Boston 2024

[tangent]

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.

The turnpike realignment is supposed to be completed by 2020... I don't actually think that will happen by 2020 anymore than I think they could relocate businesses, build a Billion dollar platform and construct a stadium in just 5 or 6 years at Widett.


But if they did finish the Mass Pike realignment by around 2022 then the Beacon Yards site is plenty big to construct a stadium without decking over anything.

 

[stellarfun]

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.

In version 2.0, B24 has basically buried the International Broadcast Center and the Main Press Center into almost being a footnote, with a budgeted cost of $50 million.

Its a footnote, because B24 doesn't know what to do,

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ympic-venue/bE0u3FcMgmAXe3WAslkcnL/story.html

And they keep boxing themselves in, e.g., by insisting no public monies will be used for the Olympics. And in the case of the media centers, by not wanting to expand the BCEC, and using the expanded space as a media center.

If the press are miserable with their accommodations and surroundings, then they will trash Boston as an Olympic host city, where every flaw and miscue will be magnified, --if only to demonstrate how terrible a choice Boston was. And that will be the picture presented to the world.

 

[tangent]

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.

In version 2.0, B24 has basically buried the International Broadcast Center and the Main Press Center into almost being a footnote, with a budgeted cost of $50 million.

Its a footnote, because B24 doesn't know what to do,

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ympic-venue/bE0u3FcMgmAXe3WAslkcnL/story.html

And they keep boxing themselves in, e.g., by insisting no public monies will be used for the Olympics. And in the case of the media centers, by not wanting to expand the BCEC, and using the expanded space as a media center.

If the press are miserable with their accommodations and surroundings, then they will trash Boston as an Olympic host city, where every flaw and miscue will be magnified, --if only to demonstrate how terrible a choice Boston was. And that will be the picture presented to the world.

BCEC should be the one exception to the rule of not using public monies. The Boston Convention and Exposition Center was created for the purpose of hosting large events like the Olympics and given the hotel tax to underwrite its capital expenses. The original Convention center is or will be paid off so the money is available.

 

[tangent]

That said I think Gov.Baker would need to step up and take a political risk to make a Boston 2024 viable. With a report due soon which will undoubtedly highlight the financial risk. The safe move would be to tell Boston 2024 to go back and better address the major risks to the City/State. Better would be for the Baker administration to work closely with Boston 2024 and Mayor Walsh, UMass Boston and other stakeholders to hammer out the major risks before December.

 

[stellarfun]

BCEC should be the one exception to the rule of not using public monies. The Boston Convention and Exposition Center was created for the purpose of hosting large events like the Olympics and given the hotel tax to underwrite its capital expenses. The original Convention center is or will be paid off so the money is available.

What Davey was intimating was that they were searching for a developer/property owner who, in 2015, would commit to providing them with 600,000+ sq ft of available space in 2023, space that could be configured into a center for the media. This is like searching for a unicorn, or some other mythical creature.

Which would seem to leave them with three choices:

1.) have the master developer for the stadium platform also build a media center as part of phase I of the Midtown development. This increases the cost and the risk to the Master Developer.

2.) build the expansion to the BCEC, which is permitted and approved, and use that new, additional space for the media center.

3.) find other venues for the sports currently slotted for the BCEC, and use the current BCEC as the media center. That would push high-attendance sports further afield, like to Providence, Springfield, or Worcester.

If B24 hasn't solved the media center issue by the time the application is submitted to the IOC, Boston will not be short-listed as a candidate city, and the blame-game and finger-pointing can begin in earnest, both locally and nationally.

 

[Equilibria]

If B24 hasn't solved the media center issue by the time the application is submitted to the IOC, Boston will not be short-listed as a candidate city, and the blame-game and finger-pointing can begin in earnest, both locally and nationally.

You say that with such certainty...

 

[tangent]

What Davey was intimating was that they were searching for a developer/property owner who, in 2015, would commit to providing them with 600,000+ sq ft of available space in 2023, space that could be configured into a center for the media. This is like searching for a unicorn, or some other mythical creature.

Which would seem to leave them with three choices:

1.) have the master developer for the stadium platform also build a media center as part of phase I of the Midtown development. This increases the cost and the risk to the Master Developer.

2.) build the expansion to the BCEC, which is permitted and approved, and use that new, additional space for the media center.

3.) find other venues for the sports currently slotted for the BCEC, and use the current BCEC as the media center. That would push high-attendance sports further afield, like to Providence, Springfield, or Worcester.

If B24 hasn't solved the media center issue by the time the application is submitted to the IOC, Boston will not be short-listed as a candidate city, and the blame-game and finger-pointing can begin in earnest, both locally and nationally.

B24 hasn't solved either the Olympic Village or the Olympic Stadium as long as financing relies on a master developer to be named later.

An Olympic bid that pencils in billions of dollars of financing on an unknown developer with a city and state that has been against public financing as a backstop is going to be low down on the IOC's list. It certainly won't win against Paris which 'only' needs to build the Olympic village and without a viable financing plan B24 probably will be at the bottom of the list.

BCEC has a Billion dollars ready to spend on an expansion to give it the ability to host larger events...

At the very least, we certainly shouldn't be doing a BCEC expansion without tailoring it to the Olympic bid.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Oh, I don't need to wait til September to point fingers.

Why did the bid fail?

1) Residents didn't want it.
2) Backers didn't sell it well.

For anyone not paying attention, to first hear about the bid on the day we received the USOC's approval, it was quite a wake-up call. A 3 AM wake-up call.

We had a new governor who, on the day he took office, was faced with an unexpected, multi-billion dollar decision - support, buy time, or come out in opposition.

We had a "new" mayor who, despite having a high approval rating, was slow out of the gate and had yet to have established himself as a person of power. He wasn't strong enough to corral the troops to present a unified front. Could Tom Menino have pulled it off, if he was mayor - and wanted it? I'd wager Yes.

The organizers were weak in presentation. Bungled PR effort. And, David Manfredi as one of your presenters?? I'd rather listen to golf on the radio. And, Joe Rull as the city's point person? The guy looks like he just got off the little league field.

We live in a social media world. While I think the effects of having people constantly whining about the Olympics on Twitter (at least, the people I follow), it can generate a lot of enthusiasm on their part - and can be demoralizing to the other side. How'd you like to be the guy having to read "this week in Tweets" to the board of Boston 2024.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

You say that with such certainty...

Everything on here is said with such certainty. It's what makes it tough to read sometimes. No matter how educated a guess is, it's still a guess.

I don't like calling people arrogant, but some of the statements, made as if fact, on this thread and other emotionally charged ones.... well if the shoe fits.

 

[stellarfun]

You say that with such certainty...

When the IOC screening committee reviews Boston's bid circa March 2016, and asks, 'Where is the press center? Where is the broadcast center?' and Boston'a answer is, 'We're still trying to figure that out.', there's no rocket science required before predicting what the IOC reaction will be.

Particularly when there is a solution -- expend the BCEC -- in hand, and all that requires is for the governor to backtrack on a decision he made early on, when, IIRC, he admitted he was unaware of the B24 plans to use the BCEC (expanded version) as a major venue site. Perhaps Baker will relent, but if he doesn't, anyone have a better solution?

 

[Equilibria]

When the IOC screening committee reviews Boston's bid circa March 2016, and asks, 'Where is the press center? Where is the broadcast center?' and Boston'a answer is, 'We're still trying to figure that out.', there's no rocket science required before predicting what the IOC reaction will be.

Particularly when there is a solution -- expend the BCEC -- in hand, and all that requires is for the governor to backtrack on a decision he made early on, when, IIRC, he admitted he was unaware of the B24 plans to use the BCEC (expanded version) as a major venue site. Perhaps Baker will relent, but if he doesn't, anyone have a better solution?

My meaning was that the IOC has put up with a lot of uncertainty in the past. The whole Rio bid is uncertainty. Sochi was uncertainty. I haven't read through those bid books, but I suspect a lot of the material in there, while it might not have read "TBD", was clearly somewhat foggy.

Also, Boston 2024 did not submit the "2.0" bid to the IOC. A preliminary set of documents goes in this September, and its well over a year until a bid book gets submitted. Less time has elapsed between the initial rumblings of a bid (Fall 2013) and now than is to come before the IOC makes a final decision (Fall 2017).

Only in Boston has certainty at this stage ever been demanded.

 

[tangent]

Everything on here is said with such certainty. It's what makes it tough to read sometimes. No matter how educated a guess is, it's still a guess.

I don't like calling people arrogant, but some of the statements, made as if fact, on this thread and other emotionally charged ones.... well if the shoe fits.

Just my opinion, but I think that is silly. People shouldn't have to couch opinions on a discussion board in humble statements. This is a discussion board. The context means that everything written here is part of a discussion. If anything the onus should be on people stating facts to provide a reference link. If you want facts go write it on Wikipedia

 

[tangent]

When the IOC screening committee reviews Boston's bid circa March 2016, and asks, 'Where is the press center? Where is the broadcast center?' and Boston'a answer is, 'We're still trying to figure that out.', there's no rocket science required before predicting what the IOC reaction will be.

Particularly when there is a solution -- expend the BCEC -- in hand, and all that requires is for the governor to backtrack on a decision he made early on, when, IIRC, he admitted he was unaware of the B24 plans to use the BCEC (expanded version) as a major venue site. Perhaps Baker will relent, but if he doesn't, anyone have a better solution?

I'd put it another way, Baker may be able to save the Olympic bid if he can redirect the BCEC expansion to better support an Olympic bid. They were building a billion dollars in BCEC facilities on spec. But the Olympics is the biggest exposition in the world so why wouldn't the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center change the plans to give Boston a better chance to win the biggest expo in the world?

It seems much better to me to put the BCEC expansion project on hold for a year or two and come up with an Olympic plan that treats the BCEC expansion money and site as a blank slate. I've already said they should just build the stadium there. But why wouldn't they at least postpone construction so B24 work with them on what kind of facilities which would better suite the bid?

Even if the main stadium or press center is not built at BCEC, they should be working with B24 to come up with the exact facilities that would better meet the needs of the bid and not just shoe horn them in to the previous general purpose plans.

Heck even if they (legitimately) poached the BCEC funds to build the stadium at Widett, then at least we would be talking about existing money financed with future hotel and other tourist focused taxes and not new general tax dollars. I'm not advocating they finance a Widett stadium with the BCEC dedicated taxes when better and less expensive options are available, but at least it would be a more believable plan than financing over a billion dollars in infrastructure with unidentified private funds.

All this assumes that Baker won't just call the financial risks too great and effectively pull the plug on the bid. I hope he doesn't do that at this point, but he would be right to judge that the risks outweigh the benefits in the current plan and stop working with B24 on making it better. I think the right thing for the Governor to do is be up front about the financial risks of the current 2.0 plan and then work with B24 to button up a 3.0 plan before September.

 

[stellarfun]

My meaning was that the IOC has put up with a lot of uncertainty in the past. The whole Rio bid is uncertainty. Sochi was uncertainty. I haven't read through those bid books, but I suspect a lot of the material in there, while it might not have read "TBD", was clearly somewhat foggy.

Also, Boston 2024 did not submit the "2.0" bid to the IOC. A preliminary set of documents goes in this September, and its well over a year until a bid book gets submitted. Less time has elapsed between the initial rumblings of a bid (Fall 2013) and now than is to come before the IOC makes a final decision (Fall 2017).

Only in Boston has certainty at this stage ever been demanded.

Applicant city phase
8 January 2016: Deadline for Applicant Cities to submit Application Files and guarantee letters to the IOC

March 2016: IOC Working Group Meeting to assess Applicant Cities (including video conference with each city)

April/May 2016: IOC Executive Board to select Candidate Cities

May 2016: Cities receive Candidate City Questionnaire and related documents

Boston's bid is due to the IOC in a bit over five months, and given the holiday season, ought to be pretty much finished by mid-December 2015.

Boston's 2.0 schedule lists a version 2.1, and a version 2.2 on its timeline, so presumably some of the uncertainty and fuzziness will be resolved in these future versions; e.g., a site for the aquatics center; velodrome.

Perhaps Rio and perhaps Sochi were also uncertain at this stage; however, Boston is priding itself on being a privately funded Olympics, with no public monies. I don't think anyone doubted Putin would deliver Sochi even it would/did cost $50 billion.

All the IOC member countries are aware of the taxing and revenue-generating capabilities of governments; that puts a greater burden on any bid that declares it will host the Olympics without recourse to any public monies (except for Federal monies for security).

IMO, Boston cannot pile uncertainty on top of uncertainty. For example, B24 does not intend issuing an RFP for the Master Developer for the stadium base until after Boston is selected as the host city. What if nobody responds to the RFP? What happens then?

 

[datadyne007]

About Castle Island...

How the DCR Signed Over Castle Island to Boston 2024 with a Rubber Stamp
The Southie hotspot is missing from Bid 2.0. But how did it land in the first draft?

By Kyle Clauss | Boston Daily | July 13, 2015, 1:37 p.m.

...

But how did it get there in the first place? The story of how Boston 2024 obtained permission to include Castle Island in Bid 1.0 is still instructive, because it shows how closely the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation worked with the Olympic effort.

One of the USOC’s myriad requirements for Bid 1.0 was a letter “from the public authorities who own any of the proposed venues, confirming that the venue will be made available to the USOC for Games use either at no cost or at a market rental rate to be pre-approved by the USOC.”
...

DCR chief of staff Jason Silva connected with Mendoza and fellow Boston 2024 Vice President Erin Murphy and asked for a draft of such a letter. Mendoza provided him one. The language of the letter provided by Boston 2024’s vice president (below, at left) did not change by a single word—it was taken verbatim and printed on DCR letterhead, then signed by Commissioner Jack Murray, and included in the bid book submitted to the USOC in December.

...

Full article: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/07/13/boston-2024-castle-island/

 

[lexicon506]

^ Good lord, Boston Magazine and the BBJ need to stop it with the excessive FOIA requests that do nothing but "expose" VERY standard procedures and processes of communication across all levels of government.

Boston 2024 and City Hall have sent many emails to one another! Scandalous!!

Boston 2024 wrote a form letter that Mass DCR signed! More scandal!!

It's worthless, lazy journalism that fabricates negative spin for the sake of getting clicks.

 

[Equilibria]

Applicant city phase
8 January 2016: Deadline for Applicant Cities to submit Application Files and guarantee letters to the IOC

March 2016: IOC Working Group Meeting to assess Applicant Cities (including video conference with each city)

April/May 2016: IOC Executive Board to select Candidate Cities

May 2016: Cities receive Candidate City Questionnaire and related documents

Boston's bid is due to the IOC in a bit over five months, and given the holiday season, ought to be pretty much finished by mid-December 2015.

Boston's 2.0 schedule lists a version 2.1, and a version 2.2 on its timeline, so presumably some of the uncertainty and fuzziness will be resolved in these future versions; e.g., a site for the aquatics center; velodrome.

Perhaps Rio and perhaps Sochi were also uncertain at this stage; however, Boston is priding itself on being a privately funded Olympics, with no public monies. I don't think anyone doubted Putin would deliver Sochi even it would/did cost $50 billion.

All the IOC member countries are aware of the taxing and revenue-generating capabilities of governments; that puts a greater burden on any bid that declares it will host the Olympics without recourse to any public monies (except for Federal monies for security).

IMO, Boston cannot pile uncertainty on top of uncertainty. For example, B24 does not intend issuing an RFP for the Master Developer for the stadium base until after Boston is selected as the host city. What if nobody responds to the RFP? What happens then?

Boston's "Applicant File" is due in 5 months. That includes a preliminary plan, very much like the Proof-of-Concept they provided the USOC. For most cities, that's the POC phase. The "Candidature File", otherwise known as the "Bid Book" is due one year later, in January 2017. Between those dates, the IOC selects "Candidate Cities", of which Boston will likely be one, as no US city has ever been denied at that point.

http://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-executive-board-sets-dates-for-2024-olympic-games-bid-process/242111

They have until January, 2017 to firm up things for the IOC, but realistically the deadline is November, 2016, when they'll have to win the referendum.

 

[tangent]

Boston's "Applicant File" is due in 5 months. That includes a preliminary plan, very much like the Proof-of-Concept they provided the USOC. For most cities, that's the POC phase. The "Candidature File", otherwise known as the "Bid Book" is due one year later, in January 2017. Between those dates, the IOC selects "Candidate Cities", of which Boston will likely be one, as no US city has ever been denied at that point.

http://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-executive-board-sets-dates-for-2024-olympic-games-bid-process/242111

They have until January, 2017 to firm up things for the IOC, but realistically the deadline is November, 2016, when they'll have to win the referendum.

Voters will need quite a bit of time before November 2016. The more time the better. It is going to take months to turn around the negative numbers.

 

[underground]

Voters will need quite a bit of time before November 2016. The more time the better. It is going to take months to turn around the negative numbers.

Agreed. The same low info voters who were surprised by the initial bid will need a lot of time to be equally clueless about what's going on in the world around them this time around.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Just my opinion, but I think that is silly. People shouldn't have to couch opinions on a discussion board in humble statements. This is a discussion board. The context means that everything written here is part of a discussion. If anything the onus should be on people stating facts to provide a reference link. If you want facts go write it on Wikipedia

It is silly. Doesn't make it any less true. Opinions and statements of facts that are intended to squash someone else's opinion, are very different things, and come off as arrogant, when that person really has no absolute knowledge. Boo boo if you don't like it, it's my opinion.