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

Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

Smartiro said:
If Boston is too expensive, why not weave it into urban fabric of say, Worcester?
It's the second largest city in NE, and is pretty centrally located and accessible from Boston via train (sort of).
Click to expand...

Because that would accomplish nothing.

After years of making compromises just to locate teams in stadia of their own by building them in suburbs/non-centralized city locations (Chicago/Bridgeview, Colorado/DSG Park, Columbus/Fairgrounds, Dallas/Frisco) with limited public transit access, the proven trend is to situate franchises in the heart of their cities. KC, Seattle, Houston, Toronto, Portland, and now Atlanta and Orlando. Even NYCFC, in a far from ideal location at Yankee Stadium still draws crowds. The outlier is Red Bull Arena, which is a fantastic venue - but that's for a number of different factors.

Long story short, having a stadium in a downtown location is an absolute must. The Revs' front office has openly acknowledged this multiple times. It's where the league is headed and it staking it's future on.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

North Shore said:
Because that would accomplish nothing.

After years of making compromises just to locate teams in stadia of their own by building them in suburbs/non-centralized city locations (Chicago/Bridgeview, Colorado/DSG Park, Columbus/Fairgrounds, Dallas/Frisco) with limited public transit access, the proven trend is to situate franchises in the heart of their cities. KC, Seattle, Houston, Toronto, Portland, and now Atlanta and Orlando. Even NYCFC, in a far from ideal location at Yankee Stadium still draws crowds. The outlier is Red Bull Arena, which is a fantastic venue - but that's for a number of different factors.

Long story short, having a stadium in a downtown location is an absolute must. The Revs' front office has openly acknowledged this multiple times. It's where the league is headed and it staking it's future on.
Click to expand...

Ok, well that's all well and good. But if there is anything that is obvious in this long running saga it's that Kraft is not going to build without an ROI he is comfortable with, whatever that may be. This is an economics exercise by a luke warm owner who will not lose money or even risk losing money on his interests.

While Gillette was privately financed for $325M, roughly half of the cost was financed by the NFL itself at an undisclosed interest rate ($150M and likely at a very small rate). The 150 was repaid over 15 years from club seat revenues that would have gone to the visiting team. Then there was CMGI paying $120M over 15 years for naming rights. Gillette extended it in 2017 for $105M for the next 15 years. There are no similar lending programs available in the MLS and the naming rights for a small stadium will be significantly lower.

If Worcester's 10K stadium is going to cost $101M, what would a 20-25K stadium in Boston cost? Probably close to Gillette's I would guess, without the benefit of the advantageous debt service provided by the league. Say it is the same cost, at roughly 1/3 the size of Gillette offset by a limited amount of additional functions (smaller venue concerts) the numbers are murky at best and that break even is a long, long way off. Additionally the OPEX costs are sure to be higher than in Foxborough, and the loss of Revs revenue into the Gillette OPEX are at play here too.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

North Shore said:
Because that would accomplish nothing.

After years of making compromises just to locate teams in stadia of their own by building them in suburbs/non-centralized city locations (Chicago/Bridgeview, Colorado/DSG Park, Columbus/Fairgrounds, Dallas/Frisco) with limited public transit access, the proven trend is to situate franchises in the heart of their cities. KC, Seattle, Houston, Toronto, Portland, and now Atlanta and Orlando. Even NYCFC, in a far from ideal location at Yankee Stadium still draws crowds. The outlier is Red Bull Arena, which is a fantastic venue - but that's for a number of different factors.

Long story short, having a stadium in a downtown location is an absolute must. The Revs' front office has openly acknowledged this multiple times. It's where the league is headed and it staking it's future on.
Click to expand...
I really love Red Bull Arena. We always lose when we are there, but I always look forward to going to games there. It really is a great soccer venue, albeit with some slight vertigo in the nosebleed seats due to the pitch of the upper bowl. It's a shame the new Harrison station still isn't open either. I hope that the Revs aim for something akin to RBA and that seems to have been the case for the Bayside stadium.

I visited BMO for the first time a couple weeks ago (for that embarrassing loss) and honestly wasn't impressed. Something about it just felt off. Perhaps RBA has spoiled me for my away viewing.

HalcyonEra said:
Ok, well that's all well and good. But if there is anything that is obvious in this long running saga it's that Kraft is not going to build without an ROI he is comfortable with, whatever that may be. This is an economics exercise by a luke warm owner who will not lose money or even risk losing money on his interests.

While Gillette was privately financed for $325M, roughly half of the cost was financed by the NFL itself at an undisclosed interest rate ($150M and likely at a very small rate). The 150 was repaid over 15 years from club seat revenues that would have gone to the visiting team. Then there was CMGI paying $120M over 15 years for naming rights. Gillette extended it in 2017 for $105M for the next 15 years. There are no similar lending programs available in the MLS and the naming rights for a small stadium will be significantly lower.

If Worcester's 10K stadium is going to cost $101M, what would a 20-25K stadium in Boston cost? Probably close to Gillette's I would guess, without the benefit of the advantageous debt service provided by the league. Say it is the same size, at roughly 1/3 the size of Gillette offset by a limited amount of additional functions (smaller venue concerts) the numbers are murky at best and that break even is a long, long way off. Additionally the OPEX costs are sure to be higher than in Foxborough, and the loss of Revs revenue into the Gillette OPEX are at play here too.
Click to expand...

Stop, just stop. Kraft was willing to front $250 million for the Bayside Stadium and pay the City of Boston millions of dollars each year. Your rhetoric is one thing, but facts are another. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/draft-lease-sheds-light-on-kraft-soccer-plans/
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

datadyne007 said:
I really love Red Bull Arena. We always lose when we are there, but I always look forward to going to games there. It really is a great soccer venue, albeit with some slight vertigo in the nosebleed seats due to the pitch of the upper bowl. It's a shame the new Harrison station still isn't open either. I hope that the Revs aim for something akin to RBA and that seems to have been the case for the Bayside stadium.

I visited BMO for the first time a couple weeks ago (for that embarrassing loss) and honestly wasn't impressed. Something about it just felt off. Perhaps RBA has spoiled me for my away viewing.



Stop, just stop. Kraft was willing to front $250 million for the Bayside Stadium and pay the City of Boston millions of dollars each year. Your rhetoric is one thing, but facts are another. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/draft-lease-sheds-light-on-kraft-soccer-plans/
Click to expand...

Fantastic, we now know what his number is, but did it happen? No, it didn't. You can accept the media spin all you want but until there is a shovel in the ground, I will remain viewing the situation based on economic reality, not after the fact reporting and where we have no idea what he was willing to pay for the property he couldn't acquire (a "reasonable" cost to him, whatever that is). Find another spot where he can be all in for $250M and then we can talk. Otherwise, the only rhetoric going on is pure speculation.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

If you look up a few posts at my link for the practice facility they will now have a permanent presence in Foxboro regardless of where they move. Even if they do move downtown no teams have their practice fields in any downtown but the Red Sox anyways and this practice facility looks incredible. If they cant get a stadium yet... getting an incredible practice facility to the likes of the Bruins and Celtics is definitely a huge step in the right direction. This should be a draw for the team and it took the Bruins/Celtics like 75 years to get something like what they just got and the Revs just got one to match. Weve gotta be in a league of our own right now in this aspect at least I cant see many teams having something like this yet.


Heres the link again:


https://www.revolutionsoccer.net/post/2018/10/15/revolution-break-ground-world-class-35-million-training-center
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

stick n move said:
If you look up a few posts at my link for the practice facility it looks that they will have a permanent presence in Foxboro now regardless of where they move. Even if they do move downtown no teams have their practice fields in any downtown but the Red Sox anyways and this practice facility looks incredible. If they cant get a stadium yet getting an incredible practice facility to the likes of the Bruins and Celtics is definitely a huge step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

The whole reason this thread came back alive is because the practice facility was discussed in post 1121, pages/a week ago.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

datadyne007 said:
I really love Red Bull Arena. We always lose when we are there, but I always look forward to going to games there. It really is a great soccer venue, albeit with some slight vertigo in the nosebleed seats due to the pitch of the upper bowl. It's a shame the new Harrison station still isn't open either. I hope that the Revs aim for something akin to RBA and that seems to have been the case for the Bayside stadium.

I visited BMO for the first time a couple weeks ago (for that embarrassing loss) and honestly wasn't impressed. Something about it just felt off. Perhaps RBA has spoiled me for my away viewing.



Stop, just stop. Kraft was willing to front $250 million for the Bayside Stadium and pay the City of Boston millions of dollars each year. Your rhetoric is one thing, but facts are another. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/draft-lease-sheds-light-on-kraft-soccer-plans/
Click to expand...

or... or... Kraft is intentionally putting together proposals that will never come off because he wants suburban families frequenting patriot place. If Kraft really wanted an urban stadium, one of Wonderland, Innerbelt, Assembly or Expo center or others, would have happened by now. The numbers just don't work for him. Right now he has a franchise increasing in value, with a home he doesnt have to pay extra for and bringing customers to his retail businesses. All he has to do is keep hardcore fans and MLS happy with stadium rumors every few years.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

North Shore said:
Because that would accomplish nothing.

After years of making compromises just to locate teams in stadia of their own by building them in suburbs/non-centralized city locations (Chicago/Bridgeview, Colorado/DSG Park, Columbus/Fairgrounds, Dallas/Frisco) with limited public transit access, the proven trend is to situate franchises in the heart of their cities. KC, Seattle, Houston, Toronto, Portland, and now Atlanta and Orlando. Even NYCFC, in a far from ideal location at Yankee Stadium still draws crowds. The outlier is Red Bull Arena, which is a fantastic venue - but that's for a number of different factors.

Long story short, having a stadium in a downtown location is an absolute must. The Revs' front office has openly acknowledged this multiple times. It's where the league is headed and it staking it's future on.
Click to expand...

Great locations come with bigger price tags for many reasons. Urban locations are more expensive and come with greater opportunities.

Bottom line there are maybe a couple dozen different locations on the North, South and West sides of Boston that might be good for a soccer stadium and the landowners are either private landowners looking for top dollar or controlled by public officials or agencies not seriously motivated to sell because that isn't key to their job performance.

Assuming that whatever deal was leaked back in the Spring/Early Summer has fallen through or is still being worked out...

Anyone know anything about the owners of the property on Moosal Place in Charlestown? Looks like a junkyard or something next to the train tracks. Maybe just big enough for a waterfront stadium Or would be with a bit of land in the back from the Charlestown Garage. Across from Encore and near the Assembly Orange line station with a riverwalk connection. Very close to where Somerville was looking to put the Rev stadium back in the day if things had worked out differently.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...tirs-debate/YCV1Uha69zTGdRIOhdnFuO/story.html

Stadium related - I get the environmental concerns, but and redevelopment at the site should incorporate environmental resiliency anyways.

Look, it's far too valuable to the city to not redevelop it (as opposed to the idea of reverting it back to tidelands). And I don't understand the idea behind a completely affordable housing project there. What developer is going to build there without generating any income from a market-rate sales component as well?
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

North Shore said:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...tirs-debate/YCV1Uha69zTGdRIOhdnFuO/story.html

Stadium related - I get the environmental concerns, but and redevelopment at the site should incorporate environmental resiliency anyways.

Look, it's far too valuable to the city to not redevelop it (as opposed to the idea of reverting it back to tidelands). And I don't understand the idea behind a completely affordable housing project there. What developer is going to build there without generating any income from a market-rate sales component as well?
Click to expand...

The big thing though I would want to know is where are they going to relocate the public works to and is this just a better location to be kept as a public works considering it is wedged in the middle of a lot of transportation infrastructure that will always separate it from the city.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

tangent said:
The big thing though I would want to know is where are they going to relocate the public works to and is this just a better location to be kept as a public works considering it is wedged in the middle of a lot of transportation infrastructure that will always separate it from the city.
Click to expand...

Your argument about utility as a public works yard is exactly the argument about why it should be a stadium site.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

JeffDowntown said:
Your argument about utility as a public works yard is exactly the argument about why it should be a stadium site.
Click to expand...

I think Fenway and the Garden work better because they are a part of a neighborhood. A stadium is an entertainment destination which works best as part of an entertainment/commercial and shopping district and not something to be isolated in a dead zone between the tracks and the highway that has no real potential to be a part of the urban fabric. I mean it has some positives as a location, but it is hard to see how this really is better than ten other locations around the city... seems like it just checks the NIMBY box because nobody will care if it goes here.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

tangent said:
I think Fenway and the Garden work better because they are a part of a neighborhood. A stadium is an entertainment destination which works best as part of an entertainment/commercial and shopping district and not something to be isolated in a dead zone between the tracks and the highway that has no real potential to be a part of the urban fabric. I mean it has some positives as a location, but it is hard to see how this really is better than ten other locations around the city... seems like it just checks the NIMBY box because nobody will care if it goes here.
Click to expand...

OK, but aren't you getting the order of development backwards.

Fenway and Bulfinch Triangle have retail and restaurants because the sports venues are located there; they didn't develop first and then the sports teams plopped down the venues.

Couldn't a soccer stadium catalyze similar development around the Andrews Square area?
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

tangent said:
The big thing though I would want to know is where are they going to relocate the public works to and is this just a better location to be kept as a public works considering it is wedged in the middle of a lot of transportation infrastructure that will always separate it from the city.
Click to expand...

Obviously just pack it up and ship it off to Readville like everything else in the city.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

JeffDowntown said:
OK, but aren't you getting the order of development backwards.

Fenway and Bulfinch Triangle have retail and restaurants because the sports venues are located there; they didn't develop first and then the sports teams plopped down the venues.

Couldn't a soccer stadium catalyze similar development around the Andrews Square area?
Click to expand...

I think the equivalent would be Fenway without Lansdowne St or any surrounding streets really. Would Fenway Park still have had catalysing effect if it was just across the pike without the walkable street grid surrounding it. Even with the street grid it took decades to have much benefit beyond Lansdowne.


I mean there is some positive in that the neighbors probably care a bit less about a stadium there, because the neighbors are farther away.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

bakgwailo said:
Obviously just pack it up and ship it off to Readville like everything else in the city.
Click to expand...

Assuming there is some utility in having a public works facility... it would seem to have less utility being 20 to 30 minutes away.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

shoved way over to one side of the worst served by /no-freeway/no-transit sector of the City....

Yes, that would go well.
 
Re: Site in Hub top choice for a soccer stadium

tangent said:
I think Fenway and the Garden work better because they are a part of a neighborhood. A stadium is an entertainment destination which works best as part of an entertainment/commercial and shopping district and not something to be isolated in a dead zone between the tracks and the highway that has no real potential to be a part of the urban fabric. I mean it has some positives as a location, but it is hard to see how this really is better than ten other locations around the city... seems like it just checks the NIMBY box because nobody will care if it goes here.
Click to expand...

.....hence the need to DEVELOP it into a dense urban neighborhood!!!!!

Dear Lord, just look at that location - - - I can't get over some of the factions out there advocating for the continued wasting of this central area with mass transit access. It's literally BRACKETED with the Broadway and Andrew red line stations!!

It's like folks years ago arguing against Emerson and the Millenium Tower in favor of keeping the Combat Zone.

This isn't Baltimore. No need to waste central land with public works and rail yards - - which is one of the major benefits of the NSRL. Space is a premium, folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top