Boston 2024

[Equilibria]

I think he's fuming mad, and am not surprised that he is. the B2024 folks have been spending lots of quality time in Mayor Walsh's office and have visited Baker a few times. But Baker and DeLeo and Rosenberg control the purse strings that matter to B2024.

That's fine, but they'd be spending more quality time in his office if he'd stop being so passive-aggesively hostile toward the bid. It's worth pointing out that Davey is a former Patrick Administration official (and, like Walsh, is a Democrat), and Baker's been pretty hostile toward any of those that remained in their posts through the transition. It's absolutely true that Beacon Hill is the money that matters here, but it's also true that Mayor Walsh is the PR that matters. Cities bid for the Olympics, not states, and it's his face that needs to get plastered everywhere once this goes to the IOC.

I appreciate your parsing of Baker's comments. I get that he came into office and this hit him on the first day, but it's not like it came out of nowhere. It was well-known to those of us in the Boston planning world from November 2013, and it's been huge local news for a year now. Baker was asked about his support for the Olympics during his campaign, and he punted every one of those questions. The January timeframe for a USOC decision was well-known as well.

Baker's being adequately prepared to take his job should have included a briefing from the Boston 2024 leadership at the time. He should have demanded it then if they didn't offer. He didn't. When the bid was released to the public, he didn't even read the public version, much less ask for the non-public version (another thing he could and should have done - I'm sure Mayor Walsh had it). Reading the bid book might have provided him with some interesting information like, say, that they wanted to use the BCEC expansion for Volleyball. Perhaps he could then have considered that context before he publicly flogged that project.

You can place the blame on B24 for not being engaged enough with state legislators, and that's fair criticism. It's also true that the Governor's Office has shown no outward interest in knowing anything about the bid or engaging with it in any way. I mean, he didn't even have to read the document to know the BCEC thing - he could have just looked at the pictures.

 

[West]

That's fine, but they'd be spending more quality time in his office if he'd stop being so passive-aggesively hostile toward the bid. .... It's also true that the Governor's Office has shown no outward interest in knowing anything about the bid or engaging with it in any way.

I'd agree with you unreservedly on these points, if I were to take the Olympics out of context. I think where I'm differing is in how I put it into context. I have stark differences of opinion with Baker on tax policy, a blend of differences and agreements on what he wants to do with the T, and I could go on with other digressions off topic. Suffice it to say that with everything that's on his plate, I would want him to have the Olympics pretty far down the priority list. Maybe not last, but down there. And I'll opine that with my own political leanings, I'm not highly optimistic that he's going to do well with the items up higher on his priority list, but that's again something for another thread.

So I see your point on his passivity but it doesn't bother me as much, since I want him doing other things more than I want him doing this. If the B2024 folks had wanted him to shift to a more active mode sooner than now, I see it as having been more on them to go and pitch it harder and convince him it would have been worth it.

Ah well, Baker has now quite clearly staked out end of June as when he wants a "real" plan. If B2024 delivers something with more substance, and better substance, he won't be able to stay passive any longer without looking foolish. He's also been promising a consultant study by a similar time frame, and hasn't selected the consultant yet, unless I missed something. I hope that report will have more substance than that set of power points the other commission provided about the T.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

And to be fair...Baker and his 5 predecessors were always lodged firmly in the #3 power position statewide with the Legislature's boot pressed firmly against neck. Executive priorities of course have to be run through the Executive, but at the end of the day B24's efficacy at playing the back-room is going to be judged way moreso on how much hay they can make with DeLeo and Rosenberg. And, functionally, more like DeLeo!...and Rosenberg. Since this is all about who controls the purse-strings.

If DeLeo doesn't give a shit about someone's cause...that's it, you don't get shit. He doesn't care if it swings a statewide poll, because the only polls that matters to him are 1) whether he can get the automatic 5000 re-election votes from Winthrop every 2 years (of course), 2) how many of his sheep care enough about their careers and campaign donations to ever want to see the light of a plum committee assignment for the rest of their careers (of course), and 3) maintaining his dominance as the state's #1 recipient of campaign donations year after year (until the inevitable perp walk upon leaving office...of course).

You have to make him care opportunistically about the Olympics like he did casino gambling.


I feel dirty even thinking this, but: it almost matters more who Pagliuca brings onboard in terms of former legislative hacks and out-of-state donors a la the casinos than it does former Executive wonks and local titans of industry when it comes to buttering up the right bread. B24 needs Baker to move some transactional paper on their behalf, but doesn't much need him for enthusiasm's sake or support from the bully pulpit. They get nowhere without an obvious tie-in to something self-serving Mr. Speaker.


That's honestly a bit of a blank spot in all this, especially as far as what the news media is focused on. Are they working the power structure of Legislature well enough? Is this somewhat over-focus on what Baker thinks because of the absence of much interest in the way of Legislative power-brokers, including Mr. Speakah's and Mr. President's chief deputies? I'd like to see more coverage of it, because if there's any dependency on public money that's the only means of moving the resources. Not Baker (who's no dummy when it comes to expectations going into the job of what he can and can't accomplish amid that power structure, since he has prior bureaucratic experience living at the hands of that power structure).

 

[tangent]

Not being snarky, but genuinely curious. Is this something that's been discussed officially at all? Or just a pet project? I've seen you beating this drum for a while now.

Honestly I want to see Boston 2024 come together and I feel Widett for the Olympic stadium will make the bid fail either on the irrational expense side or because it won't compare favorably to other Olympic stadium either in the past or in competitor bids. I'd like to see them formally explore other options.

 

[tangent]

The only person with the convening authority to get Mass DoT, UMass, BCEC and Mass Port on board with planning process is Gov. Baker.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The only person with the convening authority to get Mass DoT, UMass, BCEC and Mass Port on board with planning process is Gov. Baker.

Get them on-board to do what? Talk at-length about how they need public financing to do execute their end of the plan?


I wonder who holds all the leverage in that conversation? Hint: it's not one of the people in that room.

 

[stellarfun]

There are only three explanations for Baker saying -- in the context of firing the convention board and shunting the expansion to a siding -- he didn't know BCEC expansion was a featured part of the bid.

1.) He is not telling the truth.

2.) His staff knew, but didn't tell him. In that case, they're incompetent.

3.) His staff didn't know. In that case also, they're incompetent.

 

[tangent]

Get them on-board to do what? Talk at-length about how they need public financing to do execute their end of the plan?

To pull together a viable plan that minimizes public financing.

 

[tangent]

There are only three explanations for Baker saying -- in the context of firing the convention board and shunting the expansion to a siding -- he didn't know BCEC expansion was a featured part of the bid.

1.) He is not telling the truth.

2.) His staff knew, but didn't tell him. In that case, they're incompetent.

3.) His staff didn't know. In that case also, they're incompetent.

It really isn't that big of a deal. A relatively small indoor volleyball venue. Play it at Conte Forum at BC. That is the alternative specified in the bid. Heck you probably could also do beach volleyball at Alumni Stadium or elsewhere at BC to keep volleyball all together.

Beach volleyball at Boston Common was a much more prominently featured part of the bid and there is no way in hell that is going to happen based on the opposition.

The only people with reason to attack Baker on the BCEC expansion are the unions who are pissed about the delayed construction jobs. But if I am right and they can adapt the BCEC plan to help the bid then it could be a short term delay with a longer term benefit.

 

[tklalmighty]

It really isn't that big of a deal. A relatively small indoor volleyball venue. Play it at Conte Forum at BC. That is the alternative specified in the bid. Heck you probably could also do beach volleyball at Alumni Stadium or elsewhere at BC to keep volleyball all together.

Beach volleyball at Boston Common was a much more prominently featured part of the bid and there is no way in hell that is going to happen based on the opposition.

The only people with reason to attack Baker on the BCEC expansion are the unions who are pissed about the delayed construction jobs. But if I am right and they can adapt the BCEC plan to help the bid then it could be a short term delay with a longer term benefit.

Agreed, it most certainly isn't too big of a deal.

I've maintained that it would be preferable to utilize Conte Forum and Alumni Stadium in some capacity, and it would be a major resource waste not to. (That said, Atlanta did not use Bobby Dodd Stadium, so there would be precedent, albeit not necessarily a positive one, for not using a similarly-sized stadium.) I believe IOC standards require/suggest that a 15k seater be used for indoor volleyball, so that would be one (perhaps the only) negative to using Conte.

 

[tklalmighty]

Additionally, I don't think anyone here has mentioned that some of the venues that are mentioned in the leaked bid book could have been used more efficiently. The bid book lists the following venue-sport pairings:

Hall A - Gymnastics (rhythmic), Wrestling
Hall B - Judo, Taekwondo
Hall C - Table Tennis
Hall D - Volleyball (indoor)
Agganis Arena - Badminton
"BU Arena" - Handball
TD Garden - Gymnastics (artistic/rhythmic), Basketball (finals)
Tsongas Arena - Boxing

Firstly, it is worth noting that there is still no venue listed for the basketball preliminaries. Secondly, the IOC Technical Manual on Venues suggests that venues could pair badminton and rhythmic gymnastics, judo and wrestling, and table tennis and taekwondo. Thus, I submit the following pairings:

Hall A - Judo, Wrestling
Hall B - Table Tennis, Taekwondo
Hall C - Gymnastics (rhythmic), Badminton
"BU Arena" - Volleyball (indoor)
Agganis Arena - Handball (prelims)
Conte Forum - Basketball (prelims), Handball (finals)
TD Garden - Gymnastics (artistic/rhythmic), Basketball (finals)
Matthews Arena - Boxing

This brings boxing back into the city (and to a venue with a strong professional boxing history). Also it eliminates the need for either "BU Arena" or Hall D, which should lower costs some. (I am interested to see how they plan to fit 10k people in the "BU Arena," which is slated to be located where Walter Brown Arena currently is.)

An additional consolidation would combine the velodrome with one of the tennis show courts, similar to Hisense Arena in Melbourne. A 5000 seat velodrome with removable seats on the track increase capacity to between 7000 and 10000 seats for tennis, which would be large enough to be the center court. It could work.

One final idea: archery at Fenway. It doesn't require the entire seating capacity but the field is large enough for competition, and the temporary venue at MIT would be eliminated. As long as baseball and softball don't return this may actually be feasible.

 

[stellarfun]

tkalmighty, thanks for reminding everyone that there were/are six sports scheduled for the BCEC.

What seems to be lost on most people as they suggest moving venues here and there is that the initial Boston bid did not identify sites for practice facilities. I assume venues not listed were/are being held in reserve for practice. I understand that Boston 2024 has told some communities that teams can start arriving up to six weeks before the start of competition in a particular sport, for practice and acclimation purposes.

What is also lost on most people is that for fall intercollegiate sports, practice begins in late July, with competition beginning in late August. Boston is relying heavily on college/university venues, but what happens to the intercollegiate sports that play and practice on those facilities? Where is BC going to practice for its football season if Alumni stadium is being used for the Olympics? The intercollegiate sports that would typically be practicing on-campus all of August are football, M/W soccer, field hockey, M/W tennis, M water polo, rugby.

And not all venues are equal; can't use the typical high school court for basketball practice as its significantly smaller than a NBA or international court. And oh yes, it shouldn't be a shock that most Div I men's and women's basketball teams are on campus during the summer doing, guess what?

 

[tklalmighty]

Good point, and I know I've tried to keep that in account. When I proposed Matthews Arena for boxing, I was also assuming the Reggie Lewis Center would probably serve as its training facility. I've been straight up assuming the facilities at UMass Boston, MIT, Tufts, Bentley, and Brandeis will be used as the main practice facilities for multiple sports - which is why I was surprised they chose MIT for archery.

If the five aforementioned universities are used for practice facilities, there would only be a need for a small handful of high schools, if any; and I would be surprised if they would have to be used for sports with more space requirements. Brockton and Newton North come to mind as potential high schools that could work, but there may be others

As for collegiate sports, I can't say I know how Atlanta managed it with all the collegiate venues they used. Do recall that Georgia Tech was used as the Olympic village, so none of its facilities were available for Tech's teams. If Tech was able to work around it, Boston's universities should also be able to do so.

For certain sports like equestrian, rowing, judo, and weightlifting, either the competition venue will also be the practice location, or practice facilities will likely be nearby on site. So far as I know, the warmup and practice areas for the BCEC events should all be located at the BCEC. For equestrian, I don't think any past Olympics have used a second site for practice.

 

[stellarfun]

thlalmighty, I have little doubt that there are enough practice venues at colleges and universities to be found, and Baker now seems to think that the Boston organizers are moving away from the 'walkable' Olympics, and more of the venues will be further afield. For example, the DCU Center in Worcester, seating 14,800, was not on the original list. And it would be symbolic to have some basketball played in Springfield. There is the Dunkin Donuts center in Providence., which seats 12,400. Etc.

_______________________
And the organizers need to be more up-front about where all the security personnel will be housed. Its not enough to leave the page blank, and fob it off to the Federal government to figure out. London had a security force of 40,000; for the recent World Cup in Brazil, the security personnel numbered 150,000. For Sochi, the estimates were nearly 100,000. About half of London's security force were members of the British armed forces.

From the initial sketches and several of the venue locations, it doesn't seem as if security was given much thought. For example, for a stadium at Widett Circle, the Feds will likely give Boston several choices: close the expressway entirely;, or construct a high blast wall along the east side of the expressway to obstruct view of the stadium; or prohibit trucks, buses, vans, and also line the east lane with semi trailers, again to obstruct views and provide a blast curtain.

 

[tangent]

From the initial sketches and several of the venue locations, it doesn't seem as if security was given much thought. For example, for a stadium at Widett Circle, the Feds will likely give Boston several choices: close the expressway entirely;, or construct a high blast wall along the east side of the expressway to obstruct view of the stadium; or prohibit trucks, buses, vans, and also line the east lane with semi trailers, again to obstruct views and provide a blast curtain.

That was down on my list on the con side. Expressway would be closed for at least the opening and closing ceremonies if the stadium is at Widett.

 

[JumboBuc]

Additionally, I don't think anyone here has mentioned that some of the venues that are mentioned in the leaked bid book could have been used more efficiently. The bid book lists the following venue-sport pairings:

Hall A - Gymnastics (rhythmic), Wrestling
Hall B - Judo, Taekwondo
Hall C - Table Tennis
Hall D - Volleyball (indoor)
Agganis Arena - Badminton
"BU Arena" - Handball
TD Garden - Gymnastics (artistic/rhythmic), Basketball (finals)
Tsongas Arena - Boxing

Firstly, it is worth noting that there is still no venue listed for the basketball preliminaries. Secondly, the IOC Technical Manual on Venues suggests that venues could pair badminton and rhythmic gymnastics, judo and wrestling, and table tennis and taekwondo. Thus, I submit the following pairings:

Hall A - Judo, Wrestling
Hall B - Table Tennis, Taekwondo
Hall C - Gymnastics (rhythmic), Badminton
"BU Arena" - Volleyball (indoor)
Agganis Arena - Handball (prelims)
Conte Forum - Basketball (prelims), Handball (finals)
TD Garden - Gymnastics (artistic/rhythmic), Basketball (finals)
Matthews Arena - Boxing

This brings boxing back into the city (and to a venue with a strong professional boxing history). Also it eliminates the need for either "BU Arena" or Hall D, which should lower costs some. (I am interested to see how they plan to fit 10k people in the "BU Arena," which is slated to be located where Walter Brown Arena currently is.)

An additional consolidation would combine the velodrome with one of the tennis show courts, similar to Hisense Arena in Melbourne. A 5000 seat velodrome with removable seats on the track increase capacity to between 7000 and 10000 seats for tennis, which would be large enough to be the center court. It could work.

One final idea: archery at Fenway. It doesn't require the entire seating capacity but the field is large enough for competition, and the temporary venue at MIT would be eliminated. As long as baseball and softball don't return this may actually be feasible.

The staging of the boxing competition in Lowell strikes me as one of the bid's best venue decisions, given the history of the sport in that city. Of all the pitches to move sports to venues outside of Boston, boxing/rowing in Lowell and sailing in Newport seem like the most sensible. Those cities have the appropriate venues and proximity to Boston that Springfield and Holyoke lack for basketball and volleyball.

The temporary archery venue at MIT would be pretty minimal and the idea seems to be a favorite of the bid committee.

And the organizers need to be more up-front about where all the security personnel will be housed. Its not enough to leave the page blank, and fob it off to the Federal government to figure out. London had a security force of 40,000; for the recent World Cup in Brazil, the security personnel numbered 150,000. For Sochi, the estimates were nearly 100,000. About half of London's security force were members of the British armed forces.

From the initial sketches and several of the venue locations, it doesn't seem as if security was given much thought. For example, for a stadium at Widett Circle, the Feds will likely give Boston several choices: close the expressway entirely;, or construct a high blast wall along the east side of the expressway to obstruct view of the stadium; or prohibit trucks, buses, vans, and also line the east lane with semi trailers, again to obstruct views and provide a blast curtain.

Couldn't a couple Naval ships in the harbor house the majority of the Federal security personnel brought in for the Olympics?

 

[tklalmighty]

thlalmighty, I have little doubt that there are enough practice venues at colleges and universities to be found, and Baker now seems to think that the Boston organizers are moving away from the 'walkable' Olympics, and more of the venues will be further afield. For example, the DCU Center in Worcester, seating 14,800, was not on the original list. And it would be symbolic to have some basketball played in Springfield. There is the Dunkin Donuts center in Providence., which seats 12,400. Etc.

The staging of the boxing competition in Lowell strikes me as one of the bid's best venue decisions, given the history of the sport in that city. Of all the pitches to move sports to venues outside of Boston, boxing/rowing in Lowell and sailing in Newport seem like the most sensible. Those cities have the appropriate venues and proximity to Boston that Springfield and Holyoke lack for basketball and volleyball.

The temporary archery venue at MIT would be pretty minimal and the idea seems to be a favorite of the bid committee.

In my opinion, the compact games concept was one of the best selling points so to see the organizers move away from it disappoints me some. I do like the idea of some basketball in Springfield, but along the compact games sentiment I think the history would not necessarily outweigh the distance. I must admit I'm not too aware of how boxing history in Lowell compares with that in Boston, but if it's a significant difference then with rowing already scheduled for Lowell, Tsongas should be a good enough venue. The archery competition would do well at MIT.

And the organizers need to be more up-front about where all the security personnel will be housed. Its not enough to leave the page blank, and fob it off to the Federal government to figure out. London had a security force of 40,000; for the recent World Cup in Brazil, the security personnel numbered 150,000. For Sochi, the estimates were nearly 100,000. About half of London's security force were members of the British armed forces.

From the initial sketches and several of the venue locations, it doesn't seem as if security was given much thought. For example, for a stadium at Widett Circle, the Feds will likely give Boston several choices: close the expressway entirely;, or construct a high blast wall along the east side of the expressway to obstruct view of the stadium; or prohibit trucks, buses, vans, and also line the east lane with semi trailers, again to obstruct views and provide a blast curtain.

That was down on my list on the con side. Expressway would be closed for at least the opening and closing ceremonies if the stadium is at Widett.

Definitely worth at least some thought before they submit the bid. I know venues have been placed near highways in the recent past, however I'm not sure how security worked for all of it. I highly doubt they will stop 93 during the games (or Soldier Field Road, which may pose similar concerns), but they may enforce a no-stop zone.

On a tangent, does anyone know of any statistics on what percentage of the tourism generated by the Olympics have been local, as opposed to national or international? I'm curious how far fans will go to experience the games.

 

[Equilibria]

Definitely worth at least some thought before they submit the bid. I know venues have been placed near highways in the recent past, however I'm not sure how security worked for all of it. I highly doubt they will stop 93 during the games (or Soldier Field Road, which may pose similar concerns), but they may enforce a no-stop zone.

FWIW, Atlanta's Olympic Stadium was directly adjacent to a freeway, and a quick Google search didn't give me any reference to I-85 being closed.

 

[Tombstoner]

FWIW, Atlanta's Olympic Stadium was directly adjacent to a freeway, and a quick Google search didn't give me any reference to I-85 being closed.

I lived there at the time; it wasn't.

 

[tangent]

FWIW, Atlanta's Olympic Stadium was directly adjacent to a freeway, and a quick Google search didn't give me any reference to I-85 being closed.

Atlanta's stadium was/is over 300 feet from the highway. And a 100 yard perimeter is what they want. Lucky to get 100 feet from the highway with a stadium at Widett.