Boston 2024

The thing Boston most lacks is the need for a Downtown "Olympic Stadium" to host the opening/closing. Gillette stadium isn't going to wow anyone with location shots of Rte 1. Atlanta's solution was a new stadium that was then half repurposed into a new baseball stadium--but we don't need one of those.

The only other "big" sport that'd need a left-over Olympic Stadium is soccer, or, at best, a new "Soldier's Field" or BC Alumni Stadium--both rank a "maybe"

Yet the Boston Convention & Expo Center is a huge building that could probably be transformed into a fine Olympic venue for "minor" indoor sports.

Boston has a decent number of places where it can do Olympic venues developments as TOD:

Short Term (basically "too soon")
- New Balance T Stop (Framingham line)
- NorthPoint (Green Line)

Medium Term (and with "university" sponsors)
- Harvard's Brighton holdings (A-line restoration)
- UMass Boston
- BU Over Pike (A-Line restoration)

Longer Term (needing Olympic catalyst & willing to wait)
- On top of the Pike (Kenmore & South End)
- River's Edge (Medford/Malden Orange Line + Riverfront)
- Somerville soccer stadium (Green Line / Brickbottom)
- East Boston Piers (Maverick)
- South Boston piers (Silver Line / Black Falcon / Power plant)
 
Thanks for the news. I've been wondering what to do with the last bullet in my revolver and can now use it to blow my head off.

Everyone, please stop this ridiculous idea.
 
Last edited:
JohnAKeith said:
Thanks for the news. I've been wondering what to do with the last bullet in my revolver and can now use it to blow my head off.

Everyone, please stop this ridiculous idea.
Click to expand...

Well that seems a tad melodramatic, don't you think?

There are ways to do this right. If the Commonwealth is willing to assemble a committee to try and identify them, funded by corporate donations, I don't see that as anything but good.
 
I would like to hold on to some positivity. It is not inherently doomed.
 
The cities traditionally associated with Olympic hangovers (Athens and Beijing, specifically) experienced bad hangovers because they went about planning and building for the Olympics the wrong way. They built massive stadiums and complexes that could never be properly utilized once the games left down, which created wastelands as a result. Many problems associated with the Olympics can be alleviated if planners devise long term plans for facilities and the land utilized in addition to relying primarily on temporary facilties that can be deconstructed after the games are over. Early indicators suggest London is benefitting from the 2012 Olympics and it used similar tactics. (Article: After the Olympics: Urbanabolic Steroids)

This certainly doesn't mean the Olympics are right for Boston. However, a Boston Olympics would promise huge infrastructure investments to pull the T into the 21st Century. That alone should make a feasibility study worthwhile, given how important mass transit is to cities. The feasibility study may conclude a Boston Olympics isn't doable. If that is the case, I hope this idea is put to rest. But if a feasibility study concludes a Boston Olympics can give the city a world-class mass transit system, be constructed in a thoughtful way that emphasizes the long-term, and can be done largely using private dollars then I say it's at least worth some consideration. Boston may not be a good fit for the Olympics or vice versa. But the fact is we don't KNOW that. This feasibility study is a good chance to find out.
 
Some Olympics are bad economically, that's for sure. Some are at least mixed (and, depending on how you measure, positive). Boston, it seems to me, would have access to managers who are pretty tuned in to running a good Olympics
- Salt Lake City (Mitt!)
- Atlanta
- Los Angeles
- London & Vancouver (common language, doable air commute)
 
We would all benefit from living under a giant dome, too. So, feasibility that.
 
And someone could have said in 1775: "Democracy? Lots have idiots have tried that, right? I don't want to waste the money fighting for independence. Let's just stick with England and quit studying it."

JohnAKeith said:
We would all benefit from living under a giant dome, too. So, feasibility that.
Click to expand...
 
Equilibria said:
And someone could have said in 1775: "Democracy? Lots have idiots have tried that, right? I don't want to waste the money fighting for independence. Let's just stick with England and quit studying it."
Click to expand...

People said those things. Today we call them Canadians.

I don't think a study can hurt anything.
 
If anything, the study will at least draw greater attention to the importance of a reliable and extensive mass transit system in Greater Boston to a wider audience. An investment in mass transit with greater post-Big Dig accountability would be great. No more waiting around on valuable projects like red-blue connector, new cars are red and orange lines. BLX to Lynn. Urban ring. South Station expansion. And some greater signals on the Green and Red to run trains more frequently. If the Olympics can serve as a catalyst for these century-long infrastructure investments, I am for it. It will also force the city and surrounding cities to address planning and housing millions of people.
 
I think the important thing for this feasibility study to look at is how this could work for the region. Obviously Boston would be at the core of any Olympic hosting, but the events would certainly need to be spread out into other areas as well. Things like housing for athletes should be designed in such a way that they can easily become housing for residents. Transit improvement projects shouldn't be insane, wild-eyed, new-fangled dream projects, but ones that have been on the books for years - Blue Line to Lynn, Red-Blue, new cars acorss the board, that kinda stuff.

Like a lot of people have said on this thread, if it's done well it could be a boon for the region, but that's a huge if. I'll be interested to see who gets appointed to the commission. That could tell us a lot about how serious they are, and about how smart the planning for it could potentially be. You need groups and people that think regionally.

Ans just curious - how much money does the federal government kick in when it comes to Olympic infrastructure? Anyone have a guess or actual info as to % of total costs?
 
MBTAddict said:
Ans just curious - how much money does the federal government kick in when it comes to Olympic infrastructure? Anyone have a guess or actual info as to % of total costs?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any uniform policy regarding federal spending on the Olympics. Mitt Romney said the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics would not have been possible had the federal government not stepped in with a big check. (Article: Mitt Romney: 2002 Winter Olympics were made possible by "enormous" federal spending.) However, those Olympics were in peril before Romney and the feds stepped in, so I'm not sure American host cities can expect the same treatment in the future. Given America's fiscal situation, I'm not sure the feds would be too eager to back such an expensive endeavor.

As a rule of thumb, however, the United States wouldn't want to look bad on such an international stage. Were Boston to secure the nomination, I'm sure the federal government would step in if necessary, the calculation being that spending several hundred million bucks to get Boston through the Olympics is less damaging than appearing unorganized, weak, and incapable of hosting a premier international event. That's just my educated guess, though.
 
MBTAddict said:
I think the important thing for this feasibility study to look at is how this could work for the region. Obviously Boston would be at the core of any Olympic hosting, but the events would certainly need to be spread out into other areas as well. Things like housing for athletes should be designed in such a way that they can easily become housing for residents. Transit improvement projects shouldn't be insane, wild-eyed, new-fangled dream projects, but ones that have been on the books for years - Blue Line to Lynn, Red-Blue, new cars acorss the board, that kinda stuff.

Like a lot of people have said on this thread, if it's done well it could be a boon for the region, but that's a huge if. I'll be interested to see who gets appointed to the commission. That could tell us a lot about how serious they are, and about how smart the planning for it could potentially be. You need groups and people that think regionally.
Click to expand...

I would venture that we'll know they're serious if we see the CEO of New Balance (Robert DeMartini) or anyone with Kraft in their name in a position of leadership. Frankly, New York, Chicago and LA have entertainment moguls who have experience leading efforts like this. Atlanta had Ted Turner. Boston has no one yet, but seeing Bob (or more likely Jonathan) Kraft leading this effort would be awesome because of how highly he's regarded in Europe.

fattony said:
People said those things. Today we call them Canadians.

I don't think a study can hurt anything.
Click to expand...

Fair point. :)
 
I forgot about the Mitt angle; we really do have a great resource when it comes to managing the Olympics when it comes to human capital.
 
I'm a little skeptical. I mean yeah, we have stadiums and yeah we can plan stadiums that aren't overblown so that it can be used once the Olympic is over.

However, in order to compete with other cities, you have build world class stadiums that are massively oversized. Why? Well if you're on the international committee, who would you pick? A city willing to throw everything it got or one that is conservative?
 
KentXie said:
I'm a little skeptical. I mean yeah, we have stadiums and yeah we can plan stadiums that aren't overblown so that it can be used once the Olympic is over.

However, in order to compete with other cities, you have build world class stadiums that are massively oversized. Why? Well if you're on the international committee, who would you pick? A city willing to throw everything it got or one that is conservative?
Click to expand...

Frankly, on the IOC you pick whoever has paid you the most money for your vote...

I actually think that, given that Qatar has presented a ton of problems for FIFA and the heavily existing-stadium-based London Olympics were such a success, the IOC might be more willing to consider modest investments than they have been in the past. Remember that delays and mismanagement in building their facilities are as stressful for the IOC as they are for the hosts - being able to say that most of the venues/facilities will be guaranteed to be ready on time (and you can visit them!) is not worthless these days.

Also, who will the competition be? I doubt that the Tokyo/Istanbul 2020 loser will be up again, and Europe just hosted last year, so probably a second-rate contender like Madrid from them. There isn't really another realistic host city in South America besides Rio, and a place like Buenos Aires wouldn't be spending more money than Boston, nor would Cape Town, Johannesburg, or Melbourne. The lavish spending would come from a place like Qatar or Dubai (or Kuala Lumpur), but there's lots of egg on Qatar's face right now from the World Cup.

Given how long it will have been since the last North American games, Boston's biggest competition at the IOC level might actually come from Toronto, which has wanted an Olympics forever to be able to match the francophones, but Canada has had the Winter Games more recently than the US. Mexico City is also possible, but they aren't going to outspend us either.
 
Equilibria said:
I doubt that the Tokyo/Istanbul 2020 loser will be up again, and Europe just hosted last year, so probably a second-rate contender like Madrid from them.
Click to expand...

Madrid is contending for 2020 (along with Tokyo and Istanbul). I don't see a reason why a loser wouldn't bid again for 2024 - especially Tokyo.

Could you imagine making an argument that Boston could better support the Olympics than Tokyo? If it goes to the United States, I hope it goes to Chicago, L.A. or NYC. I like Boston more than those cities for many reasons, but it would be an inferior selection for hosting a huge international sporting event to represent out country.

In terms of size and history, the best comparison would be if Brazil won a bid with Salvador as the host city. It was the colonial capital and has great history. It is considered a great city to live in, but obviously Rio or Sao Paulo would be better choices to host due to their size. By the way, Salvador is comparable to Boston in size, while Sao Paulo is around NYC's size and Rio de Janeiro between L.A. and Chicago in size.

I'd like Boston for 2026.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top