Boston 2024

It seems every article in the Globe is mocking the whole "walkable Olympics" thing as venues are moved around... But in this case the original proposal for the shooting event venue on Long Island would have been at least a two hour walk through Quincy from the proposed Olympic Village. So the original proposal wasn't walkable either.
 
It seems every article in the Globe is mocking the whole "walkable Olympics" thing as venues are moved around... But in this case the original proposal for the shooting event venue on Long Island would have been at least a two hour walk through Quincy from the proposed Olympic Village. So the original proposal wasn't walkable either.

True, but that's not actually the problem with spreading things out. The farther things are from Boston, the more Olympic lanes you need to reserve. Billerica, for instance, will require reserved lanes, probably 1 in each direction, on Route 128 for ten straight days. Then you can either reserve the same number on I-93 or on the Turnpike to reach Columbia Point.

I'm not familiar on whether those lanes need to be reserved 24-hours, or just during the times when athletes are moving. IIRC, reserved lanes are also mentioned in Agenda 2020 as one place the IOC is willing to cut back their demands. Regardless, that's the downside to going regional.
 
From the Dorchester Reporter, more to suggest that they're still looking at a deck over the entire MBTA yard:

http://www.dotnews.com/2015/private-master-developer-option-weighed-boston-s-olympic-venues

Under the master developer plan, in theory, the developer would bear the financial burden–or gain, at no cost to the city. Specifically at Midtown, a source involved with negotiations says discussions have revolved around building a deck over an existing MBTA yard to create a platform laden with lines for utilities and other resources necessary for a subsequent neighborhood. The platform could cost up to $1 billion.

This spring, the Midtown price tag was estimated to be $351 million, according to Boston 2024’s estimates reported in The Boston Foundation’s study of the Boston Games’ potential economic impact. The New Boston Food Market parcel, which occupies Widett Circle, has been previously assessed at $21 million.

The reporter is careful to note that the above is not certain to be in the final Bid 2.0"

Sources at Boston 2024 are careful to note that conversations have been fluid and no developer or specific plan of action has yet been finalized.

I am highly skeptical that this could conceivably work for any private developer, not without mountains of dollars of tax exemptions thrown at them. And even then I'm skeptical.
 
From the Dorchester Reporter, more to suggest that they're still looking at a deck over the entire MBTA yard:

http://www.dotnews.com/2015/private-master-developer-option-weighed-boston-s-olympic-venues



The reporter is careful to note that the above is not certain to be in the final Bid 2.0"



I am highly skeptical that this could conceivably work for any private developer, not without mountains of dollars of tax exemptions thrown at them. And even then I'm skeptical.

Well, the deck seems to be contingent on finding a developer. That's encouraging. I also don't buy the $1 billion figure. We've estimated the deck to be more like $100 million on AB, and while I realize that there are complications with whatever this utility scheme turns out to be, it's more likely that the Dorchester Reporter misassociated a figure for some portion of the development itself.
 
Town manager John Curran said Billerica is already undertaking a $26 million road project in the area, which can help handle any Olympic-related traffic. “We will certainly do anything we can as a town to work with 2024 to make it happen,” he said.

I wonder if that will involve building a new entrance to the club from the Billerica side of the town line, as the entrance to the club is currently on Francis Wyman Road in Burlington.
 
I am highly skeptical that this could conceivably work for any private developer, not without mountains of dollars of tax exemptions thrown at them. And even then I'm skeptical.

If the post-Olympics site plan allows for intensely dense redevelopment of this newly decked site (like FAR 25+ density), I could imagine the project being able to work. FAA height allowance over Widett is between 350' to 400'.

So if the entire site of is about 75 acres, lets pretend 50 acres are actually developable after the plan... that's a little more than 2,000,000 square feet (43,560 sq. ft. per acre). For the sake of my argument, lets say 100% of new development will be housing (obviously I'm a proponent for mixed-use, but just go with this).

2 million sq. ft. of developable "land" (i.e. deck) up to 40 stories high at overall FAR of 25...

2,000,000 x 25 = 50,000,000 sq. ft.
...
Average unit size = 1,000 sq. ft. (range of studios, 1's, 2's, and 3-beds averaged out).
% of building as common space/utility: 20%
...
So 40,000,000 sq. ft. / 1,000 sq. ft. = 40,000 housing units

40,000 housing units.

Let that sink in.

Even if developers only built half that many housing units here, the project could definitely be feasible. The key is the accessibility and connectivity between the rest of the city. Improvement of red line + silver line access; expansion of South Station; connecting the S. End, Fort Point, and Southie street grids. This isn't unreasonable, and frankly it's necessary for Boston to fulfill its 54,000 housing units goal.

The demand is there for housing, hotel, and office development of this magnitude, this close to downtown. If our zoning policies are rewritten through the course of Boston 2024 + Imagine Boston 2030 to reflect this reality--to let developers build this density as of right--then this can all be done without a dime of public investment or tax abatement.

(sorry for my 'F-Line to Dudley'-length post... hope you read it and discuss)
 
I know they just announced the Harambee Park location, but what are your thoughts about the Longwood Cricket Club as a potential venue? In my estimation, it is a well-located venue (closer to Chestnut Hill station than the Harambee site is to Talbot) with a long professional tennis history, and while space for back-of-house facilities may be a hair tight, the grounds should be able to handle it.
 
Maybe someone could do the math on what yearly property taxes would be on the Midtown "Legacy" proposal as it was put forward:

111.png


One problem with using a TIF is that the development to pay for the decking and other infrastucture for Widett would happen so long after the Olympics. But the bonds would need to be paid back sooner than that. I don't see how the math could actually work to repay the bonds in a more normal 20 year period. It isn't like they can flip a switch and have all that built in 2025. More like 2035 or 2040 even.
 
Volleyball at Squantum Point Park in Quincy

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...or-patience/mNyHg21pKsfqYfhqRdjj9H/story.html

Boston 2024 wants to hold beach volleyball in Quincy

By Mark Arsenault GLOBE STAFF JUNE 16, 2015

Boston 2024 is expected to float the idea Wednesday of holding beach volleyball, one of the most popular Olympic events, at Squantum Point Park in Quincy, according to people familiar with the plans. Those plans are apparently not final, they said, and depend on how the community receives the proposal to host the event.

Boston 2024, the local Olympic bid committee, declined to comment Tuesday night.

The area has a history with the sport: the Association of Volleyball Professionals played a four-day tournament there in 2007.

Beach volleyball had originally been proposed for Boston Common, a historic spot where Olympic planners figured the State House would make a great background for TV coverage. The idea was cribbed from the London’s 2012 Summer Games, where beach volleyball was played in a temporary stadium in Horse Guards Parade ground in Central London.

But the Common proposal seemed to raise more opposition from the public than any other venue.

The Friends of the Public Garden board of directors, for instance, asked the bid committee in March to move beach volleyball, which had been proposed for a 16,000-seat temporary stadium on the Common.

The committee has begun releasing venue proposals this month from its new finance and venue plan, which Boston 2024 has promised to unveil in full by the end of June.

The committee announced the previous venues, such as sailing in New Bedford and tennis in Dorchester, in a less tentative way.

In remarks Tuesday afternoon, Steve Pagliuca, chairman of Boston 2024, pleaded for patience and for a “robust public debate” on the bid committee’s new budget and venue plan.

“I hope the opposition will wait,” he said, in his first major public remarks since becoming head of the bid committee in May. “Let’s get the plan out there and have a robust discussion.”

Pagliuca, a Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics, addressed a technology-minded audience of several hundred at BostInno’s State of Innovation Forum, at the Westin Waterfront hotel. His remarks were billed as a keynote “fireside chat.”

Pagliuca spoke without notes, responding to questions from Chase Garbarino, cofounder and chair of Streetwise Media. Boston 2024 is listed among the sponsors of the event.

Pagliuca said “the numbers seem to say” Boston could host affordable Games that make money.

In part through lucrative TV and sponsorship deals, the host committee could see up to $5 billion in revenue, he said.

At the same time, the International Olympic Committee approved reforms last year designed to reduce the cost of staging the Games.

He said other US cities have defied skeptics by holding successful Olympics, so why can’t Boston?

Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City “came out with Games that made a profit and transformed [those] cities,” he said.

In response, Chris Dempsey, a cochair of the opposition group No Boston Olympics, said the committee’s original revenue plan from January was not financially balanced and would have put taxpayers on the hook for cost overruns.

“Boston 2024 has had more than two years to produce a plan that works — what’s the holdup?” Dempsey said in a statement.

Pagliuca suggested the Olympics could be one of the most potent economic development opportunities for Boston in decades.

He said the committee’s new Olympic operating budget will project a surplus and that there would be no displacement of residents to build Olympic venues; displacements have raised controversies in past Olympics, such as London 2012.

More venues are expected to be proposed outside of Boston as the new venue plan is rolled out, leading critics to suggest the bid committee has abandoned its philosophy of staging a “walkable” Olympics with most venues within a short walk of transit stations in and around the city.

Pagliuca said “we’re still going to have a compact Games,” with most venues — 25 or more — in the immediate Boston area.

The most important parts of the new venue plan are yet to be released, including more detailed projections of Olympic costs and revenues, and specific plans for an Olympic stadium at Widett Circle and an athletes village at UMass Boston.

Mark Arsenault can be reached at mark.arsenault@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @bostonglobemark.
 
...The demand is there for housing, hotel, and office development of this magnitude, this close to downtown. If our zoning policies are rewritten through the course of Boston 2024 + Imagine Boston 2030 to reflect this reality--to let developers build this density as of right--then this can all be done without a dime of public investment or tax abatement.

(sorry for my 'F-Line to Dudley'-length post... hope you read it and discuss)

I won’t debate the specific numbers you toss out, but you’re right generally: a whole lot of something could get built there and earn some developer (or developers) a whole lot of money – in TODAY’s market conditions, with TODAY’s demand.

Without a dime of public investment or tax abatement? I am highly doubtful. As Tangent mentions, there’s the huge lag time between all the upfront expenses and the payback to a developer. You mention the strong demand. Yes, strong demand NOW. Between now and 20-whatever-year-it-is when the investment returns start rolling in, there will be at least one recession if not two, and Boston has had some wicked sharp real estate slumps. Boston has also experienced decades-long doldrums, too, and within living memory. Projecting Boston’s currently wonderful economy out to the year 2030 is a mug’s game. The uncertainties for every aspect of the global economy, and Boston’s, are just too great. The demand you correctly note in today’s world could be gone like a fart in a hurricane by 2024. Or everything could still be awesome. The point is, none of us know.

Wealthy investors can make so much money in the shorter term these days and in fact are doing so all over Boston. Why would they tie up that much money and then wait so long to get to the returns? Just because they think today’s returns will still be gushing forth in 2025 and beyond? For that long a wait, they’ll want something awaiting them in the future, something more than just long-range market uncertainty: they’ll want tax benefits of some sort. And on that front, along with the market uncertainties are the multiple changes of regime that can happen at City or State levels, there’s so much risk of the rug getting pulled out from under later on.

So I cannot believe there won’t be a need for taxpayers to carry debt service on some sort of bridge financing (whether TIF bonds or other) to get from the status quo to that distant point when the site is post-Games build-ready. And I’m guessing there will be some sort of taxpayer-provided carrot dangling out in the future. This does not mean I will think it's a bad plan when it's released.

On the urban design front, the schematics they’ve released (re-posted by Tangent above) do not show very good connectivity to the rest of the city, not to points West or South of Widett. To the East, the deck will raise the new neighborhood up a full story above edge Dot Ave, that’ll make for an odd interface to Dot Ave itself and Southie more generally.

Also, I am very leery of the design outcomes that could result from having just one developer selected.

Lastly, you said you were sorry for your 'F-Line to Dudley'-length post. You didn’t really get to that length, and IMHO should never apologize for either aspiring to such a lofty goal or falling short of it. I’m not going to.
 
On the urban design front, the schematics they’ve released (re-posted by Tangent above) do not show very good connectivity to the rest of the city, not to points West or South of Widett. To the East, the deck will raise the new neighborhood up a full story above edge Dot Ave, that’ll make for an odd interface to Dot Ave itself and Southie more generally.
.

They are proposing the City's largest cul-de-sac.
 
On the urban design front, the schematics they’ve released (re-posted by Tangent above) do not show very good connectivity to the rest of the city, not to points West or South of Widett. To the East, the deck will raise the new neighborhood up a full story above edge Dot Ave, that’ll make for an odd interface to Dot Ave itself and Southie more generally.

While I too would want to see good connections to increase the permeability of the city, if they don't materialize it isn't the end of the world. Those connections don't exist now. Right now there is a train yard between Southie and the South End. Nothing gets "worse" if there are apartments there instead of a train yard.

At a bare minimum there will be pedestrian and bike bridges over the interstate and frontage roads. That might be better than opening any kind of automobile access.
 
While I too would want to see good connections to increase the permeability of the city, if they don't materialize it isn't the end of the world. Those connections don't exist now. Right now there is a train yard between Southie and the South End. Nothing gets "worse" if there are apartments there instead of a train yard.

"Midtown" does block the possibility of an eventual realignment of I93. In 50 to 60 years as the current highway infrastructure needs repair or replacement, we could realign I93 and move it toward the rail yard opening up the area West of I93 similar to a Beacon Yards Allston type of realignment and redevelopment.

There are simply better options for both a stadium and for redevelopment around the city.
 
"Midtown" does block the possibility of an eventual realignment of I93. In 50 to 60 years as the current highway infrastructure needs repair or replacement, we could realign I93 and move it toward the rail yard opening up the area West of I93 similar to a Beacon Yards Allston type of realignment and redevelopment.

There are simply better options for both a stadium and for redevelopment around the city.

Well, yes, I supposed a complete realignment of I93 50+ years in the future is a possibility. It is also a commitment to widett circle remaining widett circle for 50+ years. I don't see how that represents any redevelopment whatsoever.

I don't know about you, but I'll be dead in 50 years. And the Boston of 2065 will bear as much resemblance to the Boston of today as today's Boston does to that of 1965. Olympic stadium aside, what exactly is it that you or anyone else gains from a commitment to doing nothing?
 
Well, yes, I supposed a complete realignment of I93 50+ years in the future is a possibility. It is also a commitment to widett circle remaining widett circle for 50+ years. I don't see how that represents any redevelopment whatsoever.

I don't know about you, but I'll be dead in 50 years. And the Boston of 2065 will bear as much resemblance to the Boston of today as today's Boston does to that of 1965. Olympic stadium aside, what exactly is it that you or anyone else gains from a commitment to doing nothing?

The rail yards and Food distribution center are actually useful for starters. So not displacing those facilities is a positive in my book. The floated proposal of moving the food distribution to the waterfront seems like a mediocre idea (which will require a change of the seaport use restriction anyway because most of the food is not fish and doesn't come off the boats there.) Also, some concern that putting that on the waterfront could leave it vulnerable to a surge from even a Cat 1 Hurricane or significant Nor'Easter which could make unusable a significant food distribution center for a period of time. I see that as a slight negative.

Also, I see plenty of better opportunities for investment both in Boston and near the City. Sure you could say they are all going to get done, but better located areas have languished for decades without investment, so focusing investment here takes investment away from more deserving areas that have greater potential to make for great developments.

If it is a temporary stadium, then why tie it to a site that is much more challenging to build on than at least two other locations in the immediate area. Delay the Convention expansion and build the temp stadium there, or put the stadium on the waterfront where they are proposing to move the food distribution center for starters. Both are locations largely controlled by the state and would be better locations (which might actually win the bid).

Or other places in the city like Beacon Yards in Allston which would align the stadium with the University Cluster at Harvard, BU and MIT. Or even just save a billion dollars and hold the ceremonies at Gillette Stadium... probably won't win the bid but it is already built.

But fundamentally I have serious doubts that an affordable stadium at Widett will win the bid over Paris' Stade de France. From what we have seen of the possibilities at Widett I don't see the features of the stadium and the surrounding area comparing favorably with Stade de France which is just North of Paris center. The only thing Widett would have over Stade de France would be proximity to the downtown and "walkability" But if they cut back the costs it makes it less and less desirable to actually walk around down there if they leave any part of the area as-is. Just go on Google Streetview around the Stade de France and imagine how it would compare to a stadium at Widett...
 
Maybe someone could do the math on what yearly property taxes would be on the Midtown "Legacy" proposal as it was put forward:

111.png


.

I generated an excel spreadsheet earlier this year as part of my senior capstone project to do just this. Just need to punch in number (overall square footage, mix percentages, and then adapt the multipliers of valuation to Boston numbers.).

It uses the criteria as laid out in the ICC code books as a reference point for taxable valuation, so it won't be exact, but good ballpark.

Edit - so for hell of it. I punched in the raw numbers (your 50M sf of new buildings)without changing my mix. The valuation were based on a development in Brockton, so they are obviously lower than Boston. But the number comes out to about $140 per built square foot across all mixes.

Total property valuation of a shade over $7B, and total new property taxes to the City of a bit over $200M.

Not too shabby. Of course it's another 5 million+ gallons of water used per day (the real point of the spreadsheet I made). Not sure about how setup our infrastructure is for stuff like that.
 
Last edited:
Also, some concern that putting that on the waterfront could leave it vulnerable to a surge from even a Cat 1 Hurricane or significant Nor'Easter which could make unusable a significant food distribution center for a period of time.

You might want to redirect this flooding concern.

Widett Circle is actually MORE LIKELY to flood than the outer part of the Seaport District. Remember Widett Circle is in the middle of the old South Bay.

See flood projections for 2.5 ft of sea level rise:

http://www.tbha.org/images/south-boston-25-feet
 
You might want to redirect this flooding concern.

Widett Circle is actually MORE LIKELY to flood than the outer part of the Seaport District. Remember Widett Circle is in the middle of the old South Bay.

See flood projections for 2.5 ft of sea level rise:

http://www.tbha.org/images/south-boston-25-feet

That's the one:

mhhw050_innerharbor_thebostonharborassociation_2010_slr_forum_creativecommons_by_sa_20110728.jpg


The would-be Seaport relocation site in the NW corner of Marine Terminal isn't exactly high-and-dry, but it's immediately adjacent to the majority of Marine T. property that does stay dry.

Widett, however, is basically the toilet bowl that everything in Ft. Point Channel gets flushed down. Only the wharves and landfilled Harbor Islands on shores of Dot Bay fare worse in the entire city.
 
You might want to redirect this flooding concern.

Widett Circle is actually MORE LIKELY to flood than the outer part of the Seaport District. Remember Widett Circle is in the middle of the old South Bay.

See flood projections for 2.5 ft of sea level rise:

http://www.tbha.org/images/south-boston-25-feet


Okay, that is pretty convincingly vulnerable as-is. The proposal to move the distribution facility out of widett is now a plus in my book. Although it would be better to move someplace else rather than the waterfront or split up the facility into smaller facilities. Either way the last thing you want for a few weeks after a major natural disaster is an otherwise preventable food shortage.
 

Back
Top