Boston 2024

[citylover94]

I think Boston is somewhat underrated in certain parts of the USA and well known in Europe. Outside of that it is hard to tell.

 

[Ruairi]

^ That's interesting. I find that Boston is one East-coast stop of very many travelers from Europe. Maybe they don't know the names of the sights, but they do come...

yea, some come, sure, but far more go to new york and DC. I'm only going off what I've seen, not official numbers or anything.

I think a lot of people might be surprised at the levels of positive change the Olympic exposure would provide.

Bostonians are very proud of their city but don't seem to have much confidence in it. I get that the big dig went on forever but I was chatting to someone the other day who laughed at the thought of Boston going up against Paris. They said 'Imagine our T against their Metro'. My first thought was that whenever I've been to Paris, random Metro stations have been shut due to union disputes, I've never seen this in Boston. Sure it's a smaller network and it looses money but they all do and it works as well or better than most.
It will be hard work to host the Olympics but if it can be done successfully (and I think it can), the boost in the citys confidence would be worth it!

 

[datadyne007]

^ That's interesting. I find that Boston is one East-coast stop of very many travelers from Europe. Maybe they don't know the names of the sights, but they do come...

I've heard the same thing in Europe, actually. A guy in France once told me that Boston was the only American city he liked. Not much of a sample, of course.

As I've said a million times before as someone who actually dealt with tourists in Faneuil Hall for 5 years on a daily basis, there are tons that come from all over the world, not just Europe, and mostly all have high opinions of our city. Europeans in particular really love us. I also remember asking a couple from India what brought them to Boston and they responded simply with "Vacation. We wanted to see Boston!" I got the same response from couples from Australia too. Yes, people from Australia come to Boston just to visit, not just for conventions or meetings.

 

[WarpedReality]

According to page 3 of this PDF, NYC gets over 7x as many overseas tourists as Boston. Hosting the Olympics would certainly narrow that gap.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

According to page 3 of this PDF, NYC gets over 7x as many overseas tourists as Boston. Hosting the Olympics would certainly narrow that gap.

You don't want that. Trust me.

 

[stellarfun]

London made a small profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

 

[HenryAlan]

According to page 3 of this PDF, NYC gets over 7x as many overseas tourists as Boston. Hosting the Olympics would certainly narrow that gap.

And New York is more than ten times larger. Boston punches above its weight. People come here for all manner of reasons -- commerce, tourism, education. We are a city that works well for visiting.

 

[JumboBuc]

As I've said a million times before as someone who actually dealt with tourists in Faneuil Hall for 5 years on a daily basis, there are tons that come from all over the world, not just Europe, and mostly all have high opinions of our city. Europeans in particular really love us. I also remember asking a couple from India what brought them to Boston and they responded simply with "Vacation. We wanted to see Boston!" I got the same response from couples from Australia too. Yes, people from Australia come to Boston just to visit, not just for conventions or meetings.

This is textbook selection bias. Of course the tourists walking around Faneuil Hall are interested in visiting Boston; they are visiting Boston! If they didn't hold Boston in high regard they wouldn't have visited in the first place. I'm sure if you interviewed people in the biggest tourist area in, say, Lyon you'd find plenty of tourists who wanted to travel there, but that hardly makes it a major international tourism destination. For a better perspective on the international view of Boston talk to tourists in Times Square or Piccadilly Circus, not Faneuil Hall.

And New York is more than ten times larger. Boston punches above its weight. People come here for all manner of reasons -- commerce, tourism, education. We are a city that works well for visiting.

I'm pretty sure statistics on international visitors look at metro areas and not cities proper. Metro New York is 4.25 times the size of Greater Boston.

 

[datadyne007]

That PDF proves we're on par with Chicago for int'l tourism in terms of visitor numbers. It's not all doom and gloom for Boston's international tourist scene.

Here's some quick ratio math I just did:
NYC Population: 8.406 mil. Int'l NYC Tourists: 9.579 mil. For every resident there are 1.14 int'l tourists in NYC.

Chicago Population: 2.719 mil. Int'l Chicago tourists: 1.378. For every resident there are 0.51 int'l tourists in Chicago.

Boston Population: 0.646 mil. Int'l Boston tourists: 1.282. For every resident there are 1.98 int'l tourists in Boston.

 

[JumboBuc]

That PDF proves we're on par with Chicago for int'l tourism in terms of visitor numbers. It's not all doom and gloom for Boston's international tourist scene.

Here's some quick ratio math I just did:
NYC Population: 8.406 mil. Int'l NYC Tourists: 9.579 mil. For every resident there are 1.14 int'l tourists in NYC.

Chicago Population: 2.719 mil. Int'l Chicago tourists: 1.378. For every resident there are 0.51 int'l tourists in Chicago.

Boston Population: 0.646 mil. Int'l Boston tourists: 1.282. For every resident there are 1.98 int'l tourists in Boston.

You can't really compare these numbers by population unless you know the actual geographies that are being used in the calculations. They can't be using city boundaries since "Los Angeles-Long Beach" is not a city and they can't be using MSAs since "Los Angeles-Long Beach" and "Anaheim-Santa Ana" are in the same MSA. Keeping that in mind, if you're going by city populations then Boston has more per capita visitors than New York but if you're going by MSA then New York has more.

It always strikes me in these sort of comparisons how small Boston proper is compared to the Greater Boston area. For example, 42.1% of Metro New York lives in the boundaries of New York City and 28.3% of Chicagoland lives in Chicago proper but only 13.8% of Greater Boston lives in the City of Boston.

 

[George_Apley]

According to page 3 of this PDF, NYC gets over 7x as many overseas tourists as Boston. Hosting the Olympics would certainly narrow that gap.

It's New York Fucking City. We don't want to close that gap. And we shouldn't feel bad that one of the Capitals of the World and our Nation's Capital attract more international travelers than the Hub.

 

[HalcyonEra]

It's New York Fucking City. We don't want to close that gap. And we shouldn't feel bad that one of the Capitals of the World and our Nation's Capital attract more international travelers than the Hub.

Agreed. Do we even have the lodging capacity to draw 1.5 or 2x what we draw now?

 

[paperless paul]

London made a small profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games

This statement does not adequately describe the impact on government spending of the London games. Bottom line, the UK government spent net £8bn ($12.5bn) that they would have not otherwise spent and gained infrastructure, the Olympic venues and a staging of the Olympic games. This figure includes both capital and operating costs. Below I look at both types of costs in greater detail.

Operating Costs and Revenue
Stellarfun the reference for your link is the accounting for LOCOG the special purpose entity set up to develop, plan and manage the games and says "the lifetime financial position of the project as per the final audited financial statements is break-even" (pg 14). Although LOCOG did distribute £30m back to public agencies at its liquidation. The fact that it is break-even is by design and due to the fact that it was solvent through the end of the games.

The company received £2.4bn in revenue and spent the same amount although I could only find £1.6bn in itemized revenue (e.g. tickets, sponsors, IOC, broadcast). However a considerable amount of this total included government grants and excluded some or all of the £600m security bill.

The report lists £960m of grants overall (pg 44). I believe the right way to think about it is that the total London games operating budget (including security) was approximately £3bn of which 32% or £960m was government funding (however it remains unclear how the £960m relates to the £2.4bn).

Capital Expenses
But much more critical to the discussion is that a further £7bn was spent by the government (ODA) for the Olympics. This Guardian article gives a very good breakdown by category on the cost of venues (£1bn), site prep and infrastructure (£2.4bn), transport (£0.9bn), media centre and village (£0.5bn), program delivery (£0.6bn Locog?) and contingency (£1bn).

So operating the games was funded maybe 90% through private revenue excluding security, venue construction. But construction of the venues , infrastructure and transportation required a £6bn public capital expenditure. What public value was realized by this spending? That is very difficult to say, one would have to look on a case by case basis.

How does this relate to the Boston case? The Boston Olympic plan is for Mass and Boston to spend $5bn developing infrastructure over the next 10 years independently of the Olympics, presumably with the public realizing an equivalent value in improved infrastructure. A private organization will then spend $4.5bn to build the Olympic venues and run the games by leveraging off the infrastructure the state will have built (but without changing its purpose or specifically controlling it). In exchange this private org will get the ticket revenue, broadcast revenue, University endowment money for venue construction, corporate sponsorships, and presumably some government grants to offset its costs. Critically important it will also presumably receive an undefined contribution for security from all levels of US government.

The hope is that the private org will 'break-even' while running the event. When London's operating and capital budget increased before the games the UK government (after much political debate) increased the budget. What will Boston/Mass do if the private org's budget increases?

 

[Equilibria]

How does this relate to the Boston case? The Boston Olympic plan is for Mass and Boston to spend $5bn developing infrastructure over the next 10 years independently of the Olympics, presumably with the public realizing an equivalent value in improved infrastructure. A private organization will then spend $4.5bn to build the Olympic venues and run the games by leveraging off the infrastructure the state will have built (but without changing its purpose or specifically controlling it). In exchange this private org will get the ticket revenue, broadcast revenue, University endowment money for venue construction, corporate sponsorships, and presumably some government grants to offset its costs. Critically important it will also presumably receive an undefined contribution for security from all levels of US government.

The hope is that the private org will 'break-even' while running the event. When London's operating and capital budget increased before the games the UK government (after much political debate) increased the budget. What will Boston/Mass do if the private org's budget increases?

That's a good summary, and it raises the points that Zimbalist et. al. have been ignorant of in their comments. Boston 2024, as you know, will be insured against overruns in their budget. Like any non-profit putting on a large event, they will have to manage their money carefully and seek additional donations and corporate funding if things get tight.

What Boston 2024 has done in their fiscal plan is to shunt the most unpredictable costs - construction and security - onto others, to improve their chances for meeting their budget. Every venue you can farm out or put in an existing building not only lowers your costs, it makes them more stable. Boston 2024 will hopefully have UMass, Tufts, Bob Kraft and others taking on this risk for them. The cost of logistics should be fairly predictable, since to a certain extent every Olympics has the same operational profile.

Andrew Zimbalist is calling the budget "ridiculous" without paying attention to what it actually represents: about 40% of the actual cost of the "Olympics" by prior definitions. You can call that disingenuous if you like, but John Fish would likely respond that he's not trying to drive State decision-making and that he's happy to take whatever they decide is in the public's best interest long-term.

In essence, Boston 2024 is trying to do what a lot of us wanted them to do a year ago: align an Olympics with existing needs so that not one of five billion public dollars is spent only to support it.

 

[West]

I want to delve into this insurance idea a bit. I think it’s a bad idea for proponents to keep talking about how the taxpayers will be insured against cost overruns. I believe that we as taxpayers will be self-insuring the overruns, like it or not. This does not make me an opponent: it makes me dismissive of this component of the plan. I suspect it raises risk with the IOC come selection time, too.

First, I am not talking about the $25M policy for the planning stages that’s now in place. That has been reported as only covering breach of contract by the organizing committee during the bid process. I am referring to the as-yet unwritten policy against the actual construction / operating / security overruns, should we win the bid, and should such overruns occur.

We have all seen many instances of cost overruns in large development efforts, whether public or private. Can anyone cite a really large cost overrun instance where the project wrapped up, and the client later announced “we’ve successfully collected on our cost overrun insurance claim against XYZ Mutual Insurance Inc, so we’re all whole again, hooray”? Just one citation? Me neither.

The surety bonds for the contract work only cover frictional costs that arise if a contractor defaults. Liability policies likewise only cover defects – or errors and omissions in the case of designers. None of these policies on builders / designers cover legitimate cost overruns caused by unforeseen hidden conditions. I have no clue what sort of policies have ever been written on security cost overruns, I’m interested to hear from anyone in that field. I am not holding my breath to hear of examples.

I think we all understand that insurance works by a) pooling many clients in such a way as to raise lots of money and provide lots of data, and b) the fact that most clients won’t experience a loss during the coverage period. So millions drive cars and pay premiums, but only a small percentage crash each year. The insurance actuaries have enough data to project losses, set premiums at (sort of) endurable rates, collect enough to cover payouts, and (if they’ve been competent enough) allow for a profit to the company.

How does this work for an insurance policy on cost overruns in preparing for an Olympics, any Olympics? How does an actuary project the cost overruns for Boston 2024, or Paris 2024, or whoever? By looking at Montreal ’76 and LA ’84 and Sochi ’14? That is patently absurd, each Olympics will be sui generis. And then, even if the actuaries could somehow project the cost overruns, we come to the fact that there will be a client pool of one for the 2024 Summer Olympics, no matter who wins the bid. Insurance with a pool of one? That is sometimes euphemistically referred to as “self-insurance.” a/k/a no insurance at all.

So I believe the taxpayers will be self-insuring any cost overruns. This is not sufficient to make me an opponent, in fact it’s not even that big a factor in my overall analysis of the idea, because we do this every single year of our taxpayer lives. But I think it’s a bad idea for proponents to keep pitching this insurance idea, it’s setting an expectation that I believe will be dashed. We have too many insurance companies here in MA that can weigh in on this issue, plus the citizenry and the IOC will demand to see the policy, and when it fails to materialize, it’ll just look like a bait and switch to the citizens and insufficient to the IOC. There are lots of good arguments in favor of this Olympics idea, the proponents should stick with them and acknowledge that the overrun risk falls to the taxpayers. If the benefits of hosting look good enough, the citizenry could potentially be convinced to get on board with that risk – but a backlash over a perceived lie (or severe overpromise, if you prefer) will only be harmful in the effort of winning over the public.

For the IOC, I don’t think they’re stupid (corrupt is another issue), and while the Boston 2024 team might not want to share the insurance policy details with us, they’ll have to share them with the IOC later this year. And I don’t think the policy will exist, or if a policy exists, it’ll be something limited to breach of contract like the current $25M policy. That won’t impress the IOC, and it shouldn’t. They want to see that some entity with taxing power (in a democracy) or a more raw form of power (as in Russia or China) is committed to sucking it up to the bitter end, no matter what "it" turns out to be. I see no benefit to raising expectations with the IOC, either, just to fall short later.

If I’m wrong, and it’s possible to write an insurance policy for a pool of one per each coverage year, on a risk category that is truly unique every year that it occurs, I’d love to hear an explanation of how that works. While you're at it, please explain why MA didn't get such a policy for the Big Dig, and why Seattle didn't get one for Big Bertha, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I think Boston is somewhat underrated in certain parts of the USA and well known in Europe. Outside of that it is hard to tell.

Boston is well known in Asia, particularly to parents of near-college-age children in China.

And they all refer to the schools like MIT and Harvard as being in Boston.

 

[paperless paul]

I strongly agree with West in his conclusion that ultimately it is state of Mass and to some extent the Fed that will bear the completion risk for the Olympics. Any insurance taken by the Partnership will be limited in size and may not cover every eventuality. Olympic delivery budgets do increase, and in the final analysis it will be the state that has to step in and ensure that the Olympics happens on time. This eventuality has occurred to a greater or lesser extent in every Olympics so far.

To West's question there are instruments such as completion bonds, performance bonds, delay risk insurance etc. These policies will not be comprehensive enough to cover every eventuality and again may be insufficient in size, and may not cover critical items such as security.

To Equilibria's point, the way to limit risk is to have other entities deliver venues and for them to enter fixed price contracts with bonded contractors to finish projects. This works even for things like security - see Brazil Olympics $2.2bn contract for security with an Israeli firm. However, I don't think if the cost of something goes up by $500m they are going to be able to raise more money. It is much more likely they will cut $500m of costs from somewhere else.

The problem with this approach is that it only works when the scope of the project is clearly defined and fixed. This issue tends to become prominent for Olympics events which are budgeted 7 or more years in advance, have many individual pieces that need to come together comprehensively and many independent participants.

For example if each venue is financed by and has a different ultimate end user (e.g. Tufts aquatic center, Harvard field hockey) there are too many parties potentially working at cross purposes. If the Boston Olympics or the IOC asks for a change or local citizens demand a change there are now multiple levels required to convince Tufts to make an expensive change that doesn't benefit the Univ at all. Having too many masters in a complex project like the Olympics is asking for trouble.

 

[DreamworksSKg]

Folks here's my suggestions for olympic venues :

https://www.facebook.com/groups/421232151358822/

let me know what you think

A lot can be done to improve the city and such.

We dont need to build the stadium @ Widett Circle and displace workers.

the Olympic Stadium can be built @ Harvard Stadium add 40000-50000 seat,s a new RETRACTABLE roof - and press box level - and you have CoLLIER MEMORIAL OLYMPIC STADIUM (Collier, Crimson Memorial Olympic Stadium) named after Officer Sean Collier of the MIT police killed in the marathon bombing---) stadium could be designed similar to a mini version of Lukas Oil Stadium in indianapolis or the New Minnesota Vikings Stadium - for football - it could end up hosting concerts, REVS soccer, as a PERMANENT REVENUE making venue and be a world class Stadium for Harvard Football and athletics. It would be walkable from West Allston Station and weeks footbridge to Harvard T Station. Could host a super bowl, NCAA Final Four, Wrestlemania, NCAA college football national championships and more as well as the 2024 Games. Would be better to have a cheaper, more permanent solution that would bring in revenue for the city and not displace workers and help the university with a new track and world class venue. You could have an athletes village with the new Barrys corner development and the CSX Rail yard and develop a Beach Volleyball venue, Velodrome, Aquatics Center and Tennis Complex on the site of the present fields by soldiers field road and the CSX rail yard area and over the mass pike. could be connected via walking paths and arch bridges to the walkways along the charles which would be renovated and also to commonwealth avenue and nickerosn field/agganis arena which would also be olympic venues providing a wlakway down to kenmore square and fenway park. The West Allston T station would serve the area and the Harvard T station.

 

[DreamworksSKg]

If someone could possibly do a design of my idea for a expanded harvard stadium I would appreciate it =) with the retractable roof and lukas oil stadium exterior like design

 

[tklalmighty]

Folks here's my suggestions for olympic venues :

https://www.facebook.com/groups/421232151358822/

let me know what you think

A lot can be done to improve the city and such.

We dont need to build the stadium @ Widett Circle and displace workers.

the Olympic Stadium can be built @ Harvard Stadium add 40000-50000 seat,s a new RETRACTABLE roof - and press box level - and you have CoLLIER MEMORIAL OLYMPIC STADIUM (Collier, Crimson Memorial Olympic Stadium) named after Officer Sean Collier of the MIT police killed in the marathon bombing---) stadium could be designed similar to a mini version of Lukas Oil Stadium in indianapolis or the New Minnesota Vikings Stadium - for football - it could end up hosting concerts, REVS soccer, as a PERMANENT REVENUE making venue and be a world class Stadium for Harvard Football and athletics. It would be walkable from West Allston Station and weeks footbridge to Harvard T Station. Could host a super bowl, NCAA Final Four, Wrestlemania, NCAA college football national championships and more as well as the 2024 Games. Would be better to have a cheaper, more permanent solution that would bring in revenue for the city and not displace workers and help the university with a new track and world class venue. You could have an athletes village with the new Barrys corner development and the CSX Rail yard and develop a Beach Volleyball venue, Velodrome, Aquatics Center and Tennis Complex on the site of the present fields by soldiers field road and the CSX rail yard area and over the mass pike. could be connected via walking paths and arch bridges to the walkways along the charles which would be renovated and also to commonwealth avenue and nickerosn field/agganis arena which would also be olympic venues providing a wlakway down to kenmore square and fenway park. The West Allston T station would serve the area and the Harvard T station.

Functionally, Harvard doesn't need a football stadium that seats more than 30k. To expand Harvard Stadium to seat 80k would be unnecessary for use by its primary tenant, Harvard football. Not to mention that the stadium's status as a National Historical Landmark will likely prevent such renovations. The facilities in the Murr Center, which under your plan would have to be demolished, would also have to be relocated...somewhere.

With regard to the site and today's building codes, Harvard Stadium would likely hold no more than 50k seats with a temporary grandstand on the northern end. Also, it would be impossible to fit a track inside Harvard Stadium for the same reason that American football adopted the forward pass - Harvard Stadium was too narrow to expand the field.

I believe a full plan for the Olympics will have Harvard Stadium hosting field hockey or rugby. The way I have it laid out, I would have Nickerson Field host the prelims of field hockey (with New Balance Stadium serving as a warm-up facility), and I would have Harvard Stadium host rugby (for which the stadium as currently is would be of apt size) and potentially the field hockey semis and finals. I don't see Harvard Stadium hosting Olympic soccer as it did in 1984; I imagine they would prefer to use standard field sizes for an event of this caliber.

A crazy outside-the-box idea regarding the use of Harvard Stadium in the Olympics would have Harvard Stadium partitioned into the show courts for the tennis event, and with a realigned Beren Tennis Center serving as the side and practice courts. I think it's plausible enough to be worth mentioning, crazy enough not to be considered too seriously.