[CANCELED] 1000 Boylston Street | MassDOT Parcel 15 | Back Bay

ShawnA said:
Well the developer gave to much up. It’s going to at least take a 700 ft to make the economics work for this . If I can see it they can see it too. Sell it to MP or Boston properties . They seem to be the only ones that understand economics
Click to expand...

This. Ted Landsmark saw the problem and spoke up at the meeting.
Everyone on the aB board saw it.

i like Adam Weiner. He's professional, friendly.... made himself available to the shareholders. They had so many meetings for this tower, i lost count. The height and # of units they conceded was a real head scratcher.

i should add that Weiner beat out Don Chiofaro for the rights to develop here (Menino's vendetta against Don Chiofaro). Chiofaro would have extended the olive branch (cancelling the 2nd tower) in exchange for 799'. It'd been u/c by now.
 
Hutchison said:
Guess it took the BRA a few tries to get the file updated because it appears an NPC was filed on 10/16. Sometimes it pays to revisit the website if it shows that it was recently updated.

Here's the link the the file at the BRA - http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/fec4b52c-60a3-4b92-934f-fbdec0c749ce

Takeaways:

- Reduction from 2 buildings to 1 building
- Increase in height from 240' and 310' to 46 floors / 465' (top floor)
- Reduction in overall units from 500 (w/ 850 parking) to 486 (w/ 830)

Plans are pgs 13- 29 and renderings are pgs 96-121 in the .pdf
Click to expand...

Actually, the developer should have taken a page from Equity Residential's playbook over on the West End when the crazies put up such a battle over the two building development that Equity first suggested on the site of the Garden Garage! Now we have single tower, The Alcott going up instead of the original two shorter towers, with loss of just 14 units but with a height gain of 150 ft. Was a stroke of genius by Equity and it worked.
 
Last edited:
ShawnA said:
Well the developer gave to much up. It’s going to at least take a 700 ft to make the economics work for this . If I can see it they can see it too. Sell it to MP or Boston properties . They seem to be the only ones that understand economics
Click to expand...


Idk I actually disagree to an extent. They removed a no shit air rights tower that was short, and instead put only a podium over the highway, and brought the project down to 1 medium tower completely on solid ground. I think this actually made a lot of sense. The one part that would have helped was the original height, but this is Boston propose high approve low. I honestly think they got scared of the timing of the project and possibly opening day being in a shaky market.

Either way though the economics of the site WILL work this way. If we can get parcel 12 and 13 done this cycle thats still huge... hell even if just parcel 12 gets done which is what its looking like, then next cycle those parcels are more tempting. If no air rights parcels get done during this cycle thats bad, which is a possibility. I have no idea how the viola at parcel 13 works, where its a low rise legit air rights project, and the fact that theres been no news in years besides them saying they need the corner to be taller may be telling. It may all be on parcel 12, so color or no color we gotta be rooting for them to pull it off. If they can look to parcel 12 and say they did it, then something as easy as this site will go up like its nothing next cycle.
 
Agree that the developer made too many concessions on height/the second tower. Consider also that they elected to build 108 condos. 108 enormous condos! That's insanely leveraging yourself on a very high end market that we have seen top out in cities like New York.

Absolutely no reason the same building couldn't have had 3x as many apartments and condos. This would've mitigated considerable risk. Enough so that you wonder if they're going to go back and ask for reapproval of a similar tower with a vastly different interior mix.
 
So removing a 15 story tower from the plan that was going to be built directly over the pike was a bad idea vs a plan with a tower completely built on solid ground with only a podium over the pike? I dont see it.

Giving up the height of the main tower wasnt a good move, but this plan actually made the most sense to actually get done vs the previous plan or viola across the street which both have short buildings directly over the pike. The current plan with the height of the original tower would have definitely made the most sense, where its taller and still on solid ground. If the merano and victor both work though, a podium should work as well with the tower on solid ground next to it.
 
If we're sure this is dead (one tweet from someone isnt necessarily gospel) its probably due to the impending recession.
 
My point is, it worked this whole time.... for years it was fine, going through the processes, and moving ahead. Then all of a sudden this week it doesnt work anymore? Well, what happened this week vs 3 weeks ago, 4 months ago, why now? People then obviously automatically assume it doesnt work now because of air rights. Then how did it work last week? They didnt even say it doesnt work because of air rights... they said this:

the Weiner Ventures team said in a statement late Friday. “The 1000 Boylston team will not proceed with the project. A combination of factors led us to this decision. While disappointing to have to make such a decision, we believe it is the correct one, and still paves the way for other future air rights projects to come to fruition.”

I take “combination of factors” to mean our current portfolio, trade wars, unpredictable market forces etc.. is too risky to open a luxury tower to in a few years.
And “still paves the way for future air rights to come to fruition” as: through research, lots of money, and lots of planning, we narrowed it down until we found the winning combo at the site (podium over pike, tower on land) and in the future in the next cycle if someone just starts here, the air rights gets done... just try to get some more height next time if you can and youre golden.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you stick n move, however, I dont think it helped that the amount of units were cut by more than half and the project was literally downgauged by more than 60%. Its a very expensive parcel to build on and it seems like one of those go big or go home projects. I never understood how so little amount of units could turn this project a profit.

Not a major proponent of height all the time, but I think giving this parcel some more substance and revenue would have defiently made the possibilities of the tower continuing its journey seem higher.

And who knows. Maybe someone else will come and buy this parcel with something better.... although this was a very nice design.
 
Yea I mean all of these proposals we got this cycle were never all going to be built for whatever reasons. Thats just the way it is. We got Millennium tower after a previously stalled proposal that even left a hole in the middle of downtown. Its good in certain ways because like with MT sometimes the 2nd go around is much better. Whoever tries here next Im sure will use the same plan of building the tower on that piece of solid ground, but just refuse to budge on height. Now that 1 dalton went up next door maybe it will be a good thing this happened. It should be much easier to go tall when all the neighbors are 750’.
 
Last edited:
On every site either in the High Spine, or abutting it, not called

1. 1 Dalton
2. MT
3. SST
4. Winthrop Square

It has been a fight for every inch above 380~400'. There's too many total nutcases in this City. No it's not normal. After the few remaining background towers go up, Boston is fucked.

Fuck all the cute infill and dainty retail when it becomes a city full of uppity rich folks and everybody else can barely rent a top bunk in a tenement.
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
My point is, it worked this whole time.... for years it was fine, going through the processes, and moving ahead. Then all of a sudden this week it doesnt work anymore? Well, what happened this week vs 3 weeks ago, 4 months ago, why now? People then obviously automatically assume it doesnt work now because of air rights. Then how did it work last week? They didnt even say it doesnt work because of air rights... they said this:

the Weiner Ventures team said in a statement late Friday. “The 1000 Boylston team will not proceed with the project. A combination of factors led us to this decision. While disappointing to have to make such a decision, we believe it is the correct one, and still paves the way for other future air rights projects to come to fruition.”

I take “combination of factors” to mean our current portfolio, trade wars, unpredictable market forces etc.. is too risky to open a luxury tower to in a few years.
And “still paves the way for future air rights to come to fruition” as: through research, lots of money, and lots of planning, we narrowed it down until we found the winning combo at the site (podium over pike, tower on land) and in the future in the next cycle if someone just starts here, the air rights gets done... just try to get some more height next time if you can and youre golden.
Click to expand...

Stick, I gather Weiner’s team have been having troubles since late 2018, so this really isn’t a surprise, given their record (versus someone like Samuels’ success on the Fenway). Maybe that’s why the parcel 12 and 15 projects were split in the first place?

The dark horse in the next evolution of the Parcel 15 site is what the Berklee School elects to do. I hear they’re exploring a dorm on Ipswich, having ruled out a tower at Boylston/Mass Ave. They’ve met with Scape, but are also apparently developing an independent study of their Ipswich Street site across from the Fenway theatre. (This is per The Boston Conservatory’s old IMP to build height next to their despicable 3-floor turd at 130 Ipswich St.)

Does this news put the St. C. Garden plot back into play for the Berklee School as a 10-12 story mixed-use dorm+tech low-rise? They probably don’t have the appetite to negotiate with/buy out everyone involved in infilling the Boylston/Dalton Street air rights (MassDOT, Prudential, MBTA, MBCR, and so on), but I bet a purpose-built mid-rise behind one of their main properties might be something they’d start exploring.
 
odurandina said:
On every site either in the High Spine, or abutting it, not called

1. 1 Dalton
2. MT
3. SST
4. Winthrop Square

It has been a fight for every inch above 380~400'. There's too many total nutcases in this City. No it's not normal. After the few remaining background towers go up, Boston is fucked.

Fuck all the cute infill and dainty retail when it becomes a city full of uppity rich folks and everybody else can barely rent a top bunk in a tenement.
Click to expand...

Um... I’m disappointed too, but building a half dozen more luxury towers isn’t going to slow down the uppity rich folks... it’s the small infills that will eventually do that. You’re really reaching if you’re saying that only building towers over 400 feet will solve our housing crisis. You’re mad because you want the skyline to look better. That’s it.
 
^Yep, although we all know that. He's just just butt-hurt that a 500ft tower isn't getting built there right now and that the whole system is somehow out of whack.
 
It is out of whack. The proof:

More often than not; not building appropriate height where it is appropriate to build it.
 
odurandina said:
It is out of whack. The proof:

More often than not; not building appropriate height where it is appropriate to build it.
Click to expand...

Is that unusual? New York obviously is different, but it's New York. I'm honestly asking because I don't know. Are many cities comparable to Boston tossing up 500+ foot towers left and right?
 
Disappointing to see this get scrapped. Looked really good in the renders, although a bit stumpy.

As a fellow height-fetishist, I don't see why every building in the Back Bay has to be 750'. There are already 3 that fit that category. 550' was plenty tall enough.

Unless a tower is going to get to 900' or 1000', there's no point going 750. Back Bay has plenty of those. Does every Manhattan skyscraper need to be 1000+?

Anything above 500 is good for the Back Bay, IMHO.

Just hoping SST goes through without any hitches.
 
You can put part of the blame to the foreign and economic policies of the current administration. You literally can't plan ahead when every 3 months, you get a sign of a possible recession. The fluctuating cost in construction due to trade wars don't help either.
 
KentXie said:
You can put part of the blame to the foreign and economic policies of the current administration. You literally can't plan ahead when every 3 months, you get a sign of a possible recession. The fluctuating cost in construction due to trade wars don't help either.
Click to expand...

2 Words

Global Slowdown

US may be the only major economy to grow for the next 24 to 36 months -- Germany is already on the threshold of a recession [- quarter on the books already]

Outside of the US -- the rest of the developed world is paying you to take their money --rather than you paying to loan them money [Negative 1% on gov't bonds]

It will take some time to sort it all out -- perhaps Brexit and a new version of the Atlantic Charter between US, UK, Canada, Australia will get the globe moving again
 
The good thing is everything Ive read so far regarding Boston says that although the luxury market in nyc has peaked and is slowing down, supposedly Boston is expected to chug right along due to chronic undersupply and extremely high demand. I shared a few different articles on here, but Boston has a demand of like 70,000 or something more units than exist in the market so it should keep moving right along. On top of that education and medicine arent anywhere near as volatile and dont have the major swings that finance markets have so that along with strong demand should keep Boston building right through all but the worst slowdowns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top