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

Equilibria said:
...people don't like to finance complicated, risky things.
Click to expand...

Spot on. I've been trying to tell people that it's not because "the structural engineering of air rights is too hard"...it's because there's enormous uncertainty of how much of a coordinative and logistical pain in the ass (e.g., $$ and schedule) actually executing the build-out will be, and a total lack of contemporary Boston precedents to help bound estimates. The financing industry is based on benchmarking, and when there's no benchmarking, it's really hard to get financing.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Spot on. I've been trying to tell people that it's not because "the structural engineering of air rights is too hard"...it's because there's enormous uncertainty of how much of a coordinative and logistical pain in the ass (e.g., $$ and schedule) actually executing the build-out will be, and a total lack of contemporary Boston precedents to help bound estimates. The financing industry is based on benchmarking, and when there's no benchmarking, it's really hard to get financing.
Click to expand...

This. I know people want to talk about how robust Boston's economy is but it doesn't really matter if the banks willing to lend money to developers want to reduce their overall portfolio exposure to large scale real estate projects due to recession scares.
 
Did the reductions in height make the project financially unfeasible though and that's what scared off the lenders?
 
Rover said:
Did the reductions in height make the project financially unfeasible though and that's what scared off the lenders?
Click to expand...

It seems the bigger issue was the final proposal only had 108 ultra lux condo units. They could have built more smaller units to lower the risk. But, the additional units would have required additional parking. It is unclear how much this is due to regulatory requirements vs. market demand (if you are spending millions on a condo you are likely going to want on site parking). They were actually proposing to build more parking (175 spots) than the city required (108 spots).

If the units were traditionally sized, there would be an increased unit count, resulting in significantly more parking spaces than the Project. For example, per BTD guidelines of 1.0 space/condominium unit, if the 288,000 square feet of residential use were developed as more “traditionally-sized” units of 1,000 square feet/unit excluding common areas and amenities, the number of residential parking spaces would be 288 spaces, which is almost double the 157 residential spaces proposed as part of the Project.
Click to expand...

https://www.universalhub.com/2018/developer-says-large-units-proposed-boylston

More height wouldn't necessarily have solved that issue. Perhaps a taller rental building or an office building would have better mitigated that issue (lower parking demand vs higher revenue potential)?

Perhaps something similar to the HUB apartment building in Brooklyn would work better here. A 750 units/122 parking space building in a slim 600ft tower. Boston's rents are probably close enough to Brooklyn's to make this work.

The two key questions:
1) can a building on that magnatude fit on the ferra firma portion?
2) does a 5-story air-rights podium pay for itself or does it require cross subsidy from the tower portion?
 
Last edited:
Using just the grassy lot next to the parking garage on the site I think you could build a very tall tower. It is just slightly smaller than the lot that the Four Seasons was built on, but the tower would probably have to be very tall to make up for the small floor plates.

Edit: It also looks like it would be relatively easy to do a smaller air right section above Cambria St. which would allow for a larger easier to manage floor plate and the air rights section would be narrow with an easy space for footings between the Cambria St. retaining wall and the Worcester line.
 
You can also, of course, ask to not build parking. The City has approved such buildings and it's not like you can't rent spaces in the nearby garages, either, most of which likely have tons of vacancies.
 
Still shocked they just cancelled this project. If it was unfeasible, why didnt they appropriately go back to the board and demand more height/units and increase their revenue sources. It seems strange to me they cancelled this so abruptly.
 
Massachoicetts said:
Still shocked they just cancelled this project. If it was unfeasible, why didnt they appropriately go back to the board and demand more height/units and increase their revenue sources. It seems strange to me they cancelled this so abruptly.
Click to expand...

This was a highly experienced and successful development team. They likely would have explored every option before calling it quits. I think the more likely culprit is a slowing and increasingly saturated high end condo market.
 
Will they sell the development rights to someone else? Also, why not re-build the plans to make for more units? Most of them were 3BR condos.
 
Maybe we'll find out they're working with the city and decided to make this a new tallest, ~925'! I mean, it's one of the only spots it's possible. Maybe the mayor's office sees that too and wants something bigger for the site.

Ehhhhh..... Who am I kidding?
 
^^Boston needs visionaries to push taller, and bolder to pay the freight (and the rent for the next generation of development). i'm shocked how this went from a bold gesture to Boston, to a single modest tower, to nothing at all. No one's suggesting 980~1000' (but DZ?/ look it up in the Wikipedia! ................ Boylston Square/ opposite from 1080 Boylston St was only proposed to reach 660') .... (Van): in the final analysis, i'm glad this mediocre design tower isn't getting built. 1000 Boylston and 1080 Boylston should probably get 2 skyscrapers, as they are merely the natural progression of a city continuing to emerge from the primordial ooze, to not only become a better city, but join up with the rest of the planet. Maybe go taller instead of shorter for a change w/ one of 'em pushing 925'! Some of that revenue could go a long way to fixing the T!

vanshnookenraggen said:
Cities are made of, by and for people. That's why you and so many other skyscraper fanatics don't seem to get. Boston is just fine without a 1,000' tower. To say that neighborhoods have too much say..........
Click to expand...

You forgot to call me a fascist. No, seriously, i'm just capitalist and a pragmatist.
To make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs *(crazy i know).
Every tower that failed from Boylston Square to 2 Charlesgate W should be up already or u/c.

everyone said:
build baby build.........
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
^^Boston needs visionaries to push taller, and bolder to pay the freight (and the rent for the next generation of development). i'm shocked how this went from a bold gesture to Boston, to a single modest tower, to nothing at all. No one's suggesting 980~1000' (but DZ?/ look it up in the Wikipedia! ................ Boylston Square/ opposite from 1080 Boylston St was only proposed to reach 660') .... (Van): in the final analysis, i'm glad this mediocre design tower isn't getting built. 1000 Boylston and 1080 Boylston should probably get 2 skyscrapers, as they are merely the natural progression of a city continuing to emerge from the primordial ooze, to not only become a better city, but join up with the rest of the planet. Maybe go taller instead of shorter for a change w/ one of 'em pushing 925'! Some of that revenue could go a long way to fixing the T!
Click to expand...

For the record, would you mind restating your overall thesis for why height is the issue of paramount import facing Boston?
 
Not just that: but projects getting through Article 80, and getting built is (also) extremely important. But, lately, planning seems to have become more a reflection of nimby lunacy, and general ignorance.
Good urbanism, general good planning and the natural order appear to have joined the endangered species list. You see parcels like 25, 26, 27, 28 in the Leather District with no takers. But good ideas will increasingly be skipped (elsewhere).
We're going to be transitioning to significantly smaller scale in the not too distant future. What's the rush? On these few places where height is appropriate, how about do the height (right there, now)?
It is the dense and tall projects that render the impactful ratio of affordable units and breed additional affordable units in the future: 45 Worthington, 2 Charlesgate W and the original proposal for 1000 Boylston will now produce zero affordable units from the time of their completion, and zero future revenue. Add One Charlestown (originally to have included 3 towers of similar height and size as Eschelon), Tremont Crossing @ full height, the Steam Plant, and Harrison-Albany block..... and you have seen what would have amounted to over 2 thousand affordable units in a relatively short time, lost.
Van and others who pass this off as height fetishism: Where do you make these up these disastrous losses? Just who is proposing an unlivable City? Transit oriented developments need to be built--not cancelled or slashed to the bone.
Boston isn't set up to build like Philadelphia, which will undoubtedly get much bigger & taller in just a few years. But, we're not Denver (either).
Maybe you add density at area train stations sooner or later. What's the timetable on that? i have no idea. Change is abysmally slow. Dot Ave might be sooner. But appears still a ways off. Will it be during the next cycle?
We're not building towers in Rozzie.
 
Last edited:
Ive come to believe that you cant build your way out of a housing crisis with 7 billion people on Earth. NYC didnt start with millions of people... they moved there. NYC has a housing crisis too with many times our population. All that I have ever seen is that the more projects get built, the better the city becomes, the better the city the more desirable it is, the more desirable the more people come, rinse and repeat. Unfortunately the only true way to make a citys housing cheaper or to have more supply than demand is for that city to become less desirable.

The most desirable cities in America command the most rent, and when you make them even more desirable, rent will continue to rise.
 
stick n move said:
Ive come to believe that you cant build your way out of a housing crisis with 7 billion people on Earth. NYC didnt start with millions of people... they moved there. NYC has a housing crisis too with many times our population. All that I have ever seen is that the more projects get built, the better the city becomes, the better the city the more desirable it is, the more desirable the more people come, rinse and repeat. Unfortunately the only true way to make a citys housing cheaper or to have more supply than demand is for that city to become less desirable.

The most desirable cities in America command the most rent, and when you make them even more desirable, rent will continue to rise.
Click to expand...

This is the "induced demand" theory of housing prices, and there has been recent empirical research that shows it is incorrect.

Paper Link
City Observatory Summary/Commentary

In short, while new construction, even new luxury construction does cause more people to move to that area, any increase in demand is more than offset by the new units built. How else do you explain Tokyo, where this one city permitted more than the entirety of England (Financial Times article (2016)), keeping prices much lower than NY, SF, LA, and BOS, which are all building much less than they did at their peaks? By the induced demand theory, Tokyo would be by far the most expensive!

Mods, feel free to move this discussion elsewhere.
 
You will never build your way out of high housing prices in a place where available land is finite. No question. The issue is do you strangle a city's growth by halting construction. Far too many a NIMBY has the notion that if you just stop putting up new apartments, people will stop moving here. A fantasyland notion if there ever was one.

In difficult to build on places, like covering the Pike, the city and state need to partner up with developers to let them build as high as the FAA allows while also clearing the deck of brainless NIMBY obstructionism. Sorta like how everyone partnered up on Winthrop Square after the developer waved 150M bucks around town. Otherwise with the complexities of these projects a two decade delay due to glacial permitting and community involvement (for building over a highway no less) plus the inevitable extortion payouts means we'll be staring at an covered Pike until the end of time.
 
Why wouldnt the development team try to sell the land+plans? Even if they are an experienced team it doesnt mean they know what theyre doing in Boston. The 2 teams that seem to whatever they please in Boston are Samuels and Millenium, maybe they can get it done. It seems weird to me to ax it and give up, maybe theyve already tried to sell
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Why wouldnt the development team try to sell the land+plans? Even if they are an experienced team it doesnt mean they know what theyre doing in Boston. The 2 teams that seem to whatever they please in Boston are Samuels and Millenium, maybe they can get it done. It seems weird to me to ax it and give up, maybe theyve already tried to sell
Click to expand...

I think they know what they're doing in Boston.

 
Not that simple

Population dynamics is a complex system with lots of moving parts

Consider the Greater Boston Area -- looking at only the technical professions [STEM} and legal, etc.
  1. Starting with college kids -- we import college freshmen from all around the planet as despite our good schools at the high school level there are not enough locals to fill the top of the hopper -- major inflow [late teens through early 20's]
  2. When they graduate [undergrad] many go back home -- some stay for graduate school or are substituted by others who come to replace them -- slightly inflow [mid 20's through late 20's]
  3. When they finish gradate school many go home or elsewhere -- some stay as postdocs or practicing professionals -- slight inflow [late 20's through early 30's]
  4. When they decide to settle down with a family -- we lose most of the net accumulated up to now not just to the suburbs but to other urbs -- net outflow [early 30's through early 40's]
  5. Later -- because Greater Boston has a higher percentage of HQ-type facilities over production -- we import senior people who can pay whatever the cost for living wherever they want -- net inflow [mid 40's through early 60's]
  6. Finally -- many of the practicing professionals at all levels retire and leave for warmer and cheaper climates -- large net outflow [late 60's through 70's +]
Result is a bimodal distribution -- lots of kids to young professionals, lots of senior professionals -- a gap in the middle [including the prime ages for families]

One of the most significant conclusions to draw is that we don't replenish the next generation locally -- we need to import the college kids -- and they don't have the same attachment that native kids would have -- compared to a place like Texas where they over produce at the high school level

The other significant conclusion is that there are few people [professionals] who will make Greater Boston a permanent home -- they are all essentially transient

Obviously the demographic flows are different for the blue collar cohorts -- where because of a relative lack of manufacturing jobs these days in Greater Boston -- the local kids leave after high school and are only partially replaced by foreign immigrants typically coming from relatively poorer countries
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top