What will the new White Stadium actually cost?
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The 50-50 split with the soccer club was a bargain at its original cost to the city of $50 million. Then some six months later that number rose to $91 million.
Advertisement
Now Mayor Michelle Wu insists she won't know until 'later this calendar year,' presumably well after the Nov. 4 general election, what the ultimate cost of the project will be — but admits it is likely to escalate once all the bids are 'out the door.'
And had it not been for her chief mayoral rival, Josh Kraft, raising the issue with a document he said came 'from folks on the inside at City Hall,' that pegged the city's ultimate likely cost at $172 million, voters would have remained in the dark about further cost escalations.
Advertisement
'Not sure where those numbers are coming from,'
The very next day she
Then last week in an interview on WBUR she acknowledged there have already been some price increases.
'There's always some level of cost escalation, unfortunately,' she said. 'In major construction projects, we end up putting out bids, and whatever the price in the market is at that moment is what the city pays, for any construction project.'
'We are seeing cost escalations in terms of the cost of steel, for example,'
The city's
The bids are not scheduled to be opened until October.
In all, the city has spent $11.3 million on the renovation project so far, a spokesperson said, but only $5.6 million on 'construction-related activities.'
Delays to the project mean the soccer team will play its inaugural 2026 season at the 65,000-seat Gillette Stadium. It plans to move to its new 11,000-seat venue in Franklin Park for the 2027 season beginning that March.
But costing out that final number for Boston taxpayers gets even trickier because as its own 'supplier diversity dashboard' notes, 'This is one project being managed by two teams. Contracts awarded by the City are subject to state law regulating the procurement of services on public projects. BLFC is not subject to the same constraints, which allows them to award contracts without public procurement law constraints.' Most of those BLFC-generated bids for concrete, steel, facade restoration, utilities, and site work close Aug. 15, city officials said.
Advertisement
Which still begs the question of why the project's new bottom line will remain a mystery until the end of the year.
And while the dashboard represents an attempt at transparency, especially for minority and female vendors and contractors looking for a piece of the stadium action, even if it were up to date, it represents at best half a loaf.
It's a point not lost on Ed Gaskin, director of Greater Grove Hall Main Streets, who wrote in a recent
He's not wrong.
The
'City officials need to make all the construction bids they've received public, so that residents can know just how far over-budget the White Stadium project is,' Jessica Spruill, a Dorchester resident and member of the Franklin Park Defenders, wrote in a
Advertisement
Others in the group have raised broader questions about the project's financial viability and whether the team can meet its financing deadlines.
'The old White Stadium has been demolished, but construction of its replacement hasn't started, and it's clear that the professional soccer stadium plans are on shaky ground,' former METCO director Jean McGuire of Roxbury wrote in a
Rebuilding White Stadium could still be a good idea that leaves a long-term legacy for Boston — a long-overdue first-rate facility for Boston's high school athletes and a showcase for professional women's soccer. But voters — whether they love or hate the idea of the stadium — deserve more than the promise of a post-election big reveal of its final cost.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Cuomo bashes ‘rich person' Mamdani for hogging $2,300 from homeless New Yorkers
Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani is a 'rich person' hogging affordable housing from homeless New Yorkers — and it's 'time to move out,' ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo wrote in a scathing social media post. Cuomo unleashed his tirade on X Friday alongside a video of the left nominee and frontrunner for City Hall openly admitting he pays $2,300 for a one-bedroom apartment in the high-demand neighborhood of Astoria, Queens. 'Somewhere last night in New York City, a single mother and her children slept at a homeless shelter because you, assemblyman Zohran Mamdani are occupying her rent controlled apartment,' Cuomo wrote in the viral tweet that has racked up more than 31,000 views. Zohran Mamdani pays $2,300 per month for his Astoria apartment. Brigitte Stelzer 'You grew up rich and married an even wealthier woman. You've had weddings on 3 continents. You own property in LGTBQIA+ murderous Uganda,' he continued, pointing to the politician's $142,000 base salary and the additional income his illustrator wife, Rama Duwaji, brings home. The couple married earlier this year at the City Clerk's office before jetting off for a small, but lavish Dubai engagement and wedding celebration. They capped off their nuptials with a blockbuster, three-day affair at his family's ritzy, secluded Ugandan compound, complete with masked security guards and a cellphone jamming system –– which Cuomo was quick to point out. 'No matter which way you cut it: Zohran Mamdani is a rich person. You are actually very rich. Mamdani makes a $140,000 salary as an Assemblymember. Brigitte Stelzer 'Yet you and your wife pay $2,300 a month, as you have bragged, for a nice apartment in Astoria. That should be housing for someone who needs it. We are in the middle of a historic affordability crisis. Millions of low income New Yorkers need this apartment and an apartment like it. Yet your apartment remains rented to rich people who don't need it,' Cuomo said. 'Today, I am calling on you to move out immediately and give your affordable housing back to an unhoused family who need it. Leaders must show moral clarity. Time to move out.' Mamdani had previously claimed he had plans to move out of his cheap digs. He told the New York Editorial Board in February he found the listing on StreetEasy back when he was making $47,000 per year as a foreclosure prevention housing counselor. He claimed that at the time, he had no idea it was a rent-stabilized unit. The average price of rent for a one-bedroom in the trendy Queens nabe is closer to $3,000, according to Apartment Advisor — meaning Mamdani saves an average of $8,400 per year more than his constituents. 'In that time since, I've become an assemblymember and I'm now able to pay for that apartment and able to also move out of that apartment and I plan on doing so. I don't plan on living in that apartment for perpetuity,' he said. Representatives for Mamdani did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 'The truth hurts and the truth is Mamdani is gaming a system meant to help those with way less privilege,' Cuomo spokesman Richard Azzopardi told The Post. 'I understand his diehard supporters don't know how to deal with his mask slipping,' he added, referencing backlash from Mamdani backers, 'but the comments I see are full of New Yorkers who are appalled by his hypocrisy.'
Boston Globe
10 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Texas just opened Pandora's box, and voters everywhere could pay the price
Redistricting is meant to occur every 10 years after the census. District maps should ensure that all voters have an equal chance to influence their representation, not to serve the personal or political interests of those in power at a given moment. Advertisement What makes this instance particularly troubling is the brazen nature of the effort. Trump and Republican leaders in Texas have been blunt: This new map is designed purely for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But this is not just a Texas problem. The consequences are already rippling outward: Lawmakers in New York and California are now considering redrawing their own maps in response — not to better serve communities but to counterbalance Texas's partisan moves. This tit-for-tat escalation is exactly what our democratic system cannot afford. Partisan gerrymandering has always been problematic, but Texas's mid-decade redistricting solely for political advantage is particularly corrosive to our democracy. Political leaders in Washington, D.C., have been gutting health care, tearing apart families with abusive deportation squads, and using federal power for revenge and personal gain. Rather than earning electoral victories by engaging with their constituents and championing policies that improve people's lives, they have chosen to simply redraw the district boundaries. As state Representative Advertisement This power grab is particularly harmful in Texas, a state with a long history of racially discriminatory map drawing and other forms of voter suppression. In Americans deserve better. We deserve fair maps designed to reflect communities, not to boost the political fortunes of the map drawers. And no matter which party is in power, partisan gerrymandering cannot come at the expense of voters of color and diluting their vote and voice. We the voters should choose our elected officials — not the other way around. This moment demands national urgency. Mid-decade gerrymandering to avoid answering to voters is already dangerous. Now the governor and attorney general of Texas are Advertisement Texas's actions set a dangerous precedent. If the nation's second largest state can conduct partisan redistricting mid-decade with impunity, other states will follow suit. We're witnessing a race to the bottom that erodes faith in democratic institutions, regardless of which party benefits. We the people are supposed to command our own fate. That means our representatives are supposed to work for us. Texas must back away from mid-decade redistricting. And Congress must act to end partisan gerrymandering and protect the freedom to vote for all Americans, especially those most targeted by these power grabs. Texas is showing us what happens when those in power use that power to entrench themselves instead of serving their constituents. If Texas gets away with this, this mid-decade power grab won't be an aberration — it will drag other states into the same game, and voters and our democracy will be the losers.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
EPA chief Zeldin is pushing pipelines as the agency dashes protections
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The Trump administration's promotion of fossil fuels requires eliminating this competition, obstructing clean energy projects by any means possible. But blocking cost-competitive clean energy projects is apparently not enough to make new gas pipelines and power plants economically feasible or competitive with renewables. That's why Zeldin has been busy propping up oil and gas by Advertisement As a former senior official at the agency, I am appalled to see the EPA administrator so brazenly betray his charge under the nation's environmental laws while essentially shilling for an industry he is bound by law to protect us against. Advertisement Brad Campbell President Conservation Law Foundation Boston The writer is the former administrator for the Mid-Atlantic region at the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin wants to lock our region into a fossil-fuel future I'm outraged that EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, whose job is nominally to protect the environment, is lecturing Massachusetts about energy costs and infrastructure. Recently, the Trump administration Zeldin says, 'New England should come together to support American energy infrastructure.' It's evident that when he says 'energy infrastructure,' he means that which will lock our region into fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Indeed, New England does want more energy infrastructure. That includes solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and advanced nuclear. What we don't want is a meddling federal bureaucrat to shove another pipeline of dirty fuel down our throats. Frederick Hewett Cambridge Agency should be focusing on protecting the environment and human health In his Aug. 6 op-ed, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin claims that states should not 'overreach' their power to halt new polluting fossil fuel infrastructure. The only overreach is a federal official forcing on New England a false solution to a problem exacerbated by his administration's undercutting homegrown, cost-lowering resources such as offshore wind and solar. Siting isn't what's stopping new pipelines; it's that the natural gas consumers Zeldin is concerned about — electricity generators — do not want them. The generators are capable of signing new long-term contracts for firm capacity, and pipeline developers could build new infrastructure by complying with environmental laws and ensuring that the pipelines do not release carcinogens into our drinking water. But neither has happened. The market responds to demand, and regulations balance the people's interests against industry's. We do not need outside interference that only benefits natural gas companies and their investors. Advertisement Zeldin wrote, 'New England should come together to support American energy infrastructure.' We are partnering on local clean energy solutions that make communities healthier, increase reliability, and lower bills. The best thing the EPA can do is focus on protecting the environment and human health, not running interference for fossil fuel companies. Amy Boyd Rabin Vice president of policy and regulatory affairs Environmental League of Massachusetts Boston They could have their pipeline if they agreed to stop hindering renewables While EPA administrator Lee Zeldin argues reasonably that Massachusetts would benefit from the Constitution Pipeline delivering large volumes of Pennsylvania gas to reduce our energy costs, his arrogant hypocrisy floods the page when he protests that New York and other states 'should not block critical energy infrastructure in the name of climate change.' While lecturing us to avoid the endangerment of fossil fuel profits, his administration acts with glee rescinding federal permits and leases for large offshore wind energy facilities along the East Coast. You want the Constitution Pipeline, Mr. Zeldin? How about you strike a grand deal with East Coast states: They agree to support the pipeline while the federal government agrees to immediately confirm wind leases and permits and stop hindering the development of our offshore wind projects. Advertisement The Trump administration cannot claim that there is an energy 'emergency' while in the same breath blocking gigawatts of offshore wind. Maybe one day this administration will wake up and consider that it is actively destroying the economic futures of a whole lot of American workers and companies that are primed to deliver large volumes of American energy, starting with the port of New Bedford at the center of our state's wind energy industry. Brian Kopperl Belmont The writer is managing partner and cofounder of Renewable Energy Massachusetts LLC, a solar development company. He is also cochair of the Belmont Energy Committee. A 'climate zealot' speaks Lee Zeldin's broadside against New England 'climate zealots' promotes using more natural gas, but gas is already the greatest source of energy in the region. According to the Zeldin weeps for American families 'who have suffered long enough' from high energy prices, but American families mostly suffer from annual rate hikes and growing air pollution. Zeldin rails against climate activists who have 'derailed American infrastructure projects.' I am one of those zealots. I installed solar panels on the roof of my house, nixed my electricity bills, sold my clean energy surplus to utility companies, and made the air a bit cleaner. Guilty as charged. Anatol Zukerman Plymouth The writer is a member of Citizens' Climate Lobby.
