How should Boston’s major building owners decide what gets funded next?

Every big owner in Boston has more legitimate needs than money. The question is rarely whether a project deserves funding. It is which ones get funded, in what order, and what gets dropped to pay for them. This site is about those decisions.

By Rhett Dawson. Capital planning, deferred maintenance, and the funding decisions behind Boston’s largest building portfolios.

The owners I study

Universities, hospitals, cities, and the public owners of big building portfolios in Boston.

$4.4B

City of Boston’s FY27–31 capital plan. The starting point for much of the analysis on this site.

321

Projects in that plan. All competing for the same dollars, the same crews, and the same calendar.

5 questions

The Capital Decision Checklist. Five questions to compare any proposed investment before it reaches a capital committee.

Expertise

What I study and write about. Three kinds of portfolios, and the decision work that runs across all of them. The owners named here are the ones I follow through public plans, budgets, and capital documents.

Higher education portfolios

Old buildings, fixed money, and no real option to stop. I study how universities decide what gets renewed, what gets replaced, and what gets left for later.

Boston University A large private urban portfolio where renewal, expansion, and decarbonization all compete in the same plan.
Northeastern University A fast growing research campus balancing new capacity against the renewal of what already exists.
Brandeis University A mid-century campus. Its age cohort makes the shark chart a lived reality, not a theory.
UMass Boston A public campus where state capital programming and deferred renewal meet head on.

Public portfolios

City and state owners plan in the open. Budgets, votes, and bond programs are all on the record. That makes the tradeoffs easier to follow, and harder to hide.

City of Boston and Boston Public Schools The FY27–31 plan. $4.4B across 321 projects. Where you can watch municipal needs turn into funded, sequenced work.
DCAMM The Commonwealth’s capital asset manager. Where statewide priorities get set and sequenced.

Healthcare portfolios

Clinical continuity, infrastructure dependencies, and strategic investments all competing at once. A hospital cannot close a floor the way a school closes for the summer. That changes every decision.

Mass General Brigham System scale capital competition between clinical expansion and the infrastructure underneath it.
Boston Medical Center A safety net mission on an aging urban campus. Deferral here has visible equity stakes.
Beth Israel Lahey Health A merged system still harmonizing portfolios, standards, and capital priorities across legacy campuses.

Capital prioritization

The decision work itself. How a long list of legitimate needs becomes a short funded list, and how the weights inside the model make half the decision before the meeting starts.

Deferred maintenance economics

What waiting costs, in failures, operating money, and lost capacity. And why the size of the backlog, on its own, never wins the argument.

Decarbonization sequencing under BERDO

BERDO deadlines land on the same buildings that need roofs. I study how owners sequence emissions work inside the capital plan instead of bolting it on after.

A note on method. These are portfolios under study, drawn from public sources. Capital plans, budgets, board documents, public presentations. Each dossier tracks the portfolio and its mission, the documented capital priorities, where the money comes from and what constrains it, and one unresolved capital question. Sources and dates included. Unknowns labeled as unknowns. Jurisdiction stays building specific. A Brandeis building does not inherit Boston’s BERDO rules just because it is nearby.

Building Watch

Big Boston buildings with capital problems that are a matter of public record. Each one is a story about a decision. What is documented, where it stands, and the question still open. Everything here is sourced.

Decision made: replacement

Matthews Arena

238 St. Botolph Street, Boston, MA

Owner: Northeastern University

Opened in 1910. It was the oldest ice hockey arena in the world still in use. After decades of renovation spending, Northeastern decided to replace it instead. Announced March 6, 2025: a 310,000 SF multipurpose athletics and recreation complex with 4,050 hockey seats, on the same site. The arena closed in December 2025. Completion is now expected spring or summer 2029, after asbestos containing soil turned up during excavation.

The open question

What does the campus do without its arena until 2029, and what else in the portfolio waits while the replacement gets built?

Sources: Sports Business Journal, Mar 6, 2025. ENR, 2025 and 2026. Photo: Nusportsinfo, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The UMass Boston campus seen across the water from the west, with its original brick buildings on Columbia Point

Long-running program

UMass Boston Substructure Garage

100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125

Owner: UMass Boston (with DCAMM and the UMass Building Authority)

The underground garage under the campus plaza was built with low quality concrete in the 1970s. Saltwater ate into it until walls and floors were crumbling. One description called it “like a coral reef,” with nets hung to catch falling cement. The garage closed for good in July 2006, taking 1,500 parking spaces with it. DCAMM calls the substructure “seriously deteriorating.” A $78M commitment from the Higher Education Bond Bill followed the 2017 study. Demolition of the garage, the plaza, and the original Science and Pool buildings is making room for a new quad.

The open question

Demolition is under way. What does the new quad cost all in, and which 1970s building on the campus is next?

Sources: Boston Globe, Jul 2006. DCAMM project page, Mass.gov, 2017 study and $78M commitment. Photo: 4300streetcar, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Aerial view of the Alewife MBTA garage and surrounding development in Cambridge, with Fresh Pond in the foreground

Active watch

Alewife Garage (MBTA)

11 Cambridgepark West, Cambridge, MA

Owner: MBTA

Five stories, 2,733 spaces, opened in 1985. In August 2018 a chunk of concrete fell and smashed a parked car. The garage closed for emergency repairs. The repair program grew from $5.7M to $76M as crews found more damage. The MBTA now says the garage needs $250M in repairs and calls more band aids “no longer financially sensible.” Context: the MBTA’s 2023 Capital Needs Assessment put the system wide backlog at roughly $24.5 billion.

The open question

Fix it for $250M, replace it, or close it. The MBTA has not picked one.

Sources: MBTA, Aug 2018 and Nov 2023. Boston Globe, 2018 and 2024. StreetsblogMASS, 2026. Photo: Nick Allen, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Active watch: in MSBA pipeline

Madison Park Technical Vocational High School

75 Malcolm X Boulevard, Roxbury, Boston, MA 02120

Owner: City of Boston and Boston Public Schools

Opened in 1977. Boston’s only comprehensive vocational technical high school. After decades of disinvestment, rebuilding it is expected to be the most expensive capital project in Boston’s history. The City’s September 2026 procurement for an Owner’s Project Manager puts it at $650M to $700M, subject to MSBA approval. Completion is not expected until the 2030s.

The open question

One school at $650M to $700M. What else in the city’s building program waits while this takes the 2030s to build?

Sources: City of Boston, City Record, Sep 28, 2026. Boston Globe, Feb 2025.

Active watch

Boston Public Library, McKim Building

700 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116

Owner: City of Boston (Boston Public Library)

An 1895 National Historic Landmark. The master plan put renovation construction at $325M. BPL’s president says the final number could be significantly more. By 2025, two fifths of the building was closed to the public because of condition, including the entire third floor. More than $5.2M has since been committed toward the third floor. A separate $5M gift funds preparatory “Bridge to McKim” work through 2027.

The open question

The plan says $325M. The library’s president says the real number could be significantly more. Which one does the city plan around?

Sources: Boston Globe, Oct 2025. Boston Public Library trustees’ minutes, Dec 16, 2025. Photo: Daniel Schwen, CC BY-SA 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons.

Fan Pier and the Moakley Courthouse seen across Fort Point Channel, with the Northern Avenue swing bridge in the foreground

Active watch: future undecided

Northern Avenue Bridge

Northern Avenue over Fort Point Channel, Boston, MA

Owner: City of Boston

Built 1905 to 1908. The last surviving swing bridge over the channel. It closed to vehicles in 1997 and closed completely in December 2014, after inspectors found 13 floor beams unsafe. A 2018 condition summary found up to 100% section loss in key members. The Coast Guard called it a “hazard to navigation.” Restoration estimates ran $140M to $160M. The City filed a demolition plan in November 2024. Dismantling moved ahead in 2025 at a cost over $20M. What replaces it is still undecided.

The open question

The bridge is coming down at a cost over $20M. What, if anything, replaces it?

Sources: Boston Globe, 2014, 2016, and 2025. AECOM condition summary via Boston Preservation Alliance, 2018. Photo: Danielle Walquist Lynch, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Feed updated October 2026.

How I work

Capital planning is a decision discipline, not a list of needs. A point of view first, then a method, then the principles I hold the method to.

The point of view

A good capital plan is not a wish list. It ties building needs to mission, money, timing, and what the institution can actually get done.

Condition alone does not set the priority

The worst building is not automatically first in line. A building in rough shape can matter less than a building in decent shape that an essential service depends on. Condition is one input. It is not the ranking.

Deferral is a decision, and it has a price

Waiting is a choice. Things fail, operating costs go up, services get disrupted, mission capacity gets lost. A serious plan puts a number on waiting instead of treating deferral as free.

Projects compete, and they interact

Funding one project changes the math on the next one. Sometimes it removes the reason for it entirely. Roofs, electrification, utilization, and consolidation cannot be judged one at a time.

An approved list is not a delivered portfolio

Getting approved is not the same as getting built. Funding restrictions, outages, design capacity, and procurement decide what actually happens, and when. Authorization is where delivery starts. It is not where the decision ends.

The method

One checklist, five questions, asked in order. It is how I read any capital plan, including the ones in the stories above.

The Capital Decision Checklist

Five questions to ask before any capital investment gets funded. This is deliberately not a scored model. A clear comparison beats a made up number like 83 out of 100. The point is a better conversation in the room where the decision happens.

1

What must happen?

Safety, legal obligations, keeping critical services running. The non-negotiable core that frames everything else.
2

What happens if we wait?

What fails, what it costs to run in the meantime, what gets disrupted. Deferral gets a price, not a shrug.
3

What are the alternatives?

Repair it, replace it, consolidate it, change how it operates, get rid of it. The proposed project is one option. It is not the only one.
4

What changes the economics or the sequence?

Funding restrictions, dependencies on other projects, useful life, uncertainty. The stuff that moves a project up, down, or later.
5

What can we actually execute?

Staff capacity, design readiness, outages, procurement, approvals. A funded project nobody can deliver is a plan on paper only.

My guiding principles

Six principles I work by when a portfolio has more needs than money. None of them is just “spend more.” Each one changes how the money gets sequenced, protected, scored, or reviewed.

Audit the weights before trusting the ranking

Every prioritization model claims to be driven by something. Read the weights before you believe it. A model can call itself condition driven while the math funds something else entirely.

The evidence: one published audit of a 1,000 point prioritization model found condition and risk carried only 222 of 1,000 points. A project got funded at 250 points against a stated threshold of 500.

Sequence the money, don’t just size it

Fund critical infrastructure first. Reassess against the master plan. Then release the rest. The later money is earned by a fresh look at the plan, not assumed on day one.

Ring-fence the backlog money

Protect an annual set aside for deferred maintenance that new priorities cannot quietly raid. If the set aside is not protected, it is not a plan. It is a hope.

Condition and mission dependency carry the decision

Together they should be at least a third of the weight in any prioritization model. If they are not, the model is not what it claims to be.

The strategic plan and the capital plan are the same conversation

Capital follows mission. The portfolio exists to serve the strategy. The funding sequence should make that order obvious, not the other way around.

Get an outside peer review

Have someone outside review the plan and the cost model. The people who built the model are the last ones who will see what its weights actually do.

Distilled from the capital planning literature, including National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019).

The short version

The weights are the decision, whether anyone has read them or not.

Reading Boston’s capital decisions

Each one starts with a documented fact and ends with the question an owner should be asking. I try to be clear about what is documented, what I am inferring, and what nobody has published yet.

BERDO Source: City of Boston, Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO). Alternative Compliance Payment, $234/ton CO₂e.

BERDO’s $234/ton is a benchmark, not a hurdle rate

Boston’s Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance sets an Alternative Compliance Payment of $234/ton. Read it precisely. That number is a compliance cost benchmark that informs project economics. It is not a published investment hurdle rate. The actual decision still needs lifecycle costs, timing, the other compliance pathways, and what the owner is trying to do.

Used well, the benchmark helps with sequencing. Retrofit the buildings where cutting emissions costs less than $234 a ton. Pay where it costs more. And put that comparison in the five year capital plan, where it competes with everything else.

The Shark Chart Source: Massachusetts Higher Education Capital Working Group. Statewide public higher education capital needs and programming levels.

The need is a shark chart, not a slope

Massachusetts public higher education has $24.9B in documented capital need. The programming level is about $156.5M a year. The need is more than a hundred times the annual money. That is not a gap you close. It is a gap you manage, building by building, for a long time.

The shape is the warning. Buildings built in the same decades wear out in the same decades. Roofs, systems, and envelopes all come due at once. Portfolios like this do not decay on a gentle slope.

The Backlog Source: National Research Council, Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair for Federal Facilities (2012).

The backlog is an input, not an argument

A deferred maintenance total describes a portfolio. It does not make the case for a funding level. The National Research Council made this point in 2012. Funding should be argued in outcomes. Mission, compliance, condition, efficient operations. Not backlog totals.

“Our backlog is $X” gets the reply “so is everyone’s.” Try this instead. At this funding level, these services are exposed, these obligations come due, and these operating costs stay on the books. That is something a capital committee can actually weigh.

Boston Capital Decisions

A monthly brief, two pages. One local development, one capital tradeoff, one implication for owners.

Launching soon

The first six briefs

Why the worst condition building may not deserve the first dollar
What Boston’s capital plan tells us. And what it cannot tell us.
BERDO through a capital planning lens
Why an authorized bond program is not yet a delivered project
When consolidation deserves comparison with renovation
What belongs in a capital committee decision memo

Who I am

I’m Rhett Dawson, a Boston based consultant working in corporate real estate strategy and capital planning. The work is helping large institutions decide how to allocate limited capital across portfolios of aging, mission critical buildings.

My background is the intersection this site is about. A BS in Mechanical Engineering from Northeastern University. Engineering work in industrial commissioning and manufacturing. About three years consulting on real estate strategy and capital planning, including support for a $2B real estate program and roughly $500M a year in renovation and maintenance spending.

Boston Capital Strategy is where I think in public about that work. How owners should sequence renewal, decarbonization, and modernization when the needs always exceed the money. And how to make the tradeoffs plain enough that a capital committee can defend the order it picked.