tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
They can't square the red tape by deadline.
What deadline? Because I think that would need to happen by August 2017 which gives them a full two years to work out the red tape for a harbor stadium. There just needs to be an agreement in principle in place by December 2015.
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.
They can't secure funding for Widett by 2017. No way, no how. So, I think we are comparing Hail Mary to Hail Mary, but my Hail Mary has a water view and a lovely stroll along the Harbor.
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.
Decking for Widett is a project roughly the size of the central artery project through downtown. Acres of multiple levels of decking over an active rail yard. No way the IOC goes for a bid that requires that level of complexity and risk for a project for an Olympic Stadium. They didn't go for it for New York and won't for Boston. Paris wins in that scenario. Or Boston is stuck spending a billion dollars or two billion dollars to make it happen whatever the costs and ends up bankrupt in twenty years. Either way, please no.
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.
Some "we" do make the rules. That just depends on the "we".
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.
I just disagree on the comparative risks. They don't have to have the red tape sorted out by September or December for the bid deadline. They just have to have the red tape sorted out by August 2017 for the vote of the IOC. The plan can move forward in the meantime.
It is better to go for a Hail Mary pass than to take a knee when you are down by 3. We are up against Paris as an underdog and need a compelling stadium that doesn't break the bank or bankrupt the city.
Where you and I disagree is on the risk assessment of getting $1.2 Billion in private investment (on top of commitments for the Olympic Village) well before November 2016 without which the state vote goes No. I don't think it is remotely possible to get a developer to make a hard commitment for $1.2 Billion up front in any meaningful way. I know of no development that has ever put money up front for anything like that. And what happens when they back out in 2018 or 2019? The City would be on the hook for a billion dollars or two billion dollars and a mad scramble to build something.
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.
That is crazy talk. You go in wanting to build a stadium or new facilities on a University Campus and expect the Universities to foot a bunch of disruption costs they didn't budget for... it would be irresponsible not to push back. All I have heard is that Universities have offered the use of existing facilities.
And UMass should cooperate, but they should also be looking out for their institutional interests to get dorms or classroom space... or cash to build those things elsewhere.
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.
They can reach agreement in 3 months. The red tape can happen afterwards. Sure it would be a risk if it couldn't happen by August 2017, but there is no law that would drag out a review any longer than that. You are just saying it could take longer because government is usually very slow. Which is certainly usually the case. Under normal circumstances it would take a decade. Just like under normal circumstances it would take a decade (or two) to get shovels in the ground at Widett.
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 reason the Harbor front land is worth the Hail Mary is because it makes the bid compelling over Paris. It gives Boston this iconic harbor entrance stadium that is akin to the Sydney Opera House. It is worth the risk because if it comes together we win the Olympics hands down (and save over a Billion dollars in what would likely be taxpayer money)
If you just want a low risk stadium, then pencil in Gillette Stadium... In terms of lower risk inside Boston in proximity to the Olympic Village, then the lowest risk would be a stadium built at the Convention Center paid for with monies which were supposed to pay for the BCEC expansion from the current hotel tax. That would be "taxpayer" dollars, but Massachusetts voters don't care about the hotel tax very much, especially if it doesn't need to be increased (since the original BCEC bonds will have already been paid and the expansion has been postponed)
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.
I think I largely agree with this. But as of right now they are fully funded at $260 million and the preliminary design work is supposed to start this Summer with construction beginning in 2017. With completion set for 2020, that is roughly 2 years of buffer for slippage in the schedule and the potential for delays if the costs come in significantly higher than $260 million. But yes, the current schedule gives them a 2 year buffer or so which should be adequate... But still somewhat of a risk.
I'd like to point out that at $260 million the realignment of I90 would demonstrate the relative cost effectiveness of realigning I93 versus the $1.2 Billion for the decking project. Even if realigning I93 costs a bit more because of a few additional ramps. And the result would be better versus decking over Widett Circle.
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.
I feel that is what Boston 2024 is doing with Widett. They are stuck on a proposal which is a complete impossibility within the timeframe. I am not stuck on the Harbor front. I think it is worth a Hail Mary pass because it would win the bid if all the stakeholders can be satisfied to get it done. But they should also be pursuing some deal with BCEC to build the stadium there and exploring the possibility of a deal with the owner of the Summer St/Pappas Way property.
Or even just default to Gillette Stadium so we can just eliminate that risk altogether. I agree Gillette is too far away from the proposed Olympic Village to be a compelling Olympic Stadium Venue, but it is far far less risky.
Heck I would also explore building the stadium at the expo site and building the Olympic village with buildings around Umass Boston. Maybe fill out the periphery of the Harbor Walk.
With the clear impossibility of Widett, every other site should be looked at.