Boston 2024

[Equilibria]

I think baseball is a typo, although Tokyo has it for 2020, I think its a oneoff.

They state they will sell more tickets than London did, but don't give comparative seating capacities London vs. Boston.

Field hockey is only penciled in for BC. All the aquatic events are TBD venues. $25 million on the golf venue, but no site.

Each host country gets to propose 2 sports. Baseball is in for Tokyo, and I suspect the United States would ask to keep it for at least one more round. I suspect that it stays.

r.e. stadium costs: Indeed, Baylor paid $266 million, but that was for a permanent stadium. I don't know how much of the costs went to things like luxury boxes and 100-year structural design, but that's some money. Of course, Baylor's stadium has 2/3 of the seating capacity, so it would therefore be expected to cost less.

I agree with you on the developer being the weak point, though. I wouldn't vote for this if they don't have a signed commitment from a reputable company by next November, because that's $1.2B that the public would be on the hook for without it, and they really don't seem to have a firm in mind. Sure, they vetted all of this with development professionals, but have any of those people said that they themselves would invest?

Hudson Yards is not a good comparison here. That's the last large development site in Manhattan. It's worth a monumental amount of money - worth all the private platform costs and any other infrastructure you could ask for. Boston 2024 is proposing two "new neighborhood" type developments that will be competing with Seaport Square, Assembly Square, Suffolk Downs and Beacon Park in what is becoming a crowded master plan development space in the City.

It doesn't matter how much the potential revenue is - If I'm a developer, why invest in Midtown when I can buy up Suffolk Downs and build there, or when I can buy a couple of lots in Seaport Square and build there, or when I can bid to the BRA for Winthrop Square and try that? The buildings and the deck put together total about $2B at Widett, and that's just a crazy amount for a developer to pay. They might make money, but will they make the MOST POSSIBLE money?

 

[Semass]

Save 1.2 Billion Dollars (and actually win the bid):

Designated Port Area.

 

[stellarfun]

equilibria, I agree.

Several other points. The IOC likes to have new venues tested a year before the games, to get any kinks/problems worked out. So the Olympic Stadium is not like a pop-up sture that will sit there for three months.

The only major difference, construction-wise, that I would expect between a permanent 69,000 seat stadium and a temporary one would be the quality of the finishes, and the nicety of the concessions. They seriously wouldn't propose bleacher seats instead of chairbacks. I believe Widett Circle is filled land, and underneath was part of the old South Bay. A prudent developer would demand lots of geotechnical and environmental surveys before considering building anything weighty there.

 

[tangent]

Boston 2024 is proposing two "new neighborhood" type developments that will be competing with Seaport Square, Assembly Square, Suffolk Downs and Beacon Park in what is becoming a crowded master plan development space in the City.

It doesn't matter how much the potential revenue is - If I'm a developer, why invest in Midtown when I can buy up Suffolk Downs and build there, or when I can buy a couple of lots in Seaport Square and build there, or when I can bid to the BRA for Winthrop Square and try that? The buildings and the deck put together total about $2B at Widett, and that's just a crazy amount for a developer to pay. They might make money, but will they make the MOST POSSIBLE money?

Is the 2.0 plan specific about where the $1.2 Billion is supposed to come from? They have been talking about a TIF or state or municipal bond issue to be paid back with the taxes the proposed development pays.

I'm not against taxpayer financing in general, but in this case I don't think the math checks on the payback. The infrastructure will need to be rebuilt before it is really even paid for and other taxpayers will be paying the bonds before Midtown is fully built.

Probably less expensive/less overall maintenance costs to just to realign I-93 and make room available on the West side of 93. But the highway is relatively new and then that isn't an Olympics related project.

 

[tangent]

Designated Port Area.

Get a waiver/permit/whatever. It is the Olympics. Especially if it is a temporary stadium.

After all they were seriously proposing that a non port related food distribution facility relocate there.... you know because they sometimes distribute seafood that they have trucked in from somewhere else.

Edit: Maybe they can sell Sushi.

 

[lexicon506]

Has any bid city in the history of the Olympics produced this detailed of a plan so early in the process? We're talking more than 2 years before the IOC selects a host, and 9 years before the Olympics themselves.

Say what you will about Boston 2024 and the feasibility of a Widett Circle stadium, but this morning's "Bid 2.0" release is very impressive work on a very (some might say unreasonably) tight schedule.

 

[Proposition Joe]

That bid re-release was a lot better than expected, with handball being the only sport really being dragged out into the wild west. Frankly it isn't all that different from what we got in the first place. I still don't really see what kind of transportation legacy is being envisioned, and am skeptical if there really is anything in talks or planned.

Boston could also easily sell more tickets than London even ignoring seating capacities just because there will probably be more sports in a 2024 Olympics than 2012. Rugby and golf were added when baseball and softball were dropped but did not show for the 2012 games, they premiere in 2016 at Rio. So with rugby, golf, and likely baseball/softball being allowed in similar to the Tokyo games there is just more potential for ticket sales.

I also laughed out loud at the pictures that got chosen for the "White Stadium -Today" section.

 

[tangent]

Has any bid city in the history of the Olympics produced this detailed of a plan so early in the process? We're talking more than 2 years before the IOC selects a host, and 9 years before the Olympics themselves.

Say what you will about Boston 2024 and the feasibility of a Widett Circle stadium, but this morning's "Bid 2.0" release is very impressive work on a very (some might say unreasonably) tight schedule.

I largely agree with that sentiment. I just hope they can swap horses (switch Olympic Stadium locations) before it is too late.

 

[stellarfun]

Is the 2.0 plan specific about where the $1.2 Billion is supposed to come from? They have been talking about a TIF or state or municipal bond issue to be paid back with the taxes the proposed development pays.

I'm not against taxpayer financing in general, but in this case I don't think the math checks on the payback. The infrastructure will need to be rebuilt before it is really even paid for and other taxpayers will be paying the bonds before Midtown is fully built.

Probably less expensive/less overall maintenance costs to just to realign I-93 and make room available on the West side of 93. But the highway is relatively new and then that isn't an Olympics related project.

The $1.2 billion for the stadium-related deck etc is to be paid for by the private developer. The $2.8 billion for the Olympic village is to be paid for by a private developer. There is no reimbursement of these monies from Boston 2024, the USOC, the IOC, the city of Boston, or the Commonwealth.

As equilibria has pointed out, most developers have far better use for any $1.2 billion they might have then building a deck, upon which they can later build commercial and residential buildings over a multi-decade period.

To the extent that Boston does not have a master developer signed up with the money on the table at the time the bid is official, Boston, IMO, is dead in the water.
_____________________

As for field hockey at BC, the field does not appear to be wide enough. (Harvard stadium is wide enough.) The field hockey pitch is 55 meters wide with a 'run-off' of four meters along each sideline, or a total of 207 feet. I assume players and coaches stand/sit beyond the runoff area. BC's stadium width looks to be 185-190 feet, and then you're into permanent stands. The length is fine.

A football field, without sidelines, is 160 feet wide.

 

[tangent]

The $1.2 billion for the stadium-related deck etc is to be paid for by the private developer. The $2.8 billion for the Olympic village is to be paid for by a private developer. There is no reimbursement of these monies from Boston 2024, the USOC, the IOC, the city of Boston, or the Commonwealth.

As equilibria has pointed out, most developers have far better use for any $1.2 billion they might have then building a deck, upon which they can later build commercial and residential buildings over a multi-decade period.

To the extent that Boston does not have a master developer signed up with the money on the table at the time the bid is official, Boston, IMO, is dead in the water.
_____________________

As for field hockey at BC, the field does not appear to be wide enough. (Harvard stadium is wide enough.) The field hockey pitch is 55 meters wide with a 'run-off' of four meters along each sideline, or a total of 207 feet. I assume players and coaches stand/sit beyond the runoff area. BC's stadium width looks to be 185-190 feet, and then you're into permanent stands. The length is fine.

A football field, without sidelines, is 160 feet wide.

I could see a private developer stepping forward for the Olympic Village as long as the units were built largely to market standards and didn't require a major rework to make them marketable after the games. The ROI on that kind of investment is pretty straightforward. And the type of construction is easier to plan out.

I don't believe Boston 2024 isn't looking for public financing anymore for "Midtown"... I mean really it isn't credible. The development doesn't seem large enough to justify $1.2 Billion just to get to the point of having a buildable parcel where you can't even build tall. The decking and complexity of building over an active rail yard scream uncertainty in the project schedule and costs.

BC versus Harvard versus another venue. There is plenty of time to work out those details and BC and Harvard have several other playing fields to work with besides the stadium.

 

[lexicon506]

I don't believe Boston 2024 isn't looking for public financing anymore for "Midtown"... I mean really it isn't credible. The development doesn't seem large enough to justify $1.2 Billion just to get to the point of having a buildable parcel where you can't even build tall. The decking and complexity of building over an active rail yard scream uncertainty in the project schedule and costs.

Maybe a developer will step up if offered the biggest tax incentive in Boston history? 85% tax break phased out over the course of 40 years.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...dett-circle/bxANs68FfocI1FK0X5PbqL/story.html

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Maybe a developer will step up if offered the biggest tax incentive in Boston history? 85% tax break phased out over the course of 40 years.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...dett-circle/bxANs68FfocI1FK0X5PbqL/story.html

85% tax break. To one developer. Requiring 40 years of assumptions about the regional economy and the success that one developer has at hitting a home run.

I could be sold on that if somebody explained how this was guaranteed to pay off all the same against the most pessimistic stagflation-scenario unanticipated future economy. But this is supposed to strengthen support statewide where the "Taxachusetts" voting bloc is potent enough to kill our indexed gas tax without any thought of replacement funding?

How they gonna explain it to that audience without driving another wedge through support? Especially amongst the outside-128'ers who they all of a sudden felt the need to start seeking the support of?


There've been feasibility and risk questions about Midtown from Day 1. There still are...scary questions. Tripling down on the site ever more emphatically ≠ answering the feasibility and risk questions that are the only things the public right now is seeing in their perception of that site. I don't see where this is moving onto steadier public confidence ground. Midtown...the whole shebang and public risk therein, not just the far easier Widett bowl. Do they really expect a triple-dog-down on it all is going to change the sense of fear and unsettlement re: the taxpayers having to take a broadside if things aren't so free-and-easy with the developers or the economy over such an insanely long amortization period?

 

[George_Apley]

Doubling down on Widett while seemingly ditching alternative sites is fucking stupid. What a stupid bid.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

I was being figurative...

I got ya. Just backing up your perception of being freaking low. It is. Field drainage will all be on top of the deck as well. Might like thru, but the infrastructure isn't much there. Most stadia are built on grade for the most part, so not a huge cost savings being in a deck. Some, but not a ton.

 

[Equilibria]

Is the 2.0 plan specific about where the $1.2 Billion is supposed to come from? They have been talking about a TIF or state or municipal bond issue to be paid back with the taxes the proposed development pays.

I'm not against taxpayer financing in general, but in this case I don't think the math checks on the payback. The infrastructure will need to be rebuilt before it is really even paid for and other taxpayers will be paying the bonds before Midtown is fully built.

Probably less expensive/less overall maintenance costs to just to realign I-93 and make room available on the West side of 93. But the highway is relatively new and then that isn't an Olympics related project.

I think you're still assuming that the public is building the deck, but I don't read it that way. They aren't hugely specific, but it certainly reads like the developer builds the deck, perhaps over everything but the stadium site itself. The documents also imply that some of the final development may be done by 2024, in order to give the developer some early return instead of having to spend a $1.2B down payment. They suggest tax breaks, but no TIF.

Once again, this requires that a developer actually exist who can finance $1.2B in infrastructure improvements only to sit on the site for up to for ten years. It's a huge ask. Most developers would, I have to assume, like to deck and build in phases, with the infrastructure costs coming gradually and being paid off before moving onto the next section, but the Olympics require all the expensive, non-profitable work to be done in one piece before any money is made back.

Has any bid city in the history of the Olympics produced this detailed of a plan so early in the process? We're talking more than 2 years before the IOC selects a host, and 9 years before the Olympics themselves.

Say what you will about Boston 2024 and the feasibility of a Widett Circle stadium, but this morning's "Bid 2.0" release is very impressive work on a very (some might say unreasonably) tight schedule.

That's my take on this, too. I'm not a fan of some parts of this plan, but given their limited resources, this is much, much better work than they turned out in January. This plan at least makes enough sense that we can be discussing their arguments in detail.

 

[stellarfun]

After a bit more reflection, I think Boston 2.0 rests on some heroic assumptions.

Let's take the stadium site. The proposal is that a master developer will build the 'infrastructure' on which the stadium will sit for $1.2 billion, in exchange for development rights to build millions of sq ft on new commercial, residential, and retail once the Olympics are done (over a 15+ year period).

No developer is simply sitting on $1.2 billion, so the money will be borrowed. If borrowed for 20 years at 5 percent, the interest costs would be $700 million. That assumes the $1.2 billion would be fully amortized in 20 years. But in the case of the stadium site, there would be no payment of any principal for at least eight years. and more likely 11 years. (2018-2025 for the Olympics; 2026-2028 buildout of the first buildings (which will be built on more borrowed money) Ten years of borrowing $1.2 billion at 5 percent would be interest costs of $600 million. before one started amortizing Assuming that the developer pays off the loan in ten years starting in 2029, again at five percent, that's an additional $325 million in interest cost. The ultimate cost to the developer, with financing costs, could be about $2.2 billion.

Similarly for the Olympic Village at Columbia Point, though the amortization should be quicker, but the total amount borrowed ($2.8 billion) is much greater.

Another heroic assumption is that the stadium can be built for $175 million. There are no comparable stadiums that Boston 2024 can point to, as an example. Gillette, which has the same approximate seating capacity, had a construction cost of $325 million, and built 20 years before the Olympic stadium would be built.

A third is that a private developer will apparently now pay the cost of the MPC and IBC structures (at a site still to be determined). In London, these facilities cost about 300 million pounds.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/13/olympics-2012-government-data

 

[JumboBuc]

If you didn't watch the "Bid 2.0" presentation yesterday I would recommend it (it was about an hour long). Pagliuca, Manfredi, and Davey directly addressed a bunch of the questions that have come up on this board over the last 24 hours. I watched the livestream of the presentation but I'm sure video will become available on YouTube shortly.

- Midtown is just an awful awful name. If this development must happen, it must be known as something else. Midtown is geographically nonsensical, historically blind, needlessly derivative and intensely lazy.

The organizers have made it very clear that "Midtown" is just a placeholder name that they are now using for convenience, and that they in no way plan for this to be the name of that area going forward. Manfredi addressed this in his presentation.

I think baseball is a typo, although Tokyo has it for 2020, I think its a oneoff.

They state they will sell more tickets than London did, but don't give comparative seating capacities London vs. Boston.

Field hockey is only penciled in for BC. All the aquatic events are TBD venues. $25 million on the golf venue, but no site.

Baseball is definitely not a type; the bid committee is expecting it to return to the Olympics by 2024.

Pagliuca addressed (at relative length, actually) the question of ticket sales. Venues will be smaller than in London but more events will be held (Rugby, Golf, possibly Baseball/Softball) and each event will have more "sessions" (fewer "doubleheader" events). As for ticket prices, I believe he said that they are working with 2016 prices (a conservative estimate since it ignores eight years of inflation).

I think you're still assuming that the public is building the deck, but I don't read it that way. They aren't hugely specific, but it certainly reads like the developer builds the deck, perhaps over everything but the stadium site itself. The documents also imply that some of the final development may be done by 2024, in order to give the developer some early return instead of having to spend a $1.2B down payment. They suggest tax breaks, but no TIF.

Pagliuca walked through this process in the bid presentation, explaining how the developer would build the deck, Boston 2024 would use it for the games, and then the developer would be able to build out the rest of the deck once the games conclude. He also explained how the proposed tax relief would be phased in over time. I believe Davey mentioned that the deck would be built ten feet above the current clearance height in the train and maintenance yards below.

 

[Shepard]

The whole bid was be so much more tenable if they ditched Midtown entirely: the neighborhood nobody wants, in a place nobody cares about, at a cost that nobody will build.

Why not explore Beacon Park more seriously? New Balance as a partner for a nerve/admin/media center (they would seriously PAY for this privilege, I bet) and riverside Olympic village by the IHOP/McD/Staples? This would also force real transit upgrades that people want and care about - namely, DMU rapid transit on the Worcester Line.



Quick diagram:

 

[MBTAddict]

^This idea would have worked if they had Harvard on board from the get go, but that ship sailed when they submitted a bid without Harvard's sign-off.

 

[Shepard]

I don't think that ship has really, actually, sailed. If approached about Beacon Park, Harvard would be on board. Remember, unlike most other developers, Harvard can and will landbank here until development occurs.