Charlestown Infill and Small Developments

The first two proposals :love:.

The Urbanica proposal rebuilds the pier, which the Charlestown Bridge article says would be expensive, and is also all affordable. Seems difficult to believe that that pencils.
 
Floating residences? Did we become Seattle? All of the proposed ideas are amazing!
 
Any details on unit numbers? Agree with the concern about what pencils --- this is an area that could use as much housing as possible.
 
curcuas said:
Any details on unit numbers? Agree with the concern about what pencils --- this is an area that could use as much housing as possible.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Urbanica proposal would have 89 units (all affordable). It would also include a public promenade around it and a public park at the end (that would be used as outdoor ice rink in winter). The roof would also be publicly accessible (presumably with great views) and would have community garden plots. Navy Blue proposal would have 55 boat slips with live-aboard vessels. 6M proposal would have 138 units and a restaurant.

What stuck out to me the most (aside from rebuilding the pier vs. floating residences) was the different levels of public accessibility. The Urbanica proposal is the only one that truly feels welcoming to the public while also providing important amenities that are currently lacking in that area (quality grocery and affordable housing). The other two proposals both look like gated, waterfront communities. The walkways would be public, but the views would be obstructed by the residences and the narrow walkway down the middle isn't very inviting at all. Most people walking by probably wouldn't even bother walking down it, and I'm sure that's the intent. On the other hand, having a grocery store, community garden plots, and a promenade with beautiful views around the entire pier that ends at a restaurant/retail space overlooking a park/ice rink at the end of the pier with unrivaled views of downtown and eastie - THAT is welcoming and shows a commitment to providing public accessibility to the waterfront.
 
Man I am really suspicious of the economics of these, now.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I wonder if the Urbanica proposal is modular-off-site unit construction? Basically mobile homes on a fancy barge.
Click to expand...
Urbanica would be built on pilings.

Urbanica's 200+ page response to the RFP can be found here.
http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d1eb3a97-13a4-4607-8d7a-f6bf52cb9b8d

No cost estimate, only that public funding is needed. (Spell check would also help; 'the existing pier will be "lyfted" up.)

Urbanica is self-designated as construction manager; a "partner", apparently with respect to construction, is an air conditioning company in Roxbury.

Overall design is creative, and a big plus, IMO. However, the odds are high that to make this affordable (all 80+ units), the materials will be cheap, and result in ongoing, high maintenance costs given the marine environment. No experience on the part of Urbanica in building out over the water. Also, the project tries to do too much, e.g., green roofs, ice skating rink, rooftop restaurant, 10,000 sq ft grocery store. In the end, IMO, the proposal seems too much check-the-box pandering, with too little detail on whether, as proposed, it is financially practicable.
 
TBQH this kinda seems like a site where the City should just maximize total housing, no matter the price to activate the navy yard and alleviate demand pressure.
 
curcuas said:
TBQH this kinda seems like a site where the City should just maximize total housing, no matter the price to activate the navy yard and alleviate demand pressure.
Click to expand...
Remember that these are some of the stodgiest NIMBYs in the city, and have a lot of legal protections to work within (flex retiree muscles). The Navy Yard is already close to a giant gated community with all expensive HOA managed buildings. The Pier 6 renovation was slated for 2015 and is just now getting finished, and that's basically a dock rebuild. They even fought against a summer floating restaurant all the way at the end of a pier for noise.

The 6M proposal looks the most feasible to me, with anchored "floating platforms," but hope they would expand the public restaurant across the full harbor frontage.
 
stellarfun said:
Urbanica would be built on pilings.

Urbanica's 200+ page response to the RFP can be found here.
http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d1eb3a97-13a4-4607-8d7a-f6bf52cb9b8d

No cost estimate, only that public funding is needed. (Spell check would also help; 'the existing pier will be "lyfted" up.)

Urbanica is self-designated as construction manager; a "partner", apparently with respect to construction, is an air conditioning company in Roxbury.

Overall design is creative, and a big plus, IMO. However, the odds are high that to make this affordable (all 80+ units), the materials will be cheap, and result in ongoing, high maintenance costs given the marine environment. No experience on the part of Urbanica in building out over the water. Also, the project tries to do too much, e.g., green roofs, ice skating rink, rooftop restaurant, 10,000 sq ft grocery store. In the end, IMO, the proposal seems too much check-the-box pandering, with too little detail on whether, as proposed, it is financially practicable.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your concerns regarding their experience with this level of construction, but I do think that can be mitigated with a strong/experienced GC. I also understand your concerns about the materials potentially being cheap in order to offset the more expensive design, but that's where the affordability component is key. The additional costs are included in eligible basis, and if the state approves their application they will be awarded low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) based on that basis to make the deal work (the developer then sells those credits to an investor for equity - that's what enables the project to reduce it's debt load and therefore charge lower rents). With that said, there are recommended cost limits in the application process so if they underwrite an inappropriately expensive deal then it won't get selected. However, the state knows that Boston is extremely expensive to build in and an affordable building that looks cheap is not their goal - they want quality units that will last and that people walking by won't even know are affordable. It's all a balancing act. I'm not privy to the financial underwriting so I don't know how realistic or unrealistic it is at this point, but I simply wanted to point out that its more expensive design doesn't automatically make it unfeasible or impractical. I agree with Vagabond's comment - the biggest hurdle for any potential project here will be the condo residents next door, and I imagine they will fight hardest again the proposed affordable housing development. I hope they prove me wrong.
 
Rhino said:
I don't disagree with your concerns regarding their experience with this level of construction, but I do think that can be mitigated with a strong/experienced GC. I also understand your concerns about the materials potentially being cheap in order to offset the more expensive design, but that's where the affordability component is key. The additional costs are included in eligible basis, and if the state approves their application they will be awarded low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) based on that basis to make the deal work (the developer then sells those credits to an investor for equity - that's what enables the project to reduce it's debt load and therefore charge lower rents). With that said, there are recommended cost limits in the application process so if they underwrite an inappropriately expensive deal then it won't get selected. However, the state knows that Boston is extremely expensive to build in and an affordable building that looks cheap is not their goal - they want quality units that will last and that people walking by won't even know are affordable. It's all a balancing act. I'm not privy to the financial underwriting so I don't know how realistic or unrealistic it is at this point, but I simply wanted to point out that its more expensive design doesn't automatically make it unfeasible or impractical. I agree with Vagabond's comment - the biggest hurdle for any potential project here will be the condo residents next door, and I imagine they will fight hardest again the proposed affordable housing development. I hope they prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
I also believe it is pretty rare to be able to finance a 100% affordable project in Boston solely based on LIHTC. Usually there is also a block of financing coming from the off-site affordable payment in lieu of units from a market rate development nearby.
 
Rhino said:
and a promenade with beautiful views around the entire pier that ends at a restaurant/retail space overlooking a park/ice rink at the end of the pier with unrivaled views of downtown and eastie
Click to expand...

Any views of downtown will probably be largely blocked by the pier next door (not sure of the number but it’s the one Courageous is on).
 
Last edited:
Rhino said:
I don't disagree with your concerns regarding their experience with this level of construction, but I do think that can be mitigated with a strong/experienced GC. I also understand your concerns about the materials potentially being cheap in order to offset the more expensive design, but that's where the affordability component is key. The additional costs are included in eligible basis, and if the state approves their application they will be awarded low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) based on that basis to make the deal work (the developer then sells those credits to an investor for equity - that's what enables the project to reduce it's debt load and therefore charge lower rents). With that said, there are recommended cost limits in the application process so if they underwrite an inappropriately expensive deal then it won't get selected. However, the state knows that Boston is extremely expensive to build in and an affordable building that looks cheap is not their goal - they want quality units that will last and that people walking by won't even know are affordable. It's all a balancing act. I'm not privy to the financial underwriting so I don't know how realistic or unrealistic it is at this point, but I simply wanted to point out that its more expensive design doesn't automatically make it unfeasible or impractical. I agree with Vagabond's comment - the biggest hurdle for any potential project here will be the condo residents next door, and I imagine they will fight hardest again the proposed affordable housing development. I hope they prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Urbanica, in its proposal, indicated that those credits might be hard to come by quickly, and it could take several years of waiting in queue before it might receive them. The inference I drew, and it could be incorrect, is that the cost of this design is such that financing it would squeeze out other projects also seeking these credits, and thus this could be pushed down the road until there was a relative abundance of credits.

Urbanica is taking particular pride that it is not availing itself of more traditional financing arrangements, and proposes to finance this by pooling 'little guy' investments, $5,000 minimum. It's unclear whether this atypical approach is being done of necessity, as if traditional lenders looked at what the pencils scribbled, and were not enthused.
______________
On a separate note, this proposed structure will need solid firewalls and sprinklers; either that, or the project can offer a new benefit by buying the city another fireboat and stationing it close-by at the Navy Yard. I will add that the proposal indicates that this project will be a no smoking zone, either inside or out, or within x feet of the entrance.
 
stellarfun said:
Urbanica, in its proposal, indicated that those credits might be hard to come by quickly, and it could take several years of waiting in queue before it might receive them. The inference I drew, and it could be incorrect, is that the cost of this design is such that financing it would squeeze out other projects also seeking these credits, and thus this could be pushed down the road until there was a relative abundance of credits.

Urbanica is taking particular pride that it is not availing itself of more traditional financing arrangements, and proposes to finance this by pooling 'little guy' investments, $5,000 minimum. It's unclear whether this atypical approach is being done of necessity, as if traditional lenders looked at what the pencils scribbled, and were not enthused.
______________
On a separate note, this proposed structure will need solid firewalls and sprinklers; either that, or the project can offer a new benefit by buying the city another fireboat and stationing it close-by at the Navy Yard. I will add that the proposal indicates that this project will be a no smoking zone, either inside or out, or within x feet of the entrance.
Click to expand...
You're definitely not wrong - it's all based on the State's QAP (Qualified Allocation Plan) and what they're prioritizing when they allocate out the credits. If this particular project hits all of the State's priorities and scores better than other projects then it's possible they get an award of credits on their first attempt, but I agree that that is probably unlikely.

I didn't realize they were looking to pool 'little guy' investments - thanks for pointing that out. That definitely seems odd when considering the high development cost of any project at that site and also the current availability of cheap institutional debt. There is a very healthy appetite for debt/equity investments in affordable housing developments in Boston and I'm not sure how you could ever finance a project like that without it. I'd be curious to learn more about that aspect, so if you happen to find out more details please share!
 
Rhino said:
You're definitely not wrong - it's all based on the State's QAP (Qualified Allocation Plan) and what they're prioritizing when they allocate out the credits. If this particular project hits all of the State's priorities and scores better than other projects then it's possible they get an award of credits on their first attempt, but I agree that that is probably unlikely.

I didn't realize they were looking to pool 'little guy' investments - thanks for pointing that out. That definitely seems odd when considering the high development cost of any project at that site and also the current availability of cheap institutional debt. There is a very healthy appetite for debt/equity investments in affordable housing developments in Boston and I'm not sure how you could ever finance a project like that without it. I'd be curious to learn more about that aspect, so if you happen to find out more details please share!
Click to expand...

The following is excerpted language from the Urbanica proposal. This is the sum of their presentation on the sources of the financing. There is no estimated project cost..

"The development team anticipates that it will seek both federal 4% and 9% Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). This application will maximize both the debit and equity raised by the project, and will allow construction to be phased if necessary. Due to the competitive nature of 9% credits, we anticipate that it may take several years to obtain an allocation.
...
"As part of the project’s equity, the team will set up an investment fund composed of a number of small investors. Each investor may invest a small share (as low as $5,000) into the fund. This opportunity will be available exclusively to minority investors. Total amount of fund to be raised is expected to be about 10% of the total equity of the commercial section.

"Most development projects typically work with high net worth individuals or institutions, where the threshold is too high for smaller investors. With this crowd fund, we will set a relatively low investment threshold so that more people can participate. By establishing an exclusive crowd fund, we are sharing ownership interest with minority investors. They will be able to benefit from the profits of the project, diversify their portfolio, and build longer term wealth

"The team will also provide technical and financial assistance to help minorities to understand the fund and get the investment principle."
_________________
The proposal is for 89 residential units, with about 81,000 GSF of residential building, and 29,000 GSF of commercial space. The question becomes how more expensive per square foot is this project to build given the site, and that it is being built out over the water. And is the cost so high, it is no longer 'affordable'? The zoning dimensions for the existing pier is that it is 565 feet long. That is a lot of pilings.

San Francisco recently built a new fireboat station on demolished piers. Cost $40 million for a 15,000 sq ft building, (that floats)
https://sfpublicworks.org/fireboat-station-35

_______________
I will add that the city defined a general max height of 35 feet for any structure built on this pier. Urbanica states its proposed building, which is tapered, will rise to 55 feet near the harbor end, and is zero feet near the entrance to the pier, thus averaging about 35 feet, more or less. As I understand their proposal, the 'platform' on which this proposed building will be built would be 2 feet above Boston City Base for this site, which is 19.5 feet. For reference, Boston City Base for the Pinnacle is 17 feet, and the Pinnacle will be constructed at 21 feet to allow for sea-level rise and storm surge.
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
The question becomes how more expensive per square foot is this project to build given the site, and that it is being built out over the water. And is the cost so high, it is no longer 'affordable'?
Click to expand...
The exact thing that sticks out to me- is this the best use of funds, and will they be maintained?

I really like many of the newer affordable housing properties that focus on lowering operating costs through passivhaus design and hi-efficiency+solar. Maintenance and utilities are a huge drain on lower income households.

This is unprotected in-water property. The maintenance and insurance alone put this in a high-income bracket don't they?
 
I definitely see maintenance as a big issue and cost.

If they build this to current city resilience standards (raise the elevation above the water) do they mitigate the insurance costs? This is currently a FEMA flood zone, but wouldn't the new pier structure have to be raised out of that designation? The condos behind the pier are raised up enough to avoid the FEMA designation.
 
Vagabond said:
The exact thing that sticks out to me- is this the best use of funds, and will they be maintained?

.........

This is unprotected in-water property. The maintenance and insurance alone put this in a high-income bracket don't they?
Click to expand...
That's what I think. too. The conundrum is the higher quality product will likely have lower maintenance costs, while the lower quality product will likely have higher maintenance costs. I'd be far more comfortable with this proposal if Urbanica; its partner, the air conditioning company; and the structural engineer identified one project in their portfolio built over, or proximate to a salt-water shoreline.

It strikes me that Urbanica was unable to find any financing for a mix of mostly market rate with some affordable, and thus it is almost entirely dependent on public financing.

Link is to various cost estimates for repairing, reconstructing several piers in San Francisco.

The seawall replacement cost, on a linear foot basis, is affordable to a Musk, Zuck, Bezos, et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top