BCEC expansion | Seaport

Lurker said:
Ablarc, that was in jest to the later half of Suffolk 83's comment. Unfortunately, although in jest, it happens to be true to some degree.
Click to expand...

Late pass, don't be sarcastic if your fuzzy on your own details.
 
State and city leaders today will unveil a blueprint for dramatically expanding the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, part of an effort to make the city one of the nation?s premier meeting destinations and spur private investment on the South Boston Waterfront, two officials briefed on the matter said.

James Rooney, head of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, will outline plans for adding exhibit space, an auditorium for special events, and at least one more hotel with hundreds of rooms, said the officials, who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly before the plan?s release.

They said the expansion plan is preliminary and will not move forward until the public has a chance to weigh in. A committee of public officials and private individuals will be appointed to consider the plan and to recommend whether to move forward with an expansion.

The five-year-old, $800 million facility has allowed Boston to attract big conventions but so far has failed to generate a building boom on the waterfront. Spurring private development in the area was one of the original reasons for building the center.

Officials with the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, which runs the facility, declined to comment last night.

One local official who was able to speak publicly, state Representative Brian Wallace, said an addition is needed to compete with cities like Las Vegas, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

?This would help us compete with the big boys,?? Wallace, a South Boston Democrat, said last night. ?So far, the convention center has worked out beyond anyone?s expectations. They?ve really done their homework and kept the community involved.??

Still, it is unclear how an expansion plan would be received by neighbors in South Boston and the Fort Point Channel district, where residents have been pushing for the development of homes and parks before more commercial development is allowed. It is also unclear how much the expansion would cost, and how it would be paid for.

The quasi-public convention center authority probably would need state funding to pay for an expansion, at a time when Massachusetts is deep in a budget crisis.

To build the current South Boston center, the city and state adopted tourist-targeted taxes, and state taxpayers have paid millions in subsidies to cover operating deficits.

Convention center officials have argued that an expansion would pay for itself through the additional spending from tourists and visitors, which would result in more tax revenue from purchases in stores, restaurants, and hotels.

More at
http://www.boston.com/business/arti...r_boston_convention_center_include_new_hotel/
 
From the Boston Globe:

"residents have been pushing for the development of homes and parks before more commercial development is allowed"

As I've said before, the Globe creates an invisible army of non-existent NIMBY's, and that's where the thread always begins.

There hasn't been a single meeting on this proposal where people opposed commercial development, calling for "homes and parks."

The specter of NIMBYism a great distraction from a meaningful discussion of the Convention Center proposal.

I'd suggest the Archboston moderator create an anti-NIMBY forum at some point, where people can go rant about the invisibles who the Globe always seems to find in opposition. If someone has firsthand experience with NIMBYism, demonstrating that it is a factor in how a project is progressing, then it would be appropriate here.

Frankly, I'd be interested in hearing an informed discussion of the pros and cons of the BCEC proposal in this thread.
 
jass said:
Still, it is unclear how an expansion plan would be received by neighbors in South Boston and the Fort Point Channel district, where residents have been pushing for the development of homes and parks before more commercial development is allowed.
Click to expand...

They have? I get the more parks argument, but have heard nothing but opposition to new housing unless it is affordable.
 
The question I have (and I didnt read the full article, so maybe it says) is will they extend back towards southie (cheap and easy) or across the street, out over the highway/rail/silverline infrastructure bundle and connect the gap in the Conventioneer-ghetto network?
 
If Vivien Li isn't a "NIMBY" then what is she? If the people at Channel Center who want housing before office space aren't "NIMBYs" then what are they? If the 'artists' who live in Fort Point Channel who believe they have the RIGHT to cheap housing aren't "NIMBYs" then what are they?

Ill-advised, ignorant, confused, obstructionists? IAICOs?
 
^John
With respect, let me take on your point since I seem to be the only one in my camp on this issue all over this place...

1) Do those neighbors have a right to their opinion any more than you do? Why does your opinion qualify you as any more than a NIMBY? Are you a NIMBY for weighing in with your point of view?

2) Do you have comments from Vivien Li or Channel Center in hand regarding the BCEC proposal that you want to argue with, or just supposition from the Globe reporter who talked to no one? Why fight at windmills instead of discussing the proposal?

3) People who want housing more than office space are pushing back on forces from the Financial District for good reason. IMO, and you can argue, the stability of a mixed-use Master Plan increases property values for all property owners and enriches the City. I'm not talking about private property or as-of-right development. I'm talking about additional value available through planning and publicly-funded infrastructure.

All said, I personally have no knowledge of the BCEC proposal other than what I read in the paper, and haven't put any time into thinking about it.
 
Sicilian - these people that the Globe is referring to have shown a history of fighting commercial developments in favor of residential developments. Or, "homes and parks" as we've heard so many times before.

Obviously, as a massive, $1B commercial development is proposed it is correct and reasonable to reference this group of people as a potential roadblock.
 
Hasn't the BCEC from the very beginning owned the land behind it 'towards Southie' for the purpose of future expansion? I expect this is the direction they will go.
 
^ Yeah. Any aerial photo could verify that.
 
Ron Newman said:
Hasn't the BCEC from the very beginning owned the land behind it 'towards Southie' for the purpose of future expansion? I expect this is the direction they will go.
Click to expand...
The plan was always to build out into that space behind it. It was the original plan to build it all out at once, but"VE'd" the rear to bring down costs. A whole couple of bays were basically chopped off due to rising costs. The hotel is the bigger deal, as 3 or 4 new hotels in the area are really needed to make the BCEC a national contender.

Some of these mixed occupant hotels that are springing up in many places could be a good route. A way to get some year round residents in the area.
 
I'd like it to get a better, shorter name than 'BCEC'. It's easy to say "I'm going to the Hynes tomorrow", but I still don't have any better way to describe this building than "the new convention center" (which isn't so new anymore).
 
Aside from South Boston Convention Center, I don't know what to call it. Most convention centers seem to be just known by where they are, or by the hotel they are affiliated with. Maybe if it was privately owned it could get a snappy name. The Menino Memorial Convention and Exposition Center is more than likely at some point.

The Mumbledrome?
 
Sicilian, your comments, while "all over the place" seem well-thought out and from an educated, knowledgeable point of view, so thanks.

I am not feeling in the mood to get into a discussion on NIMBY / development etc., right now. Sour mood. I agree, though, that people often play the NIMBY card when it doesn't fit what's really going on. I think it's just short-hand on their side to describe things in black and white.

I do feel that there are a few people who seem to have inordinate amount of time on their hands which translates into "power", sometimes.

I'm not happy when these people get what they want because I think oftentimes they're being selfish and short-sighted. I'm also not happy when the BRA does things that seem to defy all logic. However, I like the BRA more often than the people who say "NO" just because the BRA seems more willing to build the sorts of things I like. I do wish the BRA would split in two so we can have a 'pure' planning department and I think the BRA should get out of the landlord business.

The Seaport District might be a case in point. While the architecture may make us all hurl, the actual development of a new neighborhood may happen, for which we should all be grateful. If the Seaport District ended up like the new part of Vancouver, I wouldn't be the only one who creamed his pants.
 
Ron Newman said:
I'd like it to get a better, shorter name than 'BCEC'. It's easy to say "I'm going to the Hynes tomorrow", but I still don't have any better way to describe this building than "the new convention center" (which isn't so new anymore).
Click to expand...

Hynes can be Hynes

and BCEC can be "the convention center".
 
Ron Newman said:
I'd like it to get a better, shorter name than 'BCEC'. It's easy to say "I'm going to the Hynes tomorrow", but I still don't have any better way to describe this building than "the new convention center" (which isn't so new anymore).
Click to expand...

i suppose if anyone from Boston ever had to go there that would happen....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top