315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point

Re: A st Highrise

Sicilian said:
^atlvr
I'm not trying to be provocative, but these are insufficient responses to a deeply entrenched system, where we have a public agency providing a steady stream of profitable entitlements to landowners, developers and their consultants with no party involved having any intention to put a shovel in the ground.

I can tell you from experience in my own neighborhood (Seaport, Fort Point) that this issue has nothing to do with the current recession, or the scale of the projects. The secondary market for BRA approvals is widespread and impacts small and large projects.

Whether it's unique to Boston, I don't know. But anyone who asks "Why are there parking lots out there?" or "Why are the building materials substandard?" or "Why isn't that architecture up to par with a world-class city?" really needs to consider this type of problem very deeply.
Click to expand...


Which is why I offered what I consider an alternative and preferable system that still allows for new development, yet is a disincentive for land-bankers, or rather landbankers who demolish and use surface parking revenue to supplement the cost of holding the land.

Sorry, I don't buy the arguement that the cost of land plays a function in the aesthetics of the final development. Developers and middle-man land flippers are sophisticated people. Everyone is aware what the current market will bear in terms of market pricing for a completed development, and the land value adjusts accordingly. I'm sure there are Boston examples, but there are hundereds of examples of across the country where the land-flippers are the ones getting burned as their entitled sites fall in value below their mortgages, erasing their "added value", so they have risk as well.

In terms of architectural and material quality, I won't go as far as arguing directly opposite to what you are stating, but I can easily provide multiple examples in Charlotte, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, etc of 20-story+ highrises that has EIFS facades, and their land basis/total development cost ratio is just a fraction of what it is in Boston, so I don't buy that there is a strong inverse correlation between land cost and project quality. Just based on my experience in projects around the country, I would feel comfortable stating that behind NYC, Boston (and probably S.F and D.C.) have by far the highest building material and architectural review standards of any major city in the country. Notably, all of these cities also have high-land costs that are exacerbated by lengthy review processes and high-values attached to entitlements. In other words, high-barrier to entry markets.
 
Re: A st Highrise

^atlrvr

Let me state up front, that I have no professional experience, just observations. It sounds like you do know what you're talking about.

A few points...

1. The Archon website states clearly what their intentions were regarding approvals. That web page was posted from 2006 (upon the original purchases) until recently, when the company filed for approval of the project of this thread.

2. You state (and I agree) that Boston presents a high barrier to entry. Getting over the hurdle of approvals may have an expense attached to it, but it also has a value. We both might agree that the value of an approval is assessed along with the the land (or existing property) on its resale. I am further suggesting that there is a mark-up where the sale of the approval ends up being the most profitable piece of the resale transaction. I am also suggesting that the BRA benefits from the sale, resale and subsequent resales of properties, while variances, tax breaks and other entitlements continue to sweeten the pot -- whether or not a shovel goes in the ground.

3. I'd like to point out a troubling example in our neighborhood, which occured in the years between 2006 and 2008 (pre-recession). A number of properties were purchased by a single developer. A roll-out of a Master Plan presented a mix of uses, which were highly publicized in the Globe (and commented on in the ArchBoston board). Concurrent with the public PR campaign, the property owner listed many of the buildings for sale, and they began to flip them. Two buildings required variances for new construction so the property owner was able to move forward with a viable residential development. The approval process and meetings took a year, and the project was approved. That original owner flipped the buildings and capitalized on the value of the variances for new construction. The new owner, who paid a premium for the properties, held a public meeting and stated that they were financially incapable of completing the project as approved. Rather than sell or lease the building as-of-right, they decided to go back to the BRA to secure the original variances while reversing the original commitments to the design and use. The BRA approved the variances, reversing course on the prior year of approvals. The entire approval process -- a year of meetings, was a ridiculous charade. The original owner profited from the sale of variances and the new owner secured their variances while jettisoning all the original commitments.

I can tell you this happened over and over over the past years. To get a project approved, commitments are made. The project is flipped and the new owner claims they are unable to keep the commitments. There is no reason whatsoever for the year it takes to secure approvals, and (on larger projects) the bogus IAG's that are formed. All of that is thrown out after the year is up.

Russia Wharf and BCEC are larger examples of exactly this same problem. The final product bears no resemblance to the years of ridiculous planning sessions and approvals. At Russia Wharf, once that project was flipped by Equity, the original designs, plans, meetings proved to be a complete waste of time.

4. We are also seeing commitments made during approvals cast aside once the shovels are in the ground. If a landowner makes major architectural revisions after the approval process, they get a slap on the wrist. In one notable instance along the Harbor, the developer decided to add an extra unpermitted story to their building, with no respect for the architecture or planning whatsoever. Don't get me wrong -- I am not arguing against its height. But it is a wonder that the extra story was under the FAA height limit, and it's a weird way to do business. If I'm not mistaken, that project was hit with a $26,000 fine and stands today.

To conclude, the current approval process is simply not working. It is a highly politicized insider game that bears little resemblance to the so-called Master Plans and ideals that people spend hours discussing in newpapers and blogs.
 
Re: A st Highrise

I forgot one point...

atlrvr said:
I'd rather see entitlements have a sunset period, and property taxes reflect approximate current land value given entitlements in place, perhaps tax increases abated until an existing structure is demolished....that should prevent demoing for parking lots.
Click to expand...

A prior poster suggested that variances have a two-year expiration before BRA Board re-approval is necessary. But I'd bet the re-approval process is a slam dunk.

Anyhow, your ideas are both good ones.
 
Re: A st Highrise

I think we are mostly on the same page then.....I'm an advocate for high barriers to entry because it helps protect values during down markets.

As for the insider negotiations, hand-slaps to favored entities....good luck, and I'm not being maliciously sarcastic. Anything that adds opaqueness to the development process is not good for anyone else beyond the direct beneficiaries. The more translucent the process, the easier it is for the market to determine value, and therefore more efficient the process is for everyone.

I'm also against "matchy-matchy" master plans, though I have no feasible ideas to alter the process.

I do see benefits to intermediaries like Archon, and as long as entitlements that they win are non-negotiable once transferred, and have a sunset period, then I'll stand by my statement that it allows the most efficient process given the high barriers to entry.
 
Re: A st Highrise

After Fort Point meetings, developer set to redesign
Scaling back high-rise plans
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, March 15, 2010


The city has told developers of a residential tower in Boston?s Fort Point Channel neighborhood that they can?t exceed height limits without providing more public benefits.

In a letter to Archon Group, the Boston developer of a proposed 25-story tower at 319 A St. Rear, the Boston Redevelopment Authority said increasing the number of affordable rentals or donating a nearby building that Archon owns to a nonprofit was insufficient to meet the city?s requirements of providing ?exceptional public benefits? for added height.

Zoning allows a building at 180 feet, or about 17 stories.

John Matteson, Archon?s regional director of acquisitions, said the company intends to build the residential tower at the lower height.

?We will do a shorter building,? he said. ?We spent lots of time with the BRA and the neighborhood groups and we heard the concerns about height, and we will redesign the building.?

Construction could start as early as next year. The 160-unit apartment building would create much-needed housing in the area, as well as affordable housing to meet Mayor Thomas M. Menino?s executive order, Matteson added.

Last fall, Archon and Goldman Properties proposed a tower in Fort Point that would include 232 apartments.

Under the plan, the 315,000-square-foot residential high-rise would replace a five-story former warehouse at the site.

At 240 feet, the project would be the neighborhood?s tallest building. But some Fort Point Channel residents and elected officials balked at its scale, saying it would reduce light, provide insufficient parking and create a precedent for super-size buildings in the district.


Link
 
Re: A st Highrise

Mike said:
Under the plan, the 315,000-square-foot residential high-rise would replace a five-story former warehouse at the site.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a nearby parking lot where they can build?
 
Re: A st Highrise

There are plenty of parking lots, but this building is garbage. Time to tear it down and build something new!
 
Re: A st Highrise

Do you have a picture of the building that's garbage?
 
Re: A st Highrise

Well, it's a typical Fort Point Building, a lot like the others.

Maybe they're all garbage?
 
Re: A st Highrise

Of course they're garbage. Where's the underground parking? And those real non-precast bricks are obviously disasters waiting to happen. Those parking lots on the other hand are the opposites of garbage. Providing much-needed parking whilst ensuring sunny open space. Happy cars + sunshine = happy people.
 
Re: A st Highrise

"but this building is garbage."

What makes the building garbage? I had a studio in the building in front, above Chimera. I thought it was a pretty cool structure. The interior spaces would be beautiful if renovated.
 
Re: A st Highrise

That building is decidedly not garbage.

I thought the entire plan here was to use the cache and aesthetic of the old warehouses to create a hip new district that would spur development of the acres and acres of parking lots.

Turns out, that was all a ruse. The city instead will let the lots sit fallow and allow developers to demolish the historic warehouses to build precast new garbage.

(Looks to the sky, looks down at the ground.)
 
Re: A st Highrise

If the BRA were doing its job, it would make the developer upgrade the existing building with residential and shops, and then allocate a footprint of equal size in the neighboring parking lot for the developer to build additional space --16 stories, if he wants. Even the parking lot owner could be happy; he now has equity in a good project, or he sold this segment of lot at a good price.
 
Re: A st Highrise

^ Earlier in the thread you can see renderings of the prior design. Absolute garbage if ever there was.

Fort Point should be entirely FP3'd. And the rest of the Seaport too.
 
Re: A st Highrise

Opinions are like assholes...that said, itchy, I would not use "historic warehouses" as a descriptive term for preservation.

And I had a whole defensive statement as to my choice of wording, but figured I would leave it at that.
 
Re: A st Highrise

^ BYMH, what about the new building designs are you looking forward to?
 
Re: A st Highrise

I feel like we had this exact same conversation 4 months ago. Check post 66. The building to be torn is not the Chimera building. It's the tired, nondescript building behind Chimera. Verly little visibility from the street and really nothing to miss. Though I agree the rendering of the new building doesn't exactly look hot.
 
Re: A st Highrise

Any real reason why a 25 story tower can't be built here. If the city really wants more affordable housing reducing the total units ain't the way to go.
 
Re: A st Highrise

GW2500 said:
Any real reason why a 25 story tower can't be built here. If the city really wants more affordable housing reducing the total units ain't the way to go.
Click to expand...

Probably because planes landing on Logan's runway 9 would be relatively close.

I believe flight patterns are the reasons for most South Boston height restrictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top