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

KCasiglio said:
I think the orange line spur conversation makes an incorrect assumption that it’s the most desirable option and thus we should figure out the engineering and operational difficulties it imposes.

But what justification is there exactly for a heavy rail spur here? 17 home MLS games?
Click to expand...
The stadium would be used for concerts - if done right I can see it taking some summer concerts away from other venues. I wouldn’t be surprised if it hosted MIAA Super Bowls as it’s a more centralized location than Gillette. Maybe some local college football games. It would be an almost certainty that the venue would host Cannons lacrosse games - it would get more use then just 17 MLS games.

And yes many of those events listed don’t require HRT service on their own but in addition to the proximity to service that is already there (making spur/extension the easiest solution) AND the simple fact that the North Shore is one of the most underserved rapid transit areas in the nation** - very strong population density all over the place make it an easy call.

**It’s not an exaggeration to say the NS could realistically use two extensions and two spurs (would never happen but it doesn’t mean it’s not justified)
 
I'm not saying the north shore doesn't need transit I'm saying this specific spur isn't the right way to go about it, in large part because there is NOT population density all over the place. All of the population density is north of 16.

How can it be an easy call considering the operational difficulties it imposes and the surely significantly higher costs? What is heavy rail giving you here that light rail can't? Especially since you're handicapping your frequencies
 
NoShJFK said:
The stadium would be used for concerts - if done right I can see it taking some summer concerts away from other venues. I wouldn’t be surprised if it hosted MIAA Super Bowls as it’s a more centralized location than Gillette. Maybe some local college football games. It would be an almost certainty that the venue would host Cannons lacrosse games - it would get more use then just 17 MLS games.


**It’s not an exaggeration to say the NS could realistically use two extensions and two spurs (would never happen but it doesn’t mean it’s not justified)
Click to expand...

Agreed. This wouldnt be built just for the Revs.

Concerts, Other Sporting events (all levels, including high school), College Graduations, Private Company Events, Etc.

I'm not opposed to the Stadium as long as everything else is done appropriately (traffic/parking configuration, traffic light configuration, Public Transportation improvements/additions, more public safety.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Strange point: For some reason Boston reports its city area including ocean. San Francisco does not. (Different ocean ownership laws?) In true land area they are basically the same.
Click to expand...
San Francisco (city and county of) has a land area of 46.9 square miles, and a water area of 185 square miles.. Population density is calculated on the land area only.

Salem MA has a total area of 18.3 square miles, 10 of which is water. Population density is calculated on the land area only.

This is a link to a map of Boston population density by square mile, land area only. Large areas of the city have low population density. Chinatown has the highest density; density is about 10x of West Roxbury, the lowest density neighborhood.

https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Massachusetts/Boston/Population
 
The fan in me would love an Everton Bramley-Moore Dock style stadium, which is being built with a usable waterfront.

1658863984845.png

1658864077391.png


 
Second option is that a LOT of college stadiums are able to cram a ton of uses into a really walkable and integrated semi-urban environment with the right master plan.

EXAMPLE at University of Cincinnati:
1658864373631.png
 
Another reason to add an encore/assembly pedestrian/bike bridge. Would be a shorter walk than the walk to Sullivan.

A commuter rail stop serving that area is also not a bad idea. The gateway center is also a good spot to add some denser TOD.

Every CR stop from Beverly to Boston is dense enough to support rapid transit frequencies. Electrifying the commuter rail, increasing frequencies to under 20 mins and adding an encore stop would be better than branching the orange line.
 
tysmith95 said:
Another reason to add an encore/assembly pedestrian/bike bridge. Would be a shorter walk than the walk to Sullivan.

A commuter rail stop serving that area is also not a bad idea. The gateway center is also a good spot to add some denser TOD.

Every CR stop from Beverly to Boston is dense enough to support rapid transit frequencies. Electrifying the commuter rail, increasing frequencies to under 20 mins and adding an encore stop would be better than branching the orange line.
Click to expand...
You can't add an Encore stop to CR. At 3% grade coming off the bridge it's too steep by half for ADA compliance. Sweetser is the nearest spot you can legally plunk one.
 
Bridge from Assembly to the Casino with Bars and Restaurants along the walk and SL to Sullivan seem like the best options to start with and hopefully down the line upgrades to the UR where the bus can be updated to Light Rail.

Retail and that bridge is the only way to get the SL to be able to handle the crowds otherwise I feel like you'll get Gillette traffic in the middle of Everett cause even with the stadium smaller than Gillette the density of the surrounding area will sure make up for it.
 
I'm not great with the distance tool on google maps but a footbridge from Assembly and then across the casino ferry inlet cant be all that far to walk, maybe 15 mins.
Sullivan is also walkable and Wellington could be made walkable, add in Silverline or something useable along 99, increase the mystic ferry service on match nights. Include it as part of a ticket deal, loads would like to arrive at a stadium via water from downtown. The stadium won't be used during rush hours. A couple of small improvements should be able to accommodate a 25k crowd on weekend evenings.
mystic.jpg
 
JeffDowntown said:
Strange point: For some reason Boston reports its city area including ocean. San Francisco does not. (Different ocean ownership laws?) In true land area they are basically the same.
Click to expand...
I believe in California, all waterways belong to the state. In Massachusetts, the laws are much less straightforward, due to the several hundred years colonial era mucking things up.
 
stellarfun said:
San Francisco (city and county of) has a land area of 46.9 square miles, and a water area of 185 square miles.. Population density is calculated on the land area only.

Salem MA has a total area of 18.3 square miles, 10 of which is water. Population density is calculated on the land area only.

This is a link to a map of Boston population density by square mile, land area only. Large areas of the city have low population density. Chinatown has the highest density; density is about 10x of West Roxbury, the lowest density neighborhood.

https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Massachusetts/Boston/Population
Click to expand...
Even just removing water is problematic. Some parts of Boston have very large parks and significant amounts of land dedicated to cemeteries. The density that map shows for Roslindale, for example, is much lower than any actual Roslindale census tracts. And if you specifically look at Roslindale along the Needham ROW, the density is quite high, definitely enough to justify the much hoped for OLX. All of which circles back to the idea that it's not aggregate density that matters so much, as density along the ROW. The parts of Everett and Chelsea near this proposed stadium site are low density, despite both cities having very high aggregate density. Chelsea and Everett need high quality HRT serving the areas people live, but a stadium spur doesn't provide that.
 
HenryAlan said:
I believe in California, all waterways belong to the state. In Massachusetts, the laws are much less straightforward, due to the several hundred years colonial era mucking things up.
Click to expand...
The Federal government 'owns' the waters of the United States.
See;
https://www.epa.gov/wotus/about-waters-united-states

The ownership of land under the waters of the United States. is a bit more more complicated but generally it is either the states, or the Federal government, including tribal governments..
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_Lands_Act
https://www.boem.gov/The-Submerged-Lands-Act-of-1953

For all practical purposes, the Federal government controls what can be done to submerged lands, as these cannot be filled or materially altered without a Federal permit. See the first cite.
 
HenryAlan said:
I believe in California, all waterways belong to the state. In Massachusetts, the laws are much less straightforward, due to the several hundred years colonial era mucking things up.
Click to expand...

You're thinking about the beaches. The California coastal commission mandates that everything from the high water mark at high tide to low water mark at low tide is public land. In addition property owners cannot deny people access to beaches. Unlike Mass., all beaches are by default public.
 
Probably covered in one of the other Everett threads

Among the potential uses for that property that are being discussed: a stadium for the New England Revolution pro soccer team, owned by the Kraft Group. Constellation plans to eventually shutter the two remaining gas-fired units at the power plant in two years.
Click to expand...



www.bostonglobe.com

Developer unveils plans for Everett’s massive fuel tank farm - The Boston Globe

One of Greater Boston’s biggest developments in years is taking shape just north of the Boston city line, on a sprawling 95-acre fuel tank farm in Everett.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
 
So, honest question: We hear TONS about 'affordable housing.' Yet every time a large piece of developable land comes up within Boston and the immediately surrounding cities, the project almost immediately flips to lab space.

Or in this case - much less needed than lab space - a soccer stadium.

So is there really not such an 'affordable housing' problem, but it's just a convenient and simple talking point for people who are annoyed that houses are expensive (as they have been since time immemorial)?

Or is there actually an 'affordable housing' problem, but no politicians in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville/Everett/etc want to do solve it, and they hope the suburbs will somehow 'deal with it'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top