Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before 1996, many people in the world had never heard of Atlanta, but now people more or less consider it a world class city, which is potentially good for business.
Being able to hold the games certainly means something, and that's why so many top cities in the world are competing for it.
However Chicago wants it too and it definitely has an edge over Boston.
Hosting the games in Boston as far as venues are concerned is not that out of the question.
Boston could do what London did with some of their bigger, more expensive venues, downsize them. Look at their Olympic Stadium, it's being reconfigured with a lower capacity and West Ham, a football club, is going to take it over. Their aquatic center is also being downsized greatly too.
You have the TD Garden, Hynes Convention Center, the BCEC, The Agganis Arena, Matthews Arena, Conte Forum, the Charles River, Boston Marathon course, Gillette Stadium, Harvard Stadium, Blue Hills among other places that could all be used.
The athletes village could be converted into dorms for one of the many area colleges, similar to what Atlanta did for Georgia Tech.
You could build a large aquatic center with thousands of temporary seats (like London) and tear the bulk of them down after the games and the facility could be shared among the area colleges.
Same goes for the Olympic Stadium. Build an 80-85,000 seat stadium and downsize it to 35,000 for use as a shared athletic venue to the area colleges (could be a replacement for Harvard Stadium and be shared with BC as well.
With that said, improvements would need to be made to the current MBTA system. I also have little faith that our local state government would be able to pull off an event like this, nor make it easy for any outside help. It's a nice thought, but a pipe dream at this point.
A few billion dollars? For a week of entertainment?
NIMBY!
It's two weeks of entertainment, and no, that's not why we spend the money, just the excuse for doing so. The real reason is that we need to pump a few billion in to the 'T regardless. Something like the Olympics can be a catalyst for getting it done. We host the games, and get a world class upgrade to the 'T. That's a big win for Boston.
As for people saying that the Olympics make cities go bankrupt, that is demonstrably not true. Montreal and Athens didn't do it well, but most cities gain a huge economic stimulus from hosting the games. And contrary to what a few of you are saying, Boston is a rich city, and is the sort of place that can afford to develop the required amenities. Most of it is already in place. All we would need to do besides the transit upgrade is build a stadium, some housing (something we need anyway), and a few more hotel rooms. We already have world class athletic facilities for most of the non track and field events.
The vision is something like this:
Stadium, Olympic festival site located in Allston, above Beacon Yard (converted for soccer or football after the games)
Athlete's Village at Northpoint in Cambridge, where there is already a big push to build several thousand condo units (converted to market rate housing after the games)
Hotels and touristy junk in the SB Seaport (left in place to support convention and other large events)
Transit upgrades to connect the three zones to one another (via Grand Junction, Worcester Line, and upgrading the Silver Line to rail)
Everything else is already here, we just need to get past this inferiority complex that Boston can't do something on this scale.
Yes, by all means, now that the businesses and green spaces have finally started to recover from the massive scar that was the Big Dig, let's start all over again! And instead of using any found money to fix the neglected roads and bridges outside of I-95, let's overbuild in the midst of everything....again!!! To h with western Mass, right?
I think we've had enough big construction disruption to last at least another generation.
I hope NOT!!!! Boston would have to build an Olympic Village for the athletics and many other facilities to hold the various sporting events... and at great expense. And what would we do with all of those buildings afterwards?
Plus all those tourists for the events would be a huge headache for the locals.
I think that it would be a BAD thing.
Would the colleges be willing to kick out their students for the summer (many of which choose to leave anyway, yes?) and make their dorms hotels/olymipc villages. Someone asked why they would want to, and to me at least it seems like that would be a great time for some serious advertising and promoting. The downfall, if it could happen, would be that Boston might lose a lot of its young energentic people. But then again, how many students actually live on campus over the summer usually?
And if we did have to build a ton more housing for the hotels and olymic villages then I don't see why, if we do it right, we couldn't just sell them after the games. Boston could use a massive boost of housing anyways, yes? Seeing as the cost of the current housing stock is so rediculously high.
The stadium is the only thing that worries me. First would Boston already, between all the college stadiums, and other stadiums we have now be enough to hold the events? We do have a lot. If not, there is are a lot of empty spaces in Boston, notably the Seaport and North Allston, but also in parts of Roxbury, Cambridge, Somerville where we could probably fit a large stadium if necessary, I think. Afterwards I guess we could maybe convert it into a shopping mall or something if it won't be used. And if we really can't find a use for it, would it really cost that much to buy a ton of explosives and just level the thing? Now THAT imo would mark the thing as a huge waste of time and money, buts its not like we'd absolutely NEED to keep it around if it serves no purpose after the games, yes?
Honestly I think imho that IF DONE RIGHT and PLANNED WELL then this could be helpful to the city despite the large bill. At this point, however, I haven't really seen anything to convince me that Boston does have the leadership necessary to host an olymics. It would be very detrimental if done incorrectly.
As for the tourists? They give money to us and all our local buisnesses and tourist traps, so how could they possibly be a bad thing, lol? I love tourists
But really Boston already has a ton of tourists as it is, and it'd only be for a week or two. I don't think its something that we couldn't deal with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
What new roads do you think would be built for the Games? And how would the value of my Newton home go up just because the Olympics were held in Boston?
I don't think that Atlanta got any permanent benefit from hosting the Olympics. And what does Beijing do with their old Olympic facilities?
I really hope that Boston is considered too small for hosting the Olympics. There is just no empty space to build all those athletic facilities on. And it's just not a competition worth entering.
Well first I don't think any new roads will be built, but there are certain highways in metro Boston which wouldn't be harmed by a little investment or redoing (I'm thinking the awkward overpass between Kenmore Square and the Back Bay).
Second, I don't really see why your property value would increase. One one hand you must rent or else you'd be desiring a value increase. Second if Boston puts up a lot of housing in the city (while improving things like infrastructure and maybe education [in a perfect world]?) then wouldn't the prices of homes in the suburbs decrease if anything? In fact, though, I just don't see how a week long sporting event would compell a ton of people to want to live here permanently, thus increasing the demand for housing in Newton, thus increasing the value of your Newton home. I just don't really see your reasoning...
As for Atlanta and Beijing, did they really LOSE much due to the olymics? I have heard that Beijing wasted a lot of space for it. Otherwise (someone else commented that Olymipcs ruin an area's economy) neither area seems to really be struggling right now. And both to some degree received a lot of global media attention, which can't really be a bad thing can it?
As for space, I already kind of gave my thoughts. Boston does have some underutilized areas from what I can see. I mean how much ACTUALLY goes on in the "Newmarket Industrial District"or whatever that warehousy area is near the strip mall (South Shore Plaza?) is?
As for the whole "Boston is too small" thing: y'all do realize that Salt Lake City and Atlanta have hosted the games in the past. If they can handle an Olymics, I think Boston should be able.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xS☺Be
NIMBY!
Unless your lying about your "BY" is thousands of miles from Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by konfetka
Why wouldn't the government pay for it, I would think it would bring more needed investment to the region. It might help speed up and upgrade infrastructure projects including public transit. Also it would bring more exposure to Boston, resulting in more tourist money and investment when it's over.
This.
Apparently a lot of Boston's trolley cars are almost half a century old. There hasn't been any large expansions recently despite the fact that a lot of places to the north (Medford, Arlington, etc.) and to the south (West Roxbury, Hyde Park, etc.) really have little to no coverage. And lest not forget that despite the fact that we live in a wonderfully modern and technologically advanced world/nation, we still have the infamous "Boylston screech". I also believe, just based on my opinions and observations of the B-line, that a lot of Boston's existing transportation could use a lot of improvement.
And also if this is done right and leads to more attention, tourism, corporate investment, etc. (one can only hope) then Boston would have an easier time paying off the debt, yes? We already pay some rediculous taxes, don't we (to improve parks or provide large benefits to bus drivers?), yes? So, after the games couldn't we just temporarily switch these less-than-necessary tax investments and rather put the money towards paying for the games, therefore not having to pay any more than usual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by measured1
Yes, by all means, now that the businesses and green spaces have finally started to recover from the massive scar that was the Big Dig, let's start all over again! And instead of using any found money to fix the neglected roads and bridges outside of I-95, let's overbuild in the midst of everything....again!!! To h with western Mass, right?
I think we've had enough big construction disruption to last at least another generation.
You guys are high. Hosting Olympics is a known fiscal boondoggle. Worse than The Democratic National Convention. If you wants litmus test to how great an investment it is, fund it privately 100%, and see how many people rush to the opportunity. Not many Ill wager. Just a big ripoff like building a bigger stadium for the already overpaid sports teams. And for what? So sport heads can gloat for 2 weeks about how wonderful we are? Then ten years of bills? To watch men it tights throw a stick?
A couple billion?! That's 100,000 scholarships to Harvard! Which is a better investment?
You guys are high. Hosting Olympics is a known fiscal boondoggle. Worse than The Democratic National Convention. If you wants litmus test to how great an investment it is, fund it privately 100%, and see how many people rush to the opportunity. Not many Ill wager. Just a big ripoff like building a bigger stadium for the already overpaid sports teams. And for what? So sport heads can gloat for 2 weeks about how wonderful we are? Then ten years of bills? To watch men it tights throw a stick?
A couple billion?! That's 100,000 scholarships to Harvard! Which is a better investment?
Agreed. Plus it you think it's tough to in or around Boston now, this would make it 10 times worse.
You guys are high. Hosting Olympics is a known fiscal boondoggle. Worse than The Democratic National Convention. If you wants litmus test to how great an investment it is, fund it privately 100%, and see how many people rush to the opportunity. Not many Ill wager. Just a big ripoff like building a bigger stadium for the already overpaid sports teams. And for what? So sport heads can gloat for 2 weeks about how wonderful we are? Then ten years of bills? To watch men it tights throw a stick?
A couple billion?! That's 100,000 scholarships to Harvard! Which is a better investment?
So how are we high, exactly? Your babbling doesn't really give specifics about why an Olymics is a bad idea. Like when you say that it is a "known boondoggle", what do you mean? Please explain further.
I'm still waiting to hear how Atlanta and London have been thrown into absolute economic turmoil since the Olympics. If anything it seems like Atlanta has grown a lot since the 90s. And to hear exactly how these "large bills" would effect the average person. Higher taxes? Nothing were not used to here in Taxachussetts and I'm sure the gov could temporarily cut some others down to try to alleiviate Olympic-based ones. Why not?
And It's not like we'd be paying to see big sports people. It could and should lead to infrasturucture improvement and development. I personally wouldn't mind having a good quality subway near my house as opposed to the clunky B-line, and having some meaningful development. As of now that and other neighborhoods in the city are kind of sad & empty, imho. Not to mention it could give Boston companies and schools a chance to advertise which could increase the success of their buisness and therefore investment in the city and therefore create jobs. A little sketchy and long winded, but not completely off-base yes? We might also get a lot more tourist who would give a lot of money to our institutions.
And why (I'll ask again) would the stadium have to remain a pointless stadium after the games? Couldn't we downsize it into a shopping mall or an office building or residential stuff? Couldn't we just get rid of it?
And last time I checked, Boston wasn't being offered 100,000 scholarships to Harvard
Quote:
Originally Posted by xS☺Be
Bottom line, Boston doesn't need that for any reason. Not prestige - we got that. Not money - we got that. Not tourism - we got that too.
Just sound like someone else wanting to put their hands in the Hub's cookie jar.
But couldn't we have more?
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 03-05-2013 at 05:39 PM..
Reason: include more
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here goes my long response
Unless your lying about your "BY" is thousands of miles from Boston. 
