Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm going to run a little contrary to the hive-mind on this one, but I think this is not the worst loss. Of course the tower is beautiful and the placement in the skyline aesthetically pleasing. From that perspective we are missing out. We are losing the residential units too, fair enough, but there are many more in the pipeline all around the area.

However, this is an air-rights parcel that is already developed and is still actively being further improved at the ground level. This isn't Columbus Center all over again. It wasn't healing scars or stitching together neighborhoods. We are getting the most important part of the project which is the outward facing storefronts. I'll be the optimist and call this a partial win. They aren't canning the whole project.

Also, to the other optimists in the room who think these air-rights are too valuable to not become a tower, think about it again. The reason it is getting dumped in precisely because the value isn't there. I predict we won't see another proposal at this site for decades.
 
While air-rights is always going to be more expensive than clear ground, I assume the relative expense of the deck is probably the same now as it was in 2013. What changed however is labor availability and costs, which is obviously due to the large number of ongoing construction including Wynn casino. There was a story in the Globe about this recently...
 
190 meter building over the i-90 freeway on a turd parcel.

Back Bay has fallen beneath the waves.
 
Long term, I'm optomistic this will ultimately get developed as it is one of the last 10-20 or so sites in central Boston to host a 500+ footer. But, short term, yeah this is a punch in the groin and a reminder that Boston just isn't going to put up 500+fts at the pace of a peer city like SF or Philly. Zoning is a problem of course, but even when that is taken care of most of the future project spots involve tough infastructural challanges that make building far more expensive than replacing a parking lot in center city Philly.

The cities are simply constructed differently. Nothing wrong with it. Boston needs to take a page out of DC's playbook at zone its main streets for 5-10 story infill and identify a few downtown adjacent zones for heavy midrise development.
 
jpdivola said:
Long term, I'm optomistic this will ultimately get developed as it is one of the last 10-20 or so sites in central Boston to host a 500+ footer. But, short term, yeah this is a punch in the groin and a reminder that Boston just isn't going to put up 500+fts at the pace of a peer city like SF or Philly. Zoning is a problem of course, but even when that is taken care of most of the future project spots involve tough infastructural challanges that make building far more expensive than replacing a parking lot in center city Philly.

The cities are simply constructed differently. Nothing wrong with it. Boston needs to take a page out of DC's playbook at zone its main streets for 5-10 story infill and identify a few downtown adjacent zones for heavy midrise development.
Click to expand...

JPDivola?????? Quoi????

Have you bothered to scan this ABforum in the past 2 years or so?

What you have to understand is that in Boston many things are proposed and over time many of them get done -- not all -- and perhaps not the one you really wanted. Especially as has been pointed out numerous times -- building over highways and rail lines is much harder to do than building on solid ground.

Overall -- Many X more dollars are being invested in Boston development than in your peer cities -- $2.1B in the Cassino alone. Then there's Kendall and the Seaport and eventually Harvard will gets it act together on the western fringe.

All that constriction activity is good for junkies and groupies, sidewalk superintendents, suppliers of building materials and equipment and union construction workers -- but for someone trying to build big -- it jacks the already high cost of building over the Pike, RR and even the Green Line and Orange Lines -- to hard to make profitable levels

So you have Simon sitting on some of the most retail-valuable real estate and a full office complex used as the HQ for Wayfare, a fast growing company. Simon is going to do what Simon is not going to sell the development rights --- although I could image them looking for a joint venture partner with residential experience. They also might come back with a slightly modified plan to incorporate some office space in the lower part of the tower as office space vacancy rates have recently declined quite a bit.
 
Smartiro said:
While air-rights is always going to be more expensive than clear ground, I assume the relative expense of the deck is probably the same now as it was in 2013. What changed however is labor availability and costs, which is obviously due to the large number of ongoing construction including Wynn casino. There was a story in the Globe about this recently...
Click to expand...

^ This is probably the main reason for the postponement. (the optimist in me refuses to call it a cancellation, as Simon states it's only being postponed) I have two friends working construction at the Wynn casino site, and they are getting tons of overtime, working weekends, etc. All of those dollar $igns add up fast. It's great for them, but unfortunately this also makes finding workers even harder for other projects, and at greater cost. Add that onto the already higher than normal site-specific costs here and we probably have the answer. ..The wrath of our disappointment can be directed at Steve Wynn. :)
 
KentXie said:
I think he is referring to highrises being put up specifically, not global ranking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was speaking only of the build environment of the downtown core. Not regional economic performance.
 
whighlander said:
JPDivola?????? Quoi????

Have you bothered to scan this ABforum in the past 2 years or so?

What you have to understand is that in Boston many things are proposed and over time many of them get done -- not all -- and perhaps not the one you really wanted. Especially as has been pointed out numerous times -- building over highways and rail lines is much harder to do than building on solid ground.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all. My point is central Boston is contrained by lots of logistical/political barriers to growth. Those impediments make me optimistic that we will eventually see something built on this site. Long term, it is simply too good to pass up.

The only reason I mention Philly and SF is those two are the urban cores that remind me the most of Boston. They have built more tall buildings than Boston over the past 10 years. If those trends continue on into the future, the cores may diverge over time. Not a bad thing is an objective sense. But, I would like to see Boston feel like a bit more of a bigger city.
 
jpdivola said:
I don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all. My point is central Boston is contrained by lots of logistical/political barriers to growth. Those impediments make me optimistic that we will eventually see something built on this site. Long term, it is simply too good to pass up.

The only reason I mention Philly and SF is those two are the urban cores that remind me the most of Boston. They have built more tall buildings than Boston over the past 10 years. If those trends continue on into the future, the cores may diverge over time. Not a bad thing is an objective sense. But, I would like to see Boston feel like a bit more of a bigger city.
Click to expand...

^When the current projects in the pipeline have risen, the skyline will have expanded-giving the city a bigger look to it...Especially North Station area. The new 750' peak downtown (Winthrop Sq.) will also be awesome-especially if the golden crown shines brightly at night. Copley Place Tower would've filled in nicely, and at least we can look forward to it coming back some day. :)
 
jpdivola said:
Yeah, I was speaking only of the build environment of the downtown core. Not regional economic performance.
Click to expand...

I get it now, thanks. It was your use of the word 'peer' that caused me to respond with the gobal list since I don't consider Philly anywhere close to being a peer to Boston. The global list was just to back up my point about peer city.
 
atlantaden said:
I get it now, thanks. It was your use of the word 'peer' that caused me to respond with the gobal list since I don't consider Philly anywhere close to being a peer to Boston. The global list was just to back up my point about peer city.
Click to expand...

Similar size, density, palette (lots of red brick), history, and build-up/skyline. Philly seems a little dumpier but the streets are extremely busy and vibrant. It's probably the closest peer city to Boston in the country from an architectural standpoint.
 
I'd say that Seattle is the closest peer to Boston from an economic/size standpoint.
 
tysmith95 said:
I'd say that Seattle is the closest peer to Boston from an economic/size standpoint.
Click to expand...

From a Metropolitan Area GDP (really GMP Gross Metropolitan Product) standpoint, San Francisco (7), Philadelphia (8) and Boston (9) are pretty tightly clustered in US city terms. Atlanta (10), Seattle (11) and Miami (12) form the next cluster.
 
DZH22 said:
Similar size, density, palette (lots of red brick), history, and build-up/skyline. Philly seems a little dumpier but the streets are extremely busy and vibrant. It's probably the closest peer city to Boston in the country from an architectural standpoint.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree, but I always put Philly as kind of a mix of say the DC style of architecture/streets vs more northern city styles found in Boston/NYC/Providence/etc. Either way I really do like/enjoy Philly - its a pretty neat city to visit.
 
Greater Boston metro is probably about on the order of 0.90 of the San Francisco metro.

the problem with all the comparisons is whether you choose to include San Jose or not.

in any case, San Francisco has a slightly better-organized, larger central core, and highrise grid.

They're pushing into big nimbyism at this point.

A large anti-development sentiment that's growing.
 
odurandina said:
Greater Boston metro is probably about on the order of 0.90 of the San Francisco metro.

the problem with all the comparisons is whether you choose to include San Jose or not.

in any case, San Francisco has a slightly better-organized, larger central core, and highrise grid.
Click to expand...

San Francisco is GAY. Boston is gay too but a more sophisticated ivy league gay while San Francisco is just a flamboyant gay. When I meet fellow cock suckers in San Francisco I know they're gay. In Boston it's harder to tell.
 
What the actual fuck.

This board has gone to shit. Some of you just need to get your own blogs and keep it off aB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top