Boston 2024

fattony said:
I think the only possibilities are the 3 I bolded. Nothing else is studied/planned/designed/funded which means it doesn't stand a chance in hell of completing in 9 years time.

I would love to hear that red-blue is planned/designed far enough that they could pick it up and run, but I really don't think it will happen. Especially lacking funds.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't think any of these projects will gather any additional steam unless Boston actually wins the right to host the Olympics, a decision that won't be made until 2017, meaning Boston only has slightly less than 7 years to complete these projects. Good luck with that. I mean if they can, wonderful but that is really wishful thinking.
 
If that's the case, then you better believe that the public deserves to know about this thing that could impact them.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if you don't know about what's going to happen at this point, you haven't been paying attention. I'm willing to bet that even you, who's decided that the entire public has never heard anything about the Olympic plan, could do a pretty good job outlining what's involved.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
But there's a big difference between a promise and something legally binding. You'll forgive me if I'm rather skeptical of the efficacy of a promise not to come knocking on our doorsteps for spare change later.

"Vote yes if you want to be a jerk" isn't a compelling campaign message, but "vote yes if you want to make sure Boston 2024 keeps their word" is. Whether or not they would have turned around and broken their promise not to get public assistance for whatever cost overrun would occur doesn't matter once their promise is replaced by a legal mandate that says You Shall Not Collect Public Funding. And, again, it's a win both ways thing for the Olympics PR effort - if they support asking the question, the referendum either passes (and they don't get to take any money that they weren't planning on taking anyway, thus it's a meaningless referendum) or fails and proves that the city and state really, truly want this.
Click to expand...

That's fair, and if a group actually worded a ballot question that way, I would consider voting for it. I've been encouraged so far by the language and tone of No Boston Olympics, and any project like this should have a watchdog. Honest and constructive scrutiny is a public good.

Again, though, once Boston 2024 takes out a private insurance policy against overruns, I wouldn't be that concerned about what happens later with regard to THEIR budget. Corporate insurance policies aren't the sort of promises that just vanish when times get tough - that's the whole point of them.

Make no mistake, the State will end up paying for overruns in projects like GLX and SSX, but the Olympics probably won't make those any bigger than they would otherwise have been.
 
underground said:
Insisting that the public should have been involved in assembling a feasibility study is ridiculous. Does John Fish need to contact the public when he's thinking about taking a shit too? Get the bid, and then sure, talking about accepting is more or less a requirement. But we're two years away.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me about the "no olympics" crowd - If you're competing on a public project you don't share the entire content of your proposals until after everyone bids - this is how it works - it's a competition. I doubt we'll be seeing much until well after the IOC narrows down their choices. It sucks, but it's going to be a balancing act with how much they reveal to the public until the IOC picks a winner. I do think public input is important and there needs to be debate as to whether we really want this or not, but asking for the content of the proposal is ridiculous at this stage.
 
fattony said:
I think the only possibilities are the 3 I bolded. Nothing else is studied/planned/designed/funded which means it doesn't stand a chance in hell of completing in 9 years time.

I would love to hear that red-blue is planned/designed far enough that they could pick it up and run, but I really don't think it will happen. Especially lacking funds.
Click to expand...

I bet you could get a Red-Blue people connector between DTC and State in 9 years.
 
datadyne007 said:
Ok, I just noticed the Hancock & Pru are in the vaguely in the background in the 3rd render
Click to expand...

That placement of the Hancock and Pru and some water visible on the right would probably make this the old Bayside Expo Center location which has been discussed as the location for an Olympic Village.
 
Semass said:
OK, so will any of these meetings include the release of the full documentation of the bid as submitted to USOC? No? Really? They are still not ready to let that out of the bag because it may cause a "competitive disadvantage"?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that may be an actual issue. If there is something truly innovative in the proposal, how do we hold on to that as a unique Boston strength when the proposal goes public. Tricky issue, because I also want to see everything, but I don't want planners in Paris to have that access.
 
underground said:
Personally, I never cared if he built the entire thing himself, but that's a hugely great PR move. He's taken one of the anti crowd's favorite points and cut it off at the knees.
Click to expand...

Credit to him if this is true...but it never really seemed unusual to me that the region's top construction management firm would be a major player in the construction of any Olympic facilities.
 
KentXie said:
Frankly, I don't think any of these projects will gather any additional steam unless Boston actually wins the right to host the Olympics, a decision that won't be made until 2017, meaning Boston only has slightly less than 7 years to complete these projects. Good luck with that. I mean if they can, wonderful but that is really wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unless a deal is worked out with the USPS, I have a hard time seeing SS expansion done by 2024. Without a rush, it sounds like a 10 year effort.

If winning the bid is the impetus to get this underway, 7 years is a mighty short time for all those moving pieces.
 
Shepard said:
I entirely agree about Roslindale, but it fell to the bottom of my list there because the Olympics tie-in is weak.
Click to expand...

There is a potential tie-in, due to events at Franklin Park. Forest Hills will no doubt have shuttle buses running, and it may make sense to decrease the volume of MBTA buses using the facility. Easiest way to do that is Rozzie OLX. That said, I don't see it happening, though it would be less expensive than a Franklin Park GLX.

From your original list, I think 1, 3, and 4 are definites, with or without the Olympics, and will make a huge difference. Dedicated bus lanes would also serve official Olympic vehicles.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Agreed, unless a deal is worked out with the USPS, I have a hard time seeing SS expansion done by 2024. Without a rush, it sounds like a 10 year effort.

If winning the bid is the impetus to get this underway, 7 years is a mighty short time for all those moving pieces.
Click to expand...

The deal with USPS gets done as soon as MA's congressional delegation puts enough pressure on USPS to make them play ball. I bet we get a deal before the bid is officially submitted in September.
 
LA is HILARIOUSLY butthurt:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-la-olympics-plaschke-20150109-column.html

The U.S. Olympic Committee could have taken a big step toward bringing home the 2024 Summer Games on Thursday by nominating a diverse entertainment capital with perfect weather, sparkling venues, past Olympic experience and a welcoming public.

Instead, it chose Boston.

Huh? How on Earth does Los Angeles lose the Olympic bid to Boston? How does the only American city to host both an Olympics (twice) and a World Cup final lose a chance to bid on the planet's biggest sports competition to a parochial burg that's never even hosted a Super Bowl or Final Four?
Click to expand...

F'ing priceless.
 
I imagine the AB hive has already generated this list, but... What's a feasible wishlist for 2024?

EVENT SPECIFIC
- Olympic village (UMB housing after)

- Stadium (NE Revs after)

- Harvard Stadium improvements (already planned)

- BC facility improvements (already planned)

- Aquatics at the Beacon rail yards

ANCILLARY
- RL/BL connection

- Silver Line tunnel connections downtown?!?

- Urban Ring

- Pedestrian bridges around Museum of Science and Northpoint
 
Before you get your transit panties in a bunch any project that's been discussed would have to be looked at again to see how it would work in conjuncture with the Olympics. So don't go thinking this is going to be some catch all to fulfill our transit desires.

If anything I would bet that many of these new facilities will be closer to commuter rail lines so that new stations would, for the most part, be temporary. I just don't see the state willing to throw down extra money for projects like Red-Blue or the Urban Ring. Isn't the whole point of this proposal to save money? Part of the high costs for other cities in the past was expanding their subways but Boston won't really need to expand the T that much if the facilities are designed correctly.

Oddly, an Olympics would actually give the Back Bay-SBW shuttle idea some merit as the SBW is the only area close to downtown with enough space to host large temporary facilities, especially for broadcast. The rail line would run through the Widett Circle and if anything was built at the Beacon Yards could run out to the West station.
 
datadyne007 said:
LA is HILARIOUSLY butthurt:
Click to expand...

I was thinking about LA and the history of US Olympics the other day. When LA won the bid for 1932, it wasn't the 2nd largest city in the country. In 1932 it was 5th and growing rapidly, don't know what year the bid was actually awarded, but LA was barely on the map before 1920. In 1984 it won the games uncontested. They weren't chosen by the IOC, they were the default, so it is hard to say there is precedent for LA as we know it today getting "picked" for the Olympics

Atlanta was a smaller city on the upswing and it won. Chicago and New York are BIG CITIES and were rejected. I'm certainly extrapolating from a very small data set, but Olympic history seems to favor smaller US cities experiencing an economic upswing. Boston fits that profile best out of the 4 contenders.
 
Interestingly one of the hallmarks of the 1984 LA Olympics was that it was hosted using existing facilities due to the same const concerns we are facing today (Montreal being a financial boondoggle). It was so successful that it renewed interest in other cities to host the games.
 
datadyne007 said:
LA is HILARIOUSLY butthurt:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-la-olympics-plaschke-20150109-column.html

F'ing priceless.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all those Super Bowls aren't much of a consolation when you managed to lose TWO NFL teams in six months, are they? Ill take the trophies, thanks.

I actually thought LA would get chosen because it's a known quantity. A lot of consultants and technical people in LA were alive and adults in 1984, so you've got intuition and institutional knowledge that Boston just won't have until 2025. The politicians can mostly remember doing it and what it was like. Many of their venues and transportation systems are Olympic tested. The weather is invariably perfect.

When you really look at the LA bid, though, it's pretty odd. They were proposing to host Olympic events in the Nokia Theater and Disney Concert Hall. That's unprecedented and untested. The transit issue is also sticky - LA is proud of having what will be the nation's busiest light rail system into perpetuity, but when you're a city of many millions, a light rail system is actually pretty weak transit. Boston crushes LA in terms of transit access to venues if the Games are held today, and LA had no apparent interest in making up the gap.

Finally, Boston was the only bid to approach the issue from an urban planning perspective, with all the talk of Boston 2030 and visioning for the City. The mayor's big on that. LA might be able to absorb the Games easily, but that has consequences for legacy - the LA Olympics would kind of just happen, and then be over. It would be like a Super Bowl: a sporting event but nothing more. In Boston, they're a transformative opportunity.
 
Sorry for the double post, but new topic:

http://www.boston.com/business/news...J/story.html?p1=Topopage:Test_B:Main_headline

Initial insurance policy is for $25M in overruns if the City is responsible (with more to come in 2017, I'm sure). I get the sense that it's a counter to the IOC requirement that cities cover overruns. Since Mayor Walsh is promising that no City money will ever be used on venues, it looks like overruns would be incurred by the City (on the full $4.5B worth of projects) but would be immediately reimbursed. It's also possible that the policy applies only to overruns in city spending, which would be principally on land acquisition, so maybe they're buying Widett after all.

The Mayor directly addressed the question of a public vote and said he does not expect one.

One additional tidbit: Fish mentioned that 70 to 75% of events would be held at colleges and universities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top