Boston 2024

[Commuting Boston Student]

I'm just so f'ing tired of this notion that LA is the only place in the entire f'ing United States to host to the Olympics.

Get used to it, because LA is the only place in this entire country qualified to host a 'sensible' Olympics. The venues are all there already, they've done it twice before, the infrastructure is getting built out quite nicely. If, indeed, we're not going to put on the total urban overhaul style Olympics anymore, then it's LA or nowhere in the US.

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'll tell you what it would take for me to get on board with the five-ring circus: the bid package needed to include the North-South Rail Link, it needed to include major expansion of transit both inside and outside the core, it needed to be the vehicle by which we got the 100-year projects done in 20 years instead. Forget Boston 2024, start the long work to get into position for Boston 2036. And I'm willing to bet that with 20 years, instead of 9, you'd see a lot more support, a lot more willingness, and - yes - an actual transformative impact on the city and the region.

This bid was garbage, unredeemable garbage, and if every single USOC campaign is going to revolve around bids like this one then, yes, it's going to be LA or nowhere and I couldn't possibly be happier about that.

 

[stellarfun]

Los Angeles is currently hosting the Special Olympics with 7,000 participants from 170 countries, 3,000 coaches, 30,000 volunteers, in 25 sports, and little fuss.
_______________________________________

As I read-between-the-lines in the recent articles in the Globe and Herald, the USOC wants Baker and Walsh to show more enthusiasm for Boston being the host city. Baker, in effect, is saying 'he won't' before he gets a consultant's report next month. I'd have to believe that Baker's staff have a preliminary read on what the consultant will say, and if it was going to be favorable toward a bid, Baker would not be holding back to the extent that he is. In fact, Baker is behaving as if he hopes the USOC kills the bid before he throws cold water on it, and adds to his reputation as Charlie No.

With Baker's sidestepping, the onus falls on Walsh, who gets caught between a rock and a hardplace. Just taking the platform, B24 and the city insist that the Master Developer take out a performance bond that the platform will be delivered at no more than $1.2 billion cost and on-schedule. Given that no designs exist, that no land has been taken, that no agreements have been reached with affected property owners, the cost of such a bond could be spectacularly high, and a cost not included in the $1.2 billion.

The USOC sees Walsh and the city as holding the Olympics at arms length, and unlikely to sign any guarantee sought by the IOC.

Add all the lack of palpable support by political leaders at the state and local level, and poll numbers hovering around 40 percent approval, IMO, the Boston bid gets pulled, and the USOC will either go with no bid for 2024, or spend the money its budgeted for developing the IOC bid documents on another city. IIRC, the California legislature said it would cover up to $500 million of cost overruns for either San Francisco or Los Angeles.

 

[JohnAKeith]

The Globe didn't have any quotes from the IOC / USOC. The Herald didn't even cover the "debate" of last week.

 

[Equilibria]

Los Angeles is currently hosting the Special Olympics with 7,000 participants from 170 countries, 3,000 coaches, 30,000 volunteers, in 25 sports, and little fuss.
______________________________________

Add all the lack of palpable support by political leaders at the state and local level, and poll numbers hovering around 40 percent approval, IMO, the Boston bid gets pulled, and the USOC will either go with no bid for 2024, or spend the money its budgeted for developing the IOC bid documents on another city. IIRC, the California legislature said it would cover up to $500 million of cost overruns for either San Francisco or Los Angeles.

The Special Olympics require basically no commitments. They just happen. Sure, all the athletes are there, but ask it this way - have you heard one word about the Special Olympics and what it took to host them? If ESPN wasn't televising them, would anyone know they were going on?

It wouldn't be much different in Boston. It's the non-athletic aspects of a Summer Games - the infrastructure, the need for iconic venue designs, etc. that drive up the cost. Those are also the elements that provide the benefits if done right.

Los Angeles is no more prepared to be a host than Boston is. Its transit is lacking to nonexistent in areas around proposed venues, so everything would need to be freeway-based again. The nicer areas have legendary NIMBYs - why do you think the NFL is looking at Carson and Inglewood?

The venue plan and budget are also behind where Boston's were in January, unless there's been a secret planning process for the last six months in anticipation of screwing us. That's not something that gets resolved overnight just because LA is bigger. This is California. Every one of their venue plans will be CEQA'd to hell the moment it's announced.

Most of all, the "we're so excited to bail out Boston" angle only works for so long, because at some point people in CA will have the same misgivings as we did, and we will just have proven how much damage those misgivings can do.

BTW, Treating the USOC like the sensible party that was willing to do something charitable for poor little Boston but had to make the tough call in the end is a very interesting reading of this story. The USOC picked Boston (and since it's all California people, it must not have wanted to) because it had the most developed plan. DC, LA, and SF came in with concepts and half-baked schemes. Since then, the USOC has contributed nothing positive while endlessly chipping away with silly gag orders, redacted documents, damaging soundbites and leaked information.

I would be very hesitant if I were LA to do any business with the USOC at this point. Boston 2024 often hasn't looked like it knew what it was doing, but at least they're trying to fix that. The USOC has no idea what hosting an Olympics takes, no idea how to sell that to the local public, nothing. The leaders seem to be hiding in a corner helplessly, and the boosters for other cities are chomping at the bit. There isn't an ounce of professionalism in the lot.

 

[stellarfun]

With respect to LA, most of the venues already exist, including the stadium, the velodrome, and eight swimming pools, though they may build a ninth pool, and convert it after to a soccer stadium. Even rowing has an existing venue, used in the 1984 Olympics.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-la-olympic-bid-20150108-story.html

___________________

Only in Boston does a stadium seating increase from 60,000 to 69,000, while the cost of construction is halved.

 

[datadyne007]

With respect to LA, most of the venues already exist, including the stadium, the velodrome, and eight swimming pools, though they may build a ninth pool, and convert it after to a soccer stadium. Even rowing has an existing venue, used in the 1984 Olympics.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-la-olympic-bid-20150108-story.html

Exactly. The reason why LA is so prepared to host the Olympics is because they hosted the Olympics before! Why can't any other city do the same thing? It takes vision.

 

[George_Apley]

Exactly. The reason why LA is so prepared to host the Olympics is because they hosted the Olympics before! Why can't any other city do the same thing? It takes vision.

And land. Boston 2024 is looking in the wrong place though... their downfall is that their vision is not the best one...

 

[datadyne007]

And land. Boston 2024 is looking in the wrong place though... their downfall is that their vision is not the best one...

I agree completely that the bid is a disaster. It could (should) have been so much better and more logical from venue planning to transparency and community outreach. My point is that no city is going to really optimize their Olympic plans for the truly best bid if LA is always on the back-burner. LA is leftovers for dinner, literally. I want a fresh steak.

 

[tangent]

Get used to it, because LA is the only place in this entire country qualified to host a 'sensible' Olympics. The venues are all there already, they've done it twice before, the infrastructure is getting built out quite nicely. If, indeed, we're not going to put on the total urban overhaul style Olympics anymore, then it's LA or nowhere in the US.

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'll tell you what it would take for me to get on board with the five-ring circus: the bid package needed to include the North-South Rail Link, it needed to include major expansion of transit both inside and outside the core, it needed to be the vehicle by which we got the 100-year projects done in 20 years instead. Forget Boston 2024, start the long work to get into position for Boston 2036. And I'm willing to bet that with 20 years, instead of 9, you'd see a lot more support, a lot more willingness, and - yes - an actual transformative impact on the city and the region.

This bid was garbage, unredeemable garbage, and if every single USOC campaign is going to revolve around bids like this one then, yes, it's going to be LA or nowhere and I couldn't possibly be happier about that.

Why spend $5 Billion when you can spend $40 Billion?

 

[tangent]

And land. Boston 2024 is looking in the wrong place though... their downfall is that their vision is not the best one...

The vision should have been about the Olympics and not about how to build a bunch of condos and office buildings with bigger tax breaks.

 

[George_Apley]

The vision should have been about the Olympics and not about how to build a bunch of condos and office buildings with bigger tax breaks.

Yup. The big-wigs running B2024 got the Widett bug up their asses and it led them to pitch a dumb bid.

 

[lexicon506]

Yup. The big-wigs running B2024 got the Widett bug up their asses and it led them to pitch a dumb bid.

Oh please. You really think a stadium at Beacon Yards or Suffolk Downs would have had a different fate? It doesn't matter where they pitched the bid, it would have run into the same vehement opposition.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...resentative_adamant_about_commitment_by_baker

Another USOC official goes on-record saying they want an up/down answer on Baker's support during today's conference call.

This really is starting to look like judgment day for B24.

 

[stellarfun]

This article in the Orange County Register on reviving the Los Angeles bid indicates that the USOC voted for Boston only because some in the IOC weren't keen on a third Olympics for LA.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bid-674058-boston-games.html

My sense is that the USOC sees B24 as flailing and failing, and no state/local political or business leader (e.g., a Kraft doing what Romney did for Salt Lake City) jumping in to help save it.

How does the $500 million loss projected in 1.0 become a profit in version 2.0? Do away with building the Press Center and Broadcast Center (and hope you find buildings to lease, or as Davey lightheartedly opined, maybe the press/media can just use their cellphones); construct a stadium for $175 million on a platform that costs $1.2 billion, and simply plug in numbers for costly venues (e.g., velodrome and aquatics) for which there is no site, and no design.

I have no experience in underwriting performance bonds, but I find it hard to believe that any underwriter would offer a bond at much less than 1:1 cost to the Master Developer if costs exceed the hard $1.2 billion cap by a $100-200 million. Certainly, a bond might be a few cents on the dollar for cost overruns that are in the $500 million $1 billion range, but I would think sureties covering overruns that are 10-15 percent of a firm cap, given all the uncertainties associated with the site, would be prohibitive. The city has said the Master Developer can't self-insure, so the question becomes who would bid to be a Master Developer if they can't secure a reasonably-priced performance bond?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Gaming out the clock today. . .

-- USOC conference call starts at 9:30am.

-- The IOC Executive Board is meeting later today in Kuala Lumpur (12 hours ahead of us)--9:00pm to 4:30am Boston time--to vote on the 2022 Winter Games host.

-- If the USOC is going to make any decision to stay the course or pull the bid, they will need to resolve that with a vote amongst themselves this afternoon before end-of-business local time.

-- Decision would then need to be relayed to the IOC between 5:00-8:00pm tonight when they're waking up and prepping for their Board session. As bulk of that meeting (or at least the afternoon session, Malaysian time) is devoted to 2022, 2024 developments would most likely be covered in the A.M. session and need to make the agenda before start of the session.

-- Barring press leaks getting out this afternoon or evening, we probably get official news on whether or not B24 lives another day at wake-up time tomorrow, since the IOC meeting concludes for the day at 4:30am and it will have officially been discussed by them overnight.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

And I suppose if you want to keep a scorecard guessing whose camp the off-record sources singing like a canary are affiliated with for any early breakout of rumor-mongering. . .

-- Lunchtime to before 3:00pm: Baker's people.

-- 3:00pm to 6:00pm: B24's people (assume that they close ranks and huddle for a few hours until they're certain the USOC has told the IOC something)

-- 6:00pm to 9:00pm: USOC people (assume they close ranks until the IOC told, and then have to tell all the sources from L.A. who've been hammering their phones all day something in the affirmative or the negative)

-- 4:00pm to 9:00pm: L.A. reporters and bloggers who need something to talk about during drive-time

-- 6:00pm to 9:00pm: IOC officials who just woke up or are gossiping over breakfast

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

If the USOC sticks with Boston then it essentially confirms Baker expressed his support for the bid behind closed doors, and before getting results from the review he ordered (which has stated as recently as yesterday is vital to whether or not he supports the bid).

Politically, how can he get away with supporting the bid given the statements he has released?

It would also cut against what we know about Baker in the admittedly small sample size since he took office: when he says he's waiting for info being prepared for him before making a decision, he will not be rushed into releasing that decision. Even the T fiscal reform board, which everyone could see a mile away was going to parrot the Pioneer Institute's report verbatim, did not get revealed by him until his internal report deadline.

It doesn't matter if he's a crapshoot or reliable as an atomic clock what he's ultimately going to decide, Baker is methodical about setting internal deadlines and being stubbornly hands-off until said deadline. And reacts poorly when he gets bullied about giving early answers. This is personality trait; even to the extent politics warps and manipulates I'm not sure he can change who he is. This is a guy who structures his whole brain around report deadlines real or in his own head. To the extent that helps or hurts him...well, he is what he is what he is.


I would be shocked if this one instance reveals him to be anything different than what we've so far seen that he is.

 

[tangent]

Oh please. You really think a stadium at Beacon Yards or Suffolk Downs would have had a different fate? It doesn't matter where they pitched the bid, it would have run into the same vehement opposition.

Same "vehement opposition", but less general opposition. Cost matters. Most people can look at those plans and say "who the hell is going to pay for that?" With the obvious answer being the taxpayers are going to pay for that.

Despite the "it is going to happen anyway" mantra it appears B24 looked around for a site that was so challenged that it absolutely wouldn't happen in anyone's lifetime without something like the Olympics to create some irrational exuberance.

 

[tangent]

If the USOC sticks with Boston then it essentially confirms Baker expressed his support for the bid behind closed doors, and before getting results from the review he ordered (which has stated as recently as yesterday is vital to whether or not he supports the bid).

Politically, how can he get away with supporting the bid given the statements he has released?

He could be supportive of the concept and reserve judgement on the specifics of the plan.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Why spend $5 Billion when you can spend $40 Billion?

To get the things you otherwise wouldn't have had for decades (Blue and Orange Line extensions), centuries (North-South), or potentially ever (Mass Avenue subway). Irrational exuberance is all well and good, if - and only if - it results in something of appreciable value that we couldn't have had otherwise.

Otherwise, why spend $5 billion when you can spend $1 billion, or if you're counting the infrastructure expenses as all costs getting paid either way, $0?