BCEC expansion | Seaport

^John
Agreed, pretty much on all points.

The approval process takes too long and has far too many actors. You might agree that a vast number of projects would have probably resulted in the same or better an outcome without any City approval process whatsoever.
 
Most convention centers seem to be just known by where they are
Click to expand...

Chicago's has been called McCormick Place since it was first built. I recall that it was derided for many years as a white elephant, but eventually it became sufficiently popular as to require expansion.
 
From today's Boston Globe said:
The proposed expansion of the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center has a built-in cheering section: local developers who hope a larger convention hall will jump-start building in a waterfront neighborhood struggling through the recession.
Click to expand...

A "built-in cheering section": The free market, hard at work with taxpayer money.

I have no idea what the BCEC proposal is, so I'm agnostic so far. But the hypocrisy of the private sector is truly astounding, waiting decade after decade, year after year, for ever-increasing public benefits before the shovels go in.

Aside from Fallon's building, I can't think of anything else that was built on private property over the past two decades.

Two years ago the private property owners needed tax breaks under some type of "empowerment zone."

Five years ago it was completion of the Silver Line, and then the "T above D Street" was an impediment.

How about those 1$ leases on Massport property?

We just won't have the numbers unless the BCEC has an attached hotel on taxpayer subsidized land.

Ten years ago it was rezoning.

And build a publicly-financed convention center.

Twelve years ago it was Master Planning at taxpayer expense to provide a sense of stability.

Twenty years ago it was the Big Dig, and then shovels would surely go in...

All the while, the parking revenues are substantial -- it pays to sit back.

When will this shameless "free market" charade end?

Trust me, I know I'm not making friends.
 
Making valid points is never a good way to make friends.

Of course the BCEC could have been completed at full build out 7 years ago if our lovely unions and other corrupt sectors didn't drive the construction cost up so frikken high that they had to cut the ass off of it, only to build it as a "much needed" addition 8 years later. Add 8 years later costs, plus additional costs for staging, and phasing to allow the current building to operate through construction.
 
Seamus, I think we're looking at significantly more taxpayer-financed development than the yet-unbuilt extension at the rear in the original Raphael Vinoly design.

From what I understand so far, the BCEC is planning a major "campus plan" to the rear and to the west of the existing site.

The project proposes the development of one or more hotels (publicly subsidized or financed, of course). I guess hotel development makes great sense for the taxpayer, but not for the private sector cheerleaders sitting on hundreds of acres of parking lots.

A map would be nice, but I haven't seen one.
 
Agent JS38 was recently able to view a draft document on the BCEC expansion not for public consumption, but managed to scan a copy of the proposed general plan for the BCEC campus expansion; the red circle is the proposed site of a new attached HQ hotel for the convention center:

 
Looks like whatever they come up with will help cover that mess of ramps. While I don't expect decent aesthetics or pedestrian friendly design, I'll say it's a really good place to do this.
 
You laugh, but it has already happened once before!
 
What are all those other new buildings jutting off? It looks like a giant gun with add-ons. It also looks like some of them will be built over the South Boston Haul Road/Railroad.
 
Van that is classified, so don't be surprised if the BCEC-IA show up at your door in a few minutes.

But yes, I agree. Especially the silly ovular one on D St. (?).
 
Arborway said:
Looks like whatever they come up with will help cover that mess of ramps. While I don't expect decent aesthetics or pedestrian friendly design, I'll say it's a really good place to do this.
Click to expand...
It doesn't cover any ramps. It would cover the Haul Road and the railroad tracks. They were looking for stimulus money to rebuild the tracks.
 
Officials: Boston meeting center needs new hotel
By Associated Press | Friday, May 7, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Real Estate

BOSTON - State and city leaders say the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center needs a new nearby hotel and they want taxpayers to foot a portion of the estimated $700 million bill.

The Boston Globe reports that officials studying how to dramatically expand the convention center say a 1,000-room hotel is necessary to attract the biggest events, and that building it without millions of dollars in subsidies and taxpayer-supported loans is next to impossible.

Options are not yet finalized, but the project could involve a combination of tax breaks, public funds for road work and other upgrades, and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that would be partly or entirely backed by taxpayers.

The goal of the expansion is to make Boston one of the top five convention destinations in the nation.
Click to expand...

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1253134


Ummm didn't the W just declare bankruptcy?
 
^^ I hate reading things that force me to agree with libertarians.
 
Pretty much unrelated, but my AP US History teacher notes that in the past five or so years, the number of students identifying themselves as "libertarian" has grown dramatically. He predicts that in 10-15 years, a Libertarian third party will be a very legitimate threat to the Republican and Democratic parties.
 
The problem with libertarians is the cognitive dissonance that many of them exhibit.

"I want government out of my life completely! No more funding for things like X and Y!"

"Well that means we're going to have to cut your favorite program Z as well."

"Cut everything but program Z! Cutting Z would be crazy and unacceptable!"
 
I guess I've known the more reasonable side of libertarians. Limited government, not absentee government. The ones that are against huge, Keynesian spending, but accepting of smaller programs that everyone uses on a daily basis.
 
Derailing the whole thread:

kennedy said:
I guess I've known the more reasonable side of libertarians. Limited government, not absentee government. The ones that are against huge, Keynesian spending, but accepting of smaller programs that everyone uses on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

They will probably become the "Iced Tea" party. The whole Taxed Enough Already thing meets the 'cool' factor of youth. You know the whole red meat small responsive government thing, only with Apple inspired capitalism, gay marriage, and legalized narcotics (only marginally taxed to provide a minimum of services) in addition to the usual staples of some sort of belief in God/Gaia/the sun/whathaveyou, guns (The US will annex Mexico for the drugs, oil, good burritos, and unfettered access to Spring Break, thus ending the current disputes with that nation), and patriotism (at least the campy 80s kind).

I'm also quite confident that 'undocumented downloading' will become quite legal. Irony will also be elevated to some sort of high art form with a Hipster Museum at the Smithsonian.

Of course any new youth based party is going have to contend with a whole generation of people whose reaction to elections is, "Voting? Yeah, I tried that once and got Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top