Boston 2024

Semass said:
An easier way to save taxpayer money would be to drop the whole damn bid now and let somebody else deal with the mess.
Click to expand...

Easier yes, but I like the Olympics. At least in the ideal. The world brought together for peaceful competition even in the midst of seemingly perpetual war. A world sharing in the spectacle and triumph of our best athletes of almost every sport. Inspiration to millions of young people to compete and participate in sports. A celebration of a particular city and its place in the world.


Don't try to sell me the Olympics as an economic development project. And for all its good don't try to justify tax dollars going towards it. There will always be higher priorities for tax dollars than the Olympics. And better ways to spur economic development.

The Olympics are about the Olympics.

Don't go broke chasing gold when almost nobody wins. But that doesn't mean we can't have a good time. Have some stories to tell the grandkids. And put together good games worthy of the tradition.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Umm...all of that would've been completed by the time the Megaplex opened. Nothing has changed. And, yes, Southie has a vested interest in people shortcutting up Summer St.
Click to expand...

It wasn't complete at the time of opposition to the proposal.

And at the moment we are talking about a temporary stadium so closing Summer St for a few days. Not a replacement for Fenway Park, which itself made me opposed to the Mega stadium complex.
 
Harambee Park is an interesting choice. It will be a jam for vehicle access, as it's not really near a major highway, but from a walkability standpoint, Talbot Ave. station is right there on the Fairmount Line which hopefully will have DMUs running on it by 2024... Great location to place these venues which will certainly be able to remain as legacy community amenities.
 
Equilibria said:
Yes, renders like this for all venues, please.

Also, I notice in the twitter comments that this is a cricket field. If you look on Google Earth, it is very much a cricket field. I do not see a cricket field in the render, I see a track and a football field. Might want to get that worked on, unless the neighbors hate cricket.

Also, this site is wonderful for transit if you assume Blue Hill Ave. BRT and Farimount DMUs. Without them...
Click to expand...

In the "legacy" photo, I think there would be some flexibility to do something instead of the 4 soccer fields, so I imagine a cricket field could fit. I feel like the soccer fields may have been used more to show the space available.
 
Jon Keller interviewed Mayor Walsh for a piece that will air Sunday Keller asserts in this preview posting that Walsh is now saying he will not sign a host city guarantee:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/06/...mountable-hurdle-in-boston-2024-olympics-bid/

Philip Hersh's interpretation is that this will be a drop dead elimination point with the IOC:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ely-end-2024-olympic-bid-20150611-column.html

Hersh links also to a Boston Mag article from a few days ago questioning whether anyone at City Hall ever read the entire bid document (with all redacted sections included). The article's argument is that Walsh has said his legal department read it completely, but the legal department has not released the entire document after numerous FOIA requests and has now insisted several times on the record that they have in fact released everything they were given. Ergo, by implication, they never got the whole thing.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/06/09/marty-walsh-boston-2024-bid-book/

Boston 2024 has seemed to be getting some positive traction with the New Bedford and Harrambee announcements. Sailing wasn't going to work where they originally proposed it, so it had to go somewhere, and there's steady wind in Buzzard's Bay. And so it's not well transit-oriented to the rest of the venues, but sailing hardly ever is (check out the distance from Munich to Kiel in 1972). Tennis might have worked over at Harvard but it wasn't going to be any better transit-oriented over there than at Harrambee (maybe less so), and there's political upside to shifting that event to that venue. That's nowhere near enough to get out of the hole they dug themselves, but maybe one could say they stopped digging deeper. (Well, maybe by hinting that they'll be doubling down on Widett they did....)

Walsh, on the other hand, does not seem to be gaining traction on his end. If he wants to distance himself from what he perceives as a failing effort, I don't think this is the way to do it. If he's still gung ho in support, there is zero point in drawing lines in the sand with the IOC at this time, not on the guarantee . And such a time might never come.
 
What about Suffolk Downs as an alternative stadium location?

EDIT: Never mind.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...or-olympics/R2incnpkx8MIZhmp8zwDAJ/story.html

Suffolk Downs no longer a backup Olympic stadium site

The Suffolk Downs track in East Boston and Revere is no longer being considered as a backup site for a stadium to host the 2024 Summer Olympics.

By Jon Chesto GLOBE STAFF JUNE 12, 2015
Suffolk Downs apparently has been removed from the Boston 2024 Partnership’s backup plan for an Olympics stadium site.

The horse track property, roughly 150 acres that straddle the East Boston and Revere line, was initially listed in bid documents for the 2024 Summer Games as a backup site for the stadium, if Widett Circle doesn’t work.


The organizers behind the effort to bring the Olympics to Boston want a 60,000-seat temporary Olympic stadium to be built at Widett Circle, an industrial area near Andrew Square and the Southeast Expressway. But that option comes with several complications, including finding a new home for the food wholesalers there.

Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer at Suffolk Downs, said he was told by reps for Boston 2024 last month that the group was no longer looking at Suffolk as an alternative for an Olympics stadium. However, Tuttle said the group was interested in putting a velodrome for cycling races there or at the old Wonderland greyhound track property in Revere that Suffolk’s ownership controls.

But Tuttle said the owners don’t believe a velodrome would fit into their plans for either property. (The original bid book, made public in January, put the velodrome in Somerville but Mayor Joe Curtatone almost immediately criticized the idea.)

“While we’re supportive of Boston 2024, we’re not interested in a velodrome at this point,” Tuttle said. “It doesn’t appear that we’re a match for what they’re looking for.”

When asked about Suffolk Downs, a Boston 2024 representative said the group plans to make additional venue announcements throughout the month of June and will confirm those venues once they are finalized.

Suffolk Downs originally planned to close down permanently for horse racing last fall after losing the competition for the sole Boston-area casino license, to a property in Everett that Wynn Resorts wants to develop. But the track facility remains open for simulcasting, and the state gaming commission is considering a plan to host three horse races there this summer. These are just interim uses: After losing the casino competition, Suffolk’s owners are now pursuing long-term development options for the property.

Jon Chesto can be reached at jon.chesto@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jonchesto.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
West said:
Jon Keller interviewed Mayor Walsh for a piece that will air Sunday Keller asserts in this preview posting that Walsh is now saying he will not sign a host city guarantee:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/06/...mountable-hurdle-in-boston-2024-olympics-bid/

Philip Hersh's interpretation is that this will be a drop dead elimination point with the IOC:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ely-end-2024-olympic-bid-20150611-column.html
Click to expand...

Hersh is drawing on experience from Chicago 2016, a valid but entirely doomed bid that took place during a prior era of IOC bidding. It's legitimate wisdom, but not 100% relevant.

I've said this every time this issue has come up: if the IOC rejects Boston out-of-hand for failing to sign a host city agreement after killing Chicago due to internal politics, there will be no LA 2028 or NY 2032 for them to fall back on. Eric Garcetti or his successor won't be signing an agreement if Walsh doesn't. Neither will Ed Lee or Bill DeBlasio. I wouldn't count on the mayors of Hamburg, Rome, or Paris, either.

If the IOC follows through on Hersh's suspicions, they'll be killing any chance the US ever hosts an Olympics again until they relent. They might be okay with that, but I think FIFA is giving them an object lesson in why they shouldn't be.
 
Someone walk me through the PR concept of releasing the new plan piecemeal, which is what the Boston 2024 team seems to be doing, with the Globe offering up new stuff every couple of days.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Someone walk me through the PR concept of releasing the new plan piecemeal, which is what the Boston 2024 team seems to be doing, with the Globe offering up new stuff every couple of days.
Click to expand...

Probably, they want to announce everything in a press conference on-location, particularly when there is a host or a partner involved. They can't do that all in one day.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Someone walk me through the PR concept of releasing the new plan piecemeal, which is what the Boston 2024 team seems to be doing, with the Globe offering up new stuff every couple of days.
Click to expand...

Because if they did this all at once then everyone is going to be talking about the big ticket venues for good or bad and ignore all the good work they have done getting it right on these smaller venues. Most of the feedback for the last two venue announcements has been positive from what I can tally.
 
Equilibria said:
Hersh is drawing on experience from Chicago 2016, a valid but entirely doomed bid that took place during a prior era of IOC bidding. It's legitimate wisdom, but not 100% relevant.

I've said this every time this issue has come up: if the IOC rejects Boston out-of-hand for failing to sign a host city agreement after killing Chicago due to internal politics, there will be no LA 2028 or NY 2032 for them to fall back on. Eric Garcetti or his successor won't be signing an agreement if Walsh doesn't. Neither will Ed Lee or Bill DeBlasio. I wouldn't count on the mayors of Hamburg, Rome, or Paris, either.

If the IOC follows through on Hersh's suspicions, they'll be killing any chance the US ever hosts an Olympics again until they relent. They might be okay with that, but I think FIFA is giving them an object lesson in why they shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

If the IOC were composed of humans who even remotely acted like regular humans, I'd agree with most or all of what you say. However, the unfolding fiasco with the 2022 winter Olympics suggests that they are still fairly bonkers. Once Oslo had pulled out, after Munich etc had already done so, the IOC should have had a humility check. But nope, they're going to plow ahead with just two options, Almaty and Beijing.

Almaty has awesome mountains immediately in proximity, awesome reliable snow, and some decent percentage of he venues built, and everything is close enough to fairly well fit Agenda 2020. But it's in a country with a shaky non-democratic regime, a shaky economy, is inconveniently next door to Uncle Vlad's Russia, and 23% of its population are ethnic Russians. So the IOC must fear whether Almaty can get everything getting done on time and without horrible Sochi-like headlines on corruption, and lurking in the background is the possibility that dear Vladimir will get done with Ukraine and decide Kazakhstan is next.

Beijing and its two proposed outdoor sites are spread out over a large area that has virtually no snow, so they'd pipe in millions of gallons of water to make snow. And flinging billions of yuan at new rail lines. And the area has horrible smog problems. And an undemocratic regime that very much still believes in nationalistic displays of power via spending on big events. In all ways Beijing 2022 would make a mockery of Agenda 2020. Beijing is in contention, and might well get the nod, for one very obvious reason: criticize the national regime all you like, but they have oodles of cash and will make everything happen.

So, by not budging on the demands that pissed off the Norwegians and the Germans et al, the IOC has themselves either taking a truly wild flyer on Almaty or flushing Agenda 2020 down the toilet with Beijing. If they were being sensible and using foresight in the way you suggest, they'd have sat down with at least the Norwegians and probably the Germans too, and edited down the offending terms of the bid guidelines so as to entice more bidders in.

I just don't think the IOC is at the requisite humility point yet. I believe that they should be getting there, but they're too crazy.

Now, if Walsh contacted the mayors of Paris and Rome and Hamburg and Istanbul (if they jump in) and quite openly colluded with them to reject the guaranty business en masse: now THAT would be interesting, and THAT might have the IOC pissing their pants.

Also, as for the IOC's desire to get the Games back to the US: I think they have an equal itch to get the Games back to Europe. The IOC has always been way more Euro-centric than anything else.
 
West said:
I just don't think the IOC is at the requisite humility point yet. I believe that they should be getting there, but they're too crazy.
Click to expand...

I think the humility lesson started with 2022, and FWIW, the Agenda 2020 concept wasn't hatched until after that fiasco. It's not like doubt in Oslo, Munich, etc. was a slow burn like we're seeing here. Those cities (and countries) voted for referenda rejecting the concept, and the IOC wasn't expecting them to do that. It now has no good options, but unless it were to violate the integrity of its bidding process and back off its requirements before begging someone else to take it on, it can't do much about it. If it weren't Beijing, I think they might have been willing to throw it out and start over, but it's China. Can't piss them off, so the whole thing needs to move ahead.

2022 isn't the litmus test for where this thing stands, 2024 is. It's worth pointing out that the 2022 process fell apart when one domino knocked over all the rest of the developed nations - exactly what might happen if Boston falls this time. I just don't think that the populations of Paris, Rome, and Hamburg are fired up enough look at Boston rejecting the HCA and react like Nelson Muntz. They know as well as we do that if everyone were to reject it, everyone would have a chance at a better deal. Europe and the US are probably the IOC's only options for 2024, because Turkey is newly unstable and the FIFA effect will keep the games out of dictatorships, oil states, etc. The prospect of multiple contenders rejecting the HCA is a worrying one.

Is Mayor Walsh capable of pulling that off formally? Probably not. He's not internationally prominent enough to do it (few mayors are - Bloomberg, maybe). He might not have to, though, and he's holding the threat of a referendum loss over the IOC. As we saw a couple of years ago, those tend to hurt the IOC PR-wise more than they hurt the city or nation.
 
I am convinced that NBC and the IOC have colluded that the U.S. gets to host either om 2024, 2028, or 2032; the three summer Olympics for which NBC recently paid big money. IIRC, NBC finances about half the cost of the games.

IMO, the USOC and NBC are pointing toward 2028, that way the network gets to promo 2028 during the 2024 games, and for 2032 , NBC gets to bask in the afterglow.

The USOC will put forward a U.S. city for 2024, and not take a pass. Assuming the U.S. 2024 city is not selected, that just adds to the 'you owe us' stack of chits for a subsequent Olympics.

The proposed new tennis venue looks very nice; it also looks as if might cost at least $75-100M, depending on how permanent the stadia are. Arthur Ashe stadium, which opened nearly 20 years ago, cost $250 million. Of course, they're not building a stadium that size. The Mayor of Paris has just signed off on the expansion / refurbishment of Roland Garros: cost $450 million.
 
Equilibria said:
If it weren't Beijing, I think they might have been willing to throw it out and start over, but it's China. Can't piss them off, so the whole thing needs to move ahead.
Click to expand...

Good argument about not being able to piss off Beijing by starting over on 2022. if that's true though, then they might not have any real choice but to go through the motions and then pick Beijing, cause I imagine they'd feel deeply insulted to be outbid by Almaty. The rulers of China are prickly, and getting pricklier by the hour. So that would dig the hole deeper for the IOC. I'm just not convinced they have the sense to be really worried yet, however much I agree with you that they ought to be.

Here's someone at Blue Mass Group who's arguing a similar line, they seem closer to your position than mine:

http://bluemassgroup.com/recent/

We'll see how things go with Paris and Hamburg and Rome. I've got in-laws and friends in Germany ( a few in Hamburg) and although I've not yet talked the subject over with many, I could really see any group of German voters giving it the thumbs-down. My mother in law is in the Munich suburbs and she was thoroughly dismissive of the 2022 bid, and voted against that. We'll see what Hamburg voters do. Opposition has definitely formed and gotten organized. I don't have any read on Paris or Rome.
 
Hopefully they can craft a large enough insurance policy to backstop potential cost overruns or liability. From what I've read the IOC rejected Chicago's 500 million dollar guarantee. But maybe something closer to $2 Billion would realistically cover the potential contingencies.
 
West said:
Good argument about not being able to piss off Beijing by starting over on 2022. if that's true though, then they might not have any real choice but to go through the motions and then pick Beijing, cause I imagine they'd feel deeply insulted to be outbid by Almaty. The rulers of China are prickly, and getting pricklier by the hour. So that would dig the hole deeper for the IOC. I'm just not convinced they have the sense to be really worried yet, however much I agree with you that they ought to be.

Here's someone at Blue Mass Group who's arguing a similar line, they seem closer to your position than mine:

http://bluemassgroup.com/recent/

We'll see how things go with Paris and Hamburg and Rome. I've got in-laws and friends in Germany ( a few in Hamburg) and although I've not yet talked the subject over with many, I could really see any group of German voters giving it the thumbs-down. My mother in law is in the Munich suburbs and she was thoroughly dismissive of the 2022 bid, and voted against that. We'll see what Hamburg voters do. Opposition has definitely formed and gotten organized. I don't have any read on Paris or Rome.
Click to expand...


The FIFA dirty laundry that's going to get aired out in the coming months sure isn't going to help that cooling overall interest worldwide in kowtowing to the IOC cartel. That story's not gonna go away any time soon. To some degree it's a bubble that's long overdue to...if not burst, then at least leak some air. It means if they want to keep that bubble inflated...the totalitiarian states, the oil states, the cult-of-personality dictatorships are the only ones who have no qualms about the risks. And they don't really seem to want to go there. Nor should they, because that only ends one way for them: FIFA. Or something even worse.


Frankly, NBC is such a dysfunctional outlet top-to-bottom these days that their extreme overreliance on the Games for a revenue dump once every 2 years is largely because their programming portfolio across-the-board has gone to shit. They used to have such a deep bench in every facet...news, sports, prime-time, their various cable channels. Too much cost-cutting and management dysfunction has eroded all of that. Even Telemundo with the proverbial demographic hurricane to its back is getting its ass kicked by Univision worse than ever. NBCU's gotten addicted to playing pump-and-dump with rotating casts of private equity investors on ownership stakes in their cable channels to make a quick bubble-buck on Wall St. where their real bottom line isn't cutting it anymore. Throw in that Comcast just has no clue how to be a content provider and has made that instability worse, and this is what you get:

-- Stupid Wall St. tricks with paper partial-ownership transactions.

-- Subsidize ourselves with Olympics at any cost.

That kind of corporate crack addiction can't last too many more cycles. It takes too much toll with everything else bedrock that's rotting behind the scenes. So that's a big problem for the IOC too. How strung out is NBCUniversal/Comcast going to be in 2022 if they keep on this business trajectory? Eventually too much short-term thinking and growth-by-cutting + paper games is going to start eroding their ability to deliver the content. Not just present it...but actually move it across all that awesomely robust delivery infrastructure they've built up for every Games. It's not cheap, it's very labor-intensive, and it's very talent-intensive. Not the kind of thing they're going to fare well at if every odd-numbered year on the calendar between Games is written off as a famine year. The attrition from that takes its toll. On them and the IOC.

Bubble economies are not fun when you're the one riding it and there's some signs of wear at the seams starting to show all around. This has that feel of a coming market correction. Maybe it doesn't have to be a dramatic or traumatic one, but definitely a chiller on the last 30 years of boom times for the Games...and a necessary correction at that.
 
There is some number that would embarrass the IOC if they didn't accept it as covering the risks. Some liability and cost overruns are reasonable contingencies, but there is no (non-corrupt) reason that risk can't be quantified and limited with a detailed enough plan. Open ended commitments and lack of fiscal constraint are what cause many of the cost overruns.
 
Shooting events to be held in Billerica

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...n-billerica/aZpaeYqzAtQ0S92vJ2oGWI/story.html

Olympic shooting event would be moved to Billerica

By Michael Levenson GLOBE STAFF JUNE 15, 2015

Organizers of the Boston Olympics, who originally promised a compact, walkable Games, said Monday that they plan to move the shooting events to Billerica, the latest venue to be relocated outside the city.

Boston 2024, the local bid committee, had initially proposed in January that the shooting competition would be held on Long Island, in Boston Harbor. That location, however, posed a problem because the bridge to the island was declared unsafe and then razed.

Under the new plan, the event would be moved to the Minute Man Sportsman’s Club, which was founded in 1934 and is located about 20 miles north of Boston. The club would be outfittied with seating for 5,000 spectators, and host 15 shooting competitions over 10 days. The events include competitions involving air pistols, rifles, and trap and skeet shooting.

“For athletes and spectators, we’re confident that Minute Man will offer an extraordinary experience,” Richard A. Davey, chief executive of Boston 2024, said in a statement. “At the same time, the Games will provide the club with new and upgraded facilities that will make it one of the premier facilities in the entire country, ensuring its success for another century.“

Town manager John Curran said Billerica is already undertaking a $26 million road project in the area, which can help handle any Olympic-related traffic. “We will certainly do anything we can as a town to work with 2024 to make it happen,” he said.

The relocation is part of a revised venue plan that Boston 2024 is rolling out this month, as it seeks to win back public support for its bid. Polls have shown that Massachusetts voters would be more supportive of the Olympics if the events were held statewide, instead of concentrated in Boston.

Boston 2024 has already relocated the sailing event from Boston Harbor to Buzzards Bay off New Bedford and is under pressure from local officials in other cities to bring events to their communities. Springfield officials have asked to host Olympic basketball, Holyoke wants volleyball, and Worcester wants to host rowing or another sport in the DCU Center.

Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mlevenson.
Click to expand...
 
MBTAddict said:
Shooting events to be held in Billerica

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...n-billerica/aZpaeYqzAtQ0S92vJ2oGWI/story.html
Click to expand...

I would've thought the wind would've made any shooting event at a site facing the ocean no-go by default if any suitable inland substitute with generally neutral wind direction were available. The competitors and the judges would've howled in protest at any site in the Harbor that gets a full-on onshore breeze every single day.

File that venue change under "Duh!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top