to begin with IMO. Not even hotel rooms, not enough venues, not the quality or vast infrastructure necessary to support it, would have been a disaster.
has at most 50,000 - 75,000 hotel rooms and that's including Providence, RI Manchester, NH and Hartford, CT - which is silly, but whatever - I think the Boston olympic committee did.
2.1M people attended the London olympics.
Where do you put all those people?
the T, and the commuter rail (the public transportation methods in Boston) can't handle those crowds and the major stadiums (Gillette and Fenway) are some of the smallest, if not the smallest in their respective sports.
great city, I like Boston a lot, but it was a bad idea having and Olympics here, and playing off the emotion of the marathon bombing was gross IMO.
one way in and out of the city unless you're dressed in flannel or trawl for a living. It would have been a logistical nightmare.
From the paper I read it sounds like they were worried that IOC or someone would shaft them for cost overruns (sort of like what Vince Vaughn wanted on True Detective). Smart for them to withdraw, IMO.
has at most 50,000 - 75,000 hotel rooms and that's including Providence, RI Manchester, NH and Hartford, CT - which is silly, but whatever - I think the Boston olympic committee did.
2.1M people attended the London olympics.
Where do you put all those people?
the T, and the commuter rail (the public transportation methods in Boston) can't handle those crowds and the major stadiums (Gillette and Fenway) are some of the smallest, if not the smallest in their respective sports.
great city, I like Boston a lot, but it was a bad idea having and Olympics here, and playing off the emotion of the marathon bombing was gross IMO.
You don't need to put that many people up, and not all at the same time. Most visitors are day trippers. Many who are staying are only there for a night or two. The London committee requested a commitment of about 40,000 rooms.
has at most 50,000 - 75,000 hotel rooms and that's including Providence, RI Manchester, NH and Hartford, CT - which is silly, but whatever - I think the Boston olympic committee did.
2.1M people attended the London olympics.
Where do you put all those people?
the T, and the commuter rail (the public transportation methods in Boston) can't handle those crowds and the major stadiums (Gillette and Fenway) are some of the smallest, if not the smallest in their respective sports.
great city, I like Boston a lot, but it was a bad idea having and Olympics here, and playing off the emotion of the marathon bombing was gross IMO.
You don't need to put that many people up, and not all at the same time. Most visitors are day trippers. Many who are staying are only there for a night or two. The London committee requested a commitment of about 40,000 rooms.
There are 140,000 hotel rooms in metro London, and better infrastructure.
it's no comparison really.
The economics of such events are notoriously bad...
But if they had been forced to modernize their mass transit they might have really benefited from it.
do you think more people would use it?
Boston is so old it's generally an inelastic city, and it's hard to reach the suburbs with mass transit unless you have major parking space.
if they could build stations with enough parking out far enough it could work, but they generally don't have the space for that and the people in the city who use it use it no matter what. At least that's how it seems. When I moved up here i lived in the city, now I live in the suburbs.
The initial promises would of course have been unfulfilled, but it's a beautiful city with a lot to see, if it had parlayed that into time in the spotlight and some infrastructure upgrades they may have come out ahead.
2.1M people attended the London olympics.
Where do you put all those people?
the T, and the commuter rail (the public transportation methods in Boston) can't handle those crowds and the major stadiums (Gillette and Fenway) are some of the smallest, if not the smallest in their respective sports.
great city, I like Boston a lot, but it was a bad idea having and Olympics here, and playing off the emotion of the marathon bombing was gross IMO.
From the paper I read it sounds like they were worried that IOC or someone would shaft them for cost overruns (sort of like what Vince Vaughn wanted on True Detective). Smart for them to withdraw, IMO.
2.1M people attended the London olympics.
Where do you put all those people?
the T, and the commuter rail (the public transportation methods in Boston) can't handle those crowds and the major stadiums (Gillette and Fenway) are some of the smallest, if not the smallest in their respective sports.
great city, I like Boston a lot, but it was a bad idea having and Olympics here, and playing off the emotion of the marathon bombing was gross IMO.
You don't need to put that many people up, and not all at the same time. Most visitors are day trippers. Many who are staying are only there for a night or two. The London committee requested a commitment of about 40,000 rooms.
Quote:
has at most 50,000 - 75,000 hotel rooms and that's including Providence, RI Manchester, NH and Hartford, CT - which is silly, but whatever - I think the Boston olympic committee did.
2.1M people attended the London olympics.
Where do you put all those people?
the T, and the commuter rail (the public transportation methods in Boston) can't handle those crowds and the major stadiums (Gillette and Fenway) are some of the smallest, if not the smallest in their respective sports.
great city, I like Boston a lot, but it was a bad idea having and Olympics here, and playing off the emotion of the marathon bombing was gross IMO.
You don't need to put that many people up, and not all at the same time. Most visitors are day trippers. Many who are staying are only there for a night or two. The London committee requested a commitment of about 40,000 rooms.
There are 140,000 hotel rooms in metro London, and better infrastructure.
it's no comparison really.
do you think more people would use it?
Boston is so old it's generally an inelastic city, and it's hard to reach the suburbs with mass transit unless you have major parking space.
if they could build stations with enough parking out far enough it could work, but they generally don't have the space for that and the people in the city who use it use it no matter what. At least that's how it seems. When I moved up here i lived in the city, now I live in the suburbs.
they are so behind construction with less than a year to go..