Potential Exelon Mystic Station Redevelopment | Everett

Pennsylvania has smokestacks over 1000', and Hershey has Wildcat's Revenge, Fahrenheit, Skyrush and Candymonium, which I would take over a stadium or a smokestack.

View attachment 52732


Talk about opportunity cost, I'd way rather see something like this than a stadium. It's 100 miles to any good ones from here, but only about 25 to an already existing stadium!

View attachment 52733

View attachment 52734

View attachment 52735

The locations of those wonders of the world are Kittaming, Erie, Easton, Homer City.......... I guarantee you that no one in their right mind on this forum wants Boston to emulate those places.

So you don't like cities and prefer rural areas. Got it (y)

You DO understand this is an urban architectural website, right? 🤔

Have you tried www.ArchEastOshkosh.org??????
 
Last edited:
Did not realize the discussion my smokestack idea would kick off... Just to clarify I was suggesting that I wanted the stadium with an industrial re-use aesthetic like Battersea Power Station. If that makes the development infeasible then I'd much rather have a bland stadium than nothing.
1721225790371.png
 
So you don't like cities and prefer rural areas. Got it (y)
I don't know how you draw your conclusions but there you are. I would like to see a major roller coaster (or 3) built in Boston's vicinity. Revere Beach used to have 3 giant woodies, including at one time the world's tallest and fastest. Hull used to have the world's tallest and fastest (moved to Six Flags America and renamed Wild One). That's what we deserve back in the vicinity. I need to drive 100 miles for Superman and Wicked Cyclone, which are elite but far from top-level in 2024.
 
If the Revs / Boston does this right, the "home team" can be a fun draw regardless of how good they are at an international level. They become a cultural part of the city, especially if ticket prices are kept affordable, the venue is friendly to a range of audiences (e.g., kids/families, 20-somethings, etc), and access is quick/reasonable.

A fun English example that a friend introduced me to long ago is the Stoke-on-Trent Potters (e.g., "Stoke City"). They are a local cultural gem, even though they have often sucked and have been relegated multiple times.
Stoke_City_FC_League_Performance.svg


Despite being decidedly uncool outside of their local fan base, they routinely pull 20k+ attendees/game and play in a 30,089 capacity arena:
Attendance: http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/league/stkc.htm

Now, for sure, US is not the UK when it comes to soccer, but my point more broadly is that a team doesn't need to be "great" performance-wise to be a fun cultural draw. But, on the flipside, if the experience is too expensive and too inconvenient, a sucky team will not become a cultural gem!

It will bring tens of thousands of people to the Mystic River waterfront and bring life (and economic activity) to an area that has been devoid of humanoids for decades.

The Mystic waterfront (both sides) is primed to become a dynamic area.
 
The comparisons to small market teams is missing a critical aspect that truly turns it into apples-and-oranges. Those teams are the only game in their respective cities. Boston already has 4 competitive franchises at the highest levels of the Big 4 American sports.

So on one side we're comparing small cities supporting their single lower-division soccer team, which happens to be the most popular sport in their country. On the other side we have a larger city with 4 major sports teams, expected to support a similarly skilled soccer team the same as these small cities would. Am I missing something? What are we supposed to glean from these comparisons?
 
Count me among those who are not terribly enamored with this project. It's an ugly stadium for a minor league team, replacing what's essentially the last vestige of Boston's industrial past. That 500' smokestack has stood out to me as a landmark for decades, really as long as I can remember. Considering we may never see another project eclipse 500' in the city for the rest of our lives, losing one of the 24 stings.
I think the placeholder stadium design sucks and the smokestack is great. But at the same time, a soccer stadium at this location will be a positive development for the area. My hope is that we can have our cake and eat it too. The stadium in its final form should take cues from the industrial past, going with a brick warehouse motif and keep the smokestack (with the word Revolution painted boldly from top to bottom).
 
The comparisons to small market teams is missing a critical aspect that truly turns it into apples-and-oranges. Those teams are the only game in their respective cities. Boston already has 4 competitive franchises at the highest levels of the Big 4 American sports.

So on one side we're comparing small cities supporting their single lower-division soccer team, which happens to be the most popular sport in their country. On the other side we have a larger city with 4 major sports teams, expected to support a similarly skilled soccer team the same as these small cities would. Am I missing something? What are we supposed to glean from these comparisons?
... And so what if we add a 5th team to the market? Just domestically Washington/Baltimore is roughly the same market size, and does just fine supporting 7 total teams, including 2 NFL teams and 2 MLB teams. San Francisco has no problem with 2 MLB teams either, and both have MLS teams who got their soccer specific stadiums - and are doing well attendence wise. In fact, only 6 MLS teams don't have dedicated stadia - and The revs are one. This isn't going to stop folks from supporting the Bruins/Celtics/Patriots - they're unique sports and have distinct fantasies.

Over in the UK in an area roughly analogous to the "Boston market", Liverpool and Manchester between them support 4 Premier League teams, and 7 EFL teams - and it's the same sport. We can have a 5th, unique team.
 
Last edited:
I'd like cake, eat it too, and no calories, please, but if that's not possible, of course I'll settle for just cake.
 
The comparisons to small market teams is missing a critical aspect that truly turns it into apples-and-oranges. Those teams are the only game in their respective cities. Boston already has 4 competitive franchises at the highest levels of the Big 4 American sports.

So on one side we're comparing small cities supporting their single lower-division soccer team, which happens to be the most popular sport in their country. On the other side we have a larger city with 4 major sports teams, expected to support a similarly skilled soccer team the same as these small cities would. Am I missing something? What are we supposed to glean from these comparisons?
So the argument you're making is that no one will go to the stadium if it's built?
 
I think the placeholder stadium design sucks and the smokestack is great. But at the same time, a soccer stadium at this location will be a positive development for the area. My hope is that we can have our cake and eat it too. The stadium in its final form should take cues from the industrial past, going with a brick warehouse motif and keep the smokestack (with the word Revolution painted boldly from top to bottom).
As posted earlier, I doubt this is possible as the smoke stacks would likely be on the half way line!
Just do a smaller version of the new Everton stadium. Note how they have preserved old tram lines and the hydraulic pump house in the bottom right corner.
The facade pays tribute to the industrial port history of the site.
This build is already driving massive investment and renewal in a previously rundown industrial area.
Get Dan Meiss involved.
Screenshot 2024-07-17 at 11.19.35 AM.png
 
... And so what if we add a 5th team to the market? Just domestically Washington/Baltimore is roughly the same market size, and does just fine supporting 7 total teams, including 2 NFL teams and 2 MLB teams. San Francisco has no problem with 2 MLB teams either, and both have MLS teams who got their soccer specific stadiums - and are doing well attendence wise. In fact, only 6 MLS teams don't have dedicated stadia - and The revs are one. This isn't going to stop folks from supporting the Bruins/Celtics/Patriots - they're unique sports and have distinct fantasies.

Over in the UK in an area roughly analogous to the "Boston market", Liverpool and Manchester between them support 4 Premier League teams, and 7 EFL teams - and it's the same sport. We can have a 5th, unique team.

I get your point, but San Francisco does have a problem supporting 2 MLB teams. One of them is moving to Las Vegas

MLB attendance by team
 
I get your point, but San Francisco does have a problem supporting 2 MLB teams. One of them is moving to Las Vegas

MLB attendance by team
But that's 162 home games of the same sport.
That's probably, what, a game a day for the season?
I'm amazed baseball games have such high attendances given how often theyre played
 
I get your point, but San Francisco does have a problem supporting 2 MLB teams. One of them is moving to Las Vegas

MLB attendance by team
That isn't as much on the market being able to support the team, though i take your point that SF isn't the best example. the abysmal attendance this year is part of a fan revolt against that move to Vegas. Granted, it was always towards the bottom, but it used to hover around the Orioles and Pirates.
 
So the argument you're making is that no one will go to the stadium if it's built?

No, the argument in bringing up these small teams is similar to comparing a poor person (small, rundown places with a single division soccer team) with a rich person (Boston). It's like saying if a Dodge Neon is good enough for a poor person, it should be good enough for somebody who also has a Ferrari, Mercedes, Cadillac, and Rolls Royce. It's like saying if an Atari is good enough for a poor person it should be good enough for somebody with a PS5, Nintendo Switch, X-Box Series X, and souped up gaming computer.

There are other arguments to be made, but comparing Boston to poor places without other options is... strange at best.

... And so what if we add a 5th team to the market?

Just pointing out....
Boston Celtics are the #1 basketball team in the world.
Boston Bruins are a Top 15 hockey team in the world.
Boston Red Sox are a Top 15 baseball team in the world.
New England Patriots are a Top 32 football team in the world.
New England Revolution is the 828th best soccer team in the world.

It's not even fair to say "adding a 5th team to the market." It's 4 big market pro teams and a minor (minor minor minor minor) league soccer team. At least it's a different sport though, which is huge globally and seems to have a different set of fans from the others. That's the only reason it's viable and being discussed in the first place. Otherwise the same people who only have so much time in the day for their fandom are going to look at 4 top level teams in their sports, compared to the 828th best team in a different sport, and choose to follow the ones who can actually stake a claim as the best in the world with a championship. That's why the different group of fans is so important here, because typical Boston fans expect greatness.
 
No, the argument in bringing up these small teams is similar to comparing a poor person (small, rundown places with a single division soccer team) with a rich person (Boston). It's like saying if a Dodge Neon is good enough for a poor person, it should be good enough for somebody who also has a Ferrari, Mercedes, Cadillac, and Rolls Royce. It's like saying if an Atari is good enough for a poor person it should be good enough for somebody with a PS5, Nintendo Switch, X-Box Series X, and souped up gaming computer.

There are other arguments to be made, but comparing Boston to poor places without other options is... strange at best.



Just pointing out....
Boston Celtics are the #1 basketball team in the world.
Boston Bruins are a Top 15 hockey team in the world.
Boston Red Sox are a Top 15 baseball team in the world.
New England Patriots are a Top 32 football team in the world.
New England Revolution is the 828th best soccer team in the world.

It's not even fair to say "adding a 5th team to the market." It's 4 big market pro teams and a minor (minor minor minor minor) league soccer team. At least it's a different sport though, which is huge globally and seems to have a different set of fans from the others. That's the only reason it's viable and being discussed in the first place. Otherwise the same people who only have so much time in the day for their fandom are going to look at 4 top level teams in their sports, compared to the 828th best team in a different sport, and choose to follow the ones who can actually stake a claim as the best in the world with a championship. That's why the different group of fans is so important here, because typical Boston fans expect greatness.
So you agree that the stadium will be full but dont think we should build it because the Revs aren't at the same level as Real Madrid?
 
So you agree that the stadium will be full but dont think we should build it because the Revs aren't at the same level as Real Madrid?

No, I moved on to pointing out flaws in arguments. As I said right after that there are other arguments to be made, but comparing a poor person with a single toy (small market England teams) to a rich person with a much better set of toys (Boston's 4 big teams ranked between #'s 1-32 in their respective sports) doesn't really make sense. That's why I also said a key aspect of this is that the typical fan of the New England Revolution isn't the same person as the typical Boston sports fan, and instead is a mostly separate niche crowd.

Whether I agree that it will be full or not is another story altogether. I'm just pointing out that we are a rich city, with a lot of toys, and quite spoiled with our recent sports championships in leagues that matter for their respective sports.

But then, if we're talking about a niche crowd, what else could be done with the site that more people might benefit from? Are the options really soccer stadium or blight, and that's it?
 
I would like to see a major roller coaster (or 3) built in Boston's vicinity.
Honestly I love the idea of having an amusement park within Greater Boston, but the fact of the matter is there is capital ready and eager to clean up the waterfront and build the stadium, whereas that is not the case for an amusement park. If there were two competing proposals and one was roller coasters, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case. Do you really want the region to sleep on a transit-oriented stadium and privately-funded environmental remediation on the off chance that a proposal for Six Flags Boston magically appears?
 
No, I moved on to pointing out flaws in arguments. As I said right after that there are other arguments to be made, but comparing a poor person with a single toy (small market England teams) to a rich person with a much better set of toys (Boston's 4 big teams ranked between #'s 1-32 in their respective sports) doesn't really make sense. That's why I also said a key aspect of this is that the typical fan of the New England Revolution isn't the same person as the typical Boston sports fan, and instead is a mostly separate niche crowd.

Whether I agree that it will be full or not is another story altogether. I'm just pointing out that we are a rich city, with a lot of toys, and quite spoiled with our recent sports championships in leagues that matter for their respective sports.
ok, thanks for letting me know Boston has good sports teams.
And has more bigger teams than Stoke!

The stadium will be full.
The construction will fund a site cleanup
The site will be used year round.
It will drive more development in an area ripe for development.

The only slight negative will be congestion but given that the stadium will not be used during rush hour and will focus primarily on public transit, biking and walking, this shouldn't be a huge issue.
When the commuter rail network gets electrified, it could open the possibility for a new commuter rail stop.

No site is perfect for a new soccer stadium but this might be as close as it gets in greater Boston.
 
Honestly I love the idea of having an amusement park within Greater Boston, but the fact of the matter is there is capital ready and eager to clean up the waterfront and build the stadium, whereas that is not the case for an amusement park. If there were two competing proposals and one was roller coasters, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case. Do you really want the region to sleep on a transit-oriented stadium and privately-funded environmental remediation on the off chance that a proposal for Six Flags Boston magically appears?

I think at the end of the day I'm less concerned about that site in general. It's been industrial all my life and hasn't affected my experience of living in the Boston area (except maybe by providing me electricity). I'd rather see more general investment into Boston/Cambridge/Somerville, in whatever form that takes, than instead having most of the construction occurring further from the core.

I raised a set of concerns, which have various levels of validity, but basically get streamrolled by many people on this board. I think that's what rubs me the wrong way the most, that I'm not allowed to have a differing opinion without people turning to personal insults or basically saying that none of the concerns matter. There's a lack of civility about it, basically more "telling me what's right" and that's what pushes me from the very-passively opposed camp to the actively opposed and searching for damning statistics (like the 828th ranking) camp.
 

Back
Top