Search results

If you don’t like the rent don’t pay it. If they can’t rent the unit then they will lower the tent. If the rents are high enough it will encourage construction of more housing. In Boston new housing is either taxed with linkage fees, burdened with low income set asides, burdened by years of...

Unlimited parking and the hope they visit retail establishments. Retail landlords make more money with increased sales.

When investing great sums in illiquid real estate the landlord is betting that the property will be worth more later whether due to increased demand for housing, growth of urban area or more transit. What did a stockholder do to increase the value of Amazon stock? Everyone is greedy, including...

Big parking sink.

Maybe stay off the racial stereotype attacks?

the landlord owns the property. The tenants lease it they don’t have a right to stay at below market rents. How about not cutting back every proposed development. Supply will moderate prices but we limit supply and this is the result.

This isn’t cancelled. JH is selling the rights to approved project.

Can that fit a double stacked rail car?

Political reality yes but actual reality means we need way more housing not less.

The foundation piles were placed in the 1980s when the MBTA renovated south station and installed high platforms. This was a decade before electrification.

Housing crisis solution: build less housing. Crazy

Shanghai has different areas. Pudong is the newer super tall area and the Bund and surrounding areas are much older and walkable urban areas. Nothing is one size fits all.

but once it was in the public (on this site) it was no longer confidential . . .

And then the units get leased and people still live in them . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2019/09/25/viewpoint-new-transportation-taxes-would-just-fund.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_boston+%28Boston+Business+Journal%29 Viewpoint: New transportation taxes would just fund...

I believe they killed that tower in exchange for extra height at 1 Dalton.

Building is 56 years old. Last reno 31 years ago. It’s not that old but does need repairs and renovations again. Question is whether the $200m is better spent elsewhere.

Money is fungible, right?

Count me as not surprised at all. Just assuming they are finally reporting that there is graft in city approval process. Overly restricted zoning and over regulation creates this.

Probably going to fund union pensions and political graft.