me.

Momentum A staggering disparity in class, a transient population--some 45% of the city, a hysterical vocal minority with disproportional influence, no cohesive transportation leadership at the state or local level, a broken city planning agency and gutless elected officials at every level should be considered. These are generational issues, not decadal problems to be solved by an Olympic bid. The very geography of the city that makes it a candidate for water events, plus the segregation of what middle class there is, hurts Boston.

Construction Unions would love it (there's our middle class from the edges of the city), but who's footing the bill for infrastructure improvements in Boston/Cambridge/Brookline? Who's paying for the venues and the Olympic village? Western Mass will howl at the moon. I don't see how any governor or the Boston Olympic Committee can overcome that. Not even with Mitt Romney at the helm.

I'm not opposed to the Olympics in Boston, I just think they're not viable. Sorry if that's negative, in your opinion. I just think it's the reality of the situation, in my opinion.

Sounds like London. Seriously, Boston is a beautiful mid-sized city, perfect for the Olympics, with pretty good public transportation and infrastructure. There should be no technical reason why Boston cannot hold the Olympics. If you all are going to dismiss it out of hand, then of course it will never happen. It is better to plan for more than what is necessary and then scale it down than to not plan for anything and then regret "what could have been done." An opportunity like this comes only once in a lifetime, and if we are just going to wallow in negativity on a great event just because a few other things in our city are not going well, then we will never get anywhere. Sorry but the negativity in this forum is reaching ridiculous levels. Boston CAN hold the Olympics. The NIMBYs may be vocal, but the public support about such an amazing event will drown them out.

 

[bbfen]

^^ Me either? He's about as good of a corporate citizen as I know of in Greater Boston. Maybe he should be our Bloomberg and run for Mayor (although he's need to move out of Brookline).

Stepping back in only to clarify: Mr. Kraft is an amazing person. In no small part due to City Hall's response (ranging from grudging apathy to vocal opposition) he gave up plans to build Patriot Place--with private money--on the waterfront.

Can you believe it?

EDIT: The year was 1996. Mr. Menino became mayor in 1993, for those interested.

 

[Patriots_1228]

Not to mention he kept the patriots in massachusetts...

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

bbfen,
Still confused by your Kraft reference. I'm not even sure if you're criticizing him or the city. Either way, it was always in Krafts best interest to build in Foxborough.
#1, Kraft never owned the land in Boston. He did own hundreds of acres in Foxborough.
#2, It was economically prudent to keep the team south of the city. He captures the Boston TV market by default. To grab RI and especially CT from the NY Giants, he needs to have an accessible stadium for those fan bases. Keep in mind, New England was Giants country for 30 years before the Patriots ever existed.
#3, "Patriots Place" as a retail/entertainment complex was always an afterthought to the stadium.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

^ What he's saying is that Bob Kraft wanted to build in Boston on the waterfront and the city basically told him to get the hell out of here.

If it was in his "best interest" to stay in Foxborough why would he propose something in Boston? He always wanted the team in Boston, the city (Tom Finneran anyone?) put the nix on that as fast as they could. That's what spurred the whole looking into moving the team to CT idea.

Just imagine that there's a world class stadium on the waterfront for a second before you guys just completely ignore the fact. That would certainly be a boon to the Olympic proposal.

 

[aquaman]

The problem with retrofitting an existing standard American football stadium for Olympic use is that its design would leave almost no room for a standard 400m track. So if Kraft had built a standard football stadium in the city, it would not be very useful as an Olympic stadium. Of course, if it was built with an enormous field (extra wide, extra long) it would work, but then everyone would be complaining about how far from the action the front row seats are during each football game.

I agree with the others that we can't wait for the city to improve before seeking an event like the Olympics. If so, we'll be waiting forever. Inviting the relatives over for dinner is usually a bigger motivation to clean the house than for its sake alone.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Mmm-hmm. "We need the Olympics to prove we're a world-class city." Oh, but, "We need the city to improve before we have the Olympics to prove we're a world-class city."

There is no logic to these arguments.

I'm guessing the people who are for an event the size of the Olympics also think a professional football stadium would be perfect in the Seaport District and that we should have a hotel-resort-casino at Suffolk Downs.

Ack. I keep editing my comment on this topic to not sound too-negative. Just wanted to express my opinion. Sry.

 

[bdurden]

Mmm-hmm. "We need the Olympics to prove we're a world-class city." Oh, but, "We need the city to improve before we have the Olympics to prove we're a world-class city."

There is no logic to these arguments.

I'm guessing the people who are for an event the size of the Olympics also think a professional football stadium would be perfect in the Seaport District and that we should have a hotel-resort-casino at Suffolk Downs.

Ack. I keep editing my comment on this topic to not sound too-negative. Just wanted to express my opinion. Sry.

Perhaps the people who want an event the size of the Olympics in Boston do so because they love the city where they live and want it to thrive. They want to showcase it on a world scale. They want Boston to continue to flourish in the 21st Century, to make a statement like it did when it built the Back Bay and the South End. They want to leave a legacy for future generations of Bostonians who will then need to keep the city relevant. Maybe, just maybe, that is why people "are for" an event the size of the Olympics.

The only arguments that defy logic are those that shoot down grand scale thinking because of negativity. The glass does not always have to be half empty.

 

[KentXie]

Perhaps the people who want an event the size of the Olympics in Boston do so because they love the city where they live and want it to thrive. They want to showcase it on a world scale. They want Boston to continue to flourish in the 21st Century, to make a statement like it did when it built the Back Bay and the South End. They want to leave a legacy for future generations of Bostonians who will then need to keep the city relevant. Maybe, just maybe, that is why people "are for" an event the size of the Olympics.

The only arguments that defy logic are those that shoot down grand scale thinking because of negativity. The glass does not always have to be half empty.

I'm sorry but this struck a chord on me. Nobody here is saying they are against the Olympics in Boston. What we are saying is that Boston is unprepared for such scale of event and will continue at the way things go in Boston. To say those who believe that it is unrealistic as of now for Boston to to host the Olympics by 2020 are people who do not love the city or do not wish to see the city thrive is an insult. Look kid, you have to understand that you do not just do things without planning and thinking. It's easy to say, oh let's host the Olympics, but to plan it, to build it, and to prepare such an undertaking is much much harder. The cleanup afterward could also negatively impact us. Who will pay for the bill if we can't cover for it? What to do with the extra stadiums? How will business adjust with the sudden drop of consumers due to the departure of tourists? Yes the glass does not always have to be half empty, but you have to think about the other side too.

 

[Lurker]

Look at Athens, another city that really wasn't fully prepared for the games, post Olympics. It didn't work out so well and now many of the former venues are presenting difficulties for the city as they fall into ruin.

 

[Ron Newman]

The main argument I can see against an Olympics bid is financial: can we be sure that it won't leave the city (or state) heavily in debt?

 

[Oakley]

I don't see the 2020 Olympics being held in the Americas with Rio getting the 2016 game. I think Africa (which I believe is being encouraged to bid), Europe, or Asia will get the 2020 games.

However, depending on how 2022 goes, 2024 would be better.

 

[ant8904]

Boston should still try her hand. You are correct that if Boston's recent patterns will make itself look like a fool if Boston wins and then get bogged down by incessant incompetence in preparation, but then Boston won't win. Either the bid will get Boston to get it act together (though still risk alot of financial issues in the aftermath even done right) and win it or fails, but Boston will be stronger aiming high and failing then not aiming at all. The bar still needs to be kept high if Boston ever hopes to reach that height.