Boston 2024

[FK4]

From the renderings, they would have to deck over about a half mile of tracks between W. 4th St and the south end of Widett Circle, and that presumes Cabot Yard is axed and not decked as well.

Assuming 250,000 sq ft of deck at a construction cost of $400 a sq ft., that's $100 million just to cover the tracks.

checked out widett today, ive actually, amazingly, never been in there. i have no idea how they would handle covering up those tracks. but it raises some questions about possible transit projects:
1. post olympics, reroute the SB access road to line up with the mass ave connector and open it to through traffic
2. the discussions on this board made the copley-seaport express train seem like a silly and infeasible project due to lack of means to get across the old colony mainline. would this project possibly allow a connection to be build in conjunction?
3. crazy transit pitch: light rail line or BRT along the newly rerouted access road to run in fully dedicated lanes from ruggles to seaport? not sure if this would actually accomplish anything useful, transity wise.
4. Crazy transit pitch: contruct the connection for the DMU seaport express (as above), as a bridge over the tracks, then route it right along 93, hugging it, with infill stations there for future development, before it heads to copley. would also service ink block and troy developments.

 

[HenryAlan]

Richard Davey named new CEO for Boston 2024

“This is a terrific opportunity to build upon all the great work and planning that has already been done,” said Davey, in a statement. “But in many ways this is just the beginning. Over the next year we will be in every community in Boston - and in every region of the state - to get the thoughts and input of the public on what a 2024 Games would look like and the kind of legacy it could and should leave for Massachusetts.”

Hopefully this should go a long way toward ensuring really smart transportation upgrades.

 

[datadyne007]

CAG Meeting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQQZ_-AgBGw

 

[whighlander]

President Reagan had nothing to do with the selection of Los Angeles as host city of the 1984 Summer Olympics.

LA won by default in 1978 when its only international competitor, Teheran pulled out. It had earlier beaten out its only US competitor NY by a vote of 55-39.

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as US President in January 1981.

Obviously the choice of LA in 1978 had nothing to do with the 2 year hence disaster of the Moscow Olympics. What DID affect the decision was the financially disastrous 1976 Montreal Olympics.

Shmess -- I stand for the most part corrected

After Munich [terrorism] and Montreal [financial debacle] only three cities offered to host 1984 -- NYC and LA in the US and Tehran, Iran. in 1978 Tehran backed-out as its politics started to get ugly -- leaving only the previously selected US applicant LA -- the IOC conditionally ratified the decision in May 1978.

However, there was still uncertainty in 1978 due to a question of who would be financially responsible -- finally in October the IOC, USOC and LA came to agreement

It took another 6 months to sign-up Peter Ueberroth and for the LAOOC to get down to work -- March 1979 -- just a bit over 5 years before the 1984 Games opened.

 

[Arlington]

The big issues have been:
- How the O committee still needs to work on partnering with other agencies and interacting with people
- Whether Widett can be affordably decked and whether the rail stuff can be moved considering how important enhanced South Station ops are.

Richard Davey named new CEO for Boston 2024
Hopefully this should go a long way toward ensuring really smart transportation upgrades.

I think it is huge step forward. It solves both of the two worst weaknesses in the O planning so far.
- Davey's got a great record at working with metro and state bureaucracies (& politicians) and a restive public. The Os have wiffed it so far.
- He'll vault them beyond rookie mistakes and has the potential to actually deliver the walkable/transit friendly games they've talked about but had no clue how to deliver.

 

[whighlander]

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.

Stel -- the bid documents http://www.2024boston.org/docs
in particular pdf3 Transportation, Accommodation and Security plan

talk quite extensively about the ORN -- Olympic Route Network of dedicated roads beginning with the Massport Rd and incorporating certain streets and highways at certain specific times

Overall as you observed -- the Fed's are ultimately responsible for overall security -- its treated as a NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY EVENT by the Secret Service just as it was during the DNC

Any additional costs incurred by local, State Police and National Guard and any private guards will be fully compensated by the Olympic Committee

 

[whighlander]

I find it interesting that Suffolk Downs gets nothing. Is that realistic? Is it pandering to Mayor Walsh's hope that it'll somehow be a casino in 2024, or a recognition that it'll all be condos by then?

Suffolk Downs is listed as a back-up for the Olympic Stadium and some other things -- its Contingency site #1 in case the folks at the Flower Exchange put up a fight, etc.

 

[whighlander]

And they have Boston Hahbah penciled in for sailing. That would be a fucking horror show, not to mention the courses would have to be shortened due to space constraints. There are rumors that the two major Buzzards Bay clubs, Beverly in Marion and New Bedford in Padanaram are looking to collaborate on an Olympic caliber venue located perhaps in New Bedford proper. John Fish is a graduate of Tabor in Marion and both clubs have their share of highly influential Bostonians, plus each has produced a number of Olympic medalists.

KMP -- if you look at the documents [there are nearly 3/4 GB of downloads if you include the massive pptx]http://www.2024boston.org/docs
BOSTON 2024 DOCUMENTS

• Overall Games Concept (12.5mb)
• Key Venue Plan (22.4mb)
• Transportation, Accommodation + Security (16.3mb)
• Sports + Venues (70.5mb)
• Political + Public Support (7.7mb)
• Bid + Games Budget (6mb)
• Boston 2024 USOC Presentation (531mb)

watch out for the last one

Anyway -- you will see the outer Harbor is the sailing venue with the docks being at the Courthouse and Castle Island

If there is any real problem its the shooting out on Long Island -- is there a bridge or is it all by water shuttle?

 

[whighlander]

By 2024, the bridge will be rebuilt, won't it? But, in general, I think the O committee has to explain how it it can learn to partner rather than primp, and tap the wisdom of crowds rather than try to outsmart us.

This is a classic call for team-is-smarter-than-any-one-member kind of innovation, and, so far, it is painfully (almost comically) lacking in team play.

Arlington -- this package of documents is essentially a Response to a Request For Information not a formal Response to a Request for Proposal which needs to be prepared by the end of this Summer
http://www.teamusa.org/News/2015/Ja...Invite-Sporting-Community-To-Beantown-In-2024

Boston’s formal application isn’t due until September..... So far only Rome — host of the 1960 Games — has joined Boston in officially announcing a bid, but the list of potential bid cities is long. Among those rumored to join the race is Paris, host of the 1924 Games. Germany is expected to pick either Berlin (the 1936 host) or Hamburg, while other bids could come from Melbourne, Australia (the 1956 host); Istanbul, Turkey; a South African city, or a host of others.

One the formal application from Boston is accepted by the USOC in September -- to in turn submit to the IOC there will be further fine tuning until the final Bid is submitted to the IOC about a year from now

http://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-executive-board-sets-dates-for-2024-olympic-games-bid-process/242111
Here's the IOC's official schedule:

The Applicant City Phase for the 2024 Olympic Games will start on 15 September 2015 and continue through to April/May 2016.
The Candidate City Phase will continue through to the election of the host city in the summer of 2017.

• Applicant City Phase
  • 7-9 October 2015: IOC to host information seminar for 2024 Applicant Cities in Lausanne
  • 8 January 2016: Deadline for Applicant Cities to submit Application Files and guarantee letters
  • March 2016: IOC Working Group Meeting to assess Applicant Cities (including video conference with each city)
  • April/May 2016: IOC Executive Board to select Candidate Cities
  • May 2016: Cities receive Candidate City Questionnaire and related documents
• Candidate City Phase
  • 5-21 August 2016: Candidate Cities to attend Olympic Games Rio 2016 on Olympic Games Observers’ Programme
  • November/December 2016: Candidate Cities to attend Rio 2016 Debrief in Tokyo
  • January 2017: Deadline for Candidate Cities to submit Candidature File and guarantee letters
  • February/March 2017: Evaluation Commission visits
  • June 2017: IOC to publish Evaluation Commission Report
  • June 2017 (tbc): Candidate City Briefing to IOC members
  • Summer 2017: Candidate City presentations to the IOC Session; final report to Session from Evaluation Commission Chair; election of the host city of the 2024 Olympic Games

So this is still a work very-much in process -- and from what I gather -- we can actually have a useful input!

 

[whighlander]

At the meeting, Manfredi in particular, and others too, stressed that this was all prelim stage, proof of concept detail. And especially on specific siting of venues. One question was about making the aquatics venue permanent, given the local need. In response, they alluded to conversations with other universities about that specific venue perhaps being a perm site (without naming Tufts specifically), and also mentioning flexibility on other venue sites, both in location and in later usage. And Manfredi was polished in making it sound admirably flexible and open-minded. He did not get into the issue of using revenues for temp facilities as compared to perm facilities but he did very smoothly present the need for flexibility. He's a real pro at these things.

But ... with all this to be completed by 2024? When there are so many core details not yet pinned down? With the current set of pols and bureaucrats we have in place? When thinking about the timeline, Manfredi's flexibility struck me as .... more like a guy standing at a bus depot, bragging about all the reading he's going to get done on his bus trip, but who hasn't noticed that the bus left the station an hour ago, with him not on it.

If Paris or Rome or whoever throws together the more typical splurge-athon bid, and if it turns out the IOC's happy talk about frugality turns out to be a smoke screen, i think this bid has no chance with the IOC. Even if the public gets 85% on board.

West the same people who were saying Boston was a lock at the USOC level are saying that Boston is the one for everyone else to compare itself against at the IOC level

The USOC picked Boston based on the IOC's guidelines:

• No more Sochi, Athens, Beijing -- got to be affordable for any part of the planet to emulate -- take advantage of what's already available as much as possible
• return to an Olympics focused on the athletes
• "walkable" -- hence the powerful table showing the physical spread of the relatively past Olympics versus the compact Boston
• return to focus on ameteur atheletes -- hence the college connection and Boston's preeminence
• smaller Stadiums -- more leveraging of technology -- i.e. lots of BIG screens
• temporary facilities -- no more white elephants such as Athens --- hence only permanent facilities are the Velodrome and possible the Natatorium

 

[whighlander]

Yeah that's true I was melding it into the wrong geographic area. It's definitely not Newmarket. But yes, it does not need to be rebranded. Widett is a fine name, too.

FK -- after the games and in some case even all the Olympic related construction is even complete -- Midtown is going to be a NEW District with a Fan Pier or Seaport Square scale of development -- millions of sq ft and thousands of residences

And as Midtown is close to the geographic center of Boston -- its more apropos than the North or South Ends. South Boston, etc.

Sorry -- but Midtown isn't really Widdett Circle anymore than the Government Center Garage redevelopment is Haymarket or the Bulfinch Triangle

 

[whighlander]

Every time I look at the rendering of the beach volleyball stadium on the Common I cringe. That is going to get massive backlash.

How could anyone on the committee not recognize the Common as sacred territory?

Fattony -- don't you remember the Concerts on the Common -- all summer a walled-off paid zone -- resulted in a famous lawsuit over the construction of a "building" on the Common
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/396/396mass37.html

BETTINA H. PRATT & others [Note 1] vs. CITY OF BOSTON & others. [Note 2]
396 Mass. 37
May 8, 1985 - September 30, 1985
Suffolk County
...June through September of the years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985, the Fund has sponsored the Concerts on the Common series. In each year, the Fund has been granted, pursuant to an agreement with the Commission, the use of a 2.5-acre site on the eastern side of the Common, bordering Tremont Street and adjacent to the Parkman Bandstand.

As for more recent incursions on the Common we have the annual camping of the Commonwealth Shakespeare since 1997 -- and in 2002 the one-time bigger stage set-up near to Charles & Beacon for the production by the Boston Lyric Opera of Bizet's "Carmen on the Common"

 

[West]

West the same people who were saying Boston was a lock at the USOC level are saying that Boston is the one for everyone else to compare itself against at the IOC level

The USOC picked Boston based on the IOC's guidelines:

whighlander, I agree that Boston's bid fits the new IOC guidelines quite well. I don't know your sources for the comparison o other cities at the IOC level.

My comment wasn't about whether we fit the IOC's stated new standard, it's whether IOC will actually stay with their stated standard. I don't believe the IOC is historically as corrupt as FIFA - is anyone? - but the IOC is not clean. And the ever-growing foolishness of bids was not driven only by prior bidders. And i do not believe that the Salt Lake City folks were the only ones passing money, they were just dumb enough to get caught.

So if some other city waves some shiny baubles in the IOC's eyes, not to mention other favors, will the IOC revert to form? That's the possibility I was raising.

If they do, i agree with the other responses: let that city have it.

In the meantime, so long as Boston 2024 can raise enough for this next phase to get studied and planned out and prepared on private dollars, I am all in favor of going along. There's always at least some chance that even a losing bid - even a bid lost fairly along the new IOC guidelines - could focus some minds around here on transit work that needs to get done. Even a losing bid, privately financed, would be worth it if that happened. I can't claim a lot of optimism that an Olympics bid will focus the necessary minds, but what the hell, let's give it a shot.

It would kind of suck to put together a bid that honored the new IOC concept, then lose to someone who once again threw sanity to the wind and thereby learn that the IOC wasn't really reformed. That would feel more like wasted effort; but again, if it broke loose the land negotiations for south station expansion or some such critical item, it'd still be worth it.

 

[whighlander]

whighlander, I agree that Boston's bid fits the new IOC guidelines quite well. I don't know your sources for the comparison o other cities at the IOC level.

My comment wasn't about whether we fit the IOC's stated new standard, it's whether IOC will actually stay with their stated standard. I don't believe the IOC is historically as corrupt as FIFA - is anyone? - but the IOC is not clean. And the ever-growing foolishness of bids was not driven only by prior bidders. And i do not believe that the Salt Lake City folks were the only ones passing money, they were just dumb enough to get caught.

So if some other city waves some shiny baubles in the IOC's eyes, not to mention other favors, will the IOC revert to form? That's the possibility I was raising.

If they do, i agree with the other responses: let that city have it.

In the meantime, so long as Boston 2024 can raise enough for this next phase to get studied and planned out and prepared on private dollars, I am all in favor of going along. There's always at least some chance that even a losing bid - even a bid lost fairly along the new IOC guidelines - could focus some minds around here on transit work that needs to get done. Even a losing bid, privately financed, would be worth it if that happened. I can't claim a lot of optimism that an Olympics bid will focus the necessary minds, but what the hell, let's give it a shot.

It would kind of suck to put together a bid that honored the new IOC concept, then lose to someone who once again threw sanity to the wind and thereby learn that the IOC wasn't really reformed. That would feel more like wasted effort; but again, if it broke loose the land negotiations for south station expansion or some such critical item, it'd still be worth it.

West -- some of my work has dealt with specialized security technology issues at the international level such as the EC

As for Transit / Transportation and Housing / Lodging these are agreed upon in principle at both the Walsh and Baker levels and the forward looking part of the proposal for the Olympics is 2030 and the 400th Anniversary of Boston

so I think that the Olympic bid - -win or lose to Paris or Berlin [not likely] or Rome still offers a tremendous opportunity to think about the 2020 to 2030 time frame somewhat unconstrained by the past multi-agency disconnects

In particular the Midtown / Widdett Circle and the Turnpike / Beacon Yards are the next Seaport / Innovation Districts -- nearly raw canvas ready to be painted upon

Finally, While I'm no fan of Stephanie Powers because of her connection to the CLF-powered extortion over the Big Dig -- there's no doubt that Stephanie and Richard Davey are essentially soul-mates and so the transportation part of the bid package will be well developed and coordinated

PS: of note about temporary facilities -- google the Anvil Chorus and the Peace Jubilee held in 1869 in an immense temporary stadium originally planned for the Boston Public Garden but built instead on the site of Copley Square

 

[FK4]

FK -- after the games and in some case even all the Olympic related construction is even complete -- Midtown is going to be a NEW District with a Fan Pier or Seaport Square scale of development -- millions of sq ft and thousands of residences

And as Midtown is close to the geographic center of Boston -- its more apropos than the North or South Ends. South Boston, etc.

Sorry -- but Midtown isn't really Widdett Circle anymore than the Government Center Garage redevelopment is Haymarket or the Bulfinch Triangle

What are you talking about? This area they want to call "Midtown" shares boundaries precisely with Widett Circle. And the name is stupid.

You're going way overboard in your confidence in the Boston real estate market: Widett is literally surrounded 360° by active train tracks and is currently walled off from any connection to any other nieghborhood by I-93. Even assuming the market here continues remotely close to the pace it's keeping now, this area is still a stretch. It is effectively quite far from the South End and even so, not even the South End but the Albany St/BMC shithole zone that still will take years to redevelop. Likewise, it's separated physically from Southie and the part of Southie that it is, technically only, close to is an industrial zone. Yes, it could be a successful development, but there are vast territories that are much better situated for success than this one and that will get developed first. Serious transit IE road construction (see my post further back today) will also need to be done here for this to be remotely feasible.

 

[FK4]

http://www.dotnews.com/2015/widett-circle-businesses-still-feel-shut-out-olympic-process

sleazy:

Dan O’Connell, president of Boston 2024, said the New Boston Food Market would be relocated to Southie's Marine Industrial Park at expense of Boston 2024, with no jobs lost. He made the remarks in response to an audience question at the first Citizens Advisory Group meeting hosted on Wednesday night at the Boston Convention Center.

Michael Vaughan, the president of Nauset Strategies who represents New Boston Food Market, said the business co-op had never once been approached about any sort of re-location plan.

“We have had no discussions with Boston 2024 about relocation. Until we do, our answer is firm: We love Widett Circle,” Vaughan said on Thursday.

Under Boston 2024’s proposal, the 80-acre stadium site is nestled into Widett Circle, stretching north over city- and state-owned parcels currently used as a tow lot, salt lot, and MBTA transfer station. New Boston Food Market, the only facility under a Widett Circle address, occupies 20 acres. Organizers have also re-named the area as “Midtown” but repeatedly referred to the stadium being sited at Widett Circle.

Vaughan and Kaiser added that repeated references to Widett Circle as a “scar” were hurtful to the business owners and more than 700 employees where the vast majority of the city’s meats, fish, produce and other food stocks are stored and processed.

“We had good meetings back in the fall where we were assured a seat at the table. Reading today’s paper, that seat at the table was put into doubt,” Vaughan said. “We can coexist and we can support the Olympics, we just need a seat at the table.”

 

[citylover94]

FK4 you seem to have totally forgotten that South Boston is right next to it with no highway in the way and the Broadway red line stop is pretty close especially if they provide plenty of pedestrian connections to Broadway which it looks like they plan to. It isn't as convenient as the seaport or downtown no but it is at least as convenient as Beacon Yards and arguably more so as it has a convenient and direct connection to the red line.

 

[rinserepeat]

why didn't they go after south bay shopping center? equal size site and big-box businesses that won't really upset things if they are relocated. maybe because it abuts a residential area?

 

[Proposition Joe]

I suppose because South Bay is farther away from any rapid transit stops. Although Widett Circle does have imposing barriers between it and South Boston it is reasonably close to both Broadway and Andrew Square and the separation that currently exists could be alleviated by the decking plan (should it even be feasible).

The South Bay shopping center would be a much better redevelopment target, mostly because Widett Circle isn't really a legitimate redevelopment target in the first place. Several of the businesses there could even remain there by transitioning to CityTarget style locations. South Bay is probably the #3 best place to put the temporary Olympic Stadium, after Suffolk Downs and Beacon Park.

 

[rinserepeat]

maybe they could swap the food distribution over to south bay... combine it with an urban target and scaled-down home depot... maybe even create a wholesale storefront type place where people could buy direct from distributors. there's a ton of space there - a grossly underutilized parking lot and a few marginal and redundant chain businesses. Widett Circle isn't underutilized, but I do think it's probably a better location for the stadium.