Report: Celtics to look into building new arena

Exhibit A for any case against a stadium should be kz1000’s recent shots of the Fens. What we have now is far superior to the proposed new Fenway.
 
The Hynes site makes the most sense. Smack dab in a central business and retail district surrounded by bars, restaurants, nightlife. Plenty of transportation access - for public transit - GL, OL, Back Bay nearby with CR connections, #1 bus and other bus connections. For vehicles, Mass Pike, Storrow, urban street grid with high volume capacities, garages already there.

In Everett nothing is around, no way to get there, and most everything still being built from scratch.

It would be sad to see Celtics leave TD Garden but if they can secure the site Hynes seems like a no-brainer.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
This honestly just feels like talk to try and get some tax breaks so they can upgrade the Garden. They don't actually plan on moving.
Click to expand...
The Celtics don’t own the Garden. Jeremy Jacobs Bruins Delaware North Companies own it. I’m not sure what tax breaks the Celtics would seek or benefit from directly from tossing a trial balloon about moving to a new arena. It seems like they would be better off owning their own building and wouldn’t have incentive to leverage tax breaks for building upgrades since that would help the Bruins a lot more or entirely.

The Celtics have a lease term there through 2036. If they are going to move and build a new arena, this is the time to contemplate that given the lead time necessary in litigious Boston.
 
BronsonShore said:
And I'd be on their side. We need housing on the Hynes site, something like the Ink Block with more height.
Click to expand...
Never mind the BB groups, imagine opposition from the abutters: BPX, St. Cecilia and the archdiocese, the BAC, the Berklee School, the new owner of 855 Boylston Street, the Sheraton (or whoever owns them nowadays), Northeastern University (Sheraton south tower), Druker (Colonnade), 4 Seasons, and so on.

The hotels want stable convention business (beds), the schools want stable schedules–not game day crowds. The church and neighborhood don't want any more game day bullshit than what we already tolerate due to Fenway Park/Red Sox.

Edit to add: just my opinion as a 30-year resident near the Hynes.
 
Not to mention that the Hynes location is a much poorer transit access location than North Station. Imaging the cluster on the Green Line if there was a game at both Fenway and the Hynes location 😱
 
JeffDowntown said:
Not to mention that the Hynes location is a much poorer transit access location than North Station. Imaging the cluster on the Green Line if there was a game at both Fenway and the Hynes location 😱
Click to expand...

Its definitetly worse but not awful. Back Bay OL and CR isn't that far.
 
Adding another piece to the mix, the Suns could be relocating to Boston from Connecticut in 2027.
Celtics minority owner Steve Pagliuca has agreed to a deal to purchase the Connecticut Sun from the Mohegan Tribe and plans to move the franchise to Boston by 2027, The Boston Globe‘s Gary Washburn reported Saturday.

The purchase, which is pending league approval, is worth $325 million, while the Pagliuca-led group plans to put down another $100 million to build a practice facility in Boston, Washburn added in his report. TD Garden would reportedly be the team’s primary home arena, while games could be played in Providence to avoid conflicts with the Bruins and Celtics.
Click to expand...
www.boston.com

WNBA to Boston on horizon? Steve Pagliuca reportedly reaches deal to buy Connecticut Sun, eyes move

If approved by the WNBA, Steve Pagliuca's group reportedly plans to move the Sun from Connecticut to Boston by 2027.
www.boston.com
 
JeffDowntown said:
Not to mention that the Hynes location is a much poorer transit access location than North Station. Imaging the cluster on the Green Line if there was a game at both Fenway and the Hynes location 😱
Click to expand...
Now do Everett
 
JeffDowntown said:
Everett Soccer Stadium will be a mess on game days -- 17 per year (home games for MLS).

NBA plays 41 home games in the regular season plus extended playoffs -- and NBA overlaps MLB so there would be simultaneous games at the Hynes and Fenway locations. It's worse.
Click to expand...
The conversation was about an NBA arena at Back Bay vs. Everett. If you want to get technical about sports schedules, the NBA regular season typically ends before April 15th, so the Sox overlap during regular season is minimal (btw the Sox alsotry to play away in early April given the poor weather here). The few nights there could be a conflict in April, May, June would be if the C’s made a deep run in the playoffs.

In terms of location, you’d have to be insane to think that Everett in its current transit state is a better place to handle an arena crowd vs Back Bay. There are literally billions of dollars worth of transit assets in Back Bay. Even an improved transit condition in Everett would still be worse. Just the fact that it would be located in the Back Bay where there is already an established central business district makes it a better choice than Everett regardless of the transit conditions.

And lol the Back Bay neighborhood (boo hoo). You chose to live in a major urban area and you knew what it was when you made that choice. Substantial business development occurs in a central business district. It’s like someone moving next to a farm and complaining about the smell. You have every right to advocate against something but I think it’s a silly complaint.
 
WestMedford said:
The conversation was about an NBA arena at Back Bay vs. Everett. If you want to get technical about sports schedules, the NBA regular season typically ends before April 15th, so the Sox overlap during regular season is minimal (btw the Sox alsotry to play away in early April given the poor weather here). The few nights there could be a conflict in April, May, June would be if the C’s made a deep run in the playoffs.

In terms of location, you’d have to be insane to think that Everett in its current transit state is a better place to handle an arena crowd vs Back Bay. There are literally billions of dollars worth of transit assets in Back Bay. Even an improved transit condition in Everett would still be worse. Just the fact that it would be located in the Back Bay where there is already an established central business district makes it a better choice than Everett regardless of the transit conditions.

And lol the Back Bay neighborhood (boo hoo). You chose to live in a major urban area and you knew what it was when you made that choice. Substantial business development occurs in a central business district. It’s like someone moving next to a farm and complaining about the smell. You have every right to advocate against something but I think it’s a silly complaint.
Click to expand...
I was not saying Everett is better than Back Bay for handling an Arena crowd. I was saying an MLS arena is less stress than an NBA arena, because of the shorter schedule.

Also the Celtics rarely play just a regular season. They have been in the playoffs 62 times.
 
WestMedford said:
The conversation was about an NBA arena at Back Bay vs. Everett. If you want to get technical about sports schedules, the NBA regular season typically ends before April 15th, so the Sox overlap during regular season is minimal (btw the Sox alsotry to play away in early April given the poor weather here). The few nights there could be a conflict in April, May, June would be if the C’s made a deep run in the playoffs.

In terms of location, you’d have to be insane to think that Everett in its current transit state is a better place to handle an arena crowd vs Back Bay. There are literally billions of dollars worth of transit assets in Back Bay. Even an improved transit condition in Everett would still be worse. Just the fact that it would be located in the Back Bay where there is already an established central business district makes it a better choice than Everett regardless of the transit conditions.

And lol the Back Bay neighborhood (boo hoo). You chose to live in a major urban area and you knew what it was when you made that choice. Substantial business development occurs in a central business district. It’s like someone moving next to a farm and complaining about the smell. You have every right to advocate against something but I think it’s a silly complaint.
Click to expand...
There's only so much saturation a neighborhood can take before it becomes untenable, unreasonable, and unlivable. Maybe the C's should look to somewhere like, say, Medford?
 
North Station is the best location, cuz it allows people to come for Celtics/Bruins/special events without having to drive into the city. Plus its just a historic location with the orig Boston Garden and the new Garden practically at the same location.
 
bbfen said:
There's only so much saturation a neighborhood can take before it becomes untenable, unreasonable, and unlivable. Maybe the C's should look to somewhere like, say, Medford?
Click to expand...
The fact that cities much denser, busier, and more exciting than Boston exist (Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris) and remain quite tenable, reasonable, and livable cuts against that argument.

The Back Bay is a sleepy cow town compared to those places and still would be if the Celtics played there (and they won't, since the Hynes arena is just an aB hypothetical and actually the whole idea of a new arena is an invention of a Globe opinion writer).
 
Equilibria said:
The fact that cities much denser, busier, and more exciting than Boston exist (Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris) and remain quite tenable, reasonable, and livable cuts against that argument.

The Back Bay is a sleepy cow town compared to those places and still would be if the Celtics played there (and they won't, since the Hynes arena is just an aB hypothetical and actually the whole idea of a new arena is an invention of a Globe opinion writer).
Click to expand...
The cities you are citing have real metro systems, ones that actually move millions of people. Boston does not.
 
Equilibria said:
the whole idea of a new arena is an invention of a Globe opinion writer).
Click to expand...
The financial aspect makes it an obvious avenue they have to explore to maximize spending 6 billion on a team, and the writer was their main C's reporter.
 
www.bostonglobe.com

The Celtics sale has closed. Now for the big question: Where to build a new arena? - The Boston Globe

The Celtics have shared the Garden (old or new) for nearly eight decades. But new owners have signaled they'll explore an arena of their own.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
It might seem a long shot that the Celtics would ever leave TD Garden and the North Station neighborhood they’ve called home for close to 80 years. But the team’s new owners are keeping their options open.
Sure, a new arena would be a hefty investment, likely $1 billion or more. But it might be worth it, especially if Boston gets an WNBA team that could fill a decent block of nights alongside the Celtics.
[...]
So how much land would a new arena need? Eight acres just for the arena but more like 20 to 30 acres if a team wants to build retail development around it, Hanway said. Ideally, it’s in or near the urban core of the region. In this city, transit access is a must.
Of course, TD Garden checks all these boxes, and has been a good home for the Celtics for a long time. The team’s lease expires in 2036, and you can bet Delaware North — and the influential Jacobs family behind it —will do all it can to keep the team there.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top