Boston 2024

[tangent]

They can't square the red tape by deadline.

What deadline? Because I think that would need to happen by August 2017 which gives them a full two years to work out the red tape for a harbor stadium. There just needs to be an agreement in principle in place by December 2015.

They CAN'T guarantee that with the waterfront. Because the red tape will not be squared before the IOC's deadline. I don't disagree that Widett's got big problems and may be too big to swallow, but the reason why that's on the table and Marine T. is not is because they can guarantee site availability by the bid deadline for Widett. They can't for the waterfront.

They can't secure funding for Widett by 2017. No way, no how. So, I think we are comparing Hail Mary to Hail Mary, but my Hail Mary has a water view and a lovely stroll along the Harbor.

The IOC's not going to touch the possibility that the DPA rejects a site waiver or takes 3 years to make a ruling, preventing site design from commencing until the Olympics are less than 5 years away. B24 can't count on that for the bid deadline, so the site is unfortunately out-of-sight/out-of-mind for the timeframe they have to work within to win this bid.

Decking for Widett is a project roughly the size of the central artery project through downtown. Acres of multiple levels of decking over an active rail yard. No way the IOC goes for a bid that requires that level of complexity and risk for a project for an Olympic Stadium. They didn't go for it for New York and won't for Boston. Paris wins in that scenario. Or Boston is stuck spending a billion dollars or two billion dollars to make it happen whatever the costs and ends up bankrupt in twenty years. Either way, please no.

As before...we don't make the rules. And "aww, c'mon...do us a solid" isn't going to sway the federal gov't arm tasked solely with regulating deepwater ports on speeding up the permitting process. They have no skin in the Olympics...none. They couldn't care less, and moreover they aren't focusing on their jobs related to all things deepwater ports if they DO devote mindshare to caring about B24's bid.

Some "we" do make the rules. That just depends on the "we".

I don't disagree at all. Triple-down on Midtown is frighteningly risky with how many things have to go pitch-perfect. But that has nothing to do with substituting the waterfront. They can't substitute the waterfront in time for the bid deadline. Them's the breaks.

I just disagree on the comparative risks. They don't have to have the red tape sorted out by September or December for the bid deadline. They just have to have the red tape sorted out by August 2017 for the vote of the IOC. The plan can move forward in the meantime.

It is better to go for a Hail Mary pass than to take a knee when you are down by 3. We are up against Paris as an underdog and need a compelling stadium that doesn't break the bank or bankrupt the city.

Where you and I disagree is on the risk assessment of getting $1.2 Billion in private investment (on top of commitments for the Olympic Village) well before November 2016 without which the state vote goes No. I don't think it is remotely possible to get a developer to make a hard commitment for $1.2 Billion up front in any meaningful way. I know of no development that has ever put money up front for anything like that. And what happens when they back out in 2018 or 2019? The City would be on the hook for a billion dollars or two billion dollars and a mad scramble to build something.

Yup. And in the postmortem (bid win or no bid win) there needs to be a reckoning on how don't-give-a-shit the Universities were in this whole process. The Universities that are the biggest recipients of tax breaks in the city. This is rethink the entire public-private working relationship type realizations that are going to have to be hashed out if "I got mine" is their attitude.

That is crazy talk. You go in wanting to build a stadium or new facilities on a University Campus and expect the Universities to foot a bunch of disruption costs they didn't budget for... it would be irresponsible not to push back. All I have heard is that Universities have offered the use of existing facilities.

And UMass should cooperate, but they should also be looking out for their institutional interests to get dorms or classroom space... or cash to build those things elsewhere.

But you can't secure the harbor in time for the bid deadline. Nothing "when there's a will there's a way" will shortcut that process. So B24 would be doing active harm to their efforts tilting at that windmill. The site's not available by bid deadline. The IOC won't accept sites that aren't available at bid deadline. Therefore...move on. Some things can't have their will imposed on them.

They can reach agreement in 3 months. The red tape can happen afterwards. Sure it would be a risk if it couldn't happen by August 2017, but there is no law that would drag out a review any longer than that. You are just saying it could take longer because government is usually very slow. Which is certainly usually the case. Under normal circumstances it would take a decade. Just like under normal circumstances it would take a decade (or two) to get shovels in the ground at Widett.

You don't have to like this. You do have to acknowledge the reality of it. Saying "No fair! There has to be a way!" over and over again is its own tilting-at-windmills time waster. It's not gonna happen. Move on to the things that could happen. Like taking another run at the Universities' cooperation, or Suffolk Downs, or something else that mitigates the Midtown risk with some sort of safety-in-numbers padding if they're that hellbent on chasing that plan. That padding's not going to come from Marine T. Find the risk mitigation land and risk mitigation partners where they're actually available by bid deadline.


That's the productive use of time and effort.

The reason the Harbor front land is worth the Hail Mary is because it makes the bid compelling over Paris. It gives Boston this iconic harbor entrance stadium that is akin to the Sydney Opera House. It is worth the risk because if it comes together we win the Olympics hands down (and save over a Billion dollars in what would likely be taxpayer money)

If you just want a low risk stadium, then pencil in Gillette Stadium... In terms of lower risk inside Boston in proximity to the Olympic Village, then the lowest risk would be a stadium built at the Convention Center paid for with monies which were supposed to pay for the BCEC expansion from the current hotel tax. That would be "taxpayer" dollars, but Massachusetts voters don't care about the hotel tax very much, especially if it doesn't need to be increased (since the original BCEC bonds will have already been paid and the expansion has been postponed)

Not really. It's fully funded, in final design, and has a more or less set construction schedule. The land will be cleared by 2020, and any MassHighway mop-up work can be done on the new alignment "please pardon our appearance"-wise. It doesn't have to be done-done-done with every traffic cone put back into storage before they're allowed to touch the dirt on the freed-up land. They're well-padded on the timeframe to IOC's/USOC's full satisfaction.

I think I largely agree with this. But as of right now they are fully funded at $260 million and the preliminary design work is supposed to start this Summer with construction beginning in 2017. With completion set for 2020, that is roughly 2 years of buffer for slippage in the schedule and the potential for delays if the costs come in significantly higher than $260 million. But yes, the current schedule gives them a 2 year buffer or so which should be adequate... But still somewhat of a risk.

I'd like to point out that at $260 million the realignment of I90 would demonstrate the relative cost effectiveness of realigning I93 versus the $1.2 Billion for the decking project. Even if realigning I93 costs a bit more because of a few additional ramps. And the result would be better versus decking over Widett Circle.

Then you're gonna be dissapointed. Because impossible within timeframe is impossible within timeframe. And you'll end up wasting a lot of time in energy pounding the desk that it must be otherwise. It can't be otherwise. Move on to what can be, because this ain't it. Some things B24 can't impose its will over.

I feel that is what Boston 2024 is doing with Widett. They are stuck on a proposal which is a complete impossibility within the timeframe. I am not stuck on the Harbor front. I think it is worth a Hail Mary pass because it would win the bid if all the stakeholders can be satisfied to get it done. But they should also be pursuing some deal with BCEC to build the stadium there and exploring the possibility of a deal with the owner of the Summer St/Pappas Way property.

Or even just default to Gillette Stadium so we can just eliminate that risk altogether. I agree Gillette is too far away from the proposed Olympic Village to be a compelling Olympic Stadium Venue, but it is far far less risky.

Heck I would also explore building the stadium at the expo site and building the Olympic village with buildings around Umass Boston. Maybe fill out the periphery of the Harbor Walk.

With the clear impossibility of Widett, every other site should be looked at.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Boston 2024 doesn't need to drop Widett at all. It needs to drop Midtown. As F-Line said, Widett can be cleared and ready to go by 2024. The stadium can go there. The cost to do that is probably about $500M or so, or one-fifth the cost of what they're proposing. Once the Games end, the reuse could be as simple as MBTA train storage.

I'm not sure what's got them so caught up in this dumb Midtown concept, but it's ruining the bid. At $500M, a reduced Widett stadium can be built with operating funds without the need for a development partner. Post-Olympics, the committee could either sell the land as a private transaction to a developer or sell it to the state to either resell or re-purpose.

That still leaves you with the unrealistic prospect of finding a developer for Columbia Point, but at least there you have a workable site that someone might actually want to build on.

Actually, if you're just isolating it to the Widett bowl and a temp stadium it'll be far far less than $500M because no decking is required up-front. Just a street grid interface from up-high that ramps down in better fashion than the inadequate current single access point from Bypass Rd. NB. As long as they don't go barking parking-mad and insist on an under-stadium garage or something it's all at-grade construction on a barren slab of pavement with plenty of room to tendril driveway and sidewalk access ramps down from the surrounding streets. Aside from the road ramps nearly all the cost can be allocated to the facility itself, not the site prep.

When they want to build something permanent afterwards, then do the decking around the bowl to bring the development out of the bowl level with a much more desirable integrated street-level interface. Then have all the tucked-away parking they'd ever want in life. Or...better yet, designate some of the lower level for transit storage. The T is looking for a consolidated downtown 'campus' bus yard location so it can sell off the very valuable Albany St. garage parcel on the Albany-Harrison-Randolph-Union Park block, which would fetch them premium $$$. And they'd prefer double-barreling it by selling Southampton garage on the Southampton-S. Bay St.-Moore St.-Cummings St. block to fold it all into a Cabot/Widett super-campus. Maybe even selling the Transit Police HQ next to Southampton if they can get office space closer to South Station like on the upper floors of the Dot Ave.-facing buildings that'll replace USPS. Southampton's a less-valuable parcel than very tasty Albany, but that is the part of Dot ripest for redev so some developer will pay the going rate to sit on it as a future consideration.

Decking the 'bowl' post-Olympics over the bare concrete slab is waaaaaay less expensive than decking over the live train yards for Midtown and figuring out the still un-figured-out matter of how to replace the Red Line and bus maint buildings that go taller than the Midtown deck. I could even see a barter with the state to knock off some of the 'bowl' decking costs if the lower level were partitioned with the developer giving up some of their parking for that bus master yard. There's plenty of space for it all. Then the state would be able to apply for some fed TIGER grants to underwrite sizeable % of the decking cost...because now the deck build has got a TIGER-applicable transit angle. And then all three parties with vested interest in the permanent structures over the 'bowl'--private developer, MassDOT, and feds-via-TIGER--split the decking and site prep costs at very reasonable share for each party.


That's very economical. And that, in a nutshell, is the insanity of betting it all on the full Midtown. FFS, why can't the 'bowl' be sheared off as an independent expenditure? You can seamlessly integrate it with Midtown all the same, but shackling the 'bowl' to the absolute perfect execution they must achieve for the whole of Midtown for this bid--and what comes afterwards--to not get taken in flames...is lunacy. Why? They have no reason to join them at the hip. Take the free throws by segmenting the projects. It actually serves a useful risk mitigation purpose to have the easy part spun off independently so existence of any development there isn't such an all-or-nothing gamble. I will never understand the logic of pitching Midtown as a monolith...monolithic site prep, monolithic developer, monolithic everything. Widett and Cabot are 2 completely polar opposite degrees of difficulty. Keep it simple, stupid.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Out of curiosity, which, if any, Boston-based developers have (1) the financial strength to be the master developer for either the stadium infrastructure/platform ($1.2 billion) or the athlete housing at Columbia Point ($2.8 billion); (2) aren't burning cash building their own projects (2018-2022); and, (3) take/have a long-term perspective?

I can only think of one: Boston Properties.

I went to a ranked list of the 109 largest real estate property developers in the U.S., Only two Massachusetts firs: Boston Properties and Stag Industrial (which only does industrial properties).

The list for whatever its worth, can be found here.
http://www.findouter.com/NorthAmerica/USA/Business-and-Economy/Real-Estate/Property-Developers

Hudson Yards is being developed by Related (which sometimes ventures into Boston), and Oxford Properties (which acquired five large Boston office buildings last year).

The only name that keeps popping in my head is Skanska. They have been pretty aggressive with their moves into Boston recently. They have the bankroll I believe, and as a global entity has the existing backlog and financial backing to possibly sit on a "potential" goldmine of a site that they would have exclusive rights to.

I don't see local players with that clout for the most part.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Decking for Widett is a project roughly the size of the central artery project through downtown.

Size? Not anywhere near size and scope. Complexity? Not even in the same hemisphere. Building over versus under, thru, around, all while maintaining everything that is being replaced. No.

 

[tangent]

Boston 2024 doesn't need to drop Widett at all. It needs to drop Midtown. As F-Line said, Widett can be cleared and ready to go by 2024. The stadium can go there. The cost to do that is probably about $500M or so, or one-fifth the cost of what they're proposing. Once the Games end, the reuse could be as simple as MBTA train storage.

I'm not sure what's got them so caught up in this dumb Midtown concept, but it's ruining the bid. At $500M, a reduced Widett stadium can be built with operating funds without the need for a development partner. Post-Olympics, the committee could either sell the land as a private transaction to a developer or sell it to the state to either resell or re-purpose.

That still leaves you with the unrealistic prospect of finding a developer for Columbia Point, but at least there you have a workable site that someone might actually want to build on.

An elevated Olympic Stadium surrounded by an open pit of rail yards? Not exactly the pretty picture the IOC is looking for.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

An elevated Olympic Stadium surrounded by an open pit of rail yards? Not exactly the pretty picture the IOC is looking for.

Pretty pictures?

The IOC wants guarantees a facility can be built. There is no guarantee the Midtown monolith can be built without B24 choking on its own ambition. The pursuit of "pretty pictures" is the reason why this bid is in such peril if they don't hit a hole-in-one.

The 'bowl' is a massive amount of acreage, it can interface with the street, and site prep doesn't take such an absurd amount of overhead putting stress on the schedule and finances. The IOC is way more concerned about that than it is the exhaust fumes-free Red Line yard 1500 ft. away or the Amtrak yard on the other side of Haul Rd. An Amtrak yard that will never ever be decked over...so, yes, it is fully and duly acknowledged by all parties way in advance that there will be some ugly train yards in plain view of the whole-shebang Midtown. Non-issue.

 

[tangent]

Beacon Yards is not going to happen. The land is controlled by Harvard. What's that Alfred said about the Joker - "they can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with." That's Harvard. Their selfish inaction is going to contaminate that land for a generation, but it's still much better than the darn railyard.

I mentioned Beacon Yards years ago because I just didn't realize that yet. No one did. That's why Boston 2024 put an aquatics center and tennis facility on adjacent Harvard land in the 1.0 bid. It couldn't imagine that Harvard would be so lunkheaded as to decline free athletics facilities on land that they were banking anyway, but there you go.

The problem with Harvard would be the institutional inertia. I think if they had been on board with a plan 3 years ago, then it might have happened by now. What you need is a stakeholder that can make big decisions like that in a 3 month time frame. Not one that acts like a collective.

 

[Equilibria]

An elevated Olympic Stadium surrounded by an open pit of rail yards? Not exactly the pretty picture the IOC is looking for.

If they want pretty pictures, they should go to Paris. More than that, they should go to Doha, since Stade de France isn't exactly a postcard.

 

[stellarfun]

Assuming Boston is designated as a candidate city by the IOC, here is the schedule (per Wiki)

Applicant city phase
8 January 2016: Deadline for Applicant Cities to submit Application Files and guarantee letters

March 2016: IOC Working Group Meeting to assess Applicant Cities (including video conference with each city)

April/May 2016: IOC Executive Board to select Candidate Cities

May 2016: Cities receive Candidate City Questionnaire and related documents
___________________
Candidate City Phase
January 2017: Deadline for Candidate Cities to submit Candidature File and guarantee letters

February/March 2017: Evaluation Commission visits

June 2017: IOC to publish Evaluation Commission Report

June 2017 (TBC): Candidate City Briefing to IOC members

Summer 2017: Candidate City presentations to the IOC Session; final report to Session from Evaluation Commission Chair

15 September 2017: Election of the host city of the 2024 Olympic Games announced at the 130th IOC Session in Lima, Peru
____________________________________
In essence, Boston has six months to get its application in order. If it doesn't, it might not be selected to be a candidate city.

 

[tangent]

If they want pretty pictures, they should go to Paris. More than that, they should go to Doha, since Stade de France isn't exactly a postcard.

Street view Stade de France. On two sides you have developed city streets with shops and such that will clean up nicely for the bid. Boston has to do better than that. Not necessarily much better, but better.

 

[Equilibria]

Street view Stade de France. On two sides you have developed city streets with shops and such that will clean up nicely for the bid. Boston has to do better than that. Not necessarily much better, but better.

If it's street view you're talking about, Widett will be fine. Dorchester Ave and the South End will clean up nicely, and they could design the entry plaza to hide the tracks and highway to a large extent. Marine Terminal wouldn't be much better from the street.

 

[tangent]

If it's street view you're talking about, Widett will be fine. Dorchester Ave and the South End will clean up nicely, and they could design the entry plaza to hide the tracks and highway to a large extent. Marine Terminal wouldn't be much better from the street.

Are you looking at the stadium or the surrounding city blocks? Because around Stade de France I see established city blocks with cafes and storefronts that lead down to the River. Basically the kind of streets you close off for the opening and closing ceremonies and have a big street festival on like the "Olympic Boulevard" concept.

The only way Widett cleans up nicely is with $1.2 billion dollars in decking. Widett is the crazy Olympic pitch.

Otherwise without the decking you are talking about a 5 to 10 minute walk past highways and/or over a train yard to get anyplace that you might consider a nice walkable street.

Spend a fraction of that $1.2B at Marine Terminal and you get walkable connections to things like the Harpoon Brewery, restaurants, Blue Hills Banks Pavillion that would clean-up nicely and provide the kind of attractions and amenities that people who are spending gobs of money to attend a big event want to do.

Spend a fraction of that $1.2B at BCEC and you get a facility with all the functionality of BCEC already built in and you are even closer to downtown and the seaport. Spend a fraction of that pretty much anywhere else and you get a better facility for the games and a better ROI.

Most importantly, they just won't be able to do it at Widett without huge taxpayer financing either up front or for the follow-on project. That part of the plan, calling for a $1.2B private investment with a very long 20 year speculative ROI isn't believable and they won't get voters to buy into a plan based on speculative financing with taxpayers on the hook when it falls through.

A project regardless of the Olympics that would make more sense, both fiscally and based on a well integrated development that would result, would be a realignment of I-93 in the style of I-90 in Allston. In terms of "we should be planning for it to happen regardless of the Olympics", the realignment of I-93 should be the project that is being discussed and planned for. For less than half a billion dollars you would get a better result for the city.

 

[stefal]

Started looking for other areas in Boston for a stadium and *surprise,* there weren't many. Next to the Garden and across the Charles could possibly host an olympic park.
I started making a concept, then realized this probably wouldn't work; 1. its costly (you need some decking, especially over North Station, 2. It'd be a lot of work to tunnel the Storrow Drive and rte. 1 exits (also costly) and 3.The stadium seems too large for the space, but what the hell, maybe this can lead to something else/a new idea.

Note: the large green or white spaces aren't intended to be left blank. I ran out of time.

 

[tklalmighty]

If we're talking other locations, before Boston put out its own bid, I actually had the Widett area penciled in as the Olympic Village and the Bayside Expo site penciled in for the Olympic Stadium/new Revolution Stadium.

The plus side is that Widett's legacy gets developed faster, and that any auxiliary facilities for the Olympic Stadium would not require any decking (i.e. Moakley would be heavily used). Columbia station would be closer to the stadium than Broadway or Andrew would be to the Widett site.

The negative as I see it would be that UMass Boston would not have its housing legacy. At least it wouldn't get it immediately; the area could be developed to leave a 25k seat stadium with room for dorms around it.

A project regardless of the Olympics that would make more sense, both fiscally and based on a well integrated development that would result, would be a realignment of I-93 in the style of I-90 in Allston. In terms of "we should be planning for it to happen regardless of the Olympics", the realignment of I-93 should be the project that is being discussed and planned for. For less than half a billion dollars you would get a better result for the city.

Why does I-93 need to be rerouted? Is the current setup that bad? Realigning I-93 almost certainly means realigning the approach for the I-90 interchange as well. I have no idea what the finances look like but I can't imagine it would have that high a priority.

If it's street view you're talking about, Widett will be fine. Dorchester Ave and the South End will clean up nicely, and they could design the entry plaza to hide the tracks and highway to a large extent. Marine Terminal wouldn't be much better from the street.

It's also worth noting the rail hub that was London's Olympic Park: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5407134,-0.0111332,1165m/data=!3m1!1e3 From an aesthetics point of view it certainly wasn't a flop.

 

[tangent]

Started looking for other areas in Boston for a stadium and *surprise,* there weren't many. Next to the Garden and across the Charles could possibly host an olympic park.
I started making a concept, then realized this probably wouldn't work; 1. its costly (you need some decking, especially over North Station, 2. It'd be a lot of work to tunnel the Storrow Drive and rte. 1 exits (also costly) and 3.The stadium seems too large for the space, but what the hell, maybe this can lead to something else/a new idea.

Note: the large green or white spaces aren't intended to be left blank. I ran out of time.

Near there you could probably put a stadium between Bunker Hill Community College and Sullivan Square with some displacement of businesses. That area is targeted for redevelopment anyway, is served by I93 and two Orange Line stations. It doesn't get you the additional touristy amenities right there like the Seaport, but it is close to downtown.

Could relocate/redevelop Bunker Hill Community College as part of the deal. That building and campus is very dated.

Would be good to see everything between Assembly Square and BHCC redeveloped as part of the legacy.

 

[tangent]

Why does I-93 need to be rerouted? Is the current setup that bad? Realigning I-93 almost certainly means realigning the approach for the I-90 interchange as well. I have no idea what the finances look like but I can't imagine it would have that high a priority.

The point was I93 could probably be rerouted to make way for development less expensively than decking Widett. Not in time for the bid, but if the focus was on the legacy rather than a stadium then the better plan would be to move 93 closer to the rail to make room for development to the West side of 93.

It's also worth noting the rail hub that was London's Olympic Park: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5407134,-0.0111332,1165m/data=!3m1!1e3 From an aesthetics point of view it certainly wasn't a flop.

And they spent about half a billion less by not trying to deck over a rail yard. Throwing half a billion (at least) more at Widett still gets you a less attractive result. And a temporary facility. And it will never happen.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The point was I93 could probably be rerouted to make way for development less expensively than decking Widett. Not in time for the bid, but if the focus was on the legacy rather than a stadium then the better plan would be to move 93 closer to the rail to make room for development to the West side of 93.

Can't be done. Amtrak is not a party to the Widett circus and refuses to let its Southampton facility get compromised by anything B24 is proposing. They won't with MassDOT, either. Amtrak craps bigger'n both B24 and MassDOT.

Second, the 6 consecutive overpasses in South Bay + the Haul Road prevent realignment of 93 over the train tracks without a half-mile's extra of elevated highway from JFK north, to go along with the 1 mile of elevated highway you're proposing to build over the train tracks. Didn't we just spend a whole lot a money to get rid of one of those? Building a new one to enrich some downtown developers is going to pass muster with Dorchester and Southie...how exactly?

Third...do you know how much the existing South Bay eyesore cost? And you want to nuke/rebuild that after 15 years? How, pray tell, is that all going to be less expensive than decking Widett?

 

[tangent]

Can't be done. Amtrak is not a party to the Widett circus and refuses to let its Southampton facility get compromised by anything B24 is proposing. They won't with MassDOT, either. Amtrak craps bigger'n both B24 and MassDOT.

Second, the 6 consecutive overpasses in South Bay + the Haul Road prevent realignment of 93 over the train tracks without a half-mile's extra of elevated highway from JFK north, to go along with the 1 mile of elevated highway you're proposing to build over the train tracks. Didn't we just spend a whole lot a money to get rid of one of those? Building a new one to enrich some downtown developers is going to pass muster with Dorchester and Southie...how exactly?

Third...do you know how much the existing South Bay eyesore cost? And you want to nuke/rebuild that after 15 years? How, pray tell, is that all going to be less expensive than decking Widett?

Not sure how a realigned I93 compromises Amtrak?

But a realignment is less expensive than decking Widett because you wouldn't do it until the highway needs a major overhaul anyway... So 40 years out perhaps. Widett is an answer in search of a question. There is no good reason to deck Widett. It doesn't get us the Olympics in any positive scenario for taxpayers. The risks are multibillion dollar risks. The city still has a plentiful supply of areas that should be redeveloped and can be of less cost to taxpayers which will keep us busy for 30 or 40 years even assuming continued population growth... Which itself isn't even desirable.

When those elevated spans reach the end of their life, that is when you do the realignment and realize a gain of a few blocks of new development to the West of 93.

Getting stuck with a development which won't be able to pay its fair share of taxes because of unsustainable infrastructure costs is the type of boondoggle white elephant project that the Olympics is notorious for.

The Olympic Village at the old Bay Side Expo center site is the type of do it anyway project that makes sense and should happen in some form regardless of the Olympics. Widett isn't.

 

[stellarfun]

Map of Boston, circa 1861, showing the South Bay.

Streets to the west are Washington, Harrison, Albany.

To my eye, what would become Widett Circle was submerged bay bottomland. I would expect one would need a thorough geotechnical survey to help determine what can/could be built there other than sprawling one story edifices.

 

[Equilibria]

To my eye, what would become Widett Circle was submerged bay bottomland. I would expect one would need a thorough geotechnical survey to help determine what can/could be built there other than sprawling one story edifices.

The entire South Boston Waterfront is built on "bottomland." The Hancock and Pru are built on fill. It's not remotely a problem. Perhaps slightly more expensive, but not prohibitive.