🔹 What's Happening With Project X?

[odurandina]

With basically $330 million in sunk costs for land and a garage, good luck in making the numbers work on a building whose volume is capped at 900,000 square feet.

(MP's Winthrop St garage redevelopment is 1.6 million gsf, to be built on land that cost MP $153 million.)

Sure looks bad. i've just never really believed he could do it.

1.15~1.2M sq ft seemed closer to getting the financing. It's why i suggested to the powers that be that 53~54% lot coverage was the realistic minimum.

It's possible the Chiofaro group waits for all these big projects to mature, and Walsh is confronted with letting $1.4B float off with the tide.

 

[odurandina]

Rover, I don't have it in for Chiofaro. If he succeeds in this project, all the more power to him.

That said.....

....With basically $330 million in sunk costs for land and a garage, good luck in making the numbers work on a building whose volume is capped at 900,000 square feet.

(MP's Winthrop St garage redevelopment is 1.6 million gsf, to be built on land that cost MP $153 million.)

Spot on, and no less true than it's ever been....

More realistic is 53~54% lot coverage and close to 1.2M sq ft.

Always been an eye roll w/ the .gov's numbers.

When such other major projects mature – and the politicos don't want all that money on India Street to float out with the tide....

the day might come when they're faced with having grownup conversation about real numbers – and just telling folks in the City what it is:

"Do you want the Garage for another 50 years, or the Central Wharf shit fest reclaimed? ....Yes, (Harbor Towers) we know what your answer is. There are even more important things in the world than the HT residents concerns."

i've really never changed my opinion – that it would take nothing less than such a direct interrogation of not the neighborhood; but ALL the residents of Boston.

i don't know exactly what that would entail. Possibly a referendum.

 

[TheRifleman]

I do believe we could be a lot closer than we think.

How can city officials at this point not support a new park stretching to a new upgradeable aquarium all based on Chiofaro/Pru development?

This would be amazing for the overall public and would have unlimited percs.

At some point city officials will support this and say do whatever it takes to bury the above garage that should have never been built in the first place for the better good of Greenway, Blueway, Aquarium and overall public.

Give the developer Max Height per FAA---
Give the developer more options regarding Chap 91-
Give the developer incentives to BURY this Concrete Barrier

 

[Rover]

A few things I've noticed here:

First Winthrop Sq didn't pay 153M for the land. They paid 153M to grease city and state politicians in order to get shadow law changed. Original shadow law for Common would have halted building height at 400 ft or so. Clearly developer felt extra 300 ft was worth more than 153M bucks. Presumably the developer's public benefit is opening up access to the waterfront amongst other things like making the Aquarium whole if they lose attendance.

Next, why do you assume Chiofaro still owes 153M on the garage? If its been making money the last decade or so, one can presume he's paid down some of the balance?

Lastly, as Rifleman correctly points out, Chiofaro is in the driver's seat here, which NIMBY's and other various loons never seem to understand. You either 1) let him build his building, or 2) stare at a profitable but ugly eyesore garage for the next 100 years until it falls down. When the HT easement gone, and parking getting ever scarcer in the city, the value of that asset is only going to go up, perhaps even skyrocket. He can simply sit on his profits and let the city come to him or his heirs if that's the way it works out. I'd suggest the city/state play ball with the dude, or everyone needs to learn to love that charming garage on the greenway. There is no 3rd option unless Amos wants to pony up several hundred mill to buy the property and turn it into the park, but then he'd still have to deal with HT and Aquarium over parking.

 

[Beton Brut]

Regarding the FAA's issues with height at the Aquarium Garage vs. Winthrop Sq, IIRC, different issues and concerns were in play. The concern over the initially proposed "sky-frame" had to do with Logan's radar coverage. At Winthrop Square, it's always been engine-out emergency protocols for departures from Runway 9/27.

I'd be curious to know if the FAA's allowable height contour-map for all of downtown has been altered since 9/11/2001.

 

[stellarfun]

beton brut is correct. The Harbor Garage height is FAA constrained by interference with radar coverage. The option, available to Chiofaro, was/is to build a second radar tower to fill in the coverage gap. He has never offered to do so.
______________________________

As for how much Chiofaro owes on the garage, he has secured two successive five year balloon notes, the first was $85 million, the second (current note) is for $90 million. Those balloon notes are very likely interest only, so he has not paid down any of the principal. Annual interest on $85 million at 4.5 percent is $3.8 million (or the equivalent of $10,400 a day in parking revenue 365 days a year simply to pay the interest on an $85 million note.)
_________________________

I don't practice law in Massachusetts, but it seems to me Chiofaro could escape from Chapter 91 and the open space requirement by building on top of the garage, as is being done at the Quincy Market garage. Existing structures are usually grandfathered, but what he proposes to do is demolish the existing garage, so that opens up Chapter 91.

If Chiofaro kept the current garage, built a 25 story building on top with a 50,000 sq ft floorplate, he gets 1.25 million gsf of new building, and the total building height is 400 feet. The numbers probably work in his favor.
______________________
Due diligence when one is purchasing property typically entails identifying the limits that exist with respect to current and future use of the property. For example, if a property is located within 300 feet from a school, and municipal zoning prohibits the sale of alcohol within 300 feet of a school, one doesn't proceed to pay a premium price for the property based on a future hope that some day one might open a bar.

IMO, Chiofaro approached his project by putting the cart before the horse. He paid a premium with no guaranty or assurance that the city would adjust zoning, and the state would go along under Chapter 91, to allow a building of the size and scale he wanted. IIRC, the original was about 3.5 times higher what was then allowed by zoning.
____________________________
Finally on garage revenue. The annual revenue for the Boston Common garage, about the same size as the HT garage, for the fiscal year ending June 2017, was $12.4 million. Average daily revenue per space was $24.77 Operating expenses were $5.1 million. (The Common Garage doesn't pay a real property tax, and I don't believe financing costs, if any, are treated as an operating expense.) Chiofaro's property tax on the garage is $2.9 million, and adding his financing cost, if the HT garage revenue and operating expenses are similar to the Common Garage, the HT garage is not a cash cow. The Common Garage is.

 

[DZH22]

I don't practice law in Massachusetts, but it seems to me Chiofaro could escape from Chapter 91 and the open space requirement by building on top of the garage, as is being done at the Quincy Market garage. Existing structures are usually grandfathered, but what he proposes to do is demolish the existing garage, so that opens up Chapter 91.

If Chiofaro kept the current garage, built a 25 story building on top with a 50,000 sq ft floorplate, he gets 1.25 million gsf of new building, and the total building height is 400 feet. The numbers probably work in his favor.

Again, there is no common sense behind Chapter 91 if they don't distinguish between an empty lot vs an already occupied one. This would literally be the worst possible outcome for the city of Boston.

Also, even if he paid for the radar coverage, isn't there some other stupid rule that says a building can't cast shadows on the water? So he's kind of capped regardless.

 

[odurandina]

^^Shadow limit for Long Wharf renders about a 550' tower if a flat roof.

~600' tower with mechanicals installed in the the south corner of the bldg.

 

[stellarfun]

Again, there is no common sense behind Chapter 91 if they don't distinguish between an empty lot vs an already occupied one. This would literally be the worst possible outcome for the city of Boston.

Also, even if he paid for the radar coverage, isn't there some other stupid rule that says a building can't cast shadows on the water? So he's kind of capped regardless.

The no new shadows requirement applies to Long Wharf, in that there can be no new shadows on Long Wharf from basically March 1 through October 30. The longer shadows that occur in the cold weather months are allowed.
____________________________________
As for Chapter 91, from the Commonwealth's website.

The Commonwealth's primary tool for protection and promotion of public use of its tidelands and other waterways is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91, the waterways licensing program. The Commonwealth formally established the program in 1866, but the philosophy behind Chapter 91 dates back to the earliest days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, most notably in the Colonial Ordinances of 1641-1647.

The Colonial Ordinances codified the "public trust doctrine," a legal principle that dates back nearly 2000 years, which holds that the air, the sea and the shore belong not to any one person, but rather to the public at large.

When a law has been on the books for 150+ years, the ground rules have been pretty well established, and are presumably understood.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/378/378mass629.html
^^^ This is the landmark decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 40 years ago, which had the effect of extending Chapter 91 to the Harbor Garage. Absent this decision, Chapter 91 would not apply to the Harbor Garage. Harbor Towers and the associated garage were built before that decision. Which is I why I speculate the current garage is 'grandfathered', but a demolition followed by a new, replacement stricture would not be.

 

[dirtywater]

Any news on the Motor Mart Garage project? They filed a letter of intent with BPDA in March and, according to news reports, were planning to submit an expanded PNF within a month. I suspect they ran into a few roadblocks, but does anyone know anything?

 

[tysmith95]

I saw a huge (over a block) cement foundation being built near the Belmont/Watertown border. Anyone know anything about that?

 

[617]

https://www.google.com/amp/belmont....-belmont-begins-to-take-shape?template=ampart

Perfect example of Boston suburbs supply and demand problem...this is ~100 apts with retail on the books since 2008, zero 3 bed units bc town intentionally does not want more kids in their already overcrowded school system. Then people wonder why 1,500 sq/ft houses with 1 bathroom cost $1M.

 

[TheRifleman]

https://www.google.com/amp/belmont....-belmont-begins-to-take-shape?template=ampart

Perfect example of Boston suburbs supply and demand problem...this is ~100 apts with retail on the books since 2008, zero 3 bed units bc town intentionally does not want more kids in their already overcrowded school system. Then people wonder why 1,500 sq/ft houses with 1 bathroom cost $1M.

The city of Boston needs to build a lot higher on rapid transit lines.
Need massive upgrades to overall infrastructure/MBTA expansion lines running 24 hours a day--- with help of solar/alternative energy.

MIT needs to get involved to help solve the traffic scenarios in this city.
We have the best and the brightest in the world here--Lets use their brains to help make MASS a better living environment with cost-- self-sufficient energy grids.

Maybe its time for FAA to invest in better technology now that the city of Boston is growing its only creating more car traffic throughout the areas.

Boston needs to build 1,000ft towers (whatever is left to build on)

I'm tired of sitting in traffic its unbearable---Also children can't even bike ride around there houses anymore without parents being worried about traffic.

 

[TheRifleman]

The no new shadows requirement applies to Long Wharf, in that there can be no new shadows on Long Wharf from basically March 1 through October 30. The longer shadows that occur in the cold weather months are allowed.
____________________________________
As for Chapter 91, from the Commonwealth's website.



When a law has been on the books for 150+ years, the ground rules have been pretty well established, and are presumably understood.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/378/378mass629.html
^^^ This is the landmark decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 40 years ago, which had the effect of extending Chapter 91 to the Harbor Garage. Absent this decision, Chapter 91 would not apply to the Harbor Garage. Harbor Towers and the associated garage were built before that decision. Which is I why I speculate the current garage is 'grandfathered', but a demolition followed by a new, replacement stricture would not be.

If Chap 91 law goes back 150 years ago? Then how did city/state planners be allowed to build Harbor garage in the first place?

After you answer that question why couldn't city/state planners change that law again to support a development that beneficial for the overall public?

So these city/state planners actually believe the garage is a better option for the public than the developers proposal. Then what hell do city/state planners actually do if they believe a garage is better option for the public than an actual development in the area for 10 years?

How can Amos Hosteller being using non-profit money to setup shell corporations Barr Foundation which supports CLF to suppress economic development that is actually beneficial for the overall public.
The developer offered to build another BLUEWAY PARK to the Aquarium?

This is a perfect example of how this hack is on Amos payroll
https://northendwaterfront.com/2018...tzs-letter-on-municipal-harbor-plan-concerns/

The politicians have dug their own grave and have shown their true colors in this city. Give all tax incentives to certain groups then create new tax's on areas that are already successful. As long as Amos doesn't have to pay his taxes.

This is why California and Illinois is going down HARD.---I hope Mass does not follow them.

 

[Rover]

______________________________

As for how much Chiofaro owes on the garage, he has secured two successive five year balloon notes, the first was $85 million, the second (current note) is for $90 million. Those balloon notes are very likely interest only, so he has not paid down any of the principal. Annual interest on $85 million at 4.5 percent is $3.8 million (or the equivalent of $10,400 a day in parking revenue 365 days a year simply to pay the interest on an $85 million note.)
_________________________


IMO, Chiofaro approached his project by putting the cart before the horse. He paid a premium with no guaranty or assurance that the city would adjust zoning, and the state would go along under Chapter 91, to allow a building of the size and scale he wanted. IIRC, the original was about 3.5 times higher what was then allowed by zoning.
____________________________
Finally on garage revenue. The annual revenue for the Boston Common garage, about the same size as the HT garage, for the fiscal year ending June 2017, was $12.4 million. Average daily revenue per space was $24.77 Operating expenses were $5.1 million. (The Common Garage doesn't pay a real property tax, and I don't believe financing costs, if any, are treated as an operating expense.) Chiofaro's property tax on the garage is $2.9 million, and adding his financing cost, if the HT garage revenue and operating expenses are similar to the Common Garage, the HT garage is not a cash cow. The Common Garage is.

A few more things:

I think you're slanting your observations to fit a pre arranged narrative. You have no idea if any principle is being paid off. Next, you're also reading the guy's mind as to paying a premium for the garage. That makes no sense by using your own #'s...

You have Boston Common garage at similar spaces so are using their revenue as a proxy. Great, but a quick look at parkopedia shows that for 2 hours HT garage averaging $39 while Common is $18. Now that doesn't mean we should double the revenue estimate here but your assessment seems way off right off the bat. But lets be extremely conservative and say that he's pulling in 13M in revenue - $5.1 in operating expense - $3.8 in financing costs - $2.9 in property taxes. That means he's pulling down over a million bucks a year in pure profit, AND the value of the property has gone up since he purchased it. How exactly did he overpay again, because I'm a little confused on that point using your own estimates.

 

[stellarfun]

If Chap 91 law goes back 150 years ago? Then how did city/state planners be allowed to build Harbor garage in the first place?

After you answer that question why couldn't city/state planners change that law again to support a development that beneficial for the overall public?
...

You either don't read, or don't comprehend what you read.

"....
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/378/378mass629.html
^^^ This is the landmark decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 40 years ago, which had the effect of extending Chapter 91 to the Harbor Garage. Absent this decision, Chapter 91 would not apply to the Harbor Garage. Harbor Towers and the associated garage were built before that decision. ...."

Planners don't change the law, legislators do. Laws, when changed, are usually changed before the fact, not afterwards, --and not to bail out someone who made an ill-advised choice or decision. This legislative protocol tends to keeps the playing field level.

If I am a developer in Boston, and I didn't bid on the Harbor Garage when it was offered for sale because I knew that one or more laws would affect and limit the development potential of the property, I would be plenty pissed if the state legislature subsequently changed the rules of the game to bail out a developer who, it turns out, paid too much for the property.

When GSA put Volpe up for sale, and before the bidding process began, the government worked with the city of Cambridge to outline and define what kind of development could be done on the 14 acre parcel. Prospective developers then could decide if they wanted to bid, and how much they were willing to pay.

If, hypothetically, the city of Cambridge had said, 50 percent open space for Volpe, the winning bid was made knowing of that limit. But, again hypothetically, the winning bidder then subsequently 'discovers' the numbers don't work for re-development of Volpe unless the open space requirement is reduced from 50 percent to 15 percent. As a losing bidder, wouldn't you be mighty upset if the city of Cambridge then decided, 'Okay', and cut the open space requirement to 15 percent?

 

[Rover]

Once again, if he's making a profit, and the value of the property has increased since purchase....how did he pay too much for the property? That.Makes.No.Sense.

 

[TheRifleman]

You either don't read, or don't comprehend what you read.

Something we can actually agree upon.

Planners don't change the law, legislators do. Laws, when changed, are usually changed before the fact, not afterwards, --and not to bail out someone who made an ill-advised choice or decision. This legislative protocol tends to keeps the playing field level.

If I am a developer in Boston, and I didn't bid on the Harbor Garage when it was offered for sale because I knew that one or more laws would affect and limit the development potential of the property, I would be plenty pissed if the state legislature subsequently changed the rules of the game to bail out a developer who, it turns out, paid too much for the property.

?

The planners jobs are supposed to set standards on how to keep balance and support developers/NIMBYS to help create a better city for the overall public.

Why wouldn't the planners go to the legislators 20 years ago and state their case to change the law for these above garages to be redeveloped which should never been built in the first place.
Isn't that the city and state planners job to identify something that should have never been built in the first place and rectify that for the overall public?

WTF have they been doing for the last 20 years? We spent 20 Billion to take down the Green Monster only to leave a concrete block blocking our waterfront.
All the city/state planners new about the Greenway vision but decided that the garage was good fit after all the taxpayers money was invested in this area. This was 20 years ago they new about this and did absolutely NOTHING.

Seriously? What was BRA doing during Menino's tenure? SHEN, PALERMI, Peter Meade--- The taxpayers are paying for these people's pensions for this type of logic?

 

[stellarfun]

Rover, when I read that an initial five year note has a principal of $85 million, and a subsequent five-year note has a principal of $90 million, I can reasonably conclude that both notes are/were interest-only balloon notes, with the entire principal to be paid or re-financed at the end of the term. I assume there will be some announcement soon with respect to a third note, so we'll see.
_____________________________

With respect to revenue estimates, the Harbor garage's real 'capacity' is less than what appears. A significant number of spaces, in the hundreds (I don't remember ever reading an exact number) 'belong' to the residents of HT under the easement. There are 624 residential units in HT. The number is significant because Chiofaro at one point proposed building/leasing a floating garage to house the cars of the HT residents while a new garage was being constructed. In any event, HT residents are not paying anywhere near Parkopedia's rates for their parking spaces.

What is unknown is how many of HT garage users are paying monthly rates. The monthly rate for Rowes Wharf is about $17 a day. The financial statement for the Common Garage indicated that revenues decreased by 4 percent in 2017 because of fewer hourly users. For the Common Garage, the rates are Monthly - Reserved: $550; Monthly - 24/7: $400 ($13+ a day); Monthly - Weekday Only: $375.

The city's surface lot at 269 Commercial St. has 252 spaces. About 200 of them are on a monthly rate schedule. Revenue was $2.5 million (annual revenue per space of $10,000). Extrapolating Commercial St. revenue to a lot with 1400 spaces yields about $13 million in revenue.

Finally, your definition of 'cash cow' differs from mine.

 

[Rover]

Not sure if I ever called it a cash cow but that's irrelevant. By your own estimates he's pulling in a cool million dollars a year after taxes. And the value of the property itself has gone up. I don't know about you, but a million dollars a year after taxes is a lot of money IMHO.

Why is this important? Because of the negotiations. If city leaders and other stakeholders believe what you continue to (falsely) say, which is that Chiofaro paid too much for the garage and is now swimming in debt or barely breaking even, then they are going take a hard line with developing the property thinking they have leverage. They don't, because in reality is he's making $1M a year for the foreseeable future since parking rates are only increasing while supply constricts, this increasing his profits and the value of the asset vs purchase price. In reality, Don holds all the leverage. Which is why we keep coming back to the central point. The city either 1) lets him build what he wants to make a profit, or 2) stares at an ugly garage for a long, loooong time because it makes money. There is no option 3. A realistic assessment of who holds what cards matters here, because if both sides think they're in the pole position, when in fact only one actually is, nothing will get done.