How much of Boston does Boston University own?

J

Joe Bama!

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I remember reading something years ago that said that Boston University owned almost half the city of Boston. I also heard that the city had to take measures to prevent Boston University from buying anymore land.
Is this true?
 
Dont forget the City Convenience chain of stores, owned by BU under a different company
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I couldn't give you a number but there is a map here (http://www.radicalcartography.net/?boston_campus) which illustrates how much land certain colleges own. It's pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

awesome link! that maps getting a save onto the HHD! Thanks!

jass said:
Dont forget the City Convenience chain of stores, owned by BU under a different company
Click to expand...

They own opperate those? Do they also own Campus Convenience accross from BC? i always wondered if they were related.
 
I wonder what the date is on that map. There's some buildings missing here and there.
 
A lot of smaller colleges aren't on that map like Bay State.

It's fascinating to see how little schools like Emerson own. I guess that's what happens when you make a vertical campus official school policy. (Thank you Jackie Liebergott)
 
palindrome said:
awesome link! that maps getting a save onto the HHD! Thanks!

They own opperate those? Do they also own Campus Convenience accross from BC? i always wondered if they were related.
Click to expand...

Yes, Campus convenience is just the name they chose when on a college campus.
 
That number seems very low to me. I feel as though it would be around 5-20%, off the top of my head. But maybe they don't include the roads, the sidewalks, and the first few feet of property
 
It might be that he heard that BU was the biggest single landholder in the city - which might, in fact, be the case. In New York the two largest landholders are Columbia University and the Catholic Church.
 
czsz said:
It might be that he heard that BU was the biggest single landholder in the city - which might, in fact, be the case. In New York the two largest landholders are Columbia University and the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

If the "citizens" didn't value shadowless vistas over their tax base this wouldn't be much of a problem. These universities should be expanding upward, not outward. Same goes for all non-profits, like hospitals, for instance (hello Longwood).
 
czsz said:
It might be that he heard that BU was the biggest single landholder in the city - which might, in fact, be the case. In New York the two largest landholders are Columbia University and the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

BU would be in close competition with Harold Brown (and his shell companies) as the biggest single landlowner, I'd think.
 
Harry Mattison said:
Not even close. In 2000, all higher education & medical institutions in Boston combined to own a total of 2% of Boston's land. Source - BRA publication "Tax Exempt Property in Boston"
Click to expand...

Tax exempt only counts if it's part of the Institutional Master Plan and the University wants to use it for a university related function. For example, BC now owns the apartment tower at 2000 Comm Ave - but until the university wants to use it for their own purposes it is not tax exempt. Also, all that land that Harvard owns but still has stores on it is not exempt.
 
AdamBC said:
Tax exempt only counts if it's part of the Institutional Master Plan and the University wants to use it for a university related function. For example, BC now owns the apartment tower at 2000 Comm Ave - but until the university wants to use it for their own purposes it is not tax exempt. Also, all that land that Harvard owns but still has stores on it is not exempt.
Click to expand...

The other way for an exemption is if the institution does not have an active IMP, but the relevant area was zoned for institutional use, it is exempt.

I wish someone would toss the 2% figure at Richard Pendleton and his cronies. They're always bitching about institutional sprawl, but in the grand scheme, it's minimal. If they'd focus their energy on deadbeat landlords, and focus legislation on the same, the city would be much better off.
 
Further clarification - "private" landholder, no?

City of Boston owns more than anyone?

You wanna raise more in property taxes, sell all that land.
 
I wonder what percent is taken up by housing project, probably more than the universities?
 
Landholdings aren't a good metric for tax revenue generation. Boston lets Northeastern and Harvard expand on what are basically un- or underutilized brownfields, which may result in a retraction of revenue (although most of the displaced homes and businesses are usually relocated within the city anyway). The payoff of having more students, researchers, etc. patronizing local stores and restaurants, founding new ventures (see: every computer or biotech company in Greater Boston; half the finance and consulting firms downtown), and creating their own pressures on property values.
 
The tax exempt use less city services too. They frequently have their own security and maintenance. School cost are usually the largest part of any town or city budget. These institutions don't not have school children. If their employees do and live in the city they are paying taxes for their homes.

Unfortunately no city gets a guaranteed percentage of the sales tax. If they did I think they would be more incline to pursue development. One example is that at the last Tall Ships event the state made a fortune, Boston didn't but had to pick up a lot of the cost(polce, clean up). When the Democratic Convention was held in 2004 there was a chance to have another tall ship event but Menino said no. If had a guaranteed % of the sales tax I think the money from a tall ships event would be too much for the city to refuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top