Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
i do believe Back Bay can handle about 5~6 >200m towers, and about 5~6 >180m towers to go along with all the 90-110m low highrises currently permitted or proposed, and still keep it's charm and unique character. But that's about it. That's a good practical limit... To pay for Back Bay Station, they should have shot for 180m/600' on one of the towers.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Just move to NY or something already.
 
Paris has a population density of more than 55k and they have a skyline that isin't any better than ours at a 12k population density.
 
I don't think what i suggested is outrageous. Earlier this year, Boston was estimated to have 667,137 residents; density of 13,841... I also read somewhere that Boston's population would reach as high as 755,000 w/ a density topping 15,500 by 2035.
 
odurandina said:
Earlier this year, Boston was estimated to have 667,137 residents; density of 13,841...
Click to expand...

Still. Height isin't a nessicisity to have a large population. 5 story apartment buildings in places like Brighton/JP/Rozzie/ will help bring more affordable housing. An flashy downtown tower will mostly bring in investors from China or transplants from places like Wellesley.
 
odurandina said:
I don't think what i suggested is outrageous. Earlier this year, Boston was estimated to have 667,137 residents; density of 13,841... I also read somewhere that Boston's population would reach as high as 755,000 w/ a density topping 15,500 by 2035.
Click to expand...

It was. Theres room for like 2 more towers in the back bay after whats already proposed.

This isnt outrageous? Really...

odurandina said:

Stick!! Wake up!! You were having a nightmare!!


Click to expand...
 
Boston's population in 1950 was over 800,000.

I don't know why Robert Moses didn't deck the Cross Bronx fifty years ago. And put up towers, after. My God, NYC needs the density.

86a75049b6713f24ea6f933dbb98710d.jpg
 
Well I guess we couldn't have our cake and eat it to. Stinks this is not going to happen but there is still a lot going in this city and a lot to get excited about.
 
There's no way this site sits idle...I think Simon sells the land and permits to the highest bidder.
 
BP? Samuels? Trinity? Skanska? There's plenty of options...all eager to develop in Boston. I'm not willing to accept that the market is softening. It's likely to slow down in the next 4 years or so, but not yet.
 
617 said:
There's no way this site sits idle...I think Simon sells the land and permits to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree. Simon is not really that diversified. They focus on malls. They will have spruced up the mall, and have done all the engineering work as to what it would take to actually build something at this location. This site IS difficult. It not only has to bridge a highway, but also the Framingham/Worcester commuter rail, which (I believe,) is the busiest in the system.

The only air rights projects that have so far even come close to being reality have included some parts that are on land, and the developers leverage that part of the parcel to pay for the added costs of building over this stuff. This parcel has none of that going for it.
 
617 said:
There's no way this site sits idle...I think Simon sells the land and permits to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

I would think it would only make sense for them - wouldn't they want a luxury tower literally connect to/over their luxury mall? I would think sourcing out the costs/risk of the tower would only be a win for them in the end if its actually built.
 
bakgwailo said:
I would think it would only make sense for them - wouldn't they want a luxury tower literally connect to/over their luxury mall? I would think sourcing out the costs/risk of the tower would only be a win for them in the end if its actually built.
Click to expand...

There's always the risk of a construction hole if the market collapses a la the old Filene's basement (Millennium). I'm sure that having that in the middle of their fancy mall could be a liability.
 
Simon Tower Cancelation

Simon properties recently shelved their idea for a 52 story tower at Copley Place. What do you think? Did they do the right thing? I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.
 
Re: Simon Tower Cancelation

Hubman said:
Simon properties recently shelved their idea for a 52 story tower at Copley Place. What do you think? Did they do the right thing? I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.
Click to expand...

My hunch is that they are trying to sell the development rights
 
tysmith95 said:
There's always the risk of a construction hole if the market collapses a la the old Filene's basement (Millennium). I'm sure that having that in the middle of their fancy mall could be a liability.
Click to expand...

^They should've done condos instead of apts., take large pre-construction deposits on the units and start the project when the safety is their to assure enough units are pre-sold as a hedge. Getting this approved was no small feat, so let's hope they do sell the rights to someone who can make it work even with the challenging costs involved.
 
SST had to change and come back with a new proposal to make the money work, theres no reason a parcel this important cant have the same thing happen.
 
stick n move said:
SST had to change and come back with a new proposal to make the money work, theres no reason a parcel this important cant have the same thing happen.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think what Simon was really saying in their announcement is that this air rights project (which carries an unusually high cost) is not going to make them enough money in the current configuration to make it worth the risk. It is not really about a glut of luxury units. It is about sufficient competition in the market that might reduce the price per unit and speed of sales just enough to make the investment no longer look great -- given the air rights cost issue.

This is going to continue to be a challenge with air rights parcels. The cost per square foot is always going to be higher than the same building built on a more conventional foundation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top