Boston 2024

Yea.... I'm gonna go with LA winning this based on that list alone. Calling it now.
 
stellarfun said:
Not quite there yet. The city approved spending up to $140 million (mostly debt-financed) to buy the necessary land and clear the site. The stadium, seating 20,000, will cost above that (an additional $300 million?).
Click to expand...

That would he a ridiculous amount of money for a soccer stadium at that size. In today's money I would see a construction cost of roughly $150 million for 20,000 seats.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
I would see a construction cost of roughly $150 million for 20,000 seats.
Click to expand...
OK, that fits with it now being 100% paid for as a 50-50 public-private deal: DC govt paying $150m for site & demo; Team committed to a $150m structure, calling it all a $300m project.
 
lexicon506 said:
USOC, Walsh, and Fish come out strongly disputing rumors that Boston had the worst bid presentation of the 4 cities. SF news anchor reasserts that his sources are legit.

Sounds like there are at least a couple people at the USOC who thought Boston sucked. We'll see in January if that's enough to sway the group's decision..

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...sh_dispute_claim_boston_olympic_bid_was_a_dud
Click to expand...

His sources are probably legit, but some number of committee members were going to think Boston was the weakest, and the ones that liked SF would leak to the SF guy. There's probably an equal number that thought each of the other three was the weakest, and kept it to themselves.

It's personal opinion of a couple of sources, that's all. It's only a big deal because that moron Wilbur ran with it in a column.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
That would he a ridiculous amount of money for a soccer stadium at that size. In today's money I would see a construction cost of roughly $150 million for 20,000 seats.
Click to expand...

It supposedly will be the most expensive MLS soccer stadium in the United States.

new%20DCU%20stadium%20rendering.jpg
 
meddlepal said:
Yea.... I'm gonna go with LA winning this based on that list alone. Calling it now.
Click to expand...

That would be interesting. The USOC has got to know that LA's 3-peat chances are slim against the European power cities that are prepping bids, regardless of how long it's been since 1996. It's a safe, boring bid.

If the USOC goes with LA, that signals to me that they want to build up goodwill with a solid and affordable 2024 bid but their real goal is 2028 when they hope Chicago or NYC will get over their jitters and bid again. If LA wins over the IOC for 2024 then great, but in the high likelihood it doesn't there's potentially an even better opportunity for the US in 2028.
 
stellarfun said:
It supposedly will be the most expensive MLS soccer stadium in the United States.

new%20DCU%20stadium%20rendering.jpg
Click to expand...

It would have to be I suppose. Not even disputing it, but too much for open air stadium for the 6Th or 7th sport in the country. No offense to soccer, I hope it keeps growing, but in overall popularity, it falls behind not only the big 4 pro sports, but also college football and basketball, as well as NASCAR. Economically, the best bet is to not spend lavishly on a stadium if it takes too long to recoup.

I worked on tcf bank stadium in Minneapolis. 50,000 plus seats for less than that by far. Big ten football is a pretty big draw. That stadium was also built to expand to 80,000. So a bit more was spent up front on infrastructure.

So if true, I'd be pissed as a resident if any public money was being spent as part of overpaying for a soccer only stadium.
 
Seamus, the view below is looking in the opposite direction, toward the SW. It looks as if the cost is for more than just a stadium, and one building looks like an indoor practice field.

CAMERA-1---projector.jpg
 
chmeeee said:
Let's not also forget Rentschler Field (UConn) with 40k seats. This could also be a driver for UMass to finally replace McGuirk stadium with something bigger.
Click to expand...

I don't think Rentschler Field is big enough for regulation soccer fields. At the US-Uruguay friendly in October, people were commenting that the pitch was too narrow.
 
Post-presentation articles on venues.

Article on Boston's venues. Boston won't talk much about them unless it is chosen.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/12/...mong-cities/DLTm6lAw0lxtQt0KbHg7yO/story.html

Articles on San Francisco's venues, more specific (images and map).
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...lympic-Summer-Games-5967054.php#photo-7289120

http://www.mercurynews.com/News/ci_27166056/Dividing-up-the-2024-Olympic-sports?source=infinite

http://sf2024.org/

Note that the State of California may be willing to indemnify LA or San Francisco against some potential losses.
 
stellarfun said:
Seamus, the view below is looking in the opposite direction, toward the SW. It looks as if the cost is for more than just a stadium, and one building looks like an indoor practice field.

CAMERA-1---projector.jpg
Click to expand...

Ok. That's starting to make more sense. Thank you.
 
^ So they want big, iconic, permanent stadiums but they won't help pay for it?
 
In yesterday's NYT (B13) there's a page in which 4 "local" writers were invited to discuss their city's candidacy. Boston's writer was not a Bostonian--Catherine Seelye is the New England bureau chief for the The Times. Each of the other writers did a very creditable job of being a "booster" for their city (while being somewhat--and humorously--balanced) but Seelye was just downright mean. She basically says that Boston's bid is a joke (she said the proposal seemed to be written by The Onion) and while she makes a few good points ("Many wonder why it would take the Olympics to get those much-needed [transportation-related] improvements") she's definitely a downer and basically says that Boston is using its ludicrous bid to assuage a huge (and deserved) inferiority complex. I'm agnostic about whether Boston should get the Olympics, but it was so striking that Boston's contribution to this page was so derisive whereas everyone else was touting their city's strengths.
The LA bid's writer, Brooks Barnes, was equally derisive of Boston (his article starts "Have you been to Boston? It's boring." and ends "Finally: have you been to Boston?" but what do you expect from the LA advocate?
 
anyone else wondering why the president of the IOC wrote an op-ed for the globe this past week?
 
Why would you reference something without providing a link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top