- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
I don't know, but it's gotta go. Fossil fuels will be over with this century anyway.
Well it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Unless you have an energy source to replace it immediately.
I don't know, but it's gotta go. Fossil fuels will be over with this century anyway.
I know you're not trying to be offensive, but my roomates and I were able to heat our apartment this last month on Olympic joy alone. Pure Sochi Olympic joy, and it stayed a pretty comfortable 75 degrees.
But foreals, the real estate seems too valuable for what it is used as now. Considering a long term outlook on the city's growth and all.. It would make Chelsea smell better too.
But I am also a militant objector to big oil and fossil fuels in general.
Has anyone discussed the south bay shopping center as a potential site for a stadium and/or other large structure? it's right next to a T stop and interstate - and it's a very underutilized site.
and then de-annex it backJust annex the land wherever the stadium would be.
I believe all the stores there are high volume/top performers and very difficult to move out. Perhaps if Tremont Crossing happens, some could relocate their big boxes there and start to vacate South Bay Center.
Entirely different shopping occasions-- no one wants to buy things that are hard to carry and bring them on the T.
what is Tremont Crossing? This is the first place I've seen that name. (Sorry for the temporary thread derail)
Can there be multiple "host cities" to get around that requirement? Such as, hypothetically, Boston-Cambridge or Minneapolis-St Paul or San Francisco-Oakland?
How did the Sydney bid work? Sydney is 40 municipal governments across the urban area. We're all Olympic venues and all coordinatin of the bid really just in the (very small) City proper?
But I am also a militant objector to big oil and fossil fuels in general.
Australian municipalities work differently than American ones. The Sydney Olympic Park is located in a "Local Government Area" which constitutes and "Official Suburb" of Sydney - with "Local Government Area" being a conflation of the American concepts of city/town and county. In any case, it is decidedly not in the Sydney city limits.
I've never heard of this requirement for the stadium, btw.
Really, that wasn't obvious.
In the 1850s, steam locomotives were only a century away from being obsolete. Should the railroads have just scrapped all those locomotives?
You can't redesign a city (or, well, anything) based on what is going to be obsolete a century from now. And you especially can't expect a city to endorse an Olympic bid on those grounds. And even more can you not expect a city to do that within 10 years.
Boston needs to have some industrial component there, particularly one that helps supply some serious energy needs. And its not just evil fossil fuels in Chelsea. Much of that area is taken up by distribution facilities for a variety of different goods. Oh, and much of those evil fossil fuels in Chelsea are natural gas, which are pretty much the cleanest thing you're going to get until we figure out fusion (or a politically palatable form of fission).
Any Olympic bid should be based in reality and not blind bias.
Distribution facilities are an easy build, not much difficult engineering would be required to relocate them to more becoming real estate as well.
Distribution facilities are an easy build, not much difficult engineering would be required to relocate them to more becoming real estate as well.
And why would you not plan for the coming decades? It would be shameful if urban planners didn't consider what sorts of future social trends that will occur and how to build the city around those constraints. If they considered the impacts of a car-dominated society in the 50s and 60s, we wouldn't be where we are now trying to reverse the effects of urban renewal and suburbanization, but they didn't consider the future, or at least they got it very wrong.