If they use the stadium footprint for a new Fenway, I would probably be for it. Otherwise, I really hope it goes to Capetown.
The USOC selects Boston as U.S. bid to host the 2024 Olympic & Paralympic Games
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
moondog80 said:
I've read this before. What exactly would a stadium that is modular, yet fit for the Olympics, entail?
I don't understand the argument put forth by the promoters that it will catalyze the city to upgrade its infrastructure (and thus won't cost "extra" public money since they were planning to make those improvements anyway).dirtynine said:
The T and many other things need to be upgraded, yes, but the reasons to do so should be the development of the economy and providing more convenience and public benefits for MA's citizens rather than a two-week event.
If they end up in the same place for similar cost, so be it, but I'm skeptical that will be the case and it certainly seems like misplaced priorities to me.
PC Drunken Friar said:
"Man, not only is my hometown hosting an incredibly unique, once-in-a-lifetime global celebration featuring the best athletes in human history, but it's also making a ton of infrastructure upgrades that will keep it globally competitive for the next century! Fuck that shit!
Fuck John Fish in his stupid face
This is coming purely from dreading what are likely to be slight inconveniences but whatever
This is coming purely from dreading what are likely to be slight inconveniences but whatever
All I'm saying is that I can understand why people wouldn't want it here. And your original post completely minimizes the inconvenience. Many, many people don't give two shits about sports.Orel Miraculous said:
I actually think it's awesome.
Orel Miraculous said:
Because when you think of Atlanta or Los Angeles, great infrastructure is the first thing that comes to mind.
I'm not upset about getting inconvenienced 10 years from now -- assuming I'm still here, I'll manage. I'm upset that the "infrastructure upgrades" will be an overpriced boondoggle, and will siphon tax dollars away from unsexy things like local aid for schools, road and bridge repairs on secondary roads, and so on. I don't believe for a second that the expense of hosting the games will be borne entirely, or even mostly, by the games themselves -- the IOC is still pissed about how "commercial" the Atlanta games were (which, of course, is the only way the games will come close to paying their way).
I'm also wary of the impingement on civil liberties and freedom of movement that will be necessary to prevent terrorist attacks during the games. Maybe you consider that an "inconvenience"; I think it's much worse than that. I don't want to suspend my freedoms for a few months so some corrupt ex-fascists can have a little exhibition in my city.
And yeah, fuck the Olympics. I don't even like watching them on TV.
Yeah, great, let's design our city for the next century and spend finite dollars based on a two week event centered around a disposable stadium.Orel Miraculous said:
Hopefully this goes on the 2016 ballot where this moonbat idea will be resoundly defeated.
PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:
I've read this before. What exactly would a stadium that is modular, yet fit for the Olympics, entail?
Stitch01 said:
Joe D Reid said:
The Napkin said:
Mystic Merlin said:
I am astounded by the negativity. Sure it's not financial chicken soup, but it's a once in a lifetime opportunity. And the MBTA needs the incentive to improve.
That said, paging DEA to the Suffolk Construction offices . . .
Count me as an unabashed Olympics lover. I guess I'm supposed to hate this, but I gotta say I'm stoked for this possibility.
Well, personally, I'm extremely happy about this decision. (I live in DC.)Dan to Theo to Ben said:
I'm (a) as skeptical as many in this thread about the ability if Boston to pull this off, (b) worried about the finances and the potential for corruption, inefficiency and waste when you talk about Boston and the IOC doing something together, and (c) as a resident of a suburb near town, wary of the disruption to my every day life for the better part of a decade . . .
Yet there is a big part of me, as a Bostonian, that is excited, amazed, and hopeful they get it. And I'm not a huge Olympics fan either. But my home town, and the city I love hosting the Olympics, that is crazy. There is a big part of me that hopes this is something I can share with my kids.
Yet there is a big part of me, as a Bostonian, that is excited, amazed, and hopeful they get it. And I'm not a huge Olympics fan either. But my home town, and the city I love hosting the Olympics, that is crazy. There is a big part of me that hopes this is something I can share with my kids.
Is there any chance Boston's response to the Marathon bombing had a hand in the selection? Between the emergency responders, police manhunt, and the community's response in the aftermath, perhaps the IOC recognized Boston(and the surrounding cities & states) can handle this, for better or for worse?
edit: You guys are acting like Boston is going to beat out Rome, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, and Istanbul. Like it's already done. Paris easily has a better subway system. That alone should easily defeat Boston's bid.
edit: You guys are acting like Boston is going to beat out Rome, Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, and Istanbul. Like it's already done. Paris easily has a better subway system. That alone should easily defeat Boston's bid.
In 2024, I am quite likely to still be living in Jamaica Plain and bike-communiting to Kendall Square. If this actually helps the city of Boston figure out mass transit, urban living, and environmental sustainability -- or just enables one of them and doesn't hinder the others -- great. If this means the city loses a ton of money and my daugther's education suffers as a result, Fuck the Fish.
It's true that it's premature to freak out. But if they based it on what city was the best for it or what made sense, they'd just rotate it through a few cities that already had all the stadiums and necessary infrastructure. I don't think we have any idea what factors will influence the winning bid.brs3 said:
Here's my trouble with the argument that hosting the Olympics spurs needed infrastructure spending. Just looking at it from a transportation standpoint - the MBTA has a massive capital repair backlog that it can't afford to address. The state's highways and bridges have a massive repair backlog as well, in part because so many dollars are being funneled to pay off the Big Dig's bonds. The governor attempted to address this but the legislature blanched at the cost and passed a bill that only partially addressed the backlog. Massachusetts voters had a conniption over the resulting increase in gas prices and rallied to end indexing the gas tax to inflation. Are we really supposed to believe that these same voters will now decide to have their taxes and fees raised because, 'Hey, it's for the Olympics!'?
Yes, it did, the committee was very happy with Boston's ability and willingness to shut down daily life, ramp up security measures, and restrict movement throughout the city. I don't really view that as a positive in this context personally.brs3 said:
I'm still hoping we fuck this up when we have to produce a real and tangible bid and LA or whoever ends up getting it and if we win hope its such a debacle putting it together that the Olympics just get cancelled
Speaking only for myself, I still assume Boston will not get it. But simply being the USOC nominee makes the bid at least realistic, particularly considering how long it has been since the US has hosted a summer Olympics.brs3 said:
Yeah, I voted to keep the gas tax index but if we host the Olympics I will be voting against every revenue increase initiative forever. Any dollars spent on the Olympics needs to come from cuts somewhere else in the budget, it is complete fucking bullshit to raise my taxes to pay for it.JimD said:
Here's a site organizing some information against holding the games in Boston: http://www.nobostonolympics.org
Does anyone know if the public has the right to vote against bringing this unnecessary spending to the city? This has seemingly snuck up without much input from the taxpayers. Maybe my head is just buried in the sand though.
I'll take watching this event on TV while hosted in another country over 2 weeks of useless pride about my city + years of sky high debt. This sounds like a horrid idea. Too many studies have debunked the specious benefits of hosting the games.
Does anyone know if the public has the right to vote against bringing this unnecessary spending to the city? This has seemingly snuck up without much input from the taxpayers. Maybe my head is just buried in the sand though.
I'll take watching this event on TV while hosted in another country over 2 weeks of useless pride about my city + years of sky high debt. This sounds like a horrid idea. Too many studies have debunked the specious benefits of hosting the games.
Koufax said:
Nah, let him be head of the organizing committee again. That guy's more important than the mayor or the Governor in the last few years before the Games anyway.
Personally, I am a little ambivalent about this. I've said it many times in here; The WINTER Games are the right fit for Boston/New England, not summer. That said, two things could happen now -
1. Boston gets the Games, and no matter what all the critics say, it'll be awesome. Really. Way too many people know so little yet say so much about the nuts and bolts of hosting an Olympic Games. The world won't end, you'll be able to get to work if you don't take the time off, and the state won't wind up bankrupt. Atlanta, LA, Salt Lake, Lake Placid and Squaw Valley aren't utterly abandoned black holes after hosting, and neither would Boston be.
2. Boston doesn't get the Games, and the experience, organization structure and IOC familiarity of the bid committee becomes a strong asset towards a future bid for the Winter Games either in 2026 or 2030 (IOC likes repeat bidders).
I've got to confess, I think this is probably a bad idea, but I'm pretty excited.
That said, the infrastructure argument is stupid. If we need new infrastructure, we should spend money on new infrastructure, not stadiums and shit.
By the way, I think, for better or worse, Boston is going to win. 28 years since the last summer games in the US? Seems about right.
That said, the infrastructure argument is stupid. If we need new infrastructure, we should spend money on new infrastructure, not stadiums and shit.
By the way, I think, for better or worse, Boston is going to win. 28 years since the last summer games in the US? Seems about right.
We should, but it hasn't happened. The Green Line has basically been going through the same tunnel for 117 years.jose melendez said:
Fred not Lynn said:
It's a damn shame Boston didn't bid for 2022. It would win in a landslide. But whoever gets 2026 will have the benefit of following a winter games that was in either Almaty Kazakhstan or Beijing
Infield Infidel said:
I don't know the exact timeline, but I think being the US bid for 2024 pretty much rules out a 2026 bid - there's no precedent for having two active bids going at one time, and you'd have to have your hat in the ring competing for the US 2026 bid before the final outcome of 2024 is determined.
If nothing else, can New England at least get a velodrome out of this? They aren't even that expensive...
Lake Placid and LA hosted the winter/summer in the same year in 1932, and then again in consecutive Olympics in the 1980s.Fred not Lynn said:
octoberaroma said:
Pleasant Bay, dude.
Meanwhile, Marty Walsh is already the leader in the clubhouse for the most offensive comment:
Yup and it would be 28 years between hosting Summer Games in the United States and North America. 22 years for any games in the US. If the U.S. bid is presented extremely well it should bode well especially since Boston would be a new host city unlike Rome, Berlin and Paris all who have hosted the summer games prior.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
The Olympics are the spoonful of sugar to get the voters to take the medicine of infrastructure spending.jose melendez said:
Since transportation is in my wheelhouse, I'll share my prediction of the public transportation improvements that could be realistically expected to be in place by 2024:
In the works -
- Green Line extension from Lechmere to Medford and Union Square Somerville
- Upgrading the Fairmount commuter rail line from South Station to Hyde Park to the Indigo Line (yes, they're running out of primary colors for T lines). This will utilize 'diesel light rail' cars - think Green Line trolleys, only slower and without the overhead wires.
- An additional new Indigo Line diesel light rail service from Allston to the Boston Convention Center using the commuter rail through Back Bay and an old freight line that winds its way through the train yards and industrial areas near Newmarket Square
- Commuter rail from South Station to Fall River and New Bedford (maybe - currently scheduled to be completed in 2024).
Possible new projects (planning done but funding not in place yet) -
- Indigo Line diesel light rail service from Allston to North Station via the freight line that crosses through Cambridge near MIT
- Upgrades to the freight line that passes Gillette Stadium to allow for more frequent train service than the few trains that are currently run on Patriots game days
Could be done if the political will and money is there -
- Blue Line extension from Government Center to Charles-MGH to meet the Red Line (the Blue and Red Lines are the only two Boston subway lines that do not meet)
That's pretty much it. There's no magic solution that will meaningfully expand the rest of the MBTA system to squeeze more throughput out of it. It's hundred-year-old infrastructure that already needs a few billion in necessary updates just to do its everyday job. Any 'new' transit lines will be incremental services on the periphery like the Indigo Line plans. The best chance for a true game-changing new service was the North-South Rail Link, a tunnel that would have connected the Purple Lines between North Station and South Station, but the time to do that project was during the Big Dig construction. The meat and potatoes of the Olympic transportation network will be limousines and hundreds of shuttle buses running on dedicated streets and highway lanes that will be closed off to other motorists.
In the works -
- Green Line extension from Lechmere to Medford and Union Square Somerville
- Upgrading the Fairmount commuter rail line from South Station to Hyde Park to the Indigo Line (yes, they're running out of primary colors for T lines). This will utilize 'diesel light rail' cars - think Green Line trolleys, only slower and without the overhead wires.
- An additional new Indigo Line diesel light rail service from Allston to the Boston Convention Center using the commuter rail through Back Bay and an old freight line that winds its way through the train yards and industrial areas near Newmarket Square
- Commuter rail from South Station to Fall River and New Bedford (maybe - currently scheduled to be completed in 2024).
Possible new projects (planning done but funding not in place yet) -
- Indigo Line diesel light rail service from Allston to North Station via the freight line that crosses through Cambridge near MIT
- Upgrades to the freight line that passes Gillette Stadium to allow for more frequent train service than the few trains that are currently run on Patriots game days
Could be done if the political will and money is there -
- Blue Line extension from Government Center to Charles-MGH to meet the Red Line (the Blue and Red Lines are the only two Boston subway lines that do not meet)
That's pretty much it. There's no magic solution that will meaningfully expand the rest of the MBTA system to squeeze more throughput out of it. It's hundred-year-old infrastructure that already needs a few billion in necessary updates just to do its everyday job. Any 'new' transit lines will be incremental services on the periphery like the Indigo Line plans. The best chance for a true game-changing new service was the North-South Rail Link, a tunnel that would have connected the Purple Lines between North Station and South Station, but the time to do that project was during the Big Dig construction. The meat and potatoes of the Olympic transportation network will be limousines and hundreds of shuttle buses running on dedicated streets and highway lanes that will be closed off to other motorists.
via uhub:
Mayor Walsh is announcing a series of meetings for residents to "discuss the benefits and impact on the city" if we actually get the 2024 Olympics:
Mayor Walsh is announcing a series of meetings for residents to "discuss the benefits and impact on the city" if we actually get the 2024 Olympics:
- January 27 at 6:30 p.m. at Suffolk Law School, 120 Tremont St.
- February 24, 6:30 p.m. - Condon School Cafeteria, 200 D St., South Boston
- March 31, 6:30 p.m. - Harvard Business School, (building to be determined)
- April 12, 6:30 p.m. - Roxbury Community College, 1234 Columbus Ave., Roxbury
- May 19, 6:30 p.m. - Cleveland Community Center, 11 Charles St., Dorchester
- June 30, 6:30 p.m. - English High School, 144 McBride St., Jamaica Plain
- July 28, 6:30 p.m. - Mildred School, 5 Mildred Ave., Boston
- August 25, 6:30 p.m. - Ohrenberger School, 175 West Boundary Road, W. Roxbury
- September 29, 6:30 p.m. – East Boston High School, 86 White St., East Boston
Marty Walsh saying this morning that A) he believes most Bostonians support this bid B) this shouldn't be put to a vote, commnunity meetings will suffice.
I can't emphasize enough how against this I am as a Boston resident. While I love the Olympics and I think the 2 weeks or so would be so incredibly cool, all the BS that's associated with it won't make it worth it. And the fact that I most likely won't even get a chance to vote on this is infuriating.
I can't emphasize enough how against this I am as a Boston resident. While I love the Olympics and I think the 2 weeks or so would be so incredibly cool, all the BS that's associated with it won't make it worth it. And the fact that I most likely won't even get a chance to vote on this is infuriating.
Beyond the MBTA, the biggest new transportation asset for the region would be a viable second airport within ~45 minutes of Boston, either via an express rail link to the Worcester Airport or an entirely new facility. Yes, both longshots for multiple reasons..
JimD said:
Doesn't Harvard have some skin in this game? I thought they were proposing a new hub around the Allston rail yards - West Station as it were. I wonder if this would dovetail. Beyond the North-South and Red-Blue connectors, two other projects that would be great to move on: Silver Line Phase III to connect the segments of the Silver Line together (it's not likely to happen, but still), and some kind of a circle line (the coveted urban ring) to make travel between the red-orange-blue-green-commuter spokes easier. I won't delude myself that this could be rail, but even an Silver Line-like dedicated BRT solution would be helpful.
Not to mention, a lot of the proposed venues are not as near to transit as the promoters suggest. Harvard Stadium is on the other side of the River and is over a half-mile from the Red Line. That may not sound like a lot but you really have to have sites right at the station if you want lots of people to walk (or have no other way to get there)JimD said:
Franklin Park is relatively near the Fairmount Line that you mentioned, but that line ONLY connects to the already over-capacity South Station, making getting out there pretty complicated from lots of places.
Conte Forum, Nickerson Field, Agganis Arena are near transit but they are the Green Line, which isn't exactly high-capacity compared to the real subway lines (red/orange/yellow) and doesn't have much way to upgrade it. They could upgrade the power system and run more three-car trains instead of two-car, but that's all.
The Seaport Convention Center is on the Silver Line, which is a bus that goes underground (and the hybrid diesel/electric buses it uses are custom-built and very difficult to purchase new ones). Not exactly high-capacity.
Not to mention, the Widett Circle site and the Convention Center are right next to major highways, so it's going to be a lot easier for people to drive to those sites than to take transit or walk. Especially people who are attending the Games, who I would imagine can afford to take a taxi or rent a car.
Toe Nash said:
A half-mile walk to get to an Olympic venue from transit isn't unusual at all...and you nailed it with the afterthought - there won't BE any other way to get there. Driving directly to a venue, parking and going in isn't really going to be an option. Attending an Olympic event is a great experience, but a fairly long and tiring day. Even with the venues near the highways, I would expect remote parking, and bus-train type shuttles.
I would also expect that few visitors would bother to rent a car. The expense and hassle wouldn't be worth it. The organizers will put a lot of shuttle service in place to bridge the gap where transit isn't sufficient. I had a car with me in Vancouver, Salt Lake and Calgary, and barely used it during the Games. You really don't need one.
Toe Nash said:
Yes, you can already hear the Mayor and other proponents touting the "walkability" of a Boston olympics, which is a nice piece of marketing mythology they'll be touting.
When the talk of a stadium at the S. Boston tow lot locale came up a few weeks back, folks on the radio were talking about walking to the stadium from South Station. Yes, you COULD walk from there, but most folks would consider that distance as too great for walking. Ultimately, some dedicated bus lanes or other people mover service would be needed, which means that site is really not closer to public transportation than most other locations in the Greater Boston area.
Toe Nash said:
It's obvious with buses, but even longer-lived assets need regular maintenance. Those maintenance costs will typically exceed the initial cost of the asset over the course of the asset's life. In other words, we can have better infrastructure, provided we're willing to spend more on infrastructure.
Maybe we should spend more on infrastructure, but that's a discussion we should have separately from whether we host the Olympics. If we looked at it that way, I suspect we'd discover that spending money on infrastructure for the Olympics will create a highly sub-optimal post-Olympics infrastructure compared to spending the same money on infrastructure for the sake of having better infrastructure to meet the needs of the community. That would squarely present the question of whether we should spend our tax dollars for a big party for the world in 2024, or for the long-term good of our community. You don't have to be a genius to predict which side would win that debate -- which is why the politicians pushing this project will continue to do their level best to obscure that issue.
Monbo Jumbo said:
Used to be one in Revere.
Mind-blowing how popular this kind of thing once was. Six-day bicycle races were enormous draws at earlier iterations of Madison Square Garden. Eugene O'Neill, among many others, was a big fan.