[ARCHIVED] Harbor Garage Redevelopment | 70 East India Row | Waterfront | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

nm88, refer to my above post on why nothing like Rowes Wharf will ever be built there.

stellarfun, in other words, the height could be changed at spots and is not stagnant. Other case in point is 120 Kingston St.

Yes, a building higher than 155 feet can be constructed at the Harbor Garage site; a building higher than 200 feet could be constructed.

But no building of any height is going to be constructed until Mr. Chiofaro presents the financial analysis that justifies why a building must have a certain height and size before his project becomes economically viable.

To this point, he hasn't even provided an estimate of: the cost of demolition, and excavation/construction of an underground garage for 900 cars, 1200 cars, or 1400 cars; the cost of his proposed floating garage for the 600 cars owned by Harbor Towers residents for their use during construction; the cost of moving the Harbor Tower utilities located in the garage. To which he can add the cost of his acquiring the garage in the first place, and the many fees, studies, permits, etc that he will need before he starts constructing.

So let's hypothesize that all the above costs are $350 million, just to get him to ground level. How much building does he then need to recoup those costs, and the costs of the actual above-ground building, along with some ROI for him?

Lets also posit that he can't go higher than 600 feet because of the FAA and Massport rules. Remember by his own numbers, the cost of this project is $1 billion for 1.2 million sq ft, ---which probably makes the Arch second to Harvard's moribund science complex as the most expensive building ever built in Boston on a sq ft basis.

Suppose the numbers come up that he actually needs the 1.2 million sq ft that he currently wants, but that sq ft has to rent for $90 a sq ft. But then the financing guys will say, 'Don, nobody will rent your space for $90 a sq ft'. He's then dead in the water before he even starts.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^
For those of you keeping score at home, back to Rifleman's original question....there was no height limit under the old B-8 zoning on the waterfront that pre-dated the Harborpark zoning of 1991, so it's not like the BRA made some kind of special exception to the height back then. What they did do, after seeing what 40 stories on the harbor felt like, is make sure it wil never happen again by doing the Harborpark zoning. If anything, the Downtown Waterfront area zoning has been characterized by remarkably consistent application over the past 40 years.

KentXie, for permitted and/or built projects in Boston with national/international developers, let's start with BP, Hines, Archstone, Millennium Partners, Intell/Extell, Gale, and the list goes on...clearly none of these folks were scared of doing development in Boston. If anything the challenging regulatory climate here makes Boston MORE attractive to national firms because they have the staying power to overcome the high barriers to entry here, which keeps values high when the rest of the country is in the tank.

Greenwayguy, I disagree with your opinion regarding a tall/dense development at the Aquarium garage. But don't feel like you need to rebut every silly challenge on the board that the challenger could easily answer themselves. (E.g., What was zoned along the harbor in 1957? How many developers that have won Pritzker Prizes have developed inside the 495 belt since 1979???)
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^
Agreed....I just think the dialogue would be elevated a bit if the folks on the board had the facts, since it seems that many peoples' opinion of the Chiofaro/Pru project are tainted by not having all the relevant facts or by buying into the misperceptions being spun out from various quarters. If you read my posts, I don't really take a position on height/massing on that site other than to point out what the facts of the case are with respect to zoning and other pertinant issues.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^ I think you do, you clearly have some angle here too. Some of us would like to see the proposal go through, some of us don't. I'm not saying this makes you evil or anything like that, but own up to it, you don't want to see this proposal materialize. No one harps on details like this unless you don't want to see it built. Most of us would say this zoning law is silly, you seem to keep quoting and defending it. I've been on this website long enough to know that zoning laws in this town are just a suggestion.

And finally most of us here arn't lawyers, most of us probably don't really like them as a species. So yea were not interested in the nitty gritty legal bullshit. B/c thats what it is, logic should trump the letter of the law technicalities. In this case logic would say this site can and (in the context of economy/budget cuts) should get built. Devopers won't buy prime realestate if they can't make a solid return. And to add to it this site has to deal w/ HT residents parking and HVAC, making it even more expensive. At some point the mentality "Dah shadows are bad" and HT's "but what about my view" are going to have to give way to basic business common sense.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Do any of us believe the city would get an iconic structure from Chiofaro? I don't. I point to IP as a case in point.

One of the best new buildings in my time is Rowes Wharf, IMHO. I know many people on this forum yearn for height, but I don't see what would be so bad about a 200-footer that was as well designed as Rowes.

I'd support height here if we got, or attempted, a landmark building. This is one of the few places left to do that. I just can't get past the thought that Chiofaro doesn't seem capabale of this. Wheeling and dealing and grand gestures seem more his inclinations. Good taste? Not so much.

Honestly what are you talking about? Love em or Hate em.....IP is one of the skyline symbols in Boston.

When I think of Boston Skyline I think of IP, PRU, Hancock.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I'm actually very fond of IP for several reasons. The first obviously is that it isn't a box. The facade's color is also unique, breaking out of the typical plain colors such as white or black or glass. I love the massing on it between the three towers and I for one do like the palladian windows which gives the tower character, unlike the stripe towers, towers with only ribbon windows, and just plain rectangular windows.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^ No one harps on details like this unless you don't want to see it built.

There is at least one other forum member who harps on details like this while protesting no opinion regarding the idea of such a project. Although he stopped posting about 2 months prior to Greenway guy registering.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I'm actually very fond of IP for several reasons. The first obviously is that it isn't a box. The facade's color is also unique, breaking out of the typical plain colors such as white or black or glass. I love the massing on it between the three towers and I for one do like the palladian windows which gives the tower character, unlike the stripe towers, towers with only ribbon windows, and just plain rectangular windows.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^
GW2500, you said something interesting: "No one harps on details like this unless you don't want to see it built."

To the contrary, those who DO want to see it get built would be well-advised to harp on details like this. It is precisely your attitude of "never mind the details, they are (as you call them) silly" that has thus far prevented the Harbor Garage development from making any progress whatsoever in almost three years. Development is a detail-oriented business. Ignore the details and get nowhere.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

These details make building anything very unlikely. Excluding that Don paid a higher price then maybe he needed to (and again tell me why a city wouldn't want deveopers to pay top dollar... taxes hello)* the fact is prime real-estate will allways be very expensive, which this is, and he has to build around HT's requirements making it even more expensive, all so it can top out at 200ft. Even if it can make money I can guarentee you the finish product is a cheap 200ft box. Sorry, and I"ve said it before, but basic economics needs to be factored into the BRA's equation. B/c right now the formula they have has a crap outcome. Or nothing gets built at all. IMO it really is that simple.


*Actually the city's offical position seems to be he did pay too much (even though we directly benefited from that) and its not our problem. Does the BRA want developers in the future to pay less for property so that when the only option available is a stump the numbers can work? Meanwhile the city makes less taxes on property sale and the building.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The rules seem to be very pliable for some but rigid for others.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

These details make building anything very unlikely. Excluding that Don paid a higher price then maybe he needed to (and again tell me why a city wouldn't want deveopers to pay top dollar... taxes hello)* the fact is prime real-estate will allways be very expensive, which this is, and he has to build around HT's requirements making it even more expensive, all so it can top out at 200ft. Even if it can make money I can guarentee you the finish product is a cheap 200ft box. Sorry, and I"ve said it before, but basic economics needs to be factored into the BRA's equation. B/c right now the formula they have has a crap outcome. Or nothing gets built at all. IMO it really is that simple.


*Actually the city's offical position seems to be he did pay too much (even though we directly benefited from that) and its not our problem. Does the BRA want developers in the future to pay less for property so that when the only option available is a stump the numbers can work? Meanwhile the city makes less taxes on property sale and the building.

I don't think they will understand/listen to what you say. I already made a post on why nothing like Rowes Wharf will be built here.

No doubt if Chiofaro or any future developers gets approval to build something on the garage, it will not be magnificiently scale like Rowes Wharf for many reason. 1) Why make a duplicate? Lacks creativity and originality. 2) Whoever says that Rowes Wharf is a gateway to the waterfront has never seen Rowes Wharf. Aside from the arch in the middle, the entire structure blocks out a megablock to the sea. 3) Most likely it won't be feasible, especially when Rowes Wharf is around two times the size of the Aquarium garage, unless its literally a giant box. 4) It's going to cast an enormous shadow if the development ends up in the same shape as the garage over the Greenway but two times taller. Tree huggers (if there were really any trees on the Greenway) would not have that.

Granted it may be Chiofaro's fault in the first place but you get what you get for being cheap.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

These details make building anything very unlikely. Excluding that Don paid a higher price then maybe he needed to (and again tell me why a city wouldn't want deveopers to pay top dollar... taxes hello)*
....
*Actually the city's offical position seems to be he did pay too much (even though we directly benefited from that) and its not our problem. Does the BRA want developers in the future to pay less for property so that when the only option available is a stump the numbers can work? Meanwhile the city makes less taxes on property sale and the building.

Assessed value for the garage (70 E India Row)

1985 $12.967 million
1995 $22.729 million
2005 $71.000 million
2007 $80.185 million
2008 $88.170 million
2009 $88.170 million
2010 $82.449 million

Current assessed value land: $10,011 million
Current assessed value building: $72.438 million

2011 Taxes: $2.422 million

If the 2010 assessed value is close to the market value, he is underwater on his primary financing of $85 million from Hartford Investment Management Co., the five year note with the big balloon payment in a couple of years.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Assessed value for the garage (70 E India Row)

1985 $12.967 million
1995 $22.729 million
2005 $71.000 million
2007 $80.185 million
2008 $88.170 million
2009 $88.170 million
2010 $82.449 million

Current assessed value land: $10,011 million
Current assessed value building: $72.438 million

2011 Taxes: $2.422 million

If the 2010 assessed value is close to the market value, he is underwater on his primary financing of $85 million from Hartford Investment Management Co., the five year note with the big balloon payment in a couple of years.


It would actually depend on his cash flow if he was actually underwater with the loan. Determining the value of this garage is very difficult. There are many factors involved in the price.

In the 80's Interest rates were hovering around 20% the garage was also facing central Artery.

Inflation has exploded over the past 20 years. Parking Revenue has also exploded.
2011 155 Million with Interest rates hovering around 5% and the garage is sitting on the Rose Kennedy Greenway. It all depends on his investment agenda with his investors Long-term or Short-Term.

But overall if I had the money I would have bought the garage.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

It would actually depend on his cash flow if he was actually underwater with the loan. Determining the value of this garage is very difficult. There are many factors involved in the price.

In the 80's Interest rates were hovering around 20% the garage was also facing central Artery.

Inflation has exploded over the past 20 years. Parking Revenue has also exploded.
2011 155 Million with Interest rates hovering around 5% and the garage is sitting on the Rose Kennedy Greenway. It all depends on his investment agenda with his investors Long-term or Short-Term.

But overall if I had the money I would have bought the garage.

Being underwater has nothing to do with cashflow. When you are underwater, the market value of your property is less than the amount you owe on the property, e.g., the remaining principal of your mortgage.

In this instance, I suspect the $85 million is all the financing he could get in the market, and the other $70 million was financed by Prudential. The $85 million is close to the assessed value at the time, and that could be what the Hartford lender assessed the true market value of the garage to be. That's probably a first recourse note, so if he doesn't pay them the $85 million balloon payment in a couple of years, he turns over the keys to the garage to them. As for Prudential's $70 million, they can probably recover that by whittling away whatever equity he still has in IP as a junior partner.

The odds are fairly high that this time round, he has screwed the pooch.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^
Joebos, for whom have the rules been pliable on the Downtown Waterfront in the past 40 years?

And Rifleman, are you suggesting that the valuation of the garage should be $155 million? After all, the assessor is supposed to assess properties at their "full and fair cash value." By that definition, soulds like the city is giving Chiofaro/Prudential a huge, huge tax break...if their assessment went to $155 million to match the purchase price and the tax went to $4.5 million from its current $2.4 million, the garage woud most certainly be underwater from a cash flow perspective....or at least, Pru's return on equity would get slashed...
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^
Joebos, for whom have the rules been pliable on the Downtown Waterfront in the past 40 years?

Greenwayguy, a Downtown Municipal Harbor Plan (MHP) was filed by the BRA with the State to override Chapter 91 restrictions/regulations along the Fort Point Channel only within the last five years or so. Included within this Downtown MHP were plans that enabled Russia Wharf to move forward at the water's edge. The MHP can be amended at any time, even for a single site.

I'm not sure whether or not the Downtown MHP went as far along the coastline as Aquarium/Harbor Towers, but it could be amended to do so. If not, it's not outside the realm of possibilities that the BRA would file a new MHP specifically for the Harborpark area. In fact, if the BRA is embarking on a new planning initiative for the Greenway, it wouldn't surprise me that they would be required to submit a Municipal Harbor Plan (or amendment) for any parcels that were on tidelands.

Though I don't think it's likely Chiofaro will move forward, nor do I personally favor what he has proposed, I don't at all understand why you believe the Harborpark zoning of 3 decades ago is etched in stone when you've been given so many examples of large swaths of land and single parcels that have been approved for significant changes from existing zoning.

The rules are entirely pliable.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^ Right - Russia Wharf etc are in the Fort Point Waterfront area, not the Downtown Waterfront area. Name me one major "pliability" in the Downtown (or North End) Waterfront area since they've been put in place less than 20 years ago. Again, galling as the details may be to some, the devil's in the details, something that the current proposal for the HG does nothing to consider.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

It is interesting that in the assessor's maps of parcels, Harbor Towers owns (submerged) land out into the harbor itself. I assume that land marked the boundaries of old wharves. And in reading the history of HT, there was originally to be a third tower which was never built. Is it possible that a 400 foot tower was approved by the city long ago for what is now the site of the current harbor garage?

If I had any confidence in Chiofaro being a due diligence sort of guy, I would think if the city had once given its okay to a 400 feet tower where the garage is, he'd be trumpeting that long and loud.

Regardless, as Sicilian has noted, the real impediment to Chiofaro and his project is not the BRA, or the mayor, of the Greenway lovers, or Massport, or the FAA, or the Commonwealth, its the HT condo association and the HT condo owners who have him by the gonads.

For three years, he has been running a sideshow with iterative concepts that never get fleshed out, and each successively more abstract than the one preceding it. The main event, which he has avoided and hardly mentions, is the easements and covenants that the HT condo association have on the garage property. Until he and the condo association come to mutual agreement on how those are to be met and satisfied during construction, and post-construction, nothing is going to happen.

Any other developer, behaving rationally, would first sit down with the condo owners and negotiate terms. If agreement is reached, then Chiofaro can go forward and see how big a building he can get approved, permitted, financed, and built.

Its not that he doesn't hold cards. For example, the HT parking space 'leases' expire in 20 years or so, so their value to the condo owners diminishes year by year going forward. Chiofaro could offer to add another 30 years to the lease period after he constructs the new garage, an offer such as that might be favorably received. But there's been no discussion, let alone negotiation between the two parties. What is Don dreaming: once he got approved, that the city would then use eminent domain to take away his HT easement and covenant problem?

Chiofaro's problem seems to be he is getting old, hasn't built anything in 25 years, and wants one last big project as his legacy, --so he really can't wait out the expiration of the HT parking space leases. The closer to the date the leases expire, the more amenable the HT condo owners would be to negotiating terms.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^
I like the way you think...the third Harbor Tower was originally slated for the site of Rowes Wharf...once the first two got built the BRA realized the error of its ways and promptly took back the parcel/terminated the agreement with the original HT developer, then re-packaged the parcel and disposed of it to Leventhal to build Rowes Wharf instead. And thank god they did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top