Boston 2024

[HenryAlan]

That whole area is going to be very important in the coming years - South Station especially. I also hope there would be some sort of bike/ped connection between this area and the SW corridor paths... Malnea Cass gets you part of the way there. You know - this would actually be great for bike connectivity in the city... going through Widett Circle plus Dot ave improvements suddenly allows bike access to South Station that doesn't take you through Chinatown. It would be a lot safer for people coming from the south and west (even parts of Cambridge).

Yeah, but how many of us would actually take that round about route? I would stick to the more direct option, even if it continues to mean riding in mixed traffic. True, such a system of paths would be a good thing, but I don't see a lot of longer distance riders purposefully selecting a longer route much of the time.

 

[Proposition Joe]

Looking at the map of proposed venues, the two most conspicuous sports missing are tennis and volleyball. Boston doesn't have any tennis venues and would likely not need any. I figure that putting tennis in New Haven would be most practical.

Also conspicuously absent as far as venues go, the Hynes Convention Center isn't mentioned anywhere but I figure that it would be of use for an Olympics.

Also they haven't pined down a location for a velodrome yet. As much as the word velodrome has become a meme for white elephant developments, it would actually be a useful permanent development and I'm wondering where the best location for it. I've heard rumblings of Assembly Square and I think that would be nice.

Will the JFK/UMass station be renamed JFK/UMass/Olympic Village?

Please just rename the station "Columbia" please.

 

[Shepard]

I doubt the bid will include New Haven for tennis any more than it would Springfield for basketball.

Volleyball as far as I've seen is slated for Boston Common.

 

[Arlington]

I doubt the bid will include New Haven for tennis any more than it would Springfield for basketball.

Don't you mean Newport (site of the International Tennis Hall of Fame) for Tennis?

I think it'd be pretty cool to show off volleyball where it was invented (Holyoke, MA) and basket ball where it was (Springfield MA), even if you didn't put the final games there, and to have the Marathon run as much as possible along its usual route, just like Athens had theirs start at Marathon.

 

[Equilibria]

I doubt the bid will include New Haven for tennis any more than it would Springfield for basketball.

Volleyball as far as I've seen is slated for Boston Common.

Either the Globe or Herald had tennis at Beacon Park, which is basically a way of saying "we have no idea."

I'd like to see Tennis in Newport, but it won't happen. Boston 2024 has too much invested in the "Walkable Olympics" concept to place a sport that central on the periphery.

 

[Proposition Joe]

I doubt the bid will include New Haven for tennis any more than it would Springfield for basketball.

Volleyball as far as I've seen is slated for Boston Common.

Beach Volleyball is slated for Boston Common but regular Volleyball is absent. I suppose that it could be held in one of the venues already listed like the Garden or Conti Forum but if they are already proposing sports for those venues it probably would have already been mentioned along with.

Don't you mean Newport (site of the International Tennis Hall of Fame) for Tennis?

I think it'd be pretty cool to show off volleyball where it was invented (Holyoke, MA) and basket ball where it was (Springfield MA), even if you didn't put the final games there, and to have the Marathon run as much as possible along its usual route, just like Athens had theirs start at Marathon.

No I meant New Haven because they have a large tennis arena near a college campus that can be used for housing, I honestly forgot about Newport.

Having places like Springfield, Holyoke, and even Newport near Boston can be real useful for giving a Boston bid a leg up on the competition. The question is are these locations viable for hosting a few games or a group stage and how much do you want to risk spreading things out.

The argument for spreading tennis out to the periphery is mainly that while Boston's bid is playing up its walkability, it's also playing up its low cost and sustainability. The Boston bid team should try to minimize the amount of temporary venues they need to build and I suppose the location of tennis is one of those hard decisions they have to make.

 

[stellarfun]

There are a number of venues that have not been identified, based on this list of sports for the 2020 Games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Summer_Olympics
___________________________________________________
In looking at London 2012, the workforce required to stage the games was 200,000, including 70,000 volunteers. There were 14,000 athletes, including para-athletes; 21,000 members of the media; 7,500 team officials; 18,000 members of the military; 16,000 caterers; 800,000 ticketed spectators.

Security costs were about $600 million.
For those who can read British financial statements.
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Ga...Reports/LOCOG_FINAL_ANNUAL_REPORT_Mar2013.PDF

The IOC was so dissatisfied with the crass commercialism, security failures, and logistics/transportation nightmares at the Atlanta games (also a small scale attempt) that the USOC was in the IOC doghouse as far as future games until apparently this year.

So how will Boston succeed where Atlanta failed?

E.g., how do you provide security for a major Olympic venue that sits on top of a major transportation hub, other than closing the Green Line and Orange Line stations, and pre-screening passengers boarding MBTA CR on the North Side?
________________________________

NBC has bought the broadcast rights for the 2024, 2028, and 2032 games, and as NBC provides at least half of the IOC's broadcast revenue, it's probably a safe bet that the IOC will give the games to the U.S. in one of those three years. The question is whether it will be Boston in 2024, or some other U.S. city in 2028 or 2032.

______________________________

Edited to add that the Globe says security costs will be $1 billion plus, and taxpayers will have to pay.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...olympic-bid/Agie20hL41aui4TbsgJ7VJ/story.html

 

[Equilibria]

The IOC was so dissatisfied with the crass commercialism, security failures, and logistics/transportation nightmares at the Atlanta games (also a small scale attempt) that the USOC was in the IOC doghouse as far as future games until apparently this year.

So how will Boston succeed where Atlanta failed?

This isn't entirely accurate. The IOC was dissatisfied with traffic issues that arose because Atlanta residents started swarming back downtown after the first week. Atlanta is a very different city than Boston - they might have extended MARTA for the games, but most people are driving everywhere they go. The Olympic Committee there actually had a good plan to keep people off the roads, but after it worked for a week and carmageddon didn't come as predicted, the residents all decided that it was okay to drive after all and clogged up the highways.

The US bids failing in 2012 and 2016 had nothing to do with Atlanta. From everything I've read, the USOC was in the IOC doghouse for two reasons: A revenue-sharing dispute over broadcasting rights, and a lack of participation by USOC officials in IOC activities. Since 2016, the USOC turned over its entire leadership team, got much more involved, and resolved the revenue dispute. 2024 will be the first Summer Games to be awarded thereafter.

FWIW, the IOC wasn't thrilled with the crass commercialism in Atlanta, but Boston's funding plan is a little different, simply because Boston 2024 is looking to different sources of private donations. Atlanta let companies like McDonalds, Coca Cola, CNN, etc. throw their branding all over everything, while Boston is looking to financial and biotechnology firms for cash. I don't think Putnam Investments is known for crass commercialism in their advertising. Also, the IOC didn't like Atlanta's temporary venues in an era of palatial Olympic construction - the atmosphere post-Sochi is very different.

 

[stellarfun]

Here is the London 2012 sponsor list and amount. CNN has gone away.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/datablog/2012/jul/19/london-2012-olympic-sponsors-list

________________________

I will say that to get some Federal money for security (although the London Olympics from the financial statement budgeted and paid for most of the security cost) the entire Olympics security apparatus and manpower is under the control of the Secret Service, and Boston has little idea of how the Secret Service can immobilize an area in the name of security. The security problem with the Boston venues is that many are concentrated in/near the commercial/business heart of the city.

Adjudication Services
P.O. Box 37135
Washington, DC 20013

To whom it may concern:

I would like to plead not-guilty to the Truck Zone Violation.

On Saturday March 19th 2011, I was pulled over by Secret Service Police on the corner of 17th Street NW and E Street NW. I was told that I was driving my 2-axel, 14ft. box truck in a “No Truck Zone.”

However I retraced my route that led me to where I was given the ticket, and there is no signage to caution or prevent me from driving a truck into 17th Street NW.
This was my very first day driving in Washington DC, and I was here for a peace protest.

I can predict similar no truck zones for Boston, unless a truck is examined at an off-site location and is determined to not be hazardous, and given a vehicle pass to transit the no truck zone.

 

[underground]

Article in the Globe today about security costs. Not sure how people are concluding it'll be $1b after London was $600m. I've got to imagine London would be harder to secure than Boston, but I'm not a security expert. I'm an Olympic backer, but $1b on security theater, paid by the Feds or the state, is one thing that would sway my opinion. Using the Olympics as a tool to propel stalled projects is one thing, but eating up enough money to fully fund another project is another.

 

[stellarfun]

The police numbered 12,500 for the London Olympics, and there was also 18,000 military.
BPD has 2,100 0fficers, so perhaps a third could be assigned to the Olympics. (You could probably assign more if it was a one-day event like the Marathon, but not a three week event.) And London's 70,000 volunteers. (45,000 volunteers at Atlanta.)

Extrapolating from how the Secret Service operates in Washington DC, if the IOC HQ hotel is the Mandarin Oriental, and the Hynes is used for media headquarters (though it may not be large enough) the Secret Service will shut down a section of Boylston St for three weeks. The Secret Service operates on a cordon sanitaire approach, where they control (and secure) the surrounding environment.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

It sounds so odd to me that with a waterfront city with a number of beaches in short distance, that we would plan beach volleyball on the common.

This seems to be ignoring natural resources and sounds potentially damaging to the common. Why do it?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ith-avp-bobs-stores-boston-open-58068087.html

Looks like Waterworks was fine for 150 players for an AVP event. So, precedent.

Pleasure Bay? Carson Beach? Wollaston Beach? Hell, Nantasket isn't really that far away with train and ferry access.

 

[Equilibria]

It sounds so odd to me that with a waterfront city with a number of beaches in short distance, that we would plan beach volleyball on the common.

This seems to be ignoring natural resources and sounds potentially damaging to the common. Why do it?

Because London did something similar and it was considered the best venue of 2012. My issue with it in this case is that Horse Guards Parade is, well, a parade ground for horses. It's made of dirt, it's big, and it's empty. Boston Common is not. The London facility actually had 6 different courts (even though it never looked like that on TV). Building, and taking down such a facility on the Common would close a large portion of it for between 18 and 24 months, something that I sincerely doubt will fly with Boston residents.

When I did my silly map a year and a half ago, I placed the venue on the piers in Eastie. Locations along Pleasure Bay should definitely be in play as well given the rest of the plan. Boston Common is not a good location.

EDIT: In the source below, the author notes that SF had proposed AT&T Park for Beach Volleyball, suggesting that Fenway is also an option if Baseball is not played in 2024.

In other news (and because I like this guy's site) a bit on SF's bid that I didn't realize until today:

http://newballpark.org/2015/01/08/l...f-new-oakland-stadium-boosts-sfs-olympic-bid/

 

[HenryAlan]

It sounds so odd to me that with a waterfront city with a number of beaches in short distance, that we would plan beach volleyball on the common.

This seems to be ignoring natural resources and sounds potentially damaging to the common. Why do it?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ith-avp-bobs-stores-boston-open-58068087.html

Looks like Waterworks was fine for 150 players for an AVP event. So, precedent.

Pleasure Bay? Carson Beach? Wollaston Beach? Hell, Nantasket isn't really that far away with train and ferry access.

I would like to see beach volleyball at Moakley Park. It's across the street from a real beach, and fairly close to both JFK/UMass/Olympic Village and Andrew stations. That might be good for a velodrome, too, though I'd kind of like to see that at Franklin Park.

 

[paperless paul]

Security costs were about $600 million.
For those who can read British financial statements.
http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Ga...Reports/LOCOG_FINAL_ANNUAL_REPORT_Mar2013.PDF

Article in the Globe today about security costs. Not sure how people are concluding it'll be $1b after London was $600m.

Security will clearly cost well over $1bn.

“The Games are larger and the world is a different place than 2002 [Salt Lake City Olympics]. I imagine the security costs are going to be in the multiple billions of dollars” said Mark Dyreson, a sports historian and professor at Penn State University.

Salt Lake City c. $350m (essentially pre-9/11)
Athens $1.2b
Vancouver $800m
London $900m
Rio $2.2b

The IOC was so dissatisfied with the crass commercialism, security failures, and logistics/transportation nightmares at the Atlanta games (also a small scale attempt) that the USOC was in the IOC doghouse as far as future games until apparently this year.

The final expenses were higher (much so in some cases) than the bid figures in London, SLC, Vancouver and Rio. There is a real danger here for government spending if the Feds don't cover all of the security costs and the operating budget is insufficient. There hasn't seemed to be any follow up on this point here. The insurance coverage ($25m) is a joke even if just a starting point. Once corporates have allocated money to the games, unlike the government, they will to cover overruns, 'non-essential' items will be cut.

The Atlanta and Los Angeles Olympics were in a different era. Security theatre and commercialism are expected now.

In London the Mall and St James Park were shut for more than a month for the games. A good part of Greenwich park where the equestrian was held was closed off for over a year. London was plenty commercial, there was a lot of complaining about clampdowns on using the Olympic brand. A privately sponsored games in Boston will be plenty commercial, a bit like attending a Red Sox game or a City Hall Plaza concert. Whether it ends up being worse than Atlanta is hard for me to say, but the nature of these corporate events are now thoroughly commercialized anyway.

 

[underground]

Security will clearly cost well over $1bn...

Salt Lake City c. $350m (essentially pre-9/11)
Athens $1.2b
Vancouver $800m
London $900m
Rio $2.2b

Maybe, but you're basically talking four data points that are only sort of linear with thousands of uncontrolled variables. That's not exactly ripe for a "clearly" statement.

 

[fattony]

Article in the Globe today about security costs. Not sure how people are concluding it'll be $1b after London was $600m. I've got to imagine London would be harder to secure than Boston, but I'm not a security expert. I'm an Olympic backer, but $1b on security theater, paid by the Feds or the state, is one thing that would sway my opinion. Using the Olympics as a tool to propel stalled projects is one thing, but eating up enough money to fully fund another project is another.

This is some math I did this morning and posted in the comments of that Globe article. Thoughts?

The US workforce is about 155 million people. If we all paid the same amount taxes, $1 billion would require $6.45 from each worker. But of course we don't! What about the freeloaders!

We have a fairly progressive tax system with 43% of workers paying no federal income tax (down from Romney's famous 47%) and the top 1%-ers paying about 35% of total revenues. Assuming you aren't in either of those groups, and assuming everyone not in the 43% nor the 1% pays the same, then $1 billion will you cost you approximately $7.49.

$7.49 cost to the average American taxpayer.

That's right folks. You are screaming at the top of your lungs because you'll be forced to buy the equivalent of a Whopper Extra Value meal some time in the next 9 years.

 

[bigeman312]

This is some math I did this morning and posted in the comments of that Globe article. Thoughts?

Well you asked for my thoughts, so here goes:

I am not going to bitch about "taxpayer money" for this one, because every single expenditure sits wrong with somebody. And there is no point in saying "I don't want my tax money going to that." Someone would say it for transportation, another might say that for education, so on and so forth.

That being said, I reject the notion of examining the cost's effect on the taxpayer, in favor of examining the opportunity cost. I am frustrated with the exorbitant price tag on everything our federal government touches. Costs in the USA (as well as others like the UK) are far higher than other countries like Spain. I will never fully understand the issue, but the fact that we could build an entire state-of-the-art Spanish/Chinese/Japanese transit system for what it would cost in security for the Olympics makes me mad.

A reason not to host? No.

Another in a long list of reasons to be frustrated with escalating costs in our federal government, with infrastructure being Exhibit A? Yes.

I rant only because you ask and now I realize I am derailing a thread. Whoops and sorry.

 

[paperless paul]

Maybe, but you're basically talking four data points that are only sort of linear with thousands of uncontrolled variables. That's not exactly ripe for a "clearly" statement.

I am sure these numbers are neither precise, complete, nor directly comparable and I'm certainly not drawing a linear trend. I am trying to show people who think it's unreasonable that security could cost $1bn that in fact this figure is a very reasonable lower estimate and is more likely to be higher. That seems clear to me.

Further I'm saying that low-balled security budgets in Olympic bid documents tend to be wrong in the end. And that it would be surprising if the purported $4.5bn bid operating budget included, for example, $1.5b paid for by the partnership and not the Feds (see Globe article).

It is certainly too early to draw conclusions about this subject with respect to hosting, as neither the bid nor reporting is very clear as of yet. I am trying to bring some reasonable facts to the debate. FWIW, in the event Boston does host I am all for significant and relevant government spending for security, transportation and infrastructure.

But I was against a Boston bid (before USOC selection) because of things like - the outsized security costs which are fairly deadweight economically. And the crazy amount of political fighting that will occur between the multiple overlapping jurisdictions (i.e. Fed, State, multiple local, legislative & executive) which is another waste of societal capacity. Incurring these costs for a two-week sporting event for someone else's profit doesn't seem worth it to me. I'm also against gov't funded sports stadiums and similar that have little civic payback.

And also because of the clash of expectations between people who expect a transportation and infrastructure funding bonanza and the reality that no new projects will be funded because of hosting. And the clash between people's expectations of a civic and elaborate affair and the corporatized sponsored source of the funding. Finally I don't really think traffic is much of an issue and doesn't effect me.

 

[stellarfun]

For reference,

Here is beach volleyball at the London Olympics. Seating 15,000.

The Horse Guards Parade site was perhaps 20 percent bigger than the site on the Common west of the Frog Pond, and no trees had to be sacrificed. During competitions, one would need to close Beacon and Charles St because of proximity, and the Common garage as well.