11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

This double/triple height exterior floor massing has to stop. It is the most insidious design fad that has ever happened to Boston. The city is being grotesquely disfigured.
 
beck4537 said:
www.universalhub.com

Developer says it actually hopes to begin construction of Bromfield Street tower next year; linkage fees will help pay for affordable housing on Lagrange Street

The New York company that owns the former Payless building at Bromfield and Washington streets in Downtown Crossing now says, in a filing with the BPDA last week, it expects to begin 28 months of construction on a new 22-story office tower there in the second half of 2022. Read more.
www.universalhub.com www.universalhub.com
Click to expand...

No parking, lots of retail, and money going towards affordable units in 41 Lagrange? Honestly, just build it. Yes it could be taller and better-looking, but the important boxes are all checked.
 
gac108 said:
I'm not sure where some of you are getting your information regarding the sales of many of these places. One of my best friend's wife is in top-tier sales and has numerous clients who have put money down on places in St Regis, Dalton, MP, Sudbury and most others and she says that, though they are going for a little less than expected, they are filling up. She has many clients coming from SF area, Seattle, China, India, parts of Europe, all that work for big tech and biotech companies that have money to burn. Many of their offices/labs aren't even built yet so they're looking to purchase now before the plethora of new buildings open and the massive influx of new area residents that are expected arrive. This is happening and we're going to see unprecedented (in our lifetimes) population growth over the next 5 years. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

This is a very anecdotal statement delivered by a wildly biased party (the realtor) to a person (you) who is likely biased towards large development. With these big buildings, it's best to trust the numbers, not realtor-driven buzz.
 
stoweker said:
I guess in that scenario it crushes financial district retail if no one is around to like buy a salad and run an errand at cvs at lunch.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but even that might surprise us. Speaking for myself, when I was in the office every day, I brought my lunch, but now that I am in just once or twice a week, I always buy my lunch. If enough people switch their behavior in similar ways, it might be enough to support lunchtime retail activities. And if there is enough housing built around concentrations of office buildings, then the work from home crowd can also support the retail operations. Add to that the increasing relevance of lab space, where workers have to be on site, and things might end up not so different for the salad and sub joints.
 
HenryAlan said:
Maybe, but even that might surprise us. Speaking for myself, when I was in the office every day, I brought my lunch, but now that I am in just once or twice a week, I always buy my lunch. If enough people switch their behavior in similar ways, it might be enough to support lunchtime retail activities. And if there is enough housing built around concentrations of office buildings, then the work from home crowd can also support the retail operations. Add to that the increasing relevance of lab space, where workers have to be on site, and things might end up not so different for the salad and sub joints.
Click to expand...

Your personal story aligns with mine and corroborates the Bloomberg article I posted upthread (from that article):
Instead, she is seeing a “flight to experience,” with demand highest for top-quality buildings close to amenities and infrastructure. Or as Henderson puts it: “People don’t want to go somewhere without nice lunch options.”
Click to expand...
​
Let me add some more of my (admittedly personal) perspective: nowadays I do all of my junk work at home (checking off small tasks, responding to emails/Slack, administrivia, dialing into short routine Zoom mtgs). No need to go into the office for that, and might as well eat leftovers for lunch/nurse a big coffee pot all morning long/etc. Now when I go in (~2 days a week), it is specifically for the more nuanced collaboration: the tough conversations/bigger decision making/needing to get buy-in from colleagues, OR, if I need a big uninterrupted chunk of time (I'm fortunate to have a nice office with a door I can shut). So it is specifically for the more special work days that I go in, and (percentage wise) I am buying lunch/coffee and socializing with colleagues much more on those particular 'special' days than I ever did on a given day when I was working 5 days/week in the office.

I believe that the building itself and surrounding amenities, including being in a well-connected/hub location, are actually going to be more important than ever when it comes to offices. The only question in my mind is what the total demand is going sum up to be: the doubters still might be right that the overall demand is pretty low. But my take is that you'll see more companies headquartering in urban centers than before, just with smaller operations per company. The question is: what will that add up to headcount-wise.
 
I'm somewhat surprised no one has mentioned subleasing activity as a prime indicator here... it skyrocketed to unprecedented levels at the start of the pandemic, right? But my understanding is, it's already more-or-less back to "normal," pre-pandemic baseline levels.

IF it had stayed up at an unusually elevated range, I think that would've been a serious indicator of a rather profound and radical shift... but the fact it has subsided so rapidly back to pre-pandemic levels (again, per my understanding) seems very telling to me.

Unless people think I'm vastly overrating subleasing activity as a key market indicator? Rebuttals are welcome!
 
DBM said:
I'm somewhat surprised no one has mentioned subleasing activity as a prime indicator here... it skyrocketed to unprecedented levels at the start of the pandemic, right? But my understanding is, it's already more-or-less back to "normal," pre-pandemic baseline levels.

IF it had stayed up at an unusually elevated range, I think that would've been a serious indicator of a rather profound and radical shift... but the fact it has subsided so rapidly back to pre-pandemic levels (again, per my understanding) seems very telling to me.

Unless people think I'm vastly overrating subleasing activity as a key market indicator? Rebuttals are welcome!
Click to expand...

I'm not an insider with access to special data, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I just want to point out (as I have similarly in the past), that almost any executive in a publicly traded company (short of the topmost echelon of Google, Apple, Amazon) who felt their firm's visible financial performance could be boosted by this few-strings-attached cost shedding opportunity was going to take this opportunity. Dumping expensive leases, subletting if possible, etc: it was going to happen, especially early on when companies had no choice but to have everyone working remote anyway. I am not claiming I can prove one way or another exactly how many office square feet companies are going to need in the future, but it is nonetheless worth pointing out that all of the lease non-renewals and subletting activity that surged early in the pandemic was not a reliable indicator of pretty much anything.

ASIDE: I also found it hilarious early in the pandemic how so many insolvent, cash flow negative startup CEOs were the ones being interviewed as "evidence" of companies eliminating offices. We are talking about startups with 1-year runway remaining on their venture funding, who, by committing to an "office free future", could turn that into 2 years of runway. But, of course, these CEOs weren't going to say "because my financial performance is in the toilet, I am compelled to ditch my office"...no no, they always said "we are a cutting-edge company, who, unlike those dinosaurs, believe in empowering employees and fostering collaboration through flexible blah, blah, blah." Can I blame them? No; it makes sense. But it's got to be interpreted accordingly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DBM
I didn't attend, but I heard that this week's BPDA hearing (slideshow presentation here) was highly favorable in terms of this project's chances:

1.) The NIMBY presence was sparse/uninspiring;
2.) The BPDA handlers were very forcefully arguing for the project's importance;
3.) And the proponent's point man was extremely well-prepared in terms of fielding questions/concerns from the audience.

So... per the project page, comment period ends in January, so in theory this goes to the BPDA Board for approval in, what, March? Followed by a six month or so mobilization/permit-acquiring period, maybe groundbreaking around Halloween 2022--exactly two years after the 3rd iteration was submitted.

Provided, of course, the financing environment isn't completely wretched in the first half of 2022--paging Dr. Stoweker!

(Among other things--the looming interest rate hikes by the Fed--any impact? I presume not, only in that, relatively speaking, rates are so damn rock-bottom to begin with. Right now it's at .25%. So, it might rise to, what, .5%, by the time these guys go loan-shopping? Does that really matter, in this context, on a project that's going to cost at least $430 million per p. 9 of that slideshow presentation?)
 
This project is not finaneable without 50 % equity. Unlikely to happen. Similar to raffles hotel/condo in back bay. 40 % equity plus guarantees
 
Batmarch said:
This project is not finaneable without 50 % equity. Unlikely to happen. Similar to raffles hotel/condo in back bay. 40 % equity plus guarantees
Click to expand...

Was it painful to have to recalibrate from "this project is dead" to "unlikely to happen" in barely over a month? Can you spare us the suspense and advise in advance the verbiage you will deploy to continue to soften your pessimistic assertions if/when this gets approved by the BPDA . . . and goes out for permitting/mobilization . . . and a ground-breaking occurs? Curious...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: W-4
DBM said:
Was it painful to have to recalibrate from "this project is dead" to "unlikely to happen" in barely over a month? Can you spare us the suspense and advise in advance the verbiage you will deploy to continue to soften your pessimistic assertions if/when this gets approved by the BPDA . . . and goes out for permitting/mobilization . . . and a ground-breaking occurs? Curious...
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to "they'll never complete this tower" when it's 3/4 built.
 
stick n move said:
This has a beautiful facade.
Click to expand...
It does . . . but the colossal order windows motif is beaten to death in this city. Slides 18-19 underscore this. And there will never be trees seen from the Common per slide 41. That setup barely works in Singapore. In Boston's climate? Nope.
 
JumboBuc said:
www.bostonglobe.com

Building an office tower in downtown Boston right now? Maybe not as crazy as it sounds. - The Boston Globe

A New York-based developer is pushing ahead with a $350 million, 22-story office tower in Downtown Crossing, albeit one that will differ from typical high-rises in a few key ways.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...

Usdan's argument makes sense, and it's basically one that I've posed in various places throughout this form. Hybrid employers still need hubs, and if the result is less overall demand but for higher-quality space, then let it be a competition to provide the type of quality space hybrid employers want. Meanwhile, let the offices that are going to go vacant (and potentially then be repurposed, such as for housing) be from those whose landlords didn't invest in the offices of the future.
 
glad that corner is getting redeveloped, but it's a shame that this site can't be turned into more residential to address the housing shortage we have in Boston. DTX is needs more residential to make it feel like an actual neighborhood.
 
Agreed, residential is needed here. It’s too bad the most critical voice of opposition seems to be 45 province condo owners. Not sure I understand the argument, especially since this isn’t tall anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top