Boston 2024

[Equilibria]

Recall that the general Olympic money is available if and only if the venue is dedicated to the Olympics and torn down afterward. The only way Kraft gets it for free is if the public pays for it, and that's not going to happen.

What he gets (and not for free, he'd probably have to buy it) for paying the $1.5B cost of all of that stadium stuff is the land north of Widett.

Or, he could choose not to pay the $1.5B, and instead pay $100M or so for the Widett land, probably the same amount for the norther parcel (either way), perhaps another $50M or so to tear the temporary stadium down, and develop everything. Way more revenue, way less cost, still has a stadium, and his Foxboro land still makes money. Much, much better option.

I'm explaining the same thing over and over, so I'll stop.

 

[Arlington]

On another subject, the US networks are known to "overpay" for US Olympics (Los Angeles & Atlanta). The value of live sports, as one of the few things than can still attract a mass audience, is only going up. By 2024, US Broadcast rights are going to be killer-hot in demand (NBC vs FOX vs ABC/ESPN). Whichever US City gets the 2024 nod from the USOC, that's gotta be attractive to the IOC.

The networks will be aware that people "like" Boston, third only to Seattle and Portland OR in net favorability in 2012 Boston has a considerable edge vs the other Olympic condenders in net favorability:

BOS +35%
SFO +19%
WAS +05%
LAX -07% (more people think unfavorably of it than like it)

Raleigh, N.C. – The Pacific Northwest has a good reputation nationwide--the two most popular of the 21 prominent cities we asked about in our national poll last weekend are Seattle and Portland, OR. 57% of American voters see Seattle favorably and only 14% unfavorably, edging out Portland (52-12) by three points on the margin.

The most unpopular is Detroit, which only 22% see positively and 49% negatively. Americans have net-negative impressions of only two other of these cities: Oakland, CA (21-39) and Los Angeles (33-40).

Between the pack are Boston (52-17), Atlanta (51-19), Phoenix (49-18), Dallas (48-21), New York (49-23), New Orleans (47-24), Houston (45-22), Salt Lake City (43-20), Philadelphia (42-22), San Francisco (48-29), Baltimore (37-24), Las Vegas (43-33), Chicago (42-33), Cleveland (32-25), Washington, D.C. (44-39), and Miami (36-33).

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/04/seattle-tops-popularity-list-of-us-cities.html

 

[Equilibria]

On another subject, the US networks are known to "overpay" for US Olympics (Los Angeles & Atlanta). The value of live sports, as one of the few things than can still attract a mass audience, is only going up. By 2024, US Broadcast rights are going to be killer-hot in demand (NBC vs FOX vs ABC/ESPN). Whichever US City gets the 2024 nod from the USOC, that's gotta be attractive to the IOC.

NBC's fee to the USOC is, on average, $1.25B per games in the 2020-2030 decade.

http://thesportdigest.com/2014/05/t...tely-1-billion-dollars-over-the-2021-23-term/

That includes the Winter Olympics in Kazakhstan, so I think it's probably closer to $2B for a US games in 2024. I'm not sure how much of that goes to the host committee from USOC. Probably quite a bit.

 

[underground]

Yes but it is a key issue for whether the Olympics pay for themselves: how to pay for the 1 venue we *know* we have to build but we fear we'll have no use for after: the Olympic Stadium itself.

No, I know that. I'm just speculating (which we all are when it comes down to it) that the financials work out either way for Kraft. It's just a matter of which works out better, and if he might still go with the option that works out "less better" because it gets him some other amorphous benefit like "legacy" or "prestige."

 

[George_Apley]

Recall that the general Olympic money is available if and only if the venue is dedicated to the Olympics and torn down afterward. The only way Kraft gets it for free is if the public pays for it, and that's not going to happen.

Asking again since I got buried by this interesting conversation.

Any thoughts on why the IOC has this rule? Why would they require cities to demolish the venues to get TV $? I get that it saves the IOC money by spending less on a temporary structure rather than something more robust. Also in some places it can prevent IOC cash being spent on monuments that will sit empty in their host cities, bleeding money. For a city like Boston though, which needs a venue for a local team, the incentive to tear-down the stadium sucks.

 

[underground]

Personally, I think it sounds like the one carrot the IOC is willing to throw at a host city. "Can't afford a new stadium and don't have a use for one? Well, I guess you can have some of the money we were going to roll around naked in."

 

[Equilibria]

Asking again since I got buried by this interesting conversation.

Any thoughts on why the IOC has this rule? Why would they require cities to demolish the venues to get TV $? I get that it saves the IOC money by spending less on a temporary structure rather than something more robust. Also in some places it can prevent IOC cash being spent on monuments that will sit empty in their host cities, bleeding money. For a city like Boston though, which needs a venue for a local team, the incentive to tear-down the stadium sucks.

You did get buried. I completely missed your question...

I can guess at a couple of reasons. First, they don't want Olympic money spent on non-Olympic venues. Don't think of the main stadium, but rather something like the Tae Kwon Do venue or broadcast center. They don't want cities milking Olympic money for buildings that yes, technically can host events but in reality are intended for something else.

Second, they want Governments to shell out big and not depend on sponsorships and revenue. There are hopes that this is changing after Sochi, but to put it in the Boston context, they don't want Boston thinking that they'll only spend $4.5B on the Games. Ideally, they want $10B, with public funds going into beautiful white elephants.

Also, remember that not every government that bids for the Olympics will handle private money as responsibly as Massachusetts (yes, yes, I know)...

 

[Arlington]

There are hopes that this is changing after Sochi, but to put it in the Boston context, they don't want Boston thinking that they'll only spend $4.5B on the Games. Ideally, they want $10B, with public funds going into beautiful white elephants.

It still seems possible that Kraft would pay $400m for a keeper Soccer Specific Stadium as the core, and the Olympic Committee'd pay for a ring of upper-outer seats and a partial enclosure that only get used during the Olympics (as other cities have done: a half-permanent, half-temporary stadium). And that Gillette would make some kind of sponsor/donation/pre-purchase of the naming rights (Like Gillette Edge Stadium)

And that Kraft would just get the "outer ring footprint" for redevelopment. Still a good deal, given the location.

 

[Equilibria]

It still seems possible that Kraft would pay $400m for a keeper Soccer Specific Stadium as the core, and the Olympic Committee'd pay for a ring of upper-outer seats and a partial enclosure that only get used during the Olympics (as other cities have done: a half-permanent, half-temporary stadium). And that Gillette would make some kind of sponsor/donation/pre-purchase of the naming rights (Like Gillette Edge Stadium)

And that Kraft would just get the "outer ring footprint" for redevelopment. Still a good deal, given the location.

First I think $400M is a bit rich for an SSS. Second, private Olympic money can't fund the outer ring of seats. The remaining $300M or so would have to be public, or possibly funded by ticket sales, I'm not entirely clear on the specific stipulations of the policy.

That's the issue the BBJ threw in to the mix. There is a tremendous financial difference between temporary and partially-temporary, even if logically there shouldn't be one. There's also a pretty big construction cost difference, since supporting members and foundations and such need to be much more solidly constructed if anything on the site is going to be permanent.

 

[lexicon506]

Boston 2024 is currently (I think) a state-funded exploratory committee, but it will ultimately be an independent non-profit funded through private donations. They can make the decision based on whatever they want.

Boston 2024 is and has always been an independent non-profit funded through private donations that will continue to be an independent non-profit funded through private donations for the entirety of the Olympic bid.

 

[underground]

The remaining $300M or so would have to be public, or possibly funded by ticket sales

Or Kraft (or other private source(s)) pays out of pocket.

 

[Seth]

What about re-purposing the stadium to replace Fenway Park?

The Sox current ownership keeps squeezing bucks out of Fenway, but even though it has great history, I hate going to games there, since I barely fit in the seats and knee people in front of me in the back.

It doesn't seem to be in the cards, but what do you think?

 

[underground]

I think it's incredibly not in the cards. The Sox ownership has spent the last decade plus doubling down on the entire Fenway neighborhood. They don't just own the stadium, they own a lot around it. They've built up an entire neighborhood cash cow that although it centers around the stadium, now includes things that get used 12 months a year.

 

[Equilibria]

What about re-purposing the stadium to replace Fenway Park?

The Sox current ownership keeps squeezing bucks out of Fenway, but even though it has great history, I hate going to games there, since I barely fit in the seats and knee people in front of me in the back.

It doesn't seem to be in the cards, but what do you think?

My love for Fenway aside, I've had the impression that the IOC has so many bad memories of Atlanta's attempt at this that they'd probably rather Boston saved the money and went temporary.

 

[Arlington]

What about re-purposing the stadium to replace Fenway Park?

Fenway is the glorious exception to the rule that parks are functionally obsolete after 30 years. And baseball, as a sport, is exceptional in needing a triangular rather than rounded-rectangular venue. There's just no common space in which to do a deal.

I don't think anyone on either side (Sox or BOC) would want to conform their desires to the idiosyncrasies of the other. Atlanta's conversion of its Olympic stadium into a downtown baseball stadium is generally considered unsuccessful.

 

[Seth]

I think it's incredibly not in the cards. The Sox ownership has spent the last decade plus doubling down on the entire Fenway neighborhood. They don't just own the stadium, they own a lot around it. They've built up an entire neighborhood cash cow that although it centers around the stadium, now includes things that get used 12 months a year.

Good point, though I think that area is close to the point where you could replace the stadium with an awesome mixed use project and it would be fine.

My love for Fenway aside, I've had the impression that the IOC has so many bad memories of Atlanta's attempt at this that they'd probably rather Boston saved the money and went temporary.

Another good point!

 

[Arlington]

Good point, though I think that area is close to the point where you could replace the stadium with an awesome mixed use project and it would be fine.

At any given moment, the Sox ownership is likely to get a better deal than that: permission to transfer the "building rights" from above the stadium to someplace else where no other party would ever be able to get away with it, and keep the stadium.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

the only context for this comment was Weld's perception that Baker is weak on infrastructure, because he is. Election Day is in 12 hours. That's the "timing" at play here. Gov. Patrick hasn't been particularly involved in Boston 2024, and it hasn't been a topic of discussion whatsoever in the Governor's race to this point.

Okay, but you could have gone to anything as proof of Baker's weakness as far as infrastructure is concerned - hell, megalithic projects like the Rail Link or a new freeway are hard for people to identify with, but "my road/bridge/sidewalk looks like it came from a war zone" is easy for anyone who has to live near or rely upon a rusty bridge, pothole-scarred street, or shattered sidewalk. Baker's built his platform on the "easy" anti-tax better-government stance but as far as I can tell he hasn't done a damn thing to indicate how or if he plans to deal with the horrific state of the infrastructure we've already got.

So, given the choice between a fluff piece about "Charlie Baker, the guy who's going to fix that pothole in front of grandma's driveway" and "Charlie Baker, the guy who's going to get the Rail Link built," I would expect the former article ninety-eight times out of one hundred. The other two times are 1) because Baker and his team need the trainspotters and the rail backers to swing the election in his favor and 2) because someone's trying to bring the Rail Link back into focus ahead of its unveiling as a critical component to Boston 2024.

You'll forgive me if I don't think option 1 is terribly likely.

If you want to believe in some "inevitability" for these projects, fine. You hate the Olympics, as you admit, and you seized on an offhand comment to go after them again. Boston 2024 can light fires under people, and in every single chance that they have been given to describe their project, the organizers (as you also admit) have denied categorically that their goal is a "sweeping overhaul" of anything. You can believe whatever else you want, but I'll say it again, I'll know what Boston 2024 is proposing when they tell me, and I'll judge that.

I don't think it's an empty "belief" to say that without doing something about South Station, Boston is not going to be able to handle the level of traffic coming through the Northeast Corridor in 15~20 years, and that Boston not being able to handle that level of traffic is going to be unacceptable to the state and federal interests gearing up for service expansion - never mind expanding demand for commuter rail operations within the region. That spells a clear need for South Station Expansion and it's because of that clear need that expansion of capacity there is going to happen completely independently of the Olympics push and result of the bid.

Similarly, it's going to take just one more idiot texting in the driver's seat or falling asleep at the switch for the FTA to swoop in with an unfunded mandate for CBTC within an aggressive time-frame. I tend to be cynical about these things, but I'd like to believe that it won't actually take another wreck in the Central Subway for the MBTA to get their collective asses in gear on this; or, failing that, for the FTA to start getting a little more forward with asking.

Boston 2024 might be the push needed to get Red-Blue done for 2024, but I'm more than happy to put safe money on the steadily worsening peak utilization of Red, Orange, and Blue through downtown on forcing the issue regardless of the Olympics. If not 2024 ahead of opening day, I'm confident you'll see the Blue Line pulling into MGH by 2026, Olympics be damned.

I'm willing to give you Orange Line trains to or beyond Roslindale as something that could be part of a "reasonable" Olympics bid that similarly would require the Olympics to get sufficient motivation for doing anything. I'll also give you DMU service in that same category. After that, the list of "reasonable" Olympics projects that aren't getting done without the Olympics dries up pretty damn fast.

The fact of the matter is that it's a real bad look for the Olympics bid to come out full of necessary but boring plain vanilla projects, and lacking the spice and allure of signature items. There's simply no way that the bid book comes out and it doesn't contain at least one big-ticket construction item, and regardless of how much money John Fish wants to pump into the hype machine, the public isn't going to respond well to the biggest line item in the bid that isn't destined to be ripped down immediately after the closing ceremony being the Red-Blue Connector of all things.

As I said before, I oppose the Olympics because they're just not necessary to get most of these "reasonable" projects done, and the time frame is far too tight to get any of the ambitious projects done. And if the group of projects the Olympics is likely to get done were all going to get done anyway, and if the Olympics can't get done the projects that needed an Olympics level of motivation just to get off the ground, then there's no real reason to associate the Olympics with a city's infrastructure plans at all. You take those away, and you're left with some nebulous goals of promoting your world-classiness on the international stage, perhaps some marginal gains to housing, and a new sports venue or two if the old sports venues were showing their age or didn't actually exist yet.

And I'm sorry, but those aren't really compelling reasons for me to support the Olympics. Boston's stature among international cities is going to get along just fine without needing to be showcased.

 

[Equilibria]

So, given the choice between a fluff piece about "Charlie Baker, the guy who's going to fix that pothole in front of grandma's driveway" and "Charlie Baker, the guy who's going to get the Rail Link built," I would expect the former article ninety-eight times out of one hundred. The other two times are 1) because Baker and his team need the trainspotters and the rail backers to swing the election in his favor and 2) because someone's trying to bring the Rail Link back into focus ahead of its unveiling as a critical component to Boston 2024.

You'll forgive me if I don't think option 1 is terribly likely.

Are those truly the only two options that you see? This project has never - not once - been associated with Boston 2024 by anyone not writing a post on this website. The only reason it was associated with it now was an offhand comment by F-Line. I can't guarantee you that the bid book, when it comes out, isn't going to mention NSRL, but of the several long Globe and BBJ pieces from the past year that went over possible venues and infrastructure projects, the NSRL has never been mentioned. The massive odds are that it won't be.

As I said before, I oppose the Olympics because they're just not necessary to get most of these "reasonable" projects done, and the time frame is far too tight to get any of the ambitious projects done. And if the group of projects the Olympics is likely to get done were all going to get done anyway, and if the Olympics can't get done the projects that needed an Olympics level of motivation just to get off the ground, then there's no real reason to associate the Olympics with a city's infrastructure plans at all. You take those away, and you're left with some nebulous goals of promoting your world-classiness on the international stage, perhaps some marginal gains to housing, and a new sports venue or two if the old sports venues were showing their age or didn't actually exist yet.

Just because there are logical ways that something like Red-Blue or South Station Expansion gets done doesn't mean that they happen. At this moment, SSX is held up by tripartite negotiations between MassDOT, the Postal Service, and Massport, with USPS under basically no pressure to move. Where does that pressure come from, if not this? How do we ensure that under the possible/likely incoming Republican administration all of that money for DMUs and SSX doesn't just vanish into the wind? Boston has a long legacy of obvious infrastructure improvements that have simply stagnated, and that's the kind of legacy that Barcelona, for example, was able to address with an Olympics.

As for the 2024 vs. 2036 question: You bid when you can win. A US city will be the favorite to host the 2024 Oympics for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with Boston, LA, or any other contender. Once that happens, the Games won't come back to the United States until the 2040s at the earliest. Cities like Beijing and Athens that tried multiple consecutive times can get away with that because they're the only potential host in their countries. In the US, once a city fails, it's done for a couple of cycles (see NYC and Chicago).

It's plausible that the USOC decides to hold off, but given the enthusiasm in both Boston and LA and the IOC's current responsibility-friendly stance in the face of recent (and upcoming) embarrassment that seems unlikely. So, you can either get the very real and very substantial benefits to urbanism and infrastructure (that may in fact include some projects that AB thinks are "impossible") that come with the Games now (opposite significant costs), or you can not do that. In all likelihood, those are your choices.

 

[bobthebuilder]

...with USPS under basically no pressure to move. Where does that pressure come from, if not this?

To this point, the USPS is a federal agency, so pressure could only really come from the federal government, which a 2024 bid could put the pressure on. If not for an Olympic bid, shouldn't the federal government have an interest in seeing SSX happen anyways? From my understanding, SSX is a key piece to increasing capacity on the northeast corridor, which is one of the most profitable routes. So more capacity on a profitable route is good for Amtrak, and the better Amtrak does, the better it is for the government, no?