Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tombstoner said:
Prime DC rentals are easily on par with prime Boston rentals. The difference is that there are more micro-climates of desirability in DC than in Boston, so that there are pockets of "primeness" in larger less-prime neighborhoods and vice-versa. Boston is more homogeneous in terms of neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

Good points.

Not saying DC is cheap or perfect by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, the city is still too restrictive on new development. But in general ,that area has been building enough new apartments to at least see the effects of supply and demand in action:

It's a Renter's Market in Washington
Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...dot-c-dot-apartment-glut-its-a-renters-market

For high-end apartments in the Washington area, signs of a renters market
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ents-in-washington-signs-of-a-renters-market/


Compare the prices of Archstone Apartments in DC vs. Boston:
http://www.equityapartments.com/massachusetts/boston-apartments.aspx
http://www.equityapartments.com/washington-dc/washington-dc-apartments.aspx

DC's apartments are generally a little cheaper. Obviously a lot of factors come into play here. But, DC's more robust supply is likely part of it.

At the very least, nobody looking at the DC market can blame new construction for driving up prices, like many people in other highly desirable coastal cities do.

bigeman312 said:
You have hit the nail on the head and continue to eloquently say what I believe.

One nit-pick, though, and it is the distinction between Toronto and Chicago's relatively affordable housing prices. Toronto's is being driven by an increase in supply ("through high density development," as you say). Chicago's is being driven by a decrease in demand. Sure, there has been some high density development, but one can not ignore the fact that Chicago lost 200,000 (!) people between 2000 and 2010. That is second only to Detroit. I can assure you that if Boston lost 200,000 people in ten years (or even an equivalent percentage of the total population), housing prices would no longer be one of the highest in the nation.
Click to expand...

That is a fair point on the difference between Toronto and Chicago. I was trying to get at when I said Chicago is sort of a hybrid Boston-Detroit. The city's population losses on the south and west side certainly hold down prices. But, the city's downtown is thriving and growing. Chicago has been able to accommodate the surging downtown demand via new construction without massive spikes on existing buildings.
http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2013/10/downtown-chicago-population-surging-over-last-decade/

I think Chicago also counter's the "induced demand" argument. The argument is basically: People want to live in big, dense cities. If you build more, the city will become denser and livelier and even more people will move in. Based on urban vibrancy/amenities Chicago should easily be just as desirable as Boston or SF. Any yet it isn't.
 
bigeman312 said:
You have hit the nail on the head and continue to eloquently say what I believe.

One nit-pick, though, and it is the distinction between Toronto and Chicago's relatively affordable housing prices. Toronto's is being driven by an increase in supply ("through high density development," as you say). Chicago's is being driven by a decrease in demand. Sure, there has been some high density development, but one can not ignore the fact that Chicago lost 200,000 (!) people between 2000 and 2010. That is second only to Detroit. I can assure you that if Boston lost 200,000 people in ten years (or even an equivalent percentage of the total population), housing prices would no longer be one of the highest in the nation.
Click to expand...

Bigeman -- Boston lost over 200,000 people between its peak 1950 Census @ 801,444 and the recent minimum of 562,994 in 1980 Census

However there was significant change in the demographics that is masked by that statistic -- the dramatic change in the size of a Boston Household -- result is that Boston has more housing than it did in 1950 -- just that fewer people occupy the space

Detroit on the other hand lost not just people en masse but also fewer houses were occupied
 
whighlander said:
Bigeman -- Boston lost over 200,000 people between its peak 1950 Census @ 801,444 and the recent minimum of 562,994 in 1980 Census

However there was significant change in the demographics that is masked by that statistic -- the dramatic change in the size of a Boston Household -- result is that Boston has more housing than it did in 1950 -- just that fewer people occupy the space

Detroit on the other hand lost not just people en masse but also fewer houses were occupied
Click to expand...

EDIT: I vowed to stop responding to whighlander's nonsensical tangents.
 
Good news. Approval of the amendment to the PDA Development Plan to permit the project to proceed is back on the BRA Board agenda this Thursday. It should be poised for approval or it wouldn't be back in front of the Board again.
 
dirtywater said:
Good news. Approval of the amendment to the PDA Development Plan to permit the project to proceed is back on the BRA Board agenda this Thursday. It should be poised for approval or it wouldn't be back in front of the Board again.
Click to expand...

Good news. Thanks for staying on top of this. I was wondering when they'd get it back on the agenda.
 
dirtywater said:
Good news. Approval of the amendment to the PDA Development Plan to permit the project to proceed is back on the BRA Board agenda this Thursday. It should be poised for approval or it wouldn't be back in front of the Board again.
Click to expand...

Fantastic! Then we can begin indefinitely waiting for construction again! :)
 
bigeman312 said:
You have hit the nail on the head and continue to eloquently say what I believe.

One nit-pick, though, and it is the distinction between Toronto and Chicago's relatively affordable housing prices. Toronto's is being driven by an increase in supply ("through high density development," as you say). Chicago's is being driven by a decrease in demand. Sure, there has been some high density development, but one can not ignore the fact that Chicago lost 200,000 (!) people between 2000 and 2010. That is second only to Detroit. I can assure you that if Boston lost 200,000 people in ten years (or even an equivalent percentage of the total population), housing prices would no longer be one of the highest in the nation.
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that in Chicago. See, for example, http://danielkayhertz.com/2015/03/1...e-north-side-is-a-problem-for-the-whole-city/
 
Approved. Developer agreed to increase on-site affordable units from 71 to 76.
 
Equilibria said:
Fantastic! Then we can begin indefinitely waiting for construction again! :)
Click to expand...

I had assumed that since they had stated they wanted to start construction this spring that as soon as they got the approvals and permits they needed that they would start.
 
I expected more opposition. Around 10 spoke out in favor, three opposed.
 
Still requires Zoning Commission approval. Once it starts, you won't even notice it for a while. They will be doing things at the Turnpike level and below for a year or so.
 
All that for 5 more units...who are these people?

Why does it need zoning commission approval? I thought this was the final go ahead.
 
All PDAs, as well as PDA amendments, require both BRA and Boston Zoning Commission approval. A PDA is a zoning overlay district and thus is an amendment to the Zoning Code. All Zoning Code amendments require Zoning Commission approval.

Projects within a PDA are governed by a Development Plan. First, the Development Plan or any amendment to the Development Plan must be approved by the BRA after a public hearing. Then it goes to the Zoning Commission for approval of the actual PDA or PDA amendment after another public hearing. The Mayor's approval is also required, although the Zoning Commission can approve it over the Mayor's veto.
 
Seriously, for 5 more units? Whatever, glad it got approved. I am actually looking forward to hearing about the Turnpike construction process.
 
I hope these bigger projects get off the ground soon, it would be tragic if they fell victim to an economic downturn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top