Evolving use of Office and other Space

[ritchiew]

yes, you're correct liquor licenses are controlled by the state, but the focus for Wu and other Boston pols is requesting state permission/home rule petitions to increase geographically restricted licenses in the outlying neighborhoods. This is a important goal in itself, but there seems to be insufficient attention or a lack of attention to downtown. The narrative seems to be downtown has taken all the licenses away from the neighborhoods and/or the all the economic activity over the years has been concentrated downtown at the expense of the outlying neighborhoods. There is some truth to that, but the city needs to recognize the pandemic has changed the situation, the one area that needs the most attention is now downtown.

Wu and other Boston pols have been focusing on the outlying neighborhoods because this seems like the kind of minor change that might actually pass in the State House. Geographically restricting the licenses hopefully means less pushback from the downtown liquor license holders, because the new licenses are less likely to affect the value of their artificially expensive assets. The correct thing to do would be eliminate the cap all together, but that hasn't worked politically, and so we get this positive-but-pretty-weak compromise. Wu herself has said this isn't her final goal and she will want more licenses "across the board" even if/when these first changes gets passed.

I think that political calculation seems about right. I also think that, no, getting more licenses for the outlying neighborhoods is reasonably a higher priority than more downtown. This system is really screwing over the 100's of thousands of Bostonians living outside downtown, especially poorer neighborhoods. It keeps people from starting businesses, keeps storefronts vacant, and keeps main drags empty and uninviting. It's nice to go out and hang out with people over drink, or walk to a restaurant and have a drink with dinner, or (even if you don't drink) have better food subsidized by other people paying for alcohol. That's being kept from people, and it's a drain on a lot of people's day to day quality of life.

 

[Johnnyrocket891]

Between the tax cuts for office to residential conversion and green-lighting even the least imaginative developments like the one spotlighted in this very thread isn’t the city doing precisely that?

Who's going to rent the residential buildings in Boston for $3-4K a month? The average resident in Mass can't afford that without sometype of rental assistance state/federal program.
Besides the tax cuts to the developers to convert there commercial buildings into residential the taxpayers also need to subsidize 50% of the rents? Doesn't make sense.

The markets need to get back to buying & selling. If the markets are allowing these corporations to just sit with an empty commercial buildings and collect tax incentives then there is something really wrong with market overall.

 

[shmessy]

Who's going to rent the residential buildings in Boston for $3-4K a month? The average resident in Mass can't afford that without sometype of rental assistance state/federal program.
Besides the tax cuts to the developers to convert there commercial buildings into residential the taxpayers also need to subsidize 50% of the rents? Doesn't make sense.

The markets need to get back to buying & selling. If the markets are allowing these corporations to just sit with an empty commercial buildings and collect tax incentives then there is something really wrong with market overall.

What on earth are you talking about????? https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ma/boston/

Average rent in Boston, MA​

Last updated March 2024

Average Rent	Average Apartment Size
$3,842	814 sq. ft.

There are tens of thousands of people (and growing demographically every minute with the exploding active Baby Boomer retirements) willing to pay $3-4k per month (and more) for renovated downtown residences.

The rents will NOT need to be subsidized. In fact, I would say Mayor Wu should ELIMINATE the % requirement for affordable units in just the downtown refits alone to get this goal achieved.

The benefit to the city and taxpayers will come form larger tax revenue from the renters and the from the restaurants/theatres/museums/stores/medical offices that they spawn there. This is an historic opportunity for making Boston a dynamic 24/7 city and to avoid Detroitization.

 

[JeffDowntown]

What on earth are you talking about????? https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ma/boston/

Average rent in Boston, MA​

Last updated March 2024

Average Rent	Average Apartment Size
$3,842	814 sq. ft.

There are tens of thousands of people (and growing demographically every minute with the exploding active Baby Boomer retirements) willing to pay $3-4k per month (and more) for renovated downtown residences.

The rents will NOT need to be subsidized. In fact, I would say Mayor Wu should ELIMINATE the % requirement for affordable units in just the downtown refits alone to get this goal achieved.

The benefit to the city and taxpayers will come form larger tax revenue from the renters and the from the restaurants/theatres/museums/stores/medical offices that they spawn there. This is an historic opportunity for making Boston a dynamic 24/7 city and to avoid Detroitization.

The service workers that support your dream of restaurants/theatres/museums/stores/medical offices also need places to live, and best close to where they work.

Developers scream about the affordable requirement, but the truth is every building has some units that are less desirable, hard to sell at market rate. Those end up being the affordable units. It is not like they are allocating out affordable penthouses.

 

[bigpicture7]

The service workers that support your dream of restaurants/theatres/museums/stores/medical offices also need places to live, and best close to where they work.

Developers scream about the affordable requirement, but the truth is every building has some units that are less desirable, hard to sell at market rate. Those end up being the affordable units. It is not like they are allocating out affordable penthouses.

I think a potentially effective compromise is to allow the affordable units for these "downtown improvement resi conversions" to be part of an offset (i.e., in an other building within some reasonable distance) and to allow developers to join multi-development pools toward such. In a large new building, yes, your point makes sense. But in small, old buildings, hitting the ratio can be harder. Also, in those small older buildings, developers don't usually have as much of a problem with a glut of "undesirable" spaces; they just add the awkward square footage to other units (e.g., 2bdrm + den).

So, yes, make the developers contribute to affordable housing stock, but don't mandate it be in the same building, and allow multiple resi conversion projects to pool their affordable units together. I get the policy implications of not wanting luxe developments to further drive class wedges, hence, your 200 unit tower integrates the affordable units. But in a tiny 10-unit resi conversion, it's honestly not going to make a difference, so long as they're nearby.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I think a potentially effective compromise is to allow the affordable units for these "downtown improvement resi conversions" to be part of an offset (i.e., in an other building within some reasonable distance) and to allow developers to join multi-development pools toward such. In a large new building, yes, your point makes sense. But in small, old buildings, hitting the ratio can be harder. Also, in those small older buildings, developers don't usually have as much of a problem with a glut of "undesirable" spaces; they just add the awkward square footage to other units (e.g., 2bdrm + den).

So, yes, make the developers contribute to affordable housing stock, but don't mandate it be in the same building, and allow multiple resi conversion projects to pool their affordable units together. I get the policy implications of not wanting luxe developments to further drive class wedges, hence, your 200 unit tower integrates the affordable units. But in a tiny 10-unit resi conversion, it's honestly not going to make a difference, so long as they're nearby.

I think developers have the option to buy-out and pool with others today. Millennium with Winthrop Center did exactly that (there are no on-site affordable units at Winthrop Center). Usually the reason they don't is because it is often cheaper to push undesirable space into affordable units rather that into market rate units, given the buy-out price..

 

[shmessy]

The service workers that support your dream of restaurants/theatres/museums/stores/medical offices also need places to live, and best close to where they work.

Developers scream about the affordable requirement, but the truth is every building has some units that are less desirable, hard to sell at market rate. Those end up being the affordable units. It is not like they are allocating out affordable penthouses.

Going from Eastie, Chelsea, Everett, Dorchester or Allston downtown isn’t that much of a haul. Especially if the Blue/Red Connector and other advances can be made.

The developers of brand new residential downtown should be made to adhere to the affordable unit %’s. I’m just talking about the smaller/older buildings to be retrofitted (engineering and money intensive). There could still be affordable downtown - not talking about total elimination.

We are seeing a paucity of developers signing up to do these retrofits and the city is understandably disappointed. Eliminating the 15-20% affordable unit requirement just for these smaller/older class B and lower office building retrofits could be a dam breaker.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Going from Eastie, Chelsea, Everett, Dorchester or Allston downtown isn’t that much of a haul. Especially if the Blue/Red Connector and other advances can be made.

The developers of brand new residential downtown should be made to adhere to the affordable unit %’s. I’m just talking about the smaller/older buildings to be retrofitted (engineering and money intensive). There could still be affordable downtown - not talking about total elimination.

We are seeing a paucity of developers signing up to do these retrofits and the city is understandably disappointed. Eliminating the 15-20% affordable unit requirement just for these smaller/older class B and lower office building retrofits could be a dam breaker.

The biggest impediment to redevelopment of the Class B offices to housing right now is interest rates. Keep the policy in place until interest rates come down, then see if developers are more willing to use the conversion incentives.

There is a social engineering component to inclusionary zoning -- having people of mixed income live together improves the overall urban environment, versus ghettoization of the working poor. Let's not subsidize turning downtown into a playground for rich people.

 

[bigpicture7]

We are seeing a paucity of developers signing up to do these retrofits...

I agree with @JeffDowntown that the interest rates situation is probably a huge factor here.

Simply in the spirit of supplying some data (without judgement as to whether its "paucity" or a bit more than that), the City's numbers are:
Between October 2023 and June 2024:
412 residential conversion units across 13 buildings, totaling 403,000 sf., have been proposed under the city's initiative

Mayor Wu Announces Extension of Office to Residential Conversion Program with Partnership from the State

Mayor Wu and Governor Maura Healey announced the extension of the City of Boston’s Office to Residential Conversion Program with added fun

www.boston.gov

 

[shmessy]

I agree with @JeffDowntown that the interest rates situation is probably a huge factor here.

Simply in the spirit of supplying some data (without judgement as to whether its "paucity" or a bit more than that), the City's numbers are:
Between October 2023 and June 2024:
412 residential conversion units across 13 buildings, totaling 403,000 sf., have been proposed under the city's initiative

Mayor Wu Announces Extension of Office to Residential Conversion Program with Partnership from the State

Mayor Wu and Governor Maura Healey announced the extension of the City of Boston’s Office to Residential Conversion Program with added fun

www.boston.gov

60 Kilmarnock Street in the Fenway is actually soon to open by itself with 440 units, and it's not earth shakingly huge.

412 units TOTAL for the downtown is chicken feed. And those units are just PROPOSED in the over one year (July 11, 2023) since Wu announced the tax abatement program. How many of those 412 will actually come to fruition?

Remember Walsh's stated goal was 10,000 net new units per year. The past 6 years, Boston has averaged less than 4,000. Boston needs to start thinking outside the box regarding the less than one square mile of downtown.

 

[bigpicture7]

60 Kilmarnock Street in the Fenway is actually soon to open by itself with 440 units, and it's not earth shakingly huge.

412 units TOTAL for the downtown is chicken feed. And those units are just PROPOSED. How many will actually come to fruition?

Remember Walsh's stated goal was 10,000 net new units per year. The past 6 years, Boston has averaged less than 4,000. Boston needs to start thinking outside the box.

shmessy, those are the numbers solely for office-to-residential conversion proposed since October 2023.
It is completely meaningless to compare them to huge new-build residential-by-design structures (which received their financing pre- rate hike!).

You are preaching to those as passionate about adding housing stock as you. I am nonetheless obliged to point out how ridiculously non-comparable the examples you just cited are.

Not to mention, you're conflicting with yourself. I was specifically responding to your quote "developers signing up to do these refits".

 

[shmessy]

shmessy, those are the numbers solely for office-to-residential conversion proposed since October 2023.
It is completely meaningless to compare them to huge new-build residential-by-design structures (which received their financing pre- rate hike!).

You are preaching to those as passionate about adding housing stock as you. I am nonetheless obliged to point out how ridiculously non-comparable the examples you just cited are.

That's EXACTLY my point!

The % affordable requirement should be dropped for the more difficult Office-to-Residential in Downtown ONLY (not for new construction).

Office-to-Residential is NOT an issue to the Fens/Back Bay/Eastie/Everett, etc. They thrive and aren't turning into empty office ghost towns.

The very small area of Downtown is a SPECIAL situation.

 

[bigpicture7]

THAT'S my point.

The % affordable requirement should be dropped for the more difficult Office-to-Residential ONLY (not for new construction).

Office-to-Residential is NOT an issue to the Fens/Back Bay/Eastie/Everett, etc.

The very small area of Downtown is a SPECIAL situation.

I am not disagreeing that the City should do pretty much all it can to grease the skids for this type of work, but none of us know what "a lot" is because we don't know what the denominator is.

It is irrelevant that developers can conceivably build 10,000 units per year of new build stuff. What's relevant is: how many possible units are there in the office-to-residential space? More than 400 per year, absolutely....but 1,000/yr, 2,000/yr, 4,000/yr, 8,000/yr?

I am not arguing over the strategic and policy importance of doing this. My only point is we just don't have a "how well are we doing?" metric.

 

[shmessy]

I am not disagreeing that the City should do pretty much all it can to grease the skids for this type of work, but none of us know what "a lot" is because we don't know what the denominator is.

It is irrelevant that developers can conceivably build 10,000 units per year of new build stuff. What's relevant is: how many possible units are there in the office-to-residential space? More than 400 per year, absolutely....but 1,000/yr, 2,000/yr, 4,000/yr, 8,000/yr?

I am not arguing over the strategic and policy importance of doing this. My only point is we just don't have a "how well are we doing?" metric.

I hear ya, BP7, but we aren't even talking about "400 per year" at the moment. We are talking 400 overall (just PROPOSED). The actual to complete amount of that may be 40-50 per year. It just ain't happening at the moment. And the buildings stand empty (and will get worse as office lease ends come up)..

 

[Smuttynose]

Can attest the bar — while not exactly hopping — is v nice (and expensive) and has wonderful staff. Here’s hoping this place evolves into a destination. View attachment 52014View attachment 52015View attachment 52017

When you say expensive, how bad are we talking? I walked through the lobby for the first time the other day and noticed it. It looked worth checking out but also gave off very expensive vibes.

 

[chrisbrat]

When you say expensive, how bad are we talking? I walked through the lobby for the first time the other day and noticed it. It looked worth checking out but also gave off very expensive vibes.

Oh, not that bad (bearing in mind I ordered no food, so on that front I have no idea). Most of my reference points are both anachronistic and, in many cases, no longer in operation (Abbey Lounge, Cambridgeport, etc.), so take with a grain (bag? satchel?) of salt. I think for a negroni it was, like $20ish, including the tip. Not bonkers.

 

[commuter guy]

The biggest impediment to redevelopment of the Class B offices to housing right now is interest rates. Keep the policy in place until interest rates come down, then see if developers are more willing to use the conversion incentives.

There is a social engineering component to inclusionary zoning -- having people of mixed income live together improves the overall urban environment, versus ghettoization of the working poor. Let's not subsidize turning downtown into a playground for rich people.

Maybe the city should drop the policy in the high interest rate environment to jump start developments? Then in a couple of years if development is booming with lower interest rates and plenty of housing is coming on line then the city can afford to be a bit more demanding with policy goals. In the current environment, it doesn't seem wise to have policies impeding housing development in downtown Boston. The city needs to be more dynamic in responding to the current environment.

 

[Johnnyrocket891]

A actual solution-

Devens, MA has a huge military campus that is not being used along with a train stop in the area.
Should redevelop Devens campus along with transportation being able to get 20-50K++ people in out of Boston.

 

[Johnnyrocket891]

What on earth are you talking about????? https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ma/boston/

Average rent in Boston, MA​

Last updated March 2024

Average Rent	Average Apartment Size
$3,842	814 sq. ft.

There are tens of thousands of people (and growing demographically every minute with the exploding active Baby Boomer retirements) willing to pay $3-4k per month (and more) for renovated downtown residences.

The rents will NOT need to be subsidized. In fact, I would say Mayor Wu should ELIMINATE the % requirement for affordable units in just the downtown refits alone to get this goal achieved.

The benefit to the city and taxpayers will come form larger tax revenue from the renters and the from the restaurants/theatres/museums/stores/medical offices that they spawn there. This is an historic opportunity for making Boston a dynamic 24/7 city and to avoid Detroitization.

You live in a dystopian world. Boston was in a unique growth situation for the last 30-years with the Universities/Biotech/Robotics/Tech along with solid transportation infrastructure in place since the 70's to keep the cost of living reasonable. I don't see a good outcome here with the cost of living being so high now. Service/Gvt workers will not be able to keep up with the underlying inflationary pressures from the debasement of the USD.
Manufacturing continues to be more appealing outside the US with other global countries.

America policies is only setting the stage for only two groups. The Rich vs the Poor.
More Govt Spending will continue to deteriorate America from the productive class to the nonproductive class.
Just look at the Govt Healthcare and Educational systems.

 

[shmessy]

You live in a dystopian world. Boston was in a unique growth situation for the last 30-years with the Universities/Biotech/Robotics/Tech along with solid transportation infrastructure in place since the 70's to keep the cost of living reasonable. I don't see a good outcome here with the cost of living being so high now. Service/Gvt workers will not be able to keep up with the underlying inflationary pressures from the debasement of the USD.
Manufacturing continues to be more appealing outside the US with other global countries.

America policies is only setting the stage for only two groups. The Rich vs the Poor.
More Govt Spending will continue to deteriorate America from the productive class to the nonproductive class.
Just look at the Govt Healthcare and Educational systems.

....and you, obviously cannot tell the difference between your personal opinion and hard data. (And, btw, I personally agree with your OPINION about the societal negatives of a "haves and have nots" bipolarization - - the difference is I recognize it as an opinion).

You're giving opinion, I gave you cold hard data.

You wrote "Who's going to rent the residential buildings in Boston for $3-4K a month? " You may as well have written "Who's going to actually stand on a street and attend the Celtics championship parade?". I gave you the link - The average rent in 2022 in Boston (with exceptionally low vacancy rates, btw) was over $3,800. Whether we LIKE the reality of that cold hard data, that should answer your question, buddy.

Facts are facts. You and I may not LIKE the facts but, sorry, you cannot argue the data. Hundreds of thousands of people are renting in Boston for an average of $3,800+/month. Many more are clamoring to do so, were it not for the supply constraints.

No matter your feelings on the subject, it is what it is.