There are three schools of thought, at least it seems, when it comes to the prospect of the 2024 Summer Olympics coming to Boston: There’s A) Boston is the greatest city on the face of the planet and it deserves the Olympics; there’s B) Boston, though glorious, has its faults, and if the Olympics were to come here, it would force some much needed infrastructure changes that wouldn’t otherwise happen; and then there’s C) the idea that a Boston Olympic bid is economically irresponsible.

Here’s a warning to naysayers – ten years in advance: Boston does in fact have a realistic shot at hosting the 2024 Summer Olympics.

The city, according to a report by the Boston Globe, is marketing itself as a “city with compact venues.” Boston already finds itself on a short list of potential US host cities, one that includes Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington. In December, the International Olympic Committee is scheduled to meet in Switzerland; if the IOC believes Boston is a city with so-called compact venues, the Globe reports that Boston “would probably gain an advantage over its US competitors.

Dan O’Connell, president of the city’s potential bid committee, told the Globe, Boston “is the Olympic park,” adding that if the Games were to be held in this city, it would be a “public-transit and walking Olympics.”

And John Fish, the CEO of Suffolk Construction and chair of the Boston 2024 Olympic Partnership, believes that this city, despite being on a list of four major US cities, has a 75 percent chance of “being named the US entry,” according to the Globe. Fish’s confidence, the Globe reports, stems from Boston’s pitch to USOC officials over the summer.

There are still no guarantees that Boston would indeed commit to hosting the Games, if it was named the US entry. Concerns over potentially astronomical costs – the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, for example, cost $50 billion – have some weary of an Olympic bid. But the fact that Boston has venues already in place that are capable, in theory, of hosting certain events, could help reduce future costs.

According to the Globe report, other potential US cities San Francisco and Washington could, unlike Boston, wind up having to erect colossal, temporary venues in neighboring cities and suburbs if they were to host the Games. Los Angeles, on the other hand, “would be the least complicated choice,” but the IOC could ultimately decide to opt against a return visit ten years from now, the Globe reports.

Public transportation and overall traffic concerns appear to be the obvious snags hindering Boston’s chances. The Globe’s John Powers puts it best: “A modern transportation system for a 17th-century city would be the most enduring bequest of a 17-day Games.”

Regardless, Fish told the Globe that even if Boston were to win the US bid, but fail to secure the IOC’s nomination, “this will be one of the most transformative events in our history.”

Image via Shutterstock