If they use the stadium footprint for a new Fenway, I would probably be for it. Otherwise, I really hope it goes to Capetown.
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:I live in the middle of the city and I'll be a non-pessimistic voice here. I think it could be kind of cool. (That said, it's very unlikely that I'll live in my present spot in 2024.)
If it helps the city build permanent infrastructure (new/enhanced public transportation and a gosh-darn stadium for the Revs) it's a net positive. For two weeks, Bostonians can grit their teeth and take it. Potentially the worst thing about it would be the mindless NBC segments about chowda and Hahvard Yard.
PC Drunken Friar said:This I simplifying it way too much. This is not a two week event. This very well could inconvenience a huge portion of the population of Massachusetts (and new Hampshire) for, what, 5-6 years? They will need to overhaul 93, right? Shit, on a random weekday, one lane closure on the SE expressway at the wrong time causes hours of delays.
I have no idea why this made me laugh so hard.PedroSpecialK said:Fuck John Fish in his stupid face
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:
"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!
Orel Miraculous 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!
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:"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!
PayrodsFirstClutchHit said:
I've read this before. What exactly would a stadium that is modular, yet fit for the Olympics, entail?
Stitch01 said:Lets goooooo anywhere else.
Joe D Reid said:Oh, farts no.
The Napkin said:Oh God no
Mystic Merlin said:Gee, I can't see this going horribly wrong or anything.
Frank McCourt likes this.PedroSpecialK said:Fuck John Fish in his stupid face
Well, personally, I'm extremely happy about this decision. (I live in DC.)Dan to Theo to Ben 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 . . .
Luis Taint said:If they use the stadium footprint for a new Fenway, I would probably be for it. Otherwise, I really hope it goes to Capetown.
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:
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.
Boston's advantage is London and Athens already hosted for Europe, post-Atlanta.brs3 said:
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.
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: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.
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: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.
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 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!'?
Koufax said:Time to bring back Mitt Romney as governor. If anyone knows how to manage this, it's him.
We should, but it hasn't happened. The Green Line has basically been going through the same tunnel for 117 years.jose melendez said: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.
Fred not Lynn 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).
Infield Infidel 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
Yep.Comfortably Lomb said:
So this has to be a worst possible outcome, right?
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: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.
octoberaroma said:Windsurfing on Cape Cod, oh hell yea!
"Our goal is to host Olympic and Paralympic Games that are innovative, walkable and hospitable to all."
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:Boston's advantage is London and Athens already hosted for Europe, post-Atlanta.
The Olympics are the spoonful of sugar to get the voters to take the medicine of infrastructure spending.jose melendez said: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.
JimD said:Indigo Line diesel light rail service from Allston to North Station via the freight line that crosses through Cambridge near MIT
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: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:
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.
Toe Nash said: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)
Toe Nash said: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)
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.
Fine, but don't call it walkable or expect it to catalyze public transportation infrastructure development and have long-lasting positive effects for the region, when they will mainly be adding bus shuttles.Fred not Lynn 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:Fine, but don't call it walkable or expect it to catalyze public transportation infrastructure development and have long-lasting positive effects for the region, when they will mainly be adding bus shuttles.
Monbo Jumbo said:
Used to be one in Revere.