Boston 2024

The Reggie Lewis Center could probably be used also, right? Baseball and Softball got cut for London, so you could use Fenway for something else.

Edited because of a huge brain fart. Former Celtics star Reggie Lewis is not in fact former Yankees slugger Reggie Jackson.
 
Last edited:
^ Do you mean the Reggie Lewis Center? That could definitely be used because it's got a track, basketball court, and field event space. It also has the benefit of being right at the Roxbury Crossing T stop. Hopefully that could really spark development in that area!!
 
Joe, do you happen to have a handy line item list of what is needed, facility-wise, for the Olympics?

Here's London's list: http://www.london2012.com/spectators/venues/

Fenway would be a tough building to use, since even though the Sox could (and probably would have to) go on a 2 week road trip during the games, you couldn't do very much to the playing surface during the season. For the concerts they just build a stage on top, and they've even had problems with that.

Frankly, anything that you'd want to use after the games should be convenient to the people you assume will use it. That would tend to rule out a Natatorium in Eastie, unless there's been a couple of universities founded there that I haven't heard about. It's a great site, though - Maybe you could put the beach volleyball venue there. That seems to be the hip venue now...

Also, talking about Eastie got me thinking: Does Terminal E have the capacity for that many international arrivals all at once? Atlanta may be a smaller city than Boston, but it has a much larger airport.
 
Here's London's list: http://www.london2012.com/spectators/venues/

Fenway would be a tough building to use, since even though the Sox could (and probably would have to) go on a 2 week road trip during the games, you couldn't do very much to the playing surface during the season. For the concerts they just build a stage on top, and they've even had problems with that.

Frankly, anything that you'd want to use after the games should be convenient to the people you assume will use it. That would tend to rule out a Natatorium in Eastie, unless there's been a couple of universities founded there that I haven't heard about. It's a great site, though - Maybe you could put the beach volleyball venue there. That seems to be the hip venue now...

Also, talking about Eastie got me thinking: Does Terminal E have the capacity for that many international arrivals all at once? Atlanta may be a smaller city than Boston, but it has a much larger airport.

Atlanta's airport is bigger than Logan because Hartsfield is a massive hub for Delta. More than 50% of the total passengers that the airport lists every year are connecting through there.

Terminal E and Logan in general would have to be example or see some upgrades. The terminal does fine for what it currently sees but you would see larger aircraft and more flights and the terminal would become inundated during peak travel banks to Europe. I would also assume that if Boston were to be awarded a future Olympics, I would assume by 2024, Logan would have more air service to other countries than it does currently and the airport would have undergone natural changes to accommodate that growth.
 

I saw that list, and its very good, but I'm more interested in the non-venue facilities. What is expected for housing, for example? It seems pretty consistent that there are about 10.6k athletes; is it expected to build for that number, or higher? Is it expected to house them in apartment style settings, suites, or dorms? What other facilities are expected, in terms of security, medical...

In the end, how many buildings are needed, beyond the venues themselves?

EDIT:

A partial answer has been supplied here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...024-summer-games-bid-20130219,0,2561812.story

45,000 hotel rooms
16,500 beds
5,000-seat dining hall
15,000-person media facilities

EDIT2:

Per the BRA, there were just under 15,000 hotel rooms within the municipality of Boston in 2001
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/PDF/ResearchPublications/Hotel.PDF

Per the globe, there's 4,000 under construction at the moment.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...rise-boston/LaqArRGB8bkoNa5VQyq6fO/story.html
I'm having a hard time finding out the number currently built within Boston.
 
Last edited:
I think people are overestimating how many people travel to the Olympics. An article on the impact of the London Olympics:

In terms of actual numbers, the Department of Transport has said it expects 500,000 tourists in London between July 17 and August 18, with an additional 70,000 athletes and officials. That means an extra 260,000 visitors to the capital compared to the same period last year.

In contrast, in 2000 Sail Boston attracted between 4M and 7.5M visitors:
According to event organizers Sail Boston 2000 drew 7.5 million visitors and the BRA itself, in its report The Boston Economy-2003, estimates that “Sail Boston 2000…attracted over 4 million people to the waterfront for a parade of Tall Ships.”

Obviously most of the Sail Boston visitors were not flying in, but it's not like the city ground to a halt. I do not understand the notion that Boston NEEDS to have the red-blue connector, the urban ring, the Blue Line to Lynn, a new International Terminal, etc., etc. to host the Olympics.
 
I do not understand the notion that Boston NEEDS to have the red-blue connector, the urban ring, the Blue Line to Lynn, a new International Terminal, etc., etc. to host the Olympics.

If you don't tell the politicians that those things are needed for the Olympics, they might never get built. ;)
 
This is growing into a miniature crusade for me.

So, first of all, per the Mass Convention Center Authority, the city has hosted events that take up 41,000 hotel rooms, so, apparently, the hotel issue won't be a challenge.

As for the 16,500 beds for athletes in the Olympic Village, I decided to use Northeastern University's International Village as a template. While I don't know how densely the IOC will allow the athletes to be packed into a building, IV's version of suites seems to me to be a good fit:
Most units are composed of two 2-bed 'dorm style' rooms, with a common bathroom connecting them. This has the advantage of allowing residents to not have to deal with large common bathrooms, while still maintaining some efficiency of space. Further, these units could be converted into proper apartments (admittedly, likely mainly studios and one beds) after the games are concluded. Even further, IV has a variety of ground level uses that are not residential; there's a few shops, a small gym, and a dining hall. So, the density is still easily achieved, while leaving a mixed use building behind.

With that in mind, I calculated the footprint of International Village to be about 50k sq ft. with a population of 1200 students. I use that as my benchmark, after being conservative and rounding down, so that every 50k sq ft allocated can house 1000 athletes.

Then, I went through the city with the assumption that no university would be willing to let the Olympics use their own residence halls for the Games, requiring all new buildings to house the athletes. I then looked around for areas that were relatively close to T stops (and, when possible, close to universities, so that the buildings could be sold to them afterward), and either under-developed or places that could be decked over (tracks, highway), and weren't subject to plausible development projects at the moment. For my own personal preference, I wanted the village to be defused across the city as much as possible.

This is what I came up with, 16,400 beds:
http://binged.it/UG5q2y
 
I think people are overestimating how many people travel to the Olympics. An article on the impact of the London Olympics:



In contrast, in 2000 Sail Boston attracted between 4M and 7.5M visitors:


Obviously most of the Sail Boston visitors were not flying in, but it's not like the city ground to a halt. I do not understand the notion that Boston NEEDS to have the red-blue connector, the urban ring, the Blue Line to Lynn, a new International Terminal, etc., etc. to host the Olympics.

Hi, are we living in the same Boston?

All of our subway lines that we have already lock up around rush hour like clockwork, break half the time even on a "good" day, and while I've yet to see the city itself grind to a halt, the transit system grinding to a halt is certainly not an unheard of occurrence.

We need Red-Blue, and we will in 'short order' (ten to twenty years) need the Urban Ring to prevent crush loading during peak hours of normal operation, let alone special events like... forget the Olympics, have you seen what happens to the Green Line after every home game at Fenway? That's every line, every hour, every day for the entire time the circus is in town plus the week before and after.

Look, I get that it "sounds" like graft. It looks like I'm advocating for forcing any Olympics bid to spend more money - and, well, I am, but it's for everyone's good. Trust me. The alternative is unthinkable, and unacceptable.
 
Yeah I did something like this too for the thread I linked: Link

I like this and a lot of the other ideas, but I think any serious effort to focus the games in South Bay would require a major upgrade to the Indigo Line. If not outright HRRT, at a minimum we would need electrification and high frequency EMU service.
 
I like this and a lot of the other ideas, but I think any serious effort to focus the games in South Bay would require a major upgrade to the Indigo Line. If not outright HRRT, at a minimum we would need electrification and high frequency EMU service.

Oh of course, thats one of the main benefits of putting the stadium and aquatics center in that location.
 
What parts of the Seaport vast prairie of parking lots are definitely off limits due to having legitimate development projects underway? I know Fan Pier, but I'm not sure what else.

There is plenty of room there for an Olympic Park...
 
"Should Boston Try to Host the Olympics?"
Op-Ed, Boston Globe
February 21, 2013
Author: Juliette Kayyem

THERE ARE plenty of reasons for a city like Boston to shudder at the idea of hosting a summer Olympics. The games are often not worth the investment; they're a short-lived festival that can become a long-term headache. But that calculation is starting to change, led in no small measure by the United States Olympic Committee, which hasn't won a bid to host the summer games since 1996 in Atlanta. Now, instead of seeking a glitzy venue like New York or Los Angeles, the USOC is actively courting somewhat smaller cities who have historically opted out of the process, whether because of a lack of money or a deficit of glitzy showmanship. Boston may not do bling, but that may no longer matter.

On Tuesday, the USOC sent letters to the mayors of 35 cities, including Boston, to determine their interest in hosting the 2024 summer games. That sounds like a long time off, but it's the next summer games looking for a home. Rio de Janeiro has the 2016 games locked up, and the finalists for 2020 are already chosen. No American city so much as bid for 2020. That's partly a function of the financial crash that came just at the time that bidding began, but also of the poor track record of American cities seeking the games: New York lost to London for 2012, and Chicago to Rio in 2016. While Salt Lake City held the torch in 2002, winter games do not garner as much media attention, public participation, or money as their warmer counterparts.

New York and Chicago each spent $10 million just trying to be designated by the USOC as the nation's applicant city. Chicago is rumored to have spent another $100 million in its unsuccessful appeal to the International Olympic Committee, a first-round defeat that came as an insult to President Obama, who personally lobbied for his hometown. For those of us involved in that pitch, the entire process seemed like a fix-up date without a phone call back.

A bruised Chicago has already told the USOC that it is not interested in 2024. But Chicago's rejection is now believed to have been over disagreements between the international committee and its US counterpart over cost-sharing. Those are, finally, resolved. Since then, the IOC has recognized that emerging nations such as Brazil often make promises that can't be delivered. Indeed, much of the international sporting community is anxious about Rio's capacity to host a smooth games in 2016.

The USOC appears to be heeding the message as well; it needs to convince cities that the enormous effort involved in hosting the games is worth the trouble. For the moment, the USOC seems to be stressing competence over financial weight. "Our objective," wrote the USOC, "is it to present a compelling bid to the IOC that has the right alignment of political, business, and community leadership."
The duties of a summer host city are not to be undertaken on a whim: Up to 45,000 hotel rooms; the creation of an Olympic Village for nearly 17,000 athletes; ability to handle a potential media presence of 15,000 broadcasters; a transportation infrastructure capable of moving thousands of visitors; and the capacity to fill 200,000 short-term jobs. But there are now creative ways to privatize these efforts, and many of a city's long-planned public investments might be more politically palatable with an Olympics to host. That was London's strategy, which coupled permanent transportation and infrastructure improvements with its hosting of the games. And, of course, there is the hope that a host city becomes an international mecca for tourists after the athletes have left.
The calculation for each city will be different, and Boston has considered entering the fray before. At least now the USOC is promoting a reality check, one that should be appealing to medium-size cities. Alluding to its prior unsuccessful pitches, the letter notes vaguely that "moving forward, we are going to select our Applicant City through a thoughtful and more efficient process," and asks each city that has any interest to "have an authorized representative contact the USOC." The vagaries of the selection method may suggest caution towards the Olympic committee's overture. But, the letter is an undeniable sign of a more sane host selection process.

At the very least, Boston should call back.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22782/should_boston_try_to_host_the_olympics.html
 
We would love to hear from local architects, urban planners/designers about how feasible the community thinks an Olympic Park would be in the Boston Metro area. Mostly concerned about a location for a 60-80,000 person Olympic Stadium and an Aquatic Center.

Check out our newly launched page http://www.boston-2024.org

Or follow the Boston2024 effort on twitter @Boston2024
 
The Stadium is the tricky part, I say (as I have repeatedly on gamesbids) the Aquatics center should be on one of the University campi.
 
We would love to hear from local architects, urban planners/designers about how feasible the community thinks an Olympic Park would be in the Boston Metro area. Mostly concerned about a location for a 60-80,000 person Olympic Stadium and an Aquatic Center.

Check out our newly launched page http://www.boston-2024.org

Or follow the Boston2024 effort on twitter @Boston2024

I think the best idea is putting it in Newmarket, getting rid of the South Bay Shopping Center in the progress.

Link

Boston wouldn't need a huge Olympic Park like London did because we have a vast majority of the venues needed already and we wouldn't be using the Olympics as an urban renewal project.

There really isn't another location within the city limits that has a large amount of space and is near transit. The next best options are at Wonderland in Revere, within the Inner Belt in Somerville, or at the Gateway Center in Everett.
 
I think the best idea is putting it in Newmarket, getting rid of the South Bay Shopping Center in the progress.

Link

Boston wouldn't need a huge Olympic Park like London did because we have a vast majority of the venues needed already and we wouldn't be using the Olympics as an urban renewal project.

There really isn't another location within the city limits that has a large amount of space and is near transit. The next best options are at Wonderland in Revere, within the Inner Belt in Somerville, or at the Gateway Center in Everett.

...or at beacon park, with optimal access to hu, bu, and MIT facilities
 
...or at beacon park, with optimal access to hu, bu, and MIT facilities

I like the Beacon Park idea, as long as it comes with a Grand Junction Green Line extension that serves the three universities and Olympic park.
 
I like the Beacon Park idea, as long as it comes with a Grand Junction Green Line extension that serves the three universities and Olympic park.

I don't think the fact that the stadium is in Beacon Park changes why GL on the GJ has issues. What you might get is a DMU service on the GJ to go with a presumed RT-level line to Riverside. If MA is serious about expanding South Station anyway, maybe you could shoot for the N-S rail link to open for the games serving only DMU traffic making a loop using the GJ (well, more of a lasso).

I'd actually argue that you don't want the Grand Junction to serve the universities, since it doesn't really serve any of them other than MIT. What you really want it for is to connect the "Olympic Hub" (pun intended) at Beacon Park with a prospective athlete's village at North Point, along with North Station, which would be a likely venue, and Downtown. If we get the tunnel, it even provides a 1-transfer ride to Logan for all of those venues via the Silver Line.
 

Back
Top