Back Bay Garage Tower | Dartmouth and Stuart | Back Bay

Those last 2 paragraphs were amazing to read. Never knew that it was planned out like that with a know your place in the city attitude towards development height. Thats one of the most old-Boston mindset things I have ever read regarding our skyline.
 
Great trip down memory lane.

Anyway, I think they got the heights correct. It won't be overwhelming in scale, which is a good thing.

It would be exciting if they could put a roundabout in the intersection. It would calm the cannon shot traffic coming up from the Pike.
 
Fidelity did propose a tower downtown in the 80s but it wasn't approved.
 
I remember reading that in those days 40 stories was an efficient height for a tower. After that elevators and utilities take up an increasing amount of floor space. You need to be able to charge a higher rent to build higher.

Also Boston was a very risky place to build. I think it was 28 State Street that was built on the cheap because no one had much faith in Boston.
 
I would imagine that changed when yamasaki invented the concept of local and express elevator banks for the twin towers?
 
DZH22 fed me a softball, so I'll pick up the mic again. Why is Boston Properties building higher in San Francisco? Let me quote from CBRE's market report on Boston from last year:

"Although average asking rents in 2015 are below other peak cycles in 2000 and 2008, the last nine consecutive quarters have experienced rent increases ... even at an average asking rate of $50 psf, the cost of doing business in Boston is considerably less than in other markets and underpriced as a world class city with room to grow."

I'll spare you the parallel quote from their Bay Area report, but to summarize: San Francisco presents arguably an even more restrictive building/regulatory environment and a more constrained geographical footprint than Boston and by most measures overall commercial rents there are about 20% higher, approaching Manhattan numbers in some areas. There's also a huge pent-up demand as more and more tech companies are shifting their center of gravity north from the Peninsula, which provides a wealth of tenants to sign to mitigate risk. And if you've ever had to price a condo in the Bay Area you know it's one of the few places in the USA that makes Boston look a bargain. You could have posed a slightly tougher counterexample (Seattle?) but we aren't San Francisco (or Manhattan, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etcetera). If Boston Properties is using the exact same spreadsheet, it will burp out a much higher build there than here.

One significant difference about Boston? The Seaport. For quirky historical reasons, as recently as a decade ago Boston had acres upon acres of large footprint open space waiting for development within walking distance of downtown! All those new chunky buildings that many on this forum love to hate provide a TON of new space to absorb, they are essentially within a par five of South Station, and they cost a LOT less to build on a psf basis than the supertalls many would wish for. When all that space is gobbled up ... maybe by the next cycle ... the economics of taller may look more attractive. Our peer cities may have some virgin development territory on their fringes, but not so much, so close.

Ditto air rights: the downfall of Columbus Center wasn't the stupid NIMBYs like Ned or the fecklessness of the BRA or the capacity of Dianne Wilkerson's bra, it was the economic downturn combined with the sheer expense and risk of building over an active interstate highway. The Beal/Related team ... who built the successful Clarendon about fifty feet away ... had a looksie at the proposal after the original financing fell through and punted. They aren't negative on Boston - look at Lovejoy Wharf. But what's the point of tying yourself in knots with an incredibly difficult build over a highway when there are still choice development parcels on terra firma just a few blocks away? When Stuart Street is fully built out, over the Pike may also look a lot better. This overdue build-out of Back Bay Station is an encouraging sign.

I don't mean to suggest that the NIMBY element isn't annoying or pernicious, but I think many here overestimate the downtown neighborhoods' powers, ESPECIALLY under this mayor. I've had a window seat to two decades' worth of development proposal reviews and after a while the kabuki becomes routine. The lightning fast pivot on the Dainty Dot/Radian was a great example. Lopping off a few stories from the initial massing study is often a "sleeves off my vest" concession wherein the developer winds up with something even more profitable than the trial balloon and probably quite close to what his spreadsheet suggested in the first place. It's all about the Benjamins, not the postcard views, and in Boston 2016 these medium-tall buildings pencil out very well.
 
DZH22 fed me a softball, so I'll pick up the mic again. Why is Boston Properties building higher in San Francisco? Let me quote from CBRE's market report on Boston from last year:

"Although average asking rents in 2015 are below other peak cycles in 2000 and 2008, the last nine consecutive quarters have experienced rent increases ... even at an average asking rate of $50 psf, the cost of doing business in Boston is considerably less than in other markets and underpriced as a world class city with room to grow."

I'll spare you the parallel quote from their Bay Area report, but to summarize: San Francisco presents arguably an even more restrictive building/regulatory environment and a more constrained geographical footprint than Boston and by most measures overall commercial rents there are about 20% higher, approaching Manhattan numbers in some areas. There's also a huge pent-up demand as more and more tech companies are shifting their center of gravity north from the Peninsula, which provides a wealth of tenants to sign to mitigate risk. And if you've ever had to price a condo in the Bay Area you know it's one of the few places in the USA that makes Boston look a bargain. You could have posed a slightly tougher counterexample (Seattle?) but we aren't San Francisco (or Manhattan, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etcetera). If Boston Properties is using the exact same spreadsheet, it will burp out a much higher build there than here.

One significant difference about Boston? The Seaport. For quirky historical reasons, as recently as a decade ago Boston had acres upon acres of large footprint open space waiting for development within walking distance of downtown! All those new chunky buildings that many on this forum love to hate provide a TON of new space to absorb, they are essentially within a par five of South Station, and they cost a LOT less to build on a psf basis than the supertalls many would wish for. When all that space is gobbled up ... maybe by the next cycle ... the economics of taller may look more attractive. Our peer cities may have some virgin development territory on their fringes, but not so much, so close.

Ditto air rights: the downfall of Columbus Center wasn't the stupid NIMBYs like Ned or the fecklessness of the BRA or the capacity of Dianne Wilkerson's bra, it was the economic downturn combined with the sheer expense and risk of building over an active interstate highway. The Beal/Related team ... who built the successful Clarendon about fifty feet away ... had a looksie at the proposal after the original financing fell through and punted. They aren't negative on Boston - look at Lovejoy Wharf. But what's the point of tying yourself in knots with an incredibly difficult build over a highway when there are still choice development parcels on terra firma just a few blocks away? When Stuart Street is fully built out, over the Pike may also look a lot better. This overdue build-out of Back Bay Station is an encouraging sign.

I don't mean to suggest that the NIMBY element isn't annoying or pernicious, but I think many here overestimate the downtown neighborhoods' powers, ESPECIALLY under this mayor. I've had a window seat to two decades' worth of development proposal reviews and after a while the kabuki becomes routine. The lightning fast pivot on the Dainty Dot/Radian was a great example. Lopping off a few stories from the initial massing study is often a "sleeves off my vest" concession wherein the developer winds up with something even more profitable than the trial balloon and probably quite close to what his spreadsheet suggested in the first place. It's all about the Benjamins, not the postcard views, and in Boston 2016 these medium-tall buildings pencil out very well.

1) Beautiful post! Thank you.

2) I shared this on another thread, but wanted to point it out here. When I'd attended the BCDC meeting for the Hub on Causeway a bit ago, I directly asked the Boston Properties leadership why they didn't go with a more iconic crown to the building (specifically suggesting One Liberty Place in Philadelphia for an example). The man smirked and told me when they sat with the architects, there was a scheme they did similar to that building; however, in every rendering of how it looked from up close and points further away it just didn't work. "Because the site isn't tall enough."

After the meeting the developer came up to me and genuinely said, "Yeah, we tried a number of different 'crowns' or tops to the building, but the problem is it just isn't tall enough." To which I replied (naturally), "Then why didn't you propose a taller tower? Market forces?" He said to me [paraphrasing],"We would've loved to go taller there! Have you seen the Salesforce Tower we're building in San Francisco?! [I nodded] We know this is a great site to build big, but unfortunately the neighborhood around us would never allow it to pass."

Just wanted to share that little developer insight... not exactly the kind of statement you'd read in Boston Business Journal or the Globe.
 
They're at 1,080' at Salesforce because that's what the area plan called for. The City of San Francisco asked them to go that high. Actually, they asked for 1,200'.

I don't think it's a fair point to suggest that SF "builds taller" than Boston and/or that SF is a "better" environment for real estate development.

While Boston is on a tear nearly unprecedented in the country other than NYC, SF is a deadzone for new development.

SF has allocated a small number of parcels around the TransBay terminal as effectively the last places in the city where high-rise construction is allowed. There are 1 or 2 parcels left; after that, the city is essentially closing itself off to high-rise development. This is driven by a NIMBY culture that puts Boston to shame and is, indeed, afraid of its own shadow to a pathological degree. Just read Curbed SF; it's incredibly dull as there's very little happening in the city.

So, yes, you can find one example of Boston Properties building in SF -- but it's a highly asterisked example given the TransBay tower was deliberately picked out by the city to be a supertall, and is the crown jewel of the last developable site in the city. Be thankful for what Boston has; I don't think anyone here would trade one taller Boston Properties building for the many worthy projects under construction or in the pipeline in Boston.
 
I don't think it's a fair point to suggest that SF "builds taller" than Boston and/or that SF is a "better" environment for real estate development.

While Boston is on a tear nearly unprecedented in the country other than NYC, SF is a deadzone for new development.

SF has allocated a small number of parcels around the TransBay terminal as effectively the last places in the city where high-rise construction is allowed. There are 1 or 2 parcels left; after that, the city is essentially closing itself off to high-rise development. This is driven by a NIMBY culture that puts Boston to shame and is, indeed, afraid of its own shadow to a pathological degree. Just read Curbed SF; it's incredibly dull as there's very little happening in the city.

So, yes, you can find one example of Boston Properties building in SF -- but it's a highly asterisked example given the TransBay tower was deliberately picked out by the city to be a supertall, and is the crown jewel of the last developable site in the city. Be thankful for what Boston has; I don't think anyone here would trade one taller Boston Properties building for the many worthy projects under construction or in the pipeline in Boston.

Please don't lie.

http://sf.curbed.com/2016/3/30/11334018/treasure-island-redevelopment

Also it's two crown jewels.

http://sf.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265960/second-tallest-tower-oceanwide-first-street-garden-plaza

Also SF has just as much high-rise constructions as Boston currently does right now. Just check their wikipedia page.
 
These are imperfect (for instance, 1 Bromfield and Grandmarc) but close. Sorry the resolution isn't amazing. You may need to zoom in to see the numbers better. Blame Photobucket for sucking.

San Francisco Built Since 2010



San Francisco Construction/Proposed



Boston Built Since 2010



Boston Construction/Proposed

 
Wow that puts things into perspective. Seems like Boston, although lacking in space/available parcels, still has lots of room to grow in comparison to SF.
 
Wow that puts things into perspective. Seems like Boston, although lacking in space/available parcels, still has lots of room to grow in comparison to SF.

Unless you mean that it has an alternate place farther from the airport where it can "grow" a new Downtown, no.
 
One significant difference about Boston? The Seaport. For quirky historical reasons, as recently as a decade ago Boston had acres upon acres of large footprint open space waiting for development within walking distance of downtown! All those new chunky buildings that many on this forum love to hate provide a TON of new space to absorb, they are essentially within a par five of South Station, and they cost a LOT less to build on a psf basis than the supertalls many would wish for. When all that space is gobbled up ... maybe by the next cycle ... the economics of taller may look more attractive. Our peer cities may have some virgin development territory on their fringes, but not so much, so close.

What were the quirky historical reasons? The sea of parking lots never made sense to me.
 
Unless you mean that it has an alternate place farther from the airport where it can "grow" a new Downtown, no.

Boston does; the Newmarket area. Once the Seaport is fully built out, that's the next area.
 
Last edited:
^^Not to veer further off topic, but I always thought about the untapped potential in Lower Allston to really develop into a new, dense downtown. It's
- Proximity to major universities
- Interstate access (and the redone I-90 Allston interchange will free up 100+ acres for redevelopment)
- Proposed West Station commuter rail hub
- Urban Ring***... if it ever happens. This area could benefit the greatest from it.
- Topographically advantageous waterfront (Charles River) in the event of necessary climate change adaptation and necessity to move development inland.


There is a Back Bay's High Spine worth of vacant and underutilized space here that could grow into 30 million to 50 million square feet of development one day.
 
Boston does; the Newmarket area. Once the Seaport is fully built out, that's the next area.

Filled in Fort Point Channel. No thanks.
DShoot has the right idea.
 
I think both Newmarket and Lower Allston should be zoned to encourage more CBD space to be able to be built there and they also would both need some mass transit improvements as well to support the density, but if Boston can do that those two areas could actually be built as peripheral CBD areas like a lot of European cities have that jump over the best historical development to underutilized areas like those.
 
My dream:

transplant 1 Liberty Place to Christian Science Ctr Garage and call it "Christian Science Tower.


Wow that puts things into perspective. Seems like Boston, although lacking in space/available parcels, still has lots of room to grow in comparison to SF.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top