Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suffolk 83 said:
Moderators:
images
Click to expand...

MOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
It pains me to say it (or even to think it) but if the choice for Boston development is "too slow" or "too fast" I'll go with "too slow".

Of course, they shouldn't be the only choices.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Moderators:
images
Click to expand...

I don't think even the moderators have the legal jurisdiction to condemn a member to exile in Legoland.

When will we hear if this BRA thing is just political maneuvering or a real roadblock to development? Is there a meeting scheduled or something?
 
Arch21 said:
Heres a timeline. the First sign of development was 2007 that's 14 years after he becomes mayor. That's sad no matter what party you are. I don't go on this forum for commentary. I go on here for status updates, links and pictures. There is only so many times you can read how shiny a building is.
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/about-us/timeline
Click to expand...

First off, I couldn't stand Menino at all. Second, I can't stand Democrats. Third.... I also can't stand Republicans, but most of all I can't stand people shoving politics where it doesn't belong. In this case, I am here to hear about buildings.

With that being said, here are some of the buildings completed prior to 2007 under Menino's tenure.

111 Huntington Ave - 554' (2002)
State Street Building - 503' (2003)
33 Arch - 477' (2004)
Ritz Carlton -475 (2001)
Ritz Carlton Residences - 445' (2001)
A dozen more 200'+ buildings between 2000-2006

I am in no position to judge the rest of your posts, but in this case, you are as wrong as wrong can be.
 
JohnAKeith said:
It pains me to say it (or even to think it) but if the choice for Boston development is "too slow" or "too fast" I'll go with "too slow".

Of course, they shouldn't be the only choices.
Click to expand...

As much as I'd love to see Boston develop faster, I think the rate it's moving in right now is pretty good. I live in a city that's developing much faster than Boston(Kuala Lumpur) and I wouldn't want to see that much development that fast in Boston. If Boston were in a developing nation on the cusp of becoming a first world country (like Malaysia) then development could move a greater rate. The problem with this super-fast development is that the infrastructure simply can't keep up with the demand. I just hope Boston keeps this pace for the next 30 years

Sorry to continue the off topic comments...now back to your fighting and trolling ;)
 
whighlander said:
By the way -- anyone have anything current on what is happening at Copley
Click to expand...

The final BRA approval for the amended PDA has been delayed (was supposed to occur last week) because of certain affordable housing advocates demanding that the building have 25% affordable units. Haven't seen any updates from the BRA for a new date.
 
Last edited:
As was discussed a couple pages back (Page 79 to be exact), but lost in the derail:

The project is being held up by community groups that demand a higher percentage of "affordable" units.

Boston Globe Story

Copley Place high-rise, facing opposition, stalls

Cranes and skyscrapers are springing up all over Boston, but a massive development proposed for Copley Place still isn’t any closer to breaking ground after almost seven years of planning.

The project, a 52-story tower and an expanded Neiman Marcus department store, was scheduled to receive approval Thursday by the Boston Redevelopment Authority but was pulled from the agenda at the last minute because of continued neighborhood opposition. The developer, Simon Property Group, has repeatedly clashed with housing activists over how many of the tower’s residential units would be priced as affordable.

The tower would have 542 units of housing, of which 76 would be affordable. Community groups have been pressing for a much higher percentage, and the BRA elected to hold off approval because of the opposition.

...
Click to expand...

EDIT: These midguided, but maybe well-being, people have artificially restricted supply once again.
 
Last edited:
Feel free to move this post to a more appropriate location:

Is there any requirement on the quality of the "affordable" housing? Developers' bottom lines are being seriously harmed by requiring more and more "affordable" units, and this is yet another disincentive for building in Boston, continuing to artificially restrict supply, much more than an unrestricted market would.

So: is it possible for a developer to build the affordable units off-site, or at a lower quality/cost, so as to get a building built?
 
bigeman312 said:
Feel free to move this post to a more appropriate location:

Is there any requirement on the quality of the "affordable" housing? Developers' bottom lines are being seriously harmed by requiring more and more "affordable" units, and this is yet another disincentive for building in Boston, continuing to artificially restrict supply, much more than an unrestricted market would.

So: is it possible for a developer to build the affordable units off-site, or at a lower quality/cost, so as to get a building built?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are technically 3 options in Boston:
1.) Build the affordable housing on-site in the development you are building (15%)
2.) Build the affordable housing off-site (equal to the amount you would need to build with option 1)
3.) Pay a proportional fee into the affordable housing fund

The problem with this system is that the community groups constantly hold up projects by mandating that only option 1 be used, that is building on-site. They threaten to block approval if option 2 or 3 is picked.

I've talked about this before, but I believe we could really build some excellent truly affordable housing in developing neighborhoods if option 2 was actually encouraged. It's much cheaper to develop TOD along the Orange Line than build a tower downtown. Furthermore, I believe the city should have master planned affordable housing developments that option 3 can fund. Right now the money just sits in the fund and isn't properly utilized to actually build affordable housing.
 
bigeman312 said:
Developers' bottom lines are being seriously harmed by requiring more and more "affordable" units, and this is yet another disincentive for building in Boston, continuing to artificially restrict supply, much more than an unrestricted market would.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm genuinely curious: Do you have any evidence to demonstrate this? Can you show that a less restricted market wouldn't cater even more to the wealthiest buyers and renters? Are there studies that show or even suggest that affordable housing requirements drive prices higher than unregulated markets?
 
GW said:
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm genuinely curious: Do you have any evidence to demonstrate this? Can you show that a less restricted market wouldn't cater even more to the wealthiest buyers and renters? Are there studies that show or even suggest that affordable housing requirements drive prices higher than unregulated markets?
Click to expand...

Ah....but I didn't make that claim (not saying that it is right or wrong). I only claimed that it is artificially restricting supply. You need look no further than this project to see that this is the case.

The indisputable fact is that supply is being artificially restricted.

The disputed claim is that the restriction of supply drives prices up. I do believe this to be the case, though. I think building more units is the best (but not only) solution to high housing costs.

I believe: the laws of economics apply to housing, just as they do to other goods and services. Therefore, increasing supply will drive down costs. Yes, there are examples of this. Hold on, while I get back to you with formal evidence rather.

EDIT: I edited an earlier post for clarity as to my beliefs.
 
GW:

Here is a link to a paper by economists that are way smarter than I am:

The Effect of Supply and Demand Factors on the
Affordability of Rental Housing

Here is a more layman's account of the effects of ignoring supply-and-demand, and how that increases housing costs in San Francisco:

Yes, Supply & Demand Apply to Housing, Even in San Francisco

The fact remains that you can find smart people on both sides of the argument. Economists tend to argue that increasing supply will decrease price, as that is one of the primary pillars of economics. Many advocates (who want the noble goal of making housing affordable), believe that housing should be more socialized, and subsidized, and that is the true way to make housing affordable.

Where both sides agree: we need more housing. Nobody on either side (who truly wants to see housing in Boston become more affordable) would disagree with this. The argument is what type of housing should be encouraged (free market versus subsidized). The way I see it: "affordable housing" (the program not the concept) advocates are holding up projects (this is exhibit A), which causes a restriction on supply (as this project is not being built quickly, for example).

These advocates (the serious ones) would tell you that restricting supply is bad, and increasing supply is part of the solution. What they would tell you, though, is that supply should only be increased with mandated "affordable" units. Where I have beef with them: these hold-ups restrict supply! Everyone on both sides would agree this is bad. Some (free market advocates) would tell you it is THE problem. Some ("affordable" housing advocates) would tell you this is a negative side effect of achieving the goal.

Regardless, anybody in favor of making housing more affordable would tell you that increasing supply is part of the solution. It is just a matter of how to increase the supply of what kinds of units that is in dispute.
 
kmp1284 said:
That's some kid's undergrad thesis/senior project.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Most of the high level research I have found, I do not have access to without paying (rightfully so).

For example

Modelling the demand and supply sides of the housing market: evidence from Ireland

The fact remains that supply-and-demand is an accepted reality in economics. Disputing it's application to housing would require evidence and citation. It's reality and existence is well documented and agreed upon by most economists. A paper saying that increasing supply of a good will decrease prices (or at least slow the rate at which prices increase) is more of an undergraduate topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top