Boston 2024

Czsz, you beat me to a point I was going to make.

When considering the US, Europeans think very highly of NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc. and think very poorly of areas like Dallas and Atlanta even though they are major metropolitan areas. Heck, we think very poorly of Dallas and Atlanta. I don't think we'll ever see another Olympics there and in similar areas. The best bets are the northern cities.
 
Still asserting that it should be 'Boston' but then really be spread across the region. This should reduce the amount of "decay" post-games to something each segment of the region can handle and can result in a massive boost in transportation. I'm thinking along the lines of Boston being the center, with spokes as far as Providence, Worcester, Lowell/Nashua/Manchester, and perhaps even Portland. There should be enough in Boston proper so that we can milk out some urban rail projects, but also benefit would lie in upgrades to the Providence, Worcester, and Lowell (extended to NH?). These are not just some suburban-hick-yuppie commuter lines like the Old Colony or Franklin lines, but are actual intercity arteries.
 
Dallas has very little stature outside the US. It has population and economy enough to support the games from our perspective, but probably not from anyone else's. Tulsa is an absolute joke.

By the way, saying the IOC prefers "big" cities doesn't really account for the relative size of "big" cities in different countries. Barcelona is smaller than Boston, for instance, but is the Second City of Spain, and Athens is smaller too. Sure, the '08, '12, and '16 games went to megacities, but that doesn't mean they all have to.

SF has already ruled out a bid, I think, in response to their bad experience with the America's Cup. They also have no viable stadium site, unless they were to renovate Candlestick or replace it with a temporary stadium. The new stadia at Stanford and Santa Clara were both considered as possible conversions from an Olympic Stadium, but were built permanently when the bid was rejected.

With that in mind, I think it's LA, Philly, and Boston if Boston chooses to go for it, and given that LA has had it before (they only got it twice because they were doing the IOC a favor) and that Boston has a huge outpouring of support at the moment, a Boston bid might actually be favored in that bunch. The IOC will never go for Dallas. Never.

BostonUrbEx said:
Still asserting that it should be 'Boston' but then really be spread across the region. This should reduce the amount of "decay" post-games to something each segment of the region can handle and can result in a massive boost in transportation. I'm thinking along the lines of Boston being the center, with spokes as far as Providence, Worcester, Lowell/Nashua/Manchester, and perhaps even Portland. There should be enough in Boston proper so that we can milk out some urban rail projects, but also benefit would lie in upgrades to the Providence, Worcester, and Lowell (extended to NH?). These are not just some suburban-hick-yuppie commuter lines like the Old Colony or Franklin lines, but are actual intercity arteries.
Click to expand...

Given the ability of likely competitor bids in the Middle East and other places to build massive "Olympic Cities" that co-locate everything, any bid that inconvenient sounding would be at a serious disadvantage. Locate some outdoorsy stuff outside the city sure, but Olympic tourists like to be able to watch 3 or 4 sports in a day. Separating Handball and Beach Volleyball by 100 miles isn't viable.
 
I think Boston has the following traits in its favor when considering it for an Olympic bid:
- Nicknamed the 'City of Champions' recently as our four major sports teams won their respective world championships in the course of 7 years.
- Exceptionally well-regarded town in the international community, with tens of thousands of international students moving to the city every year to attend Boston colleges/universities.
- Most sustainable/inexpensive development opportunity: cost to house olympic athletes and media could be driven down significantly by partnering with local colleges to bunk them in empty dorms over the summer months.
- Beautiful waterfront location (a lot sexier aerial shots than Tulsa or Dallas).
- Transit infrastructure; we moan and groan about the "T", but the reality is that to accommodate an Olympic-sized event would require some system upgrades vs. a completely new transit network.
- The Boston Marathon bombings: I think the city's handling of these events and exceptional medical response were demonstrative of the kind of leadership and organization you would hope for in the midst of such a high profile sporting event.
- Existing/New Facilities ==> New Balance HQ's Olympic-quality track facility, Fenway Park for soccer, various sporting facilities at local colleges.

A few months ago I was at a presentation for the New Balance HQ, sitting among many local business professionals, and I asked the presenter a question about the flexibility of their site to accommodate olympic facilities in the event Boston was able to land a 2024 bid. I honestly was expecting laughs from everyone in the room, but their reaction to the question was quite the opposite: local real estate experts were very interested in the idea that Olympic quality developments could be constructed somewhere in the city, and the New Balance presenter answered in such a way that sounds as if they're open to that kind of development in Brighton if the demand exists for it down the road.
 
When considering the US, Europeans think very highly of NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc. and think very poorly of areas like Dallas and Atlanta even though they are major metropolitan areas.
Click to expand...

Weren't they pretty happy with Los Angeles? Big city, but sprawling, with weak (though growing and improving) mass transit.
 
czsz said:
The IOC are a pretentious bunch of royal twats. They love cosmopolitan metropoles or scenic locales; they look for the kind of host that would make the cover spread in Travel + Leisure. They've dropped endless hints they would love to see an SF Olympiad. It's an open secret they hated Atlanta. I can't ever see them going for Dallas, no matter what minor points can be marshaled in its favor - and "it'll inspire transit in the US south" isn't the greatest one. Also, don't forget most of these people are European, and they still associate Texas with Bush and everything poisonously unilateralist about the US - not exactly the best memory to pair with the Olympic ideal of international comingling.
Click to expand...

You are assigning far to much credit to the IOC for their motivations. They are motivated by one thing - payoffs. These people make Beacon Hill look like a bunch of Mormons. If you want the games you pay.
 
When Philly finally marshals all it has going for it, it will be a perfect summer venue:
1) non-tropical weather
2) 32 million rich people within 2 hours travel (to sell out tickets for obscure events)
3) Energy wealth (like Dubai, Sochi)
4) International airport
5) Comprehensive transit
6) Historic/quaint location shots
7) Vacant lots and Universities to host facilities
 
While I think Philly would make a good option, I don't think it would beat LA, Chicago, or Baltimore/Washington, if the latter two jump into the ring. LA is a very well-known, successful host (like London, or Tokyo), DC has more international appeal and Chicago is already known on the bidding circuit - successive bids tend to give cities a better shot. (I don't think Boston would beat LA/DC/Chicago either.)

You are assigning far to much credit to the IOC for their motivations. They are motivated by one thing - payoffs. These people make Beacon Hill look like a bunch of Mormons. If you want the games you pay.
Click to expand...

If you mean they're corrupt, it was a huge problem in the past, but new rules make this less of an issue. BTW, one of the reasons boring, provincial Atlanta was ever awarded the games was because of bribes it was able to funnel to the IOC prior to those rules being instituted (same with Denver stealing the 1976 winter games from Quebec City when it wasn't even subsequently able to host them).
 
Semass said:
You are assigning far to much credit to the IOC for their motivations. They are motivated by one thing - payoffs. These people make Beacon Hill look like a bunch of Mormons. If you want the games you pay.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Two syllables: Sochi.

The IOC's only competition for sleaze is FIFA, whose own "Sochi moment" is the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar. (Awarding the 2018 World Cup to Russia is also monumentally absurd, but to its credit at least Russia isn't a postage-stamp sized patch of massively hot desert bidding to host a huge event that usually takes place across 10-12 venues.)
 
I agree that the IOC is irreparably corrupt. Your choice is either to bribe them directly or to dangle larger legal TV rights payments (which the IOC can divvy as corruptly as they like).

The honest venues' only leverage is whether the US Networks is willing to get into a bidding frenzy on the US Broadcast rights.

And the US Networks get into that bidding frenzy in only 2 situations:
1) Local interest (a US/Canadian host city, or London, which is practically American)
2) Events live in prime time US 7pm to 10pm
 
And, tell me why, again, we should have any interest whatsoever in spending ridiculous sums of money on open bribes even before the massive cost of actually hosting the Olympics?

Hell, Dallas is probably better equipped than us in THAT department, too.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
And, tell me why, again, we should have any interest whatsoever in spending ridiculous sums of money on open bribes even before the massive cost of actually hosting the Olympics?

Hell, Dallas is probably better equipped than us in THAT department, too.
Click to expand...

We're not asking that. We're asked to consider whether the games can be a good deal in the econ development department. For this, it does seem that the winter olympics work better from a lasting benefits of leisure-tourism development standpoint, and that it is harder to justify (re-use) the crazy-specialized Summer facilities like a stadium-natatorium.

As for bribes, you wont/can't be asked to pay for that and the honest souls' hope for American cities is that the US TV Networks will stump up large enough legal sums of broadcast-rights money to offset a lack of bribes offered.
 
Ron Newman said:
Weren't they pretty happy with Los Angeles? Big city, but sprawling, with weak (though growing and improving) mass transit.
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with urban planning - no Olympic judge will care about what a city looks like. LA is LA. Dallas is nowhere to anyone not from the US or involved in the oil industry. Atlanta was the same in '96, but Turner willed it and paid the right people off.

czsz, you're naming cities which either have not expressed an interest in bidding or, like Chicago, have decided they're sick of the process and have already ruled it out. Chicago got robbed of the 2016 games by the IOC's internal politics and have no interest in trying again. Washington (let's not pretend it's Baltimore they'd be selling) doesn't really have the institutional warewithal to run an Olympics due to its weird territory/city/semi-state thing and lack of a state government to back it financially. Not to mention that while a US city is palatable to the international community, DC itself might not be (as a symbol of Iraq, imperialism, etc).

If Philly and LA are the two that have officially begun exploring the idea, then I doubt that number will rise too much, and Boston's got an excellent chance. I don't think LA would get the games only 40 years after their last hosting opportunity. Philly's a good candidate, but Boston would be at least on even ground with it, since our international profile is better.

CBS: What, the bribes we pay to Vertex to go to Fan Pier or Millennium Partners to build at DTX are OK, but bribes to IOC officials (which would likely be paid by corporate interests, not by taxpayers) to make South Station expansion, A/B reconfiguration, or the N/S Rail Link happen aren't? No one is advocating wasting money, but I believe there is a way to do this properly that Athens and Beijing simply didn't bother to find.
 
Arlington said:
We're not asking that. We're asked to consider whether the games can be a good deal in the econ development department. For this, it does seem that the winter olympics work better from a lasting benefits of leisure-tourism development standpoint, and that it is harder to justify (re-use) the crazy-specialized Summer facilities like a stadium-natatorium.

As for bribes, you wont/can't be asked to pay for that and the honest souls' hope for American cities is that the US TV Networks will stump up large enough legal sums of broadcast-rights money to offset a lack of bribes offered.
Click to expand...

Except I think you are asking that. Whether or not the games are a good deal in the economic development department boils down to what we get as a result of them being hosted here, and how much we had to spend to bring the Olympics here.

The very real possibility that nobody is entertaining is that we do spend the money but someone out-bribes us, and we're left with nothing. That is, per definition, a waste of money.

And here's the rub: I don't care where the bribe money comes from. It makes no difference to me whether it comes from TV network executives, some corrupt fund/trust, or if Eileen Donoghue and the gnag of politicians who passed the bill to form the commission to study whether or not we want to partake in the Greatest Show on Earth start going door-to-door hitting up residents and workers in Boston for the bribe money $5 at a time. (Whoops, sorry, that would be a "donation" to the charity Olympics movement. Right?) I'll still feel that I was asked to help pay a bribe either way.

Equilibria said:
CBS: What, the bribes we pay to Vertex to go to Fan Pier or Millennium Partners to build at DTX are OK, but bribes to IOC officials (which would likely be paid by corporate interests, not by taxpayers) to make South Station expansion, A/B reconfiguration, or the N/S Rail Link happen aren't? No one is advocating wasting money, but I believe there is a way to do this properly that Athens and Beijing simply didn't bother to find.
Click to expand...

Morally and ethically? No, I don't think those bribes are OK either. But at least in the case of Vertex and Millennium, we actually get something for our money. If we bribe someone to build here or move there, generally speaking it actually happens.

Make no mistake. We wouldn't be bribing the IOC officials to make South Station expansion (happening anyway) or the N/S Rail Link (which is non-optional in the long term and will happen eventually anyway) happen, we'd be bribing them to name Boston the location of the 2024 Olympics, which would then translate into additional pressure for the South Station expansion and N/S Rail Link. And if the IOC takes our bribe but someone else pays them more, then it's "better luck in 2028!" and we lose everything. That doesn't make the expansion projects more attractive, in fact, it's likely to result in all of those expansion projects being summarily tabled... again.

Tying the Olympics to economic development is great, except for if you stop and think that the bribe money could be better spent elsewhere and that most of these projects are going to happen eventually anyway with or without the Olympics. It's a double-edged sword - sure, it can accelerate 2040 plans into 2024 plans, but it can just as easily hurt us if we spend the money but the benefits go to some other city.

So if LA, or Philly, or Washington, or Dallas want to spend the money on the 'right' people and risk getting burned like Chicago, I'm saying that we can't possibly get out of their way fast enough.
 
Equilibria said:
It's got nothing to do with urban planning - no Olympic judge will care about what a city looks like. LA is LA. Dallas is nowhere to anyone not from the US or involved in the oil industry. Atlanta was the same in '96, but Turner willed it and paid the right people off.
Click to expand...

Untrue. Urban planning and "what a city looks like" are arguably two of the most important parts of any bid - the technical side (i.e. transport, planning of the location of facilities, etc.) and the ability to wow the IOC with compelling images and visits.

czsz, you're naming cities which either have not expressed an interest in bidding or, like Chicago, have decided they're sick of the process and have already ruled it out. Chicago got robbed of the 2016 games by the IOC's internal politics and have no interest in trying again. Washington (let's not pretend it's Baltimore they'd be selling) doesn't really have the institutional warewithal to run an Olympics due to its weird territory/city/semi-state thing and lack of a state government to back it financially. Not to mention that while a US city is palatable to the international community, DC itself might not be (as a symbol of Iraq, imperialism, etc).
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the USOC would like Chicago and even NY to throw in bids again. I don't think they have a chance with NY, but Chicago might reconsider. It has a chip on its shoulder about its national and international status and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that successive bids eventually succeed - Pyeongchang was legendary for bidding year after year after year before winning.

DC's lack of state support is a good point, but I'd imagine the games would be regional enough that Maryland (this is what Baltimore has to offer) and Virginia would pitch in (and maybe the federal government). It's a surprisingly cosmopolitan city given the number of embassies and IGOs like the World Bank and IMF and I don't think it'd be that freighted with "imperialism" connotations (anywhere in Texas or the south would be worse as far as Europeans are concerned) but you may be right that other US cities have the advantage in avoiding that stigma more.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Except I think you are asking that. Whether or not the games are a good deal in the economic development department boils down to what we get as a result of them being hosted here, and how much we had to spend to bring the Olympics here.

The very real possibility that nobody is entertaining is that we do spend the money but someone out-bribes us, and we're left with nothing. That is, per definition, a waste of money.
Click to expand...
I'd like to pause and ask what kind of expenses you're envisioning when you write "we do spend the money"...The reality is that cities don't actually start building anything until after they win their bid. Bids cost only some planning and committee dollars until then, and mostly just integrate plans that are already on the shelf (for Boston, you'd dust off *plans* for the N/S Rail Link, the Soccer stadium in Somerville, and call NorthPoint plans the "Olympic Village" and say 'we'll build this if we win'). Mostly the costs of bidding are the costs of a stapler big enough to tack together the concept art for everyone's pet projects.
 
Arlington said:
I'd like to pause and ask what kind of expenses you're envisioning when you write "we do spend the money"...The reality is that cities don't actually start building anything until after they win their bid. Bids cost only some planning and committee dollars until then, and mostly just integrate plans that are already on the shelf (for Boston, you'd dust off *plans* for the N/S Rail Link, the Soccer stadium in Somerville, and call NorthPoint plans the "Olympic Village" and say 'we'll build this if we win'). Mostly the costs of bidding are the costs of a stapler big enough to tack together the concept art for everyone's pet projects.
Click to expand...

There's a $10 Million fee just to enter the running, plus the cost of the promotional effort in general, and the aforementioned bribes.

Is it MUCH money in the scheme of things? No, not really. But spending $5 on this is $4.98 too much, in my opinion.

Even "small" sums of money like $10 million - that's $10 million that wouldn't need to be covered by excessive and intrusive advertisements posted all over the system, $10 million more that needs to be raised or found for the next project, or $10 million that could have gone a long way towards keeping the interiors of some stations much cleaner than they are today.

And, again, "we'll build this if we win" can just as easily turn into "we didn't win, so forget all of this." Better not to get involved.
 
I assume some of that $10m, at least, would come from corporate sponsors, if not most of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top