New England Revolution Stadium | 173 Alford Street | Boston-Everett

Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Besides the Waterfront or BCEC site alternatives discussed in the Olympic threads, Bunker Hill CC is growing on me.

A 20k or even 30k seat stadium could probably work here:

xZWWaeW.jpg
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Or I have to think Kraft has a good relationship with Gillette and could work out something in order to redevelop their parking lot at Fort Point:

rqgWqHp.jpg
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Or I have to think Kraft has a good relationship with Gillette and could work out something in order to redevelop their parking lot at Fort Point:

rqgWqHp.jpg

This is a cool location!

And open up better access to Broadway T as well.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Imagine once the Post office is gone and there can be a ped bridge leading from the stadium directly into South Station.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Imagine once the Post office is gone and there can be a ped bridge leading from the stadium directly into South Station.

Also known as Summer St. and restored Dot Ave.?

That'd be extreme overkill if you're talking the Gillette asphalt location. It's just too easy a walk to the ends of the block in a future where Dot Ave. is filled in and SSX puts more egresses on that side.

I'd rather see the centerpiece of the Harborwalk on that Summer-Rolling Bridge Park block be a boat landing on the Channel. You could have matching pairs: one in front of Dot Ave./SS, and one in front of Binford St./Stadium/whatever. There'll be enough tour companies and public boating action on this revamped section of Channel-facing properties that one set of docks on one side won't be enough to satisfy demand.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

I'd rather see the soccer stadium go elsewhere and this area filled in along the lines of the Fort Point 100 Acres plan (which I understand is not yet adopted yet). If the decision went against me I wouldn't mourn, and would probably go see my first Revs game, even though tickets would be way more dear than at Gillette Stadium. Driving to/from large scale sporting venues is annoying in the extreme, I think it's been decades since I've done it (can' remember when).

Whatever goes there will be limited by the turnpike tunnel:

The I-90 tunnel bisects the site diagonally, from the Fort Point Channel to the intersection of Summer Street and the Haul Road. It was
designed to accommodate only limited development above it, and throughout most of the 100 Acres can support buildings of no more than approximately 85 feet to 100 feet in height. In the area adjacent to the intersection of Summer Street and the Haul Road, additional structural capacity was incorporated into the tunnel’s design so that greater building height can be achieved at this location.

That's from:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/0a9d9d1c-9906-4a26-b94e-35762ad08c07

My gut tells me a 20K - 30K seat soccer stadium would be feasible over that tunnel, or else someone would have said something by now. But I'm guessing. I presume the doc linked to above talked about height limits rather than weight limits, because most people can visualize 85 to 100 feet better than they can X tons. And I also presume they're talking about typical buildings, with typical weight per vertical foot. How does a soccer stadium's weight compare to an 85 to 100 foot typical building, I wonder? Obviously the playing field has no weight worth mentioning, but as for the grandstands themselves? How heavy would they be compared to a typical 90 foot high building? Just googling other soccer-only stadiums, they look lighter than 90 foot buildings, maybe by a lot. Might add to the grandstand expense to have it's foundation essentially be a bridge over the tunnel.

This site would potentially constrain the stadium from future expansion. I'd see that as a feature, Bob Kraft would see it as a bug. Even without future expansion potential, it looks pretty cramped. Mr. Kraft's going to want enough room for his concession vendors to fleece me on my way in, I don't see it in this location. Or do they not do that at soccer games?
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

This site would potentially constrain the stadium from future expansion. I'd see that as a feature, Bob Kraft would see it as a bug. Even without future expansion potential, it looks pretty cramped. Mr. Kraft's going to want enough room for his concession vendors to fleece me on my way in, I don't see it in this location. Or do they not do that at soccer games?

Width wise between A street and the channel is about 600' (680' length wise down to the Gillette building), Gillette's Fort Point parking lot is less constrained width wise (wider by about 100') than the city's tow lot which was seriously discussed by Kraft and the City for a stadium. And you would still have a 250' by 250' area on the Necco St side for an indoor/outdoor pavilion/shop area which would be the in the direction people would be walking from South Station

For comparison purposes BMO Field, which appears to be the largest soccer specific stadium in the MLS, has outside dimension of about 550' by 550' and seats 30,991 (About 100' tall or so at is highest point)

Of course if you formally cancel BCEC expansion and just sell/lease that BCEC parcel to Kraft then that would address the future expansion question as that area has plenty of room for a full size stadium someday and it would save hotel taxpayers a billion dollars on BCEC expansion or allow us to use that money elsewhere over the next couple decades. But that is more politically loaded until Baker "studies" the economics of the expansion.

Personally I like the fort point waterfront for an entertainment venue. The more historic area on the North side of Fort Point is a place I'd like to walk around before or after a game. Or the harbor walk would be a great place to walk along. I'd feel good about taking my kids to a game over there.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

I would much rather that area north of Gillette be developed in a similar manner to the rest of Fort Point. That area is going to be developed no matter what and I would not like to lose the development that would otherwise go there instead of a stadium.

Putting a soccer stadium near Bunker Hill Community College is a more attractive prospect because you could drive development around Sullivan Square and along Rutherford Avenue, and probably extract some funds from Kraft for fixes to Rutherford.

The best place for a soccer stadium in South Boston in my opinion would involve some sort of land swap and decking scenario for Widett Circle as described in the Design a Better Boston thread, particularly because I think BCEC expansion is still valuable even though it has been placed on the back burner.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Kraft apparently has brought Goldman Sachs on board:

The Krafts have brought in a financial heavy hitter for a soccer stadium plan

By Adam Vaccaro
Boston.com Staff | 08.05.15 | 9:54 AM

The Kraft family, which owns the New England Patriots and New England Revolution, is working with investment banking giant Goldman Sachs to finance a soccer stadium in Boston. Representatives of the Krafts most recently met with city officials in early July.

Goldman Sachs has developed a reputation in sports circles as a hub of venue financing deals. Before he got to Goldman Sachs, the leader of its stadium financing team worked with the Krafts to help finance Gillette Stadium, according to a January profile by Bloomberg.

Goldman Sachs helped the Yankees finance a controversial and complex stadium deal in New York, and the company has been involved with venue financing for the Orlando Magic, Sacramento Kings, European soccer teams, and more.

As Major League Soccer has grown, most clubs have begun playing in soccer-specific stadiums, seating 30,000 or fewer fans. Urban settings with public transit access are considered ideal for attracting soccer fans. The Revolution have been touting an urban stadium as a goal since 2006. They currently play at Gillette Stadium, which seats more than 65,000 and is located in suburban Massachusetts.

Since last year, the Krafts have had their eyes on a parcel of land owned by the city on the South Boston/South End border.

The Krafts shared simple renderings of the stadium site with state officials last year. MLS Commissioner Don Garber said last week that he had seen more recent renderings. The Revolution have also in the past looked at sites in Roxbury, Revere, and Somerville.

Kraft representatives met most recently with city officials on July 8. That meeting was attended by the city’s CFO, David Sweeney, and Mayor Marty Walsh’s chief of staff, Dan Koh, according to a city spokeswoman. The two sides had previously met in December and March.

Goldman Sachs has been working with the Krafts on the stadium plan since at least the December meeting.

The city received a packet of documents prepared by Goldman Sachs at the July 8 meeting. Most of the pages provided to Boston.com through a public records request were redacted. In non-redacted portions, the packet noted Goldman Sachs’s intentions of “serving as underwriter on a future transaction.”

A section about how the new Yankee Stadium was paid for in the Bronx was also left un-redacted. The financing mechanism in New York was tricky, and replicating it in its exact form may no longer be an option for cities and sports teams.


The team and the city found a loophole, allowing the Yankees to finance the stadium with low-interest, tax-exempt bonds issued by a public economic development agency, similar to the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

The Yankees are covering that debt with private money, but by using the low-interest bonds available to the city, they save a whole lot of money on interest compared to other forms of debt.

The stadium land is owned by the city, and the structure itself is owned by the economic development agency. The Yankees set up a new corporation to operate the stadium and make payments to the city through stadium revenues, which are then put toward paying off the debt.

New York used similar strategies to help finance the new Mets baseball stadium and the Brooklyn Nets basketball arena.

The Yankee Stadium deal was criticized by some as a taxpayer subsidy for the stadiums; even if the Yankees cover all the costs of the stadium, the tax-exempt bonds carry a federal cost.

The loophole was made harder to thread by the IRS in 2008, with new, more stringent, regulations on these sorts of deals.

It’s not clear why the example was included in the packet—whether Goldman Sachs is proposing a modified version, or whether the example was included just to show examples of its prior work financing stadiums. Anything specific about how Boston or the Krafts would pay for a soccer stadium was removed prior to being provided to Boston.com.

City Hall declined to discuss the contents of the Goldman Sachs packet, with a spokeswoman saying: “The city is in preliminary conversations on this proposal and it’s too early at this point to discuss specifics.” Stacey James, a spokesman for the Krafts, also called the discussions “preliminary” in a brief phone call.

The Boston Globe previously reported that the Krafts once proposed having the city pay for the stadium, with the Krafts paying the debt off through a tax on ticket sales. City Hall has been said to be cool to the idea.

The city’s recent rebuff of a 2024 Olympic bid—for which the proposed Olympic stadium was competing for space with the Krafts’ soccer venue plan—also showed a region that has little patience for the idea of publicly financed sports venues.

Robert Kraft is no stranger to stadium struggles in Boston. His efforts to bring the Patriots to town in the 1990s were fruitless, leading him to build Gillette Stadium near the team’s old stadium site in Foxborough.

http://www.boston.com/business/news...tadium-plan/75FQsSLG5OJO8wCPgu8g7L/story.html
 
Last edited:
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Although I think the Krafts are more serious now than they were in past years about getting a stadium built, the article really has no new info. Goldman was brought on in December and all the info surrounding a Yankee-like financing project is speculation.

Maybe I'm too cynical but this seems like a filler article that Revs PR is using to increase season ticket renewals.

I'm tired of the whole "season ticket" trope. It's not like the stadium is going to be ready for the next season or probably even the next 5 seasons. The people in the metro area that want a stadium and can't physically get to Gillette aren't going to buy a season ticket until the stadium is built.

Also, the meeting with the City on July 8 is absolutely news. The wheels are turning, much more than any other time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Also, getting season tickets now means you won't be competing with a much larger crowd when the time comes for season 1 in the brand new stadium.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

I'm referring to season ticket renewals.

I fully understand that, but the argument makes no sense. Why would people renew tickets with the prospect of a Boston stadium? For as many fans that want the stadium, a good number do not want it in Boston. This is where the Revolution's situation differs from any other MLS team. We're a regional team and people travel from Western MA, CT, RI, NH, etc to attend the games at Gillette in addition to the Eastern MA/Boston people. Moving the stadium 30 mi to Boston actually changes the entire demographic. When we move to Boston, we'll lose a significant portion of the suburban CT & RI base. They will of course be replaced with new Boston fans.

It would be a different situation, for say, if the Chicago Fire built a stadium in downtown Chicago and moved from scenic Bridgeview, IL a distance of 15 miles. The fans would still be the same Chicago-based fans. There would be little demographic shift.
 
Last edited:
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

The obvious location is either the Old Wonderland or the Old Suffolk Downs the Blue Line has plenty of capacity

All that is needed to seal the deal is for the Krafts to finance the long desired pedestrian tunnel between State and DTX on the Orange Line -- it could be called the New England Patriots / New England Revolution Connection
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

The obvious location is either the Old Wonderland or the Old Suffolk Downs the Blue Line has plenty of capacity

All that is needed to seal the deal is for the Krafts to finance the long desired pedestrian tunnel between State and DTX on the Orange Line -- it could be called the New England Patriots / New England Revolution Connection

Not going to happen. They are planning on the plot in South Boston along I-93.

It has excellent transit access and pretty good walking access from parts of the city.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

It has excellent transit access and pretty good walking access from parts of the city.

Key proximity to Southie bars at Broadway. That's the true advantage of Widett vs Suffolk Downs.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Also, getting season tickets now means you won't be competing with a much larger crowd when the time comes for season 1 in the brand new stadium.

The Revs currently average something like 17k a game. How much higher will that push if they were to get their own stadium inside of Boston? I hope things turnout otherwise, but I don't see their average attendance rising to 23-25k a game just because they have a soccer specific stadium.

As of right now, it's very easy getting to and from a Revs game. You move the stadium into Boston and suddenly it's a lot tougher for those folks coming from the suburbs.

As mentioned, they may lose a decent amount of fans who live in RI, southern Mass and eastern CT. The only legit Revs fans I know live down in Providence and they're not all that happy about the new stadium being potentially built in Boston.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Key proximity to Southie bars at Broadway. That's the true advantage of Widett vs Suffolk Downs.

Data -- that's a good point -- you'd have to import the essence of the Southy Bar ethos

Oh well Suffolk seems to be destined to be the "what never has been" of development of the inner core of Boston
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

The Revs currently average something like 17k a game. How much higher will that push if they were to get their own stadium inside of Boston? I hope things turnout otherwise, but I don't see their average attendance rising to 23-25k a game just because they have a soccer specific stadium.

As of right now, it's very easy getting to and from a Revs game. You move the stadium into Boston and suddenly it's a lot tougher for those folks coming from the suburbs.

As mentioned, they may lose a decent amount of fans who live in RI, southern Mass and eastern CT. The only legit Revs fans I know live down in Providence and they're not all that happy about the new stadium being potentially built in Boston.

There is nothing easy about getting to Foxborough for the Revs. The MBTA doesn't run the commuter rail trains like they do for the Patriots, so you have to drive.

Easy would be a stadium that's near a rapid transit station.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

There is nothing easy about getting to Foxborough for the Revs. The MBTA doesn't run the commuter rail trains like they do for the Patriots, so you have to drive.

Easy would be a stadium that's near a rapid transit station.

Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic in the city of Boston and they are as a group some of Football err Soccer's biggest fans

+ you've got Lawrence whose hispanic population must be comparable to Providence's [recent news story about 9-11 calls which claimed that 75% of Lawrence spoke Spanish]
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

There is nothing easy about getting to Foxborough for the Revs. The MBTA doesn't run the commuter rail trains like they do for the Patriots, so you have to drive.

Easy would be a stadium that's near a rapid transit station.

"Easy" is a psychological word. There are many people like me - and apparently you - for whom "easy" is defined as "can I get there by public transportation, and if so, how many connections are we talking?" We often just discount auto travel to a stadium out of hand.

There are others - I call them crazy fools though some are close friends - for whom "easy" is defined as "what's the drive like and how's the parking when I get there?" They often discount public transportation travel to a stadium out of hand.

This gets pretty irrational on both sides. I own a car, and although a borderline geezer who did not grow up with soccer, the sport has been growing on me enough to want to go to some games (nowhere near season ticket level). But I will not go to a Revs game at Gillette, though I realize the traffic won't be bad, the parking will be abundant, and the tix are absurdly available. I'll go to Sox, Celts, and Bruins games, because I live on the Green Line, and I would almost certainly start going to Revs games at an in-town location - at probably higher ticket prices due to supply/demand changes - even if I had to transfer to Red or Blue (if they go to Suffolk Downs).

I've known plenty of people who are the exact reverse. I used to live a short walk from an East Bay BART station, you could pop down to the Oakland Coliseum for an evening game during rush hour radically faster than by car, and get home way faster after the game than in a car, even though the rush hour was done. Some otherwise sane and sensible people in my neighborhood would insist on driving despite the additional hour-plus of travel frustration plus the extra cost of parking over BART tix. Here in Boston I also know people who will insist on driving to weekday evening Bruins/Celts/Sox games, which is an even nuttier comparison to driving if you live on the Green Line like we do. But they do it.

And I know people who consider me nuts to be so unwilling to even think about driving to a Revs game. Someone on this forum will tell me I'm nuts for this. I offer no rationale: I just hate driving to a sports event, hate it hate it hate it. I don't often even drink so much at sports events these days, so I can't claim my reluctance is civic righteousness in abstaining from drunk driving, although that IS a nice side benefit for when I do indulge. And let me clarify that I DO like to drive under some circumstances, I love driving cars in the right scenario, I really do. I just HATE driving them to sporting events.

This is all at least semi-irrational. I will argue to my dying breath that those who insist on driving to sports events are irrational more often (Celts/Bruins/Sox) than I am in my resistance to driving (Revs). (I gather it sucks getting to Pats games either way - I won't go there because the public trans option is so miserable.) It's largely driven by really strong confirmation biases on both sides, mine included.

To reiterate and emphasize the point made by others, if the Revs move to inner Boston somewhere they will see a huge turnover in fan base. I wouldn't be surprised if it went above 80% turnover. I think the new base would be larger, a lot larger. I'd like to think it'll be a better fan base, too, but that's pretty obviously self-serving bias speaking.
 

Back
Top