Boston 2024
- Thread starter Proposition Joe
- Start date
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
For starters pretty much anyone on the current Boston 2024 board of directors could lead the effort: https://www.2024boston.org/about
That's about 30 other people that could step up and assume a leadership role in a future effort.
But I am not willing to give up on the current effort yet and go too far down the path of speculation about future bids.
They just have to jettison Widett and come up with a better stadium location that doesn't cost an extra $1.2 Billion and perhaps could be converted into a soccer stadium or new stadium for the Patriots after the games.
There are 3 potentially better alternative locations in the Seaport. There is an alternative at Harvard's Beacon Yards. They could even look to move Bunker Hill Community College and put a stadium there. Or just convert Gillette stadium.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,862
- Reaction score
- 7,758
Hmmm.
Oh wait, there's tons of NIMBYs there, what am I thinking.
Actually, the WGC has been pursued on multiple occasions as a sports venue site. It was apparently under serious consideration at one point for a pre-Foxboro stadium for the Patriots, and a couple of yahoos started talking about it for the Red Sox about 10 years ago.
As a Lower Falls native, if 3 weeks of Olympic traffic meant that we could begin to talk about the green wall that is WGC developing some cracks, it would be worth it to me. Then again, I'm also an Olympic supporter.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Why would they? They just love getting destroyed in the press that much? We've already had Fish move into the shadows and Bob Kraft run completely away, but now Steve Pagliuca's going to go full on suicidal and lead a second bid? LOL, no.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Like I said it depends on whether the bid is a strong one that falls just a little bit short or if it stumbles early. If it stumbles early and the USOC drops the bid or if the public rejects it in polls and in a referendum or if there are serious criticisms from the IOC that are fundamental then it doesn't matter if there is a strong leader next time around or not because nobody serious will touch the Olympics again in Boston for at least a couple of generations if ever.
If the Boston 2024 bid makes it all the way, puts together a compelling bid that builds strong public support in the next few years and receives strong marks from the IOC (like Paris did in their previous bid) but just falls a little bit short of winning the bid, then there would be momentum to put together a bid again in the near term and I think your point about a strong influential leader will largely take care of itself because people will recognize the opportunity for the City and many people will step forward as they have now.
The primary factor either way is whether we can put together a compelling bid now. I think we can, but it isn't there yet.
Headline: "Mayor backs plan for Widett Circle, even if city loses Olympics bid"
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...materialize/53gpUWCh2lOowvzNPg89kK/story.html
If I had $1 billion, I'd sure be a lot more willing to start buying out and relocating businesses, negotiating over air rights with Amtrak and MBTA, building massive decks, etc, etc, if I did NOT have the Olympics in my path.
Even if the City loses the bid and a developer therefore wouldn't need to work around the 2024 Olympics, I don't see this working.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...materialize/53gpUWCh2lOowvzNPg89kK/story.html
If I had $1 billion, I'd sure be a lot more willing to start buying out and relocating businesses, negotiating over air rights with Amtrak and MBTA, building massive decks, etc, etc, if I did NOT have the Olympics in my path.
Even if the City loses the bid and a developer therefore wouldn't need to work around the 2024 Olympics, I don't see this working.
It's a location that is stupidly close to downtown Boston and is currently housing one really important rail yard and then a bunch of warehouses that can be moved elsewhere. I think it happens and it makes sense. But the timescale is probably more like 2040 than 2024.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
Interestingly, this presents some particularly skewed incentives. For the Master Developer, actually hosting the Olympics would be a massive drain on them - they'd have to build the stadium, tear it down, and wait to redevelop in an uncertain market environment. Not winning the bid? Much more profitable. Buy in for $1.2 billion, see the land rezoned so it's now worth $8 billion, build the deck and sell off rights to parcels sooner.
Having posted the argument that a developer would prefer to have a go at Widett without the Olympics cluttering up the critical path, I should note that this is an obvious issue in ANY location for an Olympic stadium.
Name any parcel you wish - there've been several proposed here at aB - and then think about seeking a master developer to front the site development costs for that site, in return for tax breaks (and/or other incentives) after the Olympics. Assuming that a given site has enough appeal to draw in eligible developers, that developer's need and therefore request for incentives will be higher if there's an Olympics in 2024 than if they can just get on with it and not have to deal with the USOC, IOC, and the construction / removal of a stadium.
I'm not arguing this should rule out the concept of seeking a master developer fronting the site development cost in return for back-loaded incentives. I'm just saying it's a cost of doing business this way.
As for the site being "stupidly close" to downtown Boston, in meddlepal's words, the various turnpike parcels are even more stupidly close to downtown. And those parcels, once decked and built-upon, would integrate into their respective surroundings far better than any proposal I've seen yet for Widett. And, as an added advantage, those turnpike parcels are being put out to bid in more manageable sized increments, reducing the upfront risk as compared to the Widett gamble. And yet, to date, none have come to fruition, though several have fallen apart.
I can think of a whole bunch of things I'd rather see Walsh focus on, if the Olympics bid bites the dust. Widett looks like tilting at windmills to me. Maybe a bit less so without an Olympics mucking up the timelines, but still tilting at windmills.
Name any parcel you wish - there've been several proposed here at aB - and then think about seeking a master developer to front the site development costs for that site, in return for tax breaks (and/or other incentives) after the Olympics. Assuming that a given site has enough appeal to draw in eligible developers, that developer's need and therefore request for incentives will be higher if there's an Olympics in 2024 than if they can just get on with it and not have to deal with the USOC, IOC, and the construction / removal of a stadium.
I'm not arguing this should rule out the concept of seeking a master developer fronting the site development cost in return for back-loaded incentives. I'm just saying it's a cost of doing business this way.
As for the site being "stupidly close" to downtown Boston, in meddlepal's words, the various turnpike parcels are even more stupidly close to downtown. And those parcels, once decked and built-upon, would integrate into their respective surroundings far better than any proposal I've seen yet for Widett. And, as an added advantage, those turnpike parcels are being put out to bid in more manageable sized increments, reducing the upfront risk as compared to the Widett gamble. And yet, to date, none have come to fruition, though several have fallen apart.
I can think of a whole bunch of things I'd rather see Walsh focus on, if the Olympics bid bites the dust. Widett looks like tilting at windmills to me. Maybe a bit less so without an Olympics mucking up the timelines, but still tilting at windmills.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,972
- Reaction score
- 8,007
As long as this continues to be the state, city, and BRA that can't keep two hands off their own necks parceling off golden Pike air rights real estate that have been available for sale for 40 years, I think 2040 is wildly optimistic for Widett decking sans Olympics. Why in a rational world would there be developer interest in floating the up-front costs of any decking in an all-new district that itself is going to take decades to fill when every Pike block from Back Bay to Albany has yet to be filled with developments that instantly knit each South End block together...with MassHighway picking up considerable chunk of the decking cost.
That is not a winning sales pitch to developers even if the non-Olympics up-front costs came way down. They're just going to point at the more instantaneous profits to be had in literal eyesight of Widett on the other side of the South Bay interchange and say "Why not there? What the hell are you waiting for?" And 40 years of public authority FAIL won't have an answer for that. Which means they don't have an answer for why Widett, and why up-front decking cost is worth any developer gamble on a deep long-term growth new district. Should any private entity have any confidence that delivering the bare canvas is going to get the public partners they have to engage moving fast enough to fill that canvas? Swallowing that up-front cost means they have to know when it'll be amortized. 20 years? 40 years? Or Turnpike Authority passing in-and-out of existence years? What's the BRA going to do there to stay out of its own fucking way in ways they most certainly haven't done elsewhere?
They know these are the hangups that are going to make developers overly skeptical of taking on the challenge. Why else are they sticking to their story of Midtown-as-monolithic-build Olympics or no Olympics? Because they know it's not happening piecemeal. They stare every day at what they have not been able to accomplish moving valuable air rights real estate. It has to be a master developer baited into building the whole neighborhood, or it's just not going to happen. And I don't see any profit motive for a master developer signing on to build the whole neighborhood, because they'll never have complete enough control over their timeline for amortizing that up-front cost as long as they're still non-optionally bound to dealing with those same old public authorities--City Hall, BRA, MassDOT--stirring the pot about what goes there. It doesn't even matter if a master developer has the upper hand; they want guarantees they can pay back the up-front costs in X years, not X years + Y years in delays because the public stakeholders were being their usual slow/squabbling/disorganized selves.
It's Olympics, or the whole plan gets mothballed for retooling. If it gets mothballed for retooling they turn their attention to Harvard and Beacon Park, Fenway, Seaport, Suffolk Downs, and etc. Because they have to. There's no excuse for wasting energy and planning resources creating brand new districts whole-cloth when their existing brand new districts are still under-full on land use, and planning sloth is one of the chief culprits as to why they're lagging (or in Beacon Park's case, will lag) under-full on land use. That doesn't mean nothing will ever get built over Widett/Midtown. It does mean it'll cease to be relevant discussion for another 20 years...minimum. Because there won't be enough profit motive to bait a developer with the up-front costs for another 20 years...minimum.
Thus, they're banking on a hole-in-one or nothing at all. If they don't win the Olympics, they'll make their save-face show of "we're still doin' this, I swear!" and then it'll quickly fade. Then resurface every couple years, then fade again. Life will go on. Building in the city will go on. Ground-level activity at Widett will go on, whether Food Market continues to be tenant or not. Certainly the various transportation interests down there--MBTA, BTD, and Amtrak--are at no loss for immediate productive uses or chess moves for dibs on space underneath possible future deck. But no Olympics hole-in-one = no fully-grown Midtown before our grandchildren come of age.
(EDIT: ^^West^^ beat me to the post button on a lot of this.)
That is not a winning sales pitch to developers even if the non-Olympics up-front costs came way down. They're just going to point at the more instantaneous profits to be had in literal eyesight of Widett on the other side of the South Bay interchange and say "Why not there? What the hell are you waiting for?" And 40 years of public authority FAIL won't have an answer for that. Which means they don't have an answer for why Widett, and why up-front decking cost is worth any developer gamble on a deep long-term growth new district. Should any private entity have any confidence that delivering the bare canvas is going to get the public partners they have to engage moving fast enough to fill that canvas? Swallowing that up-front cost means they have to know when it'll be amortized. 20 years? 40 years? Or Turnpike Authority passing in-and-out of existence years? What's the BRA going to do there to stay out of its own fucking way in ways they most certainly haven't done elsewhere?
They know these are the hangups that are going to make developers overly skeptical of taking on the challenge. Why else are they sticking to their story of Midtown-as-monolithic-build Olympics or no Olympics? Because they know it's not happening piecemeal. They stare every day at what they have not been able to accomplish moving valuable air rights real estate. It has to be a master developer baited into building the whole neighborhood, or it's just not going to happen. And I don't see any profit motive for a master developer signing on to build the whole neighborhood, because they'll never have complete enough control over their timeline for amortizing that up-front cost as long as they're still non-optionally bound to dealing with those same old public authorities--City Hall, BRA, MassDOT--stirring the pot about what goes there. It doesn't even matter if a master developer has the upper hand; they want guarantees they can pay back the up-front costs in X years, not X years + Y years in delays because the public stakeholders were being their usual slow/squabbling/disorganized selves.
It's Olympics, or the whole plan gets mothballed for retooling. If it gets mothballed for retooling they turn their attention to Harvard and Beacon Park, Fenway, Seaport, Suffolk Downs, and etc. Because they have to. There's no excuse for wasting energy and planning resources creating brand new districts whole-cloth when their existing brand new districts are still under-full on land use, and planning sloth is one of the chief culprits as to why they're lagging (or in Beacon Park's case, will lag) under-full on land use. That doesn't mean nothing will ever get built over Widett/Midtown. It does mean it'll cease to be relevant discussion for another 20 years...minimum. Because there won't be enough profit motive to bait a developer with the up-front costs for another 20 years...minimum.
Thus, they're banking on a hole-in-one or nothing at all. If they don't win the Olympics, they'll make their save-face show of "we're still doin' this, I swear!" and then it'll quickly fade. Then resurface every couple years, then fade again. Life will go on. Building in the city will go on. Ground-level activity at Widett will go on, whether Food Market continues to be tenant or not. Certainly the various transportation interests down there--MBTA, BTD, and Amtrak--are at no loss for immediate productive uses or chess moves for dibs on space underneath possible future deck. But no Olympics hole-in-one = no fully-grown Midtown before our grandchildren come of age.
(EDIT: ^^West^^ beat me to the post button on a lot of this.)
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,320
- Reaction score
- 61
That's a lot of info I'll have to digest.
You made me remember the "decking" project we all loved (except for Ned Flaherty...) ... Columbus Center! There, the entire project was only $800 million, if I remember correctly. Smaller, but also easier.
You made me remember the "decking" project we all loved (except for Ned Flaherty...) ... Columbus Center! There, the entire project was only $800 million, if I remember correctly. Smaller, but also easier.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,624
- Reaction score
- 1,376
No better indication of how half-hearted the city is toward actually developing Midtown is that about 10 percent of the $1.2 billion is allocated for the purchase of necessary land, -- either privately owned land at Widett, or land elsewhere where existing businesses and facilities would be relocated. But none of this land will actually be acquired until after the host city is selected. And as the master developer is to pay for it, no monies or land would actually change hands until a master developer is selected.
Neither the city or the Commonwealth is willing to issue bonds to get the land acquisition in place any earlier, so that the B24 and the USOC could confidently say to the IOC that all the land necessary to construct the stadium at Widett is in government hands.
Oh, the responsibility for insuring against a failure to deliver the stadium on time is the master developer's. Of course, the premium cost for that is not included in the $1.2 billion, nor, as mentioned before, the financing cost of a $1.2 billion loan.
Neither the city or the Commonwealth is willing to issue bonds to get the land acquisition in place any earlier, so that the B24 and the USOC could confidently say to the IOC that all the land necessary to construct the stadium at Widett is in government hands.
Oh, the responsibility for insuring against a failure to deliver the stadium on time is the master developer's. Of course, the premium cost for that is not included in the $1.2 billion, nor, as mentioned before, the financing cost of a $1.2 billion loan.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
There are several areas close to downtown that are similar to Widett in their type of development, but much less costly to redevelop. North between the garden and Sullivan Square, a large part of the Seaport, much of East Boston. Even the mass pike air rights parcels.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
If we are stuck with Widett then the bid becomes merely political cover for a protracted negotiation over tax subsidies for the new Midtown and negotiation with the state and UMass over Columbia Point. Because for all the reasons discussed Widett just won't be viable for Boston 2024.
Was it ever anything else?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,653
No, but it's become much more apparent to the public as the bid moves along. It's funny that they're hyping Boston 2024 2.0 as a positive thing. All it did was turn me off completely and I started out as a fairly optimistic supporter. Tripling down on Widett just showed to a T what this has been about all along...
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Some people like me just like the Olympics and thought it would be fun and interesting to be around in 2024 and weren't promoting it purely as a boondoggled version of someone's pet project.
But this is what happens in Boston when you try to do something big and you have to grease every wheel along the way even if it means the thing you were trying to do never happens.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
A viable stadium to meet the December deadline for the bid needs to:
1) Be built on a parcel or parcels controlled by some state agency (like Umass Boston controls the old Bayside Expo Center.
2) Poach the part of the hotel tax dedicated to BCEC to help subsidize it. (Which I would argue might actually console those like me that are opposed to taxpayer funding because it would have viable public funding but from a source not coming directly out of voters pockets.)
3) There is no #3.
Those two options appear to be increasingly unlikely as Walsh digs in on Widett.
But I think the next shoe to drop is going to be the financial risk assessment which is going to have to come clean on the massive financial risk that comes from signing the host city guarantee without having the private financing or adequate insurance in place. That will give Gov. Baker the ammunition he needs to force major changes to the plan or kill it outright.
1) Be built on a parcel or parcels controlled by some state agency (like Umass Boston controls the old Bayside Expo Center.
2) Poach the part of the hotel tax dedicated to BCEC to help subsidize it. (Which I would argue might actually console those like me that are opposed to taxpayer funding because it would have viable public funding but from a source not coming directly out of voters pockets.)
3) There is no #3.
Those two options appear to be increasingly unlikely as Walsh digs in on Widett.
But I think the next shoe to drop is going to be the financial risk assessment which is going to have to come clean on the massive financial risk that comes from signing the host city guarantee without having the private financing or adequate insurance in place. That will give Gov. Baker the ammunition he needs to force major changes to the plan or kill it outright.
I think there is an option 3: Partner with one of (or multiple) Universities. If they can get Harvard to back them (thus Beacon Park) and/or BU (West Campus land, especially adjacent to Beacon Park), then this bid may have some hope left.
You may argue, Option 3 is dead citing Harvard balking with the past plans on on Beacon. But I think it's no less plausible than Option 1 or Option 2 as any of the ideas requires cooperation of the outside party. And as Harvard is stonewalling on Beacon Park. Baker have been cutting stuff that also been giving blow to Boston 2024 plans.
You may argue, Option 3 is dead citing Harvard balking with the past plans on on Beacon. But I think it's no less plausible than Option 1 or Option 2 as any of the ideas requires cooperation of the outside party. And as Harvard is stonewalling on Beacon Park. Baker have been cutting stuff that also been giving blow to Boston 2024 plans.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,624
- Reaction score
- 1,376
The difficulty with a Harvard-owned site, i.e., Beacon Yards AND the land-banked land between Beacon Yards and Western Ave is that 1.) MassDOT first has to reconfigure the turnpike alignment; 2.) then you build a deck; and 3.) then you build structures on top of the deck. Almost impossible to accomplish by 2024 without paying a very steep premium for an expedited construction schedule.
It seems to have taken Harvard longer to demolish the original Charlesview than it did for the city to build it. The schedule says they will finally finish this week. Part of the protracted time was due to recycling; part due to environmental contamination, e.g., asbestos. One can only imagine the contamination at Beacon Yards, and the adjacent chemical plant.
__________________________________
Speaking of contamination, the first illuminating gas plants were built next to South Bay. Several maps suggest that these plants were located where the platforms for South Station currently are, but as the plants continued to operate until the end of the 19th Century, that precise location is doubtful.
http://www.hatheway.net/state_site_pages/ma__main.htm
You do not want to discover that the land on which you propose to build was once the site of an illuminating gas plant. I am familiar with a small site in DC where test borings for a bridge reconstruction discovered contamination in the streambed from an illuminating gas plant that had ceased operating at least 70 years prior. The remediation cost was about $1,000 a square foot.
It seems to have taken Harvard longer to demolish the original Charlesview than it did for the city to build it. The schedule says they will finally finish this week. Part of the protracted time was due to recycling; part due to environmental contamination, e.g., asbestos. One can only imagine the contamination at Beacon Yards, and the adjacent chemical plant.
__________________________________
Speaking of contamination, the first illuminating gas plants were built next to South Bay. Several maps suggest that these plants were located where the platforms for South Station currently are, but as the plants continued to operate until the end of the 19th Century, that precise location is doubtful.
http://www.hatheway.net/state_site_pages/ma__main.htm
You do not want to discover that the land on which you propose to build was once the site of an illuminating gas plant. I am familiar with a small site in DC where test borings for a bridge reconstruction discovered contamination in the streambed from an illuminating gas plant that had ceased operating at least 70 years prior. The remediation cost was about $1,000 a square foot.