Boston 2024
- Thread starter Proposition Joe
- Start date
I believe the parcels you're considering may be under consideration as the destination for the relocated USPS facility that is currently in the way of South Station expansion. I may be mis-remembering.
Aside from that: on the originally drawn plan for the "Midtown" area (I hate that name), you'll see some extra fields on the far side of the rail maintenance building from the main stadium, and also a bunch of buildings. The IOC demands those extra fields for athletes to warm up on. And they want those buildings for the hordes of staff (IOC, country-specific OCs, media, etc, etc). So you've got to draw those in somewhere over there where you've put the stadium. You could propose gobbling up a bunch of those parking lots, or nearby parcels with the sorts of industrial uses that Boston 2024 has not been shy about calling "blighted".
So the challenges I see to your idea:
1) space looks tight for just the stadium as you've drawn it, gets really tight when all the warm-up fields and admin areas get included
2) site acquisition: just because the industrial areas look blighted to John Fish et al, doesn't mean they look blighted to the workers earning a living on them, and the Mayor has ruled out eminent domain (possibly the same issue goes for the site you ID'ed for the main stadium, and double so if that's where the USPS was thinking of going).
3) optics for the IOC - they care about this almost comically. Having an Olympics stadium cheek by jowl with industrial uses just doesn't look right on TV. Laugh if you will, but they care deeply about this.
Fixing problem 1 with more land acquisition could eliminate problem 3, but at the cost of exacerbating problem 2.
Having knocked these holes in your idea, I will say that comparatively, your idea looks better to me than the "Midtown" a/k/a Widett Circle concept. With all the rail yard constraints at / near Widett, I think that location was never feasible, certainly less feasible than where you've suggested.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
^ I've long thought that's a perfect place. And the businesses that are currently there are, in my mind, hardly as location-sensitive as the food wholesalers. There are also zero infrastructure hurdles. And, if you want to go really cheap and no-build on transit, you can simply run caravans of shuttle buses between here and the Olympic Village at the Bayside Expo site without impacting city streets: simply run them on the Bypass Road to 93 and down (dedicated lane for just under a half-mile from Southampton to Columbia St).
West: Those admin areas you say are needed can be housed within the already existing or expanded BCEC.
West: Those admin areas you say are needed can be housed within the already existing or expanded BCEC.
Could be true. They're planning on six sports in there, though, each of which also requires multiple courts (or mats, or tables, etc), plus locker room areas and so on. And they already had some admin space drawn in there. I realize the place is huge, but .... anyhow, it seems a definite maybe, I concede that.
The warm up track and field facility is a pain, and one of the real space-gobblers for any Olympics. I mean, carving out space for track and field is tough anywhere, but to have one track and field facility with 60K seats plus another warm-up field nearby, it's no wonder so many Olympics cities have gone to some island, or blown out some immense industrial area, whatever.
I don't have enough info to judge this; from my drives around the area, I suspect you're right. But the Mayor's decision to publicly assert there'd be no use of eminent domain makes site acquisition a huge hurdle, perhaps more so here than at Widett itself (by "Widett itself" I mean the food wholesalers' parcel).
If I own a parking lot in that area tangent proposed a stadium, or a scrap metal yard nearby, I'm seeing that wave of development rolling my direction, and knowing my biggest payday ever might soon come via a land transaction rather than ongoing parking or scrap operations. Do I sell to Boston 2024, knowing that if the stadium turns out to be truly temporary, they'll be flipping it to developers later on? Or do I do better to sell to those developers myself, even if they don't approach me as soon as Boston 2024 does? And on that timing issue: anyone want to bet whether various developers already hold options on the parcels we're talking about, land-banking for the future?
At Widett itself, at least there's an organized group to negotiate with, you'd get that whole circle. However, I think the real acquisition trouble near Widett starts with the air rights over the rail yards north of Widett. That looks like a mess.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Agreed on the challenges with this location and the issues with Widett. Like I said it was just a quick edit of the graphic which was focused on just the stadium and not the secondary facilities, but I did keep the stadium dimensions the same as the official graphic so it would fit.
You would certainly have to put together additional nearby parcels for the games and negotiate with several businesses and government stakeholders (Massport and Convention Center Authority are big stakeholders in the area and maybe add the Postal Service if that was a possibility). And across the water there would also have to be some acquisitions for beautification of the area because of the aesthetic issues you mention (which are probably less of an issue than Widett). I see one parcel across the water in particular where a waterfront park terminates on either side of a lot which must have an interesting story.
But negotiating with multiple public/private stakeholders is not really a different concern than any other potential location. As far as I have heard they still haven't worked out the details, agreements and potential costs for Widett Circle. They will probably also need new locations for the Velodrome and Tennis stadiums which could be a consideration for the area also.
Yes these are real established land owners and businesses and the area shouldn't just be viewed as expansive parking lots with just a few buildings, so they would have to tread carefully and make respectful accommodations when necessary to avoid the eminent domain issue, but it may be easier to provide friendly relocation than it would be to relocate the large food distribution center from Widett Circle and deck over the tracks. And it looks like the main parcel would be just one landowner to negotiate with.
I think compared with the cost and end result of decking over the rail tracks next to Widett Circle and still being at a relatively narrow location between the elevated I-93 and the South Boston Bypass ramp, the tens of millions of extra dollars needed there (likely public "infrastructure" money which would delay and jeopardize the whole thing) would be better spent on additional land acquisition and beautification around a waterfront location which is nearer the convention center.
The pros (for the Olympic games themselves) are that it would be
-close or closer to a lot of the transportation you are relying on.
- a bit closer to South Station (1 mile versus 1.5 miles)
- very close to the Silver Line station (less than 5 min. walk).
- Near the South Boston Bypass Road
- Near the I-90 tunnel ramps, so you get an interstate highway without the view of the interstate highway.
- Much closer to the Convention Center so you have
- venues closer together for walkability
- more compact security zone
- maybe wouldn't have to shut down I-93 (or I-90) for the opening and closing ceremonies like you would with Widett Circle.
- near the Black Falcon terminal which will be full of cruise ships.
- Closer to multiple hotels and restaurants (and Harpoon Brewery) for accommodations and additional entertainment.
- within an area that is a real focus and showcase of new development in Boston over the next ten years.
- It is already called "Summer St".
which then becomes part of your Olympic Boulevard Experience.Seems that Summer St is better for both for the games and afterwards than Widett/Midtown and certainly better than Suffolk Downs. Even better than the Allston/MassPike realignment location that has been mentioned before because Summer St is closer to downtown and Harvard clearly has other plans for the old CSX/Mass Pike area. So any stadium there would really be delaying development (instead of being a placeholder for a soccer stadium).
Given the real necessity of using the Convention Center as part of the plans I would focus on somewhere in that Convention Center area for alternatives to Widett.
After 2024 the location potentially becomes the location for a great waterfront soccer stadium for the Revolution that would make for a destination experience like Fenway and could really benefit from the existing and planned accommodations surrounding the convention center and perhaps could be used in conjunction with the convention center for hosting other large events after the games.
Here is the view of that area from the Summer St Bridge.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.341941,-71.035798,3a,42.8y,281.54h,82.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1seuykt_NgMSK5Gu0Nb0zcvg!2e0
View of the parcel: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.341373,-71.042158,3a,75y,40.5h,81.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9CCg3gSokpVeZLJFul6toA!2e0
lexicon506
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 262
Interesting pro-Olympics argument in Fortune Magazine that highlights one of the biggest reasons why I'm inclined to support the bid: Boston needs to foster a greater sense of civic ambition.
http://fortune.com/2015/04/23/bostons-tech-problem-is-the-same-as-its-olympics-problem/
It's funny when people bring up the "we don't need the Olympics we're already world-class argument." Then why do London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo all fight for the chance to host? World-class cities welcome disruption and risk because they are convinced they can do things better than anywhere else. Boston is content sitting on its laurels and playing second/third/fourth fiddle when it has all the tools necessary to be the country's leading 21st century city--if only it took a second to envision itself as such. Boston had that ambition in the 19th and early 20th centuries and lost it. Pulling off a successful Olympics will prove to the world, and much more importantly to Bostonians, that the city can and should be more than a regional capital that happens to house some global institutions.
http://fortune.com/2015/04/23/bostons-tech-problem-is-the-same-as-its-olympics-problem/
It's funny when people bring up the "we don't need the Olympics we're already world-class argument." Then why do London, Paris, Rome, Tokyo all fight for the chance to host? World-class cities welcome disruption and risk because they are convinced they can do things better than anywhere else. Boston is content sitting on its laurels and playing second/third/fourth fiddle when it has all the tools necessary to be the country's leading 21st century city--if only it took a second to envision itself as such. Boston had that ambition in the 19th and early 20th centuries and lost it. Pulling off a successful Olympics will prove to the world, and much more importantly to Bostonians, that the city can and should be more than a regional capital that happens to house some global institutions.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
EDIT: Whatever. I don't care.
Last edited:
lexicon506
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 262
That's really too bad. You should care.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,040
I appreciate the sentiment, but I have to question the premise of the article. Boston lacks self confidence and is doomed because "Facebook and Dropbox left"? Seriously? That's silly even within the context of that one industry. It's kind of a weird trend in the last few months - tech people who live here writing all of these apology columns about "yes, it's way worse than Silicon Valley, and here's why I live here anyway." I lived in the Bay Area. It's pretty. I moved back.
An opponent, of course, would tell you that those big cities are all deluded, that they can't do it better than anywhere else, and that they end up on the hook for billions. Yet, not only do they all fight for the chance to host, they support the Olympics at the 70% level even at the worst of the inconveniences. Part of that is national pride, I think, and Boston doesn't have that ability because we're not a national capital and our country is so big and diverse that it can't rally behind one city.
Lexicon, I would dearly love to see the citizens of Boston collectively foster a greater sense of civic ambition. Note how I edited that from your formulation: it wasn't by mistake.
My preference for how this would unfold (very rough synopsis, of course it wouldn't go just like this):
Step 1: The citizenry admits to itself that the great strengths of our region have created economic and demographic trends that, while great in many ways, are exposing our worst problems: self-governance at the state and regional level, most glaringly revealed in transportation and housing affordability problems (amongst others). We are at risk of becoming victims of our own success.
The response, all of which would take a whole bunch of that "greater sense of civic ambition", would involve huge concurrent changes on multiple tracks:
Step 2A: Reform of the Commonwealth's government, to break the power of the Speaker, to find a better balance between wants / needs of Boston-metro and everyone else, totally revamp the approach to taxation and spending, etc.
Step 2B: Full-blown transportation reform, to bring all forms of transport - the T most critically but roads, pedestrian/bike access, EVERYTHING, out of the mid-20th century and into the modern age. That includes funding streams, management, everything.
Step 2C: Full-blown housing policy reform, to get much greater quantities of housing built at every price level, and get it built where it makes the best sense (overwhelming majority near transit).
All of the above is wildly ambitious, I bet most readers are ROTFLTAO, and rightly so.
Cynicism aside, if we could work up the collective civic ambition do those things, we'd be able to throw in side goodies, like expanding funding and facilities for the arts, and likewise for the non-professional sports. On the latter, we could try to replicate the local success in rowing, running, and sailing into the realms of competitive swimming, cycling, and other sports.
If we could do all the above, we'd be in a position to host an Olympics in about 2032 or 2036, without even blinking, and with probably superb local support and pride.
Is the 2024 Olympics bid the right catalyst to build civic ambition now, in the current situation? I was open to the argument, as an abstraction, but both in the current political environment and the concrete bid proposal in front of us, I've been doubtful and grow more so by the day.
The writer you linked to opines:
"So here is my hope: Boston’s Olympics boosters get their act together, and realize that they have leverage with an IOC that really wants an American host city. Get the taxpayer guarantee to go away. Provide a detailed plan that can be analyzed and improved. Win the bid and execute. "
There is zero indication the IOC wants an American host city so badly that they'll forego a taxpayer guarantee. The applications go to the IOC in January of 2016, and the guarantee letters must go in with the finished app. Then about four months after that the IOC narrows the list down from "applicant" cities to "candidate" cities. The only chance Boston will have to "get the taxpayer guarantee to go away" is if all the bid cities conspire to force the IOC into backing down. Does anyone see that happening? Not me. At least one of the bids from Paris, Rome, or Hamburg, will have that guarantee, and might have a national government signing it at that. Look at the trillions of Euros the European governments have flung down a rat hole trying to save an ill-advised currency union, even at great harm to the more important political union. one of them will sign a guarantee. Mayor Walsh will probably sign it, too, but Baker won't, and the IOC will be making the winnowing decision knowing there's a referendum coming. We'll be toast at that stage.
The 2024 Olympics bid looks to me more and more like the wrong reach for the wrong goal at the wrong time to ever act as a catalyst for anything other than NIMBY-ism. As if they needed more fuel.
My preference for how this would unfold (very rough synopsis, of course it wouldn't go just like this):
Step 1: The citizenry admits to itself that the great strengths of our region have created economic and demographic trends that, while great in many ways, are exposing our worst problems: self-governance at the state and regional level, most glaringly revealed in transportation and housing affordability problems (amongst others). We are at risk of becoming victims of our own success.
The response, all of which would take a whole bunch of that "greater sense of civic ambition", would involve huge concurrent changes on multiple tracks:
Step 2A: Reform of the Commonwealth's government, to break the power of the Speaker, to find a better balance between wants / needs of Boston-metro and everyone else, totally revamp the approach to taxation and spending, etc.
Step 2B: Full-blown transportation reform, to bring all forms of transport - the T most critically but roads, pedestrian/bike access, EVERYTHING, out of the mid-20th century and into the modern age. That includes funding streams, management, everything.
Step 2C: Full-blown housing policy reform, to get much greater quantities of housing built at every price level, and get it built where it makes the best sense (overwhelming majority near transit).
All of the above is wildly ambitious, I bet most readers are ROTFLTAO, and rightly so.
Cynicism aside, if we could work up the collective civic ambition do those things, we'd be able to throw in side goodies, like expanding funding and facilities for the arts, and likewise for the non-professional sports. On the latter, we could try to replicate the local success in rowing, running, and sailing into the realms of competitive swimming, cycling, and other sports.
If we could do all the above, we'd be in a position to host an Olympics in about 2032 or 2036, without even blinking, and with probably superb local support and pride.
Is the 2024 Olympics bid the right catalyst to build civic ambition now, in the current situation? I was open to the argument, as an abstraction, but both in the current political environment and the concrete bid proposal in front of us, I've been doubtful and grow more so by the day.
The writer you linked to opines:
"So here is my hope: Boston’s Olympics boosters get their act together, and realize that they have leverage with an IOC that really wants an American host city. Get the taxpayer guarantee to go away. Provide a detailed plan that can be analyzed and improved. Win the bid and execute. "
There is zero indication the IOC wants an American host city so badly that they'll forego a taxpayer guarantee. The applications go to the IOC in January of 2016, and the guarantee letters must go in with the finished app. Then about four months after that the IOC narrows the list down from "applicant" cities to "candidate" cities. The only chance Boston will have to "get the taxpayer guarantee to go away" is if all the bid cities conspire to force the IOC into backing down. Does anyone see that happening? Not me. At least one of the bids from Paris, Rome, or Hamburg, will have that guarantee, and might have a national government signing it at that. Look at the trillions of Euros the European governments have flung down a rat hole trying to save an ill-advised currency union, even at great harm to the more important political union. one of them will sign a guarantee. Mayor Walsh will probably sign it, too, but Baker won't, and the IOC will be making the winnowing decision knowing there's a referendum coming. We'll be toast at that stage.
The 2024 Olympics bid looks to me more and more like the wrong reach for the wrong goal at the wrong time to ever act as a catalyst for anything other than NIMBY-ism. As if they needed more fuel.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,040
Governor Baker doesn't need to sign anything. Only the host city is required to sign the Host City Agreement. Part of the reason Walsh has been so gung-ho about the bid so far is that the public investments will mostly be made on the State side, but only he is required to guarantee any money. Essentially, the IOC doesn't have the power to compel public spending in Boston unless the host committee itself overruns its budget. That's different from how it works in London or Paris, and the IOC gets that.
If Rome or Paris wants to pull out all the stops, then fine. They get to do it, and they'll lose money on it. If we're going to do it, and if the IOC is willing to ask us to do it, then it needs to be done responsibly. The fact that that's the case we'd be making is not a reason to give up, it's always been the whole point of trying.
I'm not wavering in my support of this idea. This specific bid and bid committee? A bit. What bugs me in your final statement is your implication that this is "the wrong idea at the wrong time" simply because people have been speaking out against it. They have some good points, actually, but the fact that opposition exists shouldn't indicate to you that this is a bad idea or that it can't do good things.
What the piece did manage to do was raise the point that Boston is in a big funk right now, and that's affecting our collective judgment. NIMBYs are enjoying the attention that comes from playing to peoples' insecurities, and legitimate criticisms of Boston 2024 and the IOC are being aired, but the bottom line is that this bid is not going anywhere. Not to LA, and not out the window. Boston 2024 just brought a whole bunch of people onto the BOD - not just David Ortiz and Larry Bird, but also IOC members, USOC members, and yet more civic and business leaders. Larry Lucchino is apparently negotiating for a position with them. This thing has legs, and the story is going to keep going at least until next fall, and a lot more is going to happen.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Here here. Especially the part where you write "If Rome or Paris wants to pull out all the stops, then fine. They get to do it, and they'll lose money on it. If we're going to do it, and if the IOC is willing to ask us to do it, then it needs to be done responsibly. The fact that that's the case we'd be making is not a reason to give up, it's always been the whole point of trying."
Either I did not make myself clear or you've misinterpreted. Some of both I think, my last paragraph was less than clear.
I am not basing my opinions on the existence of opposition: I'm making up my own mind. Much of the opposition has looked very knee-jerk to me. My opinion that it's arguably the wrong bid at the wrong time has to do more with where Boston stands right now: we have vastly more pressing priorities. I'm decreasingly convinced that ANY Olympics bid for 2024 - even one with an ideal set of PR reps and a much better thought out first plan - is what we should be using to boot-strap political change. This is not something I assert that I can prove.
I think you are precisely correct in this entire paragraph. And the summation sentence especially: the IOC gets that. They will see that a Mayor is making promises on behalf of a State that won't back it, and that will kill the bid dead.
And this part....
... is where I'm going in a different interpretive direction. The IOC, IMHO, is not at all near the point of asking any city to do anything. We are not in the shoes of LA bidding solo for 1984, nor of Innsbruck being begged to take the 1976 Winter Games after Denver nixed their own bid. The IOC's handling of all the drop-outs from the 2022 winter bidding strongly suggests that the Agenda 2020 business is window dressing. The IOC still sees itself as the one holding the gold after which everyone comes begging. If we were in that sort of bidding environment, I would be far more swayed by your general approach towards this bid. As it is, I increasingly think it's a lot of energy misdirected.
If my last paragraph reads to you that my reaction is all in reaction to NIMBYism, consider that paragraph retracted.
By the way, I'm still not 100% anti, I still do appreciate the concept of a big event being a catalyst for action. So I'm willing to give the re-shuffle some more time. But they've spent four months putzing around since being picked by the USOC, so they really do need to get with it now. But I'm still listening.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,040
If that's what they're going to do, then no US city will ever host the Games again. Boston's administrative structure is not atypical for an American city. I mean, look at LA and SF. The California State Government isn't investing any serious money in infrastructure for an Olympic bid, and neither city was going to perform massive improvements to get one, but yet many people (though not necessarily you) simply assume that either city would have sailed through the IOC selection process.
When I say that "the IOC gets that," I mean it from both sides. They get that the State is making the public investment, and they get that the State may not be a reliable source of huge dollars. Boston 2024 isn't obfuscating that - Davey's clamped down on any talk of big investments since he took over. The IOC also gets that the US isn't Russia, or even France or the UK where the national government can spend a ton to build up the single World City in the country. Georgia didn't spend a ton in 1996. Utah didn't spend a ton in 2002. Both cities were selected regardless.
I may not have been entirely clear in my point about Rome and Paris - I don't think the IOC is quite as desperate as it was in 1984. Time will show how desperate it actually is. If Hamburg residents vote close in their referendum (and there will be one) or massive protests break out in Italy and France (which isn't unlikely) then the choice may very well be between making one of those cities or Boston a deal they'll accept or giving the games to Doha.
My point was that, if Rome or Paris wants to spend the $20B and give the IOC what they want, let them. It wasn't a snarky challenge, it was a statement of fact. Some other city might do that, and if they do, there's nothing we can do about it, but it's not a sure thing to happen. I'd rather we spend the next 18 months (and it is still very early days) figuring out ways to improve the city through the Olympics or without them than worrying about what anyone else will propose. That includes both racing to the bottom and also throwing up our hands because someone in Europe might be planning a big bid.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Paris hasn't even officially declared they are bidding yet, but would make for a strong bid. Delhi, India would make a strong case after hosting the Commonwealth games in 2010 they have many venues that could be used again, but there was apparently much controversy and scandal so if they instead go with another city in India would more likely be ready by 2028.
Would be good to simply focus on planning for what is right for Boston and what we think would make for a good Olympics here and not worry about the competition.
Would be good to simply focus on planning for what is right for Boston and what we think would make for a good Olympics here and not worry about the competition.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
In case you missed the news in today's Boston Globe (first several paragraphs):
Red Sox executive Larry Lucchino in talks with Boston 2024
By Mark Arsenault, Boston Globe
Red Sox executive Larry Lucchino in talks with Boston 2024
By Mark Arsenault, Boston Globe
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Freedom '75 - the necessary catalyst to make Boston a "world-class city". (From an essay by Ed Logue.)
Last edited:
Larry Luchinno... You mean the face of evil in the Red Sox organization is supposed to somehow be a positive thing for Boston 2024?
That's the guy John Henry has had to repeatedly now come in to Boston for and sooth over some disaster LL created with his Contested Living life philosophy.
That's the guy John Henry has had to repeatedly now come in to Boston for and sooth over some disaster LL created with his Contested Living life philosophy.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Lol, why are "the" "most" "city" & "attractive" highlighted?
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Ha. Yes, that looks odd. I was doing a search through the Boston Globe archives for an essay by Tom Winship (the newspaper's editor at the time) titled, "the most attractive city in America is our goal, and we will make it" (yes, all lowercase).
The essay is mentioned in Jim Vrabel's book, "A People's History of the New Boston", which is about different citizen-led protests in Bostonduring the mid-20th century.
The essay is mentioned in Jim Vrabel's book, "A People's History of the New Boston", which is about different citizen-led protests in Bostonduring the mid-20th century.