Gillette Stadium

A stadium in South Boston or Widett Circle would not have been in the middle of the city. This was pre-Big Dig and the city is better off in South Boston with what is there now. Also Schaefer Stadium then Foxboro Stadium was famously not run well with its 3 mile long traffic jams and disastrous Michael Jackson concerts. It was a drunken 1970's beer fest with entertainment by the worlds worst football team. Things are better now and Kraft and the town seem to do quite well. And to assume the Patriots would have been just as successful can't be sustained. It took a trillion different decisions to arrive at this moment, if you changed one thing the present would have to be different. Any change in ownership, personnel, or location could have had the Patriots passing (ha!) on a 6th round quarterback named Brady. What if Drew Bledsoe never got hurt?
 
And the town has to tolerate some crazy stuff to this day. People are surprised to learn that the most arrests there are not at Patriots games but Country Fest. Yup, not heavy metal, punk, or hip hop but country music. I always thought that was funny when the EMTs and paramedics I know would bitch about that detail. I tell them to rejoice, that they are with their people.
 
DBM said:
In fact, it's so shamefully, sordidly, abhorrently Simpsons "Monorail!"-style rotten, that back in the day, a Holy Cross professor (I assume F-Line is alluding to him?) became an academic celebrity for devoting his career to studying, exposing, and expounding on the vileness of this graft.

Anyway, as noted above, metro Boston, compared to other metros of its ilk nationwide, got extremely lucky with the evolution of Fenway, the Garden, and what became Gillette Stadium, circa 1990-present. None taxpayer-funded, and the worst you can accuse any of them of is perpetuating preexisting game-day traffic congestion issues, as well as aesthetic demerits (bland, uninteresting, overly-commercialized).
Click to expand...

The Garden itself - has undergone renovations which make it bareable but its light years behind the arenas built since 2010, hell even the ones built just after it. It made as generic as could possibly be. Dreadful in fact. There were other arenas built just after it that have way more character than the Garden (Indiana comes to mind).

Now The Hub as made an ENORMOUS difference. It has turned the whole Garden area (which admittedly was changing with the projects across the street) into a vibrant area which we haven’t even seen fully due to the pandemic.

As for Fenway. I love the park. I remember being really young (9-10) and being so excited about a new park. I was young and unwise because it only took a few years for me to fall in love with Fenway and I think ownership has done an absolutely marvelous job of renovating it, modernizing it while keeping its charm.

I do have concerns though that the incramental changes as opposed to a massive overhaul - are the kind that will only extend the life of the park by another 10-15 years. And then what? There’s nowhere to build EXCEPT the Seaport at that point unless they tore down and built right on the footprint of Fenway. But those are concerns for another day. Right now I think what they’ve done with the park is incredible.


Gillette is a much different animal though. Gillette is *good enough* to last for another decade but it’s just not at the level that a flagship franchise should have (maybe that’s a “feeling” as you would say). Minnesota, Atlanta, Dallas, Vegas, LA all have these absolutely stunning facilities. And of ALL the new stadiums built in the last 20+ years - Gillette is among the least impressive

And as I’ve said before - Foxboro is awful. Rt1 traffic is a disaster. I could do without it. Maybe some people are content with the set up that there is now - but TO me it’s lacking and I look foward to the day (if it ever comes) where they aren’t playing in the middle of nowhere.

To me the situation is similar to the Jets. (Although East Rutherford is far closer to
Manhattan than Foxboro is to DTB). They had the chance build what would have been a monumental stadium. Sleek design, every amenity you can imagine and built on the West Side of Manhattan. The location of the stadium was right on the water - JUST West of where the Hudson Yards development is. It would have been breathtaking and who knows what it would’ve done for that franchise. Instead NIMBY’s get in the way and there pushed back to the Meadowlands to act as the Giants chauffeur in a (modern) cookie cutter stadium.

I still think a modern stadium with the potential to hold major events - surrounded by dense development with connections to rapid transit- would be an incredible thing for the area and would be a worthy investment. We can agree to disagree. And no I don’t have a spreadsheet to explain why the profit margins justify such an investment. But I think there is a case could be made for it.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
You're seriously arguing the Olympics were going to be worth it when the IOC's & USOC's institutionalized corruption showed its ugly hand at the end? Look...we had a regime willing to bend over against the public will to make it happen. And it wasn't enough for the bureaucrats on the selection committees who wanted us to bend over an order of magnitude harder. They were totally ready to move the goalposts and demand a whole other level of public subsidy if we didn't cave into the racket. The City, thank God, got a belated negative reaction to that and said "No mas." Lots of experts were screaming at them for a whole year prior that the IOC/USOC were baiting them in order to ratchet up the demands. Go re-read the Olympics thread in the aB thread archives here if you want the blow-by-blow for how that controversy went down back in the day. History records that we were probably extremely lucky we didn't play along with the grift, because we almost certainly would've lost our shirts on the Games after all the final screws were put to us (to say nothing about how the mega-event economy isn't going to be normal again for at least the rest of the decade because of COVID's long shadow).

You're not going to retcon that one into a sorely missed opportunity. General consensus was it was a BIG dodged bullet. Multi-time host L.A. might be structurally set up to pull this off at break-even or slight profit...we most definitely are not. And even L.A. right now is only projected to break-even on the '28 Games as a *best*-case financial projection...as costs for them have inflated grotesquely since they got the award. Break-even as of the FY2019 projection...nevermind now after COVID changed the world and changed the terms of preventative measures. They're probably going to lose some not-inconsequential money on it as costly amounts of extra pandemic-response/prevention overhead exerts its gravity still 7 years from now.
Click to expand...

Im aware of the Olympic saga and how it played out. It initially had support but the NOlympics crew bombarded people with negative media and eventually enough people started believing it.

I think the Olympics had the potential to be great for the city. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity (unless you’re a flagship like NY, LA, London, Paris, Tokyo). It’s just a special thing to be a part of (again, maybe that’s “feels”). And I do think it had the potential to spur some developments and improvements to the are.

With that being said - IM NOT GUARANTEEING it would have operated at an enormous profit and yes it might’ve even taken a loss. To me there was a decent chance that a lot of costs could have been offset by the simple fact these venues could’ve been sold to the local universities. (It’s not a bad pitch to perspective student athletes “You can play Sport X at the same venue as the Olympics because it’s our venue now”). It IS possible for hosting the Olympics to be a success and not a giant boondoggle. Cities have done it before (LA, Atlanta)

As said previous, the thing that had disappointed me from the outset of the bids announcement was the inability to use the bid as a vechile to produce major infrastructure transport improvements. I think that would’ve gone a long way to maintaining support from the public.
 
NoShJFK said:
the thing that had disappointed me from the outset of the bids announcement was the inability to use the bid as a vechile to produce major infrastructure transport improvements. I think that would’ve gone a long way to maintaining support from the public.
Click to expand...

I pray the rest of the Commonwealth's voters aren't as susceptible to such a breathtakingly cynical argument as you are.

"inability to use the Olympic bid as a vehicle to produce major infrastructure improvements" is such blatant bribery/manipulation.

"Oh, you're worried about massive cost overruns/the Olympics as a gigantic engine for inequality, etc., etc.... OH LOOK OVER THERE?! DO YOU SEE IT?! A SHINY NEW TRANSPORTATION PROJECT X TO THRILL AND TITILLATE THE MASSES!!" [now quick sign on the dotted line with your own blood while I have you so pathetically distracted]

A citizenry that would be duped by such grotesque chicanery . . . well, anyway, obviously I'm immensely proud that the firestorm of controversy ignited, as regular Bostonians realized that they were being had.
 
DBM said:
I pray the rest of the Commonwealth's voters aren't as susceptible to such a breathtakingly cynical argument as you are.

"inability to use the Olympic bid as a vehicle to produce major infrastructure improvements" is such blatant bribery/manipulation.

"Oh, you're worried about massive cost overruns/the Olympics as a gigantic engine for inequality, etc., etc.... OH LOOK OVER THERE?! DO YOU SEE IT?! A SHINY NEW TRANSPORTATION PROJECT X TO THRILL AND TITILLATE THE MASSES!!" [now quick sign on the dotted line with your own blood while I have you so pathetically distracted]

A citizenry that would be duped by such grotesque chicanery . . . well, anyway, obviously I'm immensely proud that the firestorm of controversy ignited, as regular Bostonians realized that they were being had.
Click to expand...

No shit. Did anyone--even at the time--seriously think Gov. Patrick gave a flying fuck about finding funding sources for his breathtakingly cynical "Indigo Lines 2024" dog-and-pony show? It was transparent payola to the USOC...complete with built-in fucking over of Dorchester residents by bait-and-switching any progress on the already years-late Fairmount Line improvements to vulture their Downtown frequencies onto the anti-useful Track 61 BCEC dinky. And relied on a quarter-billion dollars worth of DMU vehicle purchase pixie dust instead of best-practices electrification w/EMU's...because Rich Davey thought we were suckers enough for shiny-ball syndrome to believe the vehicle purchase was the entirety of the service and that we'd still be giving him a standing ovation when it was time for him to go through the revolving door into his posh Olympics job.

Anyone remember what void that whole fast-starts fell into the second B24 folded? Neither do I. Bob DeLeo made damn sure it didn't get a single drop of funding when Patrick's transpo omnibus bill made the House floor...and Patrick by that point already had so much wanderlust about running for Preznit he couldn't care less. People were righteously pissed that they got played as shamelessly as this. The Rail Vision is largely being fought for as ferociously tooth-and-nail as it is by grassroots advocacy in direct revulsion to how bad a taste the B24 Transpo Improvements rope-a-dope left in its wake.


At pretty much all levels, we really do not buy into sports-spectacle public subsidy circular arguments in this region. That is something we fortunately/unfortunately end up proving ourselves grateful for at regular intervals whenever the next Great Hype comes along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBM
DBM said:
I pray the rest of the Commonwealth's voters aren't as susceptible to such a breathtakingly cynical argument as you are.

"inability to use the Olympic bid as a vehicle to produce major infrastructure improvements" is such blatant bribery/manipulation.

"Oh, you're worried about massive cost overruns/the Olympics as a gigantic engine for inequality, etc., etc.... OH LOOK OVER THERE?! DO YOU SEE IT?! A SHINY NEW TRANSPORTATION PROJECT X TO THRILL AND TITILLATE THE MASSES!!" [now quick sign on the dotted line with your own blood while I have you so pathetically distracted]

A citizenry that would be duped by such grotesque chicanery . . . well, anyway, obviously I'm immensely proud that the firestorm of controversy ignited, as regular Bostonians realized that they were being had.
Click to expand...

Maybe the last line was misleading. I was hopeful the Olympics would be used as a vehicle for major infrastructure improvements because I wanted to see the major infrastructure changes above all else. Hosting the Olympics was just a major bonus to me
 
I'd like to see the Patrios add seats and also partial roof coverings like what Miami did with their stadium, or even to a lesser extent what the Seahawks did to theirs. The roofs amplify noise nicely.
 
I think this race to the top is destructive, and what does it have to do with the reason you are there? The Bruins have had 3 overtimes in a row. Maybe its me but I dont need my ass powdered when I am watching the sons of Bobby Orr try to win a Cup
 
Scott said:
I think this race to the top is destructive, and what does it have to do with the reason you are there? The Bruins have had 3 overtimes in a row. Maybe its me but I dont need my ass powdered when I am watching the sons of Bobby Orr try to win a Cup
Click to expand...
If the team sucks, and you can't draw a crowd by their play, at least for a season or two you can bump up attendance (and concession sales) with a new building that people want to check out. Even if the team is good it raises demand so you can raise ticket prices. After a while the shine wears off, but even if the team is still bad if it's a nice enough place maybe you can get an extra few hundred or so to show up just based on it being a comfortable way to kill a few hours.

There's also definitely a loss if you don't significantly improve the place over time and the team begins to suffer badly. My mind immediately goes to New Hampshire Motor Speedway which, when it first opened, was equal to or superior to the experience of going to the old Foxboro Stadium. Then, even as Gillette opened up and the negatives of the NHMS experience became more glaring, the on-track product was still good and people were willing to excuse it because they enjoyed the racing. But then, as NASCAR changed and the racing became less compelling, people just got fed up and quit going. Now they've cut capacity up there by almost 1/3, and who knows how long that place has (the situation is worse for speedways than stadiums since you can't make money on a place built to the standards of, say, Gillette for only 1 or 2 major event dates a year, at least not anymore).

IMO I don't think Gillette needs replacement, the once or twice I go a year it seems like a perfectly reasonable experience, and upgrading it isn't going to entice me to any more events than I already attend.
 
I had always associated a theoretical Seaport Stadium with the Red Sox. Patriots... it's only 10 (11?) games a year plus possibly some playoff games. I've heard that the Patriots Train is very popular so you are covered there.

Football in general doesn't really need to be in the city.
 
Scott said:
And the town has to tolerate some crazy stuff to this day. People are surprised to learn that the most arrests there are not at Patriots games but Country Fest. Yup, not heavy metal, punk, or hip hop but country music. I always thought that was funny when the EMTs and paramedics I know would bitch about that detail. I tell them to rejoice, that they are with their people.
Click to expand...

Is this...a joke? Do paramedics...tend to like country music? I don't get it.
 
jklo said:
I had always associated a theoretical Seaport Stadium with the Red Sox. Patriots... it's only 10 (11?) games a year plus possibly some playoff games. I've heard that the Patriots Train is very popular so you are covered there.

Football in general doesn't really need to be in the city.
Click to expand...
Right, your average movie theater might have 10 auditoriums with 150 seats each showing three screenings per day. That's a daily capacity of 4,500. Even if you assume each screening is only about 45% full, on average, that still puts you at 2,000 per day or about 730k per year. That's more ticketed attendees than a full season (8 regular season + 1 pre-season + 2 post-season games) of Pats sellouts at Gillette.

Obviously NFL games aren't the only events at Gillette, but the point still stands. I love sports and stadiums as much as the proverbial next guy, but NFL stadiums in particular are just not highest and best use for expensive urban core real estate.
 
Blackbird said:
Is this...a joke? Do paramedics...tend to like country music? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Oh good, I wasn't the only one who didn't get the joke.

That said, I've heard nothing but bad things about Country Music Festivals from plenty of folks.
 
Not a joke at all, if you doubt it you mustn't know many. And if you think the taxpayer should pay for a private stadium you must be new around here
 
Arenacale said:
IMO I don't think Gillette needs replacement, the once or twice I go a year it seems like a perfectly reasonable experience, and upgrading it isn't going to entice me to any more events than I already attend.
Click to expand...

It’s not “BAD”. But it’s not “GOOD”. As far as NFL venues go... a reasonable person would
consider it as high as maybe 16th-17th and as low as 24-25th.

However Boston is a major market. For sports
it’s one of a handful of flagship markets. The Patriots are one of the 4-5 flagship franchises in the NFL. And the stadium is underwhelming.

Would not be sad to see it go the way of Turner Field
 
What I’m about to say is “Crazy Pitches” or has the potential to be so.....

Ideally: In 5-10 years you build a new Patriots stadium in Widett Circle or anywhere in South Boston / Seaport. If it can be done in a way that doesn’t become a gargantuan eye sore then consider adding a roof.

On all the other parcels continue building the dense development that has been built in the past 10 years. To handle the autos - build a handful of DEVELOPMENT WRAPPED parking garages (IE Assembly)

Obviously you need a subway line going going through the Seaport. That’s a given. If a stadium was built closer to Widett then you have Andrews right there but a commuter rail station could be built underneath it (with a NSRL you could have stadium express trains every game day but that’s for a different thread)

As for Gillette; You downsize the stadium SIGNIFIGANTLY. Take off the upper deck and the visitors side second deck (build some sort of event space incorporate it as part of the downsized stadium.

You renovate the back of the property to become the Patriots training facility. Top of the line in every aspect. Similar to what a lot of teams have - their training facility away from their stadium.

The parking lots can be used for a lot of different things - added apartments and condos. A water park or general amusement park. Or even another casino (although I don’t think that would be a good idea)



*IF the Red Sox ever needed to do a MASSIVE renovation that forced them on the road for a year - Gillette could be retrofitted to be used by them.
 
You're going to see Kraft make marginal upgrades for the foreseeable future. Things like the new video board they're building in the south endzone, the Optum field club built a couple of years ago, they're completely replacing the field (may be done given the Revs have started their season), etc. I would like to eventually see them add more seats and get it to the 70k range. They removed a couple of thousand seats to put in the Optum club, so they should replace those and then some to full enclose the south end zone so the noise will be a bit better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top