Boston 2024

I'll post the actual Times piece, as opposed to the FakeGlobe.com article that summarizes it, because I have far more respect for the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magazine/does-hosting-the-olympics-actually-pay-off.html?_r=0

The problem with Amy Ryan's argument is stated in one of her throwaway balancing statements:

"The Los Angeles Olympics were successful, after all, because planners avoided building new stadiums. Barcelona, long neglected under the rule of Francisco Franco, was in the midst of a renaissance that would have probably occurred without the Olympics."

She leaves out Atlanta and Salt Lake City, the other 2 most recent US Olympic hosts, both of which did not build many new venues and both of which (though SLC had problems in execution) were not seen as failures or white elephants. The Globe's front page piece this past Sunday took a look at Atlanta and concluded that the biggest white elephant left there was a tennis court.

Amy's whole argument is based on opportunity costs overwhelming economic gains, but the opportunity costs in LA and Barcelona were far lower (and if you want to talk about not having data to support a claim, take a look at that Franco thing), and that's a large part of why those Games were successes. As in Atlanta and LA, a Boston Olympics is simply cheaper, by far, than a Bejing, Sochi, or Athens.

In short, Amy Ryan is cherry-picking her examples, and doesn't have nearly as much data supporting her argument as she claims to. In addition, she is only looking at tourism and economic returns. The effects of improved infrastructure, like the excellent Metro system Athens got that no one talks about, or the several infrastructure projects Barcelona got done after postponing them for a century, are also a very valid reason to pursue an Olympics.
 
Amy's whole argument is based on opportunity costs overwhelming economic gains, but the opportunity costs in LA and Barcelona were far lower (and if you want to talk about not having data to support a claim, take a look at that Franco thing),

The Franco thing is exactly what I was thinking about. Thats a very broad claim to make without much evidence, which is poor journalism.

The longer term economic impact to the region of greater boston from transportation improvements alone would be great, though not the sole reason to host an olympics. Certainly my favorite reason for why Boston should pull it off :)
 
It's unfortunate that Boston does not have the vision to improve its infrastructure without having to lure something like the Olympics to do it. Yes, there are long term economic benefits with an improved infrastructure. No, the city doesn't actually need to spend billions on the Olympics to do so. It's almost pathetic that politicians need the Olympics as a justification to improve infrastructure when the long term benefits themselves are more than enough and with less headaches.
 
I don't think Athens is relevant at all. Greece had a massive economic crash caused by, among other factors, a global economic crash and systemic nation-wide economic issues. Is anyone going to argue that is or would happen in Boston too? If not, they aren't comparable.
 

GDP of Greece (Whole Nation) = $249b (says World Bank)
GDP of Boston (Greater Metro) = $336b (says Wikipedia)

So not only is Boston 35% bigger economically than all of Greece, but also we plan to build less new-and-easily-orphaned stuff.

The Olympics don't "cause" or "inflict" abandoned venues necessarily, and it seems that UK/US/Canada/Australia hosts do a particularly good democratic rule-of-law sort of job of not letting things go to waste.
 
If not, they aren't comparable.

Correct, but I've seen (and corrected) numerous friends on Facebook posting that article about the Athens ruins to support their opposition to Boston.

I don't understand why Athens and Beijing are being seen as the standard. They're not. We have a very unique opportunity in Boston to showcase a highly sustainable Olympics with venues we already have and keeping new construction to a minimum with applicable downsize conversions planned into the designs.
 
...we plan to build less new-and-easily-orphaned stuff.

The BBC Sport version of this piece, from which the Baltimore Sun and BR appear to have copied their versions (BR does not cite the BBC, who knows if the Sun did), actually called this out explicitly, mentioning that Athens had actually flaunted suggestions to build temporary or scaleable venues in favor of these white elephants. No American bid would be allowed to make that mistake.

Of course, some of those venues were white elephants from conception. It's not like Athens has much need for a AAA-caliber baseball stadium on an ongoing basis. In fact, I'm fairly certain that hosts' complaints about having to build the unique and oddly-shaped venues was part of the reason Baseball was dropped from the Olympics.
 
It's unfortunate that Boston does not have the vision to improve its infrastructure without having to lure something like the Olympics to do it. Yes, there are long term economic benefits with an improved infrastructure. No, the city doesn't actually need to spend billions on the Olympics to do so. It's almost pathetic that politicians need the Olympics as a justification to improve infrastructure when the long term benefits themselves are more than enough and with less headaches.

We can't forget it was not even a decade ago that "we" finished what was then the biggest and costliest infrastructure investment in the history of America, the Big Dig .. something like $24 billion on Boston alone. Since then I-93 in southern NH has been under major construction widening the highway to 3 lanes, the green line is on its way to Union Sq. and Medford, the subways are open until 3 on weekends, Red, Green and orange line cars are being replaced within a decade, luxury residential towers popping up across the city which will broaden the tax base, SCR to Fall River/New Bedford is still on the board i believe.
It's not like infrastructure investment has come to a screaching hault in greater Boston and if Boston was awarded the Olympics in 2024, greater boston would just get more $ and more of a reason to invest in decaying bridges and bumpy roads... and the urban ring :rolleyes:
 
Here's a good piece form the Globe.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...or-olympics/bgGdIzqsXtFRhDPs8L7ddJ/story.html

Compact Boston may have Olympic advantage

Close array of venues a contrast with rivals’ spread-out plans

By John Powers | GLOBE STAFF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

Harvard Stadium is one of the historic Boston venues that could be used in a Summer Olympics.

The 2024 Summer Olympics may be a decade away, but in just four months the US Olympic Committee probably will decide whether to enter a US city in the international competition to host the event — and Boston has a potential edge in that race.

Boston is offering itself as a city with compact venues, and if the International Olympic Committee, meeting in Switzerland in December, decides that is what it wants, Boston is seen as a strong candidate. It would probably gain an advantage over its US competitors, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, whose plans offer less intimate settings.

“The city is the Olympic park,” said Dan O’Connell, president of the Boston 2024 Partnership, the city’s potential bid committee. “It becomes a public-transit and walking Olympics.”

By contrast, Los Angeles would have five of its facilities in Long Beach, 25 miles to the south. Washington would use sites in Maryland and Virginia. San Francisco would spread its venues in a large loop around the Bay Area.

While Suffolk Construction chief executive John Fish, who chairs the partnership, acknowledges that “theoretically we have a 25 percent chance as one of four cities,” he publicly has reckoned the city’s odds of being named the US entry as 75 percent based on the perceived reaction to Boston’s pitch to USOC officials.

“I’m not in this to lose,” Fish said. “I would never bet against myself.”

But even if Boston is selected, it is not clear that the city is ready to commit to staging the Games. The only first-time bidder among the four, it is still investigating the feasibility and availability of sites in the vicinity.

With potential host cities for the 2022 Winter Games scared off by the exorbitant $50 billion cost of this year’s event in Sochi, Russia, the IOC is expected to make things easier and cheaper for future cities. That could be done not only by having more compact venues, but also by favoring the use of temporary or existing facilities. That would help relieve cities of the burden of expensive “white elephants” destined to lie idle after the Olympics.

“I think we’ve gotten a lot more responsible in terms of the legacy aspect,” said Canada’s Dick Pound, one of the international committee’s most senior members. “We’re certainly far more willing to look at temporary venues than we were.”

If Boston were to use modular units for the Olympic village at the former Bayside Expo Center adjacent to UMass-Boston’s harbor campus, it could leave some behind as campus dormitories and move others elsewhere for worker housing.

The main stadium for the opening and closing ceremonies and the track and field competition, whose location is uncertain, probably will be reduced from the customary 70,000 to 90,000 seats and could be downsized to 25,000 after the Games and used for a soccer facility. The natatorium, which ordinarily accommodates around 17,000, could be built with removable spectator stands, as was London’s two years ago.

London’s use of landmarks such as Hyde Park, Wimbledon, and Lord’s Cricket Ground would be echoed in Boston, which could use the Common for beach volleyball, the Back Bay and the riverside paths for the marathon, Franklin Park for equestrian events, Harvard Stadium for field hockey (or swimming with a temporary pool), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Killian Court fronting the Great Dome for archery.

“There are some iconic settings that Boston has that other cities won’t have,” said O’Connell.

Most of Boston’s offerings, like a college cluster involving Harvard, MIT, and Boston University, would be near the Charles River or around subway and trolley lines.

“University sites are first on our list of potential venues,” said O’Connell, whose partnership has been discussing options with the various presidents.

Boston’s layout would be a distinct departure from the previous half-dozen summer hosts, which built multiple facilities in one area to maximize convenience for athletes, spectators, and media as well as from the spread-out, regional plans of the other three US candidates for 2024.

Washington, which combined with Baltimore on a bid for the 2012 Games and was bypassed by the USOC in favor of New York, is putting more emphasis upon the nation’s capital this time, stressing its 175 embassies and 184 languages that are spoken there.

“We believe that the world can come here and feel at home,” said Russ Ramsey, who is chairing the D.C. 2024 group.

While the D.C. Games likely would use venues in northern Virginia and in Baltimore, Annapolis, and College Park, Md., the centerpiece probably would be Washington’s eastern section, where aging RFK Stadium could be replaced with a new facility that would later be home to the Redskins, who played at that location for 36 seasons before decamping for Landover, Md., in 1997.

That area also would be the site of an Olympic village that could be transformed into housing as part of the redevelopment of the Anacostia River district that is overdue for renewal.

“It would be like what London did with its East End,” said Ramsey.

San Francisco, which also lost out to New York in 2012 and halted its 2016 bid when the 49ers decided to leave for a new stadium in Santa Clara, likely will present an updated version of the “Ring of Gold” that encompassed four clusters around the Bay: San Francisco, Oakland/Berkeley, San Jose/Santa Clara, and Palo Alto.

Once again the challenge would be where to build a stadium and a nearby Olympic village. The best option might be the Bayview-Hunters Point area southeast of San Francisco, which could use affordable housing and where a new stadium could replace ancient and unused Candlestick Park.

The drawback to a Bay Area bid would be the same as last time, when USOC members said that the venues were too spread out among too many civic jurisdictions and that they preferred New York’s “one government, one stop, one solution” plan pushed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Los Angeles, which staged the Games in 1932 and 1984, would be the obvious choice if the IOC wants a proven host with new or updated facilities. The LA plan, which is the most complete of the four, calls for a quartet of clusters: Downtown, Westside, Avalon, and Harbor.

While the mammoth (and renovated) Coliseum would be used for the third time, most of the 1984 venues would be replaced by newer facilities, most notably the Staples Center, an aquatics complex in Exposition Park, and a downtown Olympic village.

LA’s biggest barrier may be that the IOC members wouldn’t want to go there again. But since London was a third-time choice in 2012 and since four decades will have passed since Los Angeles last staged the Games, a return visit may seem less of a Hollywood remake.

LA, with its abundance of venues and extensive freeway network, would be the least complicated choice for the IOC. While Boston has an undeniable historic charm, its intimacy comes with a people-moving challenge within and around a congested city. Some transit improvements, such as an expanded South Station and an extended Green Line, are on the drawing board as part of the state Department of Transportation’s 21st-century plan.

Easing traffic on jammed roadways that will require dedicated Olympic lanes will be the most daunting task for Boston’s organizers, who would need companies in the area to encourage employees to take vacation during the July dates or allow them to work from home.

A modern transportation system for a 17th-century city would be the most enduring bequest of a 17-day Games.

“We’re talking about legacy,” said O’Connell. “It’s not worth doing if the Olympics are the be-all and end-all.”

With the city’s quadricentennial coming up in 2030, the possibility of hosting an Olympics in 2024 or 2028 would be a central topic of Boston’s debate about its evolution.

“Even if we don’t win at the IOC level,” said Fish, “this will be one of the most transformative events in our history.”
 
Greater Boston discussed potential T and transit improvements that could come with the Olympics. A lot of stuff people here have discussed (improved buses with dedicated lanes and signal priority, Blue line to Lynn, Red out to Arlington/Route 128, etc.), as well as some stuff I haven't heard too much about before (elevated bikeways above the street, subway line connecting the Back Bay and the South End, etc.). There was also a little discussion about West Station at the end, where the connection to South AND North Station was mentioned again. Although the hostess seemed to display a lack of knowledge regarding the long-term plans for South Station as far as DMU access is concerned. She poo-pooed it as essentially being "just a commuter rail stop." Nothing super substantive, but an interesting 10-minute clip nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0t_QVW4aHg
 
I have a feeling that when the reporter said "Back Bay to South End" he was probably mis-quoting Salvucci who, I'm rather sure, would have said Back Bay to South Boston [Waterfront].
 
Greater Boston discussed potential T and transit improvements that could come with the Olympics. A lot of stuff people here have discussed (improved buses with dedicated lanes and signal priority, Blue line to Lynn, Red out to Arlington/Route 128, etc.), as well as some stuff I haven't heard too much about before (elevated bikeways above the street, subway line connecting the Back Bay and the South End, etc.). There was also a little discussion about West Station at the end, where the connection to South AND North Station was mentioned again. Although the hostess seemed to display a lack of knowledge regarding the long-term plans for South Station as far as DMU access is concerned. She poo-pooed it as essentially being "just a commuter rail stop." Nothing super substantive, but an interesting 10-minute clip nonetheless.

She was dismissive, but in a sense correct. Even DMUs aren't going to give you HRT-like 5-minute peak headways, and that's what the corridor from Harvard to Downtown through Allston deserves (or the corridor from Watertown to Downtown down Brighton Ave). Aloisi was on the money when he called it a "path of least resistance," but I would have gone farther and called it "the thing we can actually build and pay for, which is better than nothing."

It's important that Salvucci mentioned signaling and track improvements before Blue/Lynn and Red/Arlington, both of which he championed and neither of which is likely to be relevant to an Olympic bid. Both of those projects will happen some day, or they won't. The Olympic money should be spent on things like Green Line signaling overhauls that will make an enormous difference but would never be sexy enough to fund in the normal course of things.
 
It's important that Salvucci mentioned signaling and track improvements before Blue/Lynn and Red/Arlington, both of which he championed and neither of which is likely to be relevant to an Olympic bid. Both of those projects will happen some day, or they won't. The Olympic money should be spent on things like Green Line signaling overhauls that will make an enormous difference but would never be sexy enough to fund in the normal course of things.

I would agree with that. Rather than sexy, flashy projects, I'd prefer the political will that would come with the Olympics be used on paying for all that deferred maintenance that will seemingly never be addressed under normal circumstances. That and the Red-Blue Connector.

Meanwhile, it appears Patrick and Walsh are at least interested enough in hosting the Olympics to be seen in public with all the people behind the effort to bring it here (e.g., the Boston 2024 Partnership and a bunch of local Olympians). There's an event on October 6 they're both attending:

Mayor Walsh and Governor Patrick Will Meet Athletes at Event Pushing for Olympics to Come to Boston

Let the games begin.

By Steve Annear|Boston Daily|October 1, 2014 5:30 pm

Mayor Marty Walsh and Governor Deval Patrick are planning to spend time with 30 Olympic athletes who have ties to Massachusetts during a special event next week as a local non-profit group continues to make a strong push to bring the 2024 summer games to the city.

On October 6, Patrick and Walsh will stroll over to Blazing Paddles on Lansdowne Street, where they will meet up with the members of the Boston 2024 Partnership, the private organization that has its eye on turning the area into a mecca for world-class competitors in the next 10 years. While there, the elected officials will mingle with figure-skating champion Nancy Kerrigan, Harvard College women’s hockey star A.J. Mleczko Griswold, and bronze-medal winning judo fighter Jimmy Pedro, who has competed in four Olympics games, according to event details.

The meet-and-greet, organized by the Boston 2024 Partnership, is being marked as nothing more than an “exciting” opportunity to bring together a diverse cast of previous Olympic athletes who have put the state on the map when competing in the world games. But the underlying message of the Governor and Mayor’s appearances at the gathering raises questions about whether or not they’re supporting an Olympic bid.

In June, after a brief visit to Cambridge, officials from the United States Olympic Committee announced that they narrowed a potential list of cities to host the 2024 Summer Olympics down to just four, and Boston made the cut. The news followed a lengthy report written up by a state-appointed committee, called the Special Commission Relative to the Feasibility of Hosting the Summer Olympics in the Commonwealth, that outlined the pros and cons of the city being a possible contender for the future games.

In a statement about the October 6 event, Walsh didn’t reveal too much about his opinion on the matter, but said regardless of the outcome his hope is that the Boston 2024 Partnership’s continued efforts will “promote a better long-term relationship with our local Olympic heroes.”

“Boston is known across the world for its sports prowess and this impressive group of Massachusetts-bred Olympians is a testament to our sporting spirit. I look forward to joining Governor Patrick to meet these incredibly accomplished and inspiring athletes and hear their thoughts on Boston’s bid to host the 2024 Summer Games,” he said.

Patrick, who has less than 100 days in office, said he thinks there’s a “great opportunity to develop a successful plan” for a 2024 bid. “The fact that the proponents of this adventure are thinking big about the Commonwealth is something I think is good for Massachusetts,” he said in a statement.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. are also on the short list of U.S. cities in the running to host the Olympics. Although the prospect has some excited—others remain concerned, specifically about the aftermath of the competitions—there are still many roadblocks to overcome before Boston takes center stage for a large-scale sporting event of this kind.

First, the USOC would need to decide if they even want to submit a bid on behalf of the U.S. Then, if they do, the organization would need to pick between the four remaining cities before confirming their decision with the International Olympic Committee by 2015. After that, it would be up to the IOC to decide if the U.S. contestant would beat out the other cities across the globe also hoping to host the games, a decision that would be handed down in 2017.

While Patrick seems optimistic about the group’s efforts after the city was added to the USOC list, others have formed groups with the goal of taking Boston out of the running.
 
I wonder if Patrick's positioning himself to take a Mitt in SLC type role once he's out of office.
 
Um. They had to shut down the Orange Line when the DNC came to town. What's to stop them from shutting all lines down when the Olympics come to town, thereby negating the need for any public transportation improvements?
 
Um. They had to shut down the Orange Line when the DNC came to town. What's to stop them from shutting all lines down when the Olympics come to town, thereby negating the need for any public transportation improvements?

The fact that no Olympic venue with security concerns will sit atop a transit tunnel, for precisely this reason. Also, that they aren't Dickensian villains interested in feeding the paranoia of NIMBYs trying to demagogue against the project they're proposing.
 

Back
Top