Boston 2024

Actually, I'd say that Hamburg is basically angling for the same market niche that Boston has identified: moderate-heft, first world, Provincial Capital promising a democratic, un-corrupt, sustainable Olympics. We've discussed here whether the O's would be trading on Boston's cachet or Boston would be trading on the O's cachet--a question that's also plausible for Hamburg, but not Berlin.

If the IOC wants something in that "niche" then Hamburg or Boston are both going to try to squeeze into it, and bump the other city out of that box, but the point is that Germany thinks that the winning "positioning" for a 2024 city may be already locked-in, and the winner will be the best first-world, second-tier city.

Meanwhile Berlin-Paris-Rome are also "of a kind": Top tier, Don't-need-Olympics-to-be-famous WWII national capital, that you don't have to look for a on a map. Picking Berlin to go up against Paris and Rome woulda just set up mutual-annihilation in the "We're big-and-famous" slot
where there is already 1 guaranteed European loser (they just don't know it yet) and probably 2. The last thing Germany wants is to nominate a 3rd city in a niche that's already less likely to win. Instead they've put up the European version of Boston.

See Nash at 1:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CemLiSI5ox8&t=80
 
Why don't they put the whole thing at Beacon Park Yard? (Serious question, I'm not trolling.)
 
No, seriously, that's pretty much what I thought was going to happen before they released this plan.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Why don't they put the whole thing at Beacon Park Yard? (Serious question, I'm not trolling.)
Click to expand...

Harvard owns the development option, so up to them to allow it there or not. I don't think that was Harvard's vision. Also, Beacon Park Yard won't be available until 2020 at the very earliest. West Station is still in the early planning stage and not a lot of hotel space there to be considered walkable. Very different vision than what was presented to the Olympic Committee.

Walkable Olympics close to downtown Boston and the waterfront is the vision that they went with and really leverages some of the city's best.
 
Total 180 on Deval's consulting fees. He will not get paid $7500/day to travel around the world to promote Boston.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...lympic-work/fJXeIgLmowiSme7dLWnVJM/story.html

"Because I think the Olympics could be good for the Commonwealth, I will continue to help as and when I can, but not for a fee," Patrick said in a statement.

“I just think it adds more credibility to it when they are volunteer ambassadors,” said Walsh, a strong backer of the Olympic bid.
Click to expand...

Also in this article, WBUR poll finds Olympic support has plunged to 36%.
 
Well... looks like Boston 2024 will demand a referendum, or maybe just define "majority" using whatever friendly polling they like best.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...1Swb4bupsWZP/story.html?p1=feature_stack_1_hp

I would have liked to see the insurance point include some language about refusing the IOC guarantee if they can't arrange insurance. Frankly, I'd like Boston to trailblaze there regardless of insurance - if we refuse to guarantee overruns out of public funds, I could see Hamburg, Paris, and Rome following us and folks in Tokyo making noise about it.

I don't see this ad happening if the Donahue Institute report didn't work out so well for them.
 
Equilibria said:
Well... looks like Boston 2024 will demand a referendum, or maybe just define "majority" using whatever friendly polling they like best.
Click to expand...

Honestly, does anyone think this bid stands a chance? Boston 2024 has been one blunder after another since the USOC selection in January. I think much of the damage is irreversible. Based on the overwhelming vitriol expressed on every single Olympics article that the Globe runs, you'd think John Fish is proposing to take everyone's first-born child.

36% support and plummeting. With no more mistakes, they'll be very lucky to get to 50%. Never to the ~70% levels that Paris, Hamburg, etc will likely have.

If there's any reason to not think this bid is dead and gone, let me know. I was wrong about Boston's chances in January, and I could certainly be wrong again. But I wouldn't be surprised if some in the USOC are already thinking NYC / Chicago 2028.
 
Best reason at the moment is probably that it is statewide. It is a somewhat amusing thought if Western Massachusetts tips the favor to Boston's dismay. Then complains how Boston always get the cool things... like the Olympics.
 
I think the pro-2024 forces could outlast any opposition if they so desire. Not sure if they have the patience or stamina, though. If that makes sense.
 
lexicon506 said:
Honestly, does anyone think this bid stands a chance? Boston 2024 has been one blunder after another since the USOC selection in January. I think much of the damage is irreversible. Based on the overwhelming vitriol expressed on every single Olympics article that the Globe runs, you'd think John Fish is proposing to take everyone's first-born child.

36% support and plummeting. With no more mistakes, they'll be very lucky to get to 50%. Never to the ~70% levels that Paris, Hamburg, etc will likely have.

If there's any reason to not think this bid is dead and gone, let me know. I was wrong about Boston's chances in January, and I could certainly be wrong again. But I wouldn't be surprised if some in the USOC are already thinking NYC / Chicago 2028.
Click to expand...

I absolutely think they can hit 50%. That 36% poll wasn't taken the day it was released - they did it in February at what was probably the worst possible moment for ten years. Support isn't plummeting, but is probably bottomed-out.

Most of those not expressing support are lukewarm - they were convinced away by the snow, and they can be brought back by some other event that changes the tide. The Globe ad will help. Refusing the IOC guarantee (or releasing a formal agreement for insurance) would help. Even agreeing to a referendum and making a clear effort to work with communities will help. Actually, releasing a formal agreement with an insurance company would get them to 50% tomorrow.

The thing to remember here is that while everyone wants this to be a story for right now, it's a two-year process to bid time. Boston 2024 is fully committed to the whole two years. The USOC is fully committed to two years. Mayor Walsh has staked his legacy on this. This isn't "dead and gone," and it isn't going away any time soon.
 
Equilibria said:
Refusing the IOC guarantee (or releasing a formal agreement for insurance) would help. Even agreeing to a referendum and making a clear effort to work with communities will help. Actually, releasing a formal agreement with an insurance company would get them to 50% tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I think that refusing the IOC guarantee would make the bid DOA at the IOC, unless Paris and Hamburg (and whoever else bids) all do likewise. Morally, I wish they would all collude nakedly to collectively reject that guarantee, it's obscene. But I doubt they will, and if the IOC has bids with guarantees from several cities and one bid with the guarantee rejected, I am confident that last bid gets tossed pronto, unless that insurance policy is absolutely rock solid. Only LA could reject that guarantee for 1984 because they knew there was no plan B.

I agree with you that releasing a formal agreement with an insurance company will boost them significantly. No idea if up to 50% so fast, but it'd help. I'd really like to read such an insurance agreement, so far as I can tell no Olympic city has ever had a really comprehensive insurance policy of this sort. Probably you can find lots of completion bonds and such on specific projects, but I refer to some global insurance policy against all overruns, which I think is what you were referring to. As I opined ages ago up-thread, I am skeptical that a really solid comprehensive insurance policy of this sort can be underwritten at any reasonable price. I'm curious to see what could be written, I've got plenty to learn about insurance, but I am not holding my breath.

Equilibria said:
Mayor Walsh has staked his legacy on this.
Click to expand...

At least one Herald writer speculates he's beginning to walk it back:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...gerald_boston_2024_crowd_must_shed_baggage_of

There are more than a few deft politicians who, in Walsh's current situation, could un-stake their legacy from this bid and then spin it as saving the city from a boondoggle, while handily dismissing charges of cynicism or inconsistency. I do not claim to read this guy's mind, I don't know what he'll do. I'm just saying there are plenty of pols agile enough to pull that off without breaking a sweat.

I agree with you that this is not going away soon: if Walsh is going to throw them under the bus he'll set it up over time.
 
West said:
I think that refusing the IOC guarantee would make the bid DOA at the IOC, unless Paris and Hamburg (and whoever else bids) all do likewise.
Click to expand...

First of all, I think that if Boston (as the US bid city) were to refuse the guarantee, the public in Paris and Hamburg and Rome would demand that their cities do the same. It would change the status quo. Remember, Boston 2024 would still be able to claim indemnification from an insurance company the same way they can now - the IOC would theoretically be as safe as the City currently is.

It's not only the 2024 bid cities that I'm thinking of, though. If Boston's bid were rejected by the IOC solely on the basis that they refused to guarantee the overruns, that would be a pretty bald-faced admission by the IOC that they're trying to rip off the public wherever they go (they are, but they haven't had to openly admit it). Once that happens, forget about any US city ever bidding again until the policy changes - no San Francisco 2028, no Chicago 2032, no LA 2036.

That's a lot of money for the IOC to give up. Of course, it also relies on the USOC and citizens in the EU making a stand with us, but given the results of referenda in European countries recently I don't think it's too farfetched.
 
I'd keep an eye on the relationship between mayor and governor. The governor seems to be building bridges (not literally) with anyone and everyone and he seems to be lukewarm (at best) on the Olympics. If he feels he has the upper hand, maybe he'll be more strong in his opposition. Or, if the mayor annoys him or their relationship cools, maybe he'll just use his opposition as a power grab.

The only reason I even mention this is when they had the Seaport Square B&C groundbreaking, they weren't going to start the ceremony until Walsh showed up and he was at least a half hour wait, making Baker wait. Baker was on his way out the door (the tent) when Walsh finally showed.

That ain't good manners.
 
JohnAKeith said:
I'd keep an eye on the relationship between mayor and governor. The governor seems to be building bridges (not literally) with anyone and everyone and he seems to be lukewarm (at best) on the Olympics. If he feels he has the upper hand, maybe he'll be more strong in his opposition. Or, if the mayor annoys him or their relationship cools, maybe he'll just use his opposition as a power grab.

The only reason I even mention this is when they had the Seaport Square B&C groundbreaking, they weren't going to start the ceremony until Walsh showed up and he was at least a half hour wait, making Baker wait. Baker was on his way out the door (the tent) when Walsh finally showed.

That ain't good manners.
Click to expand...

What bridges do you think Baker is building? I'm not questioning, just curious. It seems like he took quite a hit with the snow, the same way the Olympics did.
 
If I am Mayor Walsh I am starting to bail from the 2024 ship right now. It's going to kill him in the next election. Let's be honest here, the people that vote are usually the most vocal and the most vocal voice for Boston 2024 besides the official Boston 2024 PR arm is the opposition.
 
I guess I was thinking about it as building a coalition of both Republican and Democratic voters and politicians.

I remember reading news reports (headlines, actually) before the election where he was spending more time in Boston's and other cities' neighborhoods (re: reaching out to voters in minority communities) and his support for increasing the Earned Income Credit - both things you'd expect from a Democrat more than a Republican. And, his administration just signed on as supporter of gay marriage in one of the cases before the US Supreme Court.

So, I think he's just being wise, trying to make people happy. I'm an unenrolled voter who tends to vote Democrat but I voted for him.

He's certainly not trying to run from the left as quick as he can, like Mitt Romney did.
 
The frustrating thing for me is that while I think it would be really cool to have the olympics in Boston, I also don't trust that the public wouldn't get stuck with the bill...we've seen it too many times over the course of history. Also frustrating is that if things like Red/Blue, NSRL and Urban Ring were already done (seeing as how they were proposed many, many years ago), a lot of us would consider Boston to be much more capable of winning and hosting. These projects have existed as concepts for decades, and if they had already been built I'd feel like we'd already have the infrastructure to readily support such a big event.
 
Equilibria said:
Most of those not expressing support are lukewarm - they were convinced away by the snow, and they can be brought back by some other event that changes the tide. The Globe ad will help. Refusing the IOC guarantee (or releasing a formal agreement for insurance) would help. Even agreeing to a referendum and making a clear effort to work with communities will help. Actually, releasing a formal agreement with an insurance company would get them to 50% tomorrow.
Click to expand...

They've now done one of these things. Let's see how it goes.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...?hootPostID=f111421fb25e656e1f15533e8fe14557#
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top