Decking the Mass. Pike.

M

MBTAddict

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
474
Reaction score
0
I feel like this is something that has come up on various threads before, and if there is a more appropriate place for this, then by all means move this thread there.

What I was hoping to accumulate here are all the pros and cons of decking I-90 as it passes through Boston, especially the section from Mass. Ave. to Harrison Ave., or right up to I-93.

The common theme holding back development of air rights over the Pike seems to be the cost associated with the decking needed to support large-scale development.

I would say I agree with proponents of having some combo of the city/state funding the investment in decking, and then recouping that investment by renting the spaces created above.
 
MBTAddict said:
I would say I agree with proponents of having some combo of the city/state funding the investment in decking, and then recouping that investment by renting the spaces created above.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I don't imagine that filling the Back Bay was financed by asking each individual future property owner to pay for the landfill underneath their foundation.

This would make gobs of money for the State, and enhance the tax base for the city. Only Ned Flaherty loses. (I do wonder if the Columbus Center drama has pushed this off the agenda for another 10 years, however sense it might make to pursue immediately)
 
If the landlord wants to lease the space, the landlord needs to make it suitable for leasing. In this case, that means decking it. Yes, that will cost money, but in return we get a perpetual revenue stream. It could easily be paid for with very long term bonds, maybe 99 years to coincide with the lease terms. There is nothing about building over the Pike that benefits the developer enough to justify the greater expense. The developer can't get that back in higher revenue than the guy who does an infill project on a parking lot.

If the state is serious about air rights construction, the state needs to underwrite the decking.
 
Shepard said:
I completely agree. I don't imagine that filling the Back Bay was financed by asking each individual future property owner to pay for the landfill underneath their foundation.

This would make gobs of money for the State, and enhance the tax base for the city. Only Ned Flaherty loses. (I do wonder if the Columbus Center drama has pushed this off the agenda for another 10 years, however sense it might make to pursue immediately)
Click to expand...

Shep - Filling the Back Bay was accomplished by borrowing the money to finance the filling and then selling the lots for development to repay the Bonds and then finance the next block

That's why the Back Bay is the museum of 19th Century architecture -- each few blocks from Arlington to Kenmore Sq. took about 10 years to fill and then build-out and then the next few blocks where filled, etc.

The whole process rolled west from 1857 to 1894 although much was done in the first few decades:
Filling reached Clarendon St. in 1860
Filling reached Exeter St. in 1870 -- and the Civil War also raged
Filling reached Charlesgate East in 1882
Filling reached Kenmore Sq. in 1890

at the peak 3500 rail car loads of gravel per day arrived from Needham

Decking the Pike could be done in the same way -- sell Bonds deck the Pike for a couple of blocks -- sell the development rights with a 99 year ground lease -- move on

The decking would be designed to support a Pru-scale but perhaps slimmer tower with the developer having to pay for anything in excess
 
Lots were laid out on the east side of Kenmore sq by 1884, No buildings yet though
 
Does anyone know a ballpark price to put the deck in from Mass. Ave. to Harrison? Taking a piecemeal approach I think makes sense, but I'm just curious what the overall investment by the state would be.
 
You're really only talking from Clarendon to Harrison (Mass to Clarendon is the Pru/Copley/BB decking). Clarendon to Harrison is a whopping half a mile.

According to this link on Planetizen, these decks can be upwards of $500/sqft

Taking a length of 2800ft and a width of 250ft (measured on Google Earth) we get 700,000 sqft (note this does include cross-streets) x $500 = $350million

I'm not convinced it would be that anywhere near that cost, though, but perhaps this gives some idea.
 
God, even if it is half that (which it probably would end up being MORE), that is seriously cost prohibitive for new development.
 
Shepard said:
You're really only talking from Clarendon to Harrison (Mass to Clarendon is the Pru/Copley/BB decking). Clarendon to Harrison is a whopping half a mile.

According to this link on Planetizen, these decks can be upwards of $500/sqft

Taking a length of 2800ft and a width of 250ft (measured on Google Earth) we get 700,000 sqft (note this does include cross-streets) x $500 = $350million

I'm not convinced it would be that anywhere near that cost, though, but perhaps this gives some idea.
Click to expand...

Seems to me like treating like the Back Bay makes sense with these numbers. Break it up into sections. Once a section is decked and a development deal is inked, move on to the next one.

It would be pretty easy to break the section into pieces. Just sue the existing cross streets, which is how the air rights parcels are broken up for the most part, right?)
 
Shepard said:
You're really only talking from Clarendon to Harrison (Mass to Clarendon is the Pru/Copley/BB decking). Clarendon to Harrison is a whopping half a mile.

According to this link on Planetizen, these decks can be upwards of $500/sqft

Taking a length of 2800ft and a width of 250ft (measured on Google Earth) we get 700,000 sqft (note this does include cross-streets) x $500 = $350million

I'm not convinced it would be that anywhere near that cost, though, but perhaps this gives some idea.
Click to expand...

Shep -- 700,000 sq ft - that is more than 15 acres -- tell me how much would you pay for 15 acres of land in downtown Boston?

In Lexington people buy small houses (1/2 Capes, small ranches say 1000 to 1,200 sq ft typically) on 1/4 acre for $400,000 and tear the house down for the lot. This lot in a couple of weeks is cleared and used to build another, if larger single family home. Say the new house is 5,000 sq ft -- a McMansion.

That suggests if you were a mega developer in Lexington -- acquiring 15 acres in Lexington would cost you 15 x 4 x $400,000 = $ 24 Million upon which you could build perhaps 60 x 5,0000 = 300,000 sq ft.

How much could you build on 15 acres in downtown Boston with a FAR of 4 you could build over 2.6 million square feet which might cost you $2+ Billion just for the construction -- you still have to acquire the land or the decked-Pike
 
Alright, then, who paid for the decking for the Prudential, etc.?
 
I don't know the answer to your question John, but I'm not sure it's relevant. The vast majority of the Prudential complex is not built above the Pike. And the complex is so massive, that it may well have given the developer adequate scale to pay for decking and still make a decent ROI. There is no comparable opportunity today unless we get a West End treatment for the South End. Any new project involving air rights will be almost all built on a deck.
 
I thought it was relevant because the question here is whether the state / DOT should put up the money to deck the Pike or whether developers should. If the land above is going to be rented to the developers on a 99 year lease, then do they have the incentive to want to pay for the decking, too?

When they were going to do Columbus Center, I wanted it all to be private money (since the developer wasn't going to have to buy a piece of land like other developers, he should have to pay to make the land) but I saw some logic to having the state / DOT contribute something toward the "infrastructure", however that would be defined. But I don't think they wanted the state to pay, I seem to remember it was a loan?
 
Okay, I see where you're going with that now, thanks for the clarification. I wonder what the cost difference is between buying a plot and building one? I'd argue that the developer shouldnt have to pay to build the land when they aren't getting use in perpetuity.
 
HenryAlan said:
Okay, I see where you're going with that now, thanks for the clarification. I wonder what the cost difference is between buying a plot and building one? I'd argue that the developer shouldnt have to pay to build the land when they aren't getting use in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Henry -- Its as they say complicated

Chap 91 land -- i.e. land made by filling mud flats and such -- e.g. Fan Pier has much the same constraints -- you mostly can't own it -- you are just borrowing it from the Commonwealth for your project

So with the Pike -- you could buy land outside the Pike ROW and then extend your project by renting the air rights over the Pike -- who builds the deck just changes the balance between capital cost of decking versus rental fee for its use

The one advantage of having the Commonwealth do the decking is the power of borrowing money at the Massachusetts rate versus that of a private developer -- that said of course if the Commonwealth builds the deck the project should have some direct public benefits contributed by the developer: a public parking garage, park or school, etc.
 
whighlander said:
that said of course if the Commonwealth builds the deck the project should have some direct public benefits contributed by the developer: a public parking garage, park or school, etc.
Click to expand...

Should it? Isn't the long-term economic benefit of filling in a scarred gap in the neighborhood enough -- presumably increasing property taxes, plus bringing more people to the area to shop, eat dinner, etc.

Why is it now okay for government to bully private developers into community benefits all the time? I thought less government interference was better...... imagine the failure the Back Bay would be if every lot had a requirement for the original developer to provide a direct public benefit?

EDIT TO ADD: Mind you, I don't necessarily believe this but want to play devil's advocate in light of today's climate where it seems "government" is bad....... except if it's to my personal benefit.
 
Last edited:
bbfen said:
Why is it now okay for government to bully private developers into community benefits all the time? I thought less government interference was better...... imagine the failure the Back Bay would be if every lot had a requirement for the original developer to provide a direct public benefit?
Click to expand...

Everyone points to the Back Bay as a model but the truth is it was more the exception than the rule. It was built by the elite (the 1% if you will) as their own personal homes based on a social contract, an urban design aesthetic that was subscribed to at the time.

The development environment is so totally different now that expecting new projects to be the "next Back Bay" are naive.

I don't think a government asking private developers to build community benefits is bullying; social engineering maybe. The government has to have the public's interest at heard (theoretically) while a private developer has only his. If the developer is going to do something that dramatically impacts others then I don't see why the government SHOULDN'T have a say. Of course the degree to which the government regulates development will always be debatable but I don't think a true Free Market would automatically improve things.
 
@van, right -- see my addendum above.

In the way that a catastrophe is often several things all going wrong all at once, I think the success of the Back Bay was a coincidence of several things all going RIGHT at once.
 
bbfen said:
Should it? Isn't the long-term economic benefit of filling in a scarred gap in the neighborhood enough -- presumably increasing property taxes, plus bringing more people to the area to shop, eat dinner, etc.

Why is it now okay for government to bully private developers into community benefits all the time? I thought less government interference was better...... imagine the failure the Back Bay would be if every lot had a requirement for the original developer to provide a direct public benefit?

EDIT TO ADD: Mind you, I don't necessarily believe this but want to play devil's advocate in light of today's climate where it seems "government" is bad....... except if it's to my personal benefit.
Click to expand...

bbf -- But every lot in the BB did have requirements -- that's why we got the BB as it is:

There was a uniformity to setbacks -- enforced through leaving the cellar holes unfilled below the street level
The deeds for the land also specified exterior materials and I believe a minimum height to the cornice
The Commonwealth also built the sidewalks -- especially Commonwealth Ave with its "mall'
Certain plots were set aside for churches and schools including the precursor to the MOS and MIT's 'new home on Boylston (where the Newbry is located)
Copley Sq. with the BPL and the original MFA
Public Garden
The "sea wall" behind Beacon St.

Without the 1%'s being involved -- aka The Commonwealth -- none of the above would have happened -- it could have turned into another -- (name your favorite)

Note - I'm not advocating that the government always have that level of control -- its just a balancing act -- if the taxpayer's money is involved a la the Greenway -- the taxpayer's through their Representatives in government (or directly thought referendum) should have some say over the disposition of the properties
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top