Downtown Crossing/Financial District | Discussion

Rent stabilization = eventually a building is so neglected from unprofitable it has 'an unexplainable fire' at 3am with the sprinkler pump broken and all the stand pipes drilled full of holes.

Enacting that would make all the slumlord speculators in vein on the Levin family incapable of selling their derelict messes to anyone. No legitimate landlord looking to make a profit renting space nor is a developer going to want to spend millions on new construction for something that will ultimately wind up being less profitable than space elsewhere.

Opening the streets to traffic, fixing the damn sidewalks which are half asphalt, and getting rid of the filthy brick would be a start.
 
In the very long term, rent 'stabilization' may have that effect, but in the short term, it gets the retail vacancies filled which is what the district needs right now. Perhaps a fixed term of 'stabilization' is worth trying.
 
There have been so many studies about what a bad idea rent stabilization is, it's hard to believe anyone still talks about it. If you want lower rents, build more. It's as simple as that.
 
I'm not going to argue in favor of rent stabilization, but the current vacancy's and concurrent high rents in DTX pretty much disprove that.

Too many economists assume that the market will always act rationally, forgetting that the market is controlled by humans, who can and often do, behave irrationally.
 
The irrational behavior is holding out for high rents in a collapsed economy and a distressed area.
 
This is exactly the problem. The "Barnes and Noble" space and the landlord's unwillingness to commit to a "unprofitable short term lease" for Filene's Basement is Exhibit A for the proposition that rent expectations have been and are unrealistic. It also hurts that individuals, for example Druker, own large chunks of the area. This creates a monopolistic attitude that is slow to respond on the downside.
 
Last edited:
True. I think we see the same thing near Penn Station in NYC. Vornado Trust owns big chunks of land in the neighborhood made up of retail and office spaces that stand empty, awaiting the day that the Post Office is converted into a new mass transit station and it can command higher rents and/or build new buildings.
 
Ever consider that maybe those landlords have high rents because they don't want to deal with tenants and prefer to be able to sell a conveniently vacant building to developers or investors?

Many of the owners of property around Downtown Crossing bought in the late 1970s when everything was going down hill in the shopping district but large scale developments were being executed in the city. These people have been sitting on properties for thirty years hoping someone is going to hand them the lottery to build the next One Federal.
 
Ever consider that maybe those landlords have high rents because they don't want to deal with tenants and prefer to be able to sell a conveniently vacant building to developers or investors?
Click to expand...

Um, yes, that is the point, and it's also the problem.
 
Well, yes, that is why Drucker doesn't do anything with the "Gold's Gym " moderne lavatory on the corner of Arch and Summer. He hopes someday he'll get the jump when the church decides to develop a skyscraper at St. Anthony's Shrine next door.
 
So if we decide that we're going to have a sort of "Jump Start the Area Rent Subsidization" Program, what would it look like and how would it function? Who tells the land lord what to charge? Who determines the appropriate rent? Will businesses actually participate in the program and move in? Who determines when the "Jump Start" program isn't needed anymore? After the "Jump Start" is over, will general rents actually be lower? If they're not, what happens to the business that accepted the subsidized rent? Will they be able to pay the higher rents? Are we going to have to institute yet another program? If we do need another program, haven't we de facto instituted rent subsidies ?

Personally, I don't think that it's a sustainable plan. It creates so many variables, not just for the city government that institutes the plan, but for land lords holding properties in the area and the businesses who would potentially move in. It's predicated on the idea that businesses that move in under the program will be able to stay after it's phased out, either because they'll be able to afford higher rents or because the program will lower rents in the area. I'm not sure that either of those are likely out comes.
 
The Marliave opened a coffee and pastry shop on their first floor today (the area that is the oyster bar in the evenings). They are giving free patries to anyone who says they are on their e-mail list who orders a drink.
 
I think I see the future of DTX...a corridor lined with billboards.

L1120664.jpg


P.S. How's that "long term lease" deal working out, pal?
 
^
Nothing too earth shattering on the program, here are some points discussed:

Hynes said no financing in the foreseeable future for the Filenes project. Their going to move the fence back to reopen the ever so vital "shoppers park". They plan to throw some pants and pushcart vendors in there.

They discussed the new restaurant Bina Osteria and an adjoining upscale grocery which I believe is located in the Millenium Tower complex.

Misc. fact - Pedestrian count greater than 200k a day and over 6,000 residents in DTX

Owner of Brattle Book Store interviewed - he said shopping traffic has slightly dipped, but the area has improved overall with the increased presence of local colleges and restaurants.

A small time developer by the name of "Neil" called in and said his firm has converted a handful of older buildings to residential in the area. He was a resident for a number of years as well. In his opinion, the city seems to have lack of direction for the area. City should do more to encourage small scale development/renovations. This would increase population quicker. City has focused on large scale developements
 
tobyjug said:
I think I see the future of DTX...a corridor lined with billboards.

L1120664.jpg


P.S. How's that "long term lease" deal working out, pal?
Click to expand...

I bet if they allowed more strip clubs there they'd pay their taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top