And let's not forget the water polo arena (c $50m). The London one was completely dismantled. And let's not forget basketball, BMX, beach volleyball, handball, kayaking / whitewater arena etc.
Citing these sports right here is pretty telling that you just don't want anything built, no matter what the cost. Citing things like beach volleyball seems to imply you don't want even a single dollar spent, period. I can't help notice in all your arguments you have not identified a single solution to anything, just more and more problems.
BMX - Push around some dirt and metal bleachers. Wachusett or one of the other local ski areas might be interested in helping to fund this, since it would give them revenue in the summer. Mountain Creek in NJ has something similar, for both BMX and Mtn Biking. Dirt cheap, pun intended.
Beach Volleyball - Sand and metal bleachers. We already have the sand since, ya know, we're on the ocean.
Kayaking/whitewater - I wasn't aware that you needed an "arena". Is this the hunger games or something? River. The end.
Basketball - We already have the Garden, although most likely the finals would take place in Springfield as a nod towards it being the origin of the sport. Springfield could really use some investment and tourism dollars, so building something new wouldn't be the worst thing, although there may already be an arena that could be expanded, I don't know.
(1) I am not considering the history of only one Olympics, but rather many (although the circumstances vary so widely one must be careful when using direct comparisons here). I am referencing details from the London games for the clear reasons which I have already stated. It is far better to use specifics for discussion rather than vague generalities. Feel free to reference the details from a Games with which you are more familiar.
Where are your numbers, your citations? Are you "considering" history while sitting on the pot daydreaming or do you actually have cold, hard numbers? Why do you insist on using London as an example when what they did is near _the_exact_opposite_ of how a successful Olympics would be structured here in Boston (ie: using/modifying existing venues, partnering with local schools and teams to reduce public funds to as near nill as possible).
(2) Having read many of the local university Institutional Master Plans recently I did not recall any reference to a new aquatic center, but feel free to correct me. And it is unlikely they would build one for $450m and 2500 seats. No doubt they would be happy to accept one that is already at low cost to themselves.
We have been throwing around the idea of constructing one in Eastie at the piers behind Maverick that could be used by the BPS, local colleges, and the public. In lieu of that, a college that has an outmoded one would suffice. No, the college isn't going to front the full cost. But they would front the cost they were going to invest anyway, thereby reducing costs in general.
"By your logic, no city on Earth should ever host the Olympics." - agreed, unless they are happy to spend the money on a party with no expectation of seeing a good return on it. If a community makes this decision through its accepted political process than so be it. But let's not fool ourselves with all of the other excuses that are put forth about re-use, spark redevelopment, legacy, etc.
No one is talking about spending billions on new construction, as has foolishly been done with a lot of the recent olympics. No one here has talked about it sparking development (which is happening at a pretty steady pace regardless), and Boston doesn't need any more "legacy" (we're half of your average american history textbook). It's about showcasing our wonderful city and putting some much needed polish on it.
(3) Stadium - temporary seating and reuse is one of the most overused excuses in Olympic developments and it rarely works. The $780m London Olympic Stadium was built 'modulary' as you suggest, and in a city with 6 premier league football teams and with clear discussions prior to 2012 about future development, and there is still no clear user slated for it after 16 months.
Well that was pretty fucking stupid of London. We DO have a clear use lined up for the stadium. The Revolution soccer team. Kraft would undoubtedly fund the majority of the costs, other then the extra seating that would need to be removed after. Which is perfectly fair.
(4) "Its very simple: ..." - except that I gave you a clear definition to work with and you simply ignored the question. Your formulation, is simply wrong in economic terms. The profit of the Locog (Olympic organizing entity - whatever it is) is irrelevant to whether the host region benefits from a Games. Accounting and economic profits are not the same thing.
As far as I can tell (we can trade academic papers if you would like), going back to 1992 no Olympics has had a significant (or maybe a negative) net economic benefit to the region. In other words, they all 'lose money', and it's not a fact, because it is extremely difficult to calculate the net economic benefits of such a program. It is simply econometric modelling. I suggest you go back to reading the links I provided in my first post to further understand these distinctions.
As I am "categorically false" about this, no doubt it will not trouble you to provide me with an example and evidence of net economic benefit. And not a 'mathematical' one, but hopefully an economic one. And independent and ex post as well if you wouldn't mind.
You guys can squabble about the semantics of how calculating "Capital Costs + Operating Costs - Revenue = Profit" till the end of days. Until someone actually posts numbers, its all hot air. I'm glad you have "academic papers". Until you cite them, it doesn't really matter.
(5) "Some are heavily dependent on public dollars, while others are not." Ok. And which will it be in the case of Boston? And where will that public spending take place? It should not be difficult to begin to identify the funding sources.
The latter... DUH. If we can't do it with the majority of funding coming from private sources
it shouldn't be done at all. Which has pretty much been the entire point of this thread - to figure out how to do this as cheaply as possible with the greatest benefit. The public spending would mostly go to infrastructure improvements: the subway, the roads, the ferries, and our exploding electrical and water mains. Things that need to be done anyway, but are pushed aside thanks to shiny political talking point quagmires like South Coast Rail.
Funding sources? The many media conglomerates that permeate our city. Gillette. Bob Kraft. The Universities. Alllllll the New England brewers. Suffolk Construction (perhaps not directly, but I bet they will bid cheap to get the contracts). New Balance. I could keep going on and on.
(6) I really didn't see a counterargument here from you. The MBTA has identified needs, none of which relate to the Olympics. Again if I am wrong please provide some evidence.
Uhm... what? The things that are broken with the T for the average commuter are EXACTLY the things that would need to be fixed for the Olympics. New rolling stock for the Red, Green and Orange Lines. Blue Line to Charles and Lynn. Green Line to Route 16. New ops infrastructure so signals aren't throwing out random stop codes, switches aren't breaking for no reason, and electrical substations aren't bursting into flames. Working through the massive backlog of maintenance. Getting the Urban Ring going. Turning the Silver Line into a real transportation system. Fixing the issues getting in and out of the Seaport. Reopening the extra station egress points at Arlington, Chinatown, Hynes, etc. Fixing Park Street so all four tracks can be used to reduce bunching. The list goes on an on. None of this relates to the Olympics directly, other than that it gives a fixed date that all this shit needs to be finished by or risk international embarrassment. Which works a whole hell of a lot better then the current system of throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars at studies every couple years and then saying they have to expand more commuter rail parking lots instead. If you look around at a lot of the comments, even on the Herald, even detractors admit that if it fixes the T, it would be worth it.
My original post referenced the idea that the need for infrastructure improvements related to the Olympics are not consistent with those of the commuters or even tourists in this city.
Wrong. See above.
While some overlap is possible, by definition they will not completely overlap and therefore investment will be wasted.
Nope.
If we (Boston) have infrastructure needs, let's identify them, finance them and build them. The Olympics are an expensive irrelevance to the city's needs.
Lot's of repetition, eh? Just to reiterate: The needs have been identified going back to the 1940s. It hasn't been done thanks almost entirely to politics, not the real needs. Ride the T. The Olympics should be irrelevant, but they are a unifying force to get_shit_done. Is that unfortunate? Yes. But it is the state of things.
(7) "Public support for such projects could likely be increased by an Olympic bid." - Political support, as distinct from public support, may increase with an Olympic bid, however this deceptive practice is a poor foundation for economic development. As in (6), needs will be poorly matched, the local citizens or the Fed's will eventually figure out that money has been wasted and will resent it.
The public support is there in every commuter who rides the T. It's been there longer then most people on this board have been alive. Politics are the only thing stopping most of the projects I listed above from getting done. And again, what the hell are you talking about that will not be used? The infrastructure that needs to be fixed needs to be fixed regardless. I'm repeating myself more than you.
