Boston 2024

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Don't the Kraft's want to build a soccer stadium anyway? Why are we looking outside NE when this would be a great opportunity to build the Revs their own space?
Click to expand...

If they are working on such an idea, 2024 is too distant a date. Why would they want to wait eleven years when they could have a stadium in two?
 
True, but it is possible to build a stadium with supports and infrastructure in place to make a future expansion possible. If the olympics are even under consideration, Kraft would probably work to get some state funding to cover the additional cost, but the benefit would be much cheaper alternative to building another massive stadium somewhere in the area 5 years after a new soccer stadium is complete.
 
The stadium is the biggest obstacle. There are a couple of places where we could fit one, but most of them are not great from a transportation standpoint. That said, the bigger issue is that none of our professional teams will need a stadium of that size and design any time soon. The most likely fit would be the Patriots, but will Gillette be at the end of useful life by that time?
 
Equilibria said:
You can fit more in the immediate area than one would expect. Here's a map I did a few months ago accounting for all of London's events, and I went out of my way to try to expand the boundaries (I'm not sure if anyone else has done this exercise - if so, take this as one of many brainstorms):

http://goo.gl/maps/LK8po

The advantage to consolidation of venues is that it makes everything easy to get to for tourists and athletes. Obviously, some venues need to be further out (whitewater, for instance, or the start of the marathon). You also want to try and keep distant venues along key highway corridors, so that a single reserved lane on a road (Route 2 in this case) can service as many of them as possible.
Click to expand...

Why would Basketball events be held in Worcester (and other locations) instead of Springfield (the birthplace of the sport and home to the Basketball Hall of Fame)? Seating capacity at MassMutual too low?
 
DominusNovus said:
Why would Basketball events be held in Worcester (and other locations) instead of Springfield (the birthplace of the sport and home to the Basketball Hall of Fame)? Seating capacity at MassMutual too low?
Click to expand...

I simply hadn't thought of that angle. Good idea!
 
Equilibria said:
I simply hadn't thought of that angle. Good idea!
Click to expand...

Glad to supply a good idea. Admittedly, the current capacity of the Mass Mutual in Springfield *is* half of the DCU in Worcester, so it'd probably not be worth putting everything there. I've got a hunch there's not much room to expand the MassMutual, but it might be old enough by then to merit replacing (built in '72, renovated in '05). Maybe some of the opening events, and then the teams would work their way east until they're in the TD.

Oh, and there should be something Volleyball related in Holyoke. No clue where it would go, though.
 
An interesting idea for how to avoid some of the problems of the Olympics moving forward.

Two Olympias: A Plan to Save the Olympic Games

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2013/08/a-plan-to-save-the-olympic-games.html

Behold, then, a humble proposal: the gleaming twin cities of Olympia, one North and one South—non-governmental, self-contained mini-metropolises engineered and constructed specifically to host the Olympic Games. A kind of Vatican, or San Marino, or Epcot Center for sports. The Olympics already has a flag and an anthem—the Olympias could peg a new currency to the dollar or the euro, and issue coinage in faux bronze, silver, and gold. As for paper money, Bjørn Dæhlie could be on the five, and Nadia Comaneci on the tenner. Statues of past heroes would line the main roads, which would be named after icons of international sport. Take a left at Jesse Owens Avenue, then a right on Hermann Maier Street—you can’t miss it.
Click to expand...
 
As will I, or at least semi-comatose in assisted living, LOL. I'm 64 now, so do the math.
 
I'll be alive, kicking, and enjoying the games at Boston Landing with Dshoost.
 
It seems like there are a bunch of grumpy people in this region who are pissed off that their commute will be snarled for a period of two weeks, eleven years in the future. C'mon guys, Boston is a beautiful city! Let's showcase it to the world.
 
Thats the one thing I don't get about complaining about the Olympics. Its not like they're ever a surprise (well, except for one of the London ones around the mid century). If its that terrible, save up vacation days for awhile and then get the heck out of town.
 
DominusNovus said:
Thats the one thing I don't get about complaining about the Olympics. Its not like they're ever a surprise (well, except for one of the London ones around the mid century). If its that terrible, save up vacation days for awhile and then get the heck out of town.
Click to expand...

And AirBnB your place while you are gone to finance the trip!
 
It seems like there are a bunch of grumpy people in this region who are pissed off that their commute will be snarled for a period of two weeks, eleven years in the future. C'mon guys, Boston is a beautiful city! Let's showcase it to the world.
Click to expand...

I just don't think it's a smart investment of money? Billions of dollars for two weeks of entertainment and so I can be a "showcase" (for what, exactly? Does hosting the Olympics ever yield useful long term business opportunities that we couldn't get without it...? I doubt it.) I'd rather see the money invested back into our school system. I'm sure we will get some infrastructure improvements if 2024 were to happen, but this is also Massachusetts... I'm sure the DOT or MBTA will find some way to fuck it up with plenty of new BRT.

Also look at what occurred to rent prices in London during the Olympics. It forced a lot of longtime residents out of the city.
 
meddlepal said:
It forced a lot of longtime residents out of the city.
Click to expand...

And there's a problem with that? Some of the densest housing stock in this city is located in ugly, violent neighborhoods that with a little nudge could easily be the next big thing. Absent their lowest common denominators, the whole area around Franklin Park/Grove Hall(Seaver, Humboldt, Blue Hill, Washington, Warren, etc.) could be quite appealing to working, middle class-type people.
 
kmp1284 said:
And there's a problem with that? Some of the densest housing stock in this city is located in ugly, violent neighborhoods that with a little nudge could easily be the next big thing. Absent their lowest common denominators, the whole area around Franklin Park/Grove Hall(Seaver, Humboldt, Blue Hill, Washington, Warren, etc.) could be quite appealing to working, middle class-type people.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is a horrible. You do realize that you aren't supposed to be purposefully advocating for things like gentrification right? And also that this post is like the perfect example of dog-whistle racism?

The increased demand for dense, urban living environments shouldn't have to push anyone out of their homes or destroy any current communities. Boston has plenty of areas where it can become more dense without pushing anyone out, there are plenty of economic and housing policies that can be enacted to protect current residences, and if space in Boston is an issue there are plenty of municipalities in the area that are within a reasonable distance for rapid transit connections and capable of taking in more residences with dense, urban development.

Ignoring these things and letting entire neighborhoods get gentrified out would do immense harm to the city of Boston, the region, and the commonwealth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top