Fort Point Infill and Small Developments

Yea same here....there's so much more charm to them. Developers are too tempted to cut corners in order to maximize profit margins, so any new development in this area would probably be just more of the same that we've been seeing around SBW.
 
FP3


fp3007sa9.jpg



This seems to be one of the nicest projects in the city, contextual yet unabashedly modern.

Does anyone have any more recent/new pictures of this?
 
Friday, August 29, 2008

Paint brush: Artists stand to lose Fort Point space

Boston Business Journal - by Michelle Hillman Boston Business Journal

Seventy Boston artists and 20 small businesses are in danger of losing commercial studio space in the most recent clear-out of tenants by Goldman Properties and the Archon Group LP.

The artists? leases at 319 A St. and 337 Summer St. in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood will expire in November. Despite letters from residents and pleas from community groups, the artists will be the latest wave of tenants forced to flee the arts enclave unless a deal is worked out to extend the leases.

Goldman Properties did not respond to calls for comment. Archon *? the real estate arm of The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. *? also did not respond to inquiries.

About 90 artists have moved out of the neighborhood since Archon/Goldman purchased a 17-building warehouse portfolio from Boston Wharf Co. three years ago. A year later, Goldman/Archon relocated tenants out of 316-322 Summer St. because they planned to redevelop the buildings into residential space. Those buildings were subsequently sold and remain vacant today.

Last November, Goldman/Archon vacated artists at 49-63 Melcher St., where approximately 100 artists leased studio space. The Melcher Street building is vacant today, said Paul Bernstein, president of the Fort Point Arts Community.

?To say that the community has been decimated by a single developer is not an embellishment,? he said.

Bernstein?s group has represented artists in lease negotiations with Goldman/Archon in the past but is not currently in conversation with the landlord. Bernstein said last year the Goldman/Archon partnership ceased negotiations with tenants at Melcher Street. He would not elaborate when asked why the talks broke down.

?We?re trying to preserve our community,? he said. ?We have to be diplomatic and tactful.?

When Goldman/Archon purchased the buildings in 2005, the plan was to turn the neighborhood into a mix of residential, retail, cultural and restaurant space. Instead, residents and artists claim that Goldman/Archon has sold and emptied buildings while doing little to make good on that plan.

Goldman/Archon developers asked the Boston Redevelopment Authority to allow the partnership to abandon its mixed-use plan in favor of office space, but the BRA declined. Goldman/Archon has permits in hand that allow it to convert the industrial buildings into residential space, but could face BRA scrutiny or public pressure down the road if it does not pursue those plans.

The BRA has ?serious interests in helping expand the number of artist that live there? said the agency?s director, John Palmieri. However, the BRA ?can?t impose any requirement. ... And, of course, we?re concerned that the buildings not be mothballed. It?s not that we can force them to do residential development. There isn?t anything we can do to force them to advance the plan that was approved by the BRA.?

In July, another neighborhood group, Seaport Alliance for a Neighborhood Design, wrote a letter to Mayor Thomas Menino asking him for his ?urgent assistance in halting the displacement of Fort Point?s creative community which cannot thrive under the current conditions.?

Some artists interviewed for this story said the BRA and the city are not facilitating a conversation with Goldman/Archon as they?ve done in the past.

In 1991, the Fort Point Channel was home to 600 artists, said Bernstein. Today the number of artists working and leasing space in the area stands at about 300, he said. While the neighborhood has steadily lost artists over the last several decades, Bernstein said the amount of leased commercial space available to artists has markedly declined since 2005 when the Boston Wharf Co. sold its portfolio.

Frederick Lee, who has a commercial photography studio at Goldman/Archon?s building at 319 A St., is concerned about the future of the neighborhood. Lee was relocated out of another Goldman/Archon building last year and now must move his studio again.

?Basically, it?s the end, it?s going to be our last open studios there,? said Lee. ?It?s a tragedy because some of us just got there a year ago. They have not stuck to (their plan) ... that was a big joke.

Michelle Hillman can be reached at mhillman@bizjournals.com

LINK

What do you guys think about this? I know small local businesses and studio artists don't necessarily fit with Mayor Menino's MO of high end luxury retailer and residences, but if these artists keep being forced from their space, I think it will end up being a bad thing for the city. Artists and small mom and pop stores bring a character and sense of community that no high end retailer can bring to an area. I wish there was someway that the developers could incorporate these people into their plans for a new upscale neighborhood.
 
No landlords should empty out a building and then keep it empty instead of re-tenanting or redeveloping it. Owners who do this should be taxed heavily to discourage this behavior.
 
Wait, am I missing something?

Doesn't the article state, " ... the leases are up in November ..."

If the leases are up, then they should be able to do whatever they want.

I think there are two separate issues here - the leases that are expiring and the buildings being turned into office space vs. rental or residential.

And, really, isn't this just a case of people looking out for themselves? Of course the 300 people think they deserve special treatment.

And what are you talking about, Ron? "Taxed heavily?" How does one company get taxed more than another?
 
Historical Point

Landmarks Commission To Vote On Fort Point Historical Status
By Scott Van Voorhis
Banker & Tradesman Columnist


If you want to glimpse the future of Boston development, stroll on over to the stately Victorian-era warehouses of the Fort Point Channel District.

A low-key city commission tomorrow is expected to vote into place a set of sweeping guidelines for new development in Fort Point. By the end of its meeting Tuesday night, the Boston Landmarks Commission is likely to have transformed the colorful and densely packed 55-acre neighborhood into the city?s newest historic district.

The vote, in turn, is likely to have a significant impact on the future of new development in Fort Point, which has become one of the hottest areas for new construction and real estate investment in the Hub in recent years. Boston Wharf, the district?s long-time owner, sold off dozens of buildings over the past decade, bringing in a mix of ambitious local and out-of-town developers.

The district?s new developers will have less of a free hand to reshape the area than they would have had a decade ago. Anyone still hoping to tear down a building or two and put up a modern high-rise may be best advised to quietly cash out and head for the Big Apple, or at least for Boston?s Financial District on the other side of the sluggish channel with which the Fort Point neighborhood shares its name.

But fears that development will grind to a halt are also unfounded. Boston historic preservationists worked closely with some of the district?s developers to craft the new rules. And the collaboration could provide a blueprint for building in a city where sentiment appears increasingly opposed to massive, New York-style condo and office sky-rises.

?A lot of changes were made already to try and accommodate the legitimate issues some property owners are concerned about,?? said Sarah Kelly, executive director of the Boston Preservation Alliance.

The guidelines for the new historic district envision not an end to development or a slavish devotion to the past, but rather the creative reuse of some the district?s striking, late 19th century warehouses. That means renovating what?s there and, possibly adding a few floors on top.

In fact, it?s a playbook that developers in the district now appear, though not after some painful readjustment, to be fairly comfortable with. It?s a lineup that includes local players like Young Park, head of local development powerhouse Berkeley Investments, and National Development, a top local condo and apartment builder, as well as high-powered New York investors Tony Goldman and Archon Group.

Park has been particularly prolific, this past spring opening the 97-unit FP3, which includes a palatial new, 15,000-square-foot restaurant featuring local celebrity chef Barbara Lynch.

Not that Park?s project has been without controversy, with some of Fort Point?s growing residential community objecting to the project?s multistory rooftop addition.

Whether to allow such rooftop additions has been one of the most controversial aspects of Fort Point?s proposed historic district. While developers have argued they need to be able to undertake modest expansions, some Fort Point residents have argued such additions instead cap historic buildings with jarring, and often overpowering, modern exclamation points.

The proposal offers a compromise, with rooftop additions allowed on some key streets, such as Summer, Melcher and Congress, as long as they tucked back from the view of passersby.

Developers have also insisted on changing some of the words in the new rules, replacing lots of ?shalls?? to ?should?? and creating the spirit of guidelines rather than regulations.

But all of this is a long way from the first proposals for development in the district after Boston Wharf, in the late 1990s, began selling off a real estate portfolio it had held for more than a century.

The Leventhal family?s Beacon Capital bought up Fort Point Midway?s block back in 2000. Having created Rowe?s Wharf and other local landmarks, the Leventhals were used to thinking big. Beacon proposed a mix of renovations and tear downs that included an office tower at the end of the block that had the look of a transplant from the nearby Financial District.

The tower sparked controversy in the neighborhood and died quietly after the 2001 recession.

Berkeley Investments? Park himself recently dropped plans for a mid-rise.

With the economy now in recession, a similar evolution may be store now for the city as a whole. Massive new towers and developments will be hard, if not impossible, to finance over the next few years.

More modest undertakings, by contrast, are likely to find favor in the eyes of bankers in charge of doling out development loans.

Combined with the slowdown is growing opposition to glass-and-steel, Manhattan-sized projects that, for good or ill, don?t conform with cherished notions of the Boston?s historic cityscape.

?Given the financial condition in our country right now, it?s highly unlikely you will see that kind of development, even if you didn?t have those kinds of restrictions,?? said Vivien Li, executive director of the Boston Harbor association and an astute observer of city development. ?The speculative development we might have seen in the 90s we are not going to see right now.??

Hi Scott!
 
From the Globe...
Landmark development
Designation for Fort Point area pits residents, building owners

The City of Boston is poised to create its first historic district of commercial buildings, in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood, which would preserve the unique architecture of 19th-century industrial warehouses and lofts that are increasingly targeted for redevelopment.

The Boston Landmarks Commission on Tuesday is scheduled to vote on the landmark status, which would also incorporate numerous specifications for property in the area, from the height of rooftop additions to the arrangement of trash receptacles, mail boxes, and benches along the network of narrow streets.

The landmark status, and its accompanying guidelines, were first proposed by residents of the Fort Point neighborhood, many of them artists, who are increasingly concerned with extent of changes that commercial developers are proposing for buildings there. They fear the changes would mar the neighborhood's unusual architectural continuity.

"Fort Point represents an important part of Boston's history, when it was an active warehouse district and manufacturing area," said David Berarducci, chairman of a city-appointed study committee that developed the proposed guidelines. "The area is specifically designed for these kinds of buildings, which is what gives [Fort Point] its character."

Landmark status creates a special process to review development proposals within a district. Local commissioners would be empowered to make recommendations to city planners reviewing developments, but could not block them outright.

The proposed district covers about 55 acres, stretching from Seaport Boulevard to Iron Street with an eastern boundary along Boston Wharf Road. The neighborhood's flat-front buildings - which once stored wool, cotton, and molasses and turned out confections and small machines - are treasured by artists for large windows and high ceilings that let in a lot of natural light.

But developers also prize these buildings, as well as the neighborhood, and have proposed roughly 6 million square feet of redevelopment.

A city master plan calls for about a third of the neighborhood to be devoted to open space and new public streets and plazas. The plan envisions a balance of office and residential development.

Commercial property owners have bristled at many of the proposed guidelines, arguing in letters to the Landmarks Commission that the guidelines would stifle development by preventing additions and renovations that are necessary to make projects financially feasible.

"While we support the creation of the landmark district, we urge the commission to bear in mind . . . that adaptive reuse of these warehouse buildings is expensive and requires creativity, flexibility in the interpretation of these standards," wrote Richard Galvin, principal of Channel Center Holdings, which owns several buildings there.

Among their concerns: a restriction that would limit additions to two floors, and others involving building facades they claim would prevent renovations needed for retail storefronts.

But proponents said they have already tempered the guidelines to take developers concerns' into account, including adding language that emphasizes they are just that: guidelines, not hard and fast rules. They've also supported a proposal that would have a commercial property owner be one of two members of a neighborhood commission that will review development proposals.

"Their concerns are unfounded. Good projects will be able to move forward," said Steve Hollinger, a neighborhood resident and member of the study commission.

Hollinger and others say developers are already given too much license by City Hall to change buildings in the neighborhood. For example, on Thursday city planners granted variances to two developers to include more commercial space in buildings on Summer and Melcher streets that are slated to be redeveloped into office and retail space. A row of buildings on Summer Street was initially proposed as a residential development.

Kairos Shen, chief planner of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, assured Fort Point residents at a meeting Thursday night the city remains committed to seeing that the civic space and residential units envisioned by the master plan get built.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.

? Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

The comments were interesting.. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/06/landmark_development/
 
One of the view instances were stopping development is a good thing.
 
Development Deal Moves Ahead
Some fighting warehouse plan

539w.jpg

Kairos Shen, Boston city planner, presented plans Monday for an office development that will necessitate the relocation of some 75 artists and related businesses. (Justine Hunt/Globe Staff)

By Christina Pazzanese
Globe Correspondent / December 7, 2008

Despite widespread opposition from many in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood, the Boston Redevelopment Authority's board of directors voted 5-0 on Thursday to approve plans by developers Archon Group and Lincoln Properties to renovate and expand historic warehouses at 49/51/63 Melcher St. and 316-322 Summer St. for use as office buildings.

Just three years ago, developers and the city planning officials touted the buildings as part of a comprehensive revitalization effort that would transform the once run-down industrial area into a lively neighborhood with new housing, shops and restaurants, and parks.

In a tense and sometimes confrontational community meeting held last Monday night, dozens of artists and other Fort Point residents took the developers and the BRA's chief planner, Kairos Shen, to task for plans that involve evicting more than 70 artists and arts-related small businesses from two warehouses to make way for more office space.

"You lied to us. You have not kept one promise to the community," said artist Claudia Ravaschiere, a former president of Fort Point Arts Community. Ravaschiere blasted representations made by executives from Archon and Goldman Properties since first purchasing 17 buildings in Fort Point back in 2005. "To you, it's just real estate, but to us, it's a neighborhood," she said.

Though both properties are zoned for a mix of commercial and residential uses, developers say the current real estate market will only support office space. Archon's John Matteson defended his firm's efforts, saying the company has upgraded a number of mostly-vacant buildings and filled them with commercial tenants who are bringing much-needed foot traffic to the area.

Both projects will be subject to further design review by the BRA to scale back the height of planned rooftop additions and still need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals before moving forward, said Susan Elsbree, the BRA's director of communications.

Critics say the city's support for these plans abandons core principles of the BRA's 100 Acres Master Plan that pledged to bring equal amounts of housing, retail and other businesses and office space to the area. Adding more offices doesn't improve the quality of life for residents and pushes still more artists out of the neighborhood, they said.

"This is a situation of the BRA supporting the developers and not supporting the community," said resident Valerie Burns, who serves on the city's study committee considering whether to designate Fort Point as a landmark district.

"Fort Point is the back office of the Financial District. That's how they see it," said resident Steve Hollinger, cofounder of Seaport Alliance for a Neighborhood Design (SAND). He accused the BRA of "reselling variances" to developers who buy buildings in the area, obtain the city's permission to add valuable roof-top additions and other special zoning expansions that provide little public benefit and are often done over the objections of residents, and then unload the properties for a hefty profit.

Hollinger said developers are hiding behind the current economic crisis to avoid creating more housing because it's more profitable to build office space.

Shen conceded the projects fall short of the goal of creating more housing in Fort Point but said the BRA was asked by Mayor Thomas M. Menino to review all stalled building projects with 'burdensome' residential restrictions. "The Mayor wants to see these projects move forward," he said.

At only 50,000 square feet, Shen added, the Melcher Street project is small and will generate $500,000 in linkage payments to the city to go toward creating parks and other open spaces in Fort Point sometime in the future.

Lincoln Properties will contribute $340,000 and spend another $680,000 to upgrade 319 A St. to accommodate displaced artists. Shen conceded local parks are not likely to be built any time soon since the city must wait until more buildings are developed to have enough money to start work on them.

Heidi Burbidge, the BRA's senior project manager for the Artist Space Initiative, said about 72 artists, plus some additional arts-related businesses, face eviction from 337 Summer St. and the front portion of 319 A St.

Under a plan hatched a few weeks ago, Burbidge said, all are eligible to move into the rear portion of 319 A St., though she estimated probably only about 40 or so will take up the relocation offer since some had already moved out before the city stepped in, fearing the worst.

In late 2007, Archon terminated the tenancy of artists and small businesses in the Melcher Street buildings. Nearly two years ago, artists in 327 Summer St. were evicted, said Burbidge.

Though less than ideal, the short-term deal was the best the city could come up with, said Shen. "Two years is better than nothing at all." Studios will be rented at $9 per square foot, a rate comparable to what most are now paying, he added.

Shen said the city plans to eventually acquire 327 Summer St. from Archon and convert it into permanent live/work space for artists but conceded that project wouldn't be ready by the time leases for the artists expire in two years because the city doesn't have the money available yet.

Link
 
Step 1: Abandon master plan to receive a payoff from a connected developer.
Step 2: When it is a disaster demand money for a new master plan and allow the angry community groups to shakedown the developer.
Step 3: Pocket the funding for more bullshit planning and see Step 1.
 
I live in Fort Point and posted my notes from that meeting here:
http://fpna.blogspot.com/2008/12/notes-from-last-nights-bra-meeting-on.html

I've been to a lot of BRA meetings and this one was up there. More variances and more buildings being converted from small businesses and residential into office space.

I still can't believe they're seriously going to spend $600k of city money to rehab a building to lease studio space (no living; studio-only) for ~40 artists for two years. That's $7.5k per artist per year. To put it in perspective, shared studio in the neighborhood is usually $400-600 per month.
 
welcome fp, glad to see people who talk about development in the real world are finding us here on the online one.
 
Shen said the city plans to eventually acquire 327 Summer St. from Archon and convert it into permanent live/work space for artists but conceded that project wouldn't be ready by the time leases for the artists expire in two years because the city doesn't have the money available yet.

Why in the world would my tax money go to pay for this?
 
We talked about this on another thread - for some reasons 'artists' feel they need to live in downtown, waterfront luxury, even though throughout all of history the artist colonies were always found in the more hard-scrabble, off-the-beaten path areas. Not today. Today, artists need to live and work in downtown, waterfront luxury. And they need your tax money to do this. Or "art" will suffer.

Can you imagine the seismic shift in city business if a wealthy Republican were to sneak in and buy the mayorship and do away with all this 1960s/70s style Big Government that much of the rest of the nation has already moved away from? I can dream, can't I?
 
even though throughout all of history the artist colonies were always found in the more hard-scrabble, off-the-beaten path areas

The two artists' colonies that I know of in MA are actually both on the waterfront (in Gloucester and Provincetown). But yeah, point taken. Artists have always lived in the margins, whether it be former servants' quarters under Parisian roofs, or DIY lofts in North Brooklyn. The city can only really hope for a Potemkin artists' village in Fort Point with these kind of subsidies - and they can neither be significantly expanded or sustained.

Can you imagine the seismic shift in city business if a wealthy Republican were to sneak in and buy the mayorship and do away with all this 1960s/70s style Big Government that much of the rest of the nation has already moved away from? I can dream, can't I?

Yeah it would be spectacular for city business for some libertarian to gut city services and infrastructure investment (rolls eyes). This kind of glaringly ridiculous subsidy is a red herring, not a takeoff point for sweeping ideological claims.
 
Tell me about it.

When will people realize that if something doesn't make money it has absolutely zero value to society.

Fuckin' commies.
 
Come on guys, you're being unfair. All Pel is saying is that the Free Market will use it's pixie dust and unicorn power to bring us to the promised land. Wait, or was it pixie dust and the invisible hand? I'm always getting confused about that, because the two sound so similar.
 

Back
Top