Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

bigeman312 said:
NMW, More units = more affordable units.

Just because the government doesn't subsidize them, doesn't mean it isn't helping the poorer have more units they can afford. Supply and demand. Currently the supply does not meet the demand in the Boston area. Building as many units as possible is the best way to lower the cost of renting for the poor. It's as if people believe apartments/condos create people. These people will move from somewhere, don't you see? It is an issue of supply.
Click to expand...

We all know how well trickle down has worked!

Next time you walk past the Manderin, tell me how many lights are on....
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

jass said:
We all know how well trickle down has worked!

Next time you walk past the Manderin, tell me how many lights are on....
Click to expand...

Touche. I actually like the idea of designated affordable units. I am simply frustrated that the lack of supply is not being pushed as hard by many people (my perception). When I believe both affordable units and an increase in supply are necessary in Boston right now.

I spend enough time in Chicago to know that having more supply than demand does not end homelessness. But still, we need more supply. I was just being overly dramatic to make that point, and obscuring the other half of the solution.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

jass said:
We all know how well trickle down has worked!

Next time you walk past the Manderin, tell me how many lights are on....
Click to expand...

Increasing the supply of luxury housing does one of two things:
1. Drives down prices by increasing supply as Bigeman suggests.
2. Gets bought up or leased by out of town millionaires as a sort of pied a terre as Jass suggests.
In Scenario 1 there's a ripple effect that drives down prices, which benefits everyone living in the city (except, arguably, existing luxury home owners).
In Scenario 2 you bring in a whole bunch of tax payers that don't utilize city services, which benefits everyone living in the city.
Where's the downside to more housing (regardless of how luxurious it is)?

EDIT: I'm in favor of affordable housing set asides. So don't read my post as being just pro-luxury housing. I'm pro-any kind of housing.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Scenario 2 produces buildings that are half-empty, which does wonders for creating a neighborhood that supports useful businesses.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Maybe they should build a high rise brick project. Seriously, how can you make any verdict on a new housing development based on who the perspective buyers will be.

It is above a subway station with direct amtrak service on the NEC. It shares a building with a luxury department store and a host of other luxury brands. It sits across the street from an 800' glass building that houses many of boston's hedge funds. AKA its very valuable property and rich people are going to live there. Rich people get to buy nice things, like penthouse luxury apartments. Joe the plumber can't live on any floor.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^^^ Bingo!!!!!

@NMW: Still waiting for your response, pal. Convince us that you're not just a NIMBY.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

AmericanFolkLegend said:
Increasing the supply of luxury housing does one of two things:
1. Drives down prices by increasing supply as Bigeman suggests.
2. Gets bought up or leased by out of town millionaires as a sort of pied a terre as Jass suggests.
In Scenario 1 there's a ripple effect that drives down prices, which benefits everyone living in the city (except, arguably, existing luxury home owners).
In Scenario 2 you bring in a whole bunch of tax payers that don't utilize city services, which benefits everyone living in the city.
Where's the downside to more housing (regardless of how luxurious it is)?

EDIT: I'm in favor of affordable housing set asides. So don't read my post as being just pro-luxury housing. I'm pro-any kind of housing.
Click to expand...

It's going to end up being Scenario 2. Scenario 1 will never happen to the point that a significant amount of formerly non-affordable housing becomes affordable. Investors stash their money on luxury condos and apartment either to flip it or as a (once) stable asset (and one that can produce income).
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Ron Newman said:
Scenario 2 produces buildings that are half-empty, which does wonders for creating a neighborhood that supports useful businesses.
Click to expand...

The latest iteration has 400+ apartments and 100+ condos. The apartments won't be half empty.
But even if it ended up being 500+ condos and they truly end up being half empty, you just added several hundred people to a small, empty plaza. That:
does wonders for creating a neighborhood that supports useful businesses
Click to expand...
(your words, minus the sarcasm).
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

400 apartments and 100 condos could easily add 800-900 people to that immediate area. Not insignificant.
Also, I don't really see Boston as a pied a terre type city like New York or London. I am sure people would either want to live in this building or lease it out - either way you have people in the unit.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

You don't need to be a New York or London to be a "pied-a-terre city". I'm sure there's lots of companies that have leased out chunks of new Boston condo towers for short term corporate housing that doesn't get used year-round.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Czervik.Construction said:
Also, I don't really see Boston as a pied a terre type city like New York or London. I am sure people would either want to live in this building or lease it out - either way you have people in the unit.
Click to expand...

You must not frequent the 700–800 blocks of Boylston Street very often.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Is the 700-800 block the Mandarin Oriental? I don't think one building makes a trend. When I moved to NYC, half the apartments I looked at were condos being rented out by the owner.
Also, the idea that there is a glut of empty corporate housing is a bit overrated. What company would want all of that sitting on their balance sheet, post recession?

Anyway - I have gone way off topic. I am just happy this project is moving forward.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Jawdrop!
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

FenwayResident said:
Basically they are keeping the height the same, just increasing the amount of floors. They also tweaked the retail square footage slightly.
Click to expand...

Just a reminder for everyone if you haven't been keeping up with Copley Place, I took detailed notes of the information that eventually ended up in this NPC on Page 68 of this thread.

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=176079&postcount=1346

Some of the renders in the NPC are new and really nice, especially ground floor.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

A very nice looking project.

Developers must feel an imperative to get approval and start construction before Menino goes out. I took a few minutes to read the websites of the 4 leading mayoral contenders. IMHO all four want to be Mayor but beyond that there is no passion or directed conviction. None of them is what I would call pro-anything, certainly not pro-development per se. They are all spouting the same old tired stuff, better schools, safer streets, more neighborhood involvement, all good ideas but no new substance beyond what has been tried before.

I would guess that the small vocal activists we have heard from for years will have a lot of say at least in the first few years until the new Mayor learns the ropes and realizes city zoning enables the Mayor to control all development since virtually all projects need zoning relief giving him/her great influence and the ability to garner substantial funds for friendly politicians and power brokers and their constituencies and direct money to his/her own reelection/legacy.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Hot. This city needs some more curves.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

FenwayResident said:
Basically they are keeping the height the same, just increasing the amount of floors. They also tweaked the retail square footage slightly.
Click to expand...

You miss the biggest change:

The residential component going from 318 units in 670,000sf (avg 2,106sf per unit) to 542 in 680,000sf (avg 1,254sf per unit).

Per page 68, they've gone from 100% condo to 20% condo and 80% apartment.

That's not just a tweak, but a sea change. Evidently, they are seeing that there is far more demand to live in town, but far less demand for space. Maybe that whole micro-unit urban philosophy is taking hold?

My other guess is that this may be a reconciliation move to Bob the guitar strummer and the NIMBY's for some affordable units in the building.
 
Last edited:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

1,254sf is quite far from "micro unit"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top