Development Map and Chart

fattony

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,956
Reaction score
114
Here's a good counter argument. The number of people who make 50-99k are growing at a faster rate than those making above that; however housing stock that serves those making 99k+ are increasing while those serving those who make less than that is either stagnant or even decreasing as many of those older housing stock are being upgraded to luxury housing. Restricting luxury development may not be the answer, but affordable housing should be the main focus, not luxury and unfortunately market forces aren't going to compel developers to build more affordable housing. You need the government for that.
I don't have data to support this, but I suspect the exact opposite is true. I suspect that people making high incomes make up the vast majority of population growth in metro Boston, especially downtown.

Also, I can't believe this needs to be said, but there is no such thing as "housing stock that serves" people at any particular income level. Houses are fungible.

I live in a house built in 1910 in what was a blue collar town. The first residents of the house were probably factory workers and the vast majority over the years have probably been school teachers and auto mechanics. What is the neighborhood like today? I'm an engineer, my upstairs neighbor is an economist, and 2 doors down is a software entrepreneur and a surgeon. The housing stock doesn't pick its residents, the residents pick the housing stock.

In a marketplace, if you have a widget to sell, you sell it to the highest bidder. That is the way the world works. There are more people with more money who want to live in Boston. Each home sale is a little auction in which the highest bidder wins. Every year there is someone willing to fork over just a little more cash than the next guy to live in a house built for factory workers.

Without government subsidy to make the deal worthwhile, you can't force a developer to sell a new home to someone other than the highest bidder. That's all there is to this. It really is that simple.

If your position is that government should do more to subsidize housing then I agree! That is a tactic that can and likely will work.

Stopping building new homes because you are angry that there are so many people with so much more money than you is not going to get you your desired result.
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
93
Then maybe the .gov can actually afford to fix their railway.
Holy crap. Odura, we actually agree on something.

...revenue from development is the lowest hanging fruit to fund revitalization of the city/metro.
 

Rover

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
806
Reaction score
137
As unrealistic as this may sound, this would be more effective than banning luxury construction for the goal of easing the plight of the $50-$100K a year middle class in Boston.

Build luxury towers as high as the FAA will allow downtown and charge the equivalent of a 20% set aside for affordable housing. THEN, the city uses those funds to purchase a huge parcel of land (say Widett Circle) where it constructs for sale 10,000-15,000 affordable units using a lottery system. City's criteria for inclusion in the lottery would be that 1) you are currently living in Boston (can be an owner or renter), 2) your average household income over the last 3 years is <$100K, and 3) you agree to not deal the property for 20 years so that you can't just cash out and make a quick gain.

This would have a far, far greater benefit that stopping luxury construction which would not benefit middle class people. It would directly open up housing for about 30-50 thousand people since the city could construct multiple bed units for families since ROI wouldn't be a factor. 15K units at an average price of $275K would bring $4Bn back to the city.
 

Coyote137

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
748
Reaction score
27
The following things can all be true (hint - they are):

1) Building a luxury unit on parcel A does not cause the price of a unit on parcel B to go up. What makes the price of a unit on parcel B go up is there being someone willing to pay more for parcel B than is currently being paid. This is the case regardless of whether or not someone is actively occupying the unit just built on parcel A.

2) We still may still want to tax the unit on parcel A based upon any number of reasons. For instance, we may prefer to have people who actually live in their units. This debate will fall on ideological lines, but is likely broadly popular in Boston.

3) Doing number 2 above is certainly going to impact the incentives that developers have. It will change the calculus of the units built on parcel A, in all likelihood reducing the number of "super luxury" units that are built expressly to attract people who don't plan on living in these units.

4) The reason that we have people willing to pay more for the unit on parcel B is indeed because of the red hot jobs market.

5) Construction has not kept pace with the influx of demand. This has been true for the last couple decades.

6) Reducing the number of luxury units under construction will reduce the number of units built per inclusionary zoning requirements.

7) Zoning requirements have generally served to reduce the creation of new units everywhere. Multi-family housing, outside the urban core in particular, has been looked down upon or outright banned.



There seems to be an operating theory that developers will build tons of affordable housing (however you define that) if luxury units were somehow penalized to the point of not being built (or only being built in small quantities). That supposes capital would throw its hands up, say "you win," and start in with lots of no frills units. In fact, the money would simply go wherever profit margins are highest.

This theory also supposes that not building the luxury units on parcel A would prevent prices on parcel B from rising, or at least from rising as much, which is absurd. The demand is there. The income is there.

As much as I love democratic socialism, we have a supply problem here. Simply obstructing luxury development is not the answer to income inequality or housing prices. Decades of supply constraint have created the problem, and we need all of the things Jumbo mentions - more units at whatever rate the developers will build them, more inclusionary zoning units, more public housing units, more CDCs, etc.

If I won Powerball, I'd build thousands of units at market rate with no extra frills, but that would be simply because I'm such a great guy. :)
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
Holy crap. Odura, we actually agree on something.

...revenue from development is the lowest hanging fruit to fund revitalization of the city/metro.
nahh, we agree on a lot of shit.

it's just that i'm an endless first class dickhead about the way i talk it.
 

TheRifleman

Banned
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
4,431
Reaction score
0
Just because a developer calls units luxury doesn't mean they are luxury.
This terminology is used for marketing terms to groups that have money that are willing to buy the product.

If the market turns south Luxury Units are Units for Sale--Bottom line. They will sell at what price the current market conditions demand.

Building taller in the core of the city is very needed specifically on the hardrail access to limit traffic congestion.
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
Build luxury towers as high as the FAA will allow downtown and charge the equivalent of a 20% set aside for affordable housing. THEN, the city uses those funds to purchase a huge parcel of land (say Widett Circle) where it constructs for sale 10,000-15,000 affordable units using a lottery system.....
greatest post ever.

Maybe this is the future and it's already being discussed.

We'll need to stop doing things the old way if anything even close to this is true......

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...serious-one/IIl10IwZ7DElJ5YDXJ7BjO/story.html

Yimby's & "anti-gentrification activists...."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...is/aB9HnRP3QGmSHxM07bV8WI/story.html#comments
 
Last edited:

cadetcarl

Active Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
424
Reaction score
18
I had a whole lengthy entry written to try to address certain points being made, and when I finished it I realized it didn't contain anything we don't all already know, so I erased it, have decided to put this question to you all instead:

IF there is a price floor for housing (because land and materials and labor etc. have costs), and

IF the business of development is trying to generate a profit against those costs,

THEN it follows that it is possible for a condition to exist in which a developer (or developers, broadly speaking), cannot be profitable while meeting the housing needs of certain segments of the market.

IF housing is a necessity, and

IF the city requires people of all jobs and therefore all incomes to function properly,

THEN what does the person who finds themselves in one of those segments do? Or what is society's responsibility to them?


It seems to me that the argument for affordable units is basically an argument for developers to take a haircut. But we're just debating the extent to which they're able to do that, right? Like, how much profit a builder can make on any given project? This is a fine argument to have, I suppose, but we ought to follow it to its conclusion: 15% of units in buildings for let's say 10% of people, will never house 90% of us. So maybe you increase the percentage of "affordable" units. Maybe you even make it reflect the real income distribution of people living in your city. But on the way there, you might run into a point where the person building the thing can no longer afford to build it at any sort of profit. What happens then? These little percentages all seem kind of beside the point.
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
93
I had a whole lengthy entry written to try to address certain points being made, and when I finished it I realized it didn't contain anything we don't all already know, so I erased it, have decided to put this question to you all instead:

IF there is a price floor for housing (because land and materials and labor etc. have costs), and

IF the business of development is trying to generate a profit against those costs,

THEN it follows that it is possible for a condition to exist in which a developer (or developers, broadly speaking), cannot be profitable while meeting the housing needs of certain segments of the market.

IF housing is a necessity, and

IF the city requires people of all jobs and therefore all incomes to function properly,

THEN what does the person who finds themselves in one of those segments do? Or what is society's responsibility to them?


It seems to me that the argument for affordable units is basically an argument for developers to take a haircut. But we're just debating the extent to which they're able to do that, right? Like, how much profit a builder can make on any given project? This is a fine argument to have, I suppose, but we ought to follow it to its conclusion: 15% of units in buildings for let's say 10% of people, will never house 90% of us. So maybe you increase the percentage of "affordable" units. Maybe you even make it reflect the real income distribution of people living in your city. But on the way there, you might run into a point where the person building the thing can no longer afford to build it at any sort of profit. What happens then? These little percentages all seem kind of beside the point.
Easy. The 115 Fed -type model. Developer contributes to an affordable housing fund as a % of profit made from units sold.

Therefore it becomes a function of units selling and removes risk from the developer. I realize my example is from a developer buying land from the city (and the contribution went to parks, not housing), but the point is both parties (city and developer) found a way to share risk and that sustained incentive for the developer.
 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
224
IF there is a price floor for housing (because land and materials and labor etc. have costs), and

IF the business of development is trying to generate a profit against those costs,

THEN it follows that it is possible for a condition to exist in which a developer (or developers, broadly speaking), cannot be profitable while meeting the housing needs of certain segments of the market.

IF housing is a necessity, and

IF the city requires people of all jobs and therefore all incomes to function properly,

THEN what does the person who finds themselves in one of those segments do? Or what is society's responsibility to them?
For one, housing is a durable good. Housing is a necessity, but new housing is not. We don't need all people to be able to afford new housing; we just need all people to be able to afford housing. If those who can afford it move into new housing, then that frees up existing housing for those of lesser means.

But your larger point is true of every good and service across all industries. There will always be some segment of society that will not be able to afford to purchase new products -- including life necessities -- even at a price equal to the cost of creating those goods with zero profit.

  • There is a segment of society that can't afford food even at zero-profit prices. We address this through WIC and EBT and similar programs. We don't fund these programs by targeting extra fees specifically at purchasers or producers of food (there's no extra grocery stores or restaurant tax). Rather, the cost of these programs are borne primarily by society at large through general taxation.
  • There is a segment of society that can't afford medicine or medical care even at zero-profit prices. We address this through Medicare and Medicaid and CHIP and similar programs. We don't fund these programs by targeting extra fees specifically at purchasers or producers of medicine (there's no extra hospital or doctors office or pharmacy taxes). Rather, the cost of these programs are borne primarily by society at large through general taxation.
  • There is a segment of society that can't afford education for their children even at zero-profit prices. We address this through the public school system. We don't fund public schools by targeting extra fees specifically at students or teachers (there's no extra school or college taxes). Rather, the cost of these schools are borne primarily by society at large through general taxation.
Obviously the quality of these various means of delivering necessities differ, but there is broad consensus that these programs should be paid for by society at large. Out of all of life's necessities, only for housing do we expect the producers and purchasers of new goods to be the ones who subsidize people who cannot afford those necessities. There's no reason we should treat housing any differently than food or medicine or education. Housing can be provided through a robust public housing system (as we do for education) or through targeted vouchers and special delivery programs (as we do for food and medical care). These costs should be borne by society at large. We don't expect private schools to bear the cost of public education, we don't expect grocery stores and restaurant to bear the cost of "food stamps," and we don't expect doctors and pharmacists and privately insured patients to bear the costs of medicare and medicaid. So why do we expect developers and residents of new construction to bear the cost of "affordable" housing?
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
Project Summary Sheet;

(last update Aug 01, 2018 ) i'll be adding about 30 significant projects in the coming days; please pm about errors.

proposed, rooftop heights;
*(Boston or mass.gov spearheading projects)


1. Harbor Garage Tower/Central Wharf 48 stories 600' (moving forward).

2. 125 Lincoln St (garage site) 24 stories 370'

3. 15 Harrison Avenue/Drago and Toscano/Chinatown hotel 26 stories 325'

4. 1 Kenmore Sq tower 314'

5. Motor Mart Garage development 26 stories 310'

6. 436 Atlantic Ave/J Hook tower 24 stories 305'.

7. 560 Commonwealth Ave hotel/Kenmore Sq/Fenway 382 rooms 161,000 sq ft 24-stories 291'

8. 88 Seaport Blvd/Seaport 485,000 sq ft 18 stories 262'

9. flag this one 21. Hood Office Park lab tower 250' approved

12. Cambridge Crossing/ Parcel 1 Residences 475 units 250 pkg 390,000 sq ft 21 stories 250'

13. *One Charlestown/BHA/Bunker Hill total project;
incl dozens of row houses and 100,000 sq ft of civic and retail space


17. 655 Beacon St hotel/Kenmore Square/Fenway 295 rooms/ 73 parking 186,000 sq ft 19 stories 242'

18. 73 Essex St/Chinatown hotel 137,000 sq ft 17 stories 235'

19. 659 Commonwealth Ave/ BU Dorm 17 stories 218'

20. *BHA/McCormack Housing Complex Redo/Old Colony Ave/South Boston 3,200~3,500 units on 27 acres.

21. *776 Summer St/ L Street Station/South Boston Mixed Res/retail/ office 1,588 units 2.1M sq ft

22. *Allston Yards/60 Everett St/Allston 1000 units

aaaa july 12

u/r 27. 36~705 Sprague St/Readville Station/Hyde Park 521 units 557,000 sq ft

28. 55 wheeler street/ Alewife Station/ cambridge 526 units 500,000 sq ft

29. Quincy Center/Quincy ~500 residential units (condos + apts)

30. Queensbury Garage area Residences/ Fenway 400 units.

31. 45-47 Townsend St/Roxbury 322 Units 380,000 sq ft

32. Harrison Avenue Tower/ Ink Block/South End 245 units 14 stories 170'


aaaa jun15 35. 105 W South Street mixed use/residential incl 218 units 250,000 sq ft

36. 780 American Legion Hwy

37. 112 Shawmut Avenue/South End/ 155 units 180,200 sq ft 13 stories 170'

38. 174 Ipswitch St/Boston Arts Academy/Fenway ~180,000 sq ft

39. Newtonville/Kofrf/Newton 151 1-2 bdrm units.

40. Mattapan Station/Mattapan 135 units 167,000 sq ft

41. 40 Mount Hood Rd/ Brighton 178 units 142 prkg spaces 163,000 sq ft

42. 1241 Boylston St/ Fenway 184 hotel rooms 105,000 sq ft

43. 37-43 North Beacon Street/ Allston 74 units 87,484 sq ft (proposed)

44. 70 Baker Street/West Roxbury 56 units 77,738 sq ft

45. 301-303 Border Street/ East Boston 64 units + retail 75,167 sq ft

46. 944-946 Saratoga Street/ East Boston 39 units + 42 parking spaces 55,000 sq ft

47. 11 Burney St/ Mission Hill 31 units 32,000 sq ft (proposed)

48. 1 Harrison St/ South End 63 units 45 prkg spaces 91,547 sq ft

49. 500 Talbot Avenue/ Dorchester 40 units 23 prkg spaces 49,500 sq ft

ff

approved but, delayed or unbuilt, failed, DEAD or went stale....

1. Copley Place Tower/Back Bay 52 stories 625'
(approved 2015/ put indefinitely on hold in Oct 2016)

2. Columbus Center; 34 stories 420'
(approved 2007/cancelled in 2008/ Bostonplans searching for a new developer).

3. 380 Stewart Street/JHT #3/Back Bay 26 stories 390'
(approved 11 Nov 2015 has gone quiet)

4. Boston Landing Hotel Boston 175 rooms 16 stories 236' (has gone stale)

5. GE Headquarters Building/Ft Point *main building of 700k sq ft complex (cancelled)

6. 104 Canal/Boutique Hotel/West End 15 Stories 191' 90 rooms (has gone stale)

7. 55 India Street 12 stories 149' (has gone stale)
 
Last edited:

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
if SST (somehow) goes u/c i'll have almost nothing to moan about.

approved, +/- construction, topped, +/- cladding or completed;
*(year = year project completed, constr = under construction).

black ink
denotes not yet u/c.....

1. 1 Dalton Street/Four Seasons/Back Bay 61 stories 742' (2019)

2. 115 Winthrop Sq West Tower/Downtown 52 Stories 691' (constr).

3. Millennium Tower/Downtown Crossing 60 stories 685' (2016)


4. South Station Tower; 51 stories 677' (construction early 2020)

5. Govt Center office tower/Downtown 43 stories 601' tip (constr)

6. 115 Winthrop Sq Tower East Tower/Downtown 45 Stories 579' (constr).

7. Govt Center residential tower/Downtown 45 stories 547' (topped)

8. TD Garden office tower/West End 525,000 sq ft ~31 stories 510' (topped).


9. Residential tower on MIT's 10 acre Volpe site 30 stories 500' (construction 2021)

10. TD Garden resident tower/West End 45 stories 496' (topped/cladding)

11. Garden Garage Tower/West End 44 stories 485' (constr)

12. "Avalon North Station/West End 38 stories 449' (2016)

13. 40 Trinity Place/Back Bay 33 stories 446' (site prep)

14. Atlantic Wharf 32 stories 436' (2011)


15. Back Bay Station tower #1 (residences) 34 stories ~413' (approved)

16. The Huntington/Fenway 32 stories 400' (approved Dec 14, 2017)

17. 145 Broadway resident tower/Kendall Sq/Cambridge 33 Stories 395' (construction 2020)

18. *Back Bay Station tower #2 (offices) 24 stories 390' (approved Nov 16, 2017)


19. 380 Stewart Street/ Back Bay 26 stories 388'
(approved Nov 11, 2015 J. Hancock Ins has put the approved project up for sale)

20. JHT #3 26 stories 388' (approved Nov 10, 2015, site and approved project now for sale)

21. The Pierce/Fenway 30 stories 378' (2018)

22. 400 Stewart St/The Clarendon/Back Bay 32 stories 373' (2011)

23. Wynn Casino & Tower/Everett 700 rooms 2.1M sq ft 27 stories 371' (2019)

24. 45 Province Street 31 Stories 367' (2009)

25. 260-290 Main Street/Kendall Sq/Cambridge SOMA Building 4/ Dorm Tower 28 stories 365' (2020)


26. South Station #2 (residential) 28 stories 349' (phase 2 of South Station redevelopment)

27. 290 Tremont St/Parcel P12 Chinatown 171 units 30 stories 348' (approval pending)

28. Govt Center #3 residential tower/Downtown 27 stories 336' (garage demo soon)

29. 45 Stewart St/AVA Theater District 29 stories 332' (2015)

30. Avalon Exeter 28 stories 331' (2014)

31. StuVi2/33 Harry Agganis Way/BU 26 stories 331' (2010)

32. 157 Berkeley Street/Liberty Mutual 22 stories 331' (2013)

33. Parcel 12 offices 20 stories 330' (approved Aug 15, 2019)


34. Back Bay Station tower #3 26 stories 325' (approved Nov 16, 2017)

35. 540 Albany Street/ Flower Exchange main tower 321' (approved 2018)

36. *Rio Grande/Dudley Square mixed use incl 211 units 293,193 sq ft 26 stories 320'

37. One Kenmore Hotel/ Kenmore Square 29 stories 315'

38. 145 Broadway/Kendall Sq offices 20 stories 314' (2019)

39. The Kensington Apts 27 stories 313' (2013)

40. 100 Stewart St/"W" Hotel Hotel & Residences 26 stories 310' (2010


41. Motor Mart Garage development 26 stories 310' (approved Oct 17, 2019)

42. 30 Dalton St 26 stories 306' (2016)

43. Fenway Center main tower 27 stories 305' (approved)

44. MIT East Campus "NoMa Building 1"/ Kendall Square/Cambridge 300' (constr)

45. Radian 26 stories 291' (2014)

46. 888 Boylston 17 stories 286' (2016)

47. 88 Ames St (Cambridge) 23 stories 284' (2018)

48. 578 Huntington/Tree House/Mass College of Art 21 stories 280' (2013)

49. MIT East Campus "SoMa Building 5"/ Kendal Square/Cambridge 390,000 sq ft 280' (2020)

50. Archstone North Point 1 22 stories 280' (2009)


51. Andrews Sq/South Boston Tower 1 21 Stories, 278' (approved)

52. Seaport Square Block L4/ Amazon/ Seaport 525,000 sq ft 17 stories 274' (constr)

53. 240 Tremont/Marriot Moxy 23 stories 273' (2019)

54. 10 Burke Street residence hall #1/ Northeastern U 21 stories 272' (2019)

55. 10 Burke St Residence Hall #2/ Northeastern U 16 stories 189' (2019)

56. Assembly Row (Block 8) tower/Assembly Sq/Somerville 500 units sq ft 23 stories 273'

57. Assembly's Edge Residences/Assembly Sq/ Somerville 215 units + 199 pkg spaces 255'

58. 'Montaje'/Assembly Row/Assembly Sq/ 20 stories 447 units 243' (2018 )

59. Partner's Healthcare/ Assembly Row/ Somerville 232'

60. DOT Research tower on MIT's Volpe Sq development site ~270' (constr)

61. 325 Main St/Cambridge "Comm Bldg" 270' (site prep)

62. 350. Summer St/Parcel N 267' (site prep)

62. 1 Seaport Square/Seaport; 2 towers, 1.1M sq ft, 832 residential units
w/ 250,000 SF of retail & 775 parking spaces

63. 1 Seaport Square "The Benjamin" 22 stories 266' (2018)

64. 1 Seaport Square "VIA" 20 stories 262' (2017)

65. 150 Seaport Sq/St Regis Residences 22 stories 266' (constr)

66. Waterside Place 1a 20 stories 260' (2015)

67. Waterside Place 1b 23 stories 264' (2019)

68. 399 Congress Street 414 units 22 stories 264' (2019)


69. 400 Summer Street 263'

70. 75 Ames St/ Broad Inst Labs/ Cambridge 300,000 sq ft 14 stories 263' (2014)

71. 121 Seaport Blvd 17 stories 262' (2018 )

72. *Omni Hotel BCEC/Seaport total project 800,000 sq ft tower #1 500 rooms 20 stories 260' (constr)

73. *Omni Hotel BCEC/Seaport tower #2 500 rooms 20 stories 260' (constr)

74. Pier 4 Residential Tower/136-146 Northern Avenue 22 stories 260' (2015)

75. Pier 4 Office tower/Seaport 199' (2018 )

76. Pier 4 residential low rise 106 units (2019)

77. 99 Kneeland Street/1 Greenway Phase 1/Chinatown 21 stories 260' (2015)

78. 325 Main St Ph II 260' (site prep)

79. 325 Main St Ph III 185' (site prep)

80. Echelon/Parcel M1/M2/Seaport $865M/1.3M sq ft Tower #1 spanning 14-21 stories, 275 units 255' (2019)

81. Echelon/Parcel M1/M2/Seaport Tower #2 spanning 11-21 stories 180 units 255' (2020)

82. Echelon/Parcel M1/M2/Seaport Tower #3 spanning 10-21 stories 280 units 255' (2020)

83. 47 La Grange St/Theater District 21 stories ~255' (site prep)

84. 315 on A/Berkeley Investments 207 units 258,000 sq ft 20 stories 255' (2013)


85. 401 Park Drive/Landmark Office Tower 16 stories 250' (construction 2020)

86. South Station #3 (offices) 9 stories above garage 249'
(phase 3 of South Station redevelopment)

87. Troy North Tower/55 Traveler St/South End (378 units incl South Tower) 330,000 sq ft 19 stories 236' (2016)

88. Troy South Tower/246 E. Berkeley St/South End 140' (2016).

89. 20 Child Street/"Twenty/20"/North Point/Cambridge 355 units 20 stories ~236'

90. Boston Landing Residences/Brighton 295 units 17 stories 236' (2018)

91. 212 Stewart St/Bay Village; 19 stories 235' (constr)


92. 41 LaGrange St Residences/ Chinatown 126 units 134,000 sq ft 19 stories 232' (approved 2-14-19)

93. 150 Kneeland St/Leather District 21 stories 231' (approved)

94. 100 Northern Avenue/Fan Pier 17 stories 230' 516,000 sq ft (2016)

95. Lovejoy Wharf Residences/North End 17 stories 228' (2016)

96. Quaker Lane/Congress Square/Downtown 17 floors 228' (2019)

97. 160 Mass Ave/Berklee College of Music 16 stories 224' (2014)

98. Julie Hall dorm/Emmanuel College/Fenway 691 beds 267,500 sq ft 19 stories 223' (2018 )

99. 360 Longwood Ave/Longwood Medical Area/Mission Hill 413,000 ft 12 stories 223' (2015)

100. 75. Mass and Main/Central Square 19 stories 308 units (285+23) 219' (2019).

101. 1350 Boylston/Skanska/Fenway 17 stories 220' (2018 )

102. Emerson College/Boylston Place/Theater District 18 stories 218' (2017)


103. 540 Albany Street/Flower Exchange site 2nd tower 215' total project 1.6M sq ft

104. 540 Albany Street/Flower Exchange Bldg #3

105. The Viridian/Fenway 342 units 18 stories 214' (2015)

106. Andrew Square Bldg C/South Boston 18 stories 214'

107. Fenway Trilogy/Fenway 17 stories 211' 576 units (2009)

108. 50 Liberty/Seaport 14 stories 211' (2018 )

109. MIT East Campus "SoMa Building 2"/ Kendal Square/Cambridge 316,000 sq ft 200' (constr).

110. 22 Liberty/Seaport 14 stories 199' (2015)

111. 291 St Botolph St/Grandmarc Tower/ Northeastern U 17 stories 198' (2014)

112. 1282 Boylston St/ the Veridian 18 stories 198' (2015)

113. The Eddy/East Boston 16 stories 194' (2016)

114. Zinc/Northpoint Cambridge 392 units 528,000 sq ft 15 stories 193' (2015)

115. Fenway Center/ Beacon & Maitland St mid-rise tower 191'
total 1.4M sq ft Phase 1 312 units (constr)


116. 104 Canal Street/Bulfinch Triangle/ West End 15 Stories 190' (approved Oct 16, 2014)
expected to start soon.

117. 1325 Boylston/Van Ness/Fenway 14 stories 180' (2015)

118. Fenway Triangle offices/Fenway 180' (2015)

119. 100 Binney Street/Cambridge 12 stories 417,000 sq ft 180' (2017)


120. 55 India Street 180' (approved Oct 16, 2014)
expected to start soon

121. Boutique Hotel Valenti Square 12 Stories 164'

cancelled project/s:
1. Copley Place Tower/Back Bay 52 stories 625'
(approved 2015/ put indefinitely on hold in Oct 2016)

2. *Air Rights Parcel 15 Tower #1/Back Bay 34 stories 544'
(approved March 15, 2018 )

3. Columbus Center; 34 stories 420'
(approved 2007/cancelled 2008/ may soon return @ approved height).
 
Last edited:

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
7,542
Reaction score
519
What about the
  1. former Hynes Tower
  2. former Midtown Hotel Tower
  3. the current and former and future Dalton St. Parking Garage Tower
These three sites all in the top FAA level can do for the not-Pru part of the Pru-area what the Pru-area did for the once rail yards

for that matter there are the former:
  1. Hurley Bldg Tower
  2. Tip O'Neil Bldg Tower
  3. old Spalding Hospital Tower
  4. Mass General Parking Lot @ North Station Tower

I'd say there is quite a few opportunities left for tall towers
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
Build luxury towers as high as the FAA will allow downtown and charge the equivalent of a 20% set aside for affordable housing....
Yep. btw, we're already somewhere about that percent/#...
linkage + the first few years of property taxes and you're about there.
 

Vagabond

Active Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
150
Reaction score
239
So this is the exact opposite of a future development chart... but check out the new Leventhal Atlasscope Mapping app! They've scanned and posted all of their maps online to show an overlay. “With AtlasScope, we identified 100 of the most important atlases within Boston and its immediate neighbors. There are atlases for all over the state, but we decided to focus on Boston property and the near suburbs and within the times where we know we have the copyright.”

Description:
 

Top