Boston 2050
- Thread starter DZH22
- Start date
GW2500
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,085
- Reaction score
- 115
Bottom line, in exclusive regards to sky scrapers, we have 2 legit ones and they're closing in on 40 years old. I'd love to see a few more. Because basically the skyline hasn't changed much since I was a kid, I just turned 30, and just from a sky line perspective, that's kind of stagnant.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
- Reaction score
- 219
That's kind of an aggressive estimate. Before most of those skyscrapers were built (1920 census), NYC's population was 2/3rds what it is today. Density doesn't have to be vertical (though I tend to agree with most people on this board that it should be both vertical and horizontal).
gooseberry
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 550
- Reaction score
- 1
Skyscrapers have nothing to do with how great a city is. I don't care if another skyscraper ever gets built in Boston. Skyscrapers can be nice to look at from a distance, but it's what is happening at street level that counts. Is La Defense the best neighborhood in Paris? Ya, don't think so.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
- Reaction score
- 219
Good point Gooseberry. And you could certainly argue that the best neighborhoods in NYC are not Downtown or Midtown. But height doesn't hurt either.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Not sure if this post goes here.
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/getting_real/?p=288#comment-628
The perils facing Boston?s Innovation District
With a good amount of fanfare, the city of Boston announced in July that it was rebranding one of its neighborhoods as the Innovation District. The area is approximately 1,000 acres in size and is located adjacent to Boston?s financial district and the South Boston neighborhood, facing the Boston Harbor.
The strategy and core principles behind the District are outlined on its website but basically it whittles down to the idea that people who live and work together can (and will) create great things. It supposes a high-density neighborhood full of offices and creative spaces, where people live in communal housing, sharing friends and social, emotional, and financial ties, and where there are plenty of shops, stores, and restaurants, and adequate public transportation nearby, alleviating the need for individually-owned automobiles.
The Innovation District neighborhood is made up of at least two, and maybe as many as four, distinct areas - the Seaport District, which is currently a mass of parking lots interspersed with a couple of office buildings; the Boston Marine Park, owned by the Boston Redevelopment Authority; the Fort Point Channel and A Street redevelopment area, home to several mid-rise office buildings (including headquarters of Thomson Reuters), a couple of condominium buildings, the US Post Office Annex, and empty space awaiting a turn in the economy; and the area around the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, where a major expansion has been proposed and where several new hotels may be built.
I was originally pretty skeptical about the whole thing. It just seems as if it was just lipstick on a pig. Or, just a name-change in search of an idea.
But, that?s just me being cynical and whiny. It took awhile, but I?ve bought into it. I want it to succeed.
However, there are so many issues, things that could keep it from happening.
* Fearing change - I?ve been to several community meetings where proposals for projects in the District have been discussed. Almost universally, the plans are met with varying levels of rejection from a disparate group of people - mostly, ?neighbors?. I say ?neighbors? in quotations because many of those who express concerns live far from where the projects will take place. I feel that the South Boston neighborhood is too far from the Innovation District to be affected by any new developments, yet some people there feel their opinions should take priority over anyone else?s.
Members of the Fort Point Channel neighborhood association have been adamant in their belief that any new development be primarily residential, at least until an equilibrium with commercial office space is achieved. (And, by residential, I mean condominiums, not apartments - there?s been a reluctance on some residents? parts to embrace plans to build an apartment complex on A Street near Melcher Street). And, the Boston Harbor Association, although its intentions are good, is wayyy too involved in the decision-making that goes on in this part of the city. Who asked you?
* Competing with private developers - Anytime the city is competing against private developers, it?s a bad thing, in my opinion. The Mayor proposed a 1,000-foot skyscraper several years back on land currently a city-owned parking lot. How many 1,000-foot skyscrapers can the city handle? There is finite demand for office space. I don?t think that private landowners should have to compete for tenants with public entities. The Boston Redevelopment Authority owns the Boston Marine Park. Will it build first? (It?s already put two parcels out to bid.) Will doing so keep other developers from being able to build because they won?t see the financial benefit of doing so? Will it be able to offer deals that private developers can?t, because it isn?t required to make a profit and because it doesn?t pay property taxes?
There is over 32 million square feet of projects already approved for construction in the city (entire city, and includes commercial and residential), according to the BRA. Why would private developers build in the Innovation District vs. in the financial district or in Back Bay, especially if the BRA is already permitting construction on its own land?
* Over-planning - The Mayor says ?Everybody expects us to build high-rise condominiums, offices, and retail in the South Boston waterfront; that?s anywhere America [but] don?t want to be that location of anywhere America? while city planners swear they don?t want the neighborhood to become ?a hipster playground for the techno elite?, a quote from the Boston Globe.
So what, then?
Do good neighborhoods happen by accident or are they planned? If you look at Back Bay, it was all planned. If you look at the South End, however, its rebirth was almost by accident, not design. The planners of the Innovation District are in danger of going too far in designing its function. It should offer guidelines but not specifics.
How do you keep this area from becoming high-end? By forcing developers to build moderate-income housing? What world would it be if artificial limits were set on what the market would allow? The highest and best use of much of the Boston Proper neighborhoods appears to be residential - high-end residential. Why mess with capitalism and simple economics? There?s plenty of cheap housing in Allston and Brighton and West Roxbury and Roslindale and Roxbury and Dorchester and South Boston and Hyde Park and Mission Hill. Why force things? And who decides who gets the discounted housing and why them vs. other groups?
* Playing favorites - I may be the only person in Boston who doesn?t believe the Mayor plays favorites. I say he doesn?t, but only because I haven?t seen these things or heard, first-hand. I read all the time about how the Mayor and Don Chiofaro are ?enemies? and how the Mayor is buddies with Joe Fallon, but how would I know? I?ve never met any of them.
But, assuming these rumors are true, then it doesn?t bode well for the District. Will the Mayor let his pals do whatever they want while fixing the game against those who have crossed him in the past?
* Losing faith - Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone complains about how that area has never filled its potential. I agree - in my 20-years+ of living here I?ve heard of at least three different proposals for the site. It?s to be expected that people are cynical. Yet, it doesn?t mean that things won?t improve. Yes, we missed yet another opportunity to redevelop the Seaport District because the economy crashed and burned in 2007-2009, but there is still real potential to make things happen, now. You have some big names involved - Joe Fallon, John Hynes, and John Drew (and, until last year, Edward Fish and Bob Kraft). Presumably, they?re thinking long-term and are willing to put in the time (and money) necessary to make the District a vibrant and healthy neighborhood (and, it?s a requirement if they plan on making returns on their investments).
* Changing of the guard - What happens when Mayor Menino leaves office? Be it 2013 or 2017, his reign will one day end. Will a new mayor want to continue what the current mayor has started or will he/she want a fresh start? The way it is now, planning new buildings will take up to two years, meaning it will be 2012 before any shovels will be put into the ground. This will push up right against the next mayoral election - will developers rush to get started before the next cycle begins or wait it out to see what happens?
Map image courtesy of the Innovation District website
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/getting_real/?p=288#comment-628
The perils facing Boston?s Innovation District
With a good amount of fanfare, the city of Boston announced in July that it was rebranding one of its neighborhoods as the Innovation District. The area is approximately 1,000 acres in size and is located adjacent to Boston?s financial district and the South Boston neighborhood, facing the Boston Harbor.
The strategy and core principles behind the District are outlined on its website but basically it whittles down to the idea that people who live and work together can (and will) create great things. It supposes a high-density neighborhood full of offices and creative spaces, where people live in communal housing, sharing friends and social, emotional, and financial ties, and where there are plenty of shops, stores, and restaurants, and adequate public transportation nearby, alleviating the need for individually-owned automobiles.
The Innovation District neighborhood is made up of at least two, and maybe as many as four, distinct areas - the Seaport District, which is currently a mass of parking lots interspersed with a couple of office buildings; the Boston Marine Park, owned by the Boston Redevelopment Authority; the Fort Point Channel and A Street redevelopment area, home to several mid-rise office buildings (including headquarters of Thomson Reuters), a couple of condominium buildings, the US Post Office Annex, and empty space awaiting a turn in the economy; and the area around the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, where a major expansion has been proposed and where several new hotels may be built.
I was originally pretty skeptical about the whole thing. It just seems as if it was just lipstick on a pig. Or, just a name-change in search of an idea.
But, that?s just me being cynical and whiny. It took awhile, but I?ve bought into it. I want it to succeed.
However, there are so many issues, things that could keep it from happening.
* Fearing change - I?ve been to several community meetings where proposals for projects in the District have been discussed. Almost universally, the plans are met with varying levels of rejection from a disparate group of people - mostly, ?neighbors?. I say ?neighbors? in quotations because many of those who express concerns live far from where the projects will take place. I feel that the South Boston neighborhood is too far from the Innovation District to be affected by any new developments, yet some people there feel their opinions should take priority over anyone else?s.
Members of the Fort Point Channel neighborhood association have been adamant in their belief that any new development be primarily residential, at least until an equilibrium with commercial office space is achieved. (And, by residential, I mean condominiums, not apartments - there?s been a reluctance on some residents? parts to embrace plans to build an apartment complex on A Street near Melcher Street). And, the Boston Harbor Association, although its intentions are good, is wayyy too involved in the decision-making that goes on in this part of the city. Who asked you?
* Competing with private developers - Anytime the city is competing against private developers, it?s a bad thing, in my opinion. The Mayor proposed a 1,000-foot skyscraper several years back on land currently a city-owned parking lot. How many 1,000-foot skyscrapers can the city handle? There is finite demand for office space. I don?t think that private landowners should have to compete for tenants with public entities. The Boston Redevelopment Authority owns the Boston Marine Park. Will it build first? (It?s already put two parcels out to bid.) Will doing so keep other developers from being able to build because they won?t see the financial benefit of doing so? Will it be able to offer deals that private developers can?t, because it isn?t required to make a profit and because it doesn?t pay property taxes?
There is over 32 million square feet of projects already approved for construction in the city (entire city, and includes commercial and residential), according to the BRA. Why would private developers build in the Innovation District vs. in the financial district or in Back Bay, especially if the BRA is already permitting construction on its own land?
* Over-planning - The Mayor says ?Everybody expects us to build high-rise condominiums, offices, and retail in the South Boston waterfront; that?s anywhere America [but] don?t want to be that location of anywhere America? while city planners swear they don?t want the neighborhood to become ?a hipster playground for the techno elite?, a quote from the Boston Globe.
So what, then?
Do good neighborhoods happen by accident or are they planned? If you look at Back Bay, it was all planned. If you look at the South End, however, its rebirth was almost by accident, not design. The planners of the Innovation District are in danger of going too far in designing its function. It should offer guidelines but not specifics.
How do you keep this area from becoming high-end? By forcing developers to build moderate-income housing? What world would it be if artificial limits were set on what the market would allow? The highest and best use of much of the Boston Proper neighborhoods appears to be residential - high-end residential. Why mess with capitalism and simple economics? There?s plenty of cheap housing in Allston and Brighton and West Roxbury and Roslindale and Roxbury and Dorchester and South Boston and Hyde Park and Mission Hill. Why force things? And who decides who gets the discounted housing and why them vs. other groups?
* Playing favorites - I may be the only person in Boston who doesn?t believe the Mayor plays favorites. I say he doesn?t, but only because I haven?t seen these things or heard, first-hand. I read all the time about how the Mayor and Don Chiofaro are ?enemies? and how the Mayor is buddies with Joe Fallon, but how would I know? I?ve never met any of them.
But, assuming these rumors are true, then it doesn?t bode well for the District. Will the Mayor let his pals do whatever they want while fixing the game against those who have crossed him in the past?
* Losing faith - Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone complains about how that area has never filled its potential. I agree - in my 20-years+ of living here I?ve heard of at least three different proposals for the site. It?s to be expected that people are cynical. Yet, it doesn?t mean that things won?t improve. Yes, we missed yet another opportunity to redevelop the Seaport District because the economy crashed and burned in 2007-2009, but there is still real potential to make things happen, now. You have some big names involved - Joe Fallon, John Hynes, and John Drew (and, until last year, Edward Fish and Bob Kraft). Presumably, they?re thinking long-term and are willing to put in the time (and money) necessary to make the District a vibrant and healthy neighborhood (and, it?s a requirement if they plan on making returns on their investments).
* Changing of the guard - What happens when Mayor Menino leaves office? Be it 2013 or 2017, his reign will one day end. Will a new mayor want to continue what the current mayor has started or will he/she want a fresh start? The way it is now, planning new buildings will take up to two years, meaning it will be 2012 before any shovels will be put into the ground. This will push up right against the next mayoral election - will developers rush to get started before the next cycle begins or wait it out to see what happens?
Map image courtesy of the Innovation District website
^^ Here, here!! Yes!!
We are Boston!! Comparing us to Charlotte?? Atlanta!!! You gotta be kidding me!!
Those cities would die to be what we are.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Please include the author's name when reposting an article like that. This one was written by John Keith.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
According to this single line I made:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...35135205296914.00048dcb4a69841301a12&t=h&z=13
South Station towers over the platforms would be in no more danger than 111 Huntington.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...35135205296914.00048dcb4a69841301a12&t=h&z=13
South Station towers over the platforms would be in no more danger than 111 Huntington.
Lurker
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 2,362
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgqTS3XcAuI&feature=player_embedded
It's a prolific view of Boston's future!
City Hall Plaza and the Seaport District look amazing!
It's a prolific view of Boston's future!
City Hall Plaza and the Seaport District look amazing!
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Somebody else can photoshop Raquel in....
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Can anybody pull this article from Banker & Tradesman?
Cornering The Market
A Towering Monopoly
How Boston Properties Is Poised To Rule Boston?s Back Bay ? And Beyond
By Jim Cronin
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
Yesterday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It?s a position that could yield an enormous amount of influence in the neighborhood in coming years, sources told Banker & Tradesman ? and serve as a jumping-off point for future purchases elsewhere in the city.
Cornering The Market
A Towering Monopoly
How Boston Properties Is Poised To Rule Boston?s Back Bay ? And Beyond
By Jim Cronin
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
Yesterday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It?s a position that could yield an enormous amount of influence in the neighborhood in coming years, sources told Banker & Tradesman ? and serve as a jumping-off point for future purchases elsewhere in the city.
Cornering The Market
A Towering Monopoly
How Boston Properties Is Poised To Rule Boston?s Back Bay ? And Beyond
By Jim Cronin
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
Yesterday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After its headline-grabbing acquisition of Boston's John Hancock Tower, Boston Properties has put itself in the driver's seat in the city's famed Back Bay.
The company adds the Hancock to a Back Bay portfolio already containing the Prudential tower and 111 and 101 Huntington Ave. Boston Properties is now, essentially, the only landlord for tenants looking to sign leases in the area's signature properties.
It?s a position that could yield an enormous amount of influence in the neighborhood in coming years, sources told Banker & Tradesman ? and serve as a jumping-off point for future purchases elsewhere in the city.
?It neutralizes the competitor,? said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, a local business advocacy group. ?They have the corner on the market. It certainly confirms their investment in Boston, specifically the Back Bay.?
The move comes at a time when commercial landlords are realizing they may not need to be downtown to succeed, industry insiders said. From an employee lifestyle perspective, areas including the Back Bay offer more dining and entertainment options ? and less hassle ? than the Financial District.
?The Back Bay is turning into the No. 1 location for office use if you have the choice,? said John Rosenthal, president of Meredith Management. Meredith is in the process of creating Fenway Center, a five-building, 1.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use development to be located between Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue outside Kenmore Square. ?In the long-term, the Hancock is a great investment. Depending on [Boston Properties?] rent structure, it will affect everyone else in the Back Bay.?
A Target Property
According to Bryan Koop, senior vice president and regional manager for Boston Properties, the Hancock tower has always been on the company?s target property acquisition list, along with several other locations and sites for future development, though he would not specify what sites.
?Our experience has been that when the opportunity to acquire one of those truly ?one of a kind? properties like the John Hancock Tower arises, it attracts capital and tremendous competition,? Koop wrote in an mail to Banker & Tradesman.
As a landlord in a number of urban markets ? including New York City, San Francisco and Boston ? where open, developable land is restricted, the company?s trophy property portfolio becomes exponentially more valuable than it might be in other cities.
?It makes the pre-existing real estate all the more precious,? Mainzer-Cohen said.
Boston Properties paid $289.5 million in cash and took on $640.5 million in debt to acquire the Hancock, for an announced price of $930 million.
The tower?s seller, a partnership between Normandy Real Estate Partners and Five Mile Capital Partners, bought the Hancock for $660 million just last year ? after buying large chunks of mezzanine debt owed by then-owner Broadway Partners. When Broadway defaulted on that debt last January, Normandy and Five Mile scooped up the prize.
Last year?s announced price of $660 million included the same $640 million outstanding mortgage assumed by Boston Properties, plus $20.1 million in mezzanine debt already owned by Normandy and Five Mile.
But Normandy and Five Mile controlled much more mezzanine debt than the $20.1 million they bid with, perhaps as much as several hundred million dollars worth, Banker & Tradesman reported at the time. Factoring in the price paid to acquire a controlling interest in the Hancock?s mezzanine debt would push Normandy/Five Mile?s true purchase price into the $800 million range.
?The Right Buy?
Still, the most recent $930 million price tag, while below the $1.3 billion the tower fetched at the market?s peak in 2006, does illustrate at least a marginal increase in the value of real estate in the city, particularly the Back Bay ? welcome news after several years of price depreciation.
Boston Properties is acquiring the tower at a high point. It is 95 percent occupied, thanks to Normandy?s efforts in inking Bain Capital to an approximately 200,000-square-foot lease earlier this year.
After a relatively dormant period of high-profile commercial sales in recent years, Boston Properties, in particular, seems poised to pick up the pieces.
?It?s a strong statement for the city of Boston,? because it provides a benchmark sale against which to judge future large transactions, something which had been lacking the past few years, said Mark Vaughan, a senior partner specializing in real estate at law firm Riemer & Braunstein. ?This shows that there?s a tremendous amount of capital waiting on the sidelines.?
And since Boston Properties now has the bases loaded in the Back Bay, it would not surprise at least one local commercial real estate titan if they decided to expand further into the downtown area.
John Hynes, CEO and managing partner of Boston Global Investors, part-owners of the stalled Filene?s development in Downtown Crossing and developers of a $35 billion, 100 million-square-foot project near Seoul, South Korea, told Banker & Tradesman he could see Boston Properties purchasing a property downtown, ?if they get the right buy.?
When asked to elaborate, Hynes offered no further comment, and said the company has not approached him about the currently for-sale Filene?s site.
A Towering Monopoly
How Boston Properties Is Poised To Rule Boston?s Back Bay ? And Beyond
By Jim Cronin
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
Yesterday
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After its headline-grabbing acquisition of Boston's John Hancock Tower, Boston Properties has put itself in the driver's seat in the city's famed Back Bay.
The company adds the Hancock to a Back Bay portfolio already containing the Prudential tower and 111 and 101 Huntington Ave. Boston Properties is now, essentially, the only landlord for tenants looking to sign leases in the area's signature properties.
It?s a position that could yield an enormous amount of influence in the neighborhood in coming years, sources told Banker & Tradesman ? and serve as a jumping-off point for future purchases elsewhere in the city.
?It neutralizes the competitor,? said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, a local business advocacy group. ?They have the corner on the market. It certainly confirms their investment in Boston, specifically the Back Bay.?
The move comes at a time when commercial landlords are realizing they may not need to be downtown to succeed, industry insiders said. From an employee lifestyle perspective, areas including the Back Bay offer more dining and entertainment options ? and less hassle ? than the Financial District.
?The Back Bay is turning into the No. 1 location for office use if you have the choice,? said John Rosenthal, president of Meredith Management. Meredith is in the process of creating Fenway Center, a five-building, 1.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use development to be located between Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue outside Kenmore Square. ?In the long-term, the Hancock is a great investment. Depending on [Boston Properties?] rent structure, it will affect everyone else in the Back Bay.?
A Target Property
According to Bryan Koop, senior vice president and regional manager for Boston Properties, the Hancock tower has always been on the company?s target property acquisition list, along with several other locations and sites for future development, though he would not specify what sites.
?Our experience has been that when the opportunity to acquire one of those truly ?one of a kind? properties like the John Hancock Tower arises, it attracts capital and tremendous competition,? Koop wrote in an mail to Banker & Tradesman.
As a landlord in a number of urban markets ? including New York City, San Francisco and Boston ? where open, developable land is restricted, the company?s trophy property portfolio becomes exponentially more valuable than it might be in other cities.
?It makes the pre-existing real estate all the more precious,? Mainzer-Cohen said.
Boston Properties paid $289.5 million in cash and took on $640.5 million in debt to acquire the Hancock, for an announced price of $930 million.
The tower?s seller, a partnership between Normandy Real Estate Partners and Five Mile Capital Partners, bought the Hancock for $660 million just last year ? after buying large chunks of mezzanine debt owed by then-owner Broadway Partners. When Broadway defaulted on that debt last January, Normandy and Five Mile scooped up the prize.
Last year?s announced price of $660 million included the same $640 million outstanding mortgage assumed by Boston Properties, plus $20.1 million in mezzanine debt already owned by Normandy and Five Mile.
But Normandy and Five Mile controlled much more mezzanine debt than the $20.1 million they bid with, perhaps as much as several hundred million dollars worth, Banker & Tradesman reported at the time. Factoring in the price paid to acquire a controlling interest in the Hancock?s mezzanine debt would push Normandy/Five Mile?s true purchase price into the $800 million range.
?The Right Buy?
Still, the most recent $930 million price tag, while below the $1.3 billion the tower fetched at the market?s peak in 2006, does illustrate at least a marginal increase in the value of real estate in the city, particularly the Back Bay ? welcome news after several years of price depreciation.
Boston Properties is acquiring the tower at a high point. It is 95 percent occupied, thanks to Normandy?s efforts in inking Bain Capital to an approximately 200,000-square-foot lease earlier this year.
After a relatively dormant period of high-profile commercial sales in recent years, Boston Properties, in particular, seems poised to pick up the pieces.
?It?s a strong statement for the city of Boston,? because it provides a benchmark sale against which to judge future large transactions, something which had been lacking the past few years, said Mark Vaughan, a senior partner specializing in real estate at law firm Riemer & Braunstein. ?This shows that there?s a tremendous amount of capital waiting on the sidelines.?
And since Boston Properties now has the bases loaded in the Back Bay, it would not surprise at least one local commercial real estate titan if they decided to expand further into the downtown area.
John Hynes, CEO and managing partner of Boston Global Investors, part-owners of the stalled Filene?s development in Downtown Crossing and developers of a $35 billion, 100 million-square-foot project near Seoul, South Korea, told Banker & Tradesman he could see Boston Properties purchasing a property downtown, ?if they get the right buy.?
When asked to elaborate, Hynes offered no further comment, and said the company has not approached him about the currently for-sale Filene?s site.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,319
- Reaction score
- 57
Hmm. So Jim Cronin and Scott Van Voorhis both write for the Boston Courant and Banker & Tradesman. Do I smell merger?
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Biotech conference says it is too big for Hub to host
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / October 30, 2010
A prestigious international conference on biotechnology has opted not to return to Boston in 2015, citing a lack of hotel rooms and meeting space in the city.
Tweet 7 people Tweeted this..
Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis .Organizers of the BIO conference, which brings together the industry?s top companies and scientists, said it is still coming to Boston in 2012, but that future visits may be impossible unless the city expands its convention center. Organizers chose Philadelphia over Boston for the 2015 event because that city is already expanding its convention facilities.
?Boston just doesn?t have enough exhibit space,?? said Robbi Lycett, vice president of conferences for BIO. The loss of BIO?s future business would be a huge blow to a region that prides itself on being a hub of the life sciences industry and would deprive Boston of millions of dollars in business. BIO?s conferences typically draw 20,000 attendees, who would spend at hotels, restaurants, and tourist attractions.
?If we can?t host the conference, we lose the opportunity to bring the industry?s leaders to our stage,?? said Robert Coughlin, chief executive of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, a business association.
The news of BIO?s reservations goes to the heart of a debate over expanding the six-year-old Boston Convention & Exhibition Center. A panel of 25 public officials and business leaders is examining the size and scope of a possible expansion. So far, the panel has floated a plan to nearly double the size of the facility, to more than 1 million square feet, at a cost of nearly $1 billion. The group is expected to release final recommendations early next year.
?BIO?s concerns speak to all the reasons why we?re talking about the need for expansion and additional hotel rooms,?? said James Rooney, executive director of the state agency that operates the convention center. He said the shortage of exhibit space and hotel rooms has already caused the South Boston convention center to turn away or lose out on hosting dozens of events, at a cost of $480 million in projected economic activity.
Skeptics, however, said that by some measures, the convention center still has not met projections for economic activity at its current size, and so does not deserve additional investment. Jim Stergios, director of the Pioneer Institute, a public policy research group, said the convention authority initially projected its business would generate more than 650,000 hotel room stays per year; instead it has produced only around 300,000.
?They?re asking us to just trust them on this when they failed the first time around,?? Stergios said. ?They?ve done a good job managing what they?ve been given, but this was probably something that shouldn?t have been built in the first place.??
Rooney said bookings have fallen short, in part because the size of the center?s main exhibition hall was reduced by 80,000 square feet during construction. ?The Pioneer Institute projected that this would be a white elephant and that Boston could never succeed as a convention city and we have generated over $3 billion in economic activity,?? Rooney said.
Opened in 2004, the convention center has steadily grown, with attendance at events at more than 540,000 last year, up from 200,000 in 2005. But Rooney said the facility is now operating at maximum capacity and cannot host the largest conferences unless it expands.
He said the panel is considering expanding the amount of exhibit space to between 800,000 square feet and 1 million square feet, and building a second large hotel.
Any expansion would need approval and funding from the state Legislature and governor.
Lycett, the BIO conference planner, said Boston?s lack of exhibit space is its biggest problem. Her conference needs about 650,000 square feet for its main floor and an 80,000-square-foot ballroom for keynote speeches and other large events. The Boston facility now offers a 516,000-square-foot exhibit hall and a 40,000-square-foot ballroom.
Another problem is hotel rooms. Boston offers only about 1,700 rooms within walking distance of the convention center, requiring large conferences to shuttle attendees from hotels across the city. When the BIO conference was last in Boston in 2007, it spent $1 million on transportation.
?Attendees don?t like sitting in rush-hour traffic for 40 or 50 minutes to get to a meeting,?? Lycett said.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
http://www.boston.com/business/heal...onference_says_it_is_too_big_for_hub_to_host/
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / October 30, 2010
A prestigious international conference on biotechnology has opted not to return to Boston in 2015, citing a lack of hotel rooms and meeting space in the city.
Tweet 7 people Tweeted this..
Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis .Organizers of the BIO conference, which brings together the industry?s top companies and scientists, said it is still coming to Boston in 2012, but that future visits may be impossible unless the city expands its convention center. Organizers chose Philadelphia over Boston for the 2015 event because that city is already expanding its convention facilities.
?Boston just doesn?t have enough exhibit space,?? said Robbi Lycett, vice president of conferences for BIO. The loss of BIO?s future business would be a huge blow to a region that prides itself on being a hub of the life sciences industry and would deprive Boston of millions of dollars in business. BIO?s conferences typically draw 20,000 attendees, who would spend at hotels, restaurants, and tourist attractions.
?If we can?t host the conference, we lose the opportunity to bring the industry?s leaders to our stage,?? said Robert Coughlin, chief executive of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, a business association.
The news of BIO?s reservations goes to the heart of a debate over expanding the six-year-old Boston Convention & Exhibition Center. A panel of 25 public officials and business leaders is examining the size and scope of a possible expansion. So far, the panel has floated a plan to nearly double the size of the facility, to more than 1 million square feet, at a cost of nearly $1 billion. The group is expected to release final recommendations early next year.
?BIO?s concerns speak to all the reasons why we?re talking about the need for expansion and additional hotel rooms,?? said James Rooney, executive director of the state agency that operates the convention center. He said the shortage of exhibit space and hotel rooms has already caused the South Boston convention center to turn away or lose out on hosting dozens of events, at a cost of $480 million in projected economic activity.
Skeptics, however, said that by some measures, the convention center still has not met projections for economic activity at its current size, and so does not deserve additional investment. Jim Stergios, director of the Pioneer Institute, a public policy research group, said the convention authority initially projected its business would generate more than 650,000 hotel room stays per year; instead it has produced only around 300,000.
?They?re asking us to just trust them on this when they failed the first time around,?? Stergios said. ?They?ve done a good job managing what they?ve been given, but this was probably something that shouldn?t have been built in the first place.??
Rooney said bookings have fallen short, in part because the size of the center?s main exhibition hall was reduced by 80,000 square feet during construction. ?The Pioneer Institute projected that this would be a white elephant and that Boston could never succeed as a convention city and we have generated over $3 billion in economic activity,?? Rooney said.
Opened in 2004, the convention center has steadily grown, with attendance at events at more than 540,000 last year, up from 200,000 in 2005. But Rooney said the facility is now operating at maximum capacity and cannot host the largest conferences unless it expands.
He said the panel is considering expanding the amount of exhibit space to between 800,000 square feet and 1 million square feet, and building a second large hotel.
Any expansion would need approval and funding from the state Legislature and governor.
Lycett, the BIO conference planner, said Boston?s lack of exhibit space is its biggest problem. Her conference needs about 650,000 square feet for its main floor and an 80,000-square-foot ballroom for keynote speeches and other large events. The Boston facility now offers a 516,000-square-foot exhibit hall and a 40,000-square-foot ballroom.
Another problem is hotel rooms. Boston offers only about 1,700 rooms within walking distance of the convention center, requiring large conferences to shuttle attendees from hotels across the city. When the BIO conference was last in Boston in 2007, it spent $1 million on transportation.
?Attendees don?t like sitting in rush-hour traffic for 40 or 50 minutes to get to a meeting,?? Lycett said.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
http://www.boston.com/business/heal...onference_says_it_is_too_big_for_hub_to_host/
I love how state spent over $600 million on the Silver Line, and it's not even considered a viable transportation option by convention organizers.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,319
- Reaction score
- 57
I was passed out on the couch tonight and started thinking about Boston 2050. It's only 40 years away! I think the common wisdom is that nothing ever changes in Boston but if we look back 50 year from today, 1960, we will all agree that things have changed, DRASTICALLY, in this city.
So, I'm thinking of writing a long article about what the city might look like in 2050. Yeah, you'd hope that the city and the Boston Redevelopment Authority would be doing the same thing but I've never heard or read anything that makes me think they are concerned about anything except what might happen within the next 3-5 years.
Off the top of my head (and this is after sucking up about half a can of alcohol-infused whipped cream), here's the changes I think we might see. (Please don't steal these ideas for your own Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper article.)
* Seaport District turned into a casino / adult-entertainment mecca (unsuccessfully, btw); much of the surface parking spaces turned into multi-level parking garages
* Rose Kennedy Greenway - mostly abandoned, full of homeless people, skid-row similar to the wharf district circa 1920's
* Chiofaro building - 3/4's built, abandoned due to financial crisis of 2015-2030
* Chinatown - intact, successful, insular
* North Station - successful
* North End - sketchy, broken-down, due to anti-development fervor.
* Government Center - redeveloped
* Downtown Crossing - mostly abandoned, no-man's land, except near Chinatown, where colleges have dormitories
* South End - sketchy, broken-down, due to anti-development fervor.
* Commonwealth Ave - turned from condos to apartments due to real estate crash of 2015-2020; each year, a street-long celebration is held similar to New Orleans during Mardi Gras. Prostitution always a threat.
* New Fenway is built to replace Fenway Park. Only after the new ballpark is proposed to people realize that 20-years of land-acquisition by the owners of the team was done with the sole purpose of building a new park just 20-feet from the existing park. Existing park torn down, replaced with surface parking.
* Commonwealth Ave past Kenmore Square - Boston University convinces city to close street to automobile traffic. In its place, a rapid-transit trolley line. One lane of traffic remains on each side, for deliveries and bus traffic. At Packard's Corner, Comm Ave does a turn onto Brighton Ave
* Bowker's Overpass redone, new on-off ramps to Mass Pike and Storrow Drive created
* Mass Turnpike decks built between Washington Street and Southeast Expressway; housing built for Chinatown residents and office towers, too
Anything else?
So, I'm thinking of writing a long article about what the city might look like in 2050. Yeah, you'd hope that the city and the Boston Redevelopment Authority would be doing the same thing but I've never heard or read anything that makes me think they are concerned about anything except what might happen within the next 3-5 years.
Off the top of my head (and this is after sucking up about half a can of alcohol-infused whipped cream), here's the changes I think we might see. (Please don't steal these ideas for your own Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper article.)
* Seaport District turned into a casino / adult-entertainment mecca (unsuccessfully, btw); much of the surface parking spaces turned into multi-level parking garages
* Rose Kennedy Greenway - mostly abandoned, full of homeless people, skid-row similar to the wharf district circa 1920's
* Chiofaro building - 3/4's built, abandoned due to financial crisis of 2015-2030
* Chinatown - intact, successful, insular
* North Station - successful
* North End - sketchy, broken-down, due to anti-development fervor.
* Government Center - redeveloped
* Downtown Crossing - mostly abandoned, no-man's land, except near Chinatown, where colleges have dormitories
* South End - sketchy, broken-down, due to anti-development fervor.
* Commonwealth Ave - turned from condos to apartments due to real estate crash of 2015-2020; each year, a street-long celebration is held similar to New Orleans during Mardi Gras. Prostitution always a threat.
* New Fenway is built to replace Fenway Park. Only after the new ballpark is proposed to people realize that 20-years of land-acquisition by the owners of the team was done with the sole purpose of building a new park just 20-feet from the existing park. Existing park torn down, replaced with surface parking.
* Commonwealth Ave past Kenmore Square - Boston University convinces city to close street to automobile traffic. In its place, a rapid-transit trolley line. One lane of traffic remains on each side, for deliveries and bus traffic. At Packard's Corner, Comm Ave does a turn onto Brighton Ave
* Bowker's Overpass redone, new on-off ramps to Mass Pike and Storrow Drive created
* Mass Turnpike decks built between Washington Street and Southeast Expressway; housing built for Chinatown residents and office towers, too
Anything else?
Last edited: