Boston 2024

HenryAlan said:
Yeah, I'm annoyed by that, and I'm equally annoyed by the lack of faith Bostonians have in our own ability. Boston could have held a great Olympics, but nobody will ever know that for sure. We've cemented our status as less than world class.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is we just didn't have a stadium near the city and didn't have a responsible plan to build one. You can't hold an Olympics without a stadium. I wish Menino and Kraft had worked it out in the 90s, but they didn't. No city should bid for the Olympics based on building a stadium just for the games.
 
From the USOC's and Boston 2024's statement:

Notwithstanding the promise of the original bid, and the soundness of the plan developed under Steve Pagliuca, we have not been able to get a majority of the citizens of Boston to support hosting the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Click to expand...

This comes really close to blaming the electorate. All too typical. They do say "we have not been able to get.... etc" but that's right after talking about promise of 1.0 and soundness of 2.0. Whereas 2.0 still had the profoundly unsound Widett, the magical shrinking media center budget, a missing natatorium and a missing velodrome and a decent list of other problems, especially finances.

So, yeah, you couldn't get the majority of citizens to support hosting what had been put in front of them. But it was not despite the soundness of the 2.0 version, it was because of the 2.0 version's continuing flaws.

They will of course not own up to this.
 
West said:
It looks to me like Walsh took a partial PR hit for Baker, unless Walsh saw some gain to driving a stake in the thing's heart. Someone help me out here, this isn't making sense.
Click to expand...

My thought is that Walsh concluded the gig was up and wanted to get out in front of it. What looks stronger, a mayor standing up to the IOC/USOC, saying in essence, "we like the Olympics but your rules suck, so get lost," or a mayor meekly accepting a one sided rejection?
 
caaKtY9.jpg
 
West said:
This comes really close to blaming the electorate. All too typical. They do say "we have not been able to get.... etc" but that's right after talking about promise of 1.0 and soundness of 2.0. Whereas 2.0 still had the profoundly unsound Widett, the magical shrinking media center budget, a missing natatorium and a missing velodrome and a decent list of other problems, especially finances.

So, yeah, you couldn't get the majority of citizens to support hosting what had been put in front of them. But it was not despite the soundness of the 2.0 version, it was because of the 2.0 version's continuing flaws.

They will of course not own up to this.
Click to expand...

Eh, keep in mind the most strident tweeters and anti-Olympic activists are now all crowing that they caused this to happen. They don't mind taking the credit. I'd just as soon play down that aspect, since there were structural issues well beyond popular backlash. Just the same, my Facebook feed is lit up right now with noBoston folks bragging about their great victory.
 
HenryAlan said:
Just the same, my Facebook feed is lit up right now with noBoston folks bragging about their great victory.
Click to expand...

I'm very happy not to be linked to any of the no Boston crowd. I had a long list of problems with the bid 2.0 and am not mourning its demise, but I have been frustrated from the start that a better bid couldn't have been crafted - the general concept of an Olympics prompt to much-needed work was very appealing to me. So while I'm not mourning 2.0's demise (the specific plan I mean), I am mourning a lost opportunity.

And the crowing the professional NO crowd will get stale quickly.

I just got an email from Boston 2024, I was on their mailing list. Pagliuca's tone was much more palatable and gracefully done than the USOC's announcement. I don't see it online yet or I'd link.
 
West said:
I'm very happy not to be linked to any of the no Boston crowd. I had a long list of problems with the bid 2.0 and am not mourning its demise, but I have been frustrated from the start that a better bid couldn't have been crafted - the general concept of an Olympics prompt to much-needed work was very appealing to me. So while I'm not mourning 2.0's demise (the specific plan I mean), I am mourning a lost opportunity.

And the crowing the professional NO crowd will get stale quickly.

I just got an email from Boston 2024, I was on their mailing list. Pagliuca's tone was much more palatable and gracefully done than the USOC's announcement. I don't see it online yet or I'd link.
Click to expand...

Same here. My feed was mostly pro-Olympics people that continually expressed disgust with the disaster of a bid we were putting forward. The tone has largely shifted to demanding that No Boston 2024 support affordable housing & infrastructure development NB2024 claimed didn't need the Olympics.

UniversalHub is blowing up in celebration right now. Im surprised Adam hasn't added confetti to the background yet.
 
The comments on the LA Times article are interesting....including this one:

msblack Rank 12
As long as the USOC picks up the full tab, including security and police, I say let's host the games again! TV ad revenue and sponsorship generates billions in profit for the USOC.
 
datadyne007 said:
Same here. My feed was mostly pro-Olympics people that continually expressed disgust with the disaster of a bid we were putting forward. The tone has largely shifted to demanding that No Boston 2024 support affordable housing & infrastructure development NB2024 claimed didn't need the Olympics.

UniversalHub is blowing up in celebration right now. Im surprised Adam hasn't added confetti to the background yet.
Click to expand...

Same here. But B2024 was also claiming that Widett and Bayside were going to get developed regardless of the Olympics, but that it might just take a decade or two longer without the deadlines.

On a positive note, I agree that redevelopment of the Bayside Expo center was a real good looking plan. I hope that Umass Boston, the City and a developer can move forward sooner rather than later on that as a mixed use development with dorms. Everything about that proposed development makes sense and those renderings could provide a solid basis to jump start planning.

That shall be my last positive thing to say today.
 
I did not read the separate 2.0 volume on the athletes village, but the summary table in the overview volume indicates that about $950 million of the cost of the village would be picked up by the state, nearly $600 million for student housing, and $350 million for senior housing. A Master Developer was on the hook for $1.9 billion. The cost to B24 for the athletes village was $60 million. Without reading the detailed volume, I have no idea whether there was any commitment by the state to pay the $950 million.

B24 had budgeted $125 million for insurance premiums for various coverages, the cumulative total of which was over $1.5 billion. These coverages did not cover venue construction, and the cost of bonds and sureties covering a failure to achieve schedule or cost was to be borne by the construction contractor / master developer. B24's bid might still be alive if B24 bought these coverages in lieu of a city guaranty, but B24 apparently declined to do so.

Everything was fobbed off to the master developer / contractor, which is a very high risk strategy when one also imposes tight cost and schedule constraints.

The 2.0 stadium version for Widett would cost $175 million, for which there is no comparable structure at that cost. San Francisco also proposed a temporary stadium on a landfill, cost $350 million, seating 60,000. That $350 million was Boston's 1.0 cost estimate as well.

The aquatics center B24 priced at $70 million. London's cost was 270 million pounds.
 
I too am glad to see the bid dead, while still feeling a little sorry that seemingly nothing productive will come of the (supposedly) intellectual process of planning for the games.

In my mind Boston 2024 damned itself during the midst of the storms when the T completely collapsed and somehow, Rich Davey was out there saying that the MBTA had everything it needed to host the Olympics. To be fair to him, I think that was only after the first storm had hit, but it was a ridiculous thing to say then and only looked worse over the course of the next storms. I think opposition would have solidified against the Olympics no matter what, but without those storms I don't think this bid would have failed nearly as quickly and spectacularly as it did.
 
stellarfun said:
I did not read the separate 2.0 volume on the athletes village, but the summary table in the overview volume indicates that about $950 million of the cost of the village would be picked up by the state, nearly $600 million for student housing, and $350 million for senior housing. A Master Developer was on the hook for $1.9 billion. The cost to B24 for the athletes village was $60 million. Without reading the detailed volume, I have no idea whether there was any commitment by the state to pay the $950 million.
Click to expand...

There was no commitment by the city or state to pay for anything as far as I know. It was all speculative based on plans for student housing and the need for senior housing. Those are real needs so it wasn't unrealistic... but it wasn't a sure thing either.
 
mass88 said:
The comments on the LA Times article are interesting....including this one:

msblack Rank 12
As long as the USOC picks up the full tab, including security and police, I say let's host the games again! TV ad revenue and sponsorship generates billions in profit for the USOC.
Click to expand...

Weird comment. Why wouldn't Boston, or any host city in the world, go for this?
 
My two cents and 300th post:

I don't think this is a total loss.

The failed bid was a successful visioning exercise for the development of two new neighborhoods. No neighborhood planning process would ever have had as much exposure and led to as much discussion as the Boston 2024 bid with its flashy graphics of a built-out Widett Circle and Bayside property.

The general public, which I fear is under the impression that Boston is already "overdeveloped", has now been exposed to a vision for how big pockets of underutilized land can be transformed into dynamic new neighborhoods that help to address Boston's need for housing and are overall an enhancement to the city.
 
West said:
I'm very happy not to be linked to any of the no Boston crowd. I had a long list of problems with the bid 2.0 and am not mourning its demise, but I have been frustrated from the start that a better bid couldn't have been crafted - the general concept of an Olympics prompt to much-needed work was very appealing to me. So while I'm not mourning 2.0's demise (the specific plan I mean), I am mourning a lost opportunity.

And the crowing the professional NO crowd will get stale quickly.
Click to expand...

This mirrors my feelings very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top