I concur with Van. I, too, worked with Boston 2024 as a volunteer.
Let's put the scare tactics aside, and the gloom and doom forecasts. Why a net gain?
- Boston did a remarkable job at rebuilding in the latter half of the 20th century, in terms of infrastructure. But a lot of that is just worn out. Most particularly, the T - a lot of re-hab needs to be done. Having a deadline = 2024 - is a great motivator to get things done.
- There are many public facilities around Boston - Franklin Park, being one, in dire need of rehab. The Olympics would have provided some needed "love" - also, UMass-Boston. Also, some other public facilities.
- All Boston needed to construct was a track and field stadium (and a temp stadium would have worked, if not at Widett Circle, Suffolk Downs) -- and a velodrome. An aquatic center? Could have easily been done at a campus -- even temporary seating for several thousand. Equestrian? If not Franklin Park, there were several other sites.
- The colleges - BC, BU, Northeastern, Harvard (Stadium), Tufts, UMass Lowell, all have facilities for smaller events. Baseball? Enough minor league parks in/around the city. Other arenas - DCU Center, aforementioned Lowell, TD Garden, Matthews, Dunkin' Center in Providence, Springfield, UMass-Amherst, everything in place.
Now - mistakes that were made -
1) To suggest a walking Olympics. Too unrealistic, too expensive, and security concerns.
2) Beach Volleyball on the Boston Common. Not a good idea. And should have been assessed before an announcement.
3) Suggested sites - whose owners had not been contacted - were included in "book one". Example = golf at The Country Club in Brookline. No problem there - other courses were happy to welcome Olympic golf, but ... the concept...
4) Lack of candor in describing and detailing finances.
Net gains -
- Rebuilt public transportation systems
- some new facilities (would have led to gentrification of some areas, but ) -- particularly Sportsmens Tennis Club.
- tourism
- Olympic arts festival (2 years leading up to the Olympics)
- a new soccer stadium within the city limits
- obviously - improved tourism and display of Boston and environs before the world
- elevation of UMass Boston to a residential campus
What have we lost?
- No pressure to rebuild the T. Already we've seen cutbacks of future plans (which may be cut entirely)
- UMass Boston will not get what we might need for higher ed in the future
- no soccer stadium in the city
- no commitment to improve other things (parks, etc.).
Without the deadline of Boston 2024 - Boston "2030" is going to have a tougher jump start.
Boston was chosen originally over LA - we do not have the California debt crisis, we do not have a drought, the city and the surrounding areas aren't gang-infested, even though there are transport snarls - you would be able to get around to the sites, and taxes and costs are lower here than in LA.
So ... we're gonna be where we are today in seven years. For better or worse (I say worse).
Los Angeles has less to build, to be sure - but they have many more problems than we have to face. It will be interesting to see how Los Angeles' progress is on this in the next four years or so...