Boston 2024

I flipped a coin about whether to put this in the West Station thread or here...chose here because there are a few details regarding potential plans for the Olympics that are independent of West Station (e.g. housing visiting journalists in BU dorms).

New Allston station could play key role if Boston hosts the 2024 Summer Olympics

Oct 2, 2014, 6:23am EDT UPDATED: Oct 2, 2014, 6:34am EDT

Jon Chesto
Managing Editor, Print-
Boston Business Journal


Next stop: the 2024 Summer Olympics?

For the past few months, Suffolk Construction CEO John Fish has been telling just about anyone who would listen that all the infrastructure work for Boston’s Olympics bid is sensible only if it would make the city a better place once the show leaves town. Figuring out what a post-Olympics Boston would look like has been a big part of those discussions.

With the Patrick administration’s unveiling of the $25 million West Station project on Tuesday, one of the big missing pieces of Fish’s elaborate Olympics puzzle fell neatly into place.

The plan to build a new train station on the Framingham-Worcester commuter line by 2020 is important for a number of reasons. It’s a great example of a public-private partnership: Harvard University would pay for a third of the cost, the state would pay for a third, and an unnamed third partner would pay for a third. (State officials aren’t saying who that third partner is, but it’s hard to imagine it’s anyone other than Boston University, given that this station would bring trains to BU’s doorstep.) This is also a prime opportunity for transportation secretary Rich Davey’s vision of rolling out smaller, diesel-powered trains that can move with more frequency than typical commuter rail cars.

The biggest benefit, of course, is bringing train service to one of the last major undeveloped pieces of Boston, within striking distance of downtown. Harvard controls more than 100 acres over there: The university has short-term plans for some of that land, plans that will certainly be served by the West Station project and a related realignment of the Mass. Pike. But there are vast stretches of land that are still up in the air in terms of what can be developed there.

And that’s where the Olympics come in. Fish has been a singular force in getting this city short-listed among four potential U.S. sites that could be in the mix for the 2024 games. He knows it will only work if there are no white elephants — no hulking stadiums or athletes’ apartments that sit empty and gathering dust once the games are over. Finding open tracts of land that can work for the Olympics in a congested city like Boston isn’t easy. That’s why Fish and his team are closely eyeing these Allston properties.

I called up Fish to see what his reaction would be to the state’s decision to finally fund West Station, when earlier in the year it looked like those plans were squarely on the back burner. “That station and the connecting lines open up a plethora of opportunities for residents of the city and residents outside the city,” he told me. “You’re putting in place a station that will serve as a magnet for that area.”

But what does it mean if an Olympics venue gets built over there? “Anything that we do around that magnet will help energize that area for the short-term,” he said. “More importantly, when the Olympics are over, and you have the station in place, that will be a tremendous catalyst for growth. … The property values (there), because of that station, will improve substantially.”

Fish didn’t want to say exactly what kind of projects that the Boston 2024 Partnership has in mind for the area, just that the team is exploring a variety of different sites there.

From Dan O’Connell’s perspective, this is a perfect example of how the Olympics can serve as a catalyst for broader development. O’Connell has been helping accomplish much of the groundwork for Fish’s vision this year as president of the Boston 2024 Partnership. The Beacon Park Yards site where West Station would go lacks electricity and needs storm-water drainage work, O’Connell said. But he said those issues would likely be addressed as part of any significant development there. The 2024 Partnership would like to use BU’s facilities to host Olympics events — particularly the Agganis Arena and Nickerson Field — and those would be a short walk from the new West Station.

“West Station is critical to the success of venues in the Beacon Yards and BU areas,” O’Connell said. “Without West Station, it would be very difficult to transport ticket holders to those venues. … It’s also a key legacy, long-term transportation improvement.”

O’Connell said he sees BU dorms as a good place to house visiting journalists during the Summer Olympics. And he said diesel multiple-unit trains could conceivably link that area with the South Boston waterfront, where a number of Olympics events are envisioned for the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center.

For the record, MBTA spokeswoman Kelly Smith said the Olympics plans didn’t play a role in the Patrick administration’s decision to invest in West Station. Instead, it was the decision by Harvard, and that unnamed other partner, to pony up money for the project that persuaded state officials, she said. Harvard owns the 22-acre Beacon Park Yards site now, and would continue to own it even after the Pike is realigned and the station is built, she said. Pedestrian access would be from the north, likely over the Pike, where Harvard’s campus stretches across the Charles River, as well as from the south, where BU’s campus lines Comm. Ave. The project’s contract would likely be awarded in 2017, with a 2020 completion date in mind.

That’s more than enough time to be ready for the 2024 Summer Olympics.

Boston Business Journal
 
It's unclear to me how a commuter rail station is that much of a game-changer... it's the redev that's the game-changer, the CR/DMU stop is just common fucking sense.
 
Why is the General Manager so gung-ho about busses?!
Bus lanes are (or should be) easier to add than track-miles; particularly for an Olympics (it is how Atlanta and Sydney accommodated theirs)
 
Nothing groundbreaking, but offers some details. For those who don't want to read the entire thing, in summation: They're looking at potentially putting sailing and rowing in Fall River because the Charles River isn't up to Olympic standards, Lowell is a potential spot to host the boxing tournament, Dan O'Connell (the president of the Boston 2024 Organizing effort) wants a compact Olympics where just about everything is within a 50-mile radius (compare that to the 120-mile radius that existed in London), and December 1 is the deadline to submit a "bid book" to the USOC. Sounds like they have a couple more months of planning to do before they submit everything to the USOC for official consideration.

Could Fall River get Olympic gold

Will Richmond
Herald News City Editor
Oct. 5, 2014 12:01 a.m.


Olympic dreams aren’t just for athletes.

As the effort to promote Boston as the host site for the 2024 summer Olympics continues to move forward, the hopes of communities outside of the hub remain dreams, but one that may just be based in reality.

Sitting around a table outside of state Rep. Carole Fiola’s district office this past Friday, Dan O’Connell, the president of the Boston 2024 movement, and Nikko Mendoza, vice president of engagement strategy & external affairs, discussed the idea of the Fall River area being a part of the games. In addition to Fiola, the pair was joined by state Sen. Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport, Fall River Office of Economic Development Executive Vice President Kenneth Fiola Jr. and Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce and Industry Executive Director Robert Mellion.

Much to their pleasure they heard that the area could potentially host sailing and/or rowing events, as it turns out the Charles River does not meet Olympic standards. Other options may also be on the table.

You may remember a couple of months back that news of Carole Fiola asking the planning committee to consider Fall River as a host for events spun wildly out of control after a poorly written letter from Fall River Mayor Will Flanagan’s office to former Gov. Mitt Romney read like an effort to make Fall River the host city for the games. The Flanagan letter led to plenty of mocking from across the state, but also overshadowed Fiola’s reasonable request to be considered.

And Fall River isn’t alone in trying to grab an Olympic ring.

O’Connell said meetings recently took place with officials in Lowell, with boxing eyed in the city where the Golden Gloves tournament started. Conversations are also taking place in relation to Springfield and the Basketball Hall of Fame, as well as the Volleyball Hall of Fame recently opened in Holyoke.

All of these talks take place as the Boston committee eyes a Dec. 1 deadline to submit a “bid book” to the United States Olympic Committee that will detail everything from athlete accommodations to transportation plans and potential individual game sites. A decision from the USOC on naming a city to forward to the International Olympic committee is then expected n mid-January.

O’Connell said that for the most part the aim is to develop a “compact” layout for the games with a 50-mile radius eyed for the various game sites. In contrast he noted the London summer games were spread out over a 120-mile radius.

“While they require a host city and not a host state we’re looking at this as the whole commonwealth effectively hosting the games and we have the resources to do that,” O’Connell said after the meeting

While there are plenty debating the value of hosting of the games as some sites at past host cities have essentially been abandoned and the financial aspect of the games remains questionable, Fall River could potentially benefit with the games giving the building of South Coast Rail a good hard shove, O’Connell and the others in the room said, noting there is precedent for federal funding for transportation projects related to the games.

“We’re confident that if named we will be able to leverage that for additional federal funding,” O’Connell said.

For now it’s too soon to start buying those American flags, but it may be worth pricing them out.

The Herald News
 
Springfield's ~90 miles away. Still not that far, but thats much more than 50.
 
High-tech tool to help make case for Boston Olympics

By Mark Arsenault | Globe staff October 08, 2014

The toughest challenge for backers of a Boston Olympics in 2024 may be persuading city residents that new sports venues would not ruin their neighborhoods or lengthen commuting times after the games are over.

To try to win over skeptics, organizers are developing a high-tech tool to forecast the effects of potential sports venues and proposed transportation improvements, years before they are built.

They call the tool the “regional smart model” or just “the model.” It is a 3-D, digitized version of Greater Boston, rendered in meticulous detail, linked to layer upon layer of data about the region, such as details of car and pedestrian traffic, public transit, and neighborhood demographics.

When complete, the model will allow planners and engineers to study how the city works now, and how Boston could work decades in the future, with some possible modifications to accommodate the Olympics.

“We can use [the model] to build consensus with local community groups and show how these plans will positively impact the environment in which they live, work, and raise their families,” John Fish, chairman of Suffolk Construction and leader of the local effort to bring the 2024 Olympic Games to Boston, said in an interview. “We know if we can’t explain that to people, it’s not going to be a workable process.”

For instance, developers can “insert a venue” into the model, modify the nearby roads, virtually, and then use the model to test traffic in 2024, 2030, or any date the programmer chooses, said Peter Campot, chief innovation officer for Suffolk Construction, who has been working on the project.

“You can visualize the results,” Campot said.

He said people can have confidence in the model’s forecasts because it uses data that are already in the public realm and are maintained by public agencies.

“There are some assumptions you have to make,” he said, such as how a new MBTA stop might affect the development of a neighborhood, “and we will be transparent about the assumptions, so people can see how they were made and what they are based on.”

The local Boston 2024 group is developing the model at a cost of about $1.5 million, all raised through private donations, Fish said.

The group plans to give the model to the public as a gift.

“Even if we don’t win the Olympics, we’ll have this model as a byproduct of our efforts to pursue the Olympic Games,” Fish said. “If we don’t win, the value we create will be well in excess of $1.5 million for Greater Boston, because the cities will be able to use this as a planning tool for the Commonwealth’s future.”

In June, the US Olympic Committee announced that Boston was one of four finalists for a potential US bid for the 2024 summer games. Other cities on the short list are Los Angeles, which last hosted the summer Olympics in 1984; San Francisco; and Washington, D.C.

The committee will decide by early next year if any of the potential host cities is capable of putting together a winning bid and, if so, which city gives the United States the best chance to earn the games. If the committee decides to bid for the 2024 Games, it will advance one city for consideration by the International Olympic Committee, which will choose the 2024 host city from worldwide competing bids in 2017.

At the moment, the regional forecasting model exists on computer drives at the offices of Boston 2024, said Campot. Programmers were working to add the city’s underground infrastructure to the model, including gas and electric lines, he said.

Fish said he believes the public may see the model in action in November, in neighborhood meetings about potential Olympic venues.

Boston Globe
 
Nothing groundbreaking, but offers some details. For those who don't want to read the entire thing, in summation: They're looking at potentially putting sailing and rowing in Fall River because the Charles River isn't up to Olympic standards, Lowell is a potential spot to host the boxing tournament, Dan O'Connell (the president of the Boston 2024 Organizing effort) wants a compact Olympics where just about everything is within a 50-mile radius (compare that to the 120-mile radius that existed in London), and December 1 is the deadline to submit a "bid book" to the USOC. Sounds like they have a couple more months of planning to do before they submit everything to the USOC for official consideration.



The Herald News

I thought any bridges were grounds for exclusion as far as rowing goes (which is why the Charles doesn't meet regulations)? I understand that Fall River's old brightman street bridge can be removed, but that still leaves the Braga and Veteran's bridgel. To skirt the bridges, you'd need to move either further upriver (towards Taunton, Berkley, Freetown, etc.) which takes it out of Fall River (though there's a ton of undeveloped land along the Taunton River just north of Fall River in Assonet), or you move South into Mt. Hope Bay.

I grew up boating on the Taunton River. I would wager it's too rough for rowing (particularly South of the Braga Bridge). The exception would be the section of the river to the North of where the Assonet River splits off. It's actually fairly scenic too. That MAY work for rowing, but I have a hard time imagining that it's the best/only location to host.

Putting sailing in Fall River would be nothing short of a crime when you have Newport, Marion, Mattapoisett, Newburyport, Marblehead, etc. nearby.
 
I thought any bridges were grounds for exclusion as far as rowing goes (which is why the Charles doesn't meet regulations)? I understand that Fall River's old brightman street bridge can be removed, but that still leaves the Braga and Veteran's bridgel. To skirt the bridges, you'd need to move either further upriver (towards Taunton, Berkley, Freetown, etc.) which takes it out of Fall River (though there's a ton of undeveloped land along the Taunton River just north of Fall River in Assonet), or you move South into Mt. Hope Bay.

I grew up boating on the Taunton River. I would wager it's too rough for rowing (particularly South of the Braga Bridge). The exception would be the section of the river to the North of where the Assonet River splits off. It's actually fairly scenic too. That MAY work for rowing, but I have a hard time imagining that it's the best/only location to host.

Putting sailing in Fall River would be nothing short of a crime when you have Newport, Marion, Mattapoisett, Newburyport, Marblehead, etc. nearby.

It's not bridges per se that are the problem, but bridge piers. High bridges, like the Braga, wouldn't be an impediment. That said, Massachusetts already has a regulation rowing course in Worcester, so it makes no sense to work out and certify a different one. Quinsigamond will work fine for the Olympics.

For sailing, I agree. As callous as it sounds, Boston can't be doing urban renewal with these Games. Do things where they work, not where you have to shoehorn them in to spread aid around - it's not like anyone's going to use a sailing facility in Fall River in 2030 just because it was once used for the Olympics years earlier. In Marblehead, Newburyport, Newport, and other places with strong sailing cultures and need for such facilities, the investment would be far more worthwhile.

It's the same reason you shouldn't build your aquatics center in Lawrence if Harvard offers to pay for one (totally hypothetical).
 
Mayor Walsh warms up to 2024 Olympics bid
Says Olympics would add stature, pursuit can help Boston plan

Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who was initially noncommittal about the prospect of a Boston Olympics, now says he believes it could help the city plan for its future and has begun to publicly champion the cause.

“I’m cautiously enthused about where we’re heading,” Walsh said, in a Globe interview about the city’s Olympic bid. “If we got chosen as an Olympic site? I think it would be a tremendous opportunity for the city of Boston in so many different ways.”

A private group of prominent Massachusetts businesspeople, led by Suffolk Construction chief John Fish, has been working since last year on a bid to bring the 2024 Summer Games to the city. The US Olympic Committee announced in June that Boston had made its short list of potential 2024 hosts, along with Los Angeles, which hosted the Games in 1932 and 1984, San Francisco, and Washington.

Walsh issued a statement in June after the city made the short list that sounded open-minded, if perfunctory.

But now he sounds like a mayor selling an idea.

“I think just legacy, as far as Boston hosting the Olympics and being an Olympic city, puts us on a scale not too many cities can claim,” he said. “I think it adds value to our convention business. I think it adds value to our tourism business.”

And preparing for an Olympic bid could be a powerful motivator to “push us to really do a comprehensive plan on what the future of Boston will look like,” Walsh said.

Brooklyn, he said, is benefiting from planning that was part of New
York’s unsuccessful bid for the 2012 Games. “It has given Brooklyn the opportunity to go after manufacturing jobs; given Brooklyn the opportunity to build middle class housing — all of the same initiatives that I’m trying to do as mayor of the city of Boston,” he said.

Walsh said he has grown more comfortable since June with the financing plans of Boston 2024, the local group pursuing the Games. The group is promising a privately financed Olympics that would depend on public infrastructure improvements and collaboration with colleges and universities.


“Obviously the business community would have to be a partner here,” Walsh said. “And I think some of the infrastructure stuff will be paid publicly, but that has to be done regardless. In order to improve our transportation system, we have to make an investment in our infrastructure. By laying a plan out now, with the potential of an Olympics, it will get us there.”

He imagines “new roadways being built with the help of state and federal money” as well as “an opportunity to build out and continue to upgrade our subway system.”

“We’re not going to mortgage the future of the city away,” he said. “Any money that goes into public infrastructure is going to benefit all residents for a long period of time.”

Making the US Olympic Committee’s short list is just one step in a long process toward winning the Games. The committee is expected to decide by early next year if the United States will bid for the 2024 Olympics. If it does, it will advance one US city to compete against cities from around the world.

The International Olympic Committee will choose the host of the 2024 Games in 2017.

The local Olympic planning group has been quietly working to identify potential sites for venues, including big ticket items such as an Olympic village to house thousands of athletes and a stadium that could seat 80,000 people for the opening and closing ceremonies, as well as track and field competitions.

Potential venues will be rolled out for public discussion in coming months.

“The beauty of what we’re talking about in Boston is somewhat of a walkable Olympics with a lot of venues here in the city,” Walsh said. Planners “have identified more than one possible location for many of the venues. There is going to be a lot of opportunity for the community to say, ‘I like this idea, I don’t like that idea.’ ”

The move to bring the Olympics to Boston has drawn sharp criticism. An opposition group, No Boston Olympics, has already organized to campaign against any bid.

But Walsh said Bostonians seem to him open-minded, and curious about the details. “I hear it from a lot people,” the mayor said. “There is piquing interest out there, I’ll tell you that.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...lympics-bid/JYs1dwZ6UbRQtayoLwIQcP/story.html
 
Honestly, I continue to be fascinated by the two-headed approach the Globe is taking toward this project. On the one hand, the respectable Boston Globe proper has had generally positive coverage that includes interviews with participants and executives of Boston 2024 while highlighting the interim steps and deliverables that the effort is producing. On the other hand, the rabble-rousing nonsense that is Boston.com keeps publishing hit pieces that consist of nothing but mindless demagoguery (most of them by Eric Wilbur, the worst thing to ever happen to sports journalism in Boston since Dan Shaughnessy).

There are legitimate arguments against this idea, and Wilbur continues to cite some of the same ones over and over again in the most inflammatory and dismissive language possible. No one needs to be reminded that this will be expensive. No one needs to be told that traffic will be bad. Boston 2024 acknowledges these things. Wilbur continually dismisses any projected benefits without bothering to understand them. He's the worst kind of demagogue - he's probably a competent writer who has built a career out of playing an idiot on paper.

What worries me is the fact that the Globe is clearly doing this on purpose. They're trying to have it both ways - reporting on the subject objectively and maturely in their newspaper while whipping up the NIMBYs and ignoramuses with another hack piece every few months. They're building up this project so that they can profit from its downfall.
 
The Globe Proper's editorial and columnist wing has been pretty harsh on the Olympics too. It's not just Wilber.
 
Honestly, I continue to be fascinated by the two-headed approach the Globe is taking toward this project. On the one hand, the respectable Boston Globe proper has had generally positive coverage that includes interviews with participants and executives of Boston 2024 while highlighting the interim steps and deliverables that the effort is producing. On the other hand, the rabble-rousing nonsense that is Boston.com keeps publishing hit pieces that consist of nothing but mindless demagoguery (most of them by Eric Wilbur, the worst thing to ever happen to sports journalism in Boston since Dan Shaughnessy).

There are legitimate arguments against this idea, and Wilbur continues to cite some of the same ones over and over again in the most inflammatory and dismissive language possible. No one needs to be reminded that this will be expensive. No one needs to be told that traffic will be bad. Boston 2024 acknowledges these things. Wilbur continually dismisses any projected benefits without bothering to understand them. He's the worst kind of demagogue - he's probably a competent writer who has built a career out of playing an idiot on paper.

What worries me is the fact that the Globe is clearly doing this on purpose. They're trying to have it both ways - reporting on the subject objectively and maturely in their newspaper while whipping up the NIMBYs and ignoramuses with another hack piece every few months. They're building up this project so that they can profit from its downfall.

Ah, modern journalism at its finest.

Pour gasoline on the floor; drop a lit match; yell fire -- then take credit for saving everyone.
 
The Globe Proper's editorial and columnist wing has been pretty harsh on the Olympics too. It's not just Wilber.

They've been critical. I don't mind critical - this is the sort of idea that people need to criticize before they can accept it. Wilbur has been insulting and dismissive. There's a big difference.
 
Fair enough. I don't even bother with Boston.com anymore, so I haven't actually read Wilbur. There was a Globe column last week though (sorry, can't remember who. Cullen maybe?) claiming that downtown was going to be taken over by a gigantic stadium that would displace all the residents. That was beyond ridiculous. I mean, how would someone even draw that conclusion unless they were being willfully obtuse to do some good old fashioned flame fanning? We'd have a stadium cover all of downtown? REALLY? Like that's something that has or would ever exist?
 
Fair enough. I don't even bother with Boston.com anymore, so I haven't actually read Wilbur. There was a Globe column last week though (sorry, can't remember who. Cullen maybe?) claiming that downtown was going to be taken over by a gigantic stadium that would displace all the residents. That was beyond ridiculous. I mean, how would someone even draw that conclusion unless they were being willfully obtuse to do some good old fashioned flame fanning? We'd have a stadium cover all of downtown? REALLY? Like that's something that has or would ever exist?

As I am trapped between not wanting to pay the Globe for the privilege of reading that sort of thing and being disgusted with the free versions when they go up on Boston.com, I can't comment on that column... :)
 
As I am trapped between not wanting to pay the Globe for the privilege of reading that sort of thing and being disgusted with the free versions when they go up on Boston.com, I can't comment on that column... :)

My girlfriend loves couponing, so I have Sunday delivery which gets me the online subscription.

I grew up reading a physical paper with breakfast, so I enjoy getting delivery every once and a while. 8 bucks for 16 months isn't all that bad anyway. It also has solved the problem of me being hyper-aware of everything going on within Boston (due to reading uHub and here religiously), but no idea what's happening internationally thanks to not reading "real" news sites, and ditching cable years ago.
 
The Globe and BDC are not two sides of the same coin. Their editors and managers now consider the two properties rivals. It's bizarre and most of the old timers at BDC will confess it makes no sense, but that's the way the Globe wants it. My pal Justin wrote a piece last year about this that is a bit out of date, but still helps to illuminate the muddled strategy.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/02/sp...for-sale-is-navigating-its-freepaid-strategy/
 
The Globe and BDC are not two sides of the same coin. Their editors and managers now consider the two properties rivals. It's bizarre and most of the old timers at BDC will confess it makes no sense, but that's the way the Globe wants it. My pal Justin wrote a piece last year about this that is a bit out of date, but still helps to illuminate the muddled strategy.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/02/sp...for-sale-is-navigating-its-freepaid-strategy/

Very interesting piece. Kind of underlines that the strategy with BDC is to torture intelligent people into paying for content.
 

Back
Top