
That's Charles Street on the left. See it larger.
Plans released by Boston 2024 show most of the Common and a significant portion of the Public Garden - including the Make Way for Ducklings statues - off limits to the public during the Olympics. Construction of a 16,000-seat beach-volleyball stadium and related structures, meanwhile, would shut the ball fields and other parts of the Common for months before the games.
The plans also show Charles Street shut for both access to the beach volleyball and for the start and finish of the Olympic marathon. The Public Garden along Charles would also be within the "secure perimeter," with a ticket gate for spectators between the Lagoon and Mrs. Mallard.
Frog Pond would also be shut to the public, according to the Boston 2024 proposal. The Frog Pond playground might still be open, though. The Public Garden Lagoon and the Swan Boats dock would be outside the fence, although many people would have to take a roundabout way to get to the dock because the path from Charles would be shut.
The volleyball stadium, intended as a temporary structure, would sit mainly on the ball fields along Charles,with a number of structures planned for the large grassy fields by the parking-garage entrances. This would leave the trees now along Charles, but might require chopping down some trees deeper inside the Common.
The red line shows the security perimeter:

The Olympic marathon would start and finish on the Beacon Street side of Charles Street and wend its way through the Back Bay, downtown, South Boston, the North End, Cambridge, Allston and Brookline.

Athletes and Olympic panjandrums would have access to the venues via dedicated lanes on the turnpike, Stuart Street and Charles Street (the plans seem to indicate the Common garage would be used for their vehicles; the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, which owns the garage, is an enthusiastic backer of the Olympics proposal). Spectators could use any of the nearby Red, Orange and Green Line stops.
Boston 2024 sports venue proposal (70.5M PDF).
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Olympics
By Cleveland
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:09am
The more I see of the proposal the more I dislike it. The powers that be seem to think that they can run roughshod over everyone to achieve their grandiose plans.
Take large swaths of land, close large sections of the city, fundamentally change historic parts of the city all without meaningful public input.
The tourism industry in
By Kinopio
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:25pm
The tourism industry in Boston would be DEAD the months before and after the Olympics because people would not have access to much of what makes Boston appealing. London experienced fewer tourists in 2012 because the olympics rightfully scared away tourists. Imagine being a small business near the common when its closed off for a year?
How queer are The Olympics?...
By theszak
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:03pm
How queer are The Olympics?... queer in the sense an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities that are not heterosexual or cisgender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer
Not even a tangent
By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:46pm
You must have posted in the wrong spot -- or the wrong thread -- or the wrong site.
he's always
By cybah
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:55pm
off base and in the clouds.
Today's Price of Tea in China is 2.29! It's gone up.
Not always
By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:00pm
His recent comments about library staff speech restrictions got a +1 from me.
Olympic brands your butt!
By anon
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:20pm
There is a side story to the fact that when, what is now called The Gay Games, wanted to use the name, The Gay Olympics, one of the Olympic corporations (the word Committee is Orwellian doublspeak) sued. Their claim was that they control the use of the word Olympic in any kind of branding.
That the term that refers to events dating back millenia of course was not significant. Public domain is meaningless when greed and bigotry join together.
Undetectable doping, could it affect gender/sexuality ?...
By theszak
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:32pm
Undetectable doping, could it affect gender/sexuality ?...
Meds. Try 'em.
By lbb
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:44pm
Meds. Try 'em.
Hey, at least he
By roadman
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:17pm
didn't complain about the lack of stenographic records for events that happen on the Common.
He had another good post today....
By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:22pm
... about the Lake Placid Olympic Vilage -- turned (mostly) into a prison.
That was always the plan for
By lbb
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:45pm
That was always the plan for it. This is >30 year old "news". Stupid.
Who said it was "news"?
By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 2:12pm
Thanks for your insult.
What's the point?
By BostonDog
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:11am
Obviously the entire Public Garden and Common would be off limits and shut irrespective of this drawing. How would they even put up a fence without destroying the spaces?
My fear would be that they'd consider the ducklings a part of Boston 2024 and say that even having a photo of them in a store window (irrespective of the Olympics) would be considered infringing upon the Boston 2024 and must be removed.
Given what they did in London how can the Olympics be run constitutionally? The IOC wants the state/city to pass and enforce laws that specifically are banned by 1st amendment. Just look at what Walsh has already signed.
1st Amendment? 4th?
By Saul
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:16am
What's that?
If the Boston Police can conduct suspicionless searches to anyone getting near the marathon route, do you really foresee a problem with closing off to non-participants or non-spectators large swaths of the city, and checkpoints being set up all over town?
What if they live inside the perimiter?
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:29am
I don't believe for a second that the restricted areas will be limited to the footprints of the venues. What sort of legal chicanery will that demand - forcing people away from their houses?
Sucks to be them then, I
By Saul
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:33am
Sucks to be them then, I guess.
All joking aside, would you honestly be surprised at any restrictions and checkpoints in the name of "security"?
I can just see it now
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:44am
SecurityThespian: Sorry, but you can't bring in more than three ounces of liquids ...
Homeowner (or short-term renter): BUT I'M OUT OF GROCERIES AND MY DOG NEEDS FOOD!
Is that even possible?
By bibliotequetress
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:20am
Someone (maybe the city? the artist?) must own the copyright for the ducklings, and gods know they've already been photographed, and those photos are often subject to copyright themselves. I can't see how the Olympic committee could appropriate the actual ducklings or a replica thereof as a protected trademark or symbol of the Olympics, although they could perhaps create a unique art piece incorporating an image of the ducklings and then copyright that.
Fortunately that's one wee bit of Boston well protected by law.
Laws? The IOC knows no Laws
By BostonDog
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:29am
When I was in London for the olympics it was crazy how many things where banned. A store couldn't put out a sign with a caulk drawing of one of the sports. The IOC won't consider a location until they have laws signed that essentially say that they have the right to determine which counts as their trademark and not.
Read this article on Britain's Brand Police:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bri...
interesting
By bibliotequetress
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:13pm
I realize that what we're discussing with the ducklings is small beans compared to people losing jobs at Widett Square, but I actually do think the ducklings are protected. Looking at the article, and the foolishness the IOC was up to, I still think that the IOC could not appropriate the actual ducklings or an accurate facsimile of the ducklings unless they bought the copyright or made arrangements with the copyright holder, and copyright of a work of art is not subject to eminent domain.
As silly and overzealous as some of the citations in the Independent article are, they are pretty straightforward bans on people trying to either falsely claim affiliation with the Olympics for profit, or use language invoking the Olympics as a sales technique (the latter should not be banned, in my view, but I think there is already case law on this in the US-- will defer to a lawyer to respond).
While the IOC took an overbearing, arrogant, but probably borderline legal attitude towards the use of words that have a clear relationship to the Olympics when in the vicinity of the Olympics (like the words "Gold" and "Silver"), and trademark names like Coca-Cola have their own set or protections anyway, the ducklings are not inherently part of the Olympics. And, because the ducklings are already protected by copyright, they cannot be hijacked for Olympic use.
In short, unlike "Cowboy UP!" (remember that?) a third party can't waltz in and claim the Ducklings-- they are already claimed.
However, the IOC could, perhaps, hire an artist to do an oil painting of the ducklings passing the Olympic torch from one to another, buy the copyright from the artist, use it to sell t-shirts, and sue anyone who uses it without IOC permission.
I have a postcard showing the ducklings dressed in Sox gear. I've had it for years, and who knows how old it is. And this image is protected-- I cannot use it for profit, I cannot publish it uncredited, I cannot use it to sell cars. And the IOC cannot snag this image, created years before the Boston Olympics were wetdreamed up, and claim that the photographer or current copyright holder has no right to it.
However, if the same photographer made a bunch of tiny Olympic medals, photographed the ducks wearing them, and sold t-shirts with the photos, the hypersensitive IOC probably would have a case that the photographer illegally used their trademarked symbol. Copyright would not cover a depiction of the medal under these circumstances, but trademark might.
Lawyers: I'm basing this mostly on my experience dealing with copyrighted material-- books, personal papers, and art-- in my work in libraries, archives and museums. Please weigh in on anything I have wrong, or other considerations I've missed.
PPS: I'm a little sad the Combat Zone is gone-- I would have loved to hear the court case over how "Gold," "Silver," "Rings," and "Triathlon" are being misused.
Anybody like Greek pizza?
By perruptor
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:41pm
This place would have to change its name.
Also this one.
This one too.
Probably this one, as well.
This one might escape notice.
Those are all pizza parlors (and there are more of them.) There are a raft of places that don't have pizza in their names, but do have Olympic or Olympian, and under the IOC's new laws, they would have to change their names, just as the ones in London did.
sigh
By cybah
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:55pm
Sounds like the Gestapo... private entity forcing other private businesses to change their name.
I wonder who will pay for that.. and I bet the USOC/IOC isn't one of them. ;)
Makes me wonder...
By octr202
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 9:06pm
...if Seattle ever hosted the Olympics, would they have to rename an entire peninsula and mountain range?
I'll be damned-- Adam, BostonDog, & perruptor...
By bibliotequetress
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 9:07pm
... I work with copyright and patent issues a lot and find them interesting, so I decided to look into Olympic terminology & symbol usage (because: nerd). I know a lot less about trademarking.
So, guess what? The following words and images have not only been trademarked for the Olympics since 1978 but a special law (The Amateur Sports Act) was created at that time to give the trademark protections extra ooomph. Adam mentioned some of these earlier, I think:
See The Trademark Act of 1946, As Amended (US Patent & Trademark Office) http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/Trademark_Stat...
Perruptor, lest you wonder, the 30 day period in which your pizza joints can contest a trademark has passed, much like the author off the Amateur Sports Act of 1978...
... Alaska's own Ted Stevens, a man who knew a thing or two about playing footsy with developers. In addition to the words trademarked above, the Act also protects various incarnations of images of the torch, symbols and words for the Paralympics, and other bits & pieces missing from the Trademark submission.
BUT ALL IS NOT LOST! Were the pizza joints opened before September 1, 1950? They are probably protected. Or, if
SO, of all the Olympic Pizza places you found, only one has a problem, but it's a serious one.
This guy in Hyde Park violates USC 220506(D)(3)(a) by combining the name AND the image of the torch. It was the second link you provided. He's kinda screwed.
See what I mean here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506
Steven's whole masterwork: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220501
Of course it's possible.
By Scratchie
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:36am
Of course it's possible. Intellectual property rights are directly proportional to the size of the corporation involved.
reproduction rights
By Nancy L
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:45am
When artists sell their work they can also sell the right to reproduce images of the work, or keep that right, or sell it to a third party. In this case, I'd bet the Olympics are buying or licensing it.
perhaps
By bibliotequetress
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:59pm
I haven't heard that the Olympic committee is interested in licensing the statues, but who knows? I'm not going to say anything about counting eggs...
I love the ducklings, mostly because of the librarian thing, and they would be one of my first choices for a symbol of the city. However, I don't think that they invoke "*BOSTON*!!!" the way that, say, the Old North Church does. Or the Swan Boats. Using the ducklings would be like going to Paris and saying,"Let's not use that old metal tower to capture the essence of Paris! Let's use Jean-Paul Sartre's grave at Montparnasse on the tshirts!"
May I point out that it seems
By bibliotequetress
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:12am
May I point out that it seems that a Suffolk University dorm will have a direct view into the beach volleyball area, meaning that for the first time in the history of Suffolk University, they may see a tripling of the number of male students opting to stay on campus for summer school in 2024?
Sure
By Michael
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:26am
Assuming they don't invoke terrorism fears and forcibly remove everyone with a sightline to any of the events.
I would not be surprised if
By Matt_J
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:09pm
I would not be surprised if they charge the residents who have a clear sight-line for not paying to view the event.
A far more likely situation
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:16pm
There would be no students in that dorm for the entire summer. They would be sent off at the end of the semester, not to return until the fall. That dorm would be used for event housing - and premium event housing, at that.
Adam, You are not being fair.
By John Costello
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:15am
Stop letting everyone know what an incredible poo show this will be for the average person of Greater Boston.
It is nice to know that we can turn someplace for the facts over the spoutings from Gramma on Morrissey Boulevard. The Globe is fast losing its soul with their incessant pom pom waving for this taxpayer funded, liberties denying, money grubbing, fizzy water promotion orgy known as the Olympic Games.
poll results
By MadMax
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:06pm
Agree UH is turning into a preaching to the converted forum, but i think this is important work. I have reason to believe that the poll results for olympic support are mainly due to misunderstanding the dire consequences of engaging in this olympic venture. We have a civic duty to review the bid in an impartial fashion.
Holy God...
By tcf098
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:13am
At first glance I thought this was an Onion article.
That marathon route is
By gotdatwmd
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:16am
That marathon route is hilarious. It just keeps getting worse and worse for citizens.
That's why we need to make it
By anon
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:26am
That's why we need to make it known to our officials, politicians, the planning committee, the IOC, etc., that we will not allow the Olympics to take place here under the terms of this proposal.
IOC to Boston....
By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:25am
Drop dead (in 2024, but only for 3 weeks or so).
Where are the livestock exhibition buildings?
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:27am
This looks like your standard county/state fairgrounds without the fried dough and corndog stands.
There will be a lot of mature trees that will have to be destroyed for that overgrown beystadium, too.
Wait a minute?
By Michael
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:30am
Why don't we just move the whole shebang to the Big E grounds?
#WestSpringfield2024
Jesus that's a brilliant idea
By Mister Wizard
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 7:29pm
Jesus that's a brilliant idea
Very Bad Location
By MB in Boston
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:27am
Historic landmarks like the Boston Common and Public Garden should not be used for Olympic sporting events. Isn't it against the law to hold events on the Common where a ticket price is charged? Why not use Franklin Park?
What makes you think that?
By Scratchie
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:04pm
There was a ticketed "Concerts on the Common" series for years in the 80s.
Ticketed Events
By MB in Boston
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:56pm
I believe the law was fairly recent and maybe came about because of those concerts in the 80's.
Could be. I'd imagine that
By Scratchie
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 1:04pm
Could be. I'd imagine that the law will get reversed toot sweet if the Olympics are coming to town, so, non-issue.
Rules on use not clear?
By JohnAKeith
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 12:13pm
I think there are major restrictions on what can and can't be done on the Common, even though it "belongs to the people". I think some of it has to do with if it's "temporary" or permanent.
They had to get an act of legislature to allow for the restaurant on the Common. The Frogg Pond skating rink and carousel may be exempt because they aren't there "permanently" - just every year.
I think the 2024 people would request an exemption. And, I think the legislature would probably approve. I've yet to hear any elected official say, "No." about any of this.
Where are
By ChrisInEastie
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:40am
All of the Beacon Hill residents that flipped @$^& over sidewalk accessibility on this? Seems like they'd be a good group to spearhead the "Oh HELL no" campaign.
Calling Bob Leponge...
By whyaduck
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 11:59am
but, seriously...I think they may be more up in arms about the dog parks disappearing, although we have not heard a toot about that, as of yet.
On the other hand, the Common hosts many of the homeless* who will be oh, well, unfortunately (who gives a bleep, anyway) displaced (*which will probably be still around in 2024)...methinks The Hill might just see an influx...which is not necessary a bad thing...
Of course people are on it.
By Bob Leponge
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 2:40pm
Opposition is quite strong in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood has a lot of political juice that would be diluted and squandered by attempting to try this case in the media.
My personal position, and I don't speak for any organization or institution: I don't need to look at the bid. Why? Because the creators of the bid document know it inside and out, and they decided to try to keep it secret. Which means that they know the public isn't going to like it if the public sees it. Which means it's a bad deal for the public. If it were a good deal for the public, the sponsors would be publishing it all over the place and spending their PR dollars on getting people to read it.
That's good to hear
By ChrisInEastie
Fri, 01/23/2015 - 4:10pm
I may be joining in soon.
Pages