Boston 2024

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?

It's worse than all merely being "theoretical," there's a very real chance that anything put into motion before a 2016 referendum would be shut down / spiked by the pro-Olympics contingent as retribution for the city not going along with its betters and doing as it was told.

This is, of course, the real danger of having allowed the Olympics to co-opt and preempt every single local/regional/statewide planning organization and having allowed it to associate itself with things like the regional transportation plan. Those aren't projects that need doing anymore, now they're "Olympics" projects. So the natural inclination of regional/state leaders to punt on these things when the Olympics gets voted down will be compounded by public sentiment of "oh, well, since there will be no Olympics, none of these Olympics projects are necessary anymore."
 
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.....

Boston 2024 has a press conference scheduled at Harambee Park at 2:30pm today. I'm guessing that means the Sportsmen's Tennis Club is all in or this will be a very awkward press conference...
 
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?

Not necessarily, because this could've been done years ago during any of the umpteen other other times the state or city has licked its chops at relocating the FM. The problem was all those other times you had somebody like Menino inserting himself into the process agitating to get them put out in the boonies at Readville at the ex- Stop & Shop warehouse or something like that, which is as good as a death sentence for some of those vendors who rely on the easy Haul Road/93 access for their shipping rates. That's where it always fell apart with mutual mistrust and finger-pointing. For good reason, as we'd be paying even higher food prices if "somewhere I don't ever have to lay eyes on them" were the only political consideration for a relocation site.

These Seaport parcels on the northwest side of the Marine Terminal parcels already support the big Legal Sea Foods warehouse on Seafood Way, the seafood wholesalers immediately across the street, and the others scattered around the block in the Harpoon Brewery complex. In much more space-efficient fashion than the asphalt sprawl around Widett with its single vehicular access point to Widett from Frontage Rd. NB that bottles up the trucks from being able to disperse in orderly fashion. And frankly, given how over-optimistic some of Massport's Marine T. plans are at attracting other intermodal there, a more reliable use for greater % of the acreage. Since the seafood wholesalers are already economically "proven" in their own right, with Legals' big investment in its facility "proven" at attracting new business. We'll never be Halifax at attracting general-purpose intermodal; the scale Southie provides will never be good enough, and Massport will have to butter too much subsidy all-around to attract biz to justify its Marine T. redev investment. It's more reliable use from a revenue standpoint to infill that NW portion of the site with more food wholesaler consolidation, because they've at least proven they can hack it here without living off gov't largesse to exist at all onsite or stay for the long-term.


Here they would be able to infill another +1-2 blocks of parcels here for equivalent-or-better space, and:
-- Go more vertical than Widett with second-floor facilities if the buildings were built with high-capacity freight elevators. Or build cold storage space on the upper levels instead of requiring an acreage-intensive warehouse like AmeriCold Logistics @ Widett.
-- Top it off with more office space on top than the FM allows.
-- Do more orderly truck-loading berths.
-- Possibly reconfig the road access for straight shot into the Northern Ave./Haul Road rotary for far better and more inocuous traffic flow than Widett's constrained access point.
-- Tie it into the Massport rail spur construction to Marine Terminal, and reactivation of the docks there. Right now even the seafood places are doing more trucking from other docks than they truly need to, and would benefit on both overhead costs and volume/revenue by being able to take front-door deliveries.
-- Possibly consolidate some of the fresh produce deliveries that come daily by boat to Everett Terminal, then go out by rail to Framingham for supermarket delivery. That's New England Produce Ctr. on the north-facing side of Everett T., visible on the other side of the trees from commuter rail trains. Also a very space-inefficient operation with less-than-awesome truck access to Route 1 where their margins could be improved by a relocation to the Haul Road.


You get the point. Other cities have done a lot more planning on state-of-the-art wholesale food distribution than Boston has, none moreso than NYC with its massive Hunt's Point Market complex. That's decades of the BRA's and City Hall's intransigence on using prime real estate for anything but "pretty" things, regardless of what land use wrings the most revenue out of the land. City's been set in its provincial mindset on that ever since Kevin White evicted the FM from Faneuil Hall 40+ years ago, right down to chasing the S&S Warehouse out of town because of the truck bans in/out of Readville. Other cities of comparable or bigger size have taken it upon themselves to modernize their meat-packing districts with more efficient facilities in the right locations. Not that food prices in NYC aren't insane enough, but Hunt's Point was necessary for sustaining 20 years of boom times without putting every mom-and-pop restaurant out of business with crippling wholesale price spikes. It's sort of one of those mundane things you have to take care of on the planning front if you want to sustain growth of a world-class city and destination point.

Really shouldn't take an Olympics bid to force stubborn-to-their-own-detriment parties to the table to have that conversation, but here we are. Something very good can come out of it even if the Olympics never happen and the FM parcels sit vacant for years post-relocation. We get more flexible wholesale prices out of the deal for sustaining growth of the local restaurant and local foodie industry. And it helps the margins of the seafood industry greatly now that they're dealing with the--permanent--extra overhead of declining fish stock and needing to spread out further afield to get their catches. Any efficiencies they can gain on lower shipping rates, easier/faster shipping of fresh catch, faster/more-modern processing facilities, better dockside and rail access, and the "safety in numbers" from having every other wholesaler situated in the same place taking advantage of the same shipping efficiencies greatly helps one of New England's signature industries survive as they cope with their new sustainability reality. It's way overdue.


Still doesn't change anything about the Olympic challenges with Widett (or, more specifically, the intrusion over Cabot). But sort of need to look at this in isolation. Even if Widett stays underutilized, maxing out the (currently very inefficient) operations of the FM with a thawing of relations and updated consolidated facilities is a Very Good Thing™ for the city long-term.
 
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.

Yes, it technically could be built there without (much) decking. But at least some decking is critical to making the site in any way desirable. The USOC was sold on the Olympic Boulevard concept which was from South Station along Fort Point Channel down to the stadium.
 
Why wouldn't they just locate the stadium there?

Make it an iconic stadium near the entrance to Boston Harbor:

80wkrgO.jpg



And save half a billion dollars in public money.
 
Widett can be developed without decking. The stadium can be built without decking.

Working backwards, I do agree with you that a stadium could get shoehorned into the circle without a deck covering all those rail lines, and there's room to the north of the rail loop to build at ground level, too. But am I understanding your idea correctly? You propose just a bit of deck over the loop of track that bisects the site, and I think you propose building at ground level on either side so as to avoid decks. So, an Olympic stadium within the Circle, and I suppose the exit concourses could be at the same level as the deck over the loop, spilling down to ground-level warm-up fields and support buildings in the northern parcel. With the I-93 rampart to one side and hundreds of feet of rail lines to the other, and a little pinched access point out to the north towards North Station. Pedestrians would serpentine from Dorchester to West Fourth and then to the Olympic area. If I haven't misunderstood you, I don't think that would pass the giggle test at the IOC.

But let's assume the IOC accepted it.

I disagree on the idea that Widett can be developed, at least so far as any development that will generate so much revenue that it would justify relocating all those business and municipal uses. If you try to redevelop it all at ground level, you'll have about 250 feet of frontage on West 4th and a similar frontage on the South Bypass road (which is elevated at deck level above the rail yards, btw). No access to the East without spending on decks or Bypass Road-like bridges to get over the rail yards. Access to the West in a few places under 93. Meh. Sure, you can develop something in there. Another Seaport-like or Fan Pier-like development? I very seriously doubt it.

And then let's suppose Bob Kraft does swing a deal to get his soccer stadium in that wedge north of the rail loop (and if he does, then HE should be paying all costs of relocating those municipal functions and building the stadium). So then what does a developer have to look at within Widett? No access to East, poor to West, and between Widett and downtown to the North there's a soccer stadium with probably at least some parking (no matter how much we here at aB want to make it all transit-served). Again, meh. Sure, something could be developed there. Would it produce more RE tax revenue that the food wholesalers, will it be the grand vision drawn by Elkus in the bid book? I very seriously doubt it on both counts.

I think Widett works very poorly as a stadium site if you DO build the deck: too many costs that no one will want to pay for, either private or public sector. And it works very poorly if you DON'T build the deck: you're just shoehorning stadium (or stadia?) and practice fields and support functions into a space that will be cramped as hell in the eyes of the IOC, with a funny little rail and mini-deck bisecting it. And post-Olympics that area without decking won't be nearly appealing enough to generate the pot of development gold that could somehow get forward-captured into a financing scheme to help defray Olympics cost in a way that the private sector would fund.

As you noted, the grander deck-inclusive scheme is what they drew and presented to the USOC and the public in version 1.0. We'll see what they've done with it.
 
Boston 2024 has a press conference scheduled at Harambee Park at 2:30pm today. I'm guessing that means the Sportsmen's Tennis Club is all in or this will be a very awkward press conference...

What a relief. I don't know enough about IOC tennis needs to evaluate if this is a good site or not from their perspective, nor do I know enough about that club's and that neighborhood's concerns to know if it makes sense from their perspective. But it'll be a breath of fresh air to see a site be proposed without a follow up "no one asked us" moment.
 
Make it an iconic stadium near the entrance to Boston Harbor:

80wkrgO.jpg



And save half a billion dollars in public money.

Remember the Pats/Sox "Megaplex" plan from the mid-90's at similar location? Yeah...not as workable or inexpensive or acceptable to Southie residents subject to sporting event traffic shortcuts as pretty renderings on a map would indicate.
 
Working backwards, I do agree with you that a stadium could get shoehorned into the circle without a deck covering all those rail lines, and there's room to the north of the rail loop to build at ground level, too. But am I understanding your idea correctly? You propose just a bit of deck over the loop of track that bisects the site, and I think you propose building at ground level on either side so as to avoid decks. So, an Olympic stadium within the Circle, and I suppose the exit concourses could be at the same level as the deck over the loop, spilling down to ground-level warm-up fields and support buildings in the northern parcel.

I said it could be done, not that it should be done. The only-deck-the-loop concept was meant to refer to non-Olympic development. For a stadium, I think you need to deck over the roughly 150' between the southern end of the MBCR facility and Haul Road, and over Haul Road itself in some form to create a pedestrian link to Dorchester Ave. That gives you a 150' approach/plaza from the primary transit access points.

As I've said before, Dorchester Ave. is Olympic Boulevard. It will do fine. Close it for 3 weeks north of D Street (which will be a hardship, but that neighborhood is going to have a lot of hardships). Invest in pedestrian improvements and rebuild the road, giving the neighborhood a legacy. Line it with booths, stalls, flags, whatever. Move the USPS and connect it on the other end as currently proposed by Boston 2024. That's it. That's all you need to have an effective pedestrian approach from South, Broadway, and technically Andrew.

Putting in a crazy-wide plaza all the way from Fort Point is 100% unnecessary. It also discourages the use of Broadway Station to access the stadium.
 
Working backwards, I do agree with you that a stadium could get shoehorned into the circle without a deck covering all those rail lines, and there's room to the north of the rail loop to build at ground level, too. But am I understanding your idea correctly? You propose just a bit of deck over the loop of track that bisects the site, and I think you propose building at ground level on either side so as to avoid decks. So, an Olympic stadium within the Circle, and I suppose the exit concourses could be at the same level as the deck over the loop, spilling down to ground-level warm-up fields and support buildings in the northern parcel. With the I-93 rampart to one side and hundreds of feet of rail lines to the other, and a little pinched access point out to the north towards North Station. Pedestrians would serpentine from Dorchester to West Fourth and then to the Olympic area. If I haven't misunderstood you, I don't think that would pass the giggle test at the IOC.

But let's assume the IOC accepted it.

I disagree on the idea that Widett can be developed, at least so far as any development that will generate so much revenue that it would justify relocating all those business and municipal uses. If you try to redevelop it all at ground level, you'll have about 250 feet of frontage on West 4th and a similar frontage on the South Bypass road (which is elevated at deck level above the rail yards, btw). No access to the East without spending on decks or Bypass Road-like bridges to get over the rail yards. Access to the West in a few places under 93. Meh. Sure, you can develop something in there. Another Seaport-like or Fan Pier-like development? I very seriously doubt it.

And then let's suppose Bob Kraft does swing a deal to get his soccer stadium in that wedge north of the rail loop (and if he does, then HE should be paying all costs of relocating those municipal functions and building the stadium). So then what does a developer have to look at within Widett? No access to East, poor to West, and between Widett and downtown to the North there's a soccer stadium with probably at least some parking (no matter how much we here at aB want to make it all transit-served). Again, meh. Sure, something could be developed there. Would it produce more RE tax revenue that the food wholesalers, will it be the grand vision drawn by Elkus in the bid book? I very seriously doubt it on both counts.

I think Widett works very poorly as a stadium site if you DO build the deck: too many costs that no one will want to pay for, either private or public sector. And it works very poorly if you DON'T build the deck: you're just shoehorning stadium (or stadia?) and practice fields and support functions into a space that will be cramped as hell in the eyes of the IOC, with a funny little rail and mini-deck bisecting it. And post-Olympics that area without decking won't be nearly appealing enough to generate the pot of development gold that could somehow get forward-captured into a financing scheme to help defray Olympics cost in a way that the private sector would fund.

As you noted, the grander deck-inclusive scheme is what they drew and presented to the USOC and the public in version 1.0. We'll see what they've done with it.

The tricky part is just the side access. Widett's down in a pit with only one access point from Frontage Rd. NB. It's a publicly accessible city street so you can take a drive down there yourself. Or even walk, since there's a full sidewalk the whole way (not recommended...it's pretty scary and deserted down there). Adequate access for trucks, but in no way shape or form would that ever work for a stadium or other development designed to attract large crowds. Too constrained, too much traffic disruption by the frequent trains reversing around the loop across the grade crossing at the bottom, and no egress alternatives if it gets borked by an accident either on the access road into the pit or if Frontage NB locks up solid at the intersection.

Therefore, you must build a roadway over the tracks aligned with Mass Ave. Connector...and probably multiples with something off Dot Ave. crossing Haul Rd. on an intersection-on-stilts to get down there with any sort of workable access. Which then creates the issue of how does one get down into the pit with a big honking stadium in the middle. It's either got to be some awkward flanking-ramp setup that constrains access to 2 sides of the stadium, or you deck the whole damn perimeter and have the stadium depressed in a below-street bowl. Either of which would be feasible--the "bowl" setup actually quite compelling as a means of stuffing every inch of parking asphalt under-surface--because there's no mission-critical infrastructure to keep clearance over except for the west half of the train loop. But not trivial construction either because the insertion points are a little bit tricky if you want anything resembling *good* street grid access. And it's still quite a lot of decking steel if you want the perfectly knit-together "bowl" setup with decked promenade all-around reaching the depressed stadium.


There's a reason why they stuck something ugly, low-traffic, and out-of-sight-out-of-mind down in that pit. It's not real easy to get to at-grade.


Of course, they still aren't proposing even this engineering-feasible one so the feasibility problem is all the same if B24 still covets Cabot Yard.
 
Make it an iconic stadium near the entrance to Boston Harbor:


And save half a billion dollars in public money.

An easier way to save taxpayer money would be to drop the whole damn bid now and let somebody else deal with the mess.
 
I think this is a good way to win support. Show how the whole thing will help the community, combine this with spreading the games out over the state and hopefully the bid will be heading in the right direction.
 
Remember the Pats/Sox "Megaplex" plan from the mid-90's at similar location? Yeah...not as workable or inexpensive or acceptable to Southie residents subject to sporting event traffic shortcuts as pretty renderings on a map would indicate.

Yes. Traffic is a completely different scenario now with I-90 completed through Ted Williams and a bypass road. And most of those Southie residents that opposed a stadium are moved, dead, in federal prison or witness protection by now. And the Seaport isn't in Southie anyway... At least not anymore.

Widett is a fail. Time to move on from Widett or drop the bid.
 
I think this is a good way to win support. Show how the whole thing will help the community, combine this with spreading the games out over the state and hopefully the bid will be heading in the right direction.

Yes, renders like this for all venues, please.

Also, I notice in the twitter comments that this is a cricket field. If you look on Google Earth, it is very much a cricket field. I do not see a cricket field in the render, I see a track and a football field. Might want to get that worked on, unless the neighbors hate cricket.

Also, this site is wonderful for transit if you assume Blue Hill Ave. BRT and Farimount DMUs. Without them...
 
Would it produce more RE tax revenue that the food wholesalers, will it be the grand vision drawn by Elkus in the bid book? I very seriously doubt it on both counts


Just on this point, it appears from City Hall assessors maps that the food wholesalers have a property tax exemption (which might be expiring at some point). But at least at the moment the tax base appears to be 0.
 
Yes. Traffic is a completely different scenario now with I-90 completed through Ted Williams and a bypass road. And most of those Southie residents that opposed a stadium are moved, dead, in federal prison or witness protection by now. And the Seaport isn't in Southie anyway... At least not anymore.

Widett is a fail. Time to move on from Widett or drop the bid.

Umm...all of that would've been completed by the time the Megaplex opened. Nothing has changed. And, yes, Southie has a vested interest in people shortcutting up Summer St.


"Dead, in federal prison or witness protection."

Right. Glad to see we've moved on from last week and are giving a shit about another ongoing discussion. :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top