Boston 2024

USOC was in Boston today for their final visit before bids are due. Boston 2024 trotted out heavy hitters from MIT, Harvard, Tufts, Bentley, Northeastern, and UMass Boston along with Mayor Walsh and Gov. Patrick to greet them. Took them on tours of the MIT Media Lab and Gardner Museum--great moves.

https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/3-questions-israel-ruiz-mit-boston-2024-olympics-1118

The narrative Boston offers of innovation, technology, education, and medicine has very broad appeal and will play well with the IOC. Add in a proud sports culture and deep institutional, political, and business buy-in and you're left with a very strong bid. I'm sure John Fish is scrambling to reassure the USOC that public support will come around eventually, which is the biggest potential stumbling block. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out over the next couple of months.
 
lexicon506 said:
I'm sure John Fish is scrambling to reassure the USOC that public support will come around eventually, which is the biggest potential stumbling block. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out over the next couple of months.
Click to expand...

Actually, in general I think the public has been thoughtful but skeptical, precisely the attitude I'd hope for. There was a column in the Sunday Globe quite reasonably criticizing Fish for not engaging the public more prior to settling his plans.
 
There's no "But what if you did. . ." creativity here to split the difference.
Click to expand...
What I've heard from people working on the bid is that the stadium deck includes a flyover on the deck for the BCEC D(MU)inky. That's assuming the Olympic stadium goes at Widett, so it's not going to help a stadium stop for just the Revs. But like you said, Broadway is right there. Not to mention South Station and Tufts Med Center being ~15 min walk. Assuming the Revs "Front Door" is on W 4th, the walk from Broadway's about the same as Kenmore to Yawkey Way.
 
In a moment of distraction, I actually broke my "never ever read Eric Wilbur" rule. His piece over at BDC, which I won't link to because I don't want to contribute to his click count, is actually less insane than his normal ranting, but there was still a much better version of the argument for additional public participation in the Globe on Sunday (can't link to it because I'm not a subscriber).

The headline makes the point, though. Boston is the favorite for the US bid, and the population isn't as united against it as Wilbur wants to think.
 
underground said:
What I've heard from people working on the bid is that the stadium deck includes a flyover on the deck for the BCEC D(MU)inky. That's assuming the Olympic stadium goes at Widett, so it's not going to help a stadium stop for just the Revs. But like you said, Broadway is right there. Not to mention South Station and Tufts Med Center being ~15 min walk. Assuming the Revs "Front Door" is on W 4th, the walk from Broadway's about the same as Kenmore to Yawkey Way.
Click to expand...

I can't even fathom where a flyover could go.

By the time the loop track has reached what's now the SE corner of the BTD building it's already merged back onto the Fairmount Line en route to crossing under the W. 4th bridge, meaning there's only 1100 ft. to incline-up and incline-down. Maybe a little more if you blow up and rebuild the commuter rail's carwash building currently on the outer loop track, but there is nowhere near enough room at maximum RR grades to get up and down in that space. Much less a reason for going up/down because none of that problematic track crossing action happens on the loop itself or anywhere adjacent to the stadium property or any ground-level parking access.

The really time-sensitive track crossing on the east side where Fairmount + Southampton + Old Colony get bisected between the Track 61--Widett Loop connection is stuffed underneath and immediately adjacent Southie Haul Rd. so there's no grade separation possibility whatsoever out there. Burrowing under also doesn't allow enough incline space to get back at-grade on Track 61 before you have to pass above the Red Line tunnel adjacent to Dot Ave. (see Google Maps...they added the tunnel outline recently on map view).

"Cahnt get theya from heya."



But, yeah...1200 ft. walk to Broadway. That's shorter than some of the closest-packed Green Line surface stops. So...perspective. There isn't a lot of motivation for a commuter rail stop other than Kraft claiming a steel-and-concrete transit trophy for himself. And he's already getting one of those with Foxboro commuter rail to his Patriot Place narnia as that welcome project starts to advance, so nobody is under pressure to give him a second cookie by taking a cookie away from BCEC.
 
San Francisco's bid is coming together as well:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-puts-in-chips-for-2024-Olympics-5905458.php

I like that even though two separate groups came to the same $4.5 billion price tag (presumably) independently through an actual study of the economics, SFGate still gives equal credence to Andrew Zimbalist, a guy who's trying to sell a book by saying outrageous things.

SF still has the issues of widely-spaced venues with limited transportation links. This plan doesn't really fix any of those problems.
 
It's amazing to see that, like here, the comments on that SFGate article make repeated sardonic reference to being a "World Class City" ... I guess all second-tier US cities have the same hang-ups.
 
Shepard said:
It's amazing to see that, like here, the comments on that SFGate article make repeated sardonic reference to being a "World Class City" ... I guess all second-tier US cities have the same hang-ups.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's so sardonic. Atlanta certainly viewed the Olympics as a means to make the leap from a regional center to a recognized "world city," and they believe they succeeded. There is indeed a marked difference between Boston, DC and SF (which have already achieved the distinction), and places like Charlotte, Denver, Detroit, Baltimore, Portland, etc.

Some of that is solely population-based, as Boston has well over twice Charlotte's population as a metro area. In addition, though, it's about having a regional economy that faces outward rather than inward. A fair amount of Boston's business is linked to Europe and Asia, as is the Bay Area's. You can't say that as much about Dallas or Houston, both of which are big and rich, but whose economies are canted more toward domestic industries (principally oil, agriculture, railroads, etc).

"World-class city" might not be the best terminology, because it suggests a sales job. "Global city" is a term in more common use, with a rating system to go along with it.
 
Equilibria said:
"World-class city" might not be the best terminology, because it suggests a sales job. "Global city" is a term in more common use, with a rating system to go along with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, and folks haven't seen the various the Rating System(s) that Equilibria is referring to, check them out on Wikipedia.

San Francisco and Boston typically rank in a virtual tie.Both are "A-" global cities (so is Atlanta) and, numerically, Boston and San Francisco usually rank around 20th and Atlanta is around 30th.

They jump around depending on what you think is important, but overall the rankings do a good job a capturing the "gravity" of cities. Atlanta punches above its weight due to its huge airline hub and the way it is the dominant trading center for about 1/5th of the US Economy. San Francisco has that San Fransokyo thing, a big trans-con/trans-Pacific air hub, but, most importantly, Silicon Valley. And Boston has its universities.

The comments on the SFGate site are ridiculous. San Francisco is a big, rich, global, metro area in a huge, rich state. It'd make a great Summer Olympics host city. So would Boston. And both would likely be better than Atlanta but not as great as London or LA.
 
SF throws down the gauntlet by straight-up copying Boston's proposal, pop-up stadium, $4.5b projection and all! I was wondering when they'd show up.

If their bid is serious and has backing from the Googles and Apples that's a real tempting choice. Dark horse candidate? No American city is viewed more favorably internationally than SF, not even NYC.
 
lexicon506 said:
SF throws down the gauntlet by straight-up copying Boston's proposal, pop-up stadium, $4.5b projection and all! I was wondering when they'd show up.

If their bid is serious and has backing from the Googles and Apples that's a real tempting choice. Dark horse candidate? No American city is viewed more favorably internationally than SF, not even NYC.
Click to expand...

It might be a tempting candidate, but there are some reservations:

1) No politician in California except for the mayor of LA has come out publicly supporting either of the state's candidate cities. It's all well and good for the commission to be developing a report, but to be taken seriously SF needs the backing not only of Google, Apple, et al, but also of power players across a very large and very politically fractured region. Boston 2024 is keeping all the major venues and investments in Boston itself. SF would be building big in at least 2 municipalities (SF and Brisbane) as well as likely in several others, and they don't even have Mayor Lee openly backing them. EDIT: On a Google search, he did send out a press release saying he was "thrilled," but he hasn't been particularly visible (he wasn't interviewed for the SFGate article, for example).

2) California is all but bankrupt. Now, that isn't stopping things from happening there, but the expensive infrastructure projects are being run by semi-private agencies (CHSRA, BART, etc) or by cities (SFMTA). That doesn't stop a city from investing, but it does prevent the smoother infrastructure spending that Massachusetts can accomplish when needed.

3) It's tough to see how placing the center of gravity ten miles south of Downtown on Caltrain is as attractive as Boston's centrally-located bid. Caltrain doesn't access the East Bay (which is important if you want hotel rooms, and they talk about using Cal venues) and doesn't meet BART until Millbrae, well south of the site. Even if Caltrain is extended to the Transbay Terminal as part of an Olympic push, that brand new station is served by (I can't believe it either) not one other rail transit line. Caltrain just isn't built for this use - it's a commuter rail, not a metro system.

Brisbane is a weird place. It's got only 2,000 people, but hundreds of thousands probably transit through it every day on the 101 and Caltrain. Unlike 93 near Widett, Brisbane is stuffed between San Bruno Mountain and the Bay, meaning that there's no street grid and no alternate routes. The closest analog in Boston would be somewhere like the Quincy Quarries, but there really isn't a good example of a place with two major transportation routes and nothing else. Bottom line, if you thought Boston's traffic will be bad...

Work into that that the Bay Area's existing venues are scattered dozens of miles apart with little transit connectivity between them, and I think it's safe to say SF is trailing Boston and LA. They might surprise us, but I think Boston's showing pretty strong so far.
 
Idunno about you guys, but personally I'm looking forward to the prospect of staying with my parents for a bit and subletting my apartment for triple my rent.
 
davem said:
Idunno about you guys, but personally I'm looking forward to the prospect of staying with my parents for a bit and subletting my apartment for triple my rent.
Click to expand...

You think your landlord is gonna let you get away with that windfall? Heh.

Equilibria said:
It might be a tempting candidate, but there are some reservations:

2) California is all but bankrupt.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

Politics in the Bay Area are screwy, Brisbane is weird, and Caltrain is indeed incompetent. They're not bankrupt though. Not sure if that matters.

If they suck up the Olympics I don't mind. The IOC can deal with the California craziness.
 
davem said:
Idunno about you guys, but personally I'm looking forward to the prospect of staying with my parents for a bit and subletting my apartment for triple my rent.
Click to expand...

How close to downtown do you think you need to be to make a quick buck? I live in Coolidge Corner and I was thinking this same thought the other day.
 
MBTAddict said:
How close to downtown do you think you need to be to make a quick buck? I live in Coolidge Corner and I was thinking this same thought the other day.
Click to expand...

If you are walkable to the T I bet you can do very well. But if you are a renter, you generally cannot sublet.
 
Most condo boards also will not allow short term renters.
 
My landlord's never around unless we call him, and my building only has two other units in it. As it is I'm tossing around the idea of converting my office to a bedroom and doing Air B&B. I'm across the Pike from the New Balance station, and about 15-20 minute walk to both Harvard and Allston.
 
I would say the vast majority of sublets that occur are illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top