Boston 2024

[Shepard]

^ Exactly. Move things to Beacon Yards, kiss Harvard's ass and call Harvard the master developer.

 

[underground]

Then Paris 2024 it is, because there is zero chance of a stadium at Widett. Money, time, risk make Widett untenable.

I'm surprised that after you ran the numbers that you didn't at least get 0.01% chance. What were your confidence intervals!?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Yet Boston 2024 and mayor Walsh are proposing that the food distribution facilities relocate to this parcel... Which somehow they will pretend is port related even though they have never needed proximity to the port.

If there is a will there is a way. The question is whether the Olympic village has enough developer interest without Widett to push through a harbor stadium. Alone that is a huge development, so I hope the answer is yes.

Widett is a dead man walking. Either kill it or Boston's Big Deck takes down the bid with it.

Moving the food market ≠ waterfront stadium. There's pre-existing food distro places at Marine Terminal, and those businesses are all relevant to water delivery. It's not a change in land use. And moreover, Massport was the one that encouraged the buildout of the Legal's seafood distro center. They have an expressed self-interest in expanding food distribution on that site.

A stadium is not the same. A temporary stadium is not the same. No powers-that-be involved in any way with B24 have a mechanism to compel Massport to fork over the land. Not even Baker, because he'll never have enough time to nominate new board members loyal to him in time for the IOC to award the Games. Assuming he even wants to stack that deck.

Massport also has TIGER grants applications filed with the feds to qualify for funding on the Marine T. buildout. They've been passed over for grant awards, but being passed over increases the odds of the grant applications winning in future years. So they will never pull those grant apps to can suddenly change the land usage at Marine T. Vacate the TIGER apps and they won't get a second chance at funding for over a decade. There aren't enough B24 fun bux to spread around compensating them for blowing their spot in line for those TIGER funds, so for very practical reasons Massport has zero self-interest to change course.

Semass' point about deepwater ports being intractable properties also applies. The DPA waivering process is molasses-slow, and the DPA has no skin in the Olympics bid. They can and will take as long as they want to consider a change. There won't be a final decision issued before Olympic bids are locked-down and in the IOC's hands for final decision. Even though construction costs at Widett are much higher, they can guarantee it'll be ready by 2024. They can make no such guarantees with the waterfront, because the DPA doesn't expedite any decisions due to outside influence. That means it's moot point for the bid.


Marine T. is out as a venue site. It can aid Widett by being the landing spot for the food market, but it is quite very impossible to convert into a venue parcel before every IOC/USOC deadline has passed. That's why all the will in the world doesn't make for a way, and it's not worth B24's time to waste resources on things that are impossible within their deadlines. Unfortunately the dwindling number of viable sites is forcing them into tripling-down on Midtown with all the peril that entails, but there's no fix to pursue on Massport deepwater port land because the red-tape timetable doesn't come close to meshing with their deadlines.

Nobody has to like that fact. Every parcel fewer makes it harder for B24 to succeed and binds them to bigger risks like Midtown. But we have to acknowledge reality; if the timeline can't ever match, pursuing venues on Massport land serves no purpose except wasting time they can't be wasting before bid deadline.

 

[tangent]

This, IMO, is the final nail in the coffin when it comes to the viability of Boston's bid.

With respect to the stadium site,


The competitive process referenced is an RFP. The schedule calls for the RFP to be issued on September 17, 2017. The IOC will select the 2024 city on September 15, 2017.

Thus, the official Boston bid will have no developer selected for the stadium infrastructure at the time the IOC votes; moreover, the city and the state have declared that they won't pay for it. There is no fallback if either no developer responds to the RFP, or if responding developers can't satisfy the guarantee or other criteria.

The IOC is never going to buy a pig in a poke, which is what the Boston bid, without a qualified master developer on board, and signed on the dotted line, would be.

You have hit the nail on the head. Except by signing a guarantee the City of Boston would be on the hook for all the costs and overruns.

 

[stellarfun]

Here's another little gem.

The schedule calls for the construction of the Boston stadium to start 12 [twelve] months before the Games open. I guess this means the stadium will be built by assembling pre-cast modules, sort of building by Lego block.

The IOC will never accept such a schedule, even aside from its strong preference to have major new venues (read aquatics, and an Olympic stadium) completed a year in advance so all the kinks can be worked out. (There is no allowance that I found for offerings to Mother Nature to ensure there is not another 100+ inch snowfall the winter of 2023-24.)

This entire screwy timetable is the consequence of not owning much of the land / air rights for the Widett site, the time needed to buy the land or the rights, and move everybody who has to be relocated.

The more I read, the more I see Mayor Walsh's heavy hand in their sticking with Widett.

 

[tangent]

It won't get that far. USOC will decline to bid in September based on polling. LA won't be a ready backup, so LA 2028. If USOC does go forward, then it will lose the November 2016 state ballot based on the mulitibillion dollar unfunded public liability in the bid. Baker probably pulls the plug this Summer based on the report anyway.

 

[George_Apley]

The more I read, the more I see Mayor Walsh's heavy hand in their sticking with Widett.

Out of curiosity, what have you read that makes you think this is Walsh's doing?

 

[underground]

Widett was the choice before Walsh became involved.
Source: know people who worked on the original scoping docs.

 

[stellarfun]

Out of curiosity, what have you read that makes you think this is Walsh's doing?

On Widett, they are contorting themselves worse than a pretzel trying to secure the various pieces of land (or air rights) that the city doesn't own, find new sites for businesses or facilities that will be relocated, and have this all accomplished (without using eminent domain) by September 17, 2017, when they issue the RFP.

In effect, B24 would execute a series of purchase and sale agreements, which would then be finalized by the master developer after said developer is selected by the city. The actual transfer of ownership only occurs if B24 is chosen as the host city, and the city is able to select a master developer in 2018 from the respondents to the RFP.

Because neither the city nor B24 wants to actually spend a penny acquiring any of this land beforehand, the whole process becomes suspended in a state of suspended animation that waits for Boston to be selected as the host city, and the master developer selected. The master developer digs into his $1.2 billion checking account and buys the land and air rights.

I think any rational planner would have gone to Walsh and said, 'Marty, Widett isn't going to work if we (the city / B24) don't own the land before B24 submits its final bidding documents to the IOC. Either the city steps up and buys the land and then sells it to the master developer, or we need to look at Suffolk Downs, or Beacon Yards, or somewhere'.

And B24 is sticking with Widett, and a protracted and convoluted process for securing ownership, and a bid that's DOA.

_______________________
Underground, it may have been the original choice, but back then, Widett was going to be paid for by B24, and not paid for by a master developer in exchange for getting 8 million square feet of development rights from the city, and a break on property taxes. If you think Walsh was not heavily engaged in crafting this new way of paying for Widett, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[underground]

It was going to be paid for by Kraft, who's part of Boston2024, who would then be the developer. That was pre-Walsh. But if you want to grind your axe on this, I've got a grind stone to sell you.

 

[stellarfun]

It was going to be paid for by Kraft, who's part of Boston2024, who would then be the developer. That was pre-Walsh. But if you want to grind your axe on this, I've got a grind stone to sell you.

How much?

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/b...mystery-why-was-bob-kraft-ever-listed-as.html

 

[underground]

In fact, Kraft was one of the first people to offer financial support for the effort, the spokesman said.

He offered money, didn't want to be listed as a director, distanced himself because of public backlash, and now is... who knows.

But right, fuck Walsh. This has just been an elaborate scheme for him to grab Widett since day one of his campaign. Also, aliens are real I have proof.

 

[tangent]

Semass' point about deepwater ports being intractable properties also applies. The DPA waivering process is molasses-slow, and the DPA has no skin in the Olympics bid. They can and will take as long as they want to consider a change. There won't be a final decision issued before Olympic bids are locked-down and in the IOC's hands for final decision. Even though construction costs at Widett are much higher, they can guarantee it'll be ready by 2024. They can make no such guarantees with the waterfront, because the DPA doesn't expedite any decisions due to outside influence. That means it's moot point for the bid.


Marine T. is out as a venue site. It can aid Widett by being the landing spot for the food market, but it is quite very impossible to convert into a venue parcel before every IOC/USOC deadline has passed. That's why all the will in the world doesn't make for a way, and it's not worth B24's time to waste resources on things that are impossible within their deadlines. Unfortunately the dwindling number of viable sites is forcing them into tripling-down on Midtown with all the peril that entails, but there's no fix to pursue on Massport deepwater port land because the red-tape timetable doesn't come close to meshing with their deadlines.

The whole Widett deal is hanging on getting some sort of waiver/exemption for moving the food market over to that harbor front parcel. Unless you find another parcel or unless you are going to try and argue that because they ship some canned tuna or whatever that the whole food market would be a port use.

Seems arguing that because a small percentage of the food is seafood that it is a port use is the sort of look the other way kind of thing that would leave the move open to an injunction if they don't go through the same waiver/exemption/rezoning process that you claim would be necessary for a temporary stadium. So that argument is a wash.

They won't be able to break ground unless the food distribution facility is moved first and the site they have identified to move it to is restricted in its use.

And they won't start the move until 2018 after they won the bid. Legal restrictions can be worked out over the next 12 to 16 months without impacting the schedule, but the engineering for Widett alone is going to be costly and time consuming and probably couldn't start until 2018.

It seems wildly illogical to argue that they can guarantee that Widett will be ready by 2024 and then argue that they won't be able to guarantee that same thing for other sites that aren't nearly as encumbered with costly and time consuming complex requirements. The only way to get to 2024 is by choosing a site that is largely vacant already and one that appeals to the IOC.


The IOC rejected a similarly expensive and complex decking proposal for NY 2012 when they couldn't put it together by the time of the vote. The same thing will happen here, but it will take even longer to get Widett Circle built out after a failed bid... if ever. So those looking at this as a way to push that effort forward regardless of the success of the bid are barking up the wrong tree.

But forget 2017, they need to secure a developer willing to pay $1.2 Billion up front by November 2016 or else the state vote would certainly fail.

It is easier to see how they can secure a developer for the Olympic Village, that is much more like the scope of other projects such as Assembly Row.

But even then you are talking about Umass Boston land, then that will have to go through a University process which is also notoriously slow and needs to start now. Talk about Mass Port being independent and slow to move...

They are simply biting off more than they can chew and need to choose a site that is less complicated to build on.

The harbor front site is doable and would win the bid. Period. Behind the convention center would also be doable for a billion dollars less and has a clear funding source in the hotel tax. The private site on Pappas Way also has potential.

The Harvard Beacon Yards site has potential, but also would rely on the project to realign I90 moving ahead on time and a last minute switch of the Olympic Village, but we are very early in that project schedule so that is uncertain.

No the only thing that saves this bid financially and with public support is a move to a site that is buildable as-is, but is within a couple miles of the Olympic Village.

The only thing that would be a sure win to beat Paris would be a Harbor front stadium. Everything else is probably a tremendous waste of time.

 

[Equilibria]

But forget 2017, they need to secure a developer willing to pay $1.2 Billion up front by November 2016 or else the state vote would certainly fail.

That's probably true, and that's pretty damning for the chances of a US Olympics anywhere moving forward. Remember that one of the reasons that Chicago 2016's support cratered toward the end was that Mayor Daley couldn't find a developer willing to build his Olympic Village concept, which was at the former Michael Reese Hospital site (contaminated, but flat and theoretically empty once the city paid to clear it).

If this bid fails in September 2015, November 2016, or September 2017, I'm putting more of the blame on the USOC than on Boston 2024. The preliminary selection process just ruins prospective bidders - they're forced to present their POC too early, which leads to demands for details that other cities can build up in the years leading up to the selection and even afterward before the Games begin. US Games are expected to be privately-financed, which is all well-and-good, but developers don't make commitments in 2015 to spend billions (or even hundreds of millions) in 2021 to realize revenue in 2025. That's not realistic in Boston or anywhere else. In France, Germany, the UK, or any other country with a single viable host and a responsible bid process, they'd be selected in 2017 and start shopping for a developer then. Here, they need to have one committed before they even win the Games. That's insane.

I can't see a scenario in LA, SF, or any other American city where an Olympic Stadium and/or an Olympic Village can be constructed by a committed private developer on that timeline, for any price. There's just more responsible ways to spend their money. Now, when the Games get killed, that's their chance to jump in with investment for a much quicker return, as witnessed in New York with Hudson Yards. That can and may very well happen in Boston with the Bayside Expo site.

To be honest, I'm not sure how the USOC fixes this. The IOC timeline (which is driven by needed planning, design, and construction timelines) strongly benefits hosts funding the Games publicly, because only the public is willing to take on the up-front costs. No US city will ever agree to do that, and the Federal Government isn't going to take it on where the UK, France, and Germany will.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The whole Widett deal is hanging on getting some sort of waiver/exemption for moving the food market over to that harbor front parcel. Unless you find another parcel or unless you are going to try and argue that because they ship some canned tuna or whatever that the whole food market would be a port use.

I don't make the rules. DPA waiver is not required to move the food market to Marine Terminal. Food distro already exists on the NW corner of the property. Venues do require a waiver. And the DPA won't issue a ruling on a waiver on any kind of timetable before the bid deadline, so it's moot.

Don't have to like it. Don't have to find it the least bit logical. But it is what it is, and that's exactly why B24 isn't proposing what you suggest. They can't square the red tape by deadline.

Seems arguing that because a small percentage of the food is seafood that it is a port use is the sort of look the other way kind of thing that would leave the move open to an injunction if they don't go through the same waiver/exemption/rezoning process that you claim would be necessary for a temporary stadium. So that argument is a wash.

You'd be wrong. Like I said, we don't make the rules. Food distro is already onsite and doesn't need a waiver. Olympic venues, including the temporary ones, do.

They won't be able to break ground unless the food distribution facility is moved first and the site they have identified to move it to is restricted in its use.

THAT only requires B24/BRA/City Hall to meet the Food Market's asking price. They could do that today if they wanted, or they could drag it out trying to nibble at a lower price. Entirely their choice how fast they want to close that deal.

See above on "restrictions". There are no restrictions on food distro at Marine T. because it's already zoned for that purpose. The NW corner where the seafood places are has plenty of expansion room. And the Food Market doesn't make good land use with its sprawl at Widett, so the relocated facility can be much more compact and efficient. Marine T.'s almost the size of Beacon Park. Massport has PLENTY of space to do everything it wants shipping-wise on the east half. They support consolidation of food distribution on the NW side because the Haul Road dumps out a mere block away.

And they won't start the move until 2018 after they won the bid. Legal restrictions can be worked out over the next 12 to 16 months without impacting the schedule, but the engineering for Widett alone is going to be costly and time consuming and probably couldn't start until 2018.

2018's only 3 years away. They can start designing and site-prepping the move immediately once they close the sale. The Food Market's not going to be interested in waiting to get started on design for its new digs. The sooner they get in a more modern facility the more money they make. They'll be the ones insisting on a fast start.

Will Widett likely be vacant for a few years? Yes. Do they have to find another use for it if they lose the Olympics bid? Sure...but they're saying Midtown is going to happen anyway Olympics or no Olympics. If that's a dubious prospect (it is) and the land's likely to be as barren as Beacon Park while they take their sweet time a la Harvard (it will), the T can certainly use the space to lay some temporary storage tracks. They need that right this instant, but their Beacon Park storage yard easement won't be ready for use until the last touch-up work after the Pike realignment project is complete. So that's like 6 or 7 years away before they get substantial relief for their southside storage crunch. Who cares if Widett's vacant...they'll gladly take a decade's worth of temporary use until the BRA/City and site developers belatedly get their shit together (or not) on Midtown.

Site status and site prep starts at Widett is not tied to the Food Market relocation schedule. They're completely different things. Food Market relocation, if sale is closed, starts grinding into gear as immediately as it would when the state finally reaches terms with the USPS relocation.

It seems wildly illogical to argue that they can guarantee that Widett will be ready by 2024 and then argue that they won't be able to guarantee that same thing for other sites that aren't nearly as encumbered with costly and time consuming complex requirements. The only way to get to 2024 is by choosing a site that is largely vacant already and one that appeals to the IOC.

They CAN'T guarantee that with the waterfront. Because the red tape will not be squared before the IOC's deadline. I don't disagree that Widett's got big problems and may be too big to swallow, but the reason why that's on the table and Marine T. is not is because they can guarantee site availability by the bid deadline for Widett. They can't for the waterfront. The IOC's not going to touch the possibility that the DPA rejects a site waiver or takes 3 years to make a ruling, preventing site design from commencing until the Olympics are less than 5 years away. B24 can't count on that for the bid deadline, so the site is unfortunately out-of-sight/out-of-mind for the timeframe they have to work within to win this bid.

As before...we don't make the rules. And "aww, c'mon...do us a solid" isn't going to sway the federal gov't arm tasked solely with regulating deepwater ports on speeding up the permitting process. They have no skin in the Olympics...none. They couldn't care less, and moreover they aren't focusing on their jobs related to all things deepwater ports if they DO devote mindshare to caring about B24's bid.

The IOC rejected a similarly expensive and complex decking proposal for NY 2012 when they couldn't put it together by the time of the vote. The same thing will happen here, but it will take even longer to get Widett Circle built out after a failed bid... if ever. So those looking at this as a way to push that effort forward regardless of the success of the bid are barking up the wrong tree.

But forget 2017, they need to secure a developer willing to pay $1.2 Billion up front by November 2016 or else the state vote would certainly fail.

It is easier to see how they can secure a developer for the Olympic Village, that is much more like the scope of other projects such as Assembly Row.

I don't disagree at all. Triple-down on Midtown is frighteningly risky with how many things have to go pitch-perfect. But that has nothing to do with substituting the waterfront. They can't substitute the waterfront in time for the bid deadline. Them's the breaks.

But even then you are talking about Umass Boston land, then that will have to go through a University process which is also notoriously slow and needs to start now. Talk about Mass Port being independent and slow to move...

Yup. And in the postmortem (bid win or no bid win) there needs to be a reckoning on how don't-give-a-shit the Universities were in this whole process. The Universities that are the biggest recipients of tax breaks in the city. This is rethink the entire public-private working relationship type realizations that are going to have to be hashed out if "I got mine" is their attitude.

UMass...that's a state-level outrage. Baker bears some responsibility for not intervening there if the state's highest public institution doesn't become more cooperative.

They are simply biting off more than they can chew and need to choose a site that is less complicated to build on.

The harbor front site is doable and would win the bid. Period. Behind the convention center would also be doable for a billion dollars less and has a clear funding source in the hotel tax. The private site on Pappas Way also has potential.

But you can't secure the harbor in time for the bid deadline. Nothing "when there's a will there's a way" will shortcut that process. So B24 would be doing active harm to their efforts tilting at that windmill. The site's not available by bid deadline. The IOC won't accept sites that aren't available at bid deadline. Therefore...move on. Some things can't have their will imposed on them.

You don't have to like this. You do have to acknowledge the reality of it. Saying "No fair! There has to be a way!" over and over again is its own tilting-at-windmills time waster. It's not gonna happen. Move on to the things that could happen. Like taking another run at the Universities' cooperation, or Suffolk Downs, or something else that mitigates the Midtown risk with some sort of safety-in-numbers padding if they're that hellbent on chasing that plan. That padding's not going to come from Marine T. Find the risk mitigation land and risk mitigation partners where they're actually available by bid deadline.

That's the productive use of time and effort.

The Harvard Beacon Yards site has potential, but also would rely on the project to realign I90 moving ahead on time and a last minute switch of the Olympic Village, but we are very early in that project schedule so that is uncertain.

Not really. It's fully funded, in final design, and has a more or less set construction schedule. The land will be cleared by 2020, and any MassHighway mop-up work can be done on the new alignment "please pardon our appearance"-wise. It doesn't have to be done-done-done with every traffic cone put back into storage before they're allowed to touch the dirt on the freed-up land. They're well-padded on the timeframe to IOC's/USOC's full satisfaction.

No the only thing that saves this bid financially and with public support is a move to a site that is buildable as-is, but is within a couple miles of the Olympic Village.

The only thing that would be a sure win to beat Paris would be a Harbor front stadium. Everything else is probably a tremendous waste of time.

Then you're gonna be dissapointed. Because impossible within timeframe is impossible within timeframe. And you'll end up wasting a lot of time in energy pounding the desk that it must be otherwise. It can't be otherwise. Move on to what can be, because this ain't it. Some things B24 can't impose its will over.

 

[Shepard]

From a purely practical standpoint, this idea makes sense. But it fails from a marketing standpoint. Widett, though ugly and industrial now, is very close to downtown and offers spectacular views from the proposed deck. It is close to happening, touristy areas, just the sort of things the IOC will want. Beacon Yards, on the other hand, is pretty far off the beaten path, does not have the views, does not have the tourist infrastructure. Yes, easier, cheaper, but significantly less vibe. And vibe is what the IOC likes more than any other consideration.

Not totally sure this is true. Beacon Yards is walking distance to Harvard and MIT, and easy access to Back Bay and Downtown Boston. Western Ave might not strike anyone as a worthy Olympic Boulevard, but then again, does Dorchester Ave today?

As F Line said in a recent post above, Beacon Yards construction would be right within the timeframe for the IOC to accept.

 

[Equilibria]

Not totally sure this is true. Beacon Yards is walking distance to Harvard and MIT, and easy access to Back Bay and Downtown Boston. Western Ave might not strike anyone as a worthy Olympic Boulevard, but then again, does Dorchester Ave today?

As F Line said in a recent post above, Beacon Yards construction would be right within the timeframe for the IOC to accept.

Boston 2024 doesn't need to drop Widett at all. It needs to drop Midtown. As F-Line said, Widett can be cleared and ready to go by 2024. The stadium can go there. The cost to do that is probably about $500M or so, or one-fifth the cost of what they're proposing. Once the Games end, the reuse could be as simple as MBTA train storage.

I'm not sure what's got them so caught up in this dumb Midtown concept, but it's ruining the bid. At $500M, a reduced Widett stadium can be built with operating funds without the need for a development partner. Post-Olympics, the committee could either sell the land as a private transaction to a developer or sell it to the state to either resell or re-purpose.

That still leaves you with the unrealistic prospect of finding a developer for Columbia Point, but at least there you have a workable site that someone might actually want to build on.

 

[Shepard]

To B24, Midtown justifies the Olympics. A stadium at Widett alone provides no lasting benefit, and would truly be a lot of undue disruption for very very little return.

I won't keep banging this drum, but they need to drop Widett very soon or this bid is going nowhere. Beacon Yards is the place, and as I've shown in posts above, there are some great, well-connected parcels for Olympic Village. And, you'd get real transit and neighborhood improvements out of it, and expedited timeframes on projects that may otherwise draaag.

 

[stellarfun]

Out of curiosity, which, if any, Boston-based developers have (1) the financial strength to be the master developer for either the stadium infrastructure/platform ($1.2 billion) or the athlete housing at Columbia Point ($2.8 billion); (2) aren't burning cash building their own projects (2018-2022); and, (3) take/have a long-term perspective?

I can only think of one: Boston Properties.

I went to a ranked list of the 109 largest real estate property developers in the U.S., Only two Massachusetts firs: Boston Properties and Stag Industrial (which only does industrial properties).

The list for whatever its worth, can be found here.
http://www.findouter.com/NorthAmerica/USA/Business-and-Economy/Real-Estate/Property-Developers

Hudson Yards is being developed by Related (which sometimes ventures into Boston), and Oxford Properties (which acquired five large Boston office buildings last year).

 

[Equilibria]

To B24, Midtown justifies the Olympics. A stadium at Widett alone provides no lasting benefit, and would truly be a lot of undue disruption for very very little return.

I won't keep banging this drum, but they need to drop Widett very soon or this bid is going nowhere. Beacon Yards is the place, and as I've shown in posts above, there are some great, well-connected parcels for Olympic Village. And, you'd get real transit and neighborhood improvements out of it, and expedited timeframes on projects that may otherwise draaag.

Beacon Yards is not going to happen. The land is controlled by Harvard. What's that Alfred said about the Joker - "they can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with." That's Harvard. Their selfish inaction is going to contaminate that land for a generation, but it's still much better than the darn railyard.

I mentioned Beacon Yards years ago because I just didn't realize that yet. No one did. That's why Boston 2024 put an aquatics center and tennis facility on adjacent Harvard land in the 1.0 bid. It couldn't imagine that Harvard would be so lunkheaded as to decline free athletics facilities on land that they were banking anyway, but there you go.