Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Amazing how much is being extrapolated from a single data point. A one year estimated 18% drop in metro-level building permits off of a multi-decade high ^= "THE END OF ALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT!".

There's really barely anything to see here, folks. We don't have quite as many units going up this year as we did last year. So what? Is there anybody on here who is surprised by this? 2015 was a banner year. We still have a ton of construction by historical standards, and demand for new units is still high.

Steph Curry will likely hit fewer 3s this year than he did last year. This doesn't mean that he's no longer a world-class basketball player.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

fattony said:
I've said this before and the Globe article has me all worked up about it again - I think we can all be well served by dropping the meaningless words "luxury" and "high-end" from these discussions. New construction is new construction and it is priced as high as the market will bear. The finishes and amenities offered in new construction similarly are driven by consumer demand, not marketing departments' word choice.

There isn't a "luxury" real estate market that is separate from the normal real estate market. There is one-and-only market and it has a price spectrum. The fact that just about all new construction in metro Boston is selling at the "high-end" of the spectrum is entirely because new construction is both scarce and desirable. Only when demand for the most profitable product is fulfilled will lower profit products be offered and THEN only if they are in fact profitable. We need to control construction/permitting costs such that lower priced units can be produced after so-called "high-end" demand stabilizes.

Subsidies are a stop-gap measure only. We should continue the affordable housing requirement we currently have, but honestly we'd be better off leverage market efficiency than legislating profits into the hands of select developers and giving away affordable homes based on lottery. Those types of subsidies should be for the truly destitute and not for the middle-class.
Click to expand...

Fattony -- when you look at the bar graph in the article and see the *[estimated] attached to 2016 it should give you pause -- the year is not yet over and the *estimated is probably based on extrapolating something from the mid summer [since the final data are usually a couple of months behind the flow]. Let's see what kind of impact the burst of recent new residences has on the market and then we can make a guess as to what the builders are likely to do in the next year or two.

The Globe story is all to hypothetical -- aka its a new story in a generally anti-development newspaper.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

whighlander said:
Fattony -- when you look at the bar graph in the article and see the *[estimated] attached to 2016 it should give you pause -- the year is not yet over and the *estimated is probably based on extrapolating something from the mid summer [since the final data are usually a couple of months behind the flow]. Let's see what kind of impact the burst of recent new residences has on the market and then we can make a guess as to what the builders are likely to do in the next year or two.
Click to expand...

Census building permits data comes out 12 workdays after the end of the month. So November data will be compiled and released on December 16th, etc.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

So they boosted the height to 775'? Maybe they'll raise it again to pass 200 Claredon.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Hubman said:
So they boosted the height to 775'? Maybe they'll raise it again to pass 200 Clarendon.
Click to expand...

No chance in hell.

FAA may be push it down to as low as 725'~735'.

Then there's the 15 people angry about shade.

btw, MP should be putting up a shade video presentation sometime this week.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The Herald released a piece on the shadows, with some new information. I don't think this was available before.

The $1.02 billion, 55-story tower would be in compliance with the shadow laws only on 101 days of the year for the Common and 254 days for the Public Garden, according to a Millennium presentation on Monday. It would cast shadows on the Common for 20 minutes or less for 113 days of the year.
Click to expand...

The tower is expected to cast new morning shadows for as long as 90 minutes on the Common and 29 minutes on the Public Garden. No shadow would be cast past 9:25 a.m. on the Common and 8 a.m. on the Public Garden.
Click to expand...

The worst will be in the winter, so in my opinion, these shadows shouldn't matter that much.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

JumboBuc said:
Amazing how much is being extrapolated from a single data point. A one year estimated 18% drop in metro-level building permits off of a multi-decade high ^= "THE END OF ALL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT!".

There's really barely anything to see here, folks. We don't have quite as many units going up this year as we did last year. So what? Is there anybody on here who is surprised by this? 2015 was a banner year. We still have a ton of construction by historical standards, and demand for new units is still high.

Steph Curry will likely hit fewer 3s this year than he did last year. This doesn't mean that he's no longer a world-class basketball player.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes! If something was profitable to build at 2014 rents, it still will be today if rents fall back to 2014 levels. It was profitable to build in the much lower rent environment of a decade or two ago too - it was Menino and delays in getting variances that held devleopment back. The level of development is very high and the profitability of it is too. I see no reason for this to change any time soon regardless of blips in the rate at the top.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

So no shadows past 9:25am? So why exactly are people arguing about this? This is a non-matter, Common and Garden are empty during those hours. The city will gain a lot more in return for those shadows.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Just wait til you see the video animation.

A standard for nothing to see here in good urban planning vs shadow concerns.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Neighborhood meeting this afternoon for the skyscraper at 115 Winthrop Square.

Location:

Suffolk Law School
Moot Court Room, 4th Floor
120 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Anyone attend?

Nobody died. But wow.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

We need more details!
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

At the last meeting, Mr Larken and his 3 collegues pretty much went over the goals of the project, massing and range of the final plan. Great Hall, usage, public benefit, construction and traffic impacts, as well as shadow impacts. ....Mr Larken announced that the shadow impact video would be up on the Boston Plans website, by sometime today – to assuage public concerns.

Followed by generally warm support from the 15 or so people in the audience not affiliated either with the BPDA or Millennium Partners.

Last night was different. Packed to capacity, and spilling over.... The presentation was slightly more polished, and concluded much sooner (45 minutes, give or take), with the public getting much more time to speak (about 80 or 90 minutes).....

Articulate speakers with well formulated speaches from the Beacon Hill Deathstar and other preservationist groups; "developers destroying our parks and public spaces... shadows over streets are unbearable... looked for the sun in the Public Garden last winter, and it was already behind the Hancock....developers are killing Boston and the planet for profit.... This is really frightening; these are our parks.... no one will visit Boston," even dragged climate destruction into the conversation.

Then the woeful bellyaching about a slippery slope to skyscraper hell with big towers soaring over the Gardens got very contentious with Chris from the BPDA... Railing after City Hall, the Mayor and BPDA after about 40 minutes straight, people started filing out.

i don't fancy speaking in public, but Jesus. Someone had to bring some latitude. 3 very good speakers + one woman speaking through a translator (Mandarin) + myself took over the bridge. We all spoke unscripted and just tried to calm the waters. i got into some detail as to why we're not going to be put on a slippery slope with developers proposing big towers all around the Common/Public Garden etc, to polite and enthusiastic applause. The other speakers made great points and connected with the audience. Between MP, Chris from the BPDA, and supporters, including two articulate young ladies from the Chinatown community, i don't think we missed much in providing a wide ranging perspective of the overall benefit the project brings to Boston.

i'm actually somewhat encouraged. i'm hopeful the public can begin to see that they've been trying to develop the site for over a decade, how much has gone into this, and how much work there is left to be done.

The nimby are confident, but they're flailing. They lack the objectivity to be taken for more than over-zealous obstructionists. i did have a short conversation with them after they came over to ask how much i'm paid, and other friendly stuff. They were nice. i just told them how it is. i support good urban planning – and this site is perfect for a skyscraper.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It's amazing how many of these activists think that if you're in favor of something that you're being paid off by someone. When I supported new development in Allston, I was accused of being paid by the developer. When I supported Boston's recent performance parking pilot project, I was accused of secretly working for the City.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

cden4 said:
It's amazing how many of these activists think that if you're in favor of something that you're being paid off by someone. When I supported new development in Allston, I was accused of being paid by the developer. When I supported Boston's recent performance parking pilot project, I was accused of secretly working for the City.
Click to expand...

The support from the Asian-American community is because ACDC (Asian Community Development Corporation) is the designated developer for the off-site affordable housing for Millennium's proposal.

This proposal is operating under the new city rules for the affordable housing component.

Millennium has chosen to fund off-site rather than including affordable units in the tower. Under the new rules this means that they don't just pay a fixed fee per unit, they actually have to ensure delivery of the requisite number of affordable units (I believe it is 54 for this project). And that delivery has to be timely with respect to project delivery, in the same general neighborhood as the main development (some flexibility) and is not capped in cost -- they have to deliver the specific number of units regardless the cost.

ACDC hopes to use this support to jump start their next major affordable development near Chinatown -- One Greenway was their last project.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Hate to go on the NIMBY bashing train but if you're scared of towers than move to Newton! This development is in a great location in the middle of downtown. The shadow concerns on Boston Common is not a problem, no one will notice if there are shadows before 9AM in the winter.

People are acting like the Burj Khalifa is being proposed on this site. The NIMBY's are actively trying to curtail economic expansion in the Boston area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top