Boston 2024

West said:
Well, they've got The Country Club pencilled in for now. It is in the docs released today and got mentioned briefly this evening. I don't recall exactly, an aside really.
Click to expand...

And they have Boston Hahbah penciled in for sailing. That would be a fucking horror show, not to mention the courses would have to be shortened due to space constraints. There are rumors that the two major Buzzards Bay clubs, Beverly in Marion and New Bedford in Padanaram are looking to collaborate on an Olympic caliber venue located perhaps in New Bedford proper. John Fish is a graduate of Tabor in Marion and both clubs have their share of highly influential Bostonians, plus each has produced a number of Olympic medalists.
 
stellarfun said:
tklalmighty, Harvard is not going to pay for new facilities to function principally as Olympic venues. Harvard is unlikely to be willing to have somebody else pay for new or renovated facilities to function primarily as Olympic venues.

Why would Harvard or the IOC build a new hockey rink seating 6,000 when ice hockey is not a competed sport in the summer games?

As for Gordon, it is used primarily for indoor track. While Gordon has some indoor courts, Murr has more, and Beren, near the Soldiers Field curve, has about 20 outdoor courts, but no seating to speak of.
Click to expand...

No, as I said, they probably don't need new venues in the long run. That said, they are investing in a new Basketball arena, so there's that.

Ice hockey wouldn't be competed at the games, but what I meant (and I guess forgot to say) was that such a venue could be used for one of the sports combinations, such as Judo/Wrestling or Weightlifting.

As for Gordon, I'm aware of what it's used for, but I was wondering whether it could be adapted temporarily for Olympic use with the addition of, say, 3-4000 temporary seats. It seems that Actually as I'm typing this I just read the application doc that Boston submitted to the USOC. It seems Gordon is planned to be used for fencing, with Bright serving as its warm-up area.

Some additional thoughts I had when looking at their plan and comparing it from what I would've projected:

  • It appears Nickerson is being used as staging area for the handball event, which would explain why it's not being used as a facility. I would've staged field hockey there (with New Balance Field as a practice/warm-up field), but this works, I guess. I'm curious why the only hints that handball is planned for Agganis is that that's where the handball logo is located on the map.
  • Badminton and rhythmic gymnastics can be competed in the same venue. Moving rhythmic to Hall A and handball something else would free up Agganis for something like the basketball prelims, which leads me to...
  • I may not have been searching hard enough, but I couldn't find any mention of where basketball will be played up until the medal rounds. My guess is Conte Forum, which was not mentioned at all in the proposal.
  • Matthews Arena, while I'm not sure of its facilities, could serve as a closer venue for boxing. Its history with boxing and proximity to the T could make it a more appealing venue.
  • I figured tennis was most likely to be pegged for Harvard, but I didn't expect them to plan temporary show courts. I guess it is cheaper than building new facilities for various Harvard athletics teams and using it temporarily for tennis.
  • On page 12 of submission 4, it appears TD Garden has been renamed TD Banknorth Garden. Obviously, for the Olympics it'll probably be temporarily called Boston Garden or something similar due to the naming rights rules, but that appears to be a typo. Not really relevant, but I thought I'd like to point it out.
  • I figured Hall D might be rolled into the IBC/MPC complex, which would then force the sports side into Halls A-C. I think there might be enough space if they were to go that route, but this seems like an equitable solution. Also, is it sad that this is the first time I've seen any floor-plan-ish of the new BCEC expansion?
  • I guessed equestrian would be held in Franklin Park due to the large area for cross country, but I'm surprised they're putting modern pentathlon there. I guess they're buliding temporary facilities for the fencing and swimming portions. It would almost make sense to compete it at Harvard, making additional use of the Natatorium and Gordon, which are pegged for aquatics and fencing anyway. In that case, riding and the combined could be held either at Harvard Stadium or at Jordan Field (with temporary seating). (I take that back, apparently they're using Jordan as a second field hockey facility. Makes sense, I guess.)
  • Also no mention about canoe-slalom or mountain cycling.
  • On the note of cycling, if the velodrome is planned as an indoor venue, an additional sport could be played there if a venue is necessary. (As precedent for this option, NYC2012 planned for badminton to be played at its velodrome.) Heck, if it's outdoors, it could be situated at Harvard and double as a tennis show court (a la Hisense Arena in Melbourne).
  • I guess I heard this a few weeks ago, so I'm not too surprised, but I like the interesting adaptation of MIT's campus for archery. I wonder if the guys at MIT will pull a hack on the dome for the games.

TL;DR: Most of these venue selections seem to be pretty much in line with other Olympic bids in the past. Only a couple that I didn't expect, but I'm not opposed to most of what they have planned. Seems like it can be a very cost-effective plan relative to past Olympics.
 
datadyne007 said:
Shared just now on Boston 2024's Facebook page:
Click to expand...

Lots of problems in that picture. Cabot Yards is not shown, and neither are the barges in Fort Point Channel. The deck over Cabot Yards is meant to support practice fields according to all of their site plans, but in this picture the yards have been eliminated and the site built up. The practice fields appear to the south of the Stadium, which given the site plan is not only inaccurate but physically impossible. It wouldn't be such an issue a year ago, but they released this fanciful rendering after the bid documents. Not professional at all.

A few other initial thoughts on the venue sections of the document (I'm in a hotel with a slow internet connection, so I'll get to the rest later):

- The IBC/MPC complex needs more thought. The BCEC is enough of a monolith as it is (and as it will be). You do not need to put another monolith alongside it. Break that up into smaller buildings, which will be easier to repurpose after the Olympics anyway. I hope the BRA forces a redesign, but it probably won't.

- There's way more land involved in these proposals than is necessary. No need to take private property next to JFK/UMass, and no need to deck Cabot Yard. The latter of these doesn't even seem to serve any purpose - who exactly is going to be practicing on soccer fields for track and field events? They've also messed up MBTA access to their stadium by running their Olympic Boulevard on a deck for dramatic effect. Dorchester Avenue exists. Use it. Use its access to Broadway and Andrew. Call it by its actual name.

- For some reason, they've applied the Beacon Park label to Lower Allston, while not actually using Beacon Park proper at all other than for a bunch of security gates where MassDOT's road grid is supposed to go. I assume they asked Harvard and have confirmed that the entirety of the property north of Cambridge St. will be vacant in 2024, which should be met with glum acceptance by residents. Fortunately, they may be able to shift the aquatics to Tufts (perhaps just to temporary facilities on University property) at some point.

- They've made too much use of the BCEC. Perhaps Conte Forum is used for prelim basketball, but why is it the backup volleyball venue? It exists, it has transit access, it can host volleyball, and BC must be behind you for it to be the backup. Use it, and save the money on building 20,000 seats in Hall D. Same with Matthews Arena for one of the other BCEC events (any one, really). You say you want to leverage the colleges, but you only seem interested in three of them (really two of them - BU is a third wheel).

- Are they floating stands over the river in Lowell? It looks like the seating is on either a barge or a pier. Also, no way that there will be "no significant permitting challenges" with multiple permanent athletic venues directly on the Mystic, with a boardwalk overhanging the river. Gonna get some pushback there.

For all that, many venues are quite clever - Killian Court would make a great archery venue, and the leveraging of Harvard is promising. Now, this needs to move on from the architects so that it can be shot full of reality by accountants, engineers, planners, and athletes.
 
The USOC gave them a ticket revenue number of $1.1 billion. If you take the 8.8 million tickets sold for London, that's an average of $125 a ticket. That also presumes Boston's venues have similar seating capacity as London.

On the Widett Circle location, I'll make a small bet that the Secret Service will insist on blast walls next to I-93, or will prohibit trucks on northbound I-93. The more I think about it, there would likely be a wall, to prevent drive-by shooting at the stadium.

https://www.fbiic.gov/public/2008/o...cleBorneImprovisedExplosiveDevices(VBIED).pdf
 
Equilibria said:
- The IBC/MPC complex needs more thought. The BCEC is enough of a monolith as it is (and as it will be). You do not need to put another monolith alongside it. Break that up into smaller buildings, which will be easier to repurpose after the Olympics anyway. I hope the BRA forces a redesign, but it probably won't.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. They do need to ensure that the buildings can still operate as an IBC/MPC, the former needing a lot of open floor space for production sets and such. For reference, Chicago proposed the use of the South building and part of the North building at McCormick Place for the IBC/MPC.

Equilibria said:
- There's way more land involved in these proposals than is necessary. No need to take private property next to JFK/UMass, and no need to deck Cabot Yard. The latter of these doesn't even seem to serve any purpose - who exactly is going to be practicing on soccer fields for track and field events? They've also messed up MBTA access to their stadium by running their Olympic Boulevard on a deck for dramatic effect. Dorchester Avenue exists. Use it. Use its access to Broadway and Andrew. Call it by its actual name.

- For some reason, they've applied the Beacon Park label to Lower Allston, while not actually using Beacon Park proper at all other than for a bunch of security gates where MassDOT's road grid is supposed to go. I assume they asked Harvard and have confirmed that the entirety of the property north of Cambridge St. will be vacant in 2024, which should be met with glum acceptance by residents. Fortunately, they may be able to shift the aquatics to Tufts (perhaps just to temporary facilities on University property) at some point.
Click to expand...

Every facility needs its practice/warm-up facilities. Look back to every recent Olympics' athletics stadiums and you'll see at least a warm-up track and a warm-up field nearby.

As for Beacon Park, this is something like what I said a few days ago, that they will likely have to turn the Harvard area into an Olympic park of sorts. The investment here may be a little higher than I would've expected, but frankly it looks solid.

Equilibria said:
- They've made too much use of the BCEC. Perhaps Conte Forum is used for prelim basketball, but why is it the backup volleyball venue? It exists, it has transit access, it can host volleyball, and BC must be behind you for it to be the backup. Use it, and save the money on building 20,000 seats in Hall D. Same with Matthews Arena for one of the other BCEC events (any one, really). You say you want to leverage the colleges, but you only seem interested in three of them (really two of them - BU is a third wheel).
Click to expand...

Conte's capacity is 8606 for basketball, and thus 8606 (at maximum) for volleyball, which is well below the 15000 standard set by the IOC. So it is unfeasible as a venue for volleyball, unless you plan on rebuilding it, which (especially given its connection to Alumni Stadium) would be inordinately more expensive than temporary seats in Hall D. Also, if you look at most of the other recent bids, those cities made similar use of their convention centers: Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Rio, Beijing, London, Sydney, just to name a few.

As for leveraging the universities, I would love to use Alumni Stadium for some sport, but it's too narrow for football, too big for field hockey, and rugby already has Gillette. Northeastern really only has Matthews, which I agree should be used, but as I say in my post above, for boxing instead; I believe the footprint of most of the other hall sports would actually be too large to make the upper deck at Matthews usable, which would significantly decrease the capacity. Boston University has Nickerson Field, Agganis Arena, Walter Brown Arena, Case Gym, and New Balance Field. I think with the exception of New Balance, everything else is planned as back-of-house for Agganis, so they seem to be using Boston University as well as they can. Frankly, Harvard and MIT create the most opportunities for facilities due to their open space.

Later on, I would find it hard to believe that Tufts, Bentley, and Brandeis don't find its way into the plan as pre-games practice facilities for several of the sports.

Equilibria said:
- Are they floating stands over the river in Lowell? It looks like the seating is on either a barge or a pier. Also, no way that there will be "no significant permitting challenges" with multiple permanent athletic venues directly on the Mystic, with a boardwalk overhanging the river. Gonna get some pushback there.
Click to expand...

I imagine every barge on the Merrimack (not the Mystic) will be temporary.

Equilibria said:
For all that, many venues are quite clever - Killian Court would make a great archery venue, and the leveraging of Harvard is promising.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
kmp1284 said:
And they have Boston Hahbah penciled in for sailing. That would be a fucking horror show, not to mention the courses would have to be shortened due to space constraints. There are rumors that the two major Buzzards Bay clubs, Beverly in Marion and New Bedford in Padanaram are looking to collaborate on an Olympic caliber venue located perhaps in New Bedford proper. John Fish is a graduate of Tabor in Marion and both clubs have their share of highly influential Bostonians, plus each has produced a number of Olympic medalists.
Click to expand...

You know sailing better than I do and I've been a New Bedford booster on this forum, but do you think that's even a realistic option? I'm assuming the venue and the course would be located somewhere outside of the hurricane barrier which would make some place like Fort Rodman/Taber a likely spot for the venue. That's not awful with the exception of the sewage treatment plant right next door which I would assume would be a deal breaker. And anything inside the hurricane barrier is likely a no-go due to space restrictions and the fact that New Bedford Harbor is hardly the image you want the world to see of "Boston" and the U.S.
 
At the meeting, Manfredi in particular, and others too, stressed that this was all prelim stage, proof of concept detail. And especially on specific siting of venues. One question was about making the aquatics venue permanent, given the local need. In response, they alluded to conversations with other universities about that specific venue perhaps being a perm site (without naming Tufts specifically), and also mentioning flexibility on other venue sites, both in location and in later usage. And Manfredi was polished in making it sound admirably flexible and open-minded. He did not get into the issue of using revenues for temp facilities as compared to perm facilities but he did very smoothly present the need for flexibility. He's a real pro at these things.

But ... with all this to be completed by 2024? When there are so many core details not yet pinned down? With the current set of pols and bureaucrats we have in place? When thinking about the timeline, Manfredi's flexibility struck me as .... more like a guy standing at a bus depot, bragging about all the reading he's going to get done on his bus trip, but who hasn't noticed that the bus left the station an hour ago, with him not on it.

If Paris or Rome or whoever throws together the more typical splurge-athon bid, and if it turns out the IOC's happy talk about frugality turns out to be a smoke screen, i think this bid has no chance with the IOC. Even if the public gets 85% on board.
 
West said:
If Paris or Rome or whoever throws together the more typical splurge-athon bid, and if it turns out the IOC's happy talk about frugality turns out to be a smoke screen, i think this bid has no chance with the IOC. Even if the public gets 85% on board.
Click to expand...

To that, I say "fine". The IOC gave guidelines for frugality. Boston 2024 has been hitting that theme on every single point. If they don't want frugal after all, then let the French or Italian (or is it all ultimately German now) taxpayer foot an extravagant bill for a stadium shaped like a sea scallop.
 
Something I wrote on the Global comments just now. I would have written differently for this audience, but it is late and I'm going to bed.

I attended the public presentation tonight. They really seem to have their hearts and minds in the right place. The entire discussion was about where the city is going to be in 2030 (they are looking years beyond 2024 as the real target). The games are meant to be a catalyst to help us reshape underutilized parts of the city and remake them in OUR vision. The games are a focus point and a deadline, but not the ultimate motivation.

They adamantly denied wanting or needing public money aside from Federal money for security (which any host city would get) and State money for infrastructure projects that are already underway. Feds will apparently even pay for State, City, Transit and university police departments working above and beyond normal operations. They feds will pay to update and upgrade communication equipment for all security departments involved.

They admitted that they do not have the power of eminent domain and do not want or need to use it anyway. They have the budget to pay market rate for any and all land they need to purchase.

They are committed to not destroying a single existing residence.

They are committed to replacing/relocating any displaced jobs at their own expense. They specifically mentioned the food processing coop at Widett Circle being relocated, potentially to the Marine Industrial Park with superior transportation access than they have now, at the insistence of the Mayor and at their own expense.

The anticipated profits from the games (and they anticipate a profit based on past experience) will go to fund youth sporting programs and other inner city youth programs.

I went into the room cautiously optimistic and I left the room thoroughly reassured on all fronts. The US has an excellent track record hosting the Olympics. You can't compare to the missteps made in Greece or China or Russia and extrapolate to Boston. You look at Atlanta and Salt Lake, which were both resounding successes and beloved by their local populations.
Click to expand...
 
fattony said:
To that, I say "fine". The IOC gave guidelines for frugality. Boston 2024 has been hitting that theme on every single point. If they don't want frugal after all, then let the French or Italian (or is it all ultimately German now) taxpayer foot an extravagant bill for a stadium shaped like a sea scallop.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. And the French and Italian bids are all German money now, plus some German city will apparently bid in. Let one of them have it if they go wild and the IOC reverts to prior form.
 
fattony said:
Something I wrote on the Global comments just now. I would have written differently for this audience, but it is late and I'm going to bed.
I attended the public presentation tonight. They really seem to have their hearts and minds in the right place. The entire discussion was about where the city is going to be in 2030 (they are looking years beyond 2024 as the real target). The games are meant to be a catalyst to help us reshape underutilized parts of the city and remake them in OUR vision. The games are a focus point and a deadline, but not the ultimate motivation.

They adamantly denied wanting or needing public money aside from Federal money for security (which any host city would get) and State money for infrastructure projects that are already underway. Feds will apparently even pay for State, City, Transit and university police departments working above and beyond normal operations. They feds will pay to update and upgrade communication equipment for all security departments involved.

They admitted that they do not have the power of eminent domain and do not want or need to use it anyway. They have the budget to pay market rate for any and all land they need to purchase.

They are committed to not destroying a single existing residence.

They are committed to replacing/relocating any displaced jobs at their own expense. They specifically mentioned the food processing coop at Widett Circle being relocated, potentially to the Marine Industrial Park with superior transportation access than they have now, at the insistence of the Mayor and at their own expense.

The anticipated profits from the games (and they anticipate a profit based on past experience) will go to fund youth sporting programs and other inner city youth programs.

I went into the room cautiously optimistic and I left the room thoroughly reassured on all fronts. The US has an excellent track record hosting the Olympics. You can't compare to the missteps made in Greece or China or Russia and extrapolate to Boston. You look at Atlanta and Salt Lake, which were both resounding successes and beloved by their local populations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.

I was also at the meeting and was fortunate enough to not only bump into fattony, but also discuss the project after at length. The Boston 2024 team has done their homework. They are taking this whole project on very confidently, thoughtfully, and pridefully.

As someone who has not only attended countless community meetings for other projects but also witnessed many Q&A's between government officials and their constituents, one of the things that annoys the sh*t out of me is when someone gives you a politician answer to every simple question. To my relief and the relief of all others, there was none of that from this organization. They very thoughtfully arranged for questions to be written throughout the presentation, and spent a solid hour answering every single question honestly and professionally (and respectfully). Not once did it feel like they were being defensive.

There were a handful of NIMBY's in the room--you know, those 5 or 6 people who clap stupidly when a "Gotcha" question is asked to the authority--out of a crowd of probably 500+ people. Judging by the more frequent applauses from the rest of the crowd, I get the sense that most attendees are very optimistic about this proposal.
 
What about Newton Commonwealth Golf Course, Granite Links Quincy (Awesome Skyline views)? or TPC Norton? for Golf?
 
For mountain biking, couldn't you have parking at Blue hills at the trailside, museum, the lots around ponkapoag pond and houghton's pond, and along the roadways through the blue hills? perhaps you could have satellite parking at local companies office parks along route 128 corridor by Dedham and off route 24 and at Legacy Place Mall and South bay.. with shuttle busses to the start-finish line viewing areas. I think Blue Hills has enough varying terrain to be a fabulous mountain biking course. - could have shuttle busses from Readville Commuter Rail as well. And maybe temporary silver line bus routes from Downtown....via 28/138....Other possibilities for mountain biking would be WOMPATUCK state park - Hingham --- A combination of Bear Brook/Pawtuckaway park near Manchester NH, combination of Lynn woods and Breakheart Reservation c ourse with a on road connection over route 1 (Essex Street) I think it is? ---- Middlesex Fells course. .(Winchester-Medford-Stoneham).... - perhaps a course up in Carlisle Concord using various conservation land trails and Great Brook farm with a couple back road connections. ----or you could do western mass for mountain biking including Beartown Forest, October Moutnain Forest, Mount Washington Forest or Mount Greylock Forest. Wachusett Mountain Reservation and a combination with Leominster State Forest would be another option. Finally, a last option would be the Tully Trail in North Central Mass by Tully Campground.
 
I still think the aquatics center , velodrome , and tennis complex should be built at Harvard along with field hockey at the current stadium (and the venues should be all reused after the games by the university and public rather than torn down. ) (I feel that is a waste of resources and $$$)
 
Why not use Moakely Park for Archery and Shooting??? (Temporary venues that could be torn down after)
 
I would also like to see Fenway have 20,000 seats added along right field and in the bleachers and used for the primary soccer venue (Soccer has been done well at fenway before, it would be awesome feel to the atosphere.) along with Baseball and Softball. a softball venue (Temporary ) could be built @ Moakley park as well. as the archery/shooting venue.
 
I would like to see a Beach Volleyball venue built next to piers park as part of the East Boston Waterfront Project (Redevelopment) instead of the common. - could reuse after as retail space or what not. -
 
I would like to see Equestrian @ the brownfield site in South Boston by City Point ---could be cleaned up and turned into a park after the games. Either that or Suffolk Downs to save suffolk downs and create an assembly row type development there with retail, hotels, condos. Maybe an athletes village there? (Right on the Blue Line)
 
Is there any way we can make the Olympic Stadium permanent? if we do this right? And also find a place to move the companies that would be displaced by the venue? I think that would be best for everyone! It just seems silly to build a stadium and not use it after. Why not use it for something at least if not a stadium use it as a community rec center or something --- or just use it as a stadium and develop a assembly row type project around it. - have the revs move there after the games..
 
Also why not add a retractable roof to the widett circle stadium so we could host a super bowl --add enough seats so we could host a super bowl, wrestlemania, NCAA championships, World Cup events...and more. as well as regular concerts. Make it a destination. Not a temporary place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top