Boston 2024

PS, here's the report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/209833623/Boston-Olympic-Commission-Report

Takeaway:
- The 56,000 beds are those within the 495 beltway
- Rowing at Lake Quinsigamond? That shopping plaza right next to it on rte 9 is kinda dumpy, I could see it being repurposed.
- Village could be graduate student housing (is there really that much need for grad housing?) or general housing stock
- Actually considering keeping a potential velodrome intact afterward
- Canoeing/Kayaking on the River Connecticut or the River Deerfield
 
Last edited:
The idea of leasing modular housing that's moved somewhere else post-games is interesting. Not sure what the financing and the structures will be like, but it's interesting.

It's also interesting that the distance based requirements are less "everything within x miles" and more "we prefer x distance/time and will note longer distances/times when evaluating your bid."
 
Re: Quinsigamond...

I really do root for Worcester, but nothing about that area says "Olympic Bid." How would transit work in that case... Union Station then shuttle buses?
 
Shuttle buses should be easily doable down Shrewsbury Street to the lake. It doesn't hurt that Shrewsbury is wide enough to cordon off the lanes required to keep Olympic traffic separate from other traffic (I recall that being one of the requirements). That or just building a temporary rail station near the lake, as the tracks do get quite close to the lake as they loop around it. It doesn't work out perfectly though because the rowing event would probably be held on the north end, and the tracks get closest at the south end.

Would the Nashua river be suitable for canoe/kayacking, or is it too small?

EDIT: Here's a better idea for the whitewater events: do them in Lowell in the canals/ on the Merrimack. It would have a nice historical tie in. The IOC loves that kind of stuff, right?
 
Would the Nashua river be suitable for canoe/kayacking, or is it too small?

EDIT: Here's a better idea for the whitewater events: do them in Lowell in the canals/ on the Merrimack. It would have a nice historical tie in. The IOC loves that kind of stuff, right?

At the moment, they seem to be interested doing that in Western Mass. Being from that area, I have to appreciate that.

But there is something to be said for the scenery of the mill towns. Western Mass has just Turners Falls (small and out of the way) and Holyoke (great location, but horribly run down) along the River Connecticut.
 
His argument is simply Harvard Ave to Cambridge Street sucks and the 66 bus sucks. I see a location that has great bones to handle the traffic. He ignored your two commuter rail lines and highway access via the Pike (and Storrow Drive, but in my mind, the Olympics should be an excuse to modify the Pike to replace Storrow).

On top of that, if you think about it, there's a relatively plausible to allow the Green Line to service it too. As well as a more theoretically possible Red Line service with the old tunnel.

And then there's the fact the land is Harvard-owned and borders on BU. Both probably give parlaying potential after the Olympics.

As is, it's a terrible location to handle the traffic. But he completely ignores there's actually potential to handle where many others may just be "as-is". Few others has two existing railroads, an interstate highway, a "parkway", and at least the Green Line as potential ways to increase access.
 
His argument is simply Harvard Ave to Cambridge Street sucks and the 66 bus sucks. I see a location that has great bones to handle the traffic. He ignored your two commuter rail lines and highway access via the Pike (and Storrow Drive, but in my mind, the Olympics should be an excuse to modify the Pike to replace Storrow).

On top of that, if you think about it, there's a relatively plausible to allow the Green Line to service it too. As well as a more theoretically possible Red Line service with the old tunnel.

And then there's the fact the land is Harvard-owned and borders on BU. Both probably give parlaying potential after the Olympics.

As is, it's a terrible location to handle the traffic. But he completely ignores that it is one of the places that have more reasonable options in upgrades between two existing railroads, an interstate highway, a "parkway", and at least the Green Line.

He does do all of that, as I pointed out in a comment on his blog. I've been talking with him this morning, though, and he does seem interested in exploring the issue a little more deeply.

Gut reactions like that are going to be a part of convincing people to do this. Whatever he said, multiply it by 1000 to get what the neighbors will be saying.
 
Gut reactions like that are going to be a part of convincing people to do this. Whatever he said, multiply it by 1000 to get what the neighbors will be saying.

Or just peruse any article on the subject's comment section.
 
Always good to see my stuff popping up again! He was nicer than he had to be...

I noticed in your map you had an aquatics center on the waterfront in East Boston. I was wondering if you did some research on current ownership and any plans for development of this parcel? Seems to me by filling in the area between and adjacent to the piers that the site would be large enough host the Olympic Stadium itself. Being right next to downtown Boston and on the waterfront would make this an amazing location and a great location for a scaled down soccer stadium after the event. Then you could dock some cruise ships right next to the stadium to provide a temporary Olympic village.
 
I noticed in your map you had an aquatics center on the waterfront in East Boston. I was wondering if you did some research on current ownership and any plans for development of this parcel? Seems to me by filling in the area between and adjacent to the piers that the site would be large enough host the Olympic Stadium itself. Being right next to downtown Boston and on the waterfront would make this an amazing location and a great location for a scaled down soccer stadium after the event. Then you could dock some cruise ships right next to the stadium to provide a temporary Olympic village.

My research for that map was really quite cursory, since it was meant to be a visualization exercise rather than an actual siting study. It's a wonderful site, but I don't think it has the space to fit the stadium, and building such a large building right up against the water will cause more environmental approval issues than an aquatics center would.

The views of the city from that location, and the proximity to the Blue Line at Maverick, make that a great site for something if the site is still empty (hopefully it wouldn't be) and can be secured, but probably not the stadium.

Ironically, I was going to bump this thread anyway today because of this lovely piece of opinion from FakeGlobe.com:

http://www.boston.com/business/news...olympic-bid/iQiMizoKLJIYgZwNqCqZGM/story.html

Despite the fact that this piece actually has no argument - it's pure rabble-rousing garbage, which seems to be all that that particular website is capable of producing - it's worth noting the closing point in the Deadspin article that they failed to mention. The expectation is that the IOC will be forced to reconsider its demands on hosts after being stuck with Almaty or Beijing in 2022 in addition to a need for reliability and integrity in response to Sochi and Rio (and Qatar for the World Cup).

The 2024 bid process will be the first in which cost-effectiveness and reliability matter, and Boston is set to shine on both. The difference between Boston and Philly is stark when it comes to existing venues and even athlete housing, and Mayor Nutter pointed that out. It will simply cost less to host an Olympics here than nearly anywhere else in the world that doesn't have mothballed venues sticking around (like LA and Paris do).

Mayor Nutter also repeats an argument which frankly I've grown tired of. Yes, this costs big money, but you have to parse where that money comes from and how it is spent. The 2024 Olympics could be a multi-billion-dollar outlay for Boston, but only if you count every dollar spent on needed infrastructure improvements as being spent for the sake of the Olympics alone. You also have to take account of corporate sponsorship and other private financing, which paid for the entirety of the 1996 Atlanta Games and would account for billions of dollars in Boston.

In all, it's worth it to spend hundreds of millions, Mayor Nutter, if you're spending them on useful things that benefit the city. It's also worth it to spend hundreds of millions if it means billions in State and Federal aid being directed at visible projects. It's worth it if the event generates at least that much in return in sales and hotel taxes, not to mention the massive payout for local business owners.

That's not to say that a Boston Olympics would be guaranteed to be a financial windfall or even that they would be guaranteed to break even, but Boston is simply not Sochi or Beijing (or Rio or Athens). It's closer to London, Atlanta and Vancouver, cities which broke even on successful efforts. It's a completely different animal.
 
The expectation is that the IOC will be forced to reconsider its demands on hosts after being stuck with Almaty or Beijing in 2022 in addition to a need for reliability and integrity in response to Sochi and Rio (and Qatar for the World Cup).

The 2024 bid process will be the first in which cost-effectiveness and reliability matter

Bullshit. The IOC absolutely will not change as long as people keep feeding their pockets. In addition, there are more factors in play. I think this article shows some of the interplay between the sporting federations, the IOC, and the host. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ce-president-says/article18319228/?cmpid=rss1. Even if the the IOC should pretend to have cost considerations, the various federations won't. Plans for a 10,000 seat tennis stadium may have been good enough for IOC but the tennis people want double the size. They will all put pressure on the IOC - especially the popular sports - to ensure that the stadiums are the best. Reuse of existing facilities just won't cut it for them.
 
I've said it before; Boston should submit a bid that works for Boston. Heavy reliance on existing facilities, spread around venues, partnering with schools/developers, etc. If the IOC doesn't like it they can go shove.
 
Bullshit. The IOC absolutely will not change as long as people keep feeding their pockets. In addition, there are more factors in play. I think this article shows some of the interplay between the sporting federations, the IOC, and the host. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ce-president-says/article18319228/?cmpid=rss1. Even if the the IOC should pretend to have cost considerations, the various federations won't. Plans for a 10,000 seat tennis stadium may have been good enough for IOC but the tennis people want double the size. They will all put pressure on the IOC - especially the popular sports - to ensure that the stadiums are the best. Reuse of existing facilities just won't cut it for them.

They absolutely will care if US and European cities refuse to bid under their conditions. Among the likely 2024 candidates, LA isn't going to spend many billions, neither will Paris, neither will Boston. If they want extravagance, they can keep going to developing ambitious countries with embarrassing incompetence (Brazil, South Africa) or they can go hit up the rich, autocratic countries which slaughter workers (Qatar, China) or start wars during the Olympics (Russia).

Those countries might throw money at venues, but Qatar is not paying for the Olympic Movement - the US is. It's NBC and other corporations like it in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. that keep the money flowing, and if the developed world abandons this thing, it dies. Just look at what happened to World's Fairs.

The IOC isn't FIFA. FIFA can keep taking bribes for the World Cup because soccer is the world's most popular sport and people will stomach whatever it takes for it to happen, just like Americans will put up with anything from the NFL as long as football keeps happening. No one has to care about the Olympics, and the only reason people do is because of how much these amateur athletes are promoted and sold in major markets. If the Olympics become unpalatable enough that advertisers lose interest in developed countries, the whole thing is sunk.

Essentially, the payoff for getting an American city to host the Olympics far outweighs whatever edification the IOC might get from $50 billion worth of stadiums. None of that money goes to them.
 
Related, from The Atlantic Cities... erm, CityLab

Next month, the U.S. Olympic Committee will pick one U.S. candidate for the 2024 Games from six cities said to be competing: Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (Philadelphia and New York dropped out of the race this week.) What these cities are bidding on is not merely glory but the temporary political purchase to pursue massive internal improvements.
 
For Western cities, the Olympics represents an opportunity to purchase what Putin has in spades: central authority.

And that's never gone wrong before..........
 
The Deadspin story if anyone missed it.

Nobody Wants To Host The 2022 Olympics
Barry Petchesky, Deadspin.com

The next Olympics to be awarded, a little more than a year from now, will be the 2022 Winter Games. Rather than going to the strongest bid, the games may end up going to the last city standing—a long list of potential hosts have given up on their Olympic dreams because the whole thing is one huge, useless waste of money.

Yesterday, Krakow, Poland, officially withdrew its bid for the games, a day after a citywide referendum where 70 percent of voters came out against hosting the Olympics. "Krakow is closing its efforts to be the host of the 2022 Winter Games due to the low support for the idea among the residents," said mayor Jacek Majchrowski.

In January, another of the six original finalists pulled out, when Stockholm, Sweden's ruling political party declined to fund the games. They cited the pointlessness of paying hundreds of millions for facilities that would be used for two weeks and then rarely again, a story common to almost all Olympic hosts. "Arranging a Winter Olympics would mean a big investment in new sports facilities, for example for the bobsleigh and luge," the Moderate party said in a statement. "There isn't any need for that type of that kind of facility after an Olympics."

In November, voters in Munich, Germany, rejected a proposed Olympic bid. "The vote is not a signal against the sport," said one lawmaker, "but against the non-transparency and the greed for profit of the IOC."

Last March, a joint bid from Davos/St. Moritz, Switzerland, fell apart after being rejected by a public referendum.

Of the four remaining finalists, two are in rough shape. The Oslo, Norway, bid is falling apart. It was supported by a razor-thin margin in a September referendum, but public opposition has only grown since then. And on Sunday, the junior member of the government coalition voted against funding any Olympics. For them to go on, it would require an unprecedented alliance between the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour party.

The Lviv, Ukraine, bid seems dead in the water with the turmoil and war in the country. "Currently our dream is on hold," said the bid's chief.

There are only two healthy bids: Almaty, Kazakhstan, and Beijing, China. One's an oil-rich state ruled by a president-for-life, and the other's, well, China. That's no coincidence. With the Sochi games raising the bar to an absurd $51 billion, hosting the Olympics no longer looks like a winning proposition. The failed and aborted 2022 candidacies all have one thing in common: When actual citizens are allowed to have a say, they say they don't want the Olympics.
 
And with the way things are going down in Brazil, more and more cities are backing out, including NYC and Philly. I hope Boston would come to its senses and drop out too. It would be great if such lavish venture would spur improvements specifically on infrastructure and and other improvements alone but we all know it won't. A majority of the expenses will likely go to new facilities which won't benefit the city much after the Olympics (somehow Turner field lasted 30 years but will be demolished within the next few years).

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olymp...ity-and-drops-2024-olympic-and-paralympic-bid

http://www.boston.com/business/news...olympic-bid/iQiMizoKLJIYgZwNqCqZGM/story.html
 

Back
Top