11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

JohnAKeith said:
Me thinks the B&T copy and paste could be shortened so we don't piss off Steve Adams & the rest of the Banker & Tradesman people?
Click to expand...
I was going to make the same point. While the article is not behind a paywall, an excerpt and a link would avoid 'fair use' issues with B&T.
 
bayvillagebrahmin said:
Good timing since the NYT is making fun of us today for having the T close at midnight and bars close at 2:00 AM.
Click to expand...

It is a bit pathetic though, no? Not looking to detail with a nightlife discussion, but the article was more a WTF can't we become a 24 hour city given our population demographics. The benefits of mass transport for late shift or lower wage workers is a valid one.

Tall buildings, let alone one or two that would be a comparative mid-rise in Manhattan, won't change that.
 
Bos77 said:
It is a bit pathetic though, no? Not looking to detail with a nightlife discussion, but the article was more a WTF can't we become a 24 hour city given our population demographics. The benefits of mass transport for late shift or lower wage workers is a valid one.

Tall buildings, let alone one or two that would be a comparative mid-rise in Manhattan, won't change that.
Click to expand...

Even better, Joe Pesaturo retweeted that article yesterday. Such a hack. Seems to be celebrating the end of Late Night T. Weird for a gov't spokesperson to share an article that slams Boston/the MBTA.

Edit: Whoops. I totally thought this was in the T thread.
 
Last edited:
commuter guy said:
I'd support the project if they keep the payless building, but I'll be very surprised if that happens.

Also, what you see there in your pic is classic land/parcel banking. The asking rents are astronomical on Washington St. due to very high foot traffic. There are plenty of forlorn looking buildings that just sit as landlords wait for the highest rent possible from a national chain guaranteeing a low risk of default. Look at good old boy Druker's building on Arlington and Boylston St. The commercial space is often vacant or in a shabby state of condition, yet that may be some of the most valuable commercial space in all of Boston. The old Barnes and Noble space in Downtown Crossing is another example.

I consider Bromfield St to be part of the ladder district along with winter, temple, and west streets. These streets have increasingly unique commercial architecture in downtown Boston with small scale spaces for rent. I realize many on this board love the height, but I'm not willing to trade the denigration of this part of town in order to erect some ho hum Kensington #2 tower.
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as a vacancy tax, basically if landlords refuse to lower rents to match actual market demand they pay an additional property tax. Probably in only certain central districts and only if it's been vacant for a certain amount of time.
 
Mongo said:
Is there such a thing as a vacancy tax, basically if landlords refuse to lower rents to match actual market demand they pay an additional property tax. Probably in only certain central districts and only if it's been vacant for a certain amount of time.
Click to expand...

I don't think so and its a problem bc, someone correct me if I'm wrong, the tax is figured on the rent being paid so if it's vacant then the landlord pays vey little tax.
 
Mongo said:
Is there such a thing as a vacancy tax, basically if landlords refuse to lower rents to match actual market demand they pay an additional property tax. Probably in only certain central districts and only if it's been vacant for a certain amount of time.
Click to expand...

No.

Moreover, commercial property is valued under the income approach to valuation, which includes vacancy as a factor. A higher vacancy rate tends to drive down the property valuation, hence lowering the tax. An unbiased appraiser will measure a property's actual vacancy rate against that of comparable properties to come up with a stabilized vacancy rate to overcome any self inflicted vacancy that artificially depresses the valuation.

Not all appraisers are unbiased free thinkers.
 
The logic of supporting a "vacancy tax" seems obvious but I don't know if I like the idea of using it to "force" a landlord to rent out his/her property. It's never been done here in the city, as far as I know, nor in any other, but maybe i'm ignorant?

Pretty much, I feel if you own a property in the United States, you can do whatever you like, as long as no one's physically hurt and no bias is involved.

Edit: My feelings aren't formed by my experience as a real estate broker (I'm about 99% out of the business, haven't made a dime in over 18 months) but because I'm an objectivist, I guess.
 
"Robert A. Halvorson leads the structural engineering practice of Halvorson and Partners. PROJECTS, One Bromfield Street, 700 foot residential tower with sculpted form and reduced lower level footprint, plus shaped podium with parking, retail and four basement levels, totaling 568,800 square foot. Boston, Massachusetts 2018"

So does this confirm we are looking at 700'? I would say so. Also we know in Boston that the highest occupied floor height is usually what is released to the public so maybe in the 730' range is what we are looking at? At the very minimum I think this confirms we are looking at a new tallest tower in downtown.

The sculpted form quote really intrigues me. Im looking forward to what this means. Round like Copley with setbacks? A slice up the middle like GC garage? Cannot wait to see what they have in store.


CAN.NOT.WAIT.ANY.LONGER.FOR.RENDERS, must have them yesterday. I hope they come out within the next 2 weeks as reported.
 
They need to get this tower approved before the inevitable Millennium Tower NIMBY's move in.
 
tysmith95 said:
They need to get this tower approved before the inevitable Millennium Tower NIMBY's move in.
Click to expand...

I posted this before. The towers will be in the perfect location to hinder views as minimally as possible. They will be staggered from their corners like the twin towers in NYC were. This means there will be no directly blocked view at any side of either of these buildings. The most that is going to happen is people in the very corners of the buildings will be able to see the other tower but while still maintaining a mostly unobstructed view of the surrounding city.

 
bayvillagebrahmin said:
Don't want the render. Need it.
Click to expand...
iamdjmichael said:
The description sounds like this could be iconic for Boston
Click to expand...
stick n move said:
CAN.NOT.WAIT.ANY.LONGER.FOR.RENDERS, must have them.
Click to expand...

705' roof and 60 stories was mentioned in January by a highly esteemed source right? It was. Now, we've lost one of the floors. Of course, it's entirely possible the BRA has since guided them that a bit of added height at one of the roof corners is allowable. If it comes to be, it would be spectacular.
 
stick n move said:
"Robert A. Halvorson leads the structural engineering practice of Halvorson and Partners. PROJECTS, One Bromfield Street, 700 foot residential tower with sculpted form and reduced lower level footprint, plus shaped podium with parking, retail and four basement levels, totaling 568,800 square foot. Boston, Massachusetts 2018"

So does this confirm we are looking at 700'? I would say so. Also we know in Boston that the highest occupied floor height is usually what is released to the public so maybe in the 730' range is what we are looking at? At the very minimum I think this confirms we are looking at a new tallest tower in downtown.

The sculpted form quote really intrigues me. Im looking forward to what this means. Round like Copley with setbacks? A slice up the middle like GC garage? Cannot wait to see what they have in store.


CAN.NOT.WAIT.ANY.LONGER.FOR.RENDERS, must have them yesterday. I hope they come out within the next 2 weeks as reported.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right but I wouldn't assume this. The description on the Halvorson site was probably written before the project was fully vetted by BRA staff and then presented to various stakeholders. The BRA may very well have told the developer to chop off a little height and keep it below Millenium Tower. Often the BRA will tell a developer who comes in informally to present a project to pare it down a bit before showing it to the community. Note that the Halvorson site refers to a 60-story building and current reports say 59.

In addition, this was not an official public release so the description by Halvorson may not be based on the zoning height. It is possible a consultant like Halvorson may have been referring to the overall height and may have rounded up from something just shy of 700.
 
Well, considering the now tragically razed 1905 Filene's building is in that shot, I'm guessing it is at least a few years old.
 
Old proposal I think (hope). Very contextual with the Woolworth's Garage.
 
statler said:
Well, considering the now tragically razed 1905 Filene's building is in that shot, I'm guessing it is at least a few years old.
Click to expand...

Jeez, this just goes to show how little time I've been spending in Boston lately. Sorry all for getting hopes up...
 
It indicates underneath the rendering that it is not current. Referring to the 2008 proposal it says,
A rendering of the original proposal, then known as One Bromfield, is posted above.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top