Future Skyline

^ Yes,

& w/ something of the Key-like proportions we've been discussing, and with the Bulfinch Crossing development next door, it will be nicely balanced on either side. Great spot for a signature skyline punctuation.
 
slimmed down for Boston....



NQgw7Lp.png
 
cjbski said:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-building-boom-in-boston-1466690740
Click to expand...

From the piece:

“Twenty years ago, this was not a place you wanted to walk around in the dark,” said Dorrie Luck, 47, a mother of three who traded a large home in the suburbs for an airy two-bedroom apartment on the top floor of Waterside Place last year. “It’s actually so peaceful—I look out my window and I see the harbor.”


One family is anecdotal, but so much for the people who said the Seaport will never attract families. Here we have a (presumably single) mother of 3 who chose the Seaport as an early adopter.
 
fattony said:
From the piece:

“Twenty years ago, this was not a place you wanted to walk around in the dark,” said Dorrie Luck, 47, a mother of three who traded a large home in the suburbs for an airy two-bedroom apartment on the top floor of Waterside Place last year. “It’s actually so peaceful—I look out my window and I see the harbor.”


One family is anecdotal, but so much for the people who said the Seaport will never attract families. Here we have a (presumably single) mother of 3 who chose the Seaport as an early adopter.
Click to expand...

Kind of hard to guess considering she's 47. Her kids could be in college or older.

I know Boston has a lot of money, but I didn't think it had this much to fulfill the demand. The salaries people must make in Boston--after taxes--are much higher than I would think considering the cost of living required, plus savings/retirement and the money to spend post-bills. For example, two 31-year-olds paying nearly a million bucks and $3,250/month rent for condos would mean they're pulling in very high numbers. The comments section on the article as slightly along the same mindset.

Or maybe I'm just frugal. ;)
 
A quick drive through north framingham, brookline, hopkinton, north attleboro, natick, wellesley.... Shows theres plenty of money if people choose to move to the city. Doug flutie lives in natick, drew bledsoe used to live in hopkinton, and plenty of pats players find mansions to live in in north attleboro. Theres filthy rich people spread throughout the state and once the kids are gone theyre choosing to leave the suburbs and head to the city. Its not just Boston money its an entire state worth of well offs choosing the city life. A state full of wealthy people plus a new push towards empty nesters flocking to the city will create lots of demand for the forseeable future.
 
Oakley said:
Kind of hard to guess considering she's 47. Her kids could be in college or older.

I know Boston has a lot of money, but I didn't think it had this much to fulfill the demand. The salaries people must make in Boston--after taxes--are much higher than I would think considering the cost of living required, plus savings/retirement and the money to spend post-bills. For example, two 31-year-olds paying nearly a million bucks and $3,250/month rent for condos would mean they're pulling in very high numbers. The comments section on the article as slightly along the same mindset.

Or maybe I'm just frugal. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying. Two 31 year-olds making about $86k (pre-tax) a piece can pay $3250 per month and still be within the 30% guideline. There are literally 10's of thousands of jobs in Boston for 20/30-somethings that pay $86k or more.
 
....or...

if you bought a house in the Boston suburbs 20-30 years ago and its been appreciating like crazy since then, and you're now downsizing because the kids are out of the nest - you have quite a nice little nest egg to put into a condo.

For reals - lots of folks who bought relatively modest houses in the 1980s in newton, lexington, winchester, andover, etc etc etc have made 750k-$1M easy in appreciation since then ...and have quite a bit or earning power left before they retire, too
 
Oakley said:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...et-hour-job/xYKYw3Fcl1IB786rWh4KKP/story.html
Click to expand...

Again, what's the point? Housing is expensive? Yes. It got that way because we have a broken system for building homes and a lot of people in this market make a lot of money. Not a few people. Not a handful. For every person who can't afford their rent increase and moves out there are people waiting in the wings to swoop in and pay that higher rent in heartbeat.

You said you didn't think Boston had enough money to fill the demand for expensive housing. You said you didn't think salaries are that high. Simply put, you are wrong. There is such a supply shortage that the housing market doesn't have to care about the median income or the average joe. There are enough people - in absolute terms, doesn't matter if it is a small percentage - with the income to pay top dollar for the few homes on the market.

The only solution is to build more housing. Until you completely saturate the high-end of the market there is no reason for prices to ease up. If you are sick of seeing luxury condos built and want to release pressure down-market, you actually need to support more lux being built faster. We are always so far behind demand that the (relatively) rich will continue to snap up everything at prices the average joe can't afford.
 
fattony said:
Until you completely saturate the high-end of the market there is no reason for prices to ease up. If you are sick of seeing luxury condos built and want to release pressure down-market, you actually need to support more lux being built faster. We are always so far behind demand that the (relatively) rich will continue to snap up everything at prices the average joe can't afford.
Click to expand...

fattony, I don't always agree with everything you say, but I think you're spot-on about this one. Need to saturate the lux. market. And need to view the metro-boston real estate market as an interrelated system:

For example, if Boston doesn't meet lux demand within city limits (as it hasn't been), then luxury conversion is going to spill out into surrounding neighborhoods exactly as we've been seeing happen. First, Somerville, then Watertown, then Medford...these places are seeing prices many thought would never be possible. $1million dollar units in these places? (this is the me from 20 years ago expressing). But it's the truth. Because there's a HUGE market among those making 6-figures+ and wanting to live in lux/semi-lux in/near this city. And its more profitable per sq. ft to build/sell lux than non-lux...so what builder isn't going to build lux?

So why do we care about lux spillover ? Well, first its an indicator that boston isn't building fast enough, and second, its pushing the very capable, well-employed 23-25-yr-olds making $80K to either have to live farther and farther away, OR, to cram 3x into these alston/brighton places which creates unplanned-for density and makes the transit a joke during commute times. In other words, we are creating a systemic failure by underbuilding in Boston. (another option is that the smart 23-yr-old leaves our city because she can live a lot better on the same $ in cincinnati/louisville/pittsburgh/indianapolis/etc...hence boston brain drain).

So the counterargument we always hear about this is that we shouldn't plan around this supply/demand problem because it's a no win game because "there's no limit to demand" (e.g., international buyers will just pop up and indefinitely keep buying the Boston luxury units), thus just further escalating prices without solving our housing supply issue. I'll agree the international aspect adds another dimension, but I refuse to believe it's "unlimited". It just adds another layer that needs to be saturated before the rest of the system can be satisfied. Plus, no one is saying we should create a system where 25-yr-olds making $80K should live in Millenium tower. Medford is fine. The issue is when they can't even have Medford.

(my thoughts + $3.19 will buy everyone a latte)
 
fattony said:
There is such a supply shortage that the housing market doesn't have to care about the median income or the average joe. There are enough people - in absolute terms, doesn't matter if it is a small percentage - with the income to pay top dollar for the few homes on the market.

The only solution is to build more housing. Until you completely saturate the high-end of the market there is no reason for prices to ease up. If you are sick of seeing luxury condos built...
Click to expand...

whammo!!

the amazing false narrative made by Globe posters is that all this high end housing is for the top 1% from all over the world, etc.... Bullshit. maybe for the big skyscrapers, there's a saturation point in the near to medium future, but for luxury condos in the tier just below, no way. Barring a major worldwide recession (ok make like i posted this 24 hours ago) we're several years away from satisfying this market.

i'm somewhat surprised more of our older office spaces aren't being converted to condos.
 
It's not really Boston that's been underbuilding. The City of Boston proper is not the "urban core" of Boston Metro - that would include Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, etc, with total population only slightly less than Boston itself. These places, with the notable exception of Somerville, have been building next to nothing. When you only even consider building on half the urban core, you get trouble.
 
Which is why Brookline's refusal of annexation while seemingly good at the time has screwed the city in the long run. It lead to a bunch of towns following suit making Boston stay the tiny little peninsula that it is. The fact that chelsea, brookline, revere, everett, newton, needham, dedham, winthrop, cambridge, somerville, and even malden and lynn aren't a part of Boston is insane. If Chelsea and Lynn were a part of Boston and had gotten rapid transit theres your affordable housing, along with plenty of land to build more in all of the rest of the neighborhoods.
 
curcuas said:
It's not really Boston that's been underbuilding. The City of Boston proper is not the "urban core" of Boston Metro - that would include Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, etc, with total population only slightly less than Boston itself. These places, with the notable exception of Somerville, have been building next to nothing. When you only even consider building on half the urban core, you get trouble.
Click to expand...

Cambridge had 44,000 residential units as of the 2010 census. Since 2010 there are and additional 7,000 units completed or under construction. That's 16% growth in 6 years or 2.5% per year. I'm not saying that is enough, but it's a pretty healthy clip.

You can't say Cambridge isn't building - just look at Kendall/East Cambridge, North Point, and Alewife.
 
curcuas said:
The City of Boston proper is not the "urban core" of Boston Metro - that would include Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, etc, with total population only slightly less than Boston itself.
Click to expand...

Fun fact: more people live in the cities and towns that share a land border with Boston than in Boston itself.
 
I edited Odurandias skyline render to show what 1 Bromfield will most likely end up at. One positive I guess is that 111 federal will now be the sole crown over downtown which can actually be more dramatic on a skyline. It actually gives the skyline better balance, downwardly sloping away in both directions away from winthrop tower as the focal point.

 
Good to hear. Can you color match the models to the color that they will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top