BCEC expansion | Seaport

I think this site would be an island of residential whereas the other area is changing to residential

This particular site was critical in providing a link from the existing South Boston neighborhood to residences along D Street, including the existing 451 D Street (directly across from BCEC) down to Park Lane and Waterside Place.

I'm well aware things changed with the arrival of BCEC, but now BCEC expansion will further isolate residents on the Seaport.
 
Not to move to far from this area, but hopefully the residential developments downtown, and around north station will alleviate some of this demand. I hope the gov't center garage and north station towers have large residential components.

However, because these areas and the seaport are downtown near major office districts, the opportunity cost for affordable residential is just too high given the office and lab space rents. This is why I think density at transit nodes is important. The city should really concentrate on upzoning a lot of the areas outside downtown near transit.
 
I don't know if a city with the highest cost of living in the country outside of the NYC metro area could ever come even remotely close to overbuilding residential. Not that there's any research on "build x to reduce prices by y," at least not that I've seen, but I'd have to guess that you'd need a massive regional effort to get the needle to budge downward even a tick. We've got a lot of residential building in the pipeline currently for Boston, but is it enough to make a dent in the market? Tough to say, but it's hardly a huge number of units on a regional scale.

Well said. I agree 100%.
 
The BCEC is like a billion acres of floor space... I don't get it... if they need more hotels, they could probably fit ten of them on their existing footprint, building on top of the exhibition space? Would that be impossible? I'm not against BCEC expansion per se as long as it's concentrated and smart, but I am against BCEC sprawl. As Sicilian notes, this really gobbles up the potential of the D Street corridor.
 
Sicilian, I honestly think Boston is on the cusp of overbuilding residential, without having a lot more jobs coming to the city. And at the moment, I see a lot more residential, including universities building dorms to house 'off-campus' students, than I do employers filling the papers with Help Wanted ads.

Two demographic shifts of the new millenium:

1) Empty nest retirees craving city life

2) Telecommuters who want urban lifestyle - doesn't necessitate the walk to the office - the office is in the apartment. One could live in South Boston and work for a company in Seattle.
 
BCEC is run by the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA), authorized by the state and established by Chapter 190 of the Acts of 1982 and Chapter 152 of the Acts of 1997, so your criticism of Menino/Boston is waaaay off there.

"Waaay off"? Don't think so. I'm well aware that this seizure is being done by the BCEC and not the City of Boston. But really. Do you think that anything happens in Boston real estate -- especially in the Menino-appellated "Innovation District" -- without Menino's approval or initiative? We can e sure that if Menino didn't want an eminent domain taking to happen in the Seaport, it would not happen -- or there would at least be a lot of huffing and puffing to the press.

Eminent domain for economic development is established caselaw under Kelo v. City of New London, and while I generally agree with you that such uses are a stretch under the definition of "public good", I highly doubt the Supreme Court will revisit this anytime soon in light of Chief Justice Robert's institutional deference and the fact that it was decided in 2005.

I was not doubting the constitutionality of eminent domain (that's another question entirely), nor would I expect the Supreme Court to revisit it soon. But when a perfectly constitutional law is misapplied, the aggrieved party can of course sue to protect their rights -- not every civil court case needs to be resolved via judicial review :rolleyes:

The cases of Columbia University's Manhattanville campus, Atlantic Yards, and Willets Point are all high-profile NY developments where eminent domain seizures have been, or are being, challenged in the courts. All of those cases -- particularly Columbia and Willets Point -- involve absolutely miserable land that was being used for light manufacturing / warehousing / nothing whatsoever in near-Third World conditions.

This plot, on the other hand, is in one of the city's most economically active areas and apparently had an owner about to build housing. Unless it was some sort of "friendly" eminent domain the owner was fine with, this does not seem even remotely like a legitimate use of eminent domain.
 
"


This plot, on the other hand, is in one of the city's most economically active areas and apparently had an owner about to build housing. Unless it was some sort of "friendly" eminent domain the owner was fine with, this does not seem even remotely like a legitimate use of eminent domain.

The Herald said the current owner was negotiating to sell it to another developer, so wasn't about to start building. The property isn't even listed in the owner's property portfolio.

from underground,
According to the Globe, it's a "friendly" eminent domain taking. AKA, both sides agree to the transfer, but they have to go through eminent domain taking procedures for some arcane legal reason. I mean, come on - notice a complete lack of uproar from the current property owner. This is hardly some big government power grab.
 
"Waaay off"? Don't think so. I'm well aware that this seizure is being done by the BCEC and not the City of Boston. But really. Do you think that anything happens in Boston real estate -- especially in the Menino-appellated "Innovation District" -- without Menino's approval or initiative? We can e sure that if Menino didn't want an eminent domain taking to happen in the Seaport, it would not happen -- or there would at least be a lot of huffing and puffing to the press.



I was not doubting the constitutionality of eminent domain (that's another question entirely), nor would I expect the Supreme Court to revisit it soon. But when a perfectly constitutional law is misapplied, the aggrieved party can of course sue to protect their rights -- not every civil court case needs to be resolved via judicial review :rolleyes:

The cases of Columbia University's Manhattanville campus, Atlantic Yards, and Willets Point are all high-profile NY developments where eminent domain seizures have been, or are being, challenged in the courts. All of those cases -- particularly Columbia and Willets Point -- involve absolutely miserable land that was being used for light manufacturing / warehousing / nothing whatsoever in near-Third World conditions.

This plot, on the other hand, is in one of the city's most economically active areas and apparently had an owner about to build housing. Unless it was some sort of "friendly" eminent domain the owner was fine with, this does not seem even remotely like a legitimate use of eminent domain.

Atlantic Yards was upheld, Manhattanville was dismissed, and Willet's Point is still ongoing so I'm not sure what your point is there (also Atalntic Yards was brought as a claim that the taking violated a section of the NY Constitution prohibiting government gifts to private undertakings, so it's a bit different anyway).

Kelo makes it clear that "public use" = "public purpose" (at least for now), as was previously concluded in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. As such, there really are no requisite underlying conditions (such as a determination that an area is blighted) for the government to seize property as long as there isa "conceivable" public purpose.

As for who to blame, I'll hold off on getting into a senseless argument about the shadowy powers of "Boss" Menino...
 
Atlantic Yards was upheld, Manhattanville was dismissed, and Willet's Point is still ongoing so I'm not sure what your point is there (also Atalntic Yards was brought as a claim that the taking violated a section of the NY Constitution prohibiting government gifts to private undertakings, so it's a bit different anyway).

Kelo makes it clear that "public use" = "public purpose" (at least for now), as was previously concluded in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. As such, there really are no requisite underlying conditions (such as a determination that an area is blighted) for the government to seize property as long as there isa "conceivable" public purpose.

You're still missing the point. I'm not contesting (here) the entire notion of eminent domain. I just fail to see how the government taking from a property owner land that would be developed for housing and instead putting hotels and a parking garage on it is a justifiable use of eminent domain. Surely, you wouldn't suggest that "any conceivable public purpose" allows the state to take someone's land, and that this extends to taking land in order to build hotels and parking garages?

There's obviously a line to be drawn where land seizures are not kosher. And this instance, were it forcible, would seem to be on the wrong side of that line. However, if the developer for whatever legal reason decided that he would willingly sell but for some reason under the aegis of eminent domain, he's obviously unlikely to contest this so the entire point is moot.
 
You're still missing the point. I'm not contesting (here) the entire notion of eminent domain. I just fail to see how the government taking from a property owner land that would be developed for housing and instead putting hotels and a parking garage on it is a justifiable use of eminent domain. Surely, you wouldn't suggest that "any conceivable public purpose" allows the state to take someone's land, and that this extends to taking land in order to build hotels and parking garages?

There's obviously a line to be drawn where land seizures are not kosher. And this instance, were it forcible, would seem to be on the wrong side of that line. However, if the developer for whatever legal reason decided that he would willingly sell but for some reason under the aegis of eminent domain, he's obviously unlikely to contest this so the entire point is moot.

I agree with you, except the suggestion that a friendly eminent domain taking, for any purpose including hotel development, is palatable. So the public entity simply has to pay enough for the transaction to be friendly?

This "friendly" approach may explain the $33 million BCEC is paying for a parcel that sold for $22 million 7 years ago.
 
Good point, Sicilian.

If the owner of the parcel is willingly selling to the state, why even call it "eminent domain"? What's wrong with calling it "a sale"?

Maybe there's an obvious, innocuous explanation I fail to see; maybe there's something fishy here.
 
Good point, Sicilian.

If the owner of the parcel is willingly selling to the state, why even call it "eminent domain"? What's wrong with calling it "a sale"?

Maybe there's an obvious, innocuous explanation I fail to see; maybe there's something fishy here.

Tax purposes, perhaps, if the property is owned by a REIT and the 'eminent domain' prematurely terminates the trust. The other proposed sale could have been a sham, simply to set a value on the property.
 
Bump. I'm curious about this. Anyone know an answer?

The BCEC is like a billion acres of floor space... I don't get it... if they need more hotels, they could probably fit ten of them on their existing footprint, building on top of the exhibition space? Would that be impossible? I'm not against BCEC expansion per se as long as it's concentrated and smart, but I am against BCEC sprawl. As Sicilian notes, this really gobbles up the potential of the D Street corridor.
 
Bump. I'm curious about this. Anyone know an answer?

I can't give you a definitive answer but some history from a spectator at the time may help understand what went into the current height and design, and why it would be politically difficult for BCEC to propose additional height.

The BCEC was developed through a process of discussions (e.g. negotiations) between architect Rafael Viñoly and the South Boston residential community. The general emphasis in the Viñoly design was that BCEC would be sloped from Summer St to meet the top of triple-deckers in and around the St. Vincent's neighborhood. The community was generally favorable toward the development of towers in the waterfront on Fan Pier, McCourt, etc. but the low-profile BCEC was anticipated to be a bridge to the South Boston Waterfront rather than a wall.

BCEC arrived on the heels of the Patriots debacle. Kraft's exit was largely seen as a victory in South Boston, and I think there was a general feeling of relief that BCEC was proposed as an alternative. Secondly, the BCEC process wasn't spearheaded by the cast of characters at BRA for which South Boston had significant disdain (you may remember a number years of Tom O'Brien v. Jimmy Kelly).

In this regard, the relationship between BCEC / Viñoly and the South Boston residential community was highly collaborative. The slope of the roof and its low profile (I think 80' at the rear) were among the most critical pieces to gain and retain community support.

The rear lot abutting Cypher Street was originally part of the convention center's exhibition hall, but was left as as a parking lot with an intention to expand it in a later phase.
 
Well it was originally intended to be part of the initial build out until the price tag got too high. Then they cut it back with the intention of expanding to full build out in the future.

I'd say build on top of it if they hadn't gone with such an "iconic" design. I feel the best place for the home hotel of any convention center is on top of it. There is no reason for the exterior of a building to scream convention center, it only needs the massive convention space inside.

The streetwall should be inviting to pedestrians as well as conventioners. It should also have a prominent connection to mass transit.

I was at the Philly convention center a couple years back now, and thought the whole thing was set up great. Connections and walk overs with spill over meeting rooms into the Marriott, easy connection to Market Street station underground, lots of shopping and food in any direction. And a great view up to the Constitution Hall or whatever it's called.
 
Gov. Patrick Quietly Approves Up To Seven Select-Service Seaport Hotels
By Jim Cronin

Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Just because you build them, doesn't mean they will come. But if you want them to come, you've got to go ahead and build them anyway.

Which is why, with the stroke of a pen, Gov. Deval Patrick gave the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority the green light to build up to seven hotels with 2,700 rooms along the South Boston waterfront - including a 1,200-room headquarters hotel.

Patrick signed legislation into the recently approved 2013 state budget that allow for the creation of the hotels. The legislation includes language requiring the developers and operators of those hotels to enter a contract with the authority that would include provisions regarding cooperative marketing and pricing to encourage the use of the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center.

The authority has been arguing for years that increasing the number of hotel rooms adjacent to the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston is necessary to draw more and larger conventions to the city. As it stands, event planners are fed up with spending more money on transportation to hotels in other areas of the city - and as a result, Boston just isn't at the top of the list for conventions.

So building more hotel rooms makes a lot of sense - to a point.

According to a local hotel development expert, 2,700 is just too many rooms, plain and simple. While convention business is welcome, it does not create near the demand needed to justify such a proliferation of new keys, the source told Banker & Tradesman.

A portion of those seven potential new hotels will likely be built on a 5.5-acre parcel the authority is negotiating to purchase from Boston's Intercontinental Real Estate Corp. on D Street adjacent to the convention center, according to news reports.

While the authority maintains that more hotel rooms will increase convention activity, there's a catch with that convention crowd, according to another hospitality industry source. As welcome as the business is, event planners often ask for heavily discounted rates in exchange for booking large blocks of hotel rooms. But that can sometimes be balanced by raising daily rates.

Even so, convention activity alone is certainly not enough to justify building a hotel, sources say. PKF Hospitality Research group recently reported that convention group demand has accounted for just 4 percent of annual occupancy for Greater Boston hotels, and 5.6 percent of total Greater Boston demand, over the last 11 years.

"Because of the percentage of overall convention demand, it's certainly not something to be relied upon," to carry business, said Andrea Foster, vice president and director of hospitality services for New England for PKF Consulting. "But we continue to see demand in all segments. What we're finding is that demand in Boston continues, and compression is being created to push demand into suburban submarkets. Certainly there is room in the Boston hotel market for some rooms to be absorbed. Putting additional hotels around the BCEC creates the opportunity to capture more conventions."

And it remains to be seen how the authority will pay for all this new development. Average new hotel construction in Boston can cost upward of $300,000 per room for the type of less expensive, select-service, second-tier hotels planned. Only one, the headquarters hotel, is allowed as a convention center headquarters hotel, like the posh Westin now adjacent to the convention center.

"When [authority executive director James Rooney] first started talking about the expansion, it was about the need for another hotel for the convention center," said Vivien Li, head of the Boston Harbor Association, which monitors development projects in the Seaport. "Now the discussion is about ... seven or eight additional hotels. This proves ... how quickly Jim Rooney is moving ahead with this plan."

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news151254.html
 
You're still missing the point. I'm not contesting (here) the entire notion of eminent domain. I just fail to see how the government taking from a property owner land that would be developed for housing and instead putting hotels and a parking garage on it is a justifiable use of eminent domain. Surely, you wouldn't suggest that "any conceivable public purpose" allows the state to take someone's land, and that this extends to taking land in order to build hotels and parking garages?

There's obviously a line to be drawn where land seizures are not kosher. And this instance, were it forcible, would seem to be on the wrong side of that line. However, if the developer for whatever legal reason decided that he would willingly sell but for some reason under the aegis of eminent domain, he's obviously unlikely to contest this so the entire point is moot.

This is exactly what I'm suggesting. In Kelo, New London used eminent domain to seize private property to sell to private developers with the stated "public purpose" that developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. The challenge to this taking specifically alleged that the taking private property to sell to private developers was not "public use" under the 5th amendment. The court ruled that the city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan and that such justifications should be given deference. As such, I would suggest that the current status of federal takings law is that unless a plaintiff can show that the taking is to the sole benefit of private individuals (where there is no conceivable public purpose), then he's out of luck.

Anyway, I'm not saying I agree with the ruling, but that's how it is right now. Many States have stricter eminent domain laws, such as limiting its use except in the case of blight or prohibiting gifts to private undertakings, but in Mass. there are none.
 
Good point, Sicilian.

If the owner of the parcel is willingly selling to the state, why even call it "eminent domain"? What's wrong with calling it "a sale"?

Maybe there's an obvious, innocuous explanation I fail to see; maybe there's something fishy here.

Itchy makes a good point here. "What's wrong with calling it "a sale"?"

Wouldn't eminent domain mean more like hostile takeover.
If the owner agrees to the price from the city or state why call it eminent domain why not call it a sale?

Now we 7 Hotels going to be built in the area with the additional help of more taxpayer dollars 200 to 300 Million.
The entire Innovation district is nothing more than looting from the General Public and creating more bulllshit city service jobs.

This city & state will be heading right down the toliet following the same path as California. If you have not been following the general news lately cities are starting to file bankruptcy in the state of California because of the whacked out pension deals.

Wonder who the architects are for the 7 hotels Menino’s son and Deval Patrick's Wife?
 
Sicilian, IIRC, the mechanicals and utilities for the initial convention hall were all sized so that they could handle the expansion toward Cypher St. To my knowledge, that's the way these were built as well.
 

Back
Top