Boston 2024

[lexicon506]

For I know Boston won't get it; but you really think a handful of protesters in LA will sink the bid?

It's not just the hired guns at the meeting in CA, the opposition in Boston has gotten significant media coverage for the past few months while SF, LA, and DC residents haven't really said anything..

All I know is that the whole Olympic movement is facing its worst PR crisis since 1894, at least in western countries. I would think they are extremely sensitive to noise and opposition right now.

 

[Proposition Joe]

To be fair Boston is also the only city out of those four that is going to have a notable opposition. San Francisco and DC don't have serious bids to protest. I mean, if San Francisco had anyone legitimately pushing a bid like John Fish then there would probably be a larger opposition group than Boston.

Los Angeles is the only other serious bidding city but it has also successfully hosted the Olympics twice before. It has most of the needed venues including the Olympic Stadium already and is quite a large enough city to be able to host without major problems.

 

[Equilibria]

It's not just the hired guns at the meeting in CA, the opposition in Boston has gotten significant media coverage for the past few months while SF, LA, and DC residents haven't really said anything..

I think it's more that the BID in Boston has had significant media coverage compared to those places. The Globe has actually done a great job of fostering discussion, but that also means dissent. The Post, Chronicle, and Times have had a couple of articles apiece, but not the same level of opinion and editorializing (positive and negative) that we've seen here.

I don't think the USOC really cares about opposition now, because whatever bid they select will ultimately have organized opposition. They care about whose bid will compete the best internationally, and whose bid is the most workable. DC is weaker on the first and SF is weaker on the second. LA has transportation issues, which most people overlook because "it's been done there before" (which isn't a terrible argument). Boston doesn't really have a weakness, other than being smaller than LA.

 

[bigeman312]

...All I know is that the whole Olympic movement is facing its worst PR crisis since 1894, at least in western countries...

Not sure if serious? I think this is sarcasm, but I'll take the bait nonetheless:

Politics no Stranger to Olympic Games - The Montreal Gazette

There was, you know, the Nazi Olympics in 1936 hosted by Hitler. That was quite the PR crisis.

The Munich Massacre, in 1972, saw 11 Israeli Olympic Athletes murdered during the Olympic Games on live television, due largely to the fact that Olympic coverage was giving away tactical moves to the terrorists. PR crisis?

 

[stellarfun]

After reading articles this morning in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Boston Globe, Walsh's phone interview with the Globe sounded more like a concession that Boston was unlikely to be chosen. (The Boston team was also apparently the only one that didn't speak to reporters after the presentation.) The other mayors all think they made a strong case for why their city will be chosen.

Boston's bid appears to be the one which would require the most venue construction, a lot of which seems too nebulous for it to be chosen within a month's time. IMO, the Boston bid was hampered by 1.) not having a Kraft or John Henry on the bid team; 2.) not having anyone who had previous experience in trying to organize a games; 3.) no previous experience in hosting a multi-day event anywhere near the scale of the Olympics; 4.) the highly fragmented nature of local governments which would require a lot of coordination/agreement; i.e., what's in it for Brookline, or Chelsea, or Quincy?

 

[Equilibria]

After reading articles this morning in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Boston Globe, Walsh's phone interview with the Globe sounded more like a concession that Boston was unlikely to be chosen. (The Boston team was also apparently the only one that didn't speak to reporters after the presentation.) The other mayors all think they made a strong case for why their city will be chosen.

You mean the part where he gave the presentation an 11 out of 10? How is that different from any of the quotes given by the other mayors? I read the articles in the California newspapers, and they were a little more upbeat than the Globe, but I suspect that's just because they haven't been reporting on it as much. They're still at the point the Globe was at in June - informing people for the first time about something cool.

The SF and LA groups probably met with the media because the meeting was in California and their media showed up. The Boston group has spoken with reporters fairly frequently, particularly after USOC meetings held here.

Boston's bid appears to be the one which would require the most venue construction, a lot of which seems too nebulous for it to be chosen within a month's time.

I don't think that this is true, actually. Every bid but LA requires the construction of a new stadium - SF would be the same temporary venue as Boston on just as difficult a site, and DC would likely be building a much more expensive permanent facility for the most despised sports owner in the country. Even LA requires serious alterations to the Coliseum, as well as the construction of new venues on the parking lots.

AFAIK, no city in the group has an aquatics center, a ready-made village, or a velodrome (although I'm less sure on that last one), the other three major facilities that Boston would have to build. For what it's worth, none of the four has an artificial whitewater course hanging around either. LA doesn't have enough existing athletic venues, so they're proposing to host athletic events in theaters in Hollywood. It's an interesting concept, but it has no precedent.

IMO, the Boston bid was hampered by 1.) not having a Kraft or John Henry on the bid team; 2.) not having anyone who had previous experience in trying to organize a games; 3.) no previous experience in hosting a multi-day event anywhere near the scale of the Olympics; 4.) the highly fragmented nature of local governments which would require a lot of coordination/agreement; i.e., what's in it for Brookline, or Chelsea, or Quincy?

Bob Kraft is on the bid team. He may not have been in Redwood City, but he's involved in the project and has been very closely tied to privately supporting development at Widett. As for prior experience, none of these four cities except for LA has experience hosting anything like this in the past 50 years. Events like the Olympics don't come along that often. If that's your standard, eliminate Rome and Paris too.

The fragmented nature of local politics applies to Cambridge, but I don't think they're legitimately opposed - they just wanted to make noise so that someone pays attention to them. No other local municipality would host major venues. In any case, DC would be trying to host events in the District as well as in two different states, and DC politics is messed up by Congress. SF is proposing a 40-mile sweep of venues across far more cities than Boston is. Again, LA is the outlier, but even there you'd have venues in LA, Pasadena, Santa Monica, etc.

We are where we thought we were. LA is the safe choice, Boston is the more developed choice (and the more attractive to international voters), and DC and SF are unlikely.

 

[Semass]

Since the Mayor made the pitch, it is time to FOIA the bid. An enterprising reporter should be able to demand all correspondence and documentation related to the city's involvement. Any good rabble rousers in here?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Bob Kraft is on the bid team. He may not have been in Redwood City, but he's involved in the project and has been very closely tied to privately supporting development at Widett. As for prior experience, none of these four cities except for LA has experience hosting anything like this in the past 50 years. Events like the Olympics don't come along that often. If that's your standard, eliminate Rome and Paris too.

The fragmented nature of local politics applies to Cambridge, but I don't think they're legitimately opposed - they just wanted to make noise so that someone pays attention to them. No other local municipality would host major venues. In any case, DC would be trying to host events in the District as well as in two different states, and DC politics is messed up by Congress. SF is proposing a 40-mile sweep of venues across far more cities than Boston is. Again, LA is the outlier, but even there you'd have venues in LA, Pasadena, Santa Monica, etc.

We are where we thought we were. LA is the safe choice, Boston is the more developed choice (and the more attractive to international voters), and DC and SF are unlikely.

You keep saying this, but I've yet to see an answer for why Congressional meddling in the affairs of DC is an actual disadvantage. In fact, the opposite holds true: nowhere else in the country is federal power so absolute as it is in DC. The question isn't whether DC wants this for DC or not because Congress needs only decide that they want it for DC and just like that, Home Rule evaporates.

And as an added bonus, should Congress decide it wants this there, that correlates directly to one of the largest barriers to spending on this evaporating. This wouldn't even be the dumbest thing Congress has spent bucketloads of public money on itself to pursue. Assuming that the federal government is actually on board with the Olympics, then the short list is DC and LA and the deciding factor is whether Congress wants this on the east coast or the west coast.

That leaves the other major complaint about DC that keeps coming up, that supposedly the international discontent with America will translate directly into opposition towards bringing the Olympics to the nation's capital and seat of power. Yet, somehow, that very same discontent with America isn't going to be directed against any other American city? I find that extremely unlikely. Indeed, the argument for this thing is that whatever city does get chosen, it's likely the Olympics returns to the US because of mounting pressure to have an American Olympics. And whatever city ultimately gets chosen is going to be the focal point for a distinctly American endeavor and a celebration of the nation on the world stage.

I don't think international hatred of the US is enough to sink the USOC bid, but on the off chance it is, it frankly doesn't matter which city gets chosen because they'd all be equally doomed in the face of global opposition. And, personally, because I maintain that I don't want this thing anywhere remotely close to me, I'm actually hoping that global opposition to America is strong enough to send the bid back to Europe.

No. The unlikely choices are Boston and SF. This thing is coming down to LA or DC.

 

[Ruairi]

I'd love to see the Olympics here,
Quick question tho, I'm finding it hard to gauge the opposition levels. Is it a few fringe protesters who are adamant or is it a general ground swell of support for the 'no' side.
There seems to be a lot of vitriol on social media but anyone who I talk to who doesn't like the idea, doesn't take much convincing that its not the worst idea. If Boston did get it would it lead to years of protests?

 

[lexicon506]

Not sure if serious? I think this is sarcasm, but I'll take the bait nonetheless:

Politics no Stranger to Olympic Games - The Montreal Gazette

There was, you know, the Nazi Olympics in 1936 hosted by Hitler. That was quite the PR crisis.

The Munich Massacre, in 1972, saw 11 Israeli Olympic Athletes murdered during the Olympic Games on live television, due largely to the fact that Olympic coverage was giving away tactical moves to the terrorists. PR crisis?

Corruption and politics have always been a factor in the Olympics, sure, but was there another instance when public anger at the IOC led to mass defections by potential bid cities as happened across Europe with the 2022 Winter Olympics? Maybe 1984, but even then the IOC got Los Angeles, not Kazakhstan or "Beijing."

The bad PR from 1936 and 1972 (might as well throw in 1996) was aimed at Nazi Germany and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, respectively. The IOC wasn't the villain in either case. I'm saying the Olympic movement itself is having a crisis, independent of political circumstances largely outside the IOC's control.

 

[Equilibria]

You keep saying this, but I've yet to see an answer for why Congressional meddling in the affairs of DC is an actual disadvantage. In fact, the opposite holds true: nowhere else in the country is federal power so absolute as it is in DC. The question isn't whether DC wants this for DC or not because Congress needs only decide that they want it for DC and just like that, Home Rule evaporates.

It's a problem because the Olympics are fundamentally awarded to cities, not to countries. It's also a problem because the point that Semass was making was that Boston is at a disadvantage because of the many small municipalities in the urban area, when only two of them actually matter to an Olympic bid - Boston and Cambridge. Boston's bid only deals with a single state. DC's bid deals with municipal and county governments in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, as well as each state's government AND Congress. Congress is just one more level of governmental complexity.

And as an added bonus, should Congress decide it wants this there, that correlates directly to one of the largest barriers to spending on this evaporating. This wouldn't even be the dumbest thing Congress has spent bucketloads of public money on itself to pursue. Assuming that the federal government is actually on board with the Olympics, then the short list is DC and LA and the deciding factor is whether Congress wants this on the east coast or the west coast.

Um... every one of these bids is a private venture. The Federal Government will decide to fund or not to fund infrastructure in any city that is awarded the Olympics, regardless of where that city is located. Congress is not going to allocate $5 billion to a private non-profit because it "wants" the Olympics to be in DC.

For what it's worth, Congress also has absolutely no say in which bid is selected. This is a private group selecting between private groups. You keep talking as if the US is Russia and the central government can just decide where to hold these events and how much to spend. Not true. Not true in any way, shape, or form, no matter how many times and in how many ways you say it.

I don't think international hatred of the US is enough to sink the USOC bid, but on the off chance it is, it frankly doesn't matter which city gets chosen because they'd all be equally doomed in the face of global opposition. And, personally, because I maintain that I don't want this thing anywhere remotely close to me, I'm actually hoping that global opposition to America is strong enough to send the bid back to Europe.

No. The unlikely choices are Boston and SF. This thing is coming down to LA or DC.

You have absolutely no basis for saying any of that, so I'm just going to leave that alone.

 

[fattony]

I don't think international hatred of the US is enough to sink the USOC bid, but on the off chance it is, it frankly doesn't matter which city gets chosen because they'd all be equally doomed in the face of global opposition. And, personally, because I maintain that I don't want this thing anywhere remotely close to me, I'm actually hoping that global opposition to America is strong enough to send the bid back to Europe.

Wow.

You need to actually travel and quit reading whatever blog put this nonsense in your head.

 

[bigeman312]

Corruption and politics have always been a factor in the Olympics, sure, but was there another instance when public anger at the IOC led to mass defections by potential bid cities as happened across Europe with the 2022 Winter Olympics? Maybe 1984, but even then the IOC got Los Angeles, not Kazakhstan or "Beijing."

This is true.

 

[underground]

Quick question tho, I'm finding it hard to gauge the opposition levels. Is it a few fringe protesters who are adamant or is it a general ground swell of support for the 'no' side.

Hard to say until there's some serious polling about it. At this stage, anyone who's commenting has to opt into commenting. Any time you run a survey where people have to opt in, you have a sampling problem because people who opt in tend to either really like something or really hate it. You don't get many of the large middle who may support, oppose, or feel neutral about whatever you're surveying about, but don't care enough to say either way.

 

[lexicon506]

http://www.boston.com/sports/column...s_it_finally_time.html?p1=menu_sports_main_hp

I'll save everyone the trouble of reading Eric Wilbur's drivel: a "Bay Area news man" tweeted that USOC sources told him Boston had the weakest bid, with DC and SF the strongest.

Makes some sense. DC is probably more well-equipped to host than even LA, just needs to work on its image problem. SF has the appeal to go up against Rome, Paris, and Berlin and actually win. There's no chance a third LA games competes with Berlin's reunification-and-1936-redemption games or Paris's centennial games. And Boston is the only first time bidder (at the USOC level) of the group, definitely a disadvantage.

 

[Equilibria]

http://www.boston.com/sports/column...s_it_finally_time.html?p1=menu_sports_main_hp

I'll save everyone the trouble of reading Eric Wilbur's drivel: a "Bay Area news man" tweeted that USOC sources told him Boston had the weakest bid, with DC and SF the strongest.

Makes some sense. DC is probably more well-equipped to host than even LA, just needs to work on its image problem. SF has the appeal to go up against Rome, Paris, and Berlin and actually win. There's no chance a third LA games competes with Berlin's reunification-and-1936-redemption games or Paris's centennial games. And Boston is the only first time bidder (at the USOC level) of the group, definitely a disadvantage.

If the "Bay Area news man" has a good source, remember that that only applies to the presentations. The relative capacities of these cities to hold the Olympics don't really come into play there. It's true that DC and SF have both made multiple prior bids, which gives them some experience in presenting to the committee that Boston 2024 doesn't have. Juliette Kayem is also not going to speak the same sporting language as some of these major league owners can.

I don't think the USOC will base its decision only on the presentations, and I don't think one source's opinion (guess which city he's biased toward if he's leaking to an SF newspaper) necessarily represents the view of everyone on the committee. Whether any of these cities can compete internationally doesn't have much if anything to do with the source Wilbur so gleefully quotes.

I have no problem not getting the bid. I do have a problem giving that slimeball anything that makes him happy.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

It's a problem because the Olympics are fundamentally awarded to cities, not to countries.

You can't reconcile this with the assertion that you and others are making with regards to there being a strong demand for bringing the Olympics back to the US.

They're mutually exclusive statements. Either the USOC is in the best position now because the demand's there for a US Olympics, and will be there for whatever city the USOC ultimately decides to back; OR, the demand isn't actually there for a "US Olympics," and there's no actual tangible advantage in there having been 40 years since the previous Olympics.

If the demand isn't actually there, it has absolutely no impact on the bid, and I'm happy to agree that it's not relevant and stop arguing this point. If the demand IS there, however, then you must accept that the bid is indeed being at least partially awarded to a country - likely, a significant part of the award to a city would owe to the fact that the bid was going to be awarded to America.

It's also a problem because the point that Semass was making was that Boston is at a disadvantage because of the many small municipalities in the urban area, when only two of them actually matter to an Olympic bid - Boston and Cambridge. Boston's bid only deals with a single state. DC's bid deals with municipal and county governments in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, as well as each state's government AND Congress. Congress is just one more level of governmental complexity.

If Cambridge matters, then Somerville, Chelsea, Quincy, and Brookline - the four other neighboring municipalities with similar (I'd say equal but you might disagree, especially with regards to Quincy) ties to Boston - also matter. To a lesser extent, the rest of the neighboring communities - Newton, Watertown, Everett, Revere, Winthrop, Milton, and Dedham - have something of a stake in this, but you're right in asserting that they probably don't matter as much as the big five stakeholder municipalities of Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Quincy, and Brookline.

Um... every one of these bids is a private venture. The Federal Government will decide to fund or not to fund infrastructure in any city that is awarded the Olympics, regardless of where that city is located. Congress is not going to allocate $5 billion to a private non-profit because it "wants" the Olympics to be in DC.

For what it's worth, Congress also has absolutely no say in which bid is selected. This is a private group selecting between private groups. You keep talking as if the US is Russia and the central government can just decide where to hold these events and how much to spend. Not true. Not true in any way, shape, or form, no matter how many times and in how many ways you say it.

There's no dichotomy here. In between brutal effective dictatorships and absolute freedom, there's a wide range of potential degrees of centralized authority - a sliding scale of governmental power, if you would.

We're not Russia - but we don't have to be Russia for the central government (in our case, Congress) to get involved in the bid process. They will be the ones who decide where and when and to what public funding gets allocated for - in our case, the infrastructure investments that will be necessary to make this work, and also in the necessary sort of security and public works ramp-up that must happen immediately surrounding any event on this scale. And to that extent, Congress has a strong role to play in any US bid.

Beyond that strong role in the US bid process, Congress has an additional (potential) role as the erstwhile representatives of Washington, DC. I mentioned Home Rule in the previous post for a reason - even under supposed Home Rule, Congress has (and makes a habit of using) the power to override Home Rule and the will of DC residents and politicians for its own ends. It's done this before, it will do this again, and if Congress decides they want to see a DC Olympics, they have the means and the authority to officially endorse DC 2024 potentially in defiance of what DC wants to do.

You have absolutely no basis for saying any of that, so I'm just going to leave that alone.

Wow.

You need to actually travel and quit reading whatever blog put this nonsense in your head.

It was actually this very thread that put "this nonsense" in my head. I'm only pointing out that whatever discontent towards America that exists is going to be applied against whatever American city wins the bid. I'm also personally mentioning that, as someone extremely opposed to the Olympics, I'd much rather see this thing awarded to any one of the many countries abroad who are also bidding on this thing.

All that matters to me is that Boston doesn't get the bid. Whether that's because it's not economically feasible, because local opposition is insurmountable, or because global opposition was insurmountable is irrelevant to me. And I'm not above hoping for anything and everything that could stop this to stop this.

Hope, as they say, costs nothing.

 

[citylover94]

The reason Cambridge matters and the others don't has nothing to do with geography. They don't matter in respect to the bid because nothing is being built in them therefore they can't cause issues with things being ready. They also don't have as big a stake in the process because of that and they shouldn't. I admit yes they will see some impacts but much less than Boston and Cambridge.

As far as Congress supporting a DC Olympics even if they give their support they can't do anything to make DC win it than any other political or private group. They just don't have that level of control or even influence, especially on a global scale. Also most of congress doesn't have any connection to DC other than as where they work. Most have a home or stronger ties to other places. For example why would California or Massachusetts reps want to support the DC bid above their states bid or whichever bid their constituents are more tied to. It doesn't make sense for congress to be that heavy handed. Especially in our current political climate it would be the opposite of helpful for anyone looking to be reelected to be seen pushing that hard to bring the Olympics to DC and spend a ton of money on them. Even if money will be spent by the federal gov't wherever the Olympics take place it would not be a positive move for their already precarious position with the public.

I actually think Boston is the second best choice after LA and I will admit I don't live in Boston but comparing what they are proposing compared to SF which has very spread out venues or DC which is looking like it would be a very expensive option Boston looks like a pretty good choice and it has equal or most likely better transit than LA will have even by 2024. The Boston bid is also trying to make sure things aren't going to waste money or be too spread out because it is being financed and built privately.

As to worries about those doing the development of the facilities should Boston win whether you like the Kraft or John Fish they are both prepared for this and are committed to building it and have a lot of experience developing large projects. I doubt they would do anything that could cause enough issues for them that people would stop hiring them. If they did it would create major issues for them in the future such as a reluctance of people to hire them which they would avoid at all costs. Bad press= bad business.

I just don't think you are looking at this objectively. I think you have some sort of bias against the Olympics as a whole. I'm sorry if I am judging wrong but your statement that the games could go anywhere seems to say that you think the Olympics are always bad and overall you have seemed to of had a very negative reaction to anything relating to Boston and the Olympics for this whole thread. Sorry if I'm wrong that is just how it appears. I am fully aware I could be way off base but that is what you are "presenting" as your thoughts in your posts.

 

[stellarfun]

As an example of what I characterized as a nebulous identification of potential venues, for the 2020 Olympics, Tokyo will use six stadia for soccer, all seating over 40,000. and five seating over 50,000. In the 2012 Olympics, 28 teams (16 men, 12 women) played 58 soccer matches. Total attendance was 2.2 million. Counting Gillette as one site, where are the other five soccer sites to be found?

 

[citylover94]

BU Nickerson? The soccer stadium that is proposed by Kraft? Fenway could potentially be used especially if baseball doesn't return to the olympics. Would the stadium in Franklin park work? The stadium at BC could potentially be used. The East Boston Memorial Stadium could probably be used if the stands are extended fully around the field. Russell field might work as well if seating is built/expanded. I don't know how many of these would work and many might need temporary expanded seating built but I think that is a start.

I know they are thinking of using Harvard's for field hockey. The stadiums honestly don't have to be as big as Gillette. It would be nice but I doubt that would be a deal breaker in and of itself.