Worcester Infill and Developments

Rover said:
I'm always skeptical of giving teams $$$ but can live with this deal if its mostly infrastructure. Would like to know what the projected tax revenues will be from all of this of course. However unlike RI which is going out of business Mass can afford the 35 clams to take a flyer on this all working out.
Click to expand...

The local revenue is going into a DIF to fund the ballpark. No mention of what happens in the case of a shortfall, but hopefully we'll get a full document soon. I'd imagine there will be MA sales tax revenue from the park, hotels, etc. that would go to general use.
 
I'm actually excited about this for Worcester, I don't want to get into the politic and money stuff. Having a minor league team with a Boston name on it is a bigger deal than San Jose (aka the hockey Sharks who moved so they could be next to the team for call ups and stuff like that.). So you can watch the guy's who might make you're pro team kinda thing.

On a side note maybe I can post crappy cell phone pics of the site when I visit my parents in Auburn.

Quick edit - I love every picture of every project people post here, high quality or anything. That comment was supposed to be self deprecating.
 
I guess this explains why the city did not include this site in their Amazon HQ2 proposal, if negotiations with the PawSox were promising at that point. While still an incredible long shot, this site would have ticked more boxes for Amazon seeking an urban setting close to cultural and entertainment venues.
 
PawSox posted a view from the opposing angle on their Twitter feed. In the background behind the stadium is the 12 acre "Madison Downtown Holding Parcel" with new hotel, retail, and residential construction.

5XNu9mTl.jpg
 
Last edited:
From this angle the stadium looks bigger than 10,000@ capacity. I am sure they could build it closer to 15,000. McCoy already holds 10k. Just seems short sighted to build another 10k stadium.

This is exciting news for Worcester regardless. Go WooSox!
 
Will probably will be 10,000 seats originally not including potential picnic/lawn areas and expandable to 12,000 if the needs increase. All of the International League venues seat in the 10-11,000 range except for Indianapolis, Louisville and Buffalo.
 
Rover said:
However unlike RI which is going out of business Mass can afford the 35 clams to take a flyer on this all working out.
Click to expand...

Not a Quahog State resident but I have to call bull$##@ on assertions like this that aren't supplemented by an empirical data/analyses. So I had to check. Sure enough, googling "fiscal health 50 states" reveals the following:

1.) A US News study that ranks RI #33 in fiscal health... and Mass. #40:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/fiscal-stability

2.) A George Mason U. study that ranks RI #38 for fiscal health... and Mass. #48:

https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

I'm no expert, but, if these studies are any indication, you have it exactly ass-backwards.
 
No offense DBM but sometimes you need to read what you're posting. Your studies have west Virginia and Kentucky, along with Rhode Island as in better fiscal health than mass. If you believe that you're a freaking idiot. there's no way to be polite about that. RI's own governor said they couldn't match Worcester's package.
 
Last edited:
Most AAA affiliates don't play in the same state as their MLB big brother...

Was listening to WEEI this weekend with my GF and they had LL on to talk about the move. He mentioned that McCoy Stadium was seventy-five years old. The thing that seemed so hypocritical about this was that the Fenway Sports Group were brought in to renovate and refurbish Fenway Park. I'm not going to get into the whole NIMBY argument yada-yada-yada. But they went on TV to talk about how Fenway was cherished etc, etc.

McCoy is younger compared to Fenway. It holds up. It's in a part of Northern Rhode Island that has seen an upswing in the past few years. I was looking forward to going to a game - I have until 2021 I suppose - and this sucks. Gina might be a lousy governor, and I get why RI taxpayers wouldn't want to take chance after what Curt Schilling did to that state but this wasn't on her or city officials. I put this all on LL for not bringing in Janet Marie Smith to renovate McCoy. A refurbished McCoy and the redeveloped areas would've been a boon. I love Rhode Island and the Paw Sox are part of that charm.

Worcester is not Rhode Island in any which way, shape or form. It doesn't have that friendly charm that keeps me going back to the Ocean State. 290 is a hot mess and the roads and bridges continually crumble as we speak. Kelley Square shouldn't have to rely on "Polar Park" for an upgrade. Fan attendance will most likely drop after the first few seasons once the buzz wears off and then what? The city is stuck with a taxpayer boondoggle.
 
Rover said:
No offense DBM but sometimes you need to read what you're posting. Your studies have west Virginia and Kentucky, along with Rhode Island as in better fiscal health than mass. If you believe that you're a freaking idiot. there's no way to be polite about that. RI's own governor said they couldn't match Worcester's package.
Click to expand...

What on earth does "RI's own governor saying they couldn't match Worcester's package" have to do with your assertion that "RI is going out of business"?

Yes, everyone gets that Mass. can mobilize vastly more economic resources than RI, given its economy is so much larger. You, however, made an assertion about RI's long-term fiscal health/trajectory, relative to Mass. And, based on those two studies I found online, it's just not true--in fact, if those two studies are to be believed, Mass. is on a more unsustainable trajectory and should be the state we're worrying about "going out of business." That's all.

I have no idea whether the studies are creditable/trustworthy. But what do you know about them to dismiss them so breezily? Are you a fiscal watchdog of the 50 states' relative fiscal health?
 
DBM said:
What on earth does "RI's own governor saying they couldn't match Worcester's package" have to do with your assertion that "RI is going out of business"?

Yes, everyone gets that Mass. can mobilize vastly more economic resources than RI, given its economy is so much larger. You, however, made an assertion about RI's long-term fiscal health/trajectory, relative to Mass. And, based on those two studies I found online, it's just not true--in fact, if those two studies are to be believed, Mass. is on a more unsustainable trajectory and should be the state we're worrying about "going out of business." That's all.

I have no idea whether the studies are creditable/trustworthy. But what do you know about them to dismiss them so breezily? Are you a fiscal watchdog of the 50 states' relative fiscal health?
Click to expand...

RI has actually been been stealing some business from MA lately, per massecon. I like seeing all of New England doing well, no reason for any hate here.
 
I am sad to see RI lose the PawSox. I love RI and only want it to succeed, as I want the rest of New England sans Fairfield Co CT to succeed. It's a bit odd, but since I moved to Japan in 2002, I have become strongly attached to New England on the whole. It is different from the rest of the country, and that's something to cherish. I want the brand to succeed on the whole too.

For real, if any of Richard Morgan's dystopian futures become true, I am all for a North Atlantic Union: NY-NJ + New England + Atlantic Canada + the UK. I know I feel far more comfortable in any of these places - Atlantic Canada and anywhere in the UK included - than I do in most of the South and lots of the Midwest / Mountain West.

I am looking online for a Dominion of New England flag to fly at my Tokyo house.
 
On the subsidy - I like this interview with Andrew Zimbalist and Victor Matheson, two local economists (Zimbalist worked for the PawSox and then for Worcester on this project, and also was a big part of killing Boston 2024).

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/triple-a-duel-zimbalist-vs-matheson/

Both professors make solid points. The problem with these analyses, though, will always be the unquantifiable value that a local team has to a community. That's what separates a stadium from a multiplex cinema (which the interviewer makes Matheson admit, to his credit). If you don't like sports, you'll always see it as a waste of money.

The other interesting point here is Matheson's argument that a AAA team will only make enough revenue to pay for $30M of a stadium. I've never seen it put that succinctly before - the clear implication being that if the stakeholders (owners, fans, local government) want something nice and new periodically, someone will always have to subsidize it. In this case, that someone will hopefully be the developer, whose hotels and other buildings are supposed to fund the City's portion. But even if the City ends up eating the cost, it really comes down to whether you like minor league sports enough to want to pay for it.
 
Equilibria said:
On the subsidy - I like this interview with Andrew Zimbalist and Victor Matheson, two local economists (Zimbalist worked for the PawSox and then for Worcester on this project, and also was a big part of killing Boston 2024).

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/triple-a-duel-zimbalist-vs-matheson/

Both professors make solid points. The problem with these analyses, though, will always be the unquantifiable value that a local team has to a community. That's what separates a stadium from a multiplex cinema (which the interviewer makes Matheson admit, to his credit). If you don't like sports, you'll always see it as a waste of money.

The other interesting point here is Matheson's argument that a AAA team will only make enough revenue to pay for $30M of a stadium. I've never seen it put that succinctly before - the clear implication being that if the stakeholders (owners, fans, local government) want something nice and new periodically, someone will always have to subsidize it. In this case, that someone will hopefully be the developer, whose hotels and other buildings are supposed to fund the City's portion. But even if the City ends up eating the cost, it really comes down to whether you like minor league sports enough to want to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Good article. While I agree with the notion that eventually these parcels would have been developed due to increased demand in Worcester, the big unknown is how long that would have taken especially if you miss this development cycle. Rightly or wrongly there's now a finite date for all this, 2021 from the sounds of it. Its sorta like the argument Rifleman's always making about the Seaport which I partly agree with. Yes at this point no more subsidies as the demand is already there. However, sometimes you do need a kickstart which was Vertex at the time for the Seaport and the Pawsox here.

Another way to look at it was the city wasn't going to get the state to invest $35M anytime soon until this project served as the catalyst, so they spent $100M to get $70M combined from the team and the state and better hope tax revenue covers the rest.
 
WormtownNative said:
Jesus this ballpark work is moving fast.

MASTER PLAN: http://www.worcesterma.gov/uploads/23/ba/23ba91f71a765c35e2b0c0188a40c2a8/ballpark-project-master-plan.pdf

Interesting that they had this plan all set in May and Worcide got demo'd in July....."coincidence?"
Click to expand...

Regardless of one's views on the new ballpark I have to say Worcester got its act together like a well oiled machine on this one. Stunning for a local municipality. Usually in Massachusetts you can't plant a tree without several people running to court to file a lawsuit. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top