Boston 2024

[tangent]

I don't think that ship has really, actually, sailed. If approached about Beacon Park, Harvard would be on board. Remember, unlike most other developers, Harvard can and will landbank here until development occurs.

Besides the waterfront, I think that is a good alternative location for the main stadium. Unfortunately I think that puts it too far away from the Olympic Village as proposed and I actually think the waterfront Olympic Village is a good selling point.

If they instead went with dorms at Harvard and used the campus as an Olympic Village that could be a selling point. Who doesn't want to go to Harvard? But I think changing both venues before the end of the year is going to be a tougher sell.

 

[tangent]

The whole bid was be so much more tenable if they ditched Midtown entirely: the neighborhood nobody wants, in a place nobody cares about, at a cost that nobody will build.

Why not explore Beacon Park more seriously? New Balance as a partner for a nerve/admin/media center (they would seriously PAY for this privilege, I bet) and riverside Olympic village by the IHOP/McD/Staples? This would also force real transit upgrades that people want and care about - namely, DMU rapid transit on the Worcester Line.



Quick diagram:

+1

 

[Mongo]

The whole bid was be so much more tenable if they ditched Midtown entirely: the neighborhood nobody wants, in a place nobody cares about, at a cost that nobody will build.

Why not explore Beacon Park more seriously? New Balance as a partner for a nerve/admin/media center (they would seriously PAY for this privilege, I bet) and riverside Olympic village by the IHOP/McD/Staples? This would also force real transit upgrades that people want and care about - namely, DMU rapid transit on the Worcester Line.



Quick diagram:

This plan looks great, and it would spur redevelopment of the Watertown mall

 

[tangent]

I don't think that ship has really, actually, sailed. If approached about Beacon Park, Harvard would be on board. Remember, unlike most other developers, Harvard can and will landbank here until development occurs.

Also, it only helps move the I90 realignment forward. Harvard had no plans for that location for 2024 so the site prep would actually benefit Harvard.

 

[tangent]

And just to add a graphic... For the purposes of creating more space for development I think realigning I-93 is a better alternative than decking over Widett Circle:

Realigning I93 isn't practical for 2024, but neither is decking over Widett.

 

[citylover94]

And just to add a graphic... For the purposes of creating more space for development I think realigning I-93 is a better alternative than decking over Widett Circle:

Realigning I93 isn't practical for 2024, but neither is decking over Widett.

+1 that looks like a great idea and maybe rework the mass ave connector stub/ melnea cass at that end to be more pedestrian friendly.

 

[Shepard]

The whole bid was be so much more tenable if they ditched Midtown entirely: the neighborhood nobody wants, in a place nobody cares about, at a cost that nobody will build.

Why not explore Beacon Park more seriously? New Balance as a partner for a nerve/admin/media center (they would seriously PAY for this privilege, I bet) and riverside Olympic village by the IHOP/McD/Staples? This would also force real transit upgrades that people want and care about - namely, DMU rapid transit on the Worcester Line.



Quick diagram:

Davem had a great map in another thread showing how new tracks can tunnel under the pike to eat Leo Birmingham - the place in the map above where I marked that infrastructure investment would be needed. This was in regards to a new light rail A branch coming off the B, I believe, but could probably be applied equally to a DMU line to enable more capacity on the corridor past Everett.
http://archboston.com/community/showthread.php?p=231570#post231570

(^ Credit to Davem from the post link above)

 

[Equilibria]

I don't think that ship has really, actually, sailed. If approached about Beacon Park, Harvard would be on board. Remember, unlike most other developers, Harvard can and will landbank here until development occurs.

I think they were told by Harvard to GTFO more or less as soon as they walked in the door. Remember, Harvard land in Allston was the V1 site for both Tennis and Aquatics as well as Hockey. They've pulled all of those, and Aquatics has no replacement site at the moment. It's pretty clear that Harvard doesn't want to be involved in any way beyond renting Harvard Stadium for Archery, an event with basically no footprint.

FWIW, I'm not sure I'd want the stadium at Beacon Park now anyway. Transit access is better at Widett. When I placed it there a couple of years ago, MassDOT hadn't proposed the rebuild yet, and no one expected it to be as grid-like and urban as it has been so far. I'd rather not place that project at risk, and it's supposed to be done by 2024 (fingers crossed...).

 

[HenryAlan]

The whole bid was be so much more tenable if they ditched Midtown entirely: the neighborhood nobody wants, in a place nobody cares about, at a cost that nobody will build.

Why not explore Beacon Park more seriously? New Balance as a partner for a nerve/admin/media center (they would seriously PAY for this privilege, I bet) and riverside Olympic village by the IHOP/McD/Staples? This would also force real transit upgrades that people want and care about - namely, DMU rapid transit on the Worcester Line.



Quick diagram:

From a purely practical standpoint, this idea makes sense. But it fails from a marketing standpoint. Widett, though ugly and industrial now, is very close to downtown and offers spectacular views from the proposed deck. It is close to happening, touristy areas, just the sort of things the IOC will want. Beacon Yards, on the other hand, is pretty far off the beaten path, does not have the views, does not have the tourist infrastructure. Yes, easier, cheaper, but significantly less vibe. And vibe is what the IOC likes more than any other consideration.

 

[ant8904]

It's not bad from a marketing standpoint. The Stadium have a Riverfront view with Harvard Sq and all the Charm of Harvard right there.

Admittedly, the village doesn't stand so cool. Is there enough space to squeeze the village next to the Stadium with housing splitting into Harvard, BU, and Allston? The land south of the Pike is BU land and set up for redevelopoment one day (not to mention StuVi3 is set aside and near Beacon Park). Comm Ave and Harvard Sq are both more amicable Marketing-wise. Still not as cool as Widett's location, but not that awful framed.

 

[JumboBuc]

From a purely practical standpoint, this idea makes sense. But it fails from a marketing standpoint. Widett, though ugly and industrial now, is very close to downtown and offers spectacular views from the proposed deck. It is close to happening, touristy areas, just the sort of things the IOC will want. Beacon Yards, on the other hand, is pretty far off the beaten path, does not have the views, does not have the tourist infrastructure. Yes, easier, cheaper, but significantly less vibe. And vibe is what the IOC likes more than any other consideration.

Just for the record, the Stade de France is far more removed from "touristy Paris" than Beacon Yards is from "touristy Boston", so if this is a weakness it would actually bode well for Boston's bid.

 

[tangent]

From a purely practical standpoint, this idea makes sense. But it fails from a marketing standpoint. Widett, though ugly and industrial now, is very close to downtown and offers spectacular views from the proposed deck. It is close to happening, touristy areas, just the sort of things the IOC will want. Beacon Yards, on the other hand, is pretty far off the beaten path, does not have the views, does not have the tourist infrastructure. Yes, easier, cheaper, but significantly less vibe. And vibe is what the IOC likes more than any other consideration.

Nothing would beat the vibe and views of a stadium at the entrance to Boston Harbor in the city's seaport district:

And don't tell me its a zoning issue... I am pretty sure a 26 acre deck with a stadium on top at Widett would need a variance special permit or two.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Not gonna happen. That's Marine Terminal, Massport land, and land with building plans. Massport can't be bent by B24 or MassDOT. It's got enough built-in independence with its board structure to chart its own course. Infuriatingly so in some notorious instances. If they have not seen fit to join hands with B24 so far, that isn't going to be forthcoming.


Seaport stadium's ship sailed when the Megaplex build died in the mid-90's. Refusal doesn't have to be considered a reasonable stance by Massport when Marine T. is presently empty and does no harm if it's held empty for a temp 2024 venue...then converted to the originally-planned industrial and intermodal shipping complex. But just because some people may consider that an unreasonable stance doesn't mean there's any mechanism for compelling Massport to cooperate. There isn't. If they aren't interested in joining up, that's that. And I certainly wouldn't expect Gov. Baker to put the screws to them to try to bend a change in attitude, because he's made it clear with all things B24-related that he's going to be passive-aggressively hands-off when it comes to greasing any state-level skids.

 

[stellarfun]

The IOC to Tokyo, '....or get off the pot' with respect to stadium plans. The city and national government are squabbling/warring over who is to pay for the overrun; and construction hasn't even started.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/tokyo-told-to-finalize-olympic-stadium-plans-1.2446993

Also, Tokyo will likely have baseball and softball.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/22/baseball-softball-shortlisted-tokyo-2020-olympics

 

[MBTAddict]

Can we start a "Crazy Olympics Pitches" thread?

There is precisely zero chance of the stadium going anywhere else. Do I think it should? Of course, but that's not happening. #MidtownOrBust

 

[Semass]

A designated Port Area is not a "zoning issue" and you can't just get a waiver. The DPAs are rooted in the fact that access to deepwater frontage is an important economic driver and there are water dependent purposes such as shipping, fisheries, and marine industrial that really can't go anywhere else. Like it or not, Boston is a port city and we are about to spend tens of millions of dollars of state and federal tax money to ensure it stays that way by way of a major dredge project. The law and regs clearly state that marine use and its long term benefits to the region is
greater than condos, hotels, or waterfront stadiums. If you want to change the use, you have to go through a DPA boundary review. This is a major state process. Occasionally boundardeies change to exclude some parcels and usually those in private ownership - see Gloucester - but they will not change for a public parcel, regardless of what B24 may dangle in front of Massport. Their purpose as a port operator is too important.

p.s. - F-Line, "Megaplex". Drink.

 

[tangent]

Can we start a "Crazy Olympics Pitches" thread?

There is precisely zero chance of the stadium going anywhere else. Do I think it should? Of course, but that's not happening. #MidtownOrBust

Then Paris 2024 it is, because there is zero chance of a stadium at Widett. Money, time, risk make Widett untenable.

 

[tangent]

Not gonna happen. That's Marine Terminal, Massport land, and land with building plans. Massport can't be bent by B24 or MassDOT. It's got enough built-in independence with its board structure to chart its own course. Infuriatingly so in some notorious instances. If they have not seen fit to join hands with B24 so far, that isn't going to be forthcoming.


Seaport stadium's ship sailed when the Megaplex build died in the mid-90's. Refusal doesn't have to be considered a reasonable stance by Massport when Marine T. is presently empty and does no harm if it's held empty for a temp 2024 venue...then converted to the originally-planned industrial and intermodal shipping complex. But just because some people may consider that an unreasonable stance doesn't mean there's any mechanism for compelling Massport to cooperate. There isn't. If they aren't interested in joining up, that's that. And I certainly wouldn't expect Gov. Baker to put the screws to them to try to bend a change in attitude, because he's made it clear with all things B24-related that he's going to be passive-aggressively hands-off when it comes to greasing any state-level skids.

Yet Boston 2024 and mayor Walsh are proposing that the food distribution facilities relocate to this parcel... Which somehow they will pretend is port related even though they have never needed proximity to the port.

If there is a will there is a way. The question is whether the Olympic village has enough developer interest without Widett to push through a harbor stadium. Alone that is a huge development, so I hope the answer is yes.

Widett is a dead man walking. Either kill it or Boston's Big Deck takes down the bid with it.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Hey, sorry, I've been away for a couple days. Anyone consider the idea of putting the Olympics stadium down in the Seaport?

 

[stellarfun]

This, IMO, is the final nail in the coffin when it comes to the viability of Boston's bid.

With respect to the stadium site,

To be selected via a competitive process guided by the City of Boston, the developer will be requested to guarantee cost and completion of the proposed infrastructure, Plaza, and related improvements and provide 100% of the $1.2 billion capital, to be secured by a credit-worthy guarantee.

The competitive process referenced is an RFP. The schedule calls for the RFP to be issued on September 17, 2017. The IOC will select the 2024 city on September 15, 2017.

Thus, the official Boston bid will have no developer selected for the stadium infrastructure at the time the IOC votes; moreover, the city and the state have declared that they won't pay for it. There is no fallback if either no developer responds to the RFP, or if responding developers can't satisfy the guarantee or other criteria.

The IOC is never going to buy a pig in a poke, which is what the Boston bid, without a qualified master developer on board, and signed on the dotted line, would be.