If the weather permits, Monday and Tuesday will see an avalanche of events centering on the possibility of a Boston Olympics with, respectively, London’s Mayor Boris Johnson, a panel of eminent architects, and another panel of the principals for and against the proposal.
Olympic fever is happening now.
London’s Mayor Boris Johnson at Faneuil Hall with John Fish and John Barros UPDATE: This event is cancelled and likely will not be rescheduled. See the comments.
British Consulate General, Boston
Monday, February 9
5:30 PM to 7:00 PM (EST)
Faneuil Hall, 1 Faneuil Hall Square, Boston
RSVP at this link
Mayor Boris Johnson will be joined by Boston 2024 Chairman John Fish and Chief of Economic Development for the City of Boston John Barros to discuss London’s 2012 Olympic legacy and opportunities to bring bold plans for development to life.
The discussion will be moderated by NECN’s Jim Braude.
A valid Eventbrite registration and ticket must be presented to enter the event.
—————-
Designing Boston: Olympics 2024 UPDATE: This event is postponed. Check this site for information on rescheduling.
Monday, February 9
6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
BSA Space, 290 Congress Street, Boston
RSVP by emailing rsvp@architects.org
Join us on February 9 for our next Designing Boston conversation, this time on the U.S. Olympic Committee’s decision to back Boston as the host for the 2024 Olympics.
As former Boston city councilor Mike Ross said during a recent interview with WBUR’s Radio Boston, “[The Big Dig] changed the shape and face of Boston and… the Olympics will do the same thing.”
Focusing on the role that architecture has (or has not) played in making previous Olympics successful, Ross will moderate this panel discussion and dive into lessons learned by architects and planners with past Olympic experience in such cities as Barcelona, Beijing, Sydney, and London. This event launches a series of conversations and debates related to potential roles, responsibilities, and opportunities available to architects, planners, and developers as this huge and exciting undertaking unfolds.
Moderator
Michael P. Ross, attorney, Prince Lobel Tye
Panelists will include
Dennis Pieprz Assoc. AIA, Principal, Sasaki Associates
Gavin McMillan, Senior Principal, Hargreaves Associates
Kyu Sung Woo FAIA, Kyu Sung Woo Architects
—————-
Boston Going for the Gold in 2024: Transportation and Infrastructure Opportunities and Hurdles
Tuesday, February 10
7:45 AM to 9:45 AM (EST)
C. Walsh Theatre – Suffolk University, 55 Temple Street, Boston
How does Boston leverage its Olympics proposal to ensure that much-needed housing, transportation, and infrastructure improvements will be addressed for lasting benefits?
Panelists:
Richard Davey, CEO, Boston 2024
Peter Zuk, Principal, Zuk International, Inc.
Jeanne DuBois, Strategic Advisor, Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation
Chris Dempsey, Co-Chair, No Boston Olympics
Alex Krieger, FAIA Principal, NBBJ, Professor of Urban Design Harvard Graduate School of Design
Moderated by:
Peter Howe, Business Editor, NECN
This event is free and open to the public; however, RSVP is required.
jcohn88 says
I’m involved with the group NoBoston2024, and we were going to have an anti-Olympics rally outside this event, so I was disappointed to hear that it got cancelled.
Christopher says
…but it would have been more constructive IMO to have gone inside and heard what they had to say, if for no other reason than to better understand the arguments of your “opponents” (which I put in quotes because I find it most unfortunate that this has become an issue where people choose up sides rather than try to work together).
seamusromney says
We’ve heard the arguments. They’re bunk. It’s time to stop them.
TheBestDefense says
This was an indoor event cancelled because of a winter storm. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, and the government of the UK, are big supporters of the London Olympics. They invited supporters of the Boston bid to speak and others to learn of their opinionated experience.
The British Consular Office, of which I have been a beneficiary, is very circumspect and would never cancel an event to avoid a discussion.
Your comment “it would have been more constructive IMO to have gone inside and heard what they had to say” is pretty insulting to a foreign government, even though I might disagree with the UK government’s position. They did not duck the issue. They acknowledged the reality of the weather.
kirth says
Christopher did not allege that the Consulate ducked the issue or canceled because of opposition or the planned protest. I do not agree with his characteristic assertion that protests are uncalled for, but he did not address the reason for the cancellation, at all.
Christopher says
I was addressing the opposing side, which seemed disappointed, not because they missed an opportunity to engage and listen, but because they missed an opportunity to protest, which I see as the wrong attitude.
jcohn88 says
You assume that we didn’t have tickets to the event as well, to go inside to ask questions. That’s a false assumption. I had questions I wanted to ask about the failed promises of London 2012 and would have loved the opportunity to ask BoJo.
But the event isn’t an event for “engagement.” It’s an event for spin, to tell one side of the story. It’s not designed in “good faith.” To believe otherwise is to be very naive.
sabutai says
With the departure of Alex Salmond, Boris Johnson is pretty much the only British politician who is interesting to hear. Then again, judging from these pages it seems much of the potential audience had taken the decision to do anything but listen. Sad to see such dogmatism the rule among one side in a political issue.
jconway says
Still waiting to read your paper on why Montreal was a success by the way. Still waiting to see an actual engagement with the opposition in the facts instead of belittling us as NIMBY inferiority complex holders. You name the time and place and we can have a link off and a real debate. Until then, I see
nothing but belief and hope on your side and not a single fact in favor. For a reality based blog the pro-Olympics side has done a very poor job engaging with reality.
Christopher says
…you have to at least start with belief and hope, you know, the “yes we can” attitude of the Patrick and Obama campaigns. The USOC obviously thinks Boston has the best shot of bringing the Games to the United States so that per se is a reason to be optimistic.
jconway says
That sentiment was also fueled by belief and hope, and optimistic faith in the limitless potential and heroism of the American military. As much as subprime mortages were fueled by bipartisan policies and belief in the limitless potential of the free market.
Jim Webb, Tom Ricks, Brent Scowcroft, Andrew Bacevich, and Eric Shinsheki were among the military experts that utilized their knowledge and expertise to question the necessity and wisdom of our policy in Iraq. They were summarily dismissed by folks who hadn’t spent a day in uniform as anti-American, unpatriotic, and reflexively ideological opponents of American policy-by all the “serious folk” in Washington including many liberal Democrats.
The experts on the Olympics-the economists and urban planners who have studied other games, the foreign policy correspondents, and even folks like Keith Olberman who love sports and the games but hate the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the IOC-all could tell you the games as currently designed are a bad fit for Boston.
Show me a single test case of an Olympics that were under budget and revitalized the communities they were hosted in without any white elephants left behind, and I might be inclined to support the bid. I see no reason for Boston to be the guinea pig when history and the experts are clearly showing us why this is a bad idea. Just as the experts did on Iraq.
Christopher says
Not only does that automatically start further down the optimism scale, and obviously not a factor in the Olympics, but the Games have an underlying theme of peace rather than war.
jconway says
And it was a policy where the boosters were blindly optimistic and belittled those who had reservations has lacking spirit or pride in their country as it undertook this adventure. I am arguing that they are similar in that particular regard-that boosters in both cases said it would be quick, easy, glorious and cheap and it ended up being no such thing in either case. Thankfully, we aren’t talking about Boston sending troops to overthrow Gov. LePage in Maine-but if we were I wouldn’t be surprised if my objections showed I had an inferiority complex to those that supported such a mission.
TheBestDefense says
an overthrow in Maine and re-annexing it to the Commonwealth. We need our own sources of cheap and reliable lobsters!
chris-rich says
What’s more obnoxious, the half baked plan or the sophomoric dodges to evade real scrutiny and accountability?
Team booster is opting for a kind of infantile regression where it comes to be a nagging toddler whining at the parent to buy the useless shiny thing in Walmart.
petr says
…becoming tiresome in and of yourself, but what is more tiresome is the editors at BMG putting up with your continued passive aggressive insults.
HR's Kevin says
I wonder where else I have seen those? 😉
While you may have a point about the rhetoric employed in that comment, I think you fail to recognize your own contribution to the tone of discussion. You are no more a paragon of virtue than anyone else here.
HR's Kevin says
It is fine for the organizers of the Olympics to be optimistic. However, I see no reason for the rest of us to hold the same view just because they do.
SomervilleTom says
No, we most certainly do NOT have to “start with belief and hope”.
As a Democrat, I was of course receptive to the “yes we can” attitude of the Patrick and Obama campaigns. I had good reason to believe that each candidate shared my vision for the future, and if elected would strive to make that vision real. In the case of Mr. Obama, that belief and trust was betrayed.
I am NOT a member of the “Let’s bring the Olympics to Boston” party. I have no reason to be receptive. I already get more than my fill of sports boosterism by our relentless flogging about our professional teams.
In my view, your “argument” presumes the outcome you wish to argue.
mimolette says
But you still have to do the planning. Belief and hope are great for motivation when you set out to do something difficult, and especially when people keep telling you it can’t be done, or done well.
But nobody except the proponents, the people who are so excited about what they see as the upside that they’re ready to commit to a ton of hard work to try to bring their vision to fruition, need belief or hope. Indeed, what the ultimate decisionmakers need is more like impartiality and skepticism, enough so that they can evaluate the ultimate proposals objectively. Hope and belief are great motivators, but they’re a terrible basis for evaluating real-world odds.
sabutai says
Since when? Because I’m open to it, and not shutting my ears?
I have been quite detailed about the failure of Montreal. I lived there.
I wish proponents would admit the role of the Olympics in democratizing Montreal. Granted, I’m closer to a proponent at this point in reaction to the absolutism of the NO camp. I will not play the game of ad hominems disguised as debate.
sabutai says
Democratizing South Korea not Montreal. It’s a diverse record — one case does not a trend make.
jconway says
The Olympics failed to democratize Russia, China, or Nazi Germany for that matter-so maybe Seoul is an outlier or maybe it benefitted from a wave of democratizations in Asia after the success of People Power in the Philippines?
Anyway, since Boston was already democratized in the 1780s, though I would note bid backers are leery of democracy on their pet project, the relevant question is was it under budget and did it directly spur future investment? That’s the only question I care about. I have yet to see anyone link to an economic case study that proves this. Just assertions that the Olympics are like stealing underpants, profit will surely follow.
chris-rich says
South Korea democritization followed an uprising that involved a lot of casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
It’s even a holiday there. You seem hung up on those cold war era texts you mentioned when you were an undergraduate that made spurious claims about the Olympics as catalyst.
It was only a few weeks ago. If I really wanted to play gotcha, I’d just do a comment archive search for your concession. It was along the lines of ”but my college course said…
This is what makes the booster side so pitiful and ineffectual. You can’t seem to come up with anything useful or verifiable to bolster your pipe dream.
It’s sort of like Peter the Hermit’s hapless crusade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Hermit
williamstowndem says
for Massachusetts taxpayers … but if you do … please do it on your own nickel!
The Globe says it will cost $10 Billion, but it cost London $14 Billion to host the 2012 Olympics, and the British Government picked up the tab. Here, Boston, — and by that the promoters really mean ALL Massachusetts taxpayers — will have to pony up the $10 Billion, a figure that doesn’t include any new transportation infrastructure. This has financial disaster written all over it. So, Boston, host it if you must, but don’t ask the forgotten Western Provinces to help with the tab. You buy it. You enjoy it. You pay for it. U-S-A, U-S-A!!
HR's Kevin says
The following message was sent to people who work in the Cambridge Innovation Center (CIC):
I do not know if non-CIC clients would be welcome as well…