Fenway Center (One Kenmore) | Turnpike Parcel 7, Beacon Street | Fenway

Scott said:
Yup, it has gotten so bad that even an electrician can no longer afford a house in either Massachusetts or Texas. The margins are so thin that the modest amount that they must pay these guys brings development to a halt
Click to expand...
As already stated in my post, this alone isn't killing projects, but it's one of the more region-specific factors that differentiates us from some of the leading cities.

But we can believe the cost of construction in Boston is the same as it is in Texas.
 
Here's an idea, no one gets to deck over the Pike unless and until they can prove they have financing in place for the entire project, not just a deck. Hundreds of thousands of commuters have been inconvenienced over a period of years by the lane reductions and construction all for nothing. If you have the privilege of causing that kind of impact, you should at least have to prove you have the financing lined up to complete the project not just the deck.
 
BosDevelop said:
Here's an idea, no one gets to deck over the Pike unless and until they can prove they have financing in place for the entire project, not just a deck. Hundreds of thousands of commuters have been inconvenienced over a period of years by the lane reductions and construction all for nothing. If you have the privilege of causing that kind of impact, you should at least have to prove you have the financing lined up to complete the project not just the deck.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's an accurate statement about what happened. It could be that they didn't have financing in place for more than the deck, but that seems very surprising if so, because it would mean somebody was willing to put out the deck funding on spec alone. What really happened is that the market changed to make what was financed a less desirable option at this time. How do you compel the developer to build something that isn't financially viable? Whatever LLC is the technical developer would simply dissolve and that would be that.

But look at the bright side. We are significantly closer to having a useful air rights project completed at this location, because the most difficult part of such a project is already complete. As for the bit about privilege, I'd flip that and ask why we should privilege driver convenience over needed development? Sure, it's unfortunate to not see steel rising from the deck right now, but ultimately, covering the Pike is important for the city of Boston, and it's not as though the disruption won't have a benefit when the project restarts.
 
BosDevelop said:
Here's an idea, no one gets to deck over the Pike unless and until they can prove they have financing in place for the entire project, not just a deck. Hundreds of thousands of commuters have been inconvenienced over a period of years by the lane reductions and construction all for nothing. If you have the privilege of causing that kind of impact, you should at least have to prove you have the financing lined up to complete the project not just the deck.
Click to expand...

Hard disagree. The deck is itself the biggest benefit of this project, and that's being completed. Why would you prefer keeping the open highway gash over a ready-to-go development parcel? If they had only partially built the deck before hitting pause then you'd have a point...
 
stefal said:
As already stated in my post, this alone isn't killing projects, but it's one of the more region-specific factors that differentiates us from some of the leading cities.

But we can believe the cost of construction in Boston is the same as it is in Texas.
Click to expand...
I disagree that something so small is killing multimillion dollar projects and that we should all be like Texas.
 
Bruh common knowledge to y'all but I was just flipping through some of the early pages for the project. This thing was already 10 years in planning/development by the time the thread started almost 20 years ago. It's been through 3 recessions, probably dozens of plans and now the bottom has fallen out of the lab market 😂. I imagine if they were just able to build without all the procedural nonsense, we wouldn't be looking at this paused deck for the next X years, but what do I know, I wasn't even born yet when they started planning this.
 
Smuttynose said:
The new Inclusionary Zoning requirements that Suffolk is complaining about did not take effect until October 2024, so any project that has started construction likely did not fall under the newer requirements but the more permissive IZ requirements last tinkered with under the Walsh administration. There are even projects still pending city approvals grandfathered under the old IZ requirements.
Click to expand...
My point was that to pivot this project to residential, the developer would need to re-permit the project and trigger the higher affordability and net zero requirements. The building environment is so bad right now that even projects permitted under the more permissive rules you mentioned cannot start. If we want to switch gears on some of these lab projects or any large scale residential, the city needs to have an honest conversation about what is economically feasible. The status quo is not working.
 
Scott said:
I disagree that something so small is killing multimillion dollar projects and that we should all be like Texas.
Click to expand...
You don't have to disagree on something I'm not stating. I already stated twice it's not killing projects by itself. It's just another factor.

However, something "so small" does add up over a multimillion dollar project, and again, does not kill it alone. For every 100,000 labor hours, costs would be increased about $2M based on the delta. For a lab project decked over a highway, there are some considerable labor hours included. For a residential project decked over a highway, there are still some considerable labor hours but not as much - still proportional to the margin you'd be expecting. It can apparently be debated whether margins matter in the real estate market. I would be all for social housing, but that doesn't seem to be the topic of discussion here.

My argument isn't that we should pay electricians less either. It's just another (real) factor we have to deal with.

Each addition of risk/high costs adds 1 or 2 percentage points to your costs. When you compound a few percentage points, lenders back out. If you think it could be different I would love to have you as a lender.
 
stefal said:
You don't have to disagree on something I'm not stating. I already stated twice it's not killing projects by itself. It's just another factor.

However, something "so small" does add up over a multimillion dollar project, and again, does not kill it alone. For every 100,000 labor hours, costs would be increased about $2M based on the delta. For a lab project decked over a highway, there are some considerable labor hours included. For a residential project decked over a highway, there are still some considerable labor hours but not as much - still proportional to the margin you'd be expecting. It can apparently be debated whether margins matter in the real estate market. I would be all for social housing, but that doesn't seem to be the topic of discussion here.

My argument isn't that we should pay electricians less either. It's just another (real) factor we have to deal with.

Each addition of risk/high costs adds 1 or 2 percentage points to your costs. When you compound a few percentage points, lenders back out. If you think it could be different I would love to have you as a lender.
Click to expand...
No, your argument was that they are absolutely overpaid in this state and we should use Texas as a guide to pay them less
 
Scott said:
No, your argument was that they are absolutely overpaid in this state and we should use Texas as a guide to pay them less
Click to expand...
If it was truly construed that way, I apologize. I've edited my original post for clarity :)

I think it's fair to bring up regional differences, which includes worker pay, when Houston housing construction was used as a reference point.
 
lexicon506 said:
Hard disagree. The deck is itself the biggest benefit of this project, and that's being completed. Why would you prefer keeping the open highway gash over a ready-to-go development parcel? If they had only partially built the deck before hitting pause then you'd have a point...
Click to expand...
Will you feel any different if it is 2032 before a building is completed on this deck? Sorry, but there should be some sort of penalty, accountability or disincentive to just build a deck and the ditch the rest of the project indefinitely because the economics no longer work. It's not like no one knew over a year ago that the lab market was way oversaturated. Someone should be blamed for the lack of foresight. This one was painfully obvious.
 
BosDevelop said:
Will you feel any different if it is 2032 before a building is completed on this deck? Sorry, but there should be some sort of penalty, accountability or disincentive to just build a deck and the ditch the rest of the project indefinitely because the economics no longer work. It's not like no one knew over a year ago that the lab market was way oversaturated. Someone should be blamed for the lack of foresight. This one was painfully obvious.
Click to expand...
Too bad some residential buildings can't be built on the completed deck, now that the lab market is dried up..
 
BosDevelop said:
Will you feel any different if it is 2032 before a building is completed on this deck? Sorry, but there should be some sort of penalty, accountability or disincentive to just build a deck and the ditch the rest of the project indefinitely because the economics no longer work. It's not like no one knew over a year ago that the lab market was way oversaturated. Someone should be blamed for the lack of foresight. This one was painfully obvious.
Click to expand...
When that information became well understood, the decking was already underway. Are you seriously suggesting that we should have made them stop, with an incomplete deck? Do you think that would in anyway be better than the completed deck that we actually got?
 
My guess is the carrying cost of building a deck to just sit over the highway producing no income until who knows when is going to be significant. Would having to pay an additional penalty to the city really be a disincentive for halting construction or would it be a disincentive to take on the project in Boston in the first place. Erecting a building that no one wants to move into isn't a great addition to a city.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Too bad some residential buildings can't be built on the completed deck, now that the lab market is dried up..
Click to expand...
There’s nothing technically preventing this from happening. The foundations have been designed for a certain load - doesn’t matter whether if it’s load from hotels or apartments or labs or offices. The existing structure could certainly be designed to support homes for people. In that case, the building would probably split into two towers on a shared podium because the current footprint is just not appropriate for residential. It’s just a question of whether that’s economically preferable for the developer.
 
Jeremi said:
There’s nothing technically preventing this from happening. The foundations have been designed for a certain load - doesn’t matter whether if it’s load from hotels or apartments or labs or offices. The existing structure could certainly be designed to support homes for people. In that case, the building would probably split into two towers on a shared podium because the current footprint is just not appropriate for residential. It’s just a question of whether that’s economically preferable for the developer.
Click to expand...
yeah i'm imagining two residential towers of some sort - maybe some "öpen space" like at Boylston/CitizenM?
 
Jeremi said:
There’s nothing technically preventing this from happening. The foundations have been designed for a certain load - doesn’t matter whether if it’s load from hotels or apartments or labs or offices. The existing structure could certainly be designed to support homes for people. In that case, the building would probably split into two towers on a shared podium because the current footprint is just not appropriate for residential. It’s just a question of whether that’s economically preferable for the developer.
Click to expand...
Wasn't one of the 1st proposals had res, commercial, and lab???
 
BosDevelop said:
Will you feel any different if it is 2032 before a building is completed on this deck? Sorry, but there should be some sort of penalty, accountability or disincentive to just build a deck and the ditch the rest of the project indefinitely because the economics no longer work. It's not like no one knew over a year ago that the lab market was way oversaturated. Someone should be blamed for the lack of foresight. This one was painfully obvious.
Click to expand...
Who's going to do the penalizing? The BPDA? They're thrilled a deck has been built.
 
BosDevelop said:
Will you feel any different if it is 2032 before a building is completed on this deck? Sorry, but there should be some sort of penalty, accountability or disincentive to just build a deck and the ditch the rest of the project indefinitely because the economics no longer work. It's not like no one knew over a year ago that the lab market was way oversaturated. Someone should be blamed for the lack of foresight. This one was painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

I will be very happy if we get something built here in 2032. Do you realize that 40 years went by without anything at all getting built over the MassPike air rights parcels? And now you want to penalize one of the only two developers who managed to get a deck built in all that time? Because they inconvenienced some drivers?

The problem isn’t developers willing to make a good faith effort on air rights development, the problem is that the economics are extremely challenging and the state hasn’t done enough to advance and assist more viable projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top