Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

[GW2500]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Dear James Hill,

The transit can handle it.

Sincerely,
Common sense

PS
But for good measure lets spend money and time studying this. Also you are correct if a shadow hits you your head it will explode.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

If the tower remains then it will probably be ridiculously high priced rentals. Those are big now that people aren't buying as much. Also keep in mind that the people who would move into a tower with apartments that expensive probably only spend part of their time there and won't be as much of a problem traffic wise as a more affordable development.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Green Line (all four branches), Orange Line, commuter rail (5 branches), buses 9, 10, 39, 55 and some express buses down the Turnpike. Also Amtrak. Gee, can the available transit handle this development?

 

[gooseberry]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I think James has a point about the extra pedestrian traffic though. Aren't we all tired of people walking around all over the place?

 

[bbfen]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I think James has a point about the extra pedestrian traffic though. Aren't we all tired of people walking around all over the place?

I think sidewalks should be removed in order to prevent this rampant bipedality.

 

[type001]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I think James has a point about the extra pedestrian traffic though. Aren't we all tired of people walking around all over the place?

You bet we are. This is really conflicting with our vision of turning Boston into Weston.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I think James has a point about the extra pedestrian traffic though. Aren't we all tired of people walking around all over the place?

I'm tired of cars driving around all over the place.

 

[Mike]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Copley Place looks skyward
Mall owner makes pitch for revised $500M plan
By Brendan Lynch
Thursday, June 16, 2011


Mall giant Simon Property Group resurrected plans for a 47-story tower at Copley Place yesterday, a $500 million retail and luxury condo project that would be Boston’s eighth-tallest building.

The tower, pitched in March 2008 but stalled by the Great Recession, once sparked worries that the 569-foot structure would funnel strong winds and cast long shadows across Back Bay landmarks.

But Simon Property’s architect stressed yesterday during a meeting at the Boston Redevelopment Authority that the tower design has been altered to minimize those effects.

After a series of BRA meeting in 2009, Simon rotated the position of the building. Project architect Rob Halter of Elkus Manfredi said the glass tower’s rounded, tapered shape should reduce the shadow and wind a tall building typically creates.

A model of the building is set to undergo wind tunnel tests and a shadow study, according to Jack Hobbs, CEO of RF Walsh Collaborative Partners, Simon Property Group’s project manager.

The project’s finer points will be included in a draft project impact report filed with the BRA in about three weeks, Halter said. A 60-day public comment period would follow.

At yesterday’s meeting, community stakeholders raised concerns that the developer is sprinting to the finish line too quickly after a long delay.

“Without a meeting (yesterday), we wouldn’t have seen a draft until it was too late,” said Dan d’Heilly of the St. Botolph Neighborhood Association and Southwest Corridor Conservancy.

But South End resident Eugene Kelly said rehashing subjects discussed two years ago was a waste of time — citing the failed Columbus Center project as an example. “The review took so long the market disappeared,” he said.

State Rep. Marty Walz, a Back Bay Democrat, said she still has “reservations about whether the positives outweigh the negatives.”

The Copley Place tower, housing 280 luxury condos atop an expanded Neiman Marcus store and other new shops, would be Boston’s tallest residential building, said a BRA spokeswoman.


Link

 

[jass]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

At yesterday’s meeting, community stakeholders raised concerns that the developer is sprinting to the finish line too quickly after a long delay.

“Without a meeting (yesterday), we wouldn’t have seen a draft until it was too late,” said Dan d’Heilly of the St. Botolph Neighborhood Association and Southwest Corridor Conservancy.

Hey dan, youre a fucking idiot.

What do you think the entire meeting was about?

Do you propose they hold a pre-meeting, where they sit you down and explain that a meeting will be held to show the project?

And then you'll complain that “Without a pre-meeting (yesterday), we wouldn’t have seen a meeting plan until it was too late,” said Dan d’Heilly of the St. Botolph Neighborhood Association and Southwest Corridor Conservancy"

 

[shmessy]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

“Without a meeting (yesterday), we wouldn’t have seen a draft until it was too late,” said Dan d’Heilly of the St. Botolph Neighborhood Association and Southwest Corridor Conservancy."

Dear Dan d'Heilly:

Without my two legs, I wouldn't be able to walk. Without my eyes, I wouldn't be able to see. Without the sun, we would live in darkness.

The St. Botolph Neighborhood Association and Southwest Corridor Conservancy must be so proud to have you as a member.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Article in Boston Courant this week talks about the proposed building.

Rep. Walz questions why the 60-day comment period is during the summer, when many people might not be around.

I'm sorry, Representative, that your constituents can't pull themselves away from their yachts and summer homes in order to get involved.

Sux for them.

 

[palindrome]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

is the comment period open? Time to start (re)sending approval emails.

 

[Neimanmarcuswatch]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Another problem with Simon Property constructing a 47-story luxury residential skyscraper on public land that is only zoned for commercial use, is that it would violate the terms of the $18.8 million Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] of federal public funds which the original owner of Copley Place, the Urban Investment and Development Corporation, was given by HUD in the early 1980s. As the tenant groups who opposed this HUD grant predicted in a June 5, 1980 comment they submitted to Boston's local HUD office, "in direct contradiction to Federal regulations, Copley Place and its UDAG will not provide an opportunity for low and moderate income persons and minorities to reside in the project area after its completion." So unless at least 50 percent of the apartments in Simon Property's proposed "Neiman Marcus Tower" is going to be affordable to low-income and moderate-income tenants or buyers, the project would seem to represent a violation of the terms of HUD's $18.8 million UDAG grant of the early 1980s.

 

[itchy]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Another problem ...

What do you mean by "another problem"? Did you read any of the above posts? Nobody has any problem with this project, because, really, there isn't any. It's a highly favorable project -- from an aesthetic point of view (which is a large concern of many on this board) it does fairly well as it will add a potentially attractive high-rise to the ugly pedestal that is the Copley Place mall; moreoever, it adds density in a central area of the city that can handle it, adding vitality to the city as well as removing pressure from the residential market and thereby lowering rents across the market, etc.

Not sure whether any of the urban renewal agreements you cite were a good thing in and of themselves to begin with (or if anything attached to any of the mid-to-late-20th-century urban renewal schemes was a good thing), and the "contract violation" you bring up sounds dubious. I don't know -- and frankly, don't care -- about the "affordable housing" (i.e., taxpayer subsidies) that would go to favored political classes under the urban renewal stipulations, but it seems that anyone concerned about "affordable housing" in general would recognize that more supply takes pressure off the market and naturally makes housing more affordable for all, rather than setting aside artificially underpriced housing for favored groups that thereby reduces the amount of supply available to all ... and pushes up prices for the rest of us who don't get special vouchers and privileges when buying/renting...

 

[BostonObserver]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Another problem with Simon Property constructing a 47-story luxury residential skyscraper on public land that is only zoned for commercial use, is that it would violate the terms of the $18.8 million Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] of federal public funds which the original owner of Copley Place, the Urban Investment and Development Corporation, was given by HUD in the early 1980s. As the tenant groups who opposed this HUD grant predicted in a June 5, 1980 comment they submitted to Boston's local HUD office, "in direct contradiction to Federal regulations, Copley Place and its UDAG will not provide an opportunity for low and moderate income persons and minorities to reside in the project area after its completion." So unless at least 50 percent of the apartments in Simon Property's proposed "Neiman Marcus Tower" is going to be affordable to low-income and moderate-income tenants or buyers, the project would seem to represent a violation of the terms of HUD's $18.8 million UDAG grant of the early 1980s.

Welcome back Ned.

 

[itchy]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Exactly, it looks like the game is already on to kill in its crib another great project via invocation of obscure/irrelevant/fabricated/bizarro legal points. Hopefully, the Flahertys of the world won't have anywhere near as much luck this time.

 

[jass]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

So unless at least 50 percent of the apartments in Simon Property's proposed "Neiman Marcus Tower" is going to be affordable to low-income and moderate-income tenants or buyers, the project would seem to represent a violation of the terms of HUD's $18.8 million UDAG grant of the early 1980s.

Which makes more sense?

Option a)
A 100% rich-people only building is built. The increase in supply pressures older buildings to lower their asking prices because not only is supply bigger, but they dont offer as much as the new building. With lower prices, people who arent as rich can afford the older buildings, thus vacating the properties THEY used to live in before hand etc etc thus relaxing price pressure on all levels of housing

Option b)
Nothing is built, leaving rich people with no choice but to purchase existing stock and improve it, thus forcing prices up for all levels.


Also know as econ 101: why restricting supply leads to higher prices.

 

[bostonbred]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

IAM thinkin that NEDSWATching UDRAG peeple is right. So. If YOU are wanting this tents in YOURs. MUST use OWN money for UDRAG funs. OR. Run for office and take email PICTURA of this

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Oh... joy. Here's the beginning of another thread I won't be able to read anymore.

This guy is really digging from scraps this this one. No doubt these NIMBYs will throw a lawsuit into the works and delay this project for another couple years, adding millions of dollars to the cost and making the final condos even MORE expensive because of it.

You want to fault the city for not doing enough to provide affordable housing, well I have your back. But this is yet another example of the broken system of development in Boston where a small minority can hijack a project and hold the developer ransom.

Hold the ones with the real power responsible, not these guys.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Another problem with Simon Property constructing a 47-story luxury residential skyscraper on public land that is only zoned for commercial use, is that it would violate the terms of the $18.8 million Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] of federal public funds which the original owner of Copley Place, the Urban Investment and Development Corporation, was given by HUD in the early 1980s. As the tenant groups who opposed this HUD grant predicted in a June 5, 1980 comment they submitted to Boston's local HUD office, "in direct contradiction to Federal regulations, Copley Place and its UDAG will not provide an opportunity for low and moderate income persons and minorities to reside in the project area after its completion." So unless at least 50 percent of the apartments in Simon Property's proposed "Neiman Marcus Tower" is going to be affordable to low-income and moderate-income tenants or buyers, the project would seem to represent a violation of the terms of HUD's $18.8 million UDAG grant of the early 1980s.

That's fine because neither the mayor or the BRA is even aware of these terms, and they'll probably keep it that way because this is actually one of the projects he doesn't have any have any qualms against.