Boston 2024

Equilibria said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess we will see soon if it is cost prohibitive.
 
Equilibria said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Custom House sits on 3,000 pilings.

Its not that you can't do it, but the design calls for a platform supported by columns; how the columns will be supported is unclear.

Hudson Yards: 28 acres, 300 caissons, 4-5 feet in diameter drilled into bedrock which is 20-60 feet below the surface. Construction cost of the Hudson Yards platform is $1.5 billion. (The $1.2 billion estimate for Boston includes land purchases and relocation costs.)

_______________________

The larger point is that Boston's official bid to the IOC in about six months will be submitted without the city or B24 having ownership of all the land parcels needed for the Widett stadium site; without any significant engineering studies of the site being done; and without a developer identified willing and able to pay for and build the platform on which the stadium will sit.

One can contrast that with Stade de France, or even Hamburg, which proposes a new stadium to be built on private land, with industrial enterprises on the proposed site relocated, but I believe the Hamburg stadium, village, and other venues would be built with public monies.
 
stellarfun said:
The Custom House sits on 3,000 pilings.

Its not that you can't do it, but the design calls for a platform supported by columns; how the columns will be supported is unclear.

Hudson Yards: 28 acres, 300 caissons, 4-5 feet in diameter drilled into bedrock which is 20-60 feet below the surface. Construction cost of the Hudson Yards platform is $1.5 billion. (The $1.2 billion estimate for Boston includes land purchases and relocation costs.)

_______________________

The larger point is that Boston's official bid to the IOC in about six months will be submitted without the city or B24 having ownership of all the land parcels needed for the Widett stadium site; without any significant engineering studies of the site being done; and without a developer identified willing and able to pay for and build the platform on which the stadium will sit.

One can contrast that with Stade de France, or even Hamburg, which proposes a new stadium to be built on private land, with industrial enterprises on the proposed site relocated, but I believe the Hamburg stadium, village, and other venues would be built with public monies.
Click to expand...

I'm curious why you chose the Custom House Tower as a comparison, since that building is from a different era (and still manages to be tall and on fill). The larger point is that in a city where entire centers of commerce (Back Bay, SBW, Kendall Square, etc.) are on filled land, arguing that a development on South Bay would be limited to one-story sprawl is straining credulity.

Your argument that this thing hasn't been studied to death is valid. We don't know if it can work. That's why it's a weak position to take going into a year of campaigning before the 2016 referendum and another year after that before the IOC vote.

With that said, the reason that Paris and Hamburg seem like safer bets is - as you note - that they are backed by tens of billions in public funds put up by national governments deeply emotionally invested in a bid. That Boston is not exposed in that way is not a weakness of a bid, it is a strength. It is how we in the United States have historically done this better than other countries.
 
equilibria,

CCENVQ4UgAAvQzO.jpg


These are pilings being set for a new generating plant in Salem, which look to be on 3-4 foot centers. The land is either glacial fill, or man-made fill. I used the Custom House example because the original was built at the harbor's edge, so very likely the land beneath was originally tidal. I am more familiar with a building and site in Washington, in which the government set concrete pilings on two-three foot centers into man-made fill on tidal bottomland. They then constructed a four foot thick concrete pad atop the pilings as a grade level slab. When they recently did test borings, they were unable to determine the ground water level under the site as the level fluctuated with the tide. In essence, the concrete slab acts as a cork on a porridge of saturated fill. In Kendall and the Seaport, as they are building garages under, its a basin caisson, shoring, slurry walls, excavation, and a thick concrete pad.

Because Elkus is doing a building at Hudson Yards, Manfredi is probably pitching the platform at Widett. And if Perini (Tutor-Perini is the contractor for Hudson Yards) was still headquartered in Framingham, Boston would be all set.

Hamburg's principal site is an island in the middle of a river.

As an Olympic site
342092.jpg


Legacy site
342095.jpg


...The Germans best hope that the Elbe river doesn't flood.
 
Equilibria said:
Your argument that this thing hasn't been studied to death is valid. We don't know if it can work. That's why it's a weak position to take going into a year of campaigning before the 2016 referendum and another year after that before the IOC vote.

With that said, the reason that Paris and Hamburg seem like safer bets is - as you note - that they are backed by tens of billions in public funds put up by national governments deeply emotionally invested in a bid. That Boston is not exposed in that way is not a weakness of a bid, it is a strength. It is how we in the United States have historically done this better than other countries.
Click to expand...

Weak is an understatement. Unless they have a couple Billion dollars in escrow by November 2016 just for Widett ( not to mention the Olympic Village), then why would anyone believe that they can privately finance a stadium at Widett. And why would the IOC risk it in 2017? Why would the USOC risk further embarrassment this September even? Even with gobs of tax breaks nothing is going to be certain, which puts Billions of dollars of risk on taxpayers.

The Olympic Village on the other hand could be made more believable with a series of deals for conversion after the games. Even just take a few planned buildings and come to agreement or pay for dorms and you have demonstrated the viability of the concept.


The strength of the private model is only there if Boston 2024 acts in the public interest and rejects Widett because it puts too much financial risk on taxpayers.
 
tangent said:
Weak is an understatement. Unless they have a couple Billion dollars in escrow by November 2016 just for Widett ( not to mention the Olympic Village), then why would anyone believe that they can privately finance a stadium at Widett. And why would the IOC risk it in 2017? Why would the USOC risk further embarrassment this September even? Even with gobs of tax breaks nothing is going to be certain, which puts Billions of dollars of risk on taxpayers.

The Olympic Village on the other hand could be made more believable with a series of deals for conversion after the games. Even just take a few planned buildings and come to agreement or pay for dorms and you have demonstrated the viability of the concept.


The strength of the private model is only there if Boston 2024 acts in the public interest and rejects Widett because it puts too much financial risk on taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Well, that sentiment could have applied to any bid from any city - they're all big risks that depend on unsafe assumptions, from London to Rio to Chicago. The difference in Boston would be that while Boston 2024 will have insurance to cover overruns, it's not clear that the City would be willing (nor should they be) to take the entire project over should no developer step up.

I think that we're all in agreement that Midtown is a bad idea. The strength of Boston's debate so far is that we're arguing about whether any developer would realistically do this, and not about whether it would be responsible to put the public at risk for the $1.2 billion. What happens when no developer signs on is not an answerable question right now, because there's no precedent among Olympic hosts for not having massive public investment as a backstop.
 
Equilibria said:
... The strength of Boston's debate so far is that we're arguing about whether any developer would realistically do this, and not about whether it would be responsible to put the public at risk for the $1.2 billion. What happens when no developer signs on is not an answerable question right now, because there's no precedent among Olympic hosts for not having massive public investment as a backstop.
Click to expand...
It will never* get to that point under the present B24 timetable. The RFP for the developer for the stadium platform is to be issued two days after the host city is selected by the IOC.

*It might get to that point only if Paris and Hamburg drop, Dohn stays out, Rome's bid is feeble, and its down to Boston and Budapest. And the Hungarians have already said they are doing 2024 for 'practice'; they supposedly are really aiming for 2028 or 2032.
 
stellarfun said:
It will never* get to that point under the present B24 timetable. The RFP for the developer for the stadium platform is to be issued two days after the host city is selected by the IOC.

*It might get to that point only if Paris and Hamburg drop, Dohn stays out, Rome's bid is feeble, and its down to Boston and Budapest. And the Hungarians have already said they are doing 2024 for 'practice'; they supposedly are really aiming for 2028 or 2032.
Click to expand...

If the City of Boston signs the guarantee then the "developer" is not of concern to the IOC
 
If Boston were to not get the nod, how long do you think it would be before the another group started to try and get the Olympics to come to town - 10 years? 20?
 
MBTAddict said:
If Boston were to not get the nod, how long do you think it would be before the another group started to try and get the Olympics to come to town - 10 years? 20?
Click to expand...

Depends on the public perception of why the bid falls short.
 
Make a serious push? At least 20 years. Probably longer.

It's been 10 years since NYC lost the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. Given their clout, you would expect them to have a quicker turnaround for another attempt, yet they haven't.

Same with Chicago, which has now gone 6 years since being eliminated for the 2016 Olympics.
 
bigeman312 said:
Make a serious push? At least 20 years. Probably longer.

It's been 10 years since NYC lost the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. Given their clout, you would expect them to have a quicker turnaround for another attempt, yet they haven't.

Same with Chicago, which has now gone 6 years since being eliminated for the 2016 Olympics.
Click to expand...

How you lose matters. Paris lost, but got encouraging feedback and the sports venues are all the same. NY's Hudson stadium got shot down and now isn't an option so it isn't like they can dust off the old bid. I think the main issue is that the USOC isn't going to pick Boston again in anyone's lifetime if the bid fails in early hurdles.

If the bid becomes more practical (ie drops Widett), then builds public support, then passes the referendum, comes in second to Paris, and all the venue options remain viable, then it could be a quick turnaround. But even then the USOC will be under pressure to give a different city its chance.
 
I think it's entirely dependent on whether or not anyone wants to step into the Fish role. For as much as the NIMBY crowd has hysterically cried that Fish leading the bid is somehow problematic, fact of the matter is that all these bids are pushed by a small group ranging from one to a handful of people. So in terms of guessing years: I'd assume there's A) no one capable of either being Fish or putting a Fish coalition together, and B) even if there were, no one wants the backlash (Kraft is already running away as fast as possible). 20 years minimum.
 
tangent said:
If the City of Boston signs the guarantee then the "developer" is not of concern to the IOC
Click to expand...
The only 'guarantee' that would count is if public (taxpayer) monies backstop the development of the platform and the village.

_________________________________________

As for when there might be another Boston bid, my guess is never. Boston is already land-poor when it comes to venue sites, but if one assumes there is no development at Widdett, or Suffolk Downs, or Beacon Yards, or etc. for the next ten years, then I suppose somebody might try again.

Another option would be if Mr. Kraft decides he needs a new 70,000 or 80,000 seat stadium, with the stadium floor of sufficient size that it could be used as the Olympic stadium.

Hamburg's base site (with stadium, aquatics center, village, large indoor hall) is 300+ acres. To get that kind of land in Boston these days, you'd need a golf course (near mass transit) to go belly-up.
 
underground said:
I think it's entirely dependent on whether or not anyone wants to step into the Fish role. For as much as the NIMBY crowd has hysterically cried that Fish leading the bid is somehow problematic, fact of the matter is that all these bids are pushed by a small group ranging from one to a handful of people. So in terms of guessing years: I'd assume there's A) no one capable of either being Fish or putting a Fish coalition together, and B) even if there were, no one wants the backlash (Kraft is already running away as fast as possible). 20 years minimum.
Click to expand...


That is a very narrow local power broker centric view. Fish stepped in after the timing seemed right based on external factors and at least a three decade effort by a collection of less well known players. There will always be someone with convening power to pull together another bid, the question will be whether they will have another chance.
 
stellarfun said:
The only 'guarantee' that would count is if public (taxpayer) monies backstop the development of the platform and the village.
Click to expand...

Which as far as I can tell is what the proposed plan actually calls for. I don't think they have come to any agreement with an insurance company on coverage so it isn't clear if the total cost of the Olympic village and stadium would be covered. It is hard to imagine that a couple hundred million would buy you $5 billion in coverage, so yes the required IOC guarantee from the host city would cover all those costs that are now penciled in as private but don't actually have any committed investment.

Which is why you need to nail down those risks now before the end of this year as much as possible and before November 2016 for the statewide vote because any substantial costs which don't have private funding nailed down would be a reason to vote no in 2016.
 
That is a very narrow local power broker centric view.
Click to expand...
As opposed to all those Olympics organized by local community groups? Sorry, it's not an anything-centric view. It's reality.
 
Last edited:
underground said:
As opposed to all those Olympics organized by local community groups? Sorry, it's not an anything-centric view. It's reality.
Click to expand...

A skewed view of reality. Yes he lended legitimacy to the bid in the eyes of the USOC at a crucial moment but any key public official or business leader could have stepped up to fill that role. I don't mean to disparage anyone, but if you are talking about a future bid in the event of a Boston 2024 failure then we are talking about new leadership and there are literally dozens or hundreds of people that might step forward to effectively fill that role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top