Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

@blaaahncha Almost all of the Back Bay along Newbury, Marb and Beacon St's and Comm Ave is the same height, deliberately planned as so. I am interested in your opinion on this exact-same height phenomina that has plagued Boston for over 100 years now.
 
Go ahead, support the downtown Boston plateau.
It's ugly and dull and you know it.
 
And I suppose you still think the Hancock is tall. lol.... 40 years later.
 
bblancha said:
Go ahead, support the downtown Boston plateau.
It's ugly and dull and you know it.
Click to expand...

And everyone knows this is because of FAA regulations and this has been discussed for years on this forum so what have you added new to this forum? Anyone notice how few of the old timers post here anymore.
 
Last edited:
I've been watching Boston change for almost 50 years and things have never been as exciting as now. Yet this forum has become a place for people to bitch about windows and height and corruption over and over again. Once you've made your point drop it. If someone else said you what you were thinking then is probably no reason to post the same thing. Some of the new people should look back to the older threads and see how informative the discussions were.
 
BostonObserver said:
I've been watching Boston change for almost 50 years and things have never been as exciting as now. Yet this forum has become a place for people to bitch about windows and height and corruption over and over again. Once you've made your point drop it. If someone else said you what you were thinking then is probably no reason to post the same thing. Some of the new people should look back to the older threads and see how informative the discussions were.
Click to expand...

Maybe if the taxpayers weren't responsible for making these political lifers, private developers, corporate executives rich without taking any real risk only to BUILD second rate pieces of shit stumps then maybe we would stop bitching.

Boston Observer the only thing Boston has seen over the last 50 years is this beloved Blue Collared hardworking city turn into a COLLEGE campus with a few law firms & banks in some big buildings.

The entire city of Boston has become a College Corporate City. The last 50 years Boston has turned itself into a Non-profit city with the remaining townies (residents) still working for the city of Boston.

Cambridge Mass which is a college haven has also made itself into a Biotech Mecca. Still trying to figure out what Boston is doing besides swindling or copying Cambridge Ma Innovation district.

Please Enlighten me Boston Observer
 
bblancha said:
STAY ON TOPIC! ----- fan pier is a cluster of fat boring stumps.
Click to expand...


There is No Long Term Investments in the Seaport District. This entire cluster development is like a Fast Buck Freddies Blue Light Special.
This is why the planning for the Seaport has been a disaster.

Liberty Wharf could haul in as much as $70M in sale
Click to expand...
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2012/12/liberty-wharf-could-haul-70m-in-sale.html

This area is going bring back the tradition of housing flipping.

This is my view when investors or private equity holders have no skin in the game why would they hold or build anything of importance in the area? It’s all about the quick buck.
Second & Third rate pieces of shit buildings that will be knocked down in a decade.
 
TheRifleman said:
There is No Long Term Investments in the Seaport District. This entire cluster development is like a Fast Buck Freddies Blue Light Special.
This is why the planning for the Seaport has been a disaster.


http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2012/12/liberty-wharf-could-haul-70m-in-sale.html

This area is going bring back the tradition of housing flipping.

This is my view when investors or private equity holders have no skin in the game why would they hold or build anything of importance in the area? It’s all about the quick buck.
Second & Third rate pieces of shit buildings that will be knocked down in a decade.
Click to expand...

Time to use the ignore feature. Better than arguing with children. See ya
 
TheRifleman said:
There is No Long Term Investments in the Seaport District. This entire cluster development is like a Fast Buck Freddies Blue Light Special.
This is why the planning for the Seaport has been a disaster.


http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2012/12/liberty-wharf-could-haul-70m-in-sale.html

This area is going bring back the tradition of housing flipping.

This is my view when investors or private equity holders have no skin in the game why would they hold or build anything of importance in the area? It’s all about the quick buck.
Second & Third rate pieces of shit buildings that will be knocked down in a decade.
Click to expand...

You do realize that most developers are in the business of developing projects and not holding onto them indefinitely? A good developer constructs their building, markets it - fills it up, and them sells it at the top of its value to a holding company. Once the sale closes, the developer than rolls most of the proceeds into construction of their next project.

Frankly, you've been accusing Fallon of flipping Fan Pier repeatedly on this forum during the past 18 months and not only does he still in possession of the three buildings on the site, he's about to put shovels in the ground on two more. If you're going to repeatedly accuse someone of "pump and dump," at some point, doesn't there have to be an actual "dump?" Or even an attempt to dump??

Liberty Wharf has been nearly universally praised since it opened for re-energizing that area of the waterfront and the neighborhood around D Street. The developer is reportedly looking to sell that project to raise capital for a similar development on the plot next door. Isn't that a positive?

And when has any large scale residential/office building ever been torn down less than 10 years after completion? Do you just make this crap up just to get a rise out of people?
 
jdrinboston said:
You do realize that most developers are in the business of developing projects and not holding onto them indefinitely? A good developer constructs their building, markets it - fills it up, and them sells it at the top of its value to a holding company. Once the sale closes, the developer than rolls most of the proceeds into construction of their next project.

Frankly, you've been accusing Fallon of flipping Fan Pier repeatedly on this forum during the past 18 months and not only does he still in possession of the three buildings on the site, he's about to put shovels in the ground on two more. If you're going to repeatedly accuse someone of "pump and dump," at some point, doesn't there have to be an actual "dump?" Or even an attempt to dump??

Liberty Wharf has been nearly universally praised since it opened for re-energizing that area of the waterfront and the neighborhood around D Street. The developer is reportedly looking to sell that project to raise capital for a similar development on the plot next door. Isn't that a positive?

And when has any large scale residential/office building ever been torn down less than 10 years after completion? Do you just make this crap up just to get a rise out of people?
Click to expand...

Fallon has many options since Vertex inked a long-term deal for almost a billion dollars on the site. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anybody these are facts. I don't know Fallon personally or have any clue what he will do to this site. But what I have read the city, state really took care of him for this development with very generous tax breaks for infrastructure & to recruit a tenant Vertex to come to Seaport. (didn't realize that was the taxpayers job now to enrich these people with percs) Its frustrating to here that the city is looking to use another 300 Million of our money to expand the Boston Convention Center which still lacks demand.

I agree developers or investors need to sell or reinvest in other projects to keep the construction projects & cash flow going on.
Seaport District should have been a different type of investment and if planned right Long-term investors would have been looking at this area 25-50 years out.
Maybe Fallon Is. I could be wrong.

This is why I cry about Transit being the most important aspect of planning for the Seaport. Please tell me where the logic is on this one?

Agree I get carried away with 10 year residential buildings being knocked down. But seriously I don't want to see another Harbor Towers built in Boston. Those two buildings are Junk for the Boston Waterfront.

I would not be so negative if I saw entrepreneur take risks with their own money or investor’s money and build what they dream should be in Boston. This is what makes a free country strong.
 
Last edited:
TheRifleman said:
Fallon has many options since Vertex inked a long-term deal for almost a billion dollars on the site. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anybody these are facts. I don't know Fallon personally or have any clue what he will do to this site. But what I have read the city, state really took care of him for this development with very generous tax breaks for infrastructure & to recruit a tenant Vertex to come to Seaport. (didn't realize that was the taxpayers job now to enrich these people with percs) Its frustrating to here that the city is looking to use another 300 Million of our money to expand the Boston Convention Center which still lacks demand.

I agree developers or investors need to sell or reinvest in other projects to keep the construction projects & cash flow going on.
Seaport District should have been a different type of investment and if planned right Long-term investors would have been looking at this area 25-50 years out.
Maybe Fallon Is. I could be wrong.

This is why I cry about Transit being the most important aspect of planning for the Seaport. Please tell me where the logic is on this one?

Agree I get carried away with 10 year residential buildings being knocked down. But seriously I don't want to see another Harbor Towers built in Boston. Those two buildings are Junk for the Boston Waterfront.

I would not be so negative if I saw entrepreneur take risks with their own money or investor’s money and build what they dream should be in Boston. This is what makes a free country strong.
Click to expand...

But here is the problem with that scenario. If I'm a developer in Boston, there are already a number of healthy neighborhoods that I can spend my finite number of development capital in. I can proposed a building in the Back Bay, Financial District, or Kendall Square and be virtually assured of financial success.

Or I can spend my money in this large, unproven plot of empty parking lots that the city is brow-beating me into building on without even throwing me some financial bone. If the city is wrong about this area's economic viability and my development flops, I've lost my development capital, and now my operating capital is in jeopardy. Meanwhile, I'm watching my competitor put up a new building in Kendall Square on the same site I was originally eyeballing. His project becomes a financial success, while I wallow amidst the empty parking lots.

It's called pump priming and its done everywhere. The idea of some pioneering capitalist throwing millions of dollars into some great idea/gamble is a myth. It always has been. Even in Boston, the idea of local governments spending money to help create neighborhoods is as old as the city itself. I'll go as far as calling it a tradition. Does it stand to reason that developers in the Back Bay and the South End made money off of the city's efforts to fill in the tidal marshland surrounding the Shawmut Peninsula?

It should also be noted that Fallon is not getting a check from the government. This is not a matter of the city or state taking money we send them in our paychecks and handing it to Fallon. We're talking about abatements, whereas the initial tax revenue from the completed buildings will be less than what they would have been as unimproved parking lots. For an example, see my post in the Lovejoy Wharf thread. We can have a philosophical debate about whether or not these methods are appropriate, but the reality is most governments in other cities and states offer them, and we can make the choice of either competing with them, or standing on principle and watch as other states grow.

Bottom line, Vertex didn't need to leave Kendall Square. They didn't need to relocate to Boston. They could have remained in Cambridge, or moved to the cheapest site. But the state and city felt there was a need to prime the pump in the Seaport and they gave them the incentive to move there. If the incentives work and Vertex proves to be the ball the gets the neighborhood rolling, future developments won't require any incentive. The profit motive will be enough on its own.

As an aside, I ride the Silver Line frequently. I don't have a problem with it. I actually think it's a cool solution to the problem of building rail lines that cost nearly $1 billion. What's needed is marketing and education. The reality is that professionals and yuppies are snobbish when it comes to buses. Rather than spending billions of dollars to give into their desires, we should call it out for what it really is. Thinly-veiled classism/racism.
 
jdrinboston said:
It should also be noted that Fallon is not getting a check from the government. This is not a matter of the city or state taking money we send them in our paychecks and handing it to Fallon. We're talking about abatements, whereas the initial tax revenue from the completed buildings will be less than what they would have been as unimproved parking lots. For an example, see my post in the Lovejoy Wharf thread. We can have a philosophical debate about whether or not these methods are appropriate, but the reality is most governments in other cities and states offer them, and we can make the choice of either competing with them, or standing on principle and watch as other states grow.
Click to expand...

I had to follow up with this statement. No kidding Fallon isn't getting a check from the Govt. But the city is making the financial district small businesses suffer for Fallon to get his tax breaks by issuing BID on small businesses. Our govt can't just give tax breaks without increasing it on somebody else. The reality is the city & state are taking from the middle class and giving tax breaks to Fallon so he can complete his project. Would it matter to the taxpayers of Massachusetts if Vertex stay in Cambridge or relocated in the Seaport? NO.....So why are we enriching this specific private developer?

Maybe I'm not educated enough but I really don't believe the Silverline is going to make the Seaport a very desirable area to commute back and forth on first rate development plan.

Pumping & priming (I can accept this especially if the state is building infrastructure for the roads, bridges or Mass Transit) Which none of these actually have been addressed for Fan Pier. The Big Dig should have been addressed all of Fallon finanical infrastracture concerns and go recruit his own tenants.

Most governments in other cities and states offer them, and we can make the choice of either competing with them, or standing on principle and watch as other states grow.
Click to expand...

What like NYC, Illinois, California..........All are bankrupt. Standing on great principle.
Nothing is growing naturally in this economic cycle.

Remember giving somebody a tax break still needs to be taking away from somebody else. For Example the city issued BID against the financial district, another tax on top of a tax. This will supress those succesful businesses from growing because they have to pay additonal taxes but then the political regime relocate a already tax paying corporation from one town to another? Does that make sense?
 
TheRifleman said:
I had to follow up with this statement. No kidding Fallon isn't getting a check from the Govt. But the city is making the financial district small businesses suffer for Fallon to get his tax breaks by issuing BID on small businesses. Our govt can't just give tax breaks without increasing it on somebody else. The reality is the city & state are taking from the middle class and giving tax breaks to Fallon so he can complete his project. Would it matter to the taxpayers of Massachusetts if Vertex stay in Cambridge or relocated in the Seaport? NO.....So why are we enriching this specific private developer?

Maybe I'm not educated enough but I really don't believe the Silverline is going to make the Seaport a very desirable area to commute back and forth on first rate development plan.

Pumping & priming (I can accept this especially if the state is building infrastructure for the roads, bridges or Mass Transit) Which none of these actually have been addressed for Fan Pier. The Big Dig should have been addressed all of Fallon finanical infrastracture concerns and go recruit his own tenants.



What like NYC, Illinois, California..........All are bankrupt. Standing on great principle.
Nothing is growing naturally in this economic cycle.

Remember giving somebody a tax break still needs to be taking away from somebody else. For Example the city issued BID against the financial district, another tax on top of a tax. This will supress those succesful businesses from growing because they have to pay additonal taxes but then the political regime relocate a already tax paying corporation from one town to another? Does that make sense?
Click to expand...



How are the small business's in the financial district suffering because of the tax breaks for Fan Pier?? This is not a zero-sum game. This money does not exist in the city's budget. You're talking about hypothetical money that would have existed if a developer was willing to come along, assume the entire risk on an unproven neighborhood, and develop 3 buildings at full valuation.

The reality is that right now, those plots of property are valued at $X. When the buildings are finished they will be valued at $Y dollars. However, the tax breaks will reduce the assessment to an mount less than Y, but greater than X. Meaning, the city's net tax levy is still higher than what it is now. There is no gap that needs to be made up on the backs of some shoe merchant in downtown crossing. After the abatement expires in X number of years, the valuation goes full, and now the city is collecting the full boat in taxes. Meanwhile, there should be an entire neighborhood of ratable buildings paying into the city's coffers.

On its face, the Seaport is not a desirable neighborhood. It's separated from the main financial district, it had a seedy reputation, and it's spitting distance from the main runway of the nation's 19th busiest airport, meaning a developer can't build high to maximize profits, and potential residents might be scared off by airplane noise. No developer in their right mind is going to be the pioneer in this neighborhood - assuming the full financial risk -when there are sure-bets in places like the Back Bay, Kendall Square, Newton etc. The city and state are making these investments because they feel there will be a public benefit to creating a new, viable neighborhood in the city - which will take 20 or 30 years to complete, just like the Back Bay and South End.

And while NYC, Chicago, California may have financial issues, it is not because of urban enterprise zone tax credits. Like all governments - especially those of major cities - personell costs like pensions, salaries, healthcare are skyrocketing. They would be in worse shape if they weren't able to assess the new buildings that are being created, even if it is at a reduced valuation.

Finally, the city did not impose the BID on downtown merchants in some heavy-handed autocratic move. Business and property owners downtown petitioned the city concil to create the new district, which allowed them to raise extra funds for marketing and public events. The law required that at least 60 percent of the property owners and 51 percent of assessed values approve of it. The first two years of the program even allowed dissenting business owners to opt out of the program. (For the record, only 57 of the districts 308 property owners opted out in the first place, so there was clearly a high-level of support among stakeholders). It had absolutely nothing to do with Fan Pier or Fallon. I'll assume you weren't aware of these facts before, but now you are.
 
jdrinboston said:
How are the small business's in the financial district suffering because of the tax breaks for Fan Pier?? This is not a zero-sum game. This money does not exist in the city's budget. You're talking about hypothetical money that would have existed if a developer was willing to come along, assume the entire risk on an unproven neighborhood, and develop 3 buildings at full valuation.

The reality is that right now, those plots of property are valued at $X. When the buildings are finished they will be valued at $Y dollars. However, the tax breaks will reduce the assessment to an mount less than Y, but greater than X. Meaning, the city's net tax levy is still higher than what it is now. There is no gap that needs to be made up on the backs of some shoe merchant in downtown crossing. After the abatement expires in X number of years, the valuation goes full, and now the city is collecting the full boat in taxes. Meanwhile, there should be an entire neighborhood of ratable buildings paying into the city's coffers.

On its face, the Seaport is not a desirable neighborhood. It's separated from the main financial district, it had a seedy reputation, and it's spitting distance from the main runway of the nation's 19th busiest airport, meaning a developer can't build high to maximize profits, and potential residents might be scared off by airplane noise. No developer in their right mind is going to be the pioneer in this neighborhood - assuming the full financial risk -when there are sure-bets in places like the Back Bay, Kendall Square, Newton etc. The city and state are making these investments because they feel there will be a public benefit to creating a new, viable neighborhood in the city - which will take 20 or 30 years to complete, just like the Back Bay and South End.

And while NYC, Chicago, California may have financial issues, it is not because of urban enterprise zone tax credits. Like all governments - especially those of major cities - personell costs like pensions, salaries, healthcare are skyrocketing. They would be in worse shape if they weren't able to assess the new buildings that are being created, even if it is at a reduced valuation.

Finally, the city did not impose the BID on downtown merchants in some heavy-handed autocratic move. Business and property owners downtown petitioned the city concil to create the new district, which allowed them to raise extra funds for marketing and public events. The law required that at least 60 percent of the property owners and 51 percent of assessed values approve of it. The first two years of the program even allowed dissenting business owners to opt out of the program. (For the record, only 57 of the districts 308 property owners opted out in the first place, so there was clearly a high-level of support among stakeholders). It had absolutely nothing to do with Fan Pier or Fallon. I'll assume you weren't aware of these facts before, but now you are.
Click to expand...

That is the entire problem with you GOVT hacks. Your trying to justify and determine what the valuation is on these properties in reality the markets decide what the valuation is on a asset (supply & demand). But because we have so much corruption going on in GOVT & Federal Reserve Bank (the Govt spending is completely out of control)

So to tell us on this board that the valuations of a particular asset on what it should and shouldn't sell for is price rigging by city officials. This is what is supressing development in the city of Boston also with all its bullshit height restrictions which really should only be determined by the FAA. This is the city of Boston we should have highrises around 800 to 1000ft.

Zero/Sum Game. So knowing the Financial district is almost 15% vacant and struggle to fill in the supply, Rents continue to remain stagnant.

In reality the Fan Pier situation:
Massachusetts Taxpayer Perspective/Business owner in the city of Boston
Fallon a private developer who buys Fan Pier and trys to create jobs by recruiting a tenant. This is the private developer job to entice a tenant to rent your building not the taxpayers.

A. Vertex no matter what will stay in Mass and expand which continues to pay its taxes

or B. Read my Ace in the Hole Shirley Kressel Below.

Risky business for taxpayers
by Shirley Kressel
contributing writer
Wednesday Jul 20, 2011

After Fidelity and Evergreen Solar cut jobs despite huge state "job creation" subsidies, and the City of Boston got slammed in its loan to the soon-to-be bankrupt W Hotel, you would think that corporations sniffing at the public trough would be sent packing.

But no, it’s business as usual - and worse! The latest boondoggle involves Big Pharma, a big developer, and a new kind of subsidy that plays games with taxpayer money.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals, with facilities scattered around Cambridge, just got a new drug approved and decided to consolidate and expand their buildings. The Boston Waterfront offers the most suitable location for its needs, so Vertex decided to move its entire operation, with its current workforce of 1,240 employees, into two Fan Pier buildings. The buildings will be constructed by Joe Fallon, mega-developer friend of Mayor Thomas Menino.

Fallon’s waterfront developments have all been subsidized with huge tax breaks, and he hit an even bigger jackpot here.

Governor Deval Patrick, lesson apparently not learned from past experience with Mass Life Sciences Center’s the poor job-creation record, forked over a $10 million Life Sciences tax credit.

Based on the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s declaration that the project area, which the Globe calls a "luxurious new neighborhood," is officially "blighted," Menino granted the project a $12 million property tax waiver. As revealed at the project’s City Council hearing on May 20, Vertex didn’t want to pay rent on both Cambridge and Boston leases while it was moving over -- so this tax break is being given to cover Fallon’s transition-period rent.

Most important, Patrick and Menino teamed up to offer Fallon $50 million dollars via an as-yet-untested and little-understood type of subsidy: the state Infrastructure Investment Incentive (or I-Cubed) program. I-Cubed was Menino’s 2006 legislative initiative that allowed the city to shift more of the costs of development subsidies to the state.

Under I-Cubed, the state issues bonds that pay for project infrastructure. To pay off that loan, the state uses future income tax revenues from new project employees; the state also uses project-related state sales taxes. So instead of those taxes going to the general fund for schools, roads, libraries, etc., they go to paying off a developer’s loan. However, if a project fails to generate enough state tax revenues to pay back the loan, I-Cubed then requires the city to provide the money. The city can demand that the developer keep a two-year reserve fund, and after that an assessment can be placed on the property for reimbursement

But if the project fails, the developer is unlikely to pony up the money, and a lien is not a timely or dependable recovery mechanism.

In the end, the state can hold the city responsible by withholding local aid to cover the debt.
In this first I-Cubed project to be implemented with Vertex, though, Menino and Patrick have colluded to shift the funding risk from the taxpayers of Boston to the taxpayers of Massachusetts.

Based on the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s declaration that the project area, which the Globe calls a "luxurious new neighborhood," is officially "blighted," Menino granted the project a $12 million property tax waiver.Here’s how and why:

Vertex officials testified that they plan to hire only 200 workers when they move to Boston; they said they anticipate 300 more hires over the following several years. The City expressed confidence that these new workers’ income taxes and project-related state sales taxes will amply cover the debt, at about $3.3 million a year, totaling $99 million over the 30-year loan period. But obviously, officials see a substantial risk that this revenue won’t be enough, because the plan is to also tap into state income taxes generated by Vertex’s existing 1,240 employees.

This is a problem; I-Cubed cannot legally be applied to existing jobs.

The point of I-Cubed is to create jobs that produce new, not existing, income tax revenues to pay off the bonds. That is, unless there is "compelling evidence" that a company like Vertex would leave the state without the subsidy. Then, and only then, can the City and state consider existing jobs as "retained" jobs, whose taxes may be used for bond service.

Sure enough, at the City Council hearing, a representative from the Municipal Research Bureau briefly mentioned Rhode Island had courted Vertex.

However, Vertex executives, at the same hearing, testified that the Boston Waterfront site is uniquely ideal, with ample space for an expansion campus near workforce sources, synergistic life-science clusters, excellent transportation options, and life-style amenities for employees--culture, restaurants, and retail. Fallon testified similarly, pointing out the public investments, like the Big Dig, that made this site so desirable for Vertex. City Councilor Mike Ross said, "Where else can you get over a million square feet in an urban setting? That’s what’s attractive."

Think about it: would high-tech Vertex leave the brain bank of the world to go to Rhode Island? Of course not, just as JPMorgan Chase, which got a $4 million subsidy, wouldn’t really have moved to Braintree as threatened, and Liberty Mutual, which got a $46.5 million subsidy, wouldn’t really have moved to some hamlet in New Hampshire as threatened.

A quick Google search (here, here and here) would have informed our officials - if they really wanted to know -- that Rhode Island’s biotech labor force, the top criterion, is woefully deficient for Vertex’s needs.

Nonetheless, we can be sure that our officials will find "compelling evidence" that Vertex would have moved to Rhode Island if they did not get this I-Cubed assistance from taxpayers. It won’t be the first time the Governor has cooked the books to boost a corporate subsidy.

Patrick, Menino and City Council are subverting the law to give these corporations over $120 million for no reason -- other than to claim false credit for job creation. Slashing services for both state and city taxpayers is apparently their idea of shared sacrifice.
Click to expand...

How you like them APPLES?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top