Panel meet as State house to discuss Boston olympics bid

[Stephane Dumas]

I saw this article via the Skyscraperpage forum
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208467
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/14/panel-meets-at-state-house-to-discuss-boston-olympics-bid/

BOSTON (AP) – A special commission created to look into the possibility of Massachusetts launching a bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics has held its first meeting at the Statehouse.

State Sen. Eileen Donoghue, who serves on the 11-member panel, said in a statement after Thursday's meeting that the commission would analyze all aspects of hosting the games, including transportation, security and overall costs.

Memo to the organizers, don't hire the guy who designed the Montreal olympic stadium. 

[triplemultiplex]

Don't do it, Boston.  The Olympics are a gigantic money pit.

All for a bunch of 'sports' no one gives a flying fart about.

Instead, spend 1/4 the money hosting the Olympic$ would cost on upgrading your transportation infrastructure and do yourself some good.

[english si]

Don't do it, Boston.  The Olympics are a gigantic money pit.

True dat. Failed bids cost a lot of money too - 100s of millions.

Unless you do a London or what NYC bidded to do, and regenerate an area, there's little point. And while a decent catalyst, it's an expensive one. Stratford has gone from a town centre among several to the busiest place in East London, and from one in twenty local hubs to the 5th biggest centre in London.

Plus the IOC rules are rather poor - they pay no tax, they are very strict about trademarks and the promoted brandings. They make billions from the Olympics, whereas the local taxpayers who put billions in, only get indirect money out. It's basically an expensive, but wide-reaching and 2-week long, advert for the city.

All for a bunch of 'sports' no one gives a flying fart about.

I think you'll find that a lot of people do care about them. And certainly the locals - given that the Americans are more sport mad than the Brits - will watch.

Despite famous sports venues like Fenway Park, American's love of sports, high population around it, likely competent bid, I'm highly doubtful that Boston will win.

[Henry]

Before Atlanta hosted the Olympics in '96, it was best known for numerous Peachtree Streets, Ted Turner and the Braves; it's become a world-class city since then. Boston is already one, so the Olympics would be overkill.

[elsmere241]

There is some talk of Philadelphia going for 2024.  I think it would be good for them.

[english si]

Before Atlanta hosted the Olympics in '96, it was best known for numerous Peachtree Streets, Ted Turner and the Braves; it's become a world-class city since then.

Doesn't Atlanta's success have a lot to do with the Airport?

Boston is already one, so the Olympics would be overkill.

If World-class Cities didn't need it, why have the main players all bidded for the Olympics recently? 2012 had the two top-tier cities (NYC and London), plus Paris, which is pushing into that tier, bidding for the Games. The next-bext city, Tokyo, just won the 2020 Olympics.

Boston and Atlanta are 2 tiers down from these, a tier below Beijing...

So basically, the idea that Boston doesn't need it as it is already a world-class city is bollocks!

[NJRoadfan]

Keep in mind that a few Olympic games have actually turned a profit. Atlanta 1996 and Los Angeles 1984 were among them.

[triplemultiplex]

Keep in mind that a few Olympic games have actually turned a profit. Atlanta 1996 and Los Angeles 1984 were among them.

Because they didn't build useless new stadiums for those games.

[mass_citizen]

Before Atlanta hosted the Olympics in '96, it was best known for numerous Peachtree Streets, Ted Turner and the Braves; it's become a world-class city since then. Boston is already one, so the Olympics would be overkill.

Boston is a "world class" city with a mass transit system that stops running at 1 am.

[DeaconG]

Before Atlanta hosted the Olympics in '96, it was best known for numerous Peachtree Streets, Ted Turner and the Braves; it's become a world-class city since then. Boston is already one, so the Olympics would be overkill.

Boston is a "world class" city with a mass transit system that stops running at 1 am.

Seriously? I thought DC was the only metro that pulled that stunt.

[NE2]

Boston is a "world class" city with a mass transit system that stops running at 1 am.

Seriously? I thought DC was the only metro that pulled that stunt.

London and Paris do it too. So yeah.

[Pete from Boston]

I thought the Turner Field Bombers made everyone forget about any leftover Olympic glory in Atlanta (See: Pettitte et al., 1996, g.6).

For whatever it's worth, no city ranking lower than 4th in population in its country ever hosted the Olympics until 1996 (St. Louis in 1904 was the only one ever 4th).  Atlanta's metropolitan area ranked 11th in 1996.  Boston, at #10 (now below Atlanta) and with a sluggish growth rate, suffers from serious land scarcity and age-related infrastructure investment deficit (and cost).  Its modest growth (and old-timey attitude) do not position it well for a regional-remaking-intensive endeavor like the Olympics.

There isn't going to be a Boston Olympics, in other words.

[english si]

For whatever it's worth, no city ranking lower than 4th in population in its country ever hosted the Olympics until 1996

I'm struggling to find a third-place city (Montreal? LA in 1932?)

And the non-capitals that have held the summer games are small in number, outside the US - Antwerp (I believe they looked at Brussels, but it was too war torn), Melbourne, Munich, Montreal, Barcelona, Rio.

I can see a Boston Olympics - a good case needs to be made, but it isn't outside the realms of possibility. That said, US bids (Chicago, NYC) have fallen flat on their face in recent years, despite being bigger cities.

[Desert Man]

Best of luck for Boston, because the competition for being awarded the 2024 Summer Olympics is awfully tight. US cities as small as Tulsa, OK and as large as New York City, Chicago and San Diego dropped their bids, and Boston doesn't seem to be a favorite among IOC officials. I read 35 other US cities placed bids or contacted the IOC in holding interests for the 2024 Olympics.

Turner Field is not going to be home to the Braves longer, because the Braves team board said they're looking for a new ballpark constructed in suburban Atlanta. Sadly, the Olympic legacy of Turner Field doesn't seem to shine in the stadium refitted for major league baseball after the 1996 summer Olympics.

The Los Angeles Olympic Coliseum was damaged by the 1994 Northridge earthquake and stadium renovations didn't help restore its' former glory. L.A. lost the Raiders afterward and the nation's 2nd largest city didn't have a NFL team ever since. Los Angeles has an ideal climate and is a world-class metropolis known for high levels of tourism, although other cities similar to L.A. aren't always selected to host the Olympic games.

[Pete from Boston]

For whatever it's worth, no city ranking lower than 4th in population in its country ever hosted the Olympics until 1996

I'm struggling to find a third-place city (Montreal? LA in 1932?)

I think Munich was 3rd after Berlin and Hamburg but now I can't find a source for that.

I also am wrong -- Los Angeles was the fifth-largest US city in 1932.  But it's the only fifth on the list.

Finally, according to Wikipedia, Antwerp was put forth for 1920 back in 1913, before WWI.

[Alps]

For whatever it's worth, no city ranking lower than 4th in population in its country ever hosted the Olympics until 1996 (St. Louis in 1904 was the only one ever 4th).

YMM Summer Olympics. There are winter ones, too, as you might know.

[Pete from Boston]

For whatever it's worth, no city ranking lower than 4th in population in its country ever hosted the Olympics until 1996 (St. Louis in 1904 was the only one ever 4th).

YMM Summer Olympics. There are winter ones, too, as you might know.

I see your point, but isn't it technically the "Games of the X Olympiad," and the "Winter Games of the X Olympiad"?  In other words, there's the Olympics, and then there's the Winter Olympics.

Yes, this is squirrely of me, but it's the only leg I have to stand on here.

[Alps]

For whatever it's worth, no city ranking lower than 4th in population in its country ever hosted the Olympics until 1996 (St. Louis in 1904 was the only one ever 4th).

YMM Summer Olympics. There are winter ones, too, as you might know.

I see your point, but isn't it technically the "Games of the X Olympiad," and the "Winter Games of the X Olympiad"?  In other words, there's the Olympics, and then there's the Winter Olympics.

Yes, this is squirrely of me, but it's the only leg I have to stand on here.

My pet peeve is when people say the Summer Olympics are the major ones. Yes, they're bigger, traditional, etc., but I really love the winter sports more, overall, than the summer sports. That said, Boston would have to outlay a lot more for a Summer Olympics than Lake Placid had to (or even would have to now) for a Winter Olympics.

[tidecat]

San Francisco lost any chance when the 49ers put their new stadium in Santa Clara.  New York had their bid fall apart when the Jets' stadium proposal was rejected.

Based on MLB stadiums due for replacement, why not Texas (1994)?  The Rangers could actually move to Dallas from Arlington.  The Cotton Bowl and AT&T Stadium could host any number of events.  The Olympic Stadium could be converted into the Rangers's new stadium.

[Pete from Boston]

San Francisco lost any chance when the 49ers put their new stadium in Santa Clara.  New York had their bid fall apart when the Jets' stadium proposal was rejected.

Based on MLB stadiums due for replacement, why not Texas (1994)?  The Rangers could actually move to Dallas from Arlington.  The Cotton Bowl and AT&T Stadium could host any number of events.  The Olympic Stadium could be converted into the Rangers's new stadium.

When you talk about Boston in the same breath as Dallas for something like this it starts to become clear why Boston is not a serious contender.  Dallas has better weather, more room, more lust for construction, less age, etc.  I don't know if it works against Dallas that the last US Summer Olympics host was a southern city, but it probably won't if the bid package looks good.

DC would also be a strong bid for many of the same reasons.  I think New Yorkers think the Olympics needs them more than vice versa, and a bid there would again fail.  They're probably right.