Boston 2024

Called into talk radio to defend the plan, today. The host (Michael Graham) wasn't too enthusiastic about the idea (to put it mildly), but at least is getting more coverage.
 
I'm throwing my money behind DC/Baltimore and Philly , Boston should shoot for something smaller like the World Cup.
 
DominusNovus said:
Called into talk radio to defend the plan, today. The host (Michael Graham) wasn't too enthusiastic about the idea (to put it mildly), but at least is getting more coverage.
Click to expand...

The idea is getting a lot of negative commentary on Universalhub and the Boston page of city-data forums, too. I put together a few posts on city-data, not sure it will sway anybody right now, but a big part of this is getting the idea out there, which seems to be happening.
 
What are the prevalent arguments against? Money and leftover structures I assume? Have others not from archBoston noted that it has the potential to fix the T and other goodies unrelated to the questionable uptick in business during the games?

And yes, I know I could go look myself. But I'm busy designing the gajillionth iteration of a custom kitchen remodel. Four different rooms and about a hundred different layouts in each :rolleyes:
 
HenryAlan said:
The idea is getting a lot of negative commentary on Universalhub and the Boston page of city-data forums, too. I put together a few posts on city-data, not sure it will sway anybody right now, but a big part of this is getting the idea out there, which seems to be happening.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised? This idea is going to summon a NIMBY Mount St. Helens eruption. Never doubt how hard some Bostonians will fight to stay provincial.
 
Basically, the arguments on the radio, from one of the writers at the Globe and Reason, where that the Olympics are too costly, and that there's no room for it in Boston. I didn't get a chance to tell them that there were more than enough hotel rooms, either.

I think one of the main objections (again, on the radio) were that people didn't really grasp the concept of NIMBYism. They couldn't really understand why having a prestige project could help get more mundane infrastructure projects jumpstarted and overcome opposition.
 
It is , and it leaves a huge hole in budgets. London , Athens , Vancouver have all had huge holes left in there budgets and didn't see a tourism increase during the games...
 
Anyone who's read this thread knows how I feel about the idea.

But for those who forgot:

I pray to god I am dead by 2024 if this plan takes off.

Or, living in Palm Springs.
 
Nexis4jersey said:
It is , and it leaves a huge hole in budgets. London , Athens , Vancouver have all had huge holes left in there budgets and didn't see a tourism increase during the games...
Click to expand...

On a regular year, Faneuil Hall is visited by more people (#4 - 20m) than the Magic Kingdom (#5 - 17m). Boston is bursting at the seams on a normal year with tourists. Add the Olympics and you've got one heck of an epic crowd and new tourism draw.
 
My thinking is that even if you don't get a dime from tourists during the Olympics you
a) get the city cleaned up to a showpiece
b) get 25-50 years of infrastructure projects done in 10 or less
c) get student-esque housing (something Boston uniquely needs that few other cities do)
d) give an underutilized part of the city a new purpose via an Olympic stadium that can be scaled down to be useable and
e) give a broader reach of tourists an impression of Boston either via television or in person. For this it would be integral to scatter events around the city instead of in an olympic village, making the newscasts as well as attendees themselves move around and see the city as a whole.
 
datadyne007 said:
On a regular year, Faneuil Hall is visited by more people (#4 - 20m) than the Magic Kingdom (#5 - 17m). Boston is bursting at the seams on a normal year with tourists. Add the Olympics and you've got one heck of an epic crowd and new tourism draw.
Click to expand...

In London the problem was that there were so many dire warnings about crowds, tourists (and many nearby locals) stayed away.

davem is right that legacy is the real benefit here. The problem is that most Bostonians are opposed to normal infrastructure improvements for narrow, selfish reasons. Telling them that something that will bring out their most visceral NIMBYism is worth it because it will help spawn projects that spark their everyday NIMBYism won't work.
 
czsz said:
In London the problem was that there were so many dire warnings about crowds, tourists (and many nearby locals) stayed away.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They created a mass hysteria about the projected crowds and what resulted was everyone just staying in the Olympic Village shopping at the megamall that they built. London has so much to offer and yet they ruined themselves through their own hysterical marketing.

I also hope to god that if Boston does win, they don't construct a megamall here.
 
Perhaps this will smack of NIMBYism but I don't mean it that way. I don't hate the idea of having an Olympics in the US but I think we should look at this as a way not to boost/showcase an already vibrant city like NY, Chicago or Boston. Rather we should look at this as a nation to invest in a city that could actually be well served. In that regard, I nominate in all seriousness:

Detroit.

I mean it. Here is why.
World class airport
Vast amounts of vacant land within the city borders
Opportunity to co-host with Canada. Go in with Windsor and share costs and spread venues across the river
Massive infrastructure needs that could actually be assisted by Olympics. Transit needs are key.
Detroit has no money and no government. Greater Detroit is actually pretty wealthy.
This is an aspirational goal that could be an actual catalyst for the city. All US cities thinking about preparing a bid should support Detroit instead.
 
Detroit isn't merely a down-on-its-heels city like Barcelona that just needs rebranding. It has serious structural problems. Would the Olympics catalyze waves of tourism and investment in Detroit for years after? No, because there's nothing to see and nothing to build off of. It would just contribute to the city's ever-growing collection of ruins.
 
CZ is right. The problem with Detroit is you'd build all these new housing units, infrastructure, etc. for a city that is already overbuilt. Detroit needs to downsize - any federal investment should be focused on smart shrink as opposed to smart growth.
 
(disclosure: I am a native) I agree that there is a lot of housing stock in Detroit but unfortunately is is generally in very poor condition and not desirable. Detroit does need to shrink. I would argue that most of the Northeast side should be plowed under and replaced with an enormous greenspace on a scale the size of Central Park or larger that can be enhanced over many years. The city needs to migrate toward its core where there is a kernel of life and urbanism.
The government of the city was its downfall in Coleman Young days and continues to be its greatest weakness. I hope that whatever is put in place for emergency management is successful. With competent leadership and unified support, much of the rest of the infrastructure problems are manageable.
Is it possible to have Detroit ready in 10 years? Probably not. For hotels more than anything. It is conceivable if IOC allowed the region to use its existing assets instead of build new. Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor with over 109K in seating is one of the great venues in all of sport. Ford field is great. Events could be all over the area. A lot of promise there.
 
czsz said:
Way to give credit to the Onion's satire.
Click to expand...

The piece of satire went from blase to to migraine-inducing insanity the moment they contrasted Boston's supposed failings as an urban center to Los Angeles.

That place isn't an urban center. Its just a few dozen experiments in how to build a suburban city, decade after decade, overlapping and crushed up on top of each other, each preceding effort abandoned in favor of what the latest trend in wholesale sprawl might be. Los Angeles isn't a city; its a caricature of Jane Jacob's nightmares and a theme park version of Robert Moses' wet dreams.

God, I hate Los Angeles. Should we ever be graced to be in the trajectory of a Sweet Meteor of Death, we would be truly blessed by God were it to strike that blight upon the continent.
 
DominusNovus said:
The piece of satire went from blase to to migraine-inducing insanity the moment they contrasted Boston's supposed failings as an urban center to Los Angeles.

That place isn't an urban center. Its just a few dozen experiments in how to build a suburban city, decade after decade, overlapping and crushed up on top of each other, each preceding effort abandoned in favor of what the latest trend in wholesale sprawl might be. Los Angeles isn't a city; its a caricature of Jane Jacob's nightmares and a theme park version of Robert Moses' wet dreams.

God, I hate Los Angeles. Should we ever be graced to be in the trajectory of a Sweet Meteor of Death, we would be truly blessed by God were it to strike that blight upon the continent.
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only LA hater. I had the same reaction as soon as they made the contrast to LA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top