Echelon Seaport | 133-135 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

DAVE said:
Hopefully we can learn from the Seaport and all of its mistakes and don't rinse/repeat with Suffolk Downs.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the cost of living there, it's all about, Location, Location, Location! And the Seaport is an A+ Prime Location! Residential and retail costs are gonna reflect the location. Same for Kendall Square which just might be the highest $$$ per square footage for office and lab space in the country. You pay for location. Architecture and layout, all of that, well, that's another matter.
 
Maybe it's possible there's not a major sqft difference, just a different more open floor plan? The jump to 2BR is significant.
 
DAVE said:
Hopefully we can learn from the Seaport and all of its mistakes and don't rinse/repeat with Suffolk Downs.
Click to expand...

i expect you're coming from a good place with this comment, but it's nonetheless pretty detatched from reality.

as others have pointed out, location and demand dictates price -- not the mayor or city-wide racism or gentrification driven by dark forces.

ever been to presidio heights? soho? carmel valley? palo alto? these are all neighborhoods that command absurdly high real estate prices, are populated exclusively by the ultra-rich, and are (yes, even soho) very predominately white.

suffolk downs will likely not be quite as "seaport-y" as the seaport with respect to rents simply because east boston isn't as desirable as downtown boston (at present, anyway).
 
Shepard said:
Maybe it's possible there's not a major sqft difference, just a different more open floor plan? The jump to 2BR is significant.
Click to expand...

Right but sharing a bedroom with a noisy fridge is a major downgrade in your quality of life. Never mind it limits your ability to host guests
 
jass said:
I still fail to understand this.

If you can afford such a ridiculous rent, why wouldnt you pay the extra 130 to go from a studio to a one bedroom? I feel like theres some kind of scam going on
Click to expand...

Those prices are not accurate. I've lived there for years, and those are not the market rents, especially in the "older" buildings. The prices really fluctuate depending on the time of year. If you can sign a lease in a "weird" month, you'll get a "deal". I've seen two beds as low as $3,100. Prices vary widely throughout the year and have actually been trending down with increased supply.
 
jass said:
Right but sharing a bedroom with a noisy fridge is a major downgrade in your quality of life. Never mind it limits your ability to host guests
Click to expand...

I know from first hand experience that a 400-500 sq ft studio does not feel like you are sleeping in your kitchen.

There are a lot of different people in the world with different priorities. Many people, often young people, are transient and like being transient. They don't even want to own enough furniture to furnish a 1-bed. They pay all their money to rent and restaurants and don't "waste" time commuting or cooking. They don't have "guests."

I don't live like that. Probably you don't live like that. But there are some people who live like that. Its not everyone and its not no one.
 
falcon42 said:
Those prices are not accurate. I've lived there for years, and those are not the market rents, especially in the "older" buildings. The prices really fluctuate depending on the time of year. If you can sign a lease in a "weird" month, you'll get a "deal". I've seen two beds as low as $3,100. Prices vary widely throughout the year and have actually been trending down with increased supply.
Click to expand...

Follow the link above, they plot their data monthly over time. Also note they are only reporting the average and there is certainly a big spread around that average. And of course, we don't know how much data they have or are missing.

Something to remember too - any time average rents are tabulated it is the rent being asked for apartments that are currently on the market. Obviously the vast majority of apartments are off the market and the vast majority of people in those apartments are paying less than the amount it would be listed for if they left today.
 
fattony said:
I know from first hand experience that a 400-500 sq ft studio does not feel like you are sleeping in your kitchen.

There are a lot of different people in the world with different priorities. Many people, often young people, are transient and like being transient. They don't even want to own enough furniture to furnish a 1-bed. They pay all their money to rent and restaurants and don't "waste" time commuting or cooking.

I don't live like that. Probably you don't live like that. But there are some people who live like that. Its not everyone and its not no one.
Click to expand...

Also, some people work a lot. Think 80 - 100 hours per week at work (and possibly even more if the job requires travelling). If one has a job like that, most of the time spent at home is just crashing. It can then make perfect sense to spend a bunch of money (if you can afford it) on an apartment as close to work as possible, even if it's really small.
 
DAVE said:
Hopefully we can learn from the Seaport and all of its mistakes and don't rinse/repeat with Suffolk Downs.
Click to expand...

Those of us who live in the neighborhood and are actively engaged with HYM and the BPDA are advocating for a higher percentage of affordable units than the City-mandated 13%. This effort is in recognition of the scale and historic opportunity to develop the site, and as a method to mitigate the ill-effects of gentrification. The approach I've suggested in several public meetings is to have specific set-asides for units targeted to the elderly (Orient Heights skews older than the rest of East Boston) and units that would appeal to recent college grads who'd rather own or share a bike than own a car. We're asking for a measure of imagination and creativity worthy of the project's scale.

Equilibria said:
If you view that as the end product of "mistakes", the only way to avoid it at Suffolk Downs is to build it as a public housing project.
Click to expand...

The Seaport is a confluence of mistakes. Denying that only serves to amplify them. Are you suggesting that private profit and public good are incompatible concepts?

chrisbrat said:
suffolk downs will likely not be quite as "seaport-y" as the seaport with respect to rents simply because east boston isn't as desirable as downtown boston (at present, anyway).
Click to expand...

The ground is moving beneath our feet in East Boston. I imagine that the end-product at Suffolk Downs will appeal to a different demographic and a different psychographic as well. If the end-result feels anything like the Seaport, then my neighbors and I will have failed...
 
Everyone that I have spoken to in academia and professionally and in CD groups have all spoken about Seaport as a failure (not just in regards to cost of housing, but that's definitely a major factor). The Seaport was a city asset that has completely disregarded low income residents of the city. It is also a massive environmental failure.

What I am specifically speaking about with Suffolk Downs (although I guess I am so divorced from reality lol) was what Beton is talking about. The developers are only going for the minimum 13% IDP requirements. These units are not realistically affordable for low income folks, and barely affordable for middle income families.

But to keep on topic, echelon looks pretty at least.
 
Those rents do seem a bit high, as do the small gaps between studios and 1br's seems really small.
As others said, studios are often not much smaller than 1 br's - once you remove the walls between rooms, etc., they can feel pretty "large".
The argument is that the studios have the same finishes and same amenities as the other apartments.

However, Echelon, may be trying to bump things up to attract a certain clientele. They may also be doing something we see a lot in NYC in new buildings. called "net effective" rent = sign a lease, get a month or two free and then that rent is spread across the 12 months, making the rent seem lower. I bet they start out with the high price advertised and then pull the free month(s) stuff.

In the buildings in my area, when a new one opens, they always do the free months to fill up the building and the "older" buildings (maybe only 10 yrs old) don't give any free stuff, but the rent is a little lower.

For example, for the new stock in my hood a 1 br can go from $4700-5300 (less free months) where the 10 year old buildings will be $4000-4700 for a 1 br. Studios can be $3000-3500.
 
An alternative perspective for debate: The high prices in areas like the Seaport help to slow gentrification that would otherwise occur in other parts of the city. The Seaport is doing the City a service by stuffing the soulless rich into a land mass of former vacant parking lots and reaping the property taxes as on-going returns on the investments made in the area. The city (or is it the state?) also gets to swell up its affordable housing fund via the payments and concessions made to that fund.
 
jl326 said:
An alternative perspective for debate: The high prices in areas like the Seaport help to slow gentrification that would otherwise occur in other parts of the city. The Seaport is doing the City a service by stuffing the soulless rich into a land mass of former vacant parking lots and reaping the property taxes as on-going returns on the investments made in the area. The city (or is it the state?) also gets to swell up its affordable housing fund via the payments and concessions made to that fund.
Click to expand...

An alternative perspective for debate: The quickly escalating price in the Seaport is attracting international and domestic investors to Boston who want to put their money in real estate and flip it in a few years. Previously, they would have overlooked Boston and focused on NYC and the Bay Area.

The Seaport is screwing over other parts of the city

Also, I dont understand the eternal optimism with things like "reaping the property taxes as on-going returns on the investments made in the area. The city (or is it the state?) also gets to swell up its affordable housing fund via the payments and concessions made to that fund"

Look at the incredible amount of wealth in NYC and SF. $100million dollar homes, record office prices, sky high commercial rents.

All, presumably, accompanied by enormous tax generation.

And yet the streets are filthy, the transit systems are collapsing, the libraries have shorter hours than most suburbs, the schools are below average, and the police departments are embarrassments.
 
jl - you might be right that the Seaport may slow gentrification. The problem is that most of Boston proper, Cambridge, Brookline and Somerville are already gentrified when compared to most other major metros.

I also think "soulless rich" is not a fair comment because not everyone wants to live in an old brownstone. It always struck me how Boston was so expensive but until the last 5-8 years had very few new buildings with doormen / concierge / amenities. It is good to have a variety of brand new and old.
 
jass said:
An alternative perspective for debate: The quickly escalating price in the Seaport is attracting international and domestic investors to Boston who want to put their money in real estate and flip it in a few years. Previously, they would have overlooked Boston and focused on NYC and the Bay Area.

The Seaport is screwing over other parts of the city

Also, I dont understand the eternal optimism with things like "reaping the property taxes as on-going returns on the investments made in the area. The city (or is it the state?) also gets to swell up its affordable housing fund via the payments and concessions made to that fund"

Look at the incredible amount of wealth in NYC and SF. $100million dollar homes, record office prices, sky high commercial rents.

All, presumably, accompanied by enormous tax generation.

And yet the streets are filthy, the transit systems are collapsing, the libraries have shorter hours than most suburbs, the schools are below average, and the police departments are embarrassments.
Click to expand...

At the outset, I can verify to you that the properties for sale in Seaport were marketed under the radar to locals who live there or spend a significant number of months/yr there (i.e., not investors generally, but realistically there's always a few). I can't comment on how or to whom newer developments like the Echelon are being marketed though. I still see far greater concentration of investors in places like Back Bay, Millennium, and 1 Dalton.

With regards to how the city (or state) is spending those funds, that's a different discussion and perhaps more scrutiny should be on them. The tax payers can only pay the property taxes, they can't control the waste and corruption within the government. Also, SF has a slew of other problems that they've brought onto themselves through policy.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
jl - you might be right that the Seaport may slow gentrification. The problem is that most of Boston proper, Cambridge, Brookline and Somerville are already gentrified when compared to most other major metros.

I also think "soulless rich" is not a fair comment because not everyone wants to live in an old brownstone. It always struck me how Boston was so expensive but until the last 5-8 years had very few new buildings with doormen / concierge / amenities. It is good to have a variety of brand new and old.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that seriously. It's a play on what I commonly come across when scrolling though the comments section of Globe articles relating to anything on Seaport.
 
You should speak to the District 1 city councilor, Lydia Edwards. She shares some of your opinions.

I, however, don't. The Seaport is a success for what it was designed to be. We should be so lucky if Suffolk Downs turns out similar.

Regarding rents: We have been lucky in that our rent has been very stable during the past three years. We're in a 1-bedroom (778 SF) at $2,650 per month. Other 1-bedrooms in our building go for $3,200 I think. There are 4 studios (450 SF) listed at around $2,500.

Ours is lower b/c we've been here since the beginning & because Bozzuto is a good landlord.

We're not in the Seaport Proper area, though; those go for $800-$1,000 more per month - not including any rent incentives. I don't know how many free months the buildings are offering now. Could be between 1 and 3 months. Of course, after a year, you're faced with paying full price or moving and starting all over again.

DAVE said:
Everyone that I have spoken to in academia and professionally and in CD groups have all spoken about Seaport as a failure (not just in regards to cost of housing, but that's definitely a major factor). The Seaport was a city asset that has completely disregarded low income residents of the city. It is also a massive environmental failure.

What I am specifically speaking about with Suffolk Downs (although I guess I am so divorced from reality lol) was what Beton is talking about. The developers are only going for the minimum 13% IDP requirements. These units are not realistically affordable for low income folks, and barely affordable for middle income families.

But to keep on topic, echelon looks pretty at least.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I have faith as the seaport moves inland ESPECIALLY on the opposide side of the convention center... where theres enough room to build the whole seaport-again, prices will not be waterfront/South Station proximity/SL stop... prices.

Maybe a bit less in the fort point area, but not much, but on the channel side-for sure cheaper. They should cram thousands of affordable units over there imo. Not the projects... nice buildings, but just affordable to regular people, because its a side without any commanding views or transit yet...but reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top