Boston 2024

Shaughnessy op ed in the sports section of the Boston Globe about the screwed up bid concludes with these paragraphs.

OK, maybe we should give them another look. Here’s an interesting event at the Ritz on June 17: “Lasting Benefits for Olympic Host Cities.’’ The press release from the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce explains that the panel moderator will be former Channel 4 sports reporter and Olympian Alice Cook. According to the release, Cook is “a silver medalist in pair figure skating from the 1978 Winter Olympic Games.’’

Alas, the talented Ms. Cook did not win a medal and there were no “1978 Winter Olympic Games.’’ Cook skated for the US in Innsbruck in the 1976 Winter Olympics.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ter-another/mz6V3eKfXgBtHWUwIzlzFJ/story.html
 
So the talented Mr. Shaughnessy has lowered himself to playing gotcha with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to make Boston 2024 look stupid?

Of more concern is the part of that article where Boston 2024 is still trying to sell this as an economic development project first. Shooting money out of cannons would be a better investment. You either buy into the concept of the Olympics as a worthy human endeavor... Or not
 
Dan Shaughnessy should get together with Howie Carr and the can be grumpy old men together.
 
Another article in the Globe today: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...cy-planning/vn3BgdtZUtWwzOBA8IBjSJ/story.html

Report calls for overseeing Olympics agency

By Mark Arsenault GLOBE STAFF JUNE 09, 2015

State lawmakers should establish and fund a new public commission with the power to impose binding conditions on Boston’s Olympic bid, and the responsibility of overseeing a vast planning effort to guide the long-term legacy of the Games, according to a new report by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and two other planning organizations.

“It is especially important that a single entity take responsibility for convening . . . interested parties, keeping everyone engaged, raising and addressing key questions, and making sure that the legacy impacts of the Games remain front and center,” according to a copy of the report shared with the Globe. “To date, no one has filled that role.”

The three-month study, scheduled to be released Tuesday, acknowledges potential benefits and possible harms of hosting the Games, but does not directly take a side in the noisy public debate over whether the city should get behind a proposal to bring the 2024 Summer Games to Boston and other venues in Massachusetts.

“The Olympic bid — like many powerful ideas — carries with it the prospect of great reward, and the risk of great failure,” states the report, which was prepared by the Planning Council, Transportation for Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance.

The report, which suggests that intensive planning would give the region the best chance of developing a successful legacy from a bid, offers dozens of recommendations for public officials and Olympic planners in the areas of transportation, housing, and the environment. It also makes specific proposals regarding three key venue sites: Widett Circle, Columbia Point, and the Beacon Yards area.

“The first step is to ask the right questions, and the most important question is this: How can we leverage the planning and investment for the Olympic Games to make Greater Boston a more connected, livable, and prosperous region — regardless of whether our bid is chosen, and even after the Games are over?” the report reads.

Marc Draisen, director of the Planning Council, said a new Olympic Planning Commission would not replace or duplicate the role of Boston 2024, a private nonprofit that would remain in charge of finalizing the bid and trying to win the Games. A new public commission, he said, would be better positioned to coordinate permitting for venues, and involve municipal governments in the planning for the Games.

“There is a need for coordination across city lines,” he said in an interview.

In their 50-page report, the planning organizations offered support for public infrastructure spending related to the Games that “would be worthwhile investments even if Boston were not to be awarded the Olympics,” taking a position similar to those of Mayor Martin J. Walsh and Governor Charlie Baker.

The report also calls for Boston 2024 to apply some of its private funding to public infrastructure, such as pedestrian and biking improvements at JFK/UMass Station and nearby Kosciuszko Circle, near the proposed site of an athlete’s village on land owned by the University of Massachusetts Boston.

“The public has a legitimate role to play in repairing, modernizing, and expanding infrastructure that will last beyond the Games, just as the private sector has a role to play in supporting improvements that will advance the Olympic bid and make the Games more successful,” the report states.

The report endorses the use of what it calls “value capture” public financing to pay for infrastructure, which can use future increases in tax revenue created by infrastructure improvements to help pay for those improvements.

“It is the way public infrastructure is financed all around the US and all over the world,” Draisen said.

Boston 2024’s original venue plan proposed this type of financing arrangement to pay for infrastructure in Widett Circle, where the committee wants to build a temporary Olympic stadium. The committee redacted the financing proposal from bid documents released to the public in January, and was heavily criticized for editing the information after the original documents came to light in May through public records requests.

Boston 2024 has pledged to release a new venue plan this month that will provide more detailed revenue and cost estimates for the Games, and explain how the committee intends to finance the two most challenging Olympic facilities: the stadium and the athletes’ village. The bid committee has long said a Boston Olympics would be compact and walkable, though the first venue announced under the new plan moved Olympic sailing from Boston Harbor to Buzzards Bay off New Bedford. The majority of the venues are expected to stay in and around Boston under the new plan.

The report recommended that Boston 2024 do more to encourage bike travel, such as contributing planning expertise and money to “a connected network of high-quality protected bike lanes for spectators to travel between venues and other destinations.” Also, Olympic venues should have ample bike parking and Hubway bike share stations, the report states. The report also suggests Boston 2024 explore a new ferry service to connect Olympic venues along the Charles River — a venture that could live on after the Games as a commuter ferry or water taxi service.

On housing, the report warns that some prior Olympics have resulted in the displacement of residents. To prevent this, the report says, state and city governments should adopt tenant protections, among other recommendations.

“This package should prohibit the following: no-fault evictions during the year preceding the Games, summer surcharges or other temporary rent increases, and/or ‘short-leases’ designed to end before the Games begin,” the report states.
 
I want to be part of the group that oversees all the overseeing groups.
 
Well, I don't trust you, so clearly we will need...
 
I don't have high hopes for Mayor Walsh surviving beyond his first term. He's hanging himself with the Olympics. Meanwhile Charlie Baker who really only inherited all of this crap at the state level is looking like a political genius for doing absolutely nothing other than waiting for Boston 2024 to finally drown themselves.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2015/06/09/marty-walsh-boston-2024-bid-book/

Boston mayors don't lose elections. He could literally murder someone and he would be reelected from jail.

Seriously though, if the bid falls apart or doesn't get selected then he can say we tried and it was just a distraction and nothing more. If we host the Olympics and it ends up being a fiscal fiasco then he gets blamed but that will be closer to 2024 or even several years after wards if predictions made for the public financing prove unworkable.
 
I want to be part of the group that oversees all the overseeing groups.

I would like to see politicians stop trying to pass the buck to powerless unelected committees that are stacked with do nothing political hack yes-men. Show up one day a month and rubber stamp things and get free health insurance, a bullet point on your resume and a political favor to be named later... The governor should be the convening authority for oversight and coordinating public agencies that need to be involved.
 
I would like to see politicians stop trying to pass the buck to powerless unelected committees that are stacked with do nothing political hack yes-men. Show up one day a month and rubber stamp things and get free health insurance, a bullet point on your resume and a political favor to be named later... The governor should be the convening authority for oversight and coordinating public agencies that need to be involved.

Except he clearly isn't willing to play that role. He's keeping this all at an arm's length - smart politically, sure, but it means that it's an absolute mess in terms of coordination. These games cannot be contained to just Boston and some type of regional coordination needs to happen.
 
Except he clearly isn't willing to play that role. He's keeping this all at an arm's length - smart politically, sure, but it means that it's an absolute mess in terms of coordination. These games cannot be contained to just Boston and some type of regional coordination needs to happen.

We will see. It is up to Boston 2024 to put forward a viable plan before Baker needs to step up to help make it happen.

And to your point about Boston... Even if 90% of the games happen in Boston then we are still talking about a number of different state agencies that need to coordinate and dedicate resources to the planning process.
 
Two more updates this morning:

Globe: Boston 2024 picks Dorchester park for tennis venue

Olympic planners have chosen Dorchester and the site of the first African-American-founded non-profit tennis club in the country, as the venue for Olympic tennis should Boston be chosen host of the 2024 Summer Games.

The Olympic bid committee, Boston 2024, is expected to announce Thursday it will propose to bring the world’s best tennis players to Harambee Park, home to the 54-year-old Sportsmen’s Tennis & Enrichment Center, on Blue Hill Avenue, according to two people familiar with the plans.

Globe: Boston 2024 eyes Seaport to relocate food wholesalers

The organizers behind Boston’s Olympics bid are eyeing a 28-acre site on the outskirts of the teeming Seaport District for the seafood distributors and meat packers that could be displaced by a proposed stadium.

Should that move to the industrial section of the South Boston Waterfront take place, Mayor Martin J. Walsh is floating the idea of expanding the wholesalers’ new home to include a public food market similar to a popular tourist attraction in Seattle.
 


I'd like to have seen a quote from a Sportsmen's Tennis and Enrichment Center representative about how thrilled they are to be proposed as the tennis site, etc, etc, and how being an Olympics site can complement and supplement their regular summer programs and not displace them, etc, etc, and how the Olympics ops budgets can build and dismantle the temporary stadium(s) and leave behind cash to spruce up Harambee Park, etc, etc. (I perceive all that as feasible, by the way, though it's not a given.)

Perhaps the Globe writer was being lazy and rushed to the web with the basics, and such a quote will come in a later posting. They tend to do that with first announcement stories on the web (this was not in the hard copy globe this morning).

I mean, B2024 could not possibly have once again proposed a site and announced it without contacting the pertinent local stakeholders. Right? Right? Amirite? They just couldn't have.....
 
Last edited:
Two more updates this morning:

Globe: Boston 2024 picks Dorchester park for tennis venue

I'd like to have seen a quote from a Sportsmen's Tennis and Enrichment Center representative about how thrilled they are to be proposed as the tennis site, etc, etc, and how being an Olympics site can complement and supplement their regular summer programs and not displace them, etc, etc, and how the Olympics ops budgets can build and dismantle the temporary stadium(s) and leave behind cash to spruce up Harambee Park, etc, etc. (I perceive all that as feasible, by the way, though it's not a given.)

Perhaps the Globe writer was being lazy and rushed to the web with the basics, and such a quote will come in a later posting. They tend to do that with first announcement stories on the web (this was not in the hard copy globe this morning).

I mean, B2024 could not possibly have once again proposed a site and announced it without contacting the pertinent local stakeholders. Right? Right? Amirite? They just couldn't have.....

We'll see, but it could also be that the club gave their permission, but doesn't want to be associated with the announcement or to endorse the bid, given the possible response from neighborhood people.
 
Why wouldn't they just locate the stadium there?

Because it's far better and more economically lucrative land use to prioritize dockside property for businesses who take dockside deliveries. A bunch of seafood wholesalers are already located adjacent to that spot. Frankly, I'm not sure why it's taken them so long to put 2-and-2 together that this is the most efficient place to site the city's consolidated meat/seafood packing district. Strictly on the economics of that industry and the economies of scale from having all the shipping concentrated in one area instead of 2. Not for any reason of "Midtown" somehow becoming any more feasibly buildable because of it.

The Food Market probably could've been enticed years ago to move here and consolidate facilities with the existing seafood places were it not for the decades of mistrust with the city/state/BRA and bunkered-in mentality. They've clearly been willing to sell, and somebody with a brain there clearly had to have seen the efficiency gains of going to the seaport where the other seafood vendors are. But getting those small vendors at the FM on the same page is like herding cats and the animosity with the city runs generations deep. So it takes something like this to get a conversation going that should've happened years ago.


At worst, if they relocate we get better wholesale food prices because the trucking node consolidates to one site and gains boat access. And the vacated space at Widett can be used for some rotating cast of "ugly" municipal or transportation uses until somebody finds a master plan worth building. At best..."Midtown". But Midtown's overall feasibility doesn't change as a result, because they still have to come up with a plan that's feasible within-cost and within-impacts.
 
Are any of these moves, land-swaps, etc. contingent on actually getting the 2024 Olympics? In other words, is this all theoretical?

Or will there be shovels in the ground even before the 2016 referendum?
 

So again we have a Widett article almost completely about finding a new home for the food wholesalers, but, towards the end, we see the 900 pound gorilla edging its way into the conversation:

Even if Boston 2024 can relocate the wholesalers, its Widett-related headaches might not be resolved. The Olympics organizers would need to prepare the land and adjacent acreage for the 2024 Summer Games — and for subsequent commercial development — without interrupting the active train tracks in the area. That would probably involve obtaining air rights to build over the tracks.

It would also very certainly involve finding the cash to build in those air rights, also without interrupting the active train tracks and train repair facilities in the area. The 900 pound gorilla is clearing its throat, as in “ahem, you gotta deal with ME … I’m not going away …”

Near the end of the article, Mayor Walsh reveals a certain bias that so many people share (I do not claim he’s worse than most people on this):

“Widett Circle is an unbelievable opportunity for economic development,” Walsh said. “Put the Olympics aside for a minute. . . . As far as close to downtown, it’s the last undeveloped piece of land left.”

Um, NO. It is NOT economically undeveloped land. Low-slung food distribution is a form of economic development, one that I acknowledge could be elsewhere. But the railroad storage and repair facilities are not only economically developed land, they are the precise kinds of developed land that make Boston’s downtown possible in the first place. That empty parcel they talk about out at the seaport? THAT is undeveloped land. Putting a deck over Widett is a wildly expensive and cumbersome way to stack new development on top of existing development, it is the development of currently undeveloped land. So far, similar schemes to stack new development over the MassPike have generally fallen through. The private sector trying to build those new developments want/need/demand (take your pick) more help than the air rights holder is willing to provide. Are the Widett air rights really so much more valuable than the MassPike parcels in Back Bay or near Chinatown?

So it seems that in Bid Version 2.0 it will be either Widett or bust for the main stadium. By the time they provide 2.0 at the end of June, they’ve got to address that gorilla in the room.
 
Um, NO. It is NOT economically undeveloped land. Low-slung food distribution is a form of economic development, one that I acknowledge could be elsewhere. But the railroad storage and repair facilities are not only economically developed land, they are the precise kinds of developed land that make Boston’s downtown possible in the first place. That empty parcel they talk about out at the seaport? THAT is undeveloped land. Putting a deck over Widett is a wildly expensive and cumbersome way to stack new development on top of existing development, it is the development of currently undeveloped land. So far, similar schemes to stack new development over the MassPike have generally fallen through. The private sector trying to build those new developments want/need/demand (take your pick) more help than the air rights holder is willing to provide. Are the Widett air rights really so much more valuable than the MassPike parcels in Back Bay or near Chinatown?

I agree with you on the bias against light industrial and food distribution, but I don't entirely agree on the decking part. Widett can be developed without decking. The stadium can be built without decking. Decking improves pedestrian access wherever you do it, but that could be accomplished with very limited construction.

No one is talking about putting a deck over Widett. They're talking about putting a deck over Cabot Yards, which is an adjacent site. The Olympic Stadium would be built entirely on terra firma, currently occupied by the Boston Food Mart among others. So yes, whether the Food Mart can be moved is the #1 issue for Boston 2024 to address in determining the feasibility of a Widett stadium.

Once you've done that, the Olympic Stadium (or "Midtown") could be built, perhaps with a very small deck over the rail loop, without affecting MBTA operations. The area between I-93 and Cabot Yard is approximately 43 acres, equivalent to Fan Pier and Seaport Square put together.

This isn't like the Mass Pike. You have ground to build on. The deck is indeed the 900-pound gorilla in the sense that Boston 2024 has proposed it and needs to either defend its funding or strike it from the plan, but it doesn't fatally impact the viability of the Olympic Stadium, and it definitely doesn't affect the viability of whatever Bob Kraft or anyone else wants to build on the site.
 

Back
Top