Boston 2024

There are precedents for moving the stadium after the bid is submitted. New York moved the Olympic Stadium from Hudson Yards to Queens. The IOC told Chicago to nix the proposed double stadium, an Olympic Stadium next to Soldier Field (both would have been used), and Chicago moved the Olympic Stadium to another part of the city, which created a new siting controversy.
_______________________________________

With respect to assertions that B24 is being held to such a high transparency standard that it will impede other US cities from ever bidding on the games, here is a link to an independent financial review of Chicago's bid, commissioned by the Chicago city council, and paid for in its entirety by private foundations. Seems to me this represents a much greater level of financial scrutiny than is being given to B24 by Boston's maor/city council, or the governor.

https://www.civicfed.org/civic-federation/olympics-analysis

-------------------------------------
Edited to add that, IIRC, the state has hired a consultant to help evaluate the bid, and the financing. However, in Chicago's case, the Civic Federation is perceived publicly as being truly independent, and had 'no skin in the game', and thus their findings could be seen as more credible. The Civic Foundation emphasized it took no money from the state, the city, or the organizing committee, and paid for the study with its own monies and donations from various foundations.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
You can mention they should put it there till you turn blue in the face. The same exact regulatory reasons discussed several pages back why it's impossible to secure a stadium site on deepwater port land within the timeframe they have to work with for bid approval still stand. As they will still stand the next 12 times you bring up the waterfront stadium.

Let it go.
Click to expand...

If it means saving over a Billion in taxpayer money then they can cut through the red tape. They could probably have it approved in 60 days if the pols were on board. But they have years to work through the regulatory hurdles. It doesn't have to get worked out now, just proceed far enough along to convince the IOC it is on track.
 
stellarfun said:
There are precedents for moving the stadium after the bid is submitted. New York moved the Olympic Stadium from Hudson Yards to Queens. The IOC told Chicago to nix the proposed double stadium, an Olympic Stadium next to Soldier Field (both would have been used), and Chicago moved the Olympic Stadium to another part of the city, which created a new siting controversy.
Click to expand...

And as I posted earlier Tokyo is going back to the drawing board on their Stadium just 5 years from their Olympic games. Probably at the same location with a less expensive design.

The issue at the moment is that the currently identified site creates an additional $1.2 Billion in unneccessary financial risk to the City of Boston. They could change from Widett 4 years from now if they won the bid and it proved to be too expensive, but the bid isn't going to make it past this August if they don't cut financial risk now.
 
tangent said:
If it means saving over a Billion in taxpayer money then they can cut through the red tape. They could probably have it approved in 60 days if the pols were on board. But they have years to work through the regulatory hurdles. It doesn't have to get worked out now, just proceed far enough along to convince the IOC it is on track.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this. You are no less wrong each time you keep saying this and ignore all facts given to the contrary. Wishing harder than anyone on the face of the earth that this is righteous therefore it must be true does not make it so. Or make it any less a waste of time to keep pushing it all over this thread.

But please...keep saying this. Because the best possible way to address yours--and everyone's--concerns about the Widett site being non-viable is to keep pushing an elaborate fantasy about something that is 10x more non-viable to secure within the bid deadline. If wishing harder than anyone for it to be true were the only prerequisite for moving heaven and earth to make something happen, then Widett would be a sure thing. How's that for a logical conundrum?

:rolleyes:²
 
West said:
If Baker were to react as you hope and say, "yes, I'll support the plan, but only if the stadium is built over at the waterfront", I very strongly suspect that all the matters F-Line notes would be superseded by other events. Boston 2024 and the Mayor have meandered on so many fronts that if the Governor chimed in with a main stadium move, the USOC would think they were watching Larry, Moe, and Curley trying to get through a door together. The USOC would pull the Boston name from contention out of embarrassed sympathy before ever getting to the F-Line-described hurdles.

The only way I see by which B2024 could MAYBE wriggle out of the Widett trap (and it is a self-created trap) would be if the Suffolk Downs owners had an epiphany and very loudly and publicly offered up their land for temporary or permanent venue locations. And yes, I said maybe, because I know there's issues at Suffolk Downs aside from the owners clinging to their own lost cause. But at least in that scenario B2024 could legitimately say "hey, we talked to them before and they shot it down so firmly that we shelved it, and now, voila, they've given us reason to talk to them again." The timing would still alarm the USOC and lots of others too, but there'd be a legitimate story as to why they weren't proposing that site to begin with, and why they'd be changing now.

It's not going to happen at Suffolk Downs: those owners are far too married to their dream of a horse racing renaissance (or whatever the hell they're clinging to). It can't gracefully shift to the waterfront now, due not only to F-Line's concerns (which Davey might very well have identified), but now due to timing, too. September 15 is less than 40 business days away: it's Widett or bust. Probably bust.
Click to expand...

The cost estimate went up by a Billion dollars. There are plenty of good reasons to find a new site. USOC is going to judge whether the plan changes for the better.

Baker is not going to expend political capital coming up with new locations for the stadium on his own. Every proposal will have some local opposition and regulatory hurdles. I think he is probably going to just insist that B24 reduce financial risks by cutting costs. Moving the proposed stadium is the easiest way to cut cost and risk.
 
Yes...wish harder. That always fixes a problem.


Why don't we just change this thread title to Crazy 'Lympics Pitches if we're going to keep getting sidetracked by stuff not in the plan, that can't be in the plan, that needs a time machine to fit into any conceivable deadline of the plan? Because that's the world of complete off-topic abstraction time-wasters a waterfront stadium inhabits in a thread about the real bid, the politics of the real bid...and maybe, just maybe, saving the real bid from an ignominious end.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
You keep saying this. You are no less wrong each time you keep saying this and ignore all facts given to the contrary. Wishing harder than anyone on the face of the earth that this is righteous therefore it must be true does not make it so. Or make it any less a waste of time to keep pushing it all over this thread.

But please...keep saying this. Because the best possible way to address yours--and everyone's--concerns about the Widett site being non-viable is to keep pushing an elaborate fantasy about something that is 10x more non-viable to secure within the bid deadline. If wishing harder than anyone for it to be true were the only prerequisite for moving heaven and earth to make something happen, then Widett would be a sure thing. How's that for a logical conundrum?

:rolleyes:²
Click to expand...

You state the need for regulatory approval as if it is some immovable thing. You can build on the waterfront. You can get a mostly vacant lot redesignated for non-port use. Legislature could just ammend the law to cut through all the designated port area regulations if need be. Or the gov can change the regulations as an administrative change. With enough political support it would be fairly straightforward. The question is political support not red tape.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Yes...wish harder. That always fixes a problem.


Why don't we just change this thread title to Crazy 'Lympics Pitches if we're going to keep getting sidetracked by stuff not in the plan, that can't be in the plan, that needs a time machine to fit into any conceivable deadline of the plan? Because that's the world of complete off-topic abstraction time-wasters a waterfront stadium inhabits in a thread about the real bid, the politics of the real bid...and maybe, just maybe, saving the real bid from an ignominious end.
Click to expand...

Only way the bid gets saved is to drop Widett. Correct? That means finding a better location. I think there are at least 4 better locations relatively close to downtown and the Athletes Village. Each would cost over a Billion dollars less to put up a temporary stadium than Widett. A new stadium proposal is the only thing worth discussing... other than taking odds at when the bid officially fails.
 
tangent said:
You state the need for regulatory approval as if it is some immovable thing. You can build on the waterfront. You can get a mostly vacant lot redesignated for non-port use. Legislature could just ammend the law to cut through all the designated port area regulations if need be. Or the gov can change the regulations as an administrative change. With enough political support it would be fairly straightforward. The question is political support not red tape.
Click to expand...

No, the question is the clock. They can't get the federal (as in...no skin in the B24 game, every Mass. official waits their turn in the paperwork line like everyone else in the 49 other states) regulatory approval in time for the deadline, and winging it as if the stars are going align to make it so is going to send the USOC heading for the hills even faster than with the current plan.

Triple-dog down on this fantasy all you want, your wishing the stars into alignment does not put the necessary time on the clock to make it a possibility. Does not. Whether they should've considered this from Day 1 is now irrelevant. They didn't consider it, and now there's no time to reconsider it. So if you think there needs to be an alternate stadium site to save the bid, try suggesting a site that can actually save the bid. It ain't this one. It ain't this one no matter how much time you want to waste whining about it.
 
An alternative site for a stadium is the land between E St and Pappas Way. Course, that is not accessible by mass transit. But it is further away from the flight path of runways 4L and 4R, and there is no highway tunnel beneath.
 
stellarfun said:
An alternative site for a stadium is the land between E St and Pappas Way. Course, that is not accessible by mass transit. But it is further away from the flight path of runways 4L and 4R, and there is no highway tunnel beneath.
Click to expand...

Not far from the Silver Line Station. I think this is a good alternative.

Others include behind the BCEC, or at Bunker Hill Community College.
 
Globe article on full 1.0 document, which downplayed opposition, said there would be no referendum, and projected nearly a half billion dollar shortfall.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/24/olympicsbid/DmIJHCCnNRKrdvvyYOdhYN/story.html

Links to two of the full original documents.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ased-boston/bmmBI9YzinaJucNznwDubM/story.html

John Powers article in July 26 Globe on poll numbers. Said Boston needs to be at 66 percent approval. Tallies a list of host cities that withdrew when their polling indicated support was below 50 percent.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...us-position/lZPkL2E4R1fIqH3vNHoaEO/story.html
 
stellarfun said:
Based on this: https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_dec201_small.pdf

the crane height for both Pappas Way and your Massport land site would be 200'.
Click to expand...

Massport would be a bit tighter than Pappas way. Still I think it would be the most compelling stadium location for winning the bid. Interestingly Suffolk Downs is actually on the approach path and appears to be restricted to closer to '150 over the track which is why the casino proposals always lacked a tall hotel and also why it doesn't make sense as a backup for the Olympic stadium which would likely be close to '200.

Behind the Convention center is the safer bet. But I am warming up to relocating Bunker Hill Community College and putting a stadium there... Mostly because bhcc is real ugly... I mean "dated" so it would be good to upgrade BHCC as part of the process.
 
datadyne007 said:
It could all be over tomorrow... The USOC is going to vote on killing the Boston bid.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...4-on-monday-with-los-angeles-ready-to-step-in
Click to expand...

The Herald is also chiming in, and managed to get a member of the USOC and the IOC, Anita DeFrantz, to speak for the record:

[IRL]http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/07/boston_s_beleaguered_bid_at_breaking_point[/IRL]

She did not confirm that a vote is on for tomorrow, but did not deny it either, said she wouldn't be surprised if it came to a vote. She reiterated that she wants a report, did not put a date on it but the tone of her quotes suggested she wanted a report now. "I need to know," in reference to the levels of support.

Ms. DeFrantz grew up in Philly but her online CV shows long-standing connections to LA, including the 84 games and the LA 84 Foundation created after them.

[irl]http://anitadefrantz.net/c_v.html[/irl]

The Herald quotes her as saying "LA is perpetually ready to go. It can host with only two years notice."

Nice that someone finally has the backbone to let her name be cited. With this, the inside-the-games piece Datadyne linked, and the many links to that earlier AP article with the cowardly un-named source, it does now feel like a message is getting orchestrated. Not necessarily by Ms. DeFrantz, I'm not saying it's her leading it (might be). I'm just saying this sort of chatter doesn't reach this sort of crescendo purely due to pack journalism (though the pack does seem to be in full inglorious run now).

The Herald also reiterates Baker's stance on Friday that he's not budging on his timeline. Good on him.

It smells like there is a whole lot of maneuvering going on.
 
Also, for those keeping score this weekend, the Herald is whupping the Globe. By getting attributed quotes from Ms. DeFrantz, the Herald managed to cite not only a USOC board member but also a person sitting on various IOC boards. Contrast this with the Globe's nearest equivalent article, from yesterday:

[IRL]https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/25/usoc-increases-pressure-walsh-baker/LQt2HxOR7kYDvhadbT67iJ/story.html[/IRL]

There's an un-named source referred to, but it might just be the AP article without attribution (a big no-no, if that's what Arsenault did), and then lower in the article it states "A USOC spokesman declined to comment Saturday."

So the Globe was getting no comment from a spokesman while the Herald was getting quotes from a USOC board member, one who's also within the IOC "family".

I loves me a nice newspaper war, it's part of what makes Boston a real city (unlike so many one-major-outlet towns). And while my sympathies much more commonly lie with the Globe, this round undeniably goes to the Herald.

Anyone want to venture a wager on whether the Globe will deign to notice the Herald's quotes from Ms. DeFrantz? Or will the Globe just pretend she never said anything?
 
I'm just so f'ing tired of this notion that LA is the only place in the entire f'ing United States to host to the Olympics.

I guess on the bright side, with the Olympics dead, that means the Revs stadium can go forward!
 
datadyne007 said:
I guess on the bright side, with the Olympics dead, that means the Revs stadium can go forward!
Click to expand...

Dead? Cue Python:

[IRL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs[/IRL]

"I can't accept him like that! It's against regulations!"

"Look, isn't there something you can do?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top