Boston 2024

I don't do Facebook, so I can't see that page without logging in. (And yes, I signed up for Facebook when they first allowed non edu joins.)

Re: Harvard stadium. Harvard stadium is a registered National Historic Landmark. Can't be tampered with in the way you seem to suggest. Further, Harvard is spending $75 million in the next several years to reduce searing about 25-30 percent and renovate the stadium. What seems to be overlooked is that when renovating/ expanding existing sports venues in the US, they have to be made ADA compliant and that can be very expensive. Probably a reason why Harvard is cutting seating.

Re: other venues. A major cost of an Olympics venue is the seating capacity. At London, they sold over 8 million tickets. Tickets = revenue stream for the host city. When they release some details about the budget this week, we may see how much revenue from ticket sales they plan on, and how many tickets they would sell.

At London, there were separate venues for swimming/diving and water polo. Can't use the same venue for both. Water polo sat 5,000; swimming/diving 17,500 (reduced in size to 2,500 post OLympics). Swimming/diving cost $400 million. You need two 50 meter pools for swimming and a separate pool for diving. OLympic pools are wider and deeper As for length, there are two NCAA course lengths, 25 meter and 50 meter. Tufts' present pool is 25 yards, six lanes, which is appropriate for Division III. As a Division III school, Tufts is not going to pay for an Olympic sized aquatics center.
 
stellarfun said:
At London, there were separate venues for swimming/diving and water polo. Can't use the same venue for both. Water polo sat 5,000; swimming/diving 17,500 (reduced in size to 2,500 post OLympics). Swimming/diving cost $400 million. You need two 50 meter pools for swimming and a separate pool for diving. OLympic pools are wider and deeper As for length, there are two NCAA course lengths, 25 meter and 50 meter. Tufts' present pool is 25 yards, six lanes, which is appropriate for Division III. As a Division III school, Tufts is not going to pay for an Olympic sized aquatics center.
Click to expand...

Well, you can use the same venue, London just didn't. An aquatics center could theoretically accommodate both. As for Tufts, it showed up out of thin air a few months ago, with no reason for anyone to just make it up. The school's interest has been cited in the Globe multiple times. I'm not saying that they're definitely on board or that they'll definitely pay for the whole facility, but it's not reasonable to disregard them completely.
 
Equilibria said:
Well, you can use the same venue, London just didn't. An aquatics center could theoretically accommodate both. As for Tufts, it showed up out of thin air a few months ago, with no reason for anyone to just make it up. The school's interest has been cited in the Globe multiple times. I'm not saying that they're definitely on board or that they'll definitely pay for the whole facility, but it's not reasonable to disregard them completely.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you can't use the same venue.

At London, water polo competition stretched 14 days; total of 20 teams. Swimming stretched 10 days, diving stretched 13 days, and synchronized swimming spanned five days. There were 44 medal events for swimming and diving. The Aquatics Center was also used for the swimming portion of the pentathlon.

Similarly gymnastics. At London they used the 20,000 seat N. Greenwich Arena for most of the gymnastics, and for the basketball finals. Most of basketball and rhythmic gymnastics were played in either a smaller new arena (basketball) or Wembley arena (rhythmic gymnastics). As gymnastics is a big ticket draw, you'd ideally like a big arena. But the 'Boston Garden' will be used exclusively for basketball, so one is left with Conte or Agganis for gymnastics, or build a new stadium.

As I said, the size and cost of venues will reflect how much in the way of attendance and ticket revenue Boston intends budgeting for. One thing that should not be overlooked is NBC has already capped how much it will pay to broadcast the 2024 games, regardless of inflation between now and then.

I think Tuft's interest is limited to offering them a site.
 
stellarfun said:
Sorry, you can't use the same venue.

At London, water polo competition stretched 14 days; total of 20 teams. Swimming stretched 10 days, diving stretched 13 days, and synchronized swimming spanned five days. There were 44 medal events for swimming and diving. The Aquatics Center was also used for the swimming portion of the pentathlon.
Click to expand...

It's a dumb argument, but yes, you absolutely can. You could play basketball in the aquatics center if you built a court and seats.

An economical Games is going to be found through efficiencies. I have no idea if playing water polo is cost-efficient, but it's been done before:

here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Olympic_Aquatic_Centre

here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_International_Aquatic_Centre

here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Tech_Campus_Recreation_Center

etc.
 
rinserepeat said:
maybe some preliminary venues in NYC?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...tant-venues/WveB9i8hgXvtML3Tb4iC0J/story.html

IMO - this makes sense - NYC isn't that far away - and if the fed can push up funding for the northeast corridor rail it would be an easier sell. I'm not sure what the timeline on that project is, though.
Click to expand...

Re: the Globe article. I believe baseball and softball are out for both the 2020 and 2024 games. The IOC had a vote and wrestling was put back in, and baseball/softball, squash, and several sports with strange names were the also-rans.

The Globe writer mentions RFK stadium as a possible site for soccer. The DC government plans to tear it down. At London 2012, the quarterfinals on were played in four stadiums (eight matches) with a total attendance of 550,000.
 
Equilibria said:
It's a dumb argument, but yes, you absolutely can. You could play basketball in the aquatics center if you built a court and seats.

An economical Games is going to be found through efficiencies. I have no idea if playing water polo is cost-efficient, but it's been done before:
.....
Click to expand...

True, you can have all these sports in one Aquatics Center if you build enough pools.

At the 1996 Olympics, women's water polo was not contested. The number of teams competing in synchronized swimming was eight; at London, not only were there eight women's teams competing in water polo, but there were 32 teams competing in synchronized swimming. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of diving events doubled, from four to eight. Number of swimming events are about the same, but 140 more competitors at London, which means more heats.

Simply put, too many events, too few venues = congestion.
 
stellarfun said:
Re: the Globe article. I believe baseball and softball are out for both the 2020 and 2024 games. The IOC had a vote and wrestling was put back in, and baseball/softball, squash, and several sports with strange names were the also-rans.

The Globe writer mentions RFK stadium as a possible site for soccer. The DC government plans to tear it down. At London 2012, the quarterfinals on were played in four stadiums (eight matches) with a total attendance of 550,000.
Click to expand...

I think they'll go through the same charade with Baseball and Softball for 2024, but even if it does come back in, their new proposed format would allow one venue (read: Fenway) to host both in the time span of the Olympics.

One of this nation's boons that I'm sure that everyone on the planning committee realizes is that there are upwards of 20 legitimate stadiums that could host the football prelims. This leaves the committee with several options, of which I highlight the following:

- split the prelim groups between the two coasts: Seattle, Santa Clara and Los Angeles on the west coast, Atlanta, New York, Washington on the east.
- keep the prelim groups local: New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Charlotte, Chicago, or Atlanta.
- use cities that have hosted the Olympics before, as sort of a legacy play: Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Atlanta, St. Louis.

stellarfun said:
True, you can have all these sports in one Aquatics Center if you build enough pools.

At the 1996 Olympics, women's water polo was not contested. The number of teams competing in synchronized swimming was eight; at London, not only were there eight women's teams competing in water polo, but there were 32 teams competing in synchronized swimming. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of diving events doubled, from four to eight. Number of swimming events are about the same, but 140 more competitors at London, which means more heats.

Simply put, too many events, too few venues = congestion.
Click to expand...

Full agreement. One additional consideration is the Modern Pentathlon event (which may be dropped by 2024 but for the moment must be considered). There is a swimming component in the MP, and all the facilities used for MP are generally preferred to be in close proximity to each other.

I propose that Tufts be the site of the Water Polo venue, which would be turned into their swimming venue post-games. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard, Harvard is planning on repurposing Blodgett Pool for something else, so they will theoretically be in need of a new pool. There are enough days during the games to host the swimming, synchronized swimming, and modern pentathlon events. I propose all three to be hosted in a new Harvard pool. The other modern pentathlon events can be hosted at Harvard's new basketball arena (fencing) and at Harvard Stadium (riding and combined).

The diving well can be attached to either the Tufts or Harvard site. As a theoretical alternative, it could be possible to emulate London and attach a temporary water pool to the Harvard site. Either way, a diving well and two swimming pools are definitely sufficient for all the non-marathon swimming events.
 
Downtown: Boston Olympics bid could put passenger rail ‘on a faster track’

"Boston is a near-straight shot south from Concord, just 70 miles on Interstate 93. Those 70 miles could be the distance between Concord and the epicenter of the Summer Olympics in less than 10 years.

....

Could the promise of an Olympiad spur development in Concord as well – like the proposed passenger rail lines between Massachusetts and New Hampshire?" - Concord Monitor, Megan Doyle
 
tklalmighty, re: Blodgett pool. In the original master plan for Allston, Blodgett was to be demolished and rebuilt elsewhere. The sites of Blodgett, Lavietes, Dillon were to be the location of a new residential house. Then, came the Great Recession, and the hit to Harvard's endowment.

From what I have read, the only new Harvard athletic facility will be the replacement for Lavietes, and modest-sized at that, only 3,000 seats. It will go just north of the Samuel's building being built at Barry's Corner. A new residence house is apparently off the table, partly because Harvard is spending $1+ billion to renovate the existing river houses. I suspect Lavietes will be used for women's basketball or as a practice court.
 
I have not interest in seeing any of the Olympic venues or an expansion of the commuter rail to NH. I'd rather see them go south to Providence or due north to Portland if they must go out of state.
 
Golf, from ESPN. The ESPN story was partly about a new course that the Brazilians have constructed for the 2016 games.

The Olympics, however, will be for professionals, and the 60-player men's and women's fields will be determined by the Official World Golf Ranking. That would make it nearly impossible for any amateur player to qualify, unless he or she were able to find a way into numerous professional events and earn ranking points.

The 60 players for both men and women will be comprised of the top 15 in the world as of the Monday following the 2016 Open Championship. But there can be no more than four players per country. Then after the top 15, only two per country are permitted, which means the player field is expected to dip past 300th in the world to fill the field.

And it also means some very good players will be left out.

Just on the American side, the competition for those four spots should be fierce.

"The reason 72-hole stroke play is in place for 2016 is when we had to submit our bid to the IOC [International Olympic Committee in 2009], that was really the safest bid. It's something the IOC and professional golf, elite golfers, understand: 72-hole stroke play. We weren't presenting something new and unique.

"I think one of the things the IGF will look at in the future is can we somehow get match play involved, can we get a team aspect, can there be a way that maybe men and women could play together. But first we want to have a great Olympics in 2016, and then our board will look at that and I think it's something we'll explore."
Click to expand...
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/12175846/olympic-golf-starting-take-shape-golf

I would think golf would be a big attendance draw in certain countries. At 72 holes for M/W, that would represent eight days of competition. In Boston, I think there are only three courses that could host such a competition. The Country Club, the Salem Country Club, and the TPC Boston course in Norton, though perhaps the OLympics would prefer not having a course played every year by a host nation's pro golfers, and specifically designed for pro golf.
 
stellarfun said:
Golf, from ESPN. The ESPN story was partly about a new course that the Brazilians have constructed for the 2016 games.


http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/12175846/olympic-golf-starting-take-shape-golf

I would think golf would be a big attendance draw in certain countries. At 72 holes for M/W, that would represent eight days of competition. In Boston, I think there are only three courses that could host such a competition. The Country Club, the Salem Country Club, and the TPC Boston course in Norton, though perhaps the OLympics would prefer not having a course played every year by a host nation's pro golfers, and specifically designed for pro golf.
Click to expand...

The PGA is an international league - it's not just American golfers in it. I suspect that Boston 2024 would look to The County Club first, since it's the closest in.
 
I don't see The County Club wanting the event as they're in the running for a US Open again and they just hosted the Amateur in 2013.
 
kmp1284 said:
I don't see The County Club wanting the event as they're in the running for a US Open again and they just hosted the Amateur in 2013.
Click to expand...

Are they running for the 2024 US Open? If they're not, I don't really see why they'd have a problem with it. More big events there must be good for business after all.
 
It's a private club that members pay a considerable sum of money to be a part of. Blocking off the course and most club facilities for two weeks and forcing members to play on what will more closely resemble Franklin Park for the rest of the season is not in their best interests.
 
kmp1284 said:
It's a private club. Their business is accomodating their members.
Click to expand...
Any chance the members think the Olympics are sexy and add to the aura of the place, as other "famous" events have and will do? (or provide revenue that could be piled in a vault somewhere)?

By 2024, it may have been a long time since they last "rented the place out".

At the same time, there are some reputedly-great public courses in Metro Boston that would probably work really well with an infusion of love & money.
E.g. DCR-owned Ponkapoag, of which the Boston Globe says:
Though “Ponky” was lampooned in a 1988 Sports Illustrated article entitled The Missing Links,” fans of the game have long considered the state-owned property off Washington Street in Canton a mishandled gem of revered golf course architect Donald Ross
Click to expand...

And/or, with money, the City of Boston courses.
 
Arlington said:
Any chance the members think the Olympics are sexy and add to the aura of the place, as other "famous" events have and will do? (or provide revenue that could be piled in a vault somewhere)?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The quality of the course, the facilities, the dining and for some, the name are more than adequate. Membership is invitation-only anyways.

With an extensive renovation and lengthening, Charles River would be a good choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top