Report: Celtics to look into building new arena

[stick n move]

If by widett they mean here… then that wouldnt be so bad as its right between ink block and broadway and is a short walk to/from either and broadway gives it a solid transit connection. There would even be the ability to add a commuter rail station if wanted.

(I measured td garden and it fits right here.)


But if by widett they mean here that would be a disconnected hellscape even as an air rights project imo.

Theres no good pedestrian connections and even if they were built theres no neighborhoods around for them to even lead to. Andrew station is far away too. Plus the fact that theyre building a new rail yard would just make it that much more expensive as an air rights project. This would be bad imo.

 

[Stlin]

If by widett they mean here… then that wouldnt be so bad as its right between ink block and broadway and is a short walk to/from either and broadway gives it a solid transit connection. There would even be the ability to add a commuter rail station if wanted.

View attachment 66410
(I measured td garden and it fits right here.)


But if by widett they mean here that would be a disconnected hellscape even as an air rights project imo.
View attachment 66411
Theres no good pedestrian connections and even if they were built theres no neighborhoods around for them to even lead to. Andrew station is far away too. Plus the fact that theyre building a new rail yard would just make it that much more expensive as an air rights project. This would be bad imo.

That site you highlighted is Boston public works... unless you can relocate them, that's likely a non starter. That said, if we're going air rights... actually, an air rights over Cabot Yard might actually be a decent idea. Sure something other than an arena would be better, but filling those Travelers St blocks would fill that hole immediately proximate to Broadway Station, is walking distance to S. Station (more so if the PO ever relocates and DOT Ave reopens), helps span the urban hellscape that is Broadway to SoWa, is immediately adjacent to the 93 spaghetti and its good highway access via the frontage road. While its there, it can help anchor the Gillette redevelopments and shield them from I93.

 

[themissinglink]

However, if there were one configuration I could possibly get excited about, it might be for the feds to sell the O'Neill and have have that parcel host a C's arena built right next to the B's arena right on Causeway (and throw up a couple more residential high-rises as part of that O'Neill re-dev!).

This is the only Celtics relocation scenario I'd support. It's not even that unrealistic, considering how the federal government might actually sell the O'Neill building.

 

[Equilibria]

The Celtics sale has closed. Now for the big question: Where to build a new arena? - The Boston Globe

The Celtics have shared the Garden (old or new) for nearly eight decades. But new owners have signaled they'll explore an arena of their own.

www.bostonglobe.com

Once again, this article does not include a single quote from the Celtics (a small minority owner is quoted). It simply takes it as a given that they can't not pursue a new arena given how much they paid for the team (despite the logical supposition that this would have consumed the owners' spending money and that finding a billion more for an arena might not be easy) and cites or quotes a whole bunch of people with vested interests in such a project, including real estate brokers and AECOM, which could be paid to design the arena. In Boston, where we expect sports venues to be privately-funded, this might be a slightly less concerning thing, but nationwide articles like this from pro-business "journalists" like Leung are exactly how the public and politicians get led to believe a new arena is critical or worse inevitable and that substantial public funds must be expended.

If the Celtics are silently behind this article, it is manipulative BS. If they aren't, it's irresponsible BS. Either way, the intention is to inception somebody into wasting a lot of money on a redundant venue that has no need to exist.

 

[Tallguy]

The cities you are citing have real metro systems, ones that actually move millions of people. Boston does not.

800k per day isn't "real"

 

[Arenacale]

Some commentary: https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2025...on-celtics-owner-wanting-his-own-arena-maybe/

 

[bigpicture7]

This is the only Celtics relocation scenario I'd support. It's not even that unrealistic, considering how the federal government might actually sell the O'Neill building.

I think the site is probably just a smidge too small (it wouldn't have been if the Avalon tower wasn't there). Though, it would be fun to see what could shake out in terms of a smaller footprint / taller stands/balconies type design, or asymmetric design.

Or, you know, we've got a local precedent of solving issues like that in the past

 

[Jeremi]

The start and end of this discussion is that there's only a couple dozen cities in the country that can support a 20000-seat arena, and only a couple that can support two. Boston is in the former category but not the latter.

 

[Arenacale]

The start and end of this discussion is that there's only a couple dozen cities in the country that can support a 20000-seat arena, and only a couple that can support two. Boston is in the former category but not the latter.

I wonder if this would still be the case if the DCU Center didn't exist.

 

[stick n move]

I think the site is probably just a smidge too small (it wouldn't have been if the Avalon tower wasn't there). Though, it would be fun to see what could shake out in terms of a smaller footprint / taller stands/balconies type design, or asymmetric design.

Or, you know, we've got a local precedent of solving issues like that in the past

Is there anywhere else in the US or even the world where two arenas of that size are directly abutting each other? I cant think of any off the top of my head.

 

[Scott]

The most logical argument that I have heard is that the Celtics will need additional revenue to continue compete with large market teams that own their own arenas like the Knicks, the Bulls and the Clippers

 

[Arenacale]

Is there anywhere else in the US or even the world where two arenas of that size are directly abutting each other? I cant think of any off the top of my head.

Milwaukee comes to mind - the current Bucks arena is just a parking lot away from the old Bucks arena, which is now used for college games: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DeL2ULoYyLU3RcTdA

The metro areas which have both NHL and NBA teams but they don't share an arena are relatively few, and to some extent they are fringe cases since you're looking at several miles between venues - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Brooklyn/Long Island, and Miami (I guess Irvine and Anaheim technically count for this too). Boston, New York, Philly, Chicago, DC, Toronto, Detroit, Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake, and LA all share their buildings, and any other markets have only one sport or the other. Detroit is notable because the two sports were separate until the new arena was built.

Looking at Detroit on Google Maps reminds me that, in many markets, the MLB and NFL shared venues up until the 1990s, when the multi-purpose stadiums were widely replaced with baseball and football-specific venues, leading to huge stadiums right next to each other in several cities. I guess it's not implausible that the same decoupling may eventually happen with hockey and basketball, even though they largely share similar needs.

 

[bigpicture7]

Is there anywhere else in the US or even the world where two arenas of that size are directly abutting each other? I cant think of any off the top of my head.

I mean, the idea of a "stadium district" has been pretty common. It'd just be a bit unusual of how similar the areas would be in this case. But things are trending in the direction of NHL and NBA-focused areas being more tailored to their respective sport than was the cast half a century ago.

KC is of course a famous example of what I'm talking about:

From: https://stateline.org/2025/06/12/pure-emotion-frequently-drives-debates-on-sports-stadium-deals/

And Philly's got all three:

From: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.c...outh-philly-sports-complex-76ers-center-city/

Fair enough that those are not "directly abutting" though.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I think the site is probably just a smidge too small (it wouldn't have been if the Avalon tower wasn't there). Though, it would be fun to see what could shake out in terms of a smaller footprint / taller stands/balconies type design, or asymmetric design.

Or, you know, we've got a local precedent of solving issues like that in the past

I would point out there is no height restraint at the Garden site. A new arena could be built OVER (or partially over) the current Garden. Maybe call it the Hanging Garden of Boston. All you need is a lot more vertical circulation.

 

[JumboBuc]

I think the site is probably just a smidge too small (it wouldn't have been if the Avalon tower wasn't there). Though, it would be fun to see what could shake out in terms of a smaller footprint / taller stands/balconies type design, or asymmetric design.

Or, you know, we've got a local precedent of solving issues like that in the past

In the West End / Bulfinch Triangle area, I'd prefer the Lindemann Building site. It's about the same size as the Garden and available for purchase.

Is there anywhere else in the US or even the world where two arenas of that size are directly abutting each other? I cant think of any off the top of my head.

Milwaukee comes to mind - the current Bucks arena is just a parking lot away from the old Bucks arena, which is now used for college games: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DeL2ULoYyLU3RcTdA

The metro areas which have both NHL and NBA teams but they don't share an arena are relatively few, and to some extent they are fringe cases since you're looking at several miles between venues - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Brooklyn/Long Island, and Miami (I guess Irvine and Anaheim technically count for this too). Boston, New York, Philly, Chicago, DC, Toronto, Detroit, Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake, and LA all share their buildings, and any other markets have only one sport or the other. Detroit is notable because the two sports were separate until the new arena was built.

Looking at Detroit on Google Maps reminds me that, in many markets, the MLB and NFL shared venues up until the 1990s, when the multi-purpose stadiums were widely replaced with baseball and football-specific venues, leading to huge stadiums right next to each other in several cities. I guess it's not implausible that the same decoupling may eventually happen with hockey and basketball, even though they largely share similar needs.

I mean, the idea of a "stadium district" has been pretty common. It'd just be a bit unusual of how similar the areas would be in this case. But things are trending in the direction of NHL and NBA-focused areas being more tailored to their respective sport than was the cast half a century ago.

When Phoenix had an NHL team (up until like two years ago) they played in a different venue from the Suns (whose venue is right across from where the Diamondbacks play).

In LA, the Clippers have moved to their own stadium (the Intuit Dome) which is in the same district as the new SoFi Stadium and the old LA Forum. Like in Milwaukee, the Forum / Dome combo were / are both NBA venues.

Another very local example is Alumni Stadium / Conte Forum at BC. They even share some common luxury boxes.

 

[stick n move]

I mean, the idea of a "stadium district" has been pretty common. It'd just be a bit unusual of how similar the areas would be in this case. But things are trending in the direction of NHL and NBA-focused areas being more tailored to their respective sport than was the cast half a century ago.

KC is of course a famous example of what I'm talking about:

From: https://stateline.org/2025/06/12/pure-emotion-frequently-drives-debates-on-sports-stadium-deals/

And Philly's got all three:

From: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.c...outh-philly-sports-complex-76ers-center-city/

Fair enough that those are not "directly abutting" though.

Yea I def am aware of philly with the arena district, LA, or milwaukee which is a parking lot away but I meant like 2 exact same arenas directly abutting each other as in like directly touching each other the way they would be if the oneill was replaced with an arena. Football and baseball did have shared stadiums in the past, but these days theyre also completely different use cases, but NHL/NBA arenas are the exact same buildings that just switch back and forth so having 2 of the exact same size/arrangement arenas directly touching would be pretty wild.

Arenacale brought up pretty good points about how exceedingly rare it even is to have 2 separate nhl/nba arenas, let alone two that are touching, so if we build an nba stadium directly next to our nhl stadium that would be pretty unique (and wasteful I might add in such a tight confine like downtown boston).

 

[Equilibria]

Yea I def am aware of philly with the arena district, LA, or milwaukee which is a parking lot away but I meant like 2 exact same arenas directly abutting each other as in like directly touching each other the way they would be if the oneill was replaced with an arena. Football and baseball did have shared stadiums in the past, but these days theyre also completely different use cases, but NHL/NBA arenas are the exact same buildings that just switch back and forth so having 2 of the exact same size/arrangement arenas directly touching would be pretty wild.

Arenacale brought up pretty good points about how exceedingly rare it even is to have 2 separate nhl/nba arenas, let alone two that are touching, so if we build an nba stadium directly next to our nhl stadium that would be pretty unique (and wasteful I might add in such a tight confine like downtown boston).

There are a few different ways regions have ended up with separated NBA/NHL arenas, a big one being that arenas designed for one alone do not always easily accommodate the other (why it was necessary to build a dedicated arena for the Islanders, for example, and one cited reason the Coyotes couldn't play at the Suns arena in Downtown Phoenix). In Salt Lake City, the Delta Center is currently being basically gut-renovated to accommodate both Hockey and Basketball, because the teams share an owner. You might also have regions broad and large enough to fill the dates at two or more venues and essentially the arena is looking for a sports tenant rather than the other way around, like the Honda Center or Amerant Bank Arena. Increasingly, though, teams have just started looking to build a separate arena, ideally on the public dime, to increase their own valuation. That's what may happen in Dallas, Las Vegas, and is what would happen in Boston. There is no need for a second arena for the entertainment market, the Garden is central for the whole region to reach it, and it was designed to host both sports.

FWIW, John Karalis raised another good point: Isn't Chisholm also supposed to be spending many hundreds of millions stealing the WNBA team from under Pagliuca as well? How many enormous expenses (and complex projects) can he float at once? https://bostonsportsjournal.com/202...ape-boston-sports-landscape-but-at-what-price

 

[MrDee12345]

My alma mater Quinnpiac built their hockey and basketball arenas next to each other in the same building.

I guess if you wanted to put it next door it could work, but I just don't see that ROI would be all that good. Does the area need another 20,000 seat arena? Both arenas would need to fill their spaces outside of the 41 games played there each year. Would this mean that Bruins and Celtics games could be played on the same night?

 

[Arenacale]

My alma mater Quinnpiac built their hockey and basketball arenas next to each other in the same building.

That's a really interesting setup, since both arenas are visually identical except for the sizing. In that scenario, the basketball side can be converted to multiple courts, which means it would have uses outside of game days that would prohibit them from just doing the Bull Gang changeover from hockey to basketball when games come up.

Here in New England, there tends to be a big discrepancy between hockey and basketball attendance that swings each way depending on what school you're at, though it roughly leans towards hockey just because it's easier to be competitive in the much smaller Div. 1 pool. For example, BU and Northeastern are primarily hockey schools with 5000 seat rinks and much smaller basketball venues, though the hockey arenas can be converted to basketball should a marquee game come up. Meanwhile, Providence and UConn are basketball schools in 10,000+ seat venues, their rinks are far smaller than that. The BCs and UMasses that play together in one big venue are rare.

 

[HenryAlan]

I would point out there is no height restraint at the Garden site. A new arena could be built OVER (or partially over) the current Garden. Maybe call it the Hanging Garden of Boston. All you need is a lot more vertical circulation.

That's kind of the same concept as Case Gym at BU, which is used for basketball and built above Walter Brown Arena (women's hockey). And the "roof top" nickname for it is great. That said, I don't see Delaware North agreeing to a competitor arena being built above the Garden.