Boston 2024

[dshoost88]

So now that the BCEC Expansion is in limbo, I want to pose the question first:

If the BCEC convention hall expansion is ultimately voted down, would this site be suitable for an Olympic Stadium? And if so, would it be more or less expensive to put a stadium there?

I wonder because I always thought that a sports stadium or arena complement a convention space very well as it provides a great place for larger programming and seating capacity. That's why I liked the Farmers Field proposal for downtown LA when they were floating a football stadium next to the LA Convention Center.

 

[tangent]

It was effectively stolen because the intent was to release documents that were not ready for public consumption. Is that a legal definition? No. It is a moral one.

I support freedom of information too. When information is being kept from the public because it contains evidence of government misdeeds, excesses, etc. or because it embarrasses officials with evidence of personal misbehavior, FOIA is great and critical.

This is not that. Evan Falchuk had no conceivable reason to FOIA that particular slide other than to short-circuit Boston 2024's vetting and technical review process and cast the bid group in the worst possible light. There's no evidence of corruption or misdeeds in it, and he had no reason to expect that there would be.

He can legally do it, but it's an @$$hole move, plain and simple.

The Midtown "legacy". calls into question the motivation of Boston 2024 backers. If some are simply looking for a public handout to deck over the rail in order to create a development opportunity. If they don't want public money, then sure it is not relevant.

If the material was given to public officials then it is public. Period. There is some room for confidential materials during negotiations. But we are talking about development proposals for public land, formally presented to public officials and potentially billions of dollars in public funds and transportation infrastructure. The fundamental principles of good government are on the line in the way we move forward.

 

[tangent]

So now that the BCEC Expansion is in limbo, I want to pose the question first:

If the BCEC convention hall expansion is ultimately voted down, would this site be suitable for an Olympic Stadium? And if so, would it be more or less expensive to put a stadium there?

I wonder because I always thought that a sports stadium or arena complement a convention space very well as it provides a great place for larger programming and seating capacity. That's why I liked the Farmers Field proposal for downtown LA when they were floating a football stadium next to the LA Convention Center.

I think this is a better alternative.

 

[West]

So now that the BCEC Expansion is in limbo, I want to pose the question first:

If the BCEC convention hall expansion is ultimately voted down, would this site be suitable for an Olympic Stadium? And if so, would it be more or less expensive to put a stadium there?

I wonder because I always thought that a sports stadium or arena complement a convention space very well as it provides a great place for larger programming and seating capacity. That's why I liked the Farmers Field proposal for downtown LA when they were floating a football stadium next to the LA Convention Center.

Well, it's certainly less impeded than Widett, by a long shot. It seems pretty cramped for a 60K stadium. Not impossibly so, but a squeeze.

However, as discussed in a previous idea someone floated for a site farther south in the Seaport, you need to figure out where the warm up fields go. The IOC wants several warm up areas, preferably in immediate or very close proximity. There's a lot of parcels with low density uses on them nearby, I can imagine some owners might be willing to sell. But I can also imagine that many of those parcels may already have options on them, as developers make long range plans for the wave of development rolling that direction.

 

[West]

On the Boston 2024 site, FAQ page, they say they've considered a site for "Olympic Stadium in east end of Seaport District".

https://www.2024boston.org/faq

(you have to scroll down to question 30 and click on it, I don't think I can make the link right to the Q)

I don't know whether they're referring to the site Tangent discussed up at post 1648, or maybe that parcel out between Fid Kennedy Ave and the Harbor:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.346...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sov7wQvoD66v2eosT-oifMw!2e0

that is hopefully a link to a streetview. I haven't been out there in a while, so maybe someone's going to tell me there's a project going up on it already. And as I mentioned on other potential sites, just because no one's got a project in the works far enough for us to know about it, doesn't mean it isn't optioned up already.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

If 2024 can "fund" the miserable Widdett Circle decking project, can they please move the village to the Mass Pike high-spine instead? We have perfectly good parcels for hotel/residential from Clarendon to Albany. I bet it would actually cost less and would NOT potential hamstring background rail ops or limit ability to modify the rail yards.

 

[JohnAKeith]

There is not enough room for the stadium to be put next to the existing BCEC so that wouldn't work.

Based on the tweets of Dorchester Reporter's Lauren Dezenski and today's Boston Herald article, I think you can conclude that last night's Boston 2024 meeting was an absolute disaster.

Tweets:

Davey: "There's a likelihood we don't get the Games." Many, but not all in the crowd, shouts and cheers "Yeah!" "Woo!"

"...The only transformation the Olympics have had for every single host city –and you know this–has been displacement." -Wilkerson

Fitz: "What if we could privately fund investments to the city?" Crowd: "No!" shouts and jeers #Boston2024

Man asking for more transparency. "I don’t want to lose my house to eminent domain but I don’t want to find out about it at the 11th hour."

He continues about 2024's makeup: "I don't see no Diane Wilkerson. But they go to the pastors that come to us to pimp us for their votes"

Man at mic: "People, read behind the lines. What is happening is gentrification and 2024 is just another way to finish it off."

Man in audience for much of the meeting: "We're going to be displaced!" FItz: "I'm going to have to ask you to leave, sir. Seriously." #Boston2024

 

[JumboBuc]

So now that the BCEC Expansion is in limbo, I want to pose the question first:

If the BCEC convention hall expansion is ultimately voted down, would this site be suitable for an Olympic Stadium? And if so, would it be more or less expensive to put a stadium there?

I wonder because I always thought that a sports stadium or arena complement a convention space very well as it provides a great place for larger programming and seating capacity. That's why I liked the Farmers Field proposal for downtown LA when they were floating a football stadium next to the LA Convention Center.

The current plans count on using the BCEC expansion as the volleyball venue, so if the extension is put on hold that would have to be reworked.

 

[Equilibria]

The current plans count on using the BCEC expansion as the volleyball venue, so if the extension is put on hold that would have to be reworked.

Plenty of other places to put Volleyball. Not a big deal. I don't think the project is cancelled, anyhow. Just a power play by Baker.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Plenty of other places to put Volleyball. Not a big deal. I don't think the project is cancelled, anyhow. Just a power play by Baker.

Yeah, didn't he sack the Board in that same move? Seems like more a control grab to install his people behind the project planning and purse strings than cancel the expansion outright because he saw it as fatally flawed.

 

[tangent]

There is not enough room for the stadium to be put next to the existing BCEC so that wouldn't work.

Not quite enough room behind the convention center, but almost. Very close Maybe it would be worthwhile enough to give the Convention Center a little bit of a shave to its backside for 2024. Might be able to do it without losing floor space even. And I don't think anything dictates that the Olympic Stadium has to be perfectly oval... An asymmetrical stadium would actually fit quite nicely.

Here is the quick and dirty cut and paste of the stadium:

Also, this location would make it a relatively straightforward negotiation and planning process between Boston 2024, the convention center, the state and the city. Basically it would be the Convention Center making an agreement with Boston 2024 to build the stadium and host certain events.

I still would prefer a waterfront stadium location though. I could see something quite nice along the waterfront evolve into a permanent venue after the games.

 

[datadyne007]

Falchuk posted this link to his 2024 info requests on Twitter for those interested:
http://www.unitedindependent.org/public_records_requests

 

[JohnAKeith]

That looks as though it fits. I walked that area earlier today and there's a lot of empty space. But, that's just the stadium; there has to be supporting structures (I can't remember the specifics - security, for one; athletes' rooms; etc.).

Where else on the Waterfront do you see it fitting? You mean the Seaport? There's not enough empty land, so there would need to be some land-taking. Not saying that's not possible, but there's very little space left that isn't planned for development.

And what about transportation? #9 bus?

 

[tangent]

I mean waterfront as-in abutting the water. The Summer St/Pappas Way location or even a bit further out on Fid Kennedy Ave. Both are fairly close to the Silver Line. Large lots that could hold a stadium without street reconfiguration...

"Planned for development" doesn't mean much unless the plan was for development before 2024 which doesn't seem likely. The stadium is either going to be temporary or make way for a reduced size soccer stadium, so either way something could potentially be worked out without a land taking being necessary. Just a matter for negotiations.

As for behind the convention center, there is plenty of room for other support facilities and practice areas. Building an Olympic stadium there if we get the games makes more sense than building an expansion to the convention center on spec based on attracting conventions. And it is worth waiting a few years to find out about the bid since the convention center operates at a loss anyway... So not exactly missing out by not wasting more money in the meantime.

 

[JohnAKeith]

The 10,000 residents of the Seaport might not be so eager to accept these changes. Nor would owners of land who have spent decades putting together plans for projects, such as John Hynes and Tishman Speyer.

Planning an Olympics for the Seaport would mean delaying the completion any other development there for ... 15 years, probably. From 2015 - 2029, given that new projects wouldn't break ground until 2025.

Could happen, but any dreams of creating a brand-new neighborhood in the Seaport would go out the window.

 

[West]

Planning an Olympics for the Seaport would mean delaying the completion any other development there for ... 15 years, probably. From 2015 - 2029, given that new projects wouldn't break ground until 2025.

I don’t think that’s the only or even the most likely outcome if Boston2024 were to shift over to the Seaport for the stadium. If they do that, they’ve got a good chance of running into the same thing they’re running into out at the proposed Olympic Village site on Columbia Point: events have passed them by (partially).

One recent Dorchester Reporter article provided a decent overview of the parcels within the proposed Olympic Village that are already under construction or green-lighted:

http://www.dotnews.com/2015/columbia-point-building-boom-goes-face-olympics-push

One such parcel is owned by Corcoran Jennison, and Michael Corcoran is quoted describing a meeting with Boston 2024:

“They said, “Well, we could do something like this and work around our parcels,” said Corcoran. “My impression was that they had gotten a little ahead of themselves. I don’t think they really expected to win this thing. But they’ve certainly come in to see me since and we’ve had a couple of follow-up conversations on the phone.” (In case it’s not clear, that first sentence is the Reporter quoting Corcoran’s memory of what “they” – someone from Boston 2024 – said to Corcoran. The Reporter was not at that meeting.)

The article describes other issues out there.

So at the Seaport, there’s an obvious wave of investment capital flooding into the area. I cannot know how far that flood of capital has reached, but I am very confident in speculating that a lot of bare sites have firmly committed options on them, and things just haven’t progressed far enough for me to have seen an app go to the BRA. So while it’s fun to play the game of “a stadium could go here, or there, or over there…” – I’ve played the game, too – those sites might be committed to someone else already.

If I were on either side of such an option, optionee or optionor, would I be obliged to hit the pause button for 10 years for the Olympics? Not unless the city or state used eminent domain, and that’s been ruled out. Could I be convinced to hit the pause button for 10 years? Sure, if someone throws enough cash my way. That’s one hot market out there, so it’s going to be a lot of cash to make me wait ten years. And I’d probably not want to take the risk of uncertainty on what the market there looks like in 10 years: the transportation planning failures could choke it to death, there could be a recession then, etc. So I’d more likely negotiate for Boston 2024 to pay me enough to just sell completely (or forfeit my option if that’s the side I’m on) and go away. In such scenarios, Boston 2024 would be negotiating with both a landowner and an option holder, in an ultra-hot market. Get your checkbooks out, ladies and gentlemen.

These considerations in the Seaport might be exactly why Boston 2024 drew the stadium at Widett in the first place. They may have already gotten rebuffed by the owners and optionees at all the large enough parcels in the Seaport. Or, if not outright rebuffed, they may have seen asking prices that they choked on. But now that they're grasping the financial hurdles of decking over the T yards, maybe they're going back to those folks in the Seaport for another round of negotiation, at a higher price.

This is all speculation: fun, ain't it? But has Boston 2024 achieved "proof of concept", for either their stadium or the athletes' village? Um.....

I think Corcoran might be on to something with HIS speculation quoted above, "I don't think they really expected to win this thing."

 

[tangent]

Very few unbuilt parcels of sufficient size, so yes it is somewhat obvious what the options are. If the private landowners want too much money, then behind the Convention center it should go. The smaller venues and practice areas are somewhat easier to move around. Seems like a no brainer to move the proposed main stadium at this point with the decking/relocation issues with Widett Circle that create uncertainty and extra costs. If they don't switch soon, as-in the next few months, then the whole bid is really in jeopardy and it will likely be the last time Boston is in a position with available space to host an Olympics so close to downtown.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Only heard it once, but what do you think of rumor that Boston 2024 people didn't actually think they'd win this time?

EDIT: LOL, I guess the "rumor" I heard was the quote in the Dorchester Reporter article quoted above.

 

[Equilibria]

I think Corcoran might be on to something with HIS speculation quoted above, "I don't think they really expected to win this thing."

I think what Corcoran meant by that was "I don't think they expected to win the bid," not "I don't think they expect to win the Games." If so, that's not a bad guess. Logically, LA would have been the smarter choice, and I'm sure Boston 2024 knew that.

 

[West]

I think what Corcoran meant by that was "I don't think they expected to win the bid," not "I don't think they expect to win the Games." If so, that's not a bad guess. Logically, LA would have been the smarter choice, and I'm sure Boston 2024 knew that.

That's what I understood him to mean, and what I meant, too, when I concurred with his guess.

It would have made perfect sense for Boston boosters to get their name into the mix, with the understanding that cities often don't get picked by their own country's OC on the first go-round. So cities often lob in a decent-looking bid to raise their profile with their OC and the IOC, then make the hard run on their second try.

In such a plan, if LA won at both the USOC and the IOC, oh well, no harm no foul, try again in 2044. But if LA got the USOC bid but was shot down by the IOC for 2024 Games, then the pressure for an American city would only grow for 2028. And Boston would have gotten their name into the mix at USOC and IOC and that could have jump-started the conversation locally, with four additional years for it to percolate into a better though out plan and with better local support. That's a scenario that makes a great deal of maneuvering sense to me. I have no idea if that was their plan, but it makes sense.

If we learn later that Boston 2024 was angling that way, and was taken aback by winning the USOC's support, the USOC will come off looking like idiots. After all, what was Boston supposed to say, "um, we were just teeing ourselves up for a run next go-round, we're sort of stunned to get this, and haven't really laid the ground work back home, so, er, um ....."

As you say, LA was the logical choice, and Boston 2024 must have known that.

Actually as interesting to me is the question of whether the USOC will stand firm with their support of Boston. It's an organization that seems to inflict a fair-amount of self-generated turmoil on itself.