Hey, there! Log in / Register
Newspaper says no to Olympics
By adamg on Fri, 12/05/2014 - 8:43am
No, don't be silly, not the Globe. The Jamaica Plain Gazette opines:
It is rare that we advise saying “absolutely no” to a project. But the Olympics bid is breathtaking in its dubious assumptions, potential negative impacts, and sleight-of-hand “process.” Thus far, saying no is all that has worked. Thanks to those saying it loudly and often.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
It is rare that we advise
Breaking News: Boston is apparently reviving the weekly comedy magazine.
This is no surprise as
Jamaica Plain is sure to be at the center of any Boston Olympic experience. I know the Nepalese Volleyball team will want to window shop there and perhaps hit Doyle's for a cold one.
Think Franklin Park
A major part of which is in JP: Under the Fish proposal, one of the largest public parks in the city will be turned into a closed off equestrian preserve for two weeks (and maybe longer - they'll need time to set up the courses and let the horses settle in).
Half of Franklin Park is
Half of Franklin Park is already closed off to most people since it was taken from the public to make a golf course (not Olmsteads original vision, his was a place for all Bostonians to get away from automobiles and city life). Not a couple guys driving around in golf carts.
Hardly A Country Club
That is a public course that all are able to use you know. Yes it has green fees, just like any public course. But those are almost negligible green fees compared to private and even other public courses.
Also guess what, the golf course WAS in Olmstead's vision.
http://www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/Guide/Boston/Neighborhoods/Emerald_Nec...
Ouch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States
This doesn't say the golf course was part of Olmsted's plan...
Just that the _Park Commissioners_ decided to take away a huge chunk of the "passive recreation section" he designed and turn it into a golf course. This article hints (at least) that this was not really what Olmsted wanted:
http://www.fredericklawolmsted.com/franklin.html
Adam that is the outskirt of JP and based on thoroughfare
traffic and capacity its the people of Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan that will have to dodge the horse poop.
It's not the horse poop that's an issue
Think of the security zone that will surround the venue - imagine Blue Hill Avenue blocked off.
But to your point, yes, it's more of an issue for Roxbury than JP, perhaps, but it's enough of an issue for JP that a JP newspaper does have a reason to think about the implications, even aside from the whole issue of Bostonians in general having reasons to think of the implications.
I'm for housing the
North Koreans at the old Shattuck Hospital. Barbed wire, fences just like a Pyongyang 5 star hotel.
Yeah, I never understood this
Why wouldn't they have the equestrian events in a place that is already set up for equestrian events, like somewhere on the north shore, or anywhere? But, Franklin Park? Yuck.
Myopia Hunt Club
isn't available?
Horses look like deer
If you have 20/100 vision and a gun, that is.
Especially if Muffy poured
you a double.
will be turned into a closed
What exactly are you citing here? Or is this just your opinion presented as fact?
It's the IOC, dont you know?
According to the anti-Olympians, it's an established fact that the IOC will demand most roads in Boston be closed for their limousines to shuttle from venue to venue. Mind you, there is indeed no actual evidence for this, but if you are against something and an unsubstantiated rumor works, then go with it.
Note, if there is a document somewhere establishing that Blue Hill Ave. will be closed, I would certainly be concerned, but I do not believe such a document exists.
Huh?
What do you mean? It's an issue for the entire city, regardless of where the venues are. Traffic, congestion, price gouging, landlords evicting tenants because they can make their annual rent x3 by a short-term lease to a spectator. Those are all going to be real issues if the Olympics are in Boston (which I sincerely hope they are NOT.)
YES!
There is only one reason not to host the Olympics. Money. I would take great life experience and frankly an opportunity we will never again see in our lifetimes over a few dollars any day. I feel sad for everyone who worries about the fiscal side over a once in a lifetime experience that will be remembered fondly by our kids and grandkids and would be another notch in the belt of this incredible city. Boston will further thrust itself into the world spotlight and truly be considered a city of the world. But hey, it may cost a couple of bucks, so lets forget it.
Are you serious?
Billions of dollars are not a "couple of bucks." Can you point to a single host city of an Olympic games that was in a financially better position after the games than before? Hosting the games will not magically transform Boston into a "city of the world." I won't even touch the logistical nightmare this would create for the residents of Boston and its surrounding communities.
Like it or not, it has been
Like it or not, it has been touted a number of times that LA was profitable.
Please people, I lurk and post here long enough to know all the reasons and stances against the Olympics in this website. But stick to truth, not assumption. The reason the Olympics should be view with skepticism is because it is hard to see it really be beneficial to Boston. That it will cost more money and stress than it will return with in money and infrastructure. Not just Olympics in-and-of itself.
My math is simple. If the Olympics (ignoring how to make Boston's people believe it), brings benefits more than the costs, then I would support it. If it does not, then I don't.
If they really keep keep tax money out, if it does accelerate projects that imply I can actually enjoy it within my lifetime, if it actually does mean Boston makes some small profit - then I would. If it does not, then I don't. Simple as that.
This is on recollection, not
This is on recollection, not cited sources, so forgive me if this is only accurate-ish.
I believe LA's profitability was due to the fact they did something very close to zero infrastructure upgrades and minimal new stadia. That is not the case in even the optimistic Boston2024 plan.
Moreover, LA wasn't bidding against anyone else, which reduced the cost of the bid.
Great, one more post where to argue from this side
Well, I would categorize infrastructure upgrades as a good thing. If the Olympics accelerate some projects so I may enjoy it in my 30's rather than my 40's... or after I'm dead. I have no complaints if stuff was like that.
That said, LA minimize lots of stadium building unlike recent projects. My understanding, Boston intends to use a lot our university's so we would be avoiding a lot of that crap too. But unlike LA, it does seem we are aiming to build an 1 stadium at least. If that is build with private money, then I have no complaint. If public money gets involved, then I got a problem. But none of us truly know that.
I'm all for infrastructure
I'm all for infrastructure upgrades, but avoiding them is how LA kept it profitable.
My take all along is to do the infrastructure upgrades but NOT the Olympics nor new stadia.
We can use the improvements without spending the additional $4B+ (Boston2024's estimate) on logistics and security. Hell, we cane use just half of that $4B to speed up the infrastructure upgrades so you do have them in your 30s rather than your 40s.
If you can only get enough of
If you can only get enough of the state behind said upgrades by having the Olympics in the first place, that's kind of a false choice. I.e. There is no real option to have the upgrades without the Olympics.
1984
However, much has changed in the world since 1984. That was well over 30 years ago now. A lot can (and has) since then.
It's note like Olympics come
It's note like Olympics come every year... We don't have that many samples. 1984 is 30 years ago, but still in the modern age. And in some ways, more fitting as an example than a number of more recent ones where they have been writing themselves blank checks for national pride or corruption or both.
Three Decades
And how many terrorist attacks (one in this city.) There's no way that Boston can host the games without a major infrastructure (think T) overhaul, and major investment in sports facilities that will be used once.
Because Terrorism was never a factor at the Olympics before
The LA Games in 1984 didn't have security concerns because there hadn't been any terrorist attacks before...well except for the 1972 Olympics in Munich. But there haven't been any since...except for Atlanta in 1996...
Again, I only take issue on statements that sound unsubstantiate
If the Olympics make Boston do some major infrastructure overhaul, that's fine by me. I don't see why anyone here has a problem if the Olympics makes that effect.
And if someone again said "we should just do the overhaul regardless of the Olympics". Well, that's fine by me too. But if one of the effects of the Olympics is trigger the overhaul where the alternative is that we keep deferring if we never bid, then that's a plus to the Olympics not a con.
As for a major investment in sports facilities. Those are the comments that forces me to writes stuff arguing for something when I don't really want to take (I don't have the passionate desire for the Olympics to argue against 3 responders and know that I would be downvoted alot if there were downvotes). Where did you got the information that we'll need a huge amount of money building stadiums to be used once? Because so far, I think they only talk about building 1 stadium with a strong insistent that it won't be built with public money. And from my lurking at ArchBoston's Olympic Thread, a website that I seen enough knowledge to trust their educated hypotheses, that their educated guesses is we need a velodrome and a Olympic Stadium. Assuming their knowledge is correct, it goes against your prediction of "need" to build all those used once facilities. Of course, this only looks at necessity and they can easily choose extravagance, but currently your argument doesn't fit and you were argument minimal needs to host rather than the possibility of their corruption.
And Barcelona, too!
The truth is, every city is different. I'd have a lot more sympathy for the we can't afford it argument if it was based on an analysis of Boston specific examples. Comparing Boston to Athens or Beijing is pretty useless for extrapolating the impact of a Boston games. The truth is, though, Boston has a pretty good track record on this kind of stuff. We ar one of the only cities in North America that does not have a single tax payer financed major athletic venue. It has always been private money, and I see no reason to disbelieve that private money can work for the Olympics.
What portion of my comment was untruthful?
I did not make an assumption, I asked a question about profitability. If you have some sources to cite where Los Angeles was profitable in 1984 following the games, by all means point us in that direction.
You're making take this stance?
I'm not in the mood to try to be the one guy against a whole thread. I prefer to be that unpopular guy on views that feel more strongly about.
But here a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics#Los_Angeles_as_host_city
I hope this doesn't lead to a debate on how valid Wikipedia as a source. They have citation #4 backing that claim. The narrative is after the previous Olympic Fiasco, that LA was a major example of how to do one profitably and doesn't bankrupt a city. The strategy they used was focusing on private funding and monetizing, minimal construction with reusing existing venues, and advertising revenue.
It also helps to have millions of people
LA is a much larger city, and one that previously hosted an Olympics. Much less disruptive, much bigger tax base, etc.
I'm not seeing the private funding and monetizing going on here - not to the extent that it needs to happen.
me neither
They *say* it will happen, but even if they did, There's no real way to force it. Meaning in 2018 after the bid has been won, there's absolutely nothing keeping those folks on the hook, and now it gets passed on to the tax payers.
Also do you think Fish & Co are going to pony up money for the T to fix it? Doubt that. Especially for something that they never use. The tax payers will foot the bill for that at least.
Regardless, LA in 1984 is not Boston in 2014. And from our experiences with the BigDig and many other mega construction projects are always a politically-connected boondoggle. Meaning there's always pay offs, and cost over runs that end up on the tax payers back. Its just the Massachusetts way. It's been going on for almost a century now, and I don't believe it will end by 2024.
Black or red Olympics
I'm not necessarily a supporter of the Olympics coming to Boston, but if wikipedia is correct, a few more cities than LA turned a profit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games (and if someone already mentioned this, sorry to repeat)
Yes. Think Barcelona
Barcelona was a forgotten, industrial backwater under the Franco regime. The city has prospered. 20,000 permanent jobs have been created. The city infrastructure including water distribution, sewage and highways have vastly improved. Their convention center is one of the largest in the world. It now has two miles of beaches where before it had none.
Having said that, I can think of a dozen US and worldwide cities that need that sort of transformation way more than Boston does.
Missing it as once in a lifetime event? Buy a plane ticket and go to one. It will cost you far less than the per capita cost of hosting the event here.
Party City Sells Hats, Streamers, Noise Makers, etc.
Please avail yourself of some if you want to have a big celebration. Bring your kids, bring your grandkids. Have a blast, just not on my dime.
We have been lied to over and over again over the cost of this or that. The Olympics will be a monumental shifter in the lives of thousands in this city and not just for three weeks.
What do you say to the meat cutter who may or not be here illegally from El Salvador when his job moves from Widett Circle to Fort Devens? Have a Fresca Juan, You can take the 5 hour T roundtrip from East Boston to Ayer. No probs.
What do you say to the person living on West Eighth Street who is right in the sonic blast zone from the New Kids On The Block 40th Anniversary Tour which will be at Uber Stadium, which had to remain in place and not temporary as promised in order to pay down the Olympic cost overruns?
Are you stuck on a broken now 49 year old Boeing LRV in the tunnel between Boylston and Arlington because the T after all could not afford to replace the necessary signals to increase trolley speeds owing to having to relocate the Cabot Bus Yard in order to accommodate VIP parking for U Thant's second cousin? Thanks Olympics.
Bring Back Mitt
Maybe he can't be president but he can sell a boondoggle.
Another advantage of Mitt
Doesn't he still have like $20K in unused fireworks that he was going to distress the already-distressed citizenry of Boston with had he somehow come up with 64 more electoral votes? He could write them off on his tax retu...OK, maybe not a great idea
Mittens
What's sad is, I think Mitt would do an excellent job managing this. Not only to keep the costs passed on to the tax payers but managing the project as a whole. He has experience doing so, and has experience with Massachusetts politics.
And for the record, I have much distaste for Mittens, but I think he'd do a fine job managing this.
He needs a job
and I wouldn't mind seeing Anne around town.
Boeing LRVs still in revenue service on the T?
Please point us to exact locations, we'd love to get pictures.
Oy, the pedantry
How about "a 49 year old Type 7 because the MBTA couldn't afford to buy the Type 10.*"
* Yes, at a recent Green Line meeting, an MBTA manager mentioned the plan is to start procurement of the Type 10 (to replace the Type 7's) as soon as the Type 9s arrive.
We will have our first 49-year old Type 7's in 2035, which is makes it a pretty good MORE LITERAL variant of what the previous commenter was trying to say,
Better get your sarcasm detector
checked. It's overdue for its 5,000 post tuneup.
Indeed, I'd confused railfan
Indeed, I'd confused railfan with pedant...
Well, that's not always so different :).
Judging by some of
the railfans I've encountered over the years, I have to agree with your last statement. And it's a big part of the reason I hang out on AARoads instead of railroad.net. On the whole, roadgeeks (gawd how I hate that term) are far more civilized and respectful on the Internet than railfans are.
My father's preferred term
He would call himself a Highwayman.
(worked for ODOT for 30+ years and built train layouts in the basement)
Highwayman, eh?
Was he any relation to Denis Moore?
He was fond of lupines ...
He was fond of lupines ...
The thing about money is that it's fungible
I'd rather my kids and grandkids have have a city that has been continuously improved to make it a nice place to walk, shop, work, and live in. I'd rather that if we're paying off debt (which may well be a reasonable way to finance things), it's for infrastructure they are still using (transit vehicles, bike paths, parks, water/gas lines that don't leak, etc.)
I'd rather that they not be thinking back on a once-in-a-lifetime experience and instead have much improved lives and livelihoods.
And the fact is that all of the things I'd rather they have cost a non-trivial amount of money and every dollar spent building, maintaining, and then demolishing "temporary" and stadiums, Olympic Villages, and providing intense "security" to the event is a dollar NOT spent on those things.
$10 Billion (or more) is not a "couple" bucks. I'm all for finding $10 billion+ to improve our city, but let's spend it on the things we need, the things we want our children and grandchildren to HAVE.
I'd rather my kids and
I thought we were discussing Boston.
That's a cute comment and all...
But the reason I live here is because it IS a pretty good place already. Is it perfect? Obviously not, but that's why I wouldn't mind scrounging up $10B to fix those issues.
It's easy to dump on the things that go wrong here, but try living in the deep suburbs of the midwest or the hellscape that is most of LA... no matter how long I spend waiting for a Green Line or climbing over unshoveled curbs, I'd rather live here than there.
Deborah Cox
Deborah Cox anyone (okay I'm loopy but its friday...)
.
the People Don't Want this...
I think it's pretty clear that the only people who want the Olympics in Boston are those who will stand to benefit financially from the games. Most "normal" folk I've talked to don't want it. Furthermore, the Olymics have become a bloated and overdone circus which Boston does not need.
The problem with the Olympics
is that it's become just another commercial enterprise whose primary purpose is not to showcase athletes, but to give the media an excuse to send teams of "reporters" and "experts" on an expensive junket and to give private companies yet another way to shill their cheezy products and services.
In short, a wasteful exercise in ego and consumerism that society can easily do without.
IOC Parasite
The Olympics are, in that sense, essentially parasitic. They occupy a host and recruit resources, and then depart and leave the host impoverished and compromised.
Not symbiotic, parasitic.
PERFECT Swirly!
LOL this is a PERFECT analogy!!!!
Olympics are a parasite, once they have ravage one host, they leave and move on to another one.
Agreed...
I find the Winter Olympics to be a bore, and the only event I watch in the summer is rowing. If both were scaled back dramatically and the concumerism and sensationalism were dialed down, then perhaps the Olympics in Boston might be feasible. But as it stands now, it will be a conundrum of the highest order if Boston's bid is accepted.
Most "normal" folk I've
Most of the normal folk (no quotations for me; they actually are normal) I've talked to do want it. So which one of our anecdotal evidence is more compelling?
Let's pretend we're holding the Olympics
... and upgrade our public transit and build a lot of apartment housing. And then not hold the Olympics. That will save time.
+1000
Best Olympic idea ever.
London experience
Interesting story on London, 2 yrs later;
http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/12/a-massive-arts-center-will-test-th...
Thanks for the link
Yet more ammo in favor of Nolympics.
Well I say yes so let's do it
Well I say yes so let's do it
The Olympics would be a dishonor.
The workers who built the facilities at Sochi were only paid a third of their promised wages, and deported.
And the IOC does not give a flying fuck about it.
Inviting these parasites to Boston would be a stain on our name.
Oh JP Gazette....
Couldn't you just focus on the Casey Overpass crumbling as we speak, and bringing back the E line?
We're doing just fine without the olympic infrastructure
Economy is strong in Boston. We're congested already. Give it to some place like Detroit which has the land and needs the jobs and money.