Deck The Pike Herald St. Extension

[paperless paul]

Paperless,

I think that you're looking at this from purely a traditional cost/benefit assessment angle, which is fine. From that perspective, this project doesn't make sense.

I'm looking at it as a public good, that so happens to have the added bonus of recouping its costs.

I appreciate all of your comments. I think my objections were pretty detailed and clear if slightly longwinded. The indicated proposal is unlikely to work and is poor development policy.

1. These are expensive parcels to develop. Principles of public policy suggest developing the cheaper ones first.

2. Putting the road over the Pike and not high value buildings lowers value of the rights. The proposals here suggest 2-3 story buildings. And the original proposal was for 'no takings'.

3. There is a large upfront State cost. I will hazard a SWAG of $150m to $300m. And with considerable risk on completion with no developers commitment.

4. Some technical details which are less important, but to which there was no clarification (e.g. elev, landscaping, traffic lanes).

5. As a financial matter having the State pay upfront for construction with the risk that no developer wants to go forward seems unreasonable and likely to generate plenty of political pushback.

The Back Bay Garage Tower proposal appears to provide a $25m renovation of the station, lease payments for the station and a new lease for the Garage and then a tower and property taxes etc. This seems to be a much more sensible financial arrangement for the State to make. Similar to Parcel 13 and Hynes.

6. The current 'gash', as much as I would be happy if it wasn't there, does not seem to be remotely slowing down directly adjacent development.

I think we agree on the principles of the proposal. I certainly agree I am looking at this as cost/benefit to the State. I have given several qualitative measures as to why the numbers are unlikely to work net in the state's favor.

At some point putting some finer numbers to each side would make sense. I would be very interest to read a comprehensive summary as was done for Parcel 13. I am much more interested in enclosing the Mass Ave / Boylston area, which with any look will be accomplished with the 3 proposals for Parcels 12, 13 and 15.

Even if the State deems the cost 'worth it' I am questioning whether the proposal is feasible as currently configured.

Don't forget that besides closing the gash we also get housing (desperately needed), possible retail (always nice), and property tax revenue from previously undeveloped land (always VERY nice).

I haven't forgotten about the housing, retail or property tax, but all of these are similarly available for other nearby parcels.

In sum, I don't see this as the best proposal to finance development in this area. I am currently in the process of finalizing the structural design for my own proposal. I look forward to other's comments then.

 

[paperless paul]

Reading these threads there seems to be a lot of frustration and complaints about the process of the air rights parcels.

What seems to be missing though is an understanding that financially they just don't make any sense. They either need a super tall tower or to be mostly on terra firm with limited structure over the Pike.

At the moment the only rights parcels that are developed are mostly terra firma.

1) One Greenway
2) Parcel 25 half and half but with only a 4 lane span with plenty of structural depth and no real construction impediments on the western Surface road wall.
3) Parcel 12 has a very light tall 2 story structure but the vast majority of the space is being developed on land. I have no doubt this portion is subsidizing the latter.
4) Parcel 7 - Fenway is the only true extensive full Turnpike +200' span. And suffice to say it's unclear whether this will ever get off the ground.
5) Columbus Center and Back Bay Garage and Copley Tower are all very tall tower proposals and also have a fair amount of terra firma - and of course haven't been built.
6) South Station - super tall
7) South Bay - deemed too large to develop in one parcel. Parecel 27 is seen as uneconomic. And this plan included tons of terra firma.


I am all for government spending and even more important planning and coordination as a way to catalyze development. But things like transit spending and infrastructure spending (water pipes, cleaning Boston Harbor) seem to be a lot more sensible money multipliers.

Spend $250m on improving the orange line, or extending to Roslindale, etc. And maybe a little extra $50m on neighborhood projects, and you will have

A 10m ride downtown, tons of vacant parcels for developers, improved transportation for everyone, development in blighted areas, tons of housing, tax base, etc.

Filling in the Pike from Back Bay to Albany gives a nicer view for super wealthy South End and Ink Block residents, and South Cove/Chinatown. But it's only 200' crossing. It's really not that bad. Tons of pedestrians happily cross. It's not nearly as bad as the 440' at Beacon St in Fenway or the +1000' at Cambridge St in Allston.

 

[timsox6]

While I think it would be excellent to knit neighborhoods back together and cover up the Pike, I think the best that we're gonna do for a while (and most practical) will have to rely on very slow air rights developments like the ones Paperless listed above: Fenway Center, Parcels 12, 13, (14?), 15, maybe Columbus Center area, plus more towers on existing platforms. Sure New York is doing Hudson Yards, but Boston has plenty of cheaper, open land (like the Seaport parking lots and generally open Fenway lots, etc). Notice, too, that the Hudson Yards towers are also all pretty architecturally cool-looking-- again something that Boston just doesn't call for.

I think some more successful, modern air rights projects will have to get under way before any air rights or decking happens in earnest, just as it will take some more interesting architecture on Boston's skyline before building design becomes a more important issue in our city.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

More specifically, Hudson Yards is MASSIVE. The towers will be some of the tallest in the city. Much of the deck, too, will be used for open space so you don't have to have the large supports for towers. The yard itself has the space to allow for this scale of development; the land around the Pike does not and anything built, as many have repeated, would need to be very large in order to justify the cost. A great idea but one who's time won't come for a while.