Boston 2024

^ I thought Dallas would be our biggest competition, because Texas has no problem bulldozing land and making space. For all the small-gov't Texas talk, they would steamroll that thing through, much moreso than DC, SF, LA or Boston.

I think LA is the most capable, but having already hosted does hurt it a bit. I'd take our existing venues and ID'd space or expansion of both facilities and infrastructure as putting us in a solid spot with DC and SF. DC would get too political I feel (protests and partisanship). SF has our permitting and spacing issue but probably even worse.

If we can make good use of existing facilities, prompt development of thousands of housing and hotel units that are desperately need, and concentrate 3 decades of long overdue mass transit investment into the next decade- with some federal support- then I am really all for it. More Barcelona less Sochi.
 
I'm still disappointed that NYC withdrew their bid. The city handled the Super Bowl crowds SO effectively. And, as an added plus to Boston, there would probably be some major upgrades to the Northeast Corridor that we wouldn't otherwise see for decades. Oh well.
 
^And you don't think a Boston Olympics would also leverage investment in the NEC?

People, I know there are a million reasons why hosting an Olympics here would give you pause. But this is the ONLY opportunity we have to make major investments in the city's public transit system. Our political system won't allow it otherwise.

Boston should submit a bid that's good for Boston, if the IOC doesn't like it they won't pick us and that's fine. We can either quit whining and start supporting a bid that would force our politicians to invest in Boston's infrastructure, or we can continue wasting our time drawing fantasy maps in "Design a Better Boston" for the next 50 years.

If it takes a $15 billion Olympics to bring the T into the 21st century, it will be the best $15 billion this state has ever spent.
 
lexicon506 said:
Boston should submit a bid that's good for Boston
Click to expand...

That is hilarious. Look who is on that committee - everyone who will profit from this in terms of construction and real estate. This has nothing at all to do with what Boston needs and everything to do with what Fish, Kraft, and their cronies want.
Jesus, I sound like Rifleman.
 
meddlepal said:
Ugh. Kill it with fire already.
Click to expand...

Kill what? You have no idea what's going to be proposed. You're identifying this with projects in authoritarian countries which have tens of billions of dollars to waste on the Olympics. We don't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look into this, it just means our project wouldn't be on the megalomaniacal scale as theirs and, unlike Russia and China, we'll include corporate sponsorship as a primary source of funding.

Other than that, nothing is defined. We have no idea what the infrastructure benefits would be, or where the investments would be made. This is an exploratory effort, and part of the reason the USOC selection process is so secretive this time is to lower the cost of exploring.

So let's freaking explore it. We don't have to do it. We could find that we're the next Athens and we'd be throwing our money out the window, or that the IOC is such a corrupt concern that placating them would bankrupt us. If so, then fine, we don't do it. If we think we could be the next Barcelona, though, and this is the catalyst for finally building things we've been promising for decades, then we consider it.

We're committed to nothing for at least another year. Personally I'd like to see the benefits in addition to the wildly speculative costs before I make a judgment.
 
Semass said:
This has nothing at all to do with what Boston needs and everything to do with what Fish, Kraft, and their cronies want.
Click to expand...

Oh really, Semass? Sorry I wasn't aware you had an advance copy of the bid! Please enlighten us about all the details contained within it.

OR how about we wait to see an actual proposal before declaring this idea an unconditional failure?
 
lexicon506 said:
^And you don't think a Boston Olympics would also leverage investment in the NEC?
Click to expand...

I do think that would happen. I wasn't dissing Boston's bid (even though I could), I was just thinking about how a NYC bid would also help Boston. The point is moot now, though.

Also, if the bid includes something along the lines of Blue to Kenmore (or equivalently helpful project) I will change my tune.
 
I'm just hoping it won't include SCR. The general idea of an Olympics that helps Boston is fine, but like everything in Mass. politics, I'm sure the committee'll find some way to divert money to places that don't need it over places that do.
 
FitchburgLine said:
I'm just hoping it won't include SCR. The general idea of an Olympics that helps Boston is fine, but like everything in Mass. politics, I'm sure the committee'll find some way to divert money to places that don't need it over places that do.
Click to expand...

I mean, the State's funding SCR either way. I can see your hope that none of this windfall of infrastructure funding will go there, or that the pressure of the Olympics will divert attention and money to other more worthy projects, but your tax dollars will fund SCR Olympics or not. It's a priority project for MassDOT and it's highlighted in the CIP.
 
Yeah, if I have to eat SCR in exchange for GLX + (RLX OR BLX OR Red-Blue OR OLX...) I'll do it, I'd be fine with an Olympics, but I'm afraid the promised "transit improvements" will consist of GLX, SCR, and some Key Bus Routes level improvements with major Rapid Transit projects pushed into the next decade.
 
Might I suggest "exploring" it before offering our city up? But, that's not what they did. They said, "Pick us, please!"
 
Semass said:
That is hilarious. Look who is on that committee - everyone who will profit from this in terms of construction and real estate. This has nothing at all to do with what Boston needs and everything to do with what Fish, Kraft, and their cronies want.
Jesus, I sound like Rifleman.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify how their interests are all that divergent from the population's?
 
In case this hasn't been posted yet, it is pretty much the findings from the exploratory committee of what Boston's assets and abilities are to host an Olympics. Pretty fun read.
 
This is fascinating and actually really encouraging. It leans on a lot of existing infrastructure, incorporates the whole city, looks as the Olympics as a catalyst for more housing hotels and transport, and has some new innovative ideas that could be extremely interesting. Cable cars, stadium housing/ Sullivan square, mass ave bridge park? Urban ring.

This is an encouraging first step and makes the Olympics uniquely Boston and focused on long term benefits. I encourage others to read. (I know this is more feasibility and less cost benefit, so for the time being I'm only thinking along those lines)
 
choo said:
This is fascinating and actually really encouraging. It leans on a lot of existing infrastructure, incorporates the whole city, looks as the Olympics as a catalyst for more housing hotels and transport, and has some new innovative ideas that could be extremely interesting. Cable cars, stadium housing/ Sullivan square, mass ave bridge park? Urban ring.

This is an encouraging first step and makes the Olympics uniquely Boston and focused on long term benefits. I encourage others to read. (I know this is more feasibility and less cost benefit, so for the time being I'm only thinking along those lines)
Click to expand...

It's much more an architecture school brainstorm project than a legitimate plan, but I do appreciate the 3D models of what these buildings would look like. I do have to wonder, though, how you can be located on Boylston St. and believe that the Red Sox won the "NBL Championship" in 2004. Probably want to fix that, and a few similar typos, before this goes public at all.

The land acquisition costs for a Sullivan Square location would be pretty severe, but the city does intend to do some serious urban renewal there, so maybe they'd be open to using this as a catalyst. That site does well with the "put it where we really want transit improvements" criterion, since it puts the Urban Ring (not with freaking gondolas) seriously in play. It's pretty silly to propose a new people-mover directly parallel to the Orange Line, though.
 
They also played fast and loose with the definition of Metro Boston in some pages, switching between Greater and Metro Boston. Still, fun stuff.

Monorail!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top