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

TheRatmeister said:
If we could do this then that would be reasonable, but from the perspective of the stadium developer, why would I take a several hundred million dollar risk on a stadium where I can't build significant amounts of parking, am uncertain about how transportation in the area will pan out, don't know what the surrounding future development would be, and can't plan my own development or retail space to try and reduce some of the uncertainty? That's an insane amount of risk you'd be mad to take on as a business.
Click to expand...
The stadium parcel would be developed per the owner's wishes (per the permit). It would only be the developments outside the stadium parcel that would await completion of the planning document. I don't see that as overly risky for the stadium developer.
 
kdmc said:
You make very good points. My hesitation, though, is that if a stadium goes up without a TOD master plan for the whole area, then it might naturally end up being surrounded by wide stroads, huge parking lots, and other car-centric developments, which could be hard to roll back for a very long time. Demolishing blighted industrial buildings to build TOD (a la Assembly) is one thing, but grafting TOD onto newly-paved lots around a nice, new, busy stadium sounds like another.
Click to expand...
The MoA specifically prohibits parking lots, so I think a big piece of your concern is mitigated by what the developer has already agreed.
I could be totally wrong. Maybe we need to Just Build It and then worry about the surrounding area later. Are there any other recently-build urban stadiums we could look at as case studies?
Click to expand...
If you haven't read the MoA, I strongly encourage you to do so. It actually lays out a plan for an urban stadium without any car based elements at all. It is presumably what would become the very case study you want to see.

TheRatmeister said:
If we could do this then that would be reasonable, but from the perspective of the stadium developer, why would I take a several hundred million dollar risk on a stadium where I can't build significant amounts of parking, am uncertain about how transportation in the area will pan out, don't know what the surrounding future development would be, and can't plan my own development or retail space to try and reduce some of the uncertainty? That's an insane amount of risk you'd be mad to take on as a business.
Click to expand...
The Krafts have explicitly agreed in the MoA to not build any parking. Their business model doesn't require that apparently. Further, they are committing to improving pedestrian routes between Sullivan Square and the stadium, so they are very much offering to do what you think is required. That's a big part of why I support this plan, because they do address these issues that are so important for urbanism.
 
HenryAlan said:
The MoA specifically prohibits parking lots, so I think a big piece of your concern is mitigated by what the developer has already agreed.

If you haven't read the MoA, I strongly encourage you to do so. It actually lays out a plan for an urban stadium without any car based elements at all. It is presumably what would become the very case study you want to see.


The Krafts have explicitly agreed in the MoA to not build any parking. Their business model doesn't require that apparently. Further, they are committing to improving pedestrian routes between Sullivan Square and the stadium, so they are very much offering to do what you think is required. That's a big part of why I support this plan, because they do address these issues that are so important for urbanism.
Click to expand...
With that MOA in place it's a reasonable proposal. I still think connections to public transport in the area could be a potential project killer down the road if they don't pan out, but at least moving forward now wouldn't be a mistake.
 
TheRatmeister said:
With that MOA in place it's a reasonable proposal. I still think connections to public transport in the area could be a potential project killer down the road if they don't pan out, but at least moving forward now wouldn't be a mistake.
Click to expand...
Wynn has already been struggling with additional parking at the East of Broadway project immediately adjacent to this site. The latest SFEIR submitted to MEPA reduced that proposal by about another 10 percent. I think it's at about 2300 spaces now from the original plan of over 3000. So, whatever gets built at this site is going to have assume new parking is going to be difficult to get approved. I suspect the solution currently being considered for a proposed stadium will be some combination of new public transit connections, offsite event parking with shuttles, and agreements regarding the use Wynn parking (both Encore and EoB).
 
Wonk said:
and agreements regarding the use Wynn parking (both Encore and EoB).
Click to expand...
From the MoA: "A separate agreement between Wynn and the Proponent shall be entered into to disallow overflow stadium parking at either the Encore Boston Harbor or Wynn's East of Broadway garages."

Seems like that is explicitly not allowed, which suggests that pretty much all access is dependent on public transport.
 
TheRatmeister said:
From the MoA: "A separate agreement between Wynn and the Proponent shall be entered into to disallow overflow stadium parking at either the Encore Boston Harbor or Wynn's East of Broadway garages."
Click to expand...
Oh come on - you're all smart enough to think a little more creatively. Encore, with a lot DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE STADIUM, AND A SKYWAY TO THE CASINO is ABSOLUTELY going to use it's parking for this, it just will make the parking ALSO require gambling/restaurants/spend. To be clear, I think this is absolutely fine as I would rather not build more parking lots, and $50 is about what you'd pay for a Bruins ($54)/Celtics ($60) game parking. [Edit - Patriots were $40, but apparently raised ticket prices, and eliminated the parking fee]

The current validation rules:

Encore Boston Harbor Parking FAQ​

CAN NON-HOTEL GUESTS RECEIVE COMPLIMENTARY PARKING?
Yes. For non-hotel guests, valet parking or self-parking will be validated once per day, per vehicle upon receipt of $50 spent within the resort.

DOES EVERY PURCHASE COUNT TOWARDS THE $50 SPEND?
Yes. Any purchase made at the resort will count towards the required $50 spend. Multiple purchases made in the same 24 hours can be combined, including purchases made at retail stores, spas and salons, restaurants, theaters, nightclubs and lounges, and all game play. Taxes and gratuities do not count towards the $50 spend minimum.

HOW IS A PARKING TICKET VALIDATED?
A parking ticket can be immediately validated at the outlet where $50 is spent, or by presenting a receipt(s) and parking ticket at the front desk, or at any Red Card desk.

IS A RECEIPT REQUIRED FOR PARKING VALIDATION?
Yes. A valid original receipt from a purchase made at the resort within the previous 24 hours of the validation request is required. No other form of proof of purchase will be accepted.

CAN A SINGLE PURCHASE COUNT TOWARDS VALIDATING MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE?
Yes. One purchase can be split among multiple vehicles. For example, if four visitors in four separate vehicles spend $200 before tax and tip at a restaurant, all four visitors will receive parking validation.

HOW IS PARKING VALIDATED FOR CASINO PLAYERS?
As always, a Red Card membership is required to track game play. Guests may visit the Red Card desk or speak with their casino host to confirm if the $50 spend for parking validation has been met.

WHAT ARE THE PARKING FEES IF $50 IS NOT SPENT AT THE RESORT?
For self-park the first hour is complimentary, then $7 for one to two hours, $12 for two to four hours, $15 for four to 24 hours and $15 for each additional 24 hours. For valet parking, the fee is $18 for up to two hours, $22 for two to four hours, $27 for four to 24 hours and $27 for each additional 24 hours.
 
Bumping because this is related to improving Sullivan Square transit access. It’s a small nugget, but nevertheless, vital to improving and expanding Sullivan Square so that it can eventually become the transit hub for future Revs games.

I do concede that Sullivan Square needs a massive upgrade before any proposal of a stadium is built. This is a good start.

EDIT: Mods feel free to move if you need to.
Streesblog MASS: Future rapid transit link from Rutherford Ave to Sullivan Square

The city's proposed project would also create new protected bikeways through Sullivan Square and along the Rutherford Avenue corridor to connect existing off-street path networks along the Mystic River to the new North Washington Street bridge and the Paul Dudley White bike paths along the Charles River.
Click to expand...
 
kingofsheeba said:
Bumping because this is related to improving Sullivan Square transit access. It’s a small nugget, but nevertheless, vital to improving and expanding Sullivan Square so that it can eventually become the transit hub for future Revs games.

I do concede that Sullivan Square needs a massive upgrade before any proposal of a stadium is built. This is a good start.

EDIT: Mods feel free to move if you need to.
Streesblog MASS: Future rapid transit link from Rutherford Ave to Sullivan Square
Click to expand...
From the article: "An updated new design for Rutherford Avenue would set aside space for a dedicated center-running busway through Boston's Charlestown neighborhood and eliminate highway-style underpasses through Sullivan Square...and Austin Street" (emphasis mine).
That makes too much sense, and sounds too good to be true. But I do hope it happens!
 
Charlie_mta said:
From the article: "An updated new design for Rutherford Avenue would set aside space for a dedicated center-running busway through Boston's Charlestown neighborhood and eliminate highway-style underpasses through Sullivan Square...and Austin Street" (emphasis mine).
That makes too much sense, and sounds too good to be true. But I do hope it happens!
Click to expand...
Love how they have Rutherford Ave mostly underground in that render. There could be a huge greenway with a great view of the West End where that hideous street is now.
 
From the City of Boston's presentation to the Metropolitan Planning Agency, several points:

Concept design (25 percent) is finished next month. Construction ($200 million) starts in 2027.

The City has made the point with Encore that additional parking for the planned Encore expansion
will be at odds with the plan to shrink ten lanes of traffic into four (plus two lanes for the busway, and two turn lanes). Any Silverline expansion into Sullivan Sq. / Everett would use the busway

No details on the MBTA maintenance facility north of Encore, but it was mentioned several times

No mention of the soccer stadium.
--------------------------
Proceeding into final design (100 percent) in a month indicates to me that the train has left the station with respect to improvements/changes to Sullivan Square. If Everett and the Kraft organization now propose some pedestrian gateway between Sullivan Square and the proposed stadium, they are likely to find themselves picking up the bill. Small-town thinking on Everett's part. More concerned about ticket allotments, and band practice. Another episode of Fansville.

As for the Krafts, seems like they are taking the low-cost route. It would not have cost them all that much to have their lawyers contract with a consulting firm to do some planning legwork.
 
From the presentation and discussion, proponents of each alternative were split roughly 50:50. And they had to make a call. There was mention of new high-frequency bus routes with Sullivan Square as the nexus. So perhaps they need surface space for queueing the buses? The presenter for the Streets Dept. is a Wu appointee. Its possible that MPO members received additional schematics and/or even renderings that were not in the slide deck. And its also possible the City will be back before the MPO in a month or two with the 25 percent design details.
 
stellarfun said:
From the presentation and discussion, proponents of each alternative were split roughly 50:50. And they had to make a call. There was mention of new high-frequency bus routes with Sullivan Square as the nexus. So perhaps they need surface space for queueing the buses? The presenter for the Streets Dept. is a Wu appointee. Its possible that MPO members received additional schematics and/or even renderings that were not in the slide deck. And its also possible the City will be back before the MPO in a month or two with the 25 percent design details.
Click to expand...
One of the big problems with keeping the road underpasses (at Sullivan Sq and Austin St) is that their portals eat up a lot of the available Rutherford Ave right-of-way, leaving very constricted narrow corridors for bus lanes, bike paths, walkways, and landscaping.

Also, how would the center-running bus lanes work at the entrances and exits to the underpasses? The bus lanes would have to cross over the main roadway lanes to avoid continuing down the underpass.
 
There was only a handful of slides. One for schedule, one for cost, and these. I don't think I missed any,, and I'll take a quick scroll through the deck again when I find time.

I am not going to try interpreting the schematics. The City of Boston guy pronounced the Ruth in Rutherford as if pronouncing a one-time Boston baseball pitcher., And for decades I've pronounced Rutherford as in Rutherford Hayes., So, obviously I have zero local knowledge.

QJG1UeG.png


1MEevLy.png


tbVu759.png
 
Staying on topic of the actual traffic related to a NE Revs game... attendance is growing, with this past year being the highest in the team's history.
1705518689189.png
 
stellarfun said:
There was only a handful of slides. One for schedule, one for cost, and these. I don't think I missed any,, and I'll take a quick scroll through the deck again when I find time.

I am not going to try interpreting the schematics. The City of Boston guy pronounced the Ruth in Rutherford as if pronouncing a one-time Boston baseball pitcher., And for decades I've pronounced Rutherford as in Rutherford Hayes., So, obviously I have zero local knowledge.

QJG1UeG.png


1MEevLy.png


tbVu759.png
Click to expand...
Missed one. of my screen grabs.

No underpasses.
qyQTRfh.png
 
Could someone clarify the "boundaries tightened" initiative concerning residential parking stickers? How would it be different than what exists today, and how it would help?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top