Dorchester Bay City (nee Bayside Expo Ctr.) | Columbia Point

BosDevelop said:
Zero chance. Site is not big enough. Even downtown, you need parking. People like to tailgate. Bar hoping is not the same.
Click to expand...

There are still some parcels and parking to build on in the Seaport. Plenty of wiggle room to build the new Gillette there.
D5310AC7-7AB0-404A-A1AF-0EEA3B249736.png
72220B3C-40CE-4914-B580-9C16B99514D2.png

And yes. Fans like to bar hop as hell before games in addition to tailgating.

Sorry to derail. Back in topic. I do agree that these buildings will be slightly taller than what has gone into Innovation Square already.
 
New release shows 6 million square feet, only 1700 units... And they are dubbing it Dorchester Bay Center
 
Why not call it “Dorchesterport” or something quaint? Something tells me that the BTU dropped the ball on this one. But not because of the Revs. This “Walthamization” of the Bayside Expo Center is really what they want? Whatevs.

I’m encouraged to see that the height of these buildings is slightly larger than in the actual Seaport. But it’s still bland.
 
kingofsheeba said:
Triple Plot Twist: I was listening to Felger and Mazz yesterday and Murray reminded us that Gillette was getting up there and that they seemed to hint that Kraft could tear down Rockland Trust Pavillon (Harbor Lights) and build a new Gillette there. Obviously a rumor but still...
Click to expand...

I was listening to that as well, but he did concede that would most likely never happen because of all the development and attractions they have built up around the stadium at Patriot Place. Felger even lamented that he loves the Seaport area and going to shows at the Pavilion.
 
type001 said:
I was listening to that as well, but he did concede that would most likely never happen because of all the development and attractions they have built up around the stadium at Patriot Place. Felger even lamented that he loves the Seaport area and going to shows at the Pavilion.
Click to expand...
Yeah I did hear him say that too. Not too many empty parcels to build on, but like I said earlier. Don’t underestimate the Krafts ability to play 4D chess. Remember. This is not 1997.

Also, Felger did say that they can always rebuild the pavilion
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
If one goes to Google maps, satellite view, for 290 Northern Ave and for Gillette stadium, same scale of 1.5 inches = 200 feet, no way on God's green earth could one fit even just the stadium itself on the parcel of land that is 290 Northern Ave.

goo.gl

Gillette Stadium · 1 Patriot Pl, Foxborough, MA 02035

★★★★★ · Stadium
goo.gl goo.gl

goo.gl

290 Northern Ave · 290 Northern Ave, Boston, MA 02210

Building
goo.gl goo.gl
Click to expand...
That’s why they would build on the parking lot adjacent to Rockland. And take up some of the John Nagle Fish Co.
 
If they had built a 70-75,000 seat stadium over in this area, with a retractable roof, Boston would be in the regular rotation for the NCAA Men's Basketball Final Four and the Super Bowl. Heck even Wrestlemania would be in play given WWE only does football stadiums for the event.

Although if they were going to build a stadium closer to the city, building it around the University Ave area in Westwood/Canton would have been great (prior to the University Ave development being built). Direct commuter rail access (on a line with frequent service and a quick ride into and out of Boston) and it sits at the junction of two major highways in the Boston metro area.
 
Last edited:
RandomWalk said:
What year is this? Did I suddenly warp back to 1995?
Click to expand...

This. Jesus Christ, have we forgotten already what a turd sandwich the Megaplex was going to be at value recapture for the City? Chew on some Globe archives from the latter John Harrington years for anti-fun weekend reading if we've deluded ourselves into thinking unilateral wealth transfer to the pockets of billionaires is every bit the trickle-down panacea our acid dreams thought it would be. The Megaplex didn't implode for any one reason correctable in a straightforward do-over. It failed for every reason of there not being any favorable angle you could squint at it where countable economic return back into the city ever added up to the wealth transfer coming out of it. A mistake we tried desperately to make again with Boston 2024 until realizing (very late in game) what a collection of grifters we were up against.

If there's one thing that held all the Revs stadium talk to a modicum of reality it's that the product was as limited-scope as it was, and thus the stadium debate had to be bound to toothy conditions of spreading the community benefits to compensate for the relatively low topline economic impact of an MLS team. Even the accompanying SimCity stadium debate predicated itself on a prereq 'show-me' from Kraft or some other developer that they could deliver greater-than-sum-of-parts integration. Quite frankly, that should be the toothy standard for any sports facility proposal. But we're still psychologically conditioned by 1990's stadium fever to throw that hard bargain out the window once NFL/NCAA/'Lympics/MLB get breathlessly mentioned. You would think we'd still be smarting from that lesson after getting a load of the IOC/USOC grifters' true colors, but guess not. Right now there is nothing scarier on Earth than how overvalued NFL stadiums are after the recent L.A. + Vegas bubbles jacked valuations to a new level of stupid under Goodell...all while the owners simultaneously know their brand is staring at a coming death plunge off a giant cliff from the Traumatic Brain Injury taboo.

How many times do we let ourselves get sucked in by this overhyped bait before there's an actual burden of proof held to this stadium swill??? You can mount a fail-safe(r) corrective push at a Megaplex if we upheld the same toothy economic-return proofing to the big boys as we aimed to a marginal player like an MLS-only facility. But getting starstruck for the umpteenth time at being able to kiss the hype leagues' roided, brain-damaged asses again? Nope...hard pass. That's a form of 90's nostalgia that needs to stay firmly firewalled in another century along with James Busch Orthwein and the Yawkey Trustees, thank you.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
This. Jesus Christ, have we forgotten already what a turd sandwich the Megaplex was going to be at value recapture for the City? Chew on some Globe archives from the latter John Harrington years for anti-fun weekend reading if we've deluded ourselves into thinking unilateral wealth transfer to the pockets of billionaires is every bit the trickle-down panacea our acid dreams thought it would be. The Megaplex didn't implode for any one reason correctable in a straightforward do-over. It failed for every reason of there not being any favorable angle you could squint at it where countable economic return back into the city ever added up to the wealth transfer coming out of it. A mistake we tried desperately to make again with Boston 2024 until realizing (very late in game) what a collection of grifters we were up against.

If there's one thing that held all the Revs stadium talk to a modicum of reality it's that the product was as limited-scope as it was, and thus the stadium debate had to be bound to toothy conditions of spreading the community benefits to compensate for the relatively low topline economic impact of an MLS team. Even the accompanying SimCity stadium debate predicated itself on a prereq 'show-me' from Kraft or some other developer that they could deliver greater-than-sum-of-parts integration. Quite frankly, that should be the toothy standard for any sports facility proposal. But we're still psychologically conditioned by 1990's stadium fever to throw that hard bargain out the window once NFL/NCAA/'Lympics/MLB get breathlessly mentioned. You would think we'd still be smarting from that lesson after getting a load of the IOC/USOC grifters' true colors, but guess not. Right now there is nothing scarier on Earth than how overvalued NFL stadiums are after the recent L.A. + Vegas bubbles jacked valuations to a new level of stupid under Goodell...all while the owners simultaneously know their brand is staring at a coming death plunge off a giant cliff from the Traumatic Brain Injury taboo.

How many times do we let ourselves get sucked in by this overhyped bait before there's an actual burden of proof held to this stadium swill??? You can mount a fail-safe(r) corrective push at a Megaplex if we upheld the same toothy economic-return proofing to the big boys as we aimed to a marginal player like an MLS-only facility. But getting starstruck for the umpteenth time at being able to kiss the hype leagues' roided, brain-damaged asses again? Nope...hard pass. That's a form of 90's nostalgia that needs to stay firmly firewalled in another century along with James Busch Orthwein and the Yawkey Trustees, thank you.
Click to expand...
I take it you’re not a big sports fan
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
d-fence.jpg


So this is a bad thing now? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I understand that New England Sportsball fans are insufferable. But they exist. And it’s part of Boston’s identity unfortunately. I hear you on Goddell and concussions. The only way to make the NFL safer would be to ban the sport together. And I doubt that that will happen anytime soon
 
kingofsheeba said:
I understand that New England Sportsball fans are insufferable. But they exist. And it’s part of Boston’s identity unfortunately. I hear you on Goddell and concussions. The only way to make the NFL safer would be to ban the sport together. And I doubt that that will happen anytime soon
Click to expand...

Where did you get from any of that some commentary on New England sports fans???

The one--and only--standard I want an urban land-use and large-scale public resource-supported stadium held to is reliable payback of its public outlays from the whole public back to the whole public. The 90's Seaport Megaplex utterly, totally failed on that calculus; that's why none of it was salvageable with a tweak and re-mount. We walked away from the B24 saga vomiting quietly in our own mouths at what shady cast of grifters cost of doing business required doing business with. Most urban stadiums from a now 30-year record of proof post- urban stadium boom have had middling-to-poor records on ROI back to the community, and considerable after-regrets about the wealth transfer that unilaterally took place. And...yes...when the going rate in public investment has been warped through the roof by L.A.'s and Vegas's latest stadium excesses you DO have to project forward 20+ years and factor that ROI against the precipitous coming erosion in the NFL's future popularity and revenues because of long-term drag from the CTE scandal, the whole generations of top-flight athletic talent who will be opting against playing football because of that and effects on quality-of-play, and so on.

We can do this if it's worth our while, but fix the @#$% ^^glitch^^ first! Make the terms of engagement meet a broad-based community ROI and don't fall over-the-moon in a rush for fanciful flights of peer pressure. How is it that we can toe that line when talking terms for a Revs stadium but absolutely lose our minds when it's a different league acronym??? The core task is no different even if the top- and bottom-line risk/reward covers a bigger spread. So don't treat it different; apply consistency in the quest for equitable value recapture.

That's all.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Where did you get from any of that some commentary on New England sports fans???

The one--and only--standard I want an urban land-use and large-scale public resource-supported stadium held to is reliable payback of its public outlays from the whole public back to the whole public. The 90's Seaport Megaplex utterly, totally failed on that calculus; that's why none of it was salvageable with a tweak and re-mount. We walked away from the B24 saga vomiting quietly in our own mouths at what shady cast of grifters cost of doing business required doing business with. Most urban stadiums from a now 30-year record of proof post- urban stadium boom have had middling-to-poor records on ROI back to the community, and considerable after-regrets about the wealth transfer that unilaterally took place. And...yes...when the going rate in public investment has been warped through the roof by L.A.'s and Vegas's latest stadium excesses you DO have to project forward 20+ years and factor that ROI against the precipitous coming erosion in the NFL's future popularity and revenues because of long-term drag from the CTE scandal, the whole generations of top-flight athletic talent who will be opting against playing football because of that and effects on quality-of-play, and so on.

We can do this if it's worth our while, but fix the @#$% ^^glitch^^ first! Make the terms of engagement meet a broad-based community ROI and don't fall over-the-moon in a rush for fanciful flights of peer pressure. How is it that we can toe that line when talking terms for a Revs stadium but absolutely lose our minds when it's a different league acronym??? The core task is no different even if the top- and bottom-line risk/reward covers a bigger spread. So don't treat it different; apply consistency in the quest for equitable value recapture.

That's all.
Click to expand...

You do understand that I would not want any tax dollars going to stadiums. Correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top