🔹 What's Happening With Project X?

lol, lol, did someone know something and post about One Bromfield just a couple days ago? eyes want to know...
 
Anyone heard any news regarding the Parcel K (315 Northern Ave) hotel/residence project? This is the parcel across the street from the Blue Hills Pavilion in the Seaport. I thought they were to start work early 2016. Right now it's still an active parking lot.
 
Are there any proposals to fill in this triangular parcel next to the GC garage. Looks like it could be a good spot for a 1 dalton esque triangular tower to 1. Compliment the GC garage towers, and 2. further fill in the gap in the skyline between the old high rises and the "new" part of town by the garden. I think once the GC towers are built it would not be out of the realm of possibility to built tall here, seeing that directly across the street will be a 600'+ office tower. Not to mention this is the part of the city that is within the FAA height goldmine, that there are so few left of in downtown.

 
Any news on the proposed hotel at 104 Canal Street in the Bulfinch Triangle? I believe that it was approved by the BRA IN 2014?
 
BeeLine said:
Anyone heard any news regarding the Parcel K (315 Northern Ave) hotel/residence project? This is the parcel across the street from the Blue Hills Pavilion in the Seaport. I thought they were to start work early 2016. Right now it's still an active parking lot.
Click to expand...

The last activity I saw for this parcel was last summer when they were drilling samples in the parking lot.
 
Random question - but has there ever been an attempt to develop the corner of Newbury Street and Dartmouth Street where the parking lot sits? It's a fairly small lot and those spaces could be put underground. Feels like prime land.
 
cjbski said:
Random question - but has there ever been an attempt to develop the corner of Newbury Street and Dartmouth Street where the parking lot sits? It's a fairly small lot and those spaces could be put underground. Feels like prime land.
Click to expand...
It is, and the owner has done quite well just on capital appreciation
http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=0501361010
http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=0501384000

When I first looked at that parcel, way back, I'd originally thought it was owned by the condo across the alley, who liked the surface parking because it meant nobody'd block their southern sun. But no.

Seems more like the Aquarium Garage: a cash cow with lots of ongoing but deferred capital gains.

Another reason why this city needs a land tax, not a real estate tax.
 
bigeman312 said:
+all of the numbers. Maybe the single biggest bang-for-your-buck policy change imaginable.
Click to expand...

Bigeman -- Careful -- You might just get what you are wishing for and then some -- there is a Law of Unintended Consequences aspect to this attempt to manage land use via tax policy.

Your kind of tax on vacant land -- would mean land could not accumulate in a "near clean sheet condition" a la nearly the whole of the Seaport / Innovation District for decades

Your tax would have encouraged small-scale constructions of warehouses, extended-stay trucker-s hotels and other types of structures that could have been supported by the then-economics governing that area during the 1970's - 1990's. That land would then be much more expensive to acquire and develop when the time for major development finally arrived circa 2005.
 
whighlander said:
Bigeman -- Careful -- You might just get what you are wishing for and then some -- there is a Law of Unintended Consequences aspect to this attempt to manage land use via tax policy.

Your kind of tax on vacant land -- would mean land could not accumulate in a "near clean sheet condition" a la nearly the whole of the Seaport / Innovation District for decades

Your tax would have encouraged small-scale constructions of warehouses, extended-stay trucker-s hotels and other types of structures that could have been supported by the then-economics governing that area during the 1970's - 1990's. That land would then be much more expensive to acquire and develop when the time for major development finally arrived circa 2005.
Click to expand...

Yes: it encourages higher land use, which would cause parking lots to not continue to sit as surface parking lots forever. I am okay with the consequence of having today's parking lots be developed into money-generating buildings, even if that makes them harder to acquire in the long-term. The future is now. The time for major development is now. In none of our lifetimes has there ever been the demand for development in Boston that there is right now. It's go time.
 
bigeman312 said:
Yes: it encourages higher land use, which would cause parking lots to not continue to sit as surface parking lots forever. I am okay with the consequence of having today's parking lots be developed into money-generating buildings, even if that makes them harder to acquire in the long-term. The future is now. The time for major development is now. In none of our lifetimes has there ever been the demand for development in Boston that there is right now. It's go time.
Click to expand...

Bigeman -- AGREED -- as of now

However, when the plans for the I-90 / I-93 interchange and Ted William Tunnel were being developed -- and not much else -- it would have been easy to acquire a couple dozen acres to build the Biggest Truck Stop this side of NJ [which is essentially a distributed truck stop]

with luck a slots parlor might follow and a couple motel 6's

No -- let's stick with what's been in place for quite a while and just let the chips fall where they might
 
Not sure that the redevelopment costs would hinder new construction. When the 00's boom hit, the land tax would make the returns from the truck stop enough to cover the taxes, necessarily.

Georgist taxes have had good empirical results in the past. Some care has to be made in defining and administering them, as well as likely a small levy on building value to encourage redevelopment of underused lots. Similarly, historic districts would need a carve out.

That said, in Pennsylvania, there's a wide variety of property tax bases. In Philadelphia, there's essentially no land value component, so you'll find vacant lots near Rittenhouse Square. Pittsburgh has essentially Georgist (all land value) taxes and has seen excellent results despite being at a fraction of its peak population.
 
Seems like I'm supposed to ask here since I have no info

When will Comm Ave Phase 2A start construction? I thought people said the money would evaporate if they weren't shovels in the ground by October 2015.
 
some random stuff i pulled off the interwebs....

recent; http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2016/01/.html

"Boston is among the top U.S. cities for foreign real estate investors, according to a recent survey from the Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate.... Boston and Seattle tied for fifth place among U.S. cities, behind New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C."

and this was posted on the City Data forum in 2011.

i'd love to see where we are now.

Boston & Bay Area is a mere 170,000 in population difference...

World's Largest Financial Centers:

01. London: 772
02. New York City: 770
03. Hong Kong: 760
04. Singapore: 728
05. Tokyo: 697
06. Shangai: 693
07. Chicago: 678
08. Zurich: 669
09. Geneva: 661
10. Sydney: 660
11. Frankfurt: 659
12. Toronto 656
13. Boston: 655
14. Shenzhen: 654
15. San Francisco: 654
16. Beijing: 653
17. Washington DC: 649
18. Paris: 645
19. Taipei 639
20. Luxemborg 634

Source: http://www.zyen.com/GFCI/GFCI 8.pdf

Top Metropolitan Areas for Venture Capital Investment:

1. Bay Area: $698 Million
2. Boston: $314 Million
3. San Diego: $138 Million
4. Los Angeles: $108 Million
5. Research Triangle : $72 Million

Source: Life Sciences Investing Rebounds in Q2 2010, Rising 52% from the Prior Quarter, According to PricewaterhouseCoopers - FierceBiotech

Top 10 Largest tech Centers in USA:

01. San Jose: 100/100
02. Seattle: 46.4/100
03. Boston: 45.2/100
04. Washington DC: 41.8/100
05. Los Angeles: 40.2/100
06. Dallas: 21.8/100
07. San Diego: 19.3/100
08. Orange County: 17.7/100
09. New York City: 16.8/100
10. San Francisco: 16.1/100
11. Philadelphia
12. Atlanta
13. Edison, NJ
14. Chicago
15. Toronto
16. Oakland

Source: Milken Institute Publications - Research Reports - Executive Summary<br> North America’s High-Tech Economy:<br> The Geography of Knowledge-Based Industries
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anyone heard anything on that skinny tower proposal for felt nightclub?
 
Does anyone know what the ted williams tower was? Iv heard it thrown around a few times that it was going to be tall and near fenway but no renders, height, anything. From what I can tell it never materialized past an idea but what do we know about it?
 
stick n move said:
Does anyone know what the ted williams tower was? Iv heard it thrown around a few times that it was going to be tall and near fenway but no renders, height, anything. From what I can tell it never materialized past an idea but what do we know about it?
Click to expand...

There was a skyscraper proposed way way way back for the corner of Boylston and Mass Ave. Long dead. There is a rendering around of it kicking around somewhere actually but it's hard to find.
 
So I dug up the render I was talking about from the Proposed But Never Built thread. I have no idea if this is the tower you're referring to. The only other one that comes to mind is the Fenway Center which is much shorter.

xcranes4675.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top