Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

[shawn]

What is this, Skyscrapercity?

Come on guys. I visit this forum daily for the sole purpose of enjoying the eye candy pics of my home city people with a lot more talent than I have take and share. I am half a world away and this site is my home-sick window to all the architectural changes Boston is experiencing.

If you want to get riled up over the economics or politics of development, let's make a new thread or even subforum. But a thread in the Development Projects dedicated to a specific building already under construction? Inapprops.

More pictures, less political pissing, please!

 

[DBM]

While this is not Millennium Tower's fault per se, we lost a Boston institution in Filene's Basement when the initial building stalled out. That certainly wasn't replaced. We also lost one of the old facades. To top it all off, the most popular food window I have ever seen in this city (Chacarero, where lines were literally wrapped around the block) was lost. Now we have a car port area in its place, used for the rich. Yes, a dead zone was fixed in DTX, but that dead zone was caused by trying to develop here in the first place!

In short, we lost more for MT, some of it irreplaceable, while 1 Dalton is basically all net gain.

There are appears to be some very misleading and convoluted reasoning at work here. Let's recap what actually happened:

1.) Filene's Basement went bankrupt in 2009. The folks who swooped in to feed of the carcass got the bone stuck in their craw. All amply documented on the Filene's wiki.

2.) Therefore, irrespective of who was going to end up developing the Filene's site, there was never going to be a Filene's there, post-2009.

3.) Therefore, pick your poison: do you prefer blight in the form of the pit--the stalled Vornado project--or in the form of an empty Filene's & Filene's Basement?

4.) As a sidebar to #3, remember that The Filene's Basement building that ending up being demolished was the ugliest building in all of Boston, with an architectural style that can only be classified as "Fuhrerbunker." Good riddance to such a heinously hulking monstrosity. The pit was gruesome and painfully symbolic of DTX's sagging fortunes at the time. But again--look at the horror show that got demolished!

5.) True, the Millennium project that was realized ended up demolishing the building fragment at the corner of Franklin & Hawley. However, it also spared us from the Vornado proposal, which was going to cantilever over the Burnham Building, literally denying the Beaux Arts masterpiece its place in the sun. Are you honestly going to argue the Vornado tower, if realized, would've been better?

6.) To dwell upon the valet roundabout while overlooking the following awesomeness:

--amazing Roche Bros.
--appealing invite Cafe Nero
--active vibrant Primark
--adequate Old Navy
--sexy Pabu sushi joint
--beautifully restored Burnham Building
--delightful Roche Bros. & Cafe Nero summertime patios on Summer St. Plaza

AND the spectacularly well-executed theater seating, with all the summer performances that take place at it, is careless at best and downright bizarre.

7.) Chacarero, those poor poor souls... they only continue to have lines out the door everyday at 101 Arch St. and remain a beloved DTX lunchtime staple/institution.

8.) In light of 1-7 above... what the hell exactly were you trying to claim, again?!?

 

[odurandina]

Because there's no fanaticism about having retail on every damn block, or the need for "retail every day every way" to have any connection in the real world to someone actually making it work, keeping the lights turned on, the paychecks signed, insane overhead expenses paid..... because everything is awesome for everyone all the time.... and no one should ever have to travel more than 4, 5 blocks for everything we need.....

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...treet-close/sxwsOt52PXjARXSVvZQOLM/story.html

 

[coleslaw]

Your writing is over-edited and neo-marxist in tone. I'd wager your life is in disorder.

And you are clearly the type of idiot who thinks marxist is an insult. Id wager you think you are better than other people because you were born into riches.

Sorry you feel my literally unedited forum post isn't up to your literary standards lol but maybe again the problem is that you simply disagree but are uncomfortable actually engaging ideas on their merit.

 

[cadetcarl]

Cole, this isn't a fight you're going to win here. Like bigpicture7 said, there are people who agree with you but this might not be the venue.

 

[FenwayResident]

And you are clearly the type of idiot who thinks marxist is an insult. Id wager you think you are better than other people because you were born into riches.

Sorry you feel my literally unedited forum post isn't up to your literary standards lol but maybe again the problem is that you simply disagree but are uncomfortable actually engaging ideas on their merit.

You're being the person who shows up to a baby shower and starts fights about politics. Don't be that person.

 

[KentXie]

And we need to realize that, if we want a more equitable distribution of housing options, we need to not choke off development for a few decades. There’s such a pent up demand and so many hoops to jump through that of course its the luxury units that are getting built. And they ultimately will help the supply of lower valued housing, as the rich stop using up housing that would otherwise be affordable to lower incomes.

I think this argument is such a throw in. You do realize a lot of the rich don't use up housing that would otherwise be affordable to lower incomes right? A lot of the people trying to buy these luxury units also comes from the surrounding suburbs. They come from large houses, not an apartment building in Dot. What's basically happening is you're shifting lower income people out of the city and rich people into the city.

What's even worse about this argument is that rich people make up a small percentage of the demographic. In other words, we are building housing to cater to the fewest number of people. Even if said rich family move from an affordable housing apartment to a luxury condo, only one lower income family replaces them. For every 1 wealthy family, there are probably hundreds of low income families, with only one of them being to move to the newly vacated "affordable" apartment. So unless wealthy families are 1 to 1 with low income families (which it is not), this bullshit argument of rich people moving and opening housing opportunity for the poor is absolute hogwash.

That and the fact that many of the affordable housing are being converted into market rate housing because landlords are looking to cash in on this wave.

And don't even get me started on mismatches in housing type. A young and wealthy entrepreneur moving from a micro unit in the Seaport or a 4 bedroom apartment with roommates to a condo at the Mandarin Oriental is not going to open up opportunities for a low income family of four.

 

[DominusNovus]

I think this argument is such a throw in. You do realize a lot of the rich don't use up housing that would otherwise be affordable to lower incomes right? A lot of the people trying to buy these luxury units also comes from the surrounding suburbs. They come from large houses, not an apartment building in Dot. What's basically happening is you're shifting lower income people out of the city and rich people into the city.

What's even worse about this argument is that rich people make up a small percentage of the demographic. In other words, we are building housing to cater to the fewest number of people. Even if said rich family move from an affordable housing apartment to a luxury condo, only one lower income family replaces them. For every 1 wealthy family, there are probably hundreds of low income families, with only one of them being to move to the newly vacated "affordable" apartment. So unless wealthy families are 1 to 1 with low income families (which it is not), this bullshit argument of rich people moving and opening housing opportunity for the poor is absolute hogwash.

So who is moving into these houses that the rich are leaving? Not the poor, unless all these large homes they're leaving are getting turned into multi-family units. And do you really think that the developers are building more housing than they think the market can bear?

Further, I never said that the rich are living in affordable housing, thats just a strawman. There are a broad spectrum of housing options available, and people will take the best available options for their price range. So, if you can afford $500k worth of housing, and the best option available is $400k, thats what you're going to take. Tough luck for the guy with $400k, who now has to go for the $300k place, which crowds out someone else, and so on. Then, someone builds a $500k unit, and things even out a bit better. Thats a very simplified scenario, obviously, and things don't bounce around instantly. But even your scenario of 'the rich moving in and forcing the poor out into the suburbs' assumes the same basic principle, over a wider geographic area.

It would be better to have a variety of housing built continuously, more in line with demand, but we don't have the conditions on the ground to support that, so we get what we get.

 

[KentXie]

So who is moving into these houses that the rich are leaving? Not the poor, unless all these large homes they're leaving are getting turned into multi-family units. And do you really think that the developers are building more housing than they think the market can bear?

And that's what I'm saying. Essentially the middle class and lower class are being pushed out of the city. That is the problem. And no, I have no faith that developers will be building more housing than they think the market can bear. That is why I have no faith in the fact that developers will keep building luxury housing until it puts a dent in lower income housing.

Further, I never said that the rich are living in affordable housing, thats just a strawman. There are a broad spectrum of housing options available, and people will take the best available options for their price range. So, if you can afford $500k worth of housing, and the best option available is $400k, thats what you're going to take. Tough luck for the guy with $400k, who now has to go for the $300k place, which crowds out someone else, and so on. Then, someone builds a $500k unit, and things even out a bit better. Thats a very simplified scenario, obviously, and things don't bounce around instantly. But even your scenario of 'the rich moving in and forcing the poor out into the suburbs' assumes the same basic principle, over a wider geographic area.

I don't deny this scenario is being played out. What you don't seem to understand is that it is not 1 for 1. Oh sure you build 100 luxury unit for 100 wealthy people to move from a middle income house to. But, let's say that for every 1 wealthy person, there's 100 middle income people. So you satisfy 1% (100 middle income people who decide to upsize their living situation from a one bedroom to a one bedroom with an office) of the middle income market. Now let's say that for every 1 middle income person, there are 100 low income people. So you satisfy only 0.01% of the low income market (100 lower income people who decide upsize by moving from a tiny studio to a one bedroom). In the end, building 100 luxury unit will benefit 300 family in total (100 wealthy, 100 middle, and 100 low income) and leave the remaining 999,700 out. Congratulation, you met 0.03% of the demand. That isn't going to put a dent in pricing.

It would be better to have a variety of housing built continuously, more in line with demand, but we don't have the conditions on the ground to support that, so we get what we get.

And we have no evidence that putting most of the focus on luxury housing is dampening price elsewhere. You see new condos giving up the first month free but monthly rent continues to rise in the middle to lower income housing. By the going logic here that is so pervasive, if luxury condos are giving the first month free, than demand must have been met, developers will be building only affordable housing, and rent should have a noticeable decrease throughout the housing market. None of this is true.

 

[TallIsGood]

Two points:

Developers will build where they can make the most profit. Capital goes to the higher returns. Lower the cost of building housing and more is profitable and therefore more will be build. Cost comes in time, regulations, etc.

The Boston metro has under built housing for decades, it won't be solved in a few years. Urban rent control (former) led to disinvestment and suburban NIMBYism restricts new housing so it goes to the city.

 

[cadetcarl]

I don't see what the alternative is to massive public investment if we all agree to these conditions. If it is true that people need a type of housing which the economic conditions preclude developers from building, then the three courses of action are:

Do nothing. This seems to be what is happening. This is allowed to happen because the beneficiaries of such a stance are the most powerful in our society, and those crowded out are the weakest. Further, all of the metrics we use to assess the success of our city are calibrated such that this correlates to the most favorable outcomes. Jobs! Growth! In my opinion this is the option implicit in comments which aren't critical in any way about the state of the city.

Change the conditions that make it hard to build cheaply. We can and should be doing this, but large bureaucracies are slow. There also seems to be disagreement (though not much on this board) about which levers to pull.

Do what the developers can't, or won't. This would require money, which would require political capital.

It's obviously a deeply political issue but I feel like options one and two are widely discussed and three, not so much. I know we don't, as a country, have the most success with social housing, but there are places where it works very well. We don't have to be doomed to repeat the failures of the past.

 

[DominusNovus]

I’m hesitant to endorse option 3 for the exact reasons you mention. I’m obviously ideologically biased against it, but I’m also horrified by many of the results public housing projects have produced, for the sake of the tenants.

I’m inclined to think that if we cold move our focus away from a few big projects and buildings as the solution, and lots of little projects, we’d see a healthier mix of results. At the very least, it would likely mitigate any failures. So, I guess more infill is my motto.

 

[stick n move]

You guys done yet? .... Please.

Im gonna post some random pictures to get to a stopping point.

-the models I believe were made by downburst

 

[GW]

I’m hesitant to endorse option 3 for the exact reasons you mention. I’m obviously ideologically biased against it, but I’m also horrified by many of the results public housing projects have produced, for the sake of the tenants.

I’m inclined to think that if we cold move our focus away from a few big projects and buildings as the solution, and lots of little projects, we’d see a healthier mix of results. At the very least, it would likely mitigate any failures. So, I guess more infill is my motto.

The way to do option 3 is to spread it out over the whole area, putting affordable housing in virtually every development with a substantial number of units. We'd need a lot more than the current minimum, too. To offset the cost, the development process should be streamlined, and absentee owners penalized, but the real offset would be from massive public subsidy (paid for by taxing rich people, of course). The market clearly isn't working.

Also, I like the way this building looks and those renders are nice. I'm still sad the Copely tower isn't being built. It looked even better than this building (IMHO) and it had more units.

 

[cadetcarl]

I'm happy to keep talking about this, but I also respect that not everyone wants to and that it is co-opting a thread about a specific project for a larger discussion. Can a mod recommend the right thread for this kind of stuff to move to? Is there a general housing thread like the retail one?

 

[atlantaden]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Thank you!

 

[shmessy]

I'm happy to keep talking about this, but I also respect that not everyone wants to and that it is co-opting a thread about a specific project for a larger discussion. Can a mod recommend the right thread for this kind of stuff to move to? Is there a general housing thread like the retail one?

Not a mod, but may I suggest;


http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=5201

 

[reverend_paco]

Not a mod, but may I suggest;


http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=5201

Alternatively, maybe people just chill?

 

[Justin7]

You guys done yet? .... Please.

Im gonna post some random pictures to get to a stopping point.

I'm not sure you've thought this through!

 

[tysmith95]

That visitation says delivering in 2018. Are we actually going to see move ins by the end of the year? If I was a guessing man I would say that 2019 will be the year for move ins.