Boston 2024

[Equilibria]

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

Ok, sorry for reading in too much. It's also important to point out that LA really crapped the bed. It's not like the USOC went with the worst of the bids - they said Boston was the best, and I believe them. LA was proposing to do things like host events in theaters, and they have no transit plan that could remotely handle the games. SF wasn't serious as long as they were proposing a pop-up stadium on a reclamation site (at least Widett is buildable and it has transit access), and Washington DC had even less practical thinking behind it than Boston.

If Boston 2024 really didn't want this, their mistake was hiding (slightly) their own lack of experience and know-how, while the others let it shine through. Yet another reason why I don't for a second believe any other contender would be doing better than we are right now.

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.

I don't doubt it at all. Multiple USOC people are now on the Boston 2024 BOD. They're all-in.

 

[George_Apley]

at least Widett is buildable

I don't know the details of SF's plan for a pop-up, but it's very difficult at this point to confirm that Widet is "buildable". As far as I can tell it's the most specious part of the bid.

 

[rinserepeat]

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.

I wonder if the site between Pappas way and E street has been floated. only thing there now is a furniture store and a carpet place - and the rest, I believe, is owned by the USPS. definitely big enough for a stadium - would be disruptive to seaport traffic, though...

 

[tangent]

I don't doubt it at all. Multiple USOC people are now on the Boston 2024 BOD. They're all-in.

Yes this is moving forward. Boston 2024 has a lot to do and has made some mistakes, but I think they are going to start pulling plans together in the next few months.

 

[JohnAKeith]

That's what they said about New Coke.

 

[Equilibria]

I don't know the details of SF's plan for a pop-up, but it's very difficult at this point to confirm that Widet is "buildable". As far as I can tell it's the most specious part of the bid.

I'd argue that the Common Volleyball Stadium was the most specious part of the bid. Widett as they've proposed it is not buildable. Adding all the deck sections made no sense, and they'll be dropped if the concept remains by the end of the year. Building a pop-up stadium on the Widett footprint, however, is very doable within their budget. They just can't seem to resist tacking on expensive plazas that don't add much to function.

 

[tangent]

Building a pop-up stadium on the Widett footprint, however, is very doable within their budget. They just can't seem to resist tacking on expensive plazas that don't add much to function.

No possible way Boston wins the bid with an Olympic stadium wedged between elevated highway ramps and a train yard. USOC would either withdraw the bid or force a new location for the stadium. Decking the rail and adding an Olympic boulevard from South Station were what made this location viable. It is just way too expensive to do all that.

Here is an article which discusses the problems with the NY Olympic bid and the $600 million in public financing that they wanted to deck over a rail yard to build the stadium:
http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/05/04/boston-2024-compared-with-past-olympic-bids-for-new-york-2012-chicago-2016-video/

Seems almost the exact same situation. If Boston 2024 lingers on this site and the Volleyball and Veladrome sites from the proposal, then Boston 2024 loses. All the other locations seemed well placed by comparison.

 

[Equilibria]

No possible way Boston wins the bid with an Olympic stadium wedged between elevated highway ramps and a train yard. USOC would either withdraw the bid or force a new location for the stadium. Decking the rail and adding an Olympic boulevard from South Station were what made this location viable. It is just way too expensive to do all that.

Here is an article which discusses the problems with the NY Olympic bid and the $600 million in public financing that they wanted to deck over a rail yard to build the stadium:
http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/05/04/boston-2024-compared-with-past-olympic-bids-for-new-york-2012-chicago-2016-video/

Seems almost the exact same situation. If Boston 2024 lingers on this site and the Volleyball and Veladrome sites from the proposal, then Boston 2024 loses. All the other locations seemed well placed by comparison.

New York is not a fair comparison. They wanted to deck the stadium itself over the ramps, while Boston 2024 only wants to deck unnecessary filler.

Ask yourself the question this way: If Boston 2024 had proposed turning Dot Ave. from South Station to Old Colony into a grand "Olympic Boulevard" lined with flags and stalls, closed to vehicles for the duration the games opening onto a very short section of decked pedestrian plaza along the haul road to approach the stadium gate, do you think the IOC would reject that because the stadium happens to be situated next to a highway? Boston 2024 made a mistake not so much in the stadium concept, but in the "Midtown" concept that surrounded it.

The IOC didn't have any major objection to Rio using the Maracana, which is next to just as many rail tracks and road lanes in a far worse part of town. It didn't have any objection to London placing its whole Olympic Park in an industrial district surrounded by a freeway and several wide rail corridors. Stade de France has freeways on two sides and a river on the other two sides (albeit with a couple of buildings). Hamburg is proposing to clear out an industrial island in an active port facility. Many Olympic stadiums have had less-than-idyllic situation, and they are definitely no stranger to freeway ramps.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

No, the place where doubling-down on Widett sacks them for 3rd and 18 is:

1) Them not having the power to eminent domain the MBTA if the T doesn't like what they're offering as relocated accommodations. And anything that sticks the T with cost it can't afford for building replacements for the commuter rail and/or Red Line + bus maint buildings that won't fit under the air rights is a no-go. And even if Baker wrests total control away from the T having an independent say in their own matters, he's still today signaling hands-off enough about sticking his nose in on these sorts of matters that any impasse is going to run a lot of time off the clock.

2) The city's stated reluctance to eminent domain the Food Market. That one they do have the power to plow ahead on if they need to, but they have expressed their reluctance to do so because of the balancing act with the neighborhoods on disavowing any intention of residential land-taking. They definitely are not in a position to take a firmer stand--now--while trust is still so hard to come by with the nearby residents. While the Food Market will probably except a generous payout in the end, they are probably also going to run out a lot of clock in the staring contest to see who blinks first. It suits the Food Market's needs to drive up the price by dragging it out, because Walsh et al. tipped their hands first about really not wanting to go to the trouble of eminent domaining and the tenants know the tenuous situation with the neighborhoods' mistrust of eminent domain.



Either way it's the same scenario: they will not make very much progress on this plan in the interim staring contest and the clock will run down quite a bit. They don't--today--have much of a stomach for forcing eminent domain, and one of the parties can block them outright if they get shorted on the relocation compensation. Which they will, because what are the odds the pols' favorite political football isn't going to absorb more cost than was promised in the deal.



That's pinning hopes on a whole lot of trust that their whole gameplan is predicated on winning an 11th hour staring contest with the tenants. The technical infeasibility of the Widett plan as presently constituted doesn't exactly build lots of confidence that much of anyone in the organization is thinking--and plotting--too diligently about the execution mechanics of this whole site plan. This goes hand-in-hand with the how's and where's of them being able to drive those pilings into the ground in due time at a price tag that stays within cost projections.

Whether they have it in them to pull it off...well, that's why we watch with piqued interest on how this plays out. But they aren't exactly banking on the high-percentage play. It may not be too impossibly low-percentage a play, but they are going to have to give ample explanation to the USOC on why they should be trusted on this. Because the USOC has been at this long enough to know the difference between a high-percentage play and a low-percentage play and knows how to manage its risks. They have no problem telling Boston 2024 that they don't know how to manage their risks on delivering Widett.

 

[tangent]

New York is not a fair comparison. They wanted to deck the stadium itself over the ramps, while Boston 2024 only wants to deck unnecessary filler.

Ask yourself the question this way: If Boston 2024 had proposed turning Dot Ave. from South Station to Old Colony into a grand "Olympic Boulevard" lined with flags and stalls, closed to vehicles for the duration the games opening onto a very short section of decked pedestrian plaza along the haul road to approach the stadium gate, do you think the IOC would reject that because the stadium happens to be situated next to a highway? Boston 2024 made a mistake not so much in the stadium concept, but in the "Midtown" concept that surrounded it.

The IOC didn't have any major objection to Rio using the Maracana, which is next to just as many rail tracks and road lanes in a far worse part of town. It didn't have any objection to London placing its whole Olympic Park in an industrial district surrounded by a freeway and several wide rail corridors. Stade de France has freeways on two sides and a river on the other two sides (albeit with a couple of buildings). Hamburg is proposing to clear out an industrial island in an active port facility. Many Olympic stadiums have had less-than-idyllic situation, and they are definitely no stranger to freeway ramps.

Those successful examples have freeways and tracks ten times further away from the main stadium than Widett would have even with decking over the rail yard. We call that an order of magnitude difference and it matters.

They proposed what they needed to propose to get the bid. Its time to move the Olympic boulevard(s) and just put the stadium next to the convention center and deck over the haul rd as already planned. Volleyball and Velodrome can go almost anywhere else and the rest of the venues are well chosen, but the Olympic stadium is pretty key to hosting the games. Even the Olympic village proposal seems like a good basis for moving forward with a few thousand small adjustments. But Widett will either bust the bank or bust the bid.

Alone just the fact that the loss of the natural gas facility would mean having to switch to all electric buses for the MBTA should kill this proposed location. We can't switch to all electric buses in ten years.

At this point I think it is probably safe to assume Widett is off the table.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Fantastic. Based on emails between UMass Boston's Donahue Institute (the group that put together a (generally-positive) analysis of Boston 2024 a couple months ago for The Boston Foundation) and the Boston 2024 people, Boston 2024 will be looking for TIF to finance some of the development.

Source:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cq2q8yimkkb7szr/Memo to UMDI.docx?dl=0 (second to last page)

https://twitter.com/jfleming2870/status/596100243109851137 (Joel Fleming Tweet)

 

[datadyne007]

Budget details revealed...

Newly Released Boston 2024 Budget Details Contained in UMass Records
Recently obtained documents flesh out the Boston 2024 budget in greater detail than previously made available.

By Kyle Clauss | Boston Daily | May 8, 2015 3:45 p.m.

More specific budget numbers for key venues in Boston 2024’s Olympic bid are contained in the bundle of UMass emails and documents obtained by Boston lawyer Joel Fleming via public records request earlier this week. These numbers outline out the bid’s budget in greater detail than organizers have already publicly made available, though may not be up to date.

...

The numbers are broken down into OCOG (Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games) costs and non-OCOG costs. The $4.7 billion OCOG budget is privately funded and would cover the construction of temporary venues as well as the cost of putting on the games themselves. The $3.4 billion non-OCOG budget, separate from the operating budget, would be funded by a public/private partnership.

For each of these three venues, the non-OCOG cost is higher than the OCOG. While the total OCOG cost for the IBC/MPC have been budgeted within $200,000, nowhere are cost overruns factored in. UMDI senior researcher Mark Melnik asked Boston 2024 general counsel Emiley Lockhart about this in a December 11, 2014 email, also included in Fleming’s bundle.

...

The same document also breaks down OCOG and non-OCOG costs by sporting event. Many events are listed with a non-OCOG cost of zero. For example, a temporary, 7,000-person shooting range on Long Island is budgeted for $40 million entirely in OCOG, while a planned 10,000-person venue for handball is budgeted for $5 million in OCOG and $78.5 million in non-OCOG. The proposed velodrome track in Somerville’s Assembly Square, which Mayor Joe Curtatone has publicly opposed, is split, with $30 million budgeted in both OCOG and non-OCOG.

Boston 2024 Budgets on Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/264557695/Boston-2024-Budgets

Full article:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/05/08/boston-2024-budget-umass-records/

 

[HenryAlan]

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?

The area behind BCEC isn't a bad walk from Broadway. And of course there's the Silver Bus and the Back Bay DMU shuttle.

 

[tangent]

Budget details revealed...

Platform at Widett was listed as "-". Seems like billion dollar parts of this plan are designed to piss away as much money as humanly possible and get absolutely no long term benefit. Maybe Boston 2024 should just shoot thousand dollar bills out of cannons directly into toilets because that would draw a big crowd also.

So we are back to whether Massachusetts should spend billions and billions to get a few dorms and the "benefit" of a Midtown which will never pay any net property taxes and leach off city services for 20 years.


Sure hope this was the sacrificial over the top plan and not something anyone is taking seriously because this is any easy No. Not even in the same ballpark as a good plan.

 

[tangent]

Budget details revealed...

Platform at Widett was listed as "-". Seems like billion dollar parts of this plan are designed to piss away as much money as humanly possible and get absolutely no long term benefit. Maybe Boston 2024 should just shoot thousand dollar bills out of cannons directly into toilets because that would draw a big crowd also.

So we are back to whether Massachusetts should spend billions and billions to get a few dorms and the "benefit" of a Midtown which will never pay any net property taxes and leach off city services for 20 years.


Sure hope this was the sacrificial over the top plan and not something anyone is taking seriously because this is any easy No. Not even in the same ballpark as a good plan.

 

[CantabAmager]

Separate from the non-OCOG budget, the Boston 2024 Games will benefit from over $5.2B of public transportation infrastructure projects that are currently underway and are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 2013, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts authorized a bond bill to fund the 21st Century Transportation Plan “The Way Forward” which will invest $13.7B in transportation infrastructure over the next 10 years. All of the transportation infrastructure upgrade projects required for the Games will fall under this 21st Century Transportation Plan and Boston 2024 expects that all of these projects will be fully funded by the Commonwealth through the bond bill.

In other words. Boston 2024 has no intention (at this point) of contributing one penny to actually improving infrastructure, beyond what the State is already committed too. The 21st Century bonding authorization is already there, many of the projects are the current CIP for both construction and design - but the Commonwealth is going to execute these projects with or without the Olympics. For 2024 to have been claiming some nebulous improvement to mass transit for the past few months - without the intention of delivering is pathetic. And I actually like the concept of the Olympics - as an actual project, not a real estate/marketing exercise-cum-oh-shit-now-we-to-actually-come-with-a-plan scenario

 

[tangent]

In other words. Boston 2024 has no intention (at this point) of contributing one penny to actually improving infrastructure, beyond what the State is already committed too. The 21st Century bonding authorization is already there, many of the projects are the current CIP for both construction and design - but the Commonwealth is going to execute these projects with or without the Olympics. For 2024 to have been claiming some nebulous improvement to mass transit for the past few months - without the intention of delivering is pathetic. And I actually like the concept of the Olympics - as an actual project, not a real estate/marketing exercise-cum-oh-shit-now-we-to-actually-come-with-a-plan scenario

Actually the proposal is the opposite of investment in infrastructure. It appears that several billion are expected to come from the state for Olympic specific costs. That is money better spent elsewhere on infrastructure and protecting children.

I still think they can come up with a good plan. Maybe spend part of the bcec bond on the Olympic stadium next to the convention center instead, that was money down the toilet anyway and paid for by tourists and visitors via the hotel tax.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-leadership/cozhcVOBeNKiUNGja29h8H/story.html

Lesson hopefully learned: the USOC doesn't fuck around.

 

[Equilibria]

Actually the proposal is the opposite of investment in infrastructure. It appears that several billion are expected to come from the state for Olympic specific costs. That is money better spent elsewhere on infrastructure and protecting children.

I still think they can come up with a good plan. Maybe spend part of the bcec bond on the Olympic stadium next to the convention center instead, that was money down the toilet anyway and paid for by tourists and visitors via the hotel tax.

You can't have it both ways. If the plan proposed additional projects that weren't already laid out in the CIP and the Bond Bill, you'd be claiming that they're "Olympic-specific Costs" in the same manner you do here. When they propose nothing that isn't already planned, you claim that it's pointless to do the Olympics because all that stuff would happen anyway (which it wouldn't).

You're leaving Boston 2024 a no-win situation.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-leadership/cozhcVOBeNKiUNGja29h8H/story.html

Lesson hopefully learned: the USOC doesn't fuck around.

Good. It's pretty clear that things were spiraling as it was.

 

[tangent]

You can't have it both ways. If the plan proposed additional projects that weren't already laid out in the CIP and the Bond Bill, you'd be claiming that they're "Olympic-specific Costs" in the same manner you do here. When they propose nothing that isn't already planned, you claim that it's pointless to do the Olympics because all that stuff would happen anyway (which it wouldn't).

You're leaving Boston 2024 a no-win situation.

The convention center expansion was/is a money loser. But the point of expanding was to attract bigger events... What could be bigger than the Olympics? Makes sense to adapt the plan to make the Olympics happen. Worse case you are wasting a billion you were already going to waste. Rather than that billion and a billiion more on facilities you are going to tear down and that would necessitate another tax increase at some point.

Other existing venues can handle the events which were intended for the previously planned convention center expansion.

Better if Kraft gets on board with whatever stadium plan there is and agrees to buy the stadium after the Olympics. Or if it is behind BCEC, then they can convert it for their use.

Devils in the details. Spending hundreds of millions on extras like decking over the rail and still ending up with a mediocre site, then taking it all down in September 2024 just to make way for some buildings that won't be contributing to the tax base or for a few decades and really doing anything but drain investment from other areas.

I can accept some dollars down the drain, even a downside risk of a few hundred millions, just not billions down the hole.

It isn't no-win, just have to get benefits in line with the costs and nail down the big venues.