General Boston Discussion

I generally agree with you that not enough has been done to reactivate downtown, but it's worth pointing out the few initiatives that have been put in place and see whether folks on here are even aware. If not, it's still likely a failing on the part of the administration, but it would be great if the press picked up some more coverage here. It's easy to bash the mayor, but it's worth highlighting the efforts underway in case they do eventually bear fruit.

For my own anecdotes, I've noticed more police presence in DTX and on the Common, more red shirt staff on the T (probably can't give the mayor credit here), and the occasional cultural event or market on Summer/Winter.

Ultimately we just need more feet on the ground, and in my opinion that's housing housing housing.


PLAN: Downtown | Boston Planning & Development Agency

Active planning initiatives being coordinated by the Boston Planning & Development Agency Community Planning department. Find more information inside each initiative, including details, associated files, and contact information.
www.bostonplans.org www.bostonplans.org

www.boston.gov

Mayor Wu Announces Residential Conversion Program for Downtown Offices

Mayor Michelle Wu today announced the City will launch a new “Downtown Office to Residential Conversion Pilot Program,” a public-private partnership program to incentivize the conversion of underutilized office buildings to residential use in Downtown this fall.
www.boston.gov www.boston.gov

www.wcvb.com

Boston’s nightlife scene is unlike any other, but what will it take to grow?

The city of Boston hired a Director of Nightlife Economy a year ago. What has she been up to in that time?
www.wcvb.com www.wcvb.com
 
BPDA just released a comprehensive report on how Boston has done since 2019, with a lot of focus on 2022-2023 changes. Covers everything from wages, spending, construction, transportation, and even foot traffic by neighborhood. Good Globe coverage as well:


www.bostonglobe.com

New report presents optimistic outlook for Bostonâs economy despite concern about commercial property - The Boston Globe

Business groups have recently been sounding the alarm that declining commercial property values could spell trouble for the city’s economic future.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

A few choice snippets:

1717504637805.png

1717504324239.png

1717504344182.png

1717504388445.png

1717504438243.png

1717504529055.png

1717504567409.png
 
Inspired by a recent post in the Chinatown infill thread, and having gone past the Beacon St hotel for the umpteenth time, do folks have a idea of how many, and what other, "unfinished developments" there are floating around Boston?

For our purposes let's not include things like empty/cleared lots, but buildings that got out of the ground and then just seemed to never finish or open.
 
Does anyone here know when Storrow Drive gets shut down on July 4th? I know there's some time before the concert starts that the road is open for people to run/bike on it.
 
BOS2BON said:
Does anyone here know when Storrow Drive gets shut down on July 4th? I know there's some time before the concert starts that the road is open for people to run/bike on it.
Click to expand...
Basically from 3 p.m. on July 3 some section of Storrow is closed to vehicles.

It's been a version of this staging plan for the last few (on non-covid) years:

July 3, 2023

9:00 a.m. (Or At A Time To Be Determined By The Incident Commander):
1. The right travel lane on Storrow Drive westbound will be closed from the Longfellow Bridge to the Fielder Footbridge for permitted bus parking. Traffic will continue westbound on Storrow Drive.
2. There will be no public parking along Storrow Drive for either the rehearsals or the concert.

3:00 p.m. (Or At A Time To Be Determined By The Incident Commander):
1. Storrow Drive westbound will be closed to vehicular traffic from Charles Circle to the Bowker Overpass. All Storrow Drive westbound traffic will be diverted to Charles Circle. Storrow Drive westbound traffic may re-enter Storrow Drive via Charles Street to Beacon Street via the westbound entrance at the Bowker Overpass.
2. The exit to Arlington Street from the Storrow Tunnel (eastbound) will be closed until 6:00 a.m. July 5th.
3. Mugar Way at Beacon Street closed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. This will remain closed until the early morning hours of July 5th. Pedestrians will be directed to Berkeley Street for entrance to the Esplanade.
4. Berkeley Street at Beacon Street closed to vehicular traffic.
5. Storrow Drive eastbound will be closed and detoured at the Bowker Overpass. It will remain closed until July 5.

July 4, 2022

9:00 a.m.
1. No parking on Memorial Drive (either side) from #450 Massachusetts Avenue to the Longfellow Bridge. All vehicles remaining after this time will be removed.
2. No parking on Cambridge Parkway.
3. Access to Storrow Drive westbound from Leverett Circle to Kenmore Square (Bowker Overpass) will be closed to traffic.
4. The inbound bus (right-side) lane on Charles River Dam Road will close from Museum Way to Leverett Circle.
5. The Storrow Drive exit ramp in the Tip O’Neil Tunnel will be closed to all traffic except emergency vehicles.
6. The Leverett Circle entrance to Storrow Drive westbound will be closed. Traffic will be allowed to travel on Msgr. O’Brien Highway to Cambridge and Martha Road to Boston.


3:00 p.m.
1. No access to Storrow Drive westbound from the Kenmore Square (Bowker Overpass).
2. No access to Storrow Drive westbound from the Beacon Street on-ramp under the Bowker Overpass.
3. Storrow Drive eastbound will be detoured at University Avenue.
 
as02143 said:
Basically from 3 p.m. on July 3 some section of Storrow is closed to vehicles.

It's been a version of this staging plan for the last few (on non-covid) years:

July 3, 2023

9:00 a.m. (Or At A Time To Be Determined By The Incident Commander):
1. The right travel lane on Storrow Drive westbound will be closed from the Longfellow Bridge to the Fielder Footbridge for permitted bus parking. Traffic will continue westbound on Storrow Drive.
2. There will be no public parking along Storrow Drive for either the rehearsals or the concert.

3:00 p.m. (Or At A Time To Be Determined By The Incident Commander):
1. Storrow Drive westbound will be closed to vehicular traffic from Charles Circle to the Bowker Overpass. All Storrow Drive westbound traffic will be diverted to Charles Circle. Storrow Drive westbound traffic may re-enter Storrow Drive via Charles Street to Beacon Street via the westbound entrance at the Bowker Overpass.
2. The exit to Arlington Street from the Storrow Tunnel (eastbound) will be closed until 6:00 a.m. July 5th.
3. Mugar Way at Beacon Street closed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. This will remain closed until the early morning hours of July 5th. Pedestrians will be directed to Berkeley Street for entrance to the Esplanade.
4. Berkeley Street at Beacon Street closed to vehicular traffic.
5. Storrow Drive eastbound will be closed and detoured at the Bowker Overpass. It will remain closed until July 5.

July 4, 2022

9:00 a.m.
1. No parking on Memorial Drive (either side) from #450 Massachusetts Avenue to the Longfellow Bridge. All vehicles remaining after this time will be removed.
2. No parking on Cambridge Parkway.
3. Access to Storrow Drive westbound from Leverett Circle to Kenmore Square (Bowker Overpass) will be closed to traffic.
4. The inbound bus (right-side) lane on Charles River Dam Road will close from Museum Way to Leverett Circle.
5. The Storrow Drive exit ramp in the Tip O’Neil Tunnel will be closed to all traffic except emergency vehicles.
6. The Leverett Circle entrance to Storrow Drive westbound will be closed. Traffic will be allowed to travel on Msgr. O’Brien Highway to Cambridge and Martha Road to Boston.


3:00 p.m.
1. No access to Storrow Drive westbound from the Kenmore Square (Bowker Overpass).
2. No access to Storrow Drive westbound from the Beacon Street on-ramp under the Bowker Overpass.
3. Storrow Drive eastbound will be detoured at University Avenue.
Click to expand...
I vote to make these closures and restrictions permanent.
 
#bancars said:
www.bostonglobe.com

The biggest new lease in downtown Boston this year comes courtesy of the state of Massachusetts - The Boston Globe

Several agencies with the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation will move into One Federal, in the space formerly occupied by Iron Mountain.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
Click to expand...

Headlines should say "another bailout for big business (Billionaires Tishman Speyer in this case)
More tax dollars for useless Govt agencies "Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation"
that employs 400+ useless nonsense jobs for our society with their lifetime pensions and healthcare.

If the Rents were cheap then downtown would be desirable. The city of Boston is too expensive for the average Massachusetts taxpaying stiff.
What's the average rent going for downtown $4000 a month for 1-Bedroom?

Do these Govt agencies pay the taxes on the building also?
 
Last edited:
Johnnyrocket891 said:
Headlines should say "another bailout for big business (Billionaires Tishman Speyer in this case)
More tax dollars for useless Govt agencies "Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation"
that employs 400+ useless nonsense jobs for our society with their lifetime pensions and healthcare.

If the Rents were cheap then downtown would be desirable. The city of Boston is too expensive for the average Massachusetts taxpaying stiff.
What's the average rent going for downtown $4000 a month for 1-Bedroom?

Do these Govt agencies pay the taxes on the building also?
Click to expand...
From the article:
With this move, the agencies collectively reduce their space needs by 24,000 square feet. Their average annual rent of $6.1 million represents a savings of 19 percent.
Click to expand...
As a taxpayer, boy am I angry the Commonwealth has reduced its expenses while consolidating in the core of the city. I really would rather the expenses could stay higher just so we can be sure entities like this landlord don't get my tax money.
 
You should do your research on what this agency actually does.

"Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation" Oh okay. More clown jobs
 
bigpicture7 said:
From the article:

As a taxpayer, boy am I angry the Commonwealth has reduced its expenses while consolidating in the core of the city. I really would rather the expenses could stay higher just so we can be sure entities like this landlord don't get my tax money.
Click to expand...
To be absolutely fair... The government would probably minimize its expenses if it owned its space instead of leasing it, much like how the MBTA just bought an office building in Quincy.

The agency expects to shift operations now based in offices leased from private landlords to 200 Newport. There is not yet a timeline for the moves.

“The MBTA’s recent purchase is a strategic effort to streamline operations and ultimately increase cost savings" [At an upcoming board meeting, more information will be provided.]

Click to expand...

Given the depressed market, now would be the time to snap something up for relatively cheap - though the Commonwealth did get a deal on that lease. The issue there is the state's tendency to defer maintenance.
 
Stlin said:
To be absolutely fair... The government would probably minimize its expenses if it owned its space instead of leasing it, much like how the MBTA just bought an office building in Quincy.



Given the depressed market, now would be the time to snap something up for relatively cheap - though the Commonwealth did get a deal on that lease. The issue there is the state's tendency to defer maintenance.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, my response had nothing to do with serious financial optimization analysis for the Commonwealth, it was to call the BS that this move is best characterized as a "another bailout to big business." Is there an effect of this move helping a particular private company, yes, I don't deny that. But is the net effect of this: commonwealth (net -), big businesses (net +)?, taking into account the existing conditions, no it is not.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
Oh come on, my response had nothing to do with serious financial optimization analysis for the Commonwealth, it was to call the BS that this move is best characterized as a "another bailout to big business." Is there an effect of this move helping a particular private company, yes, I don't deny that. But is the net effect of this: commonwealth (net -), big businesses (net +)?, taking into account the existing conditions, no it is not.
Click to expand...
Chill, I wasn't disagreeing with your point overall. This is objectively a decent deal for the Commonwealth as long as it's going to continue leasing space. I was Just making a comment that I'd rather see the Commonwealth buy a building, even if some middleman makes a bundle, because in the long run that's ultimately a better value.
 
Stlin said:
Chill, I wasn't disagreeing with your point overall. This is objectively a decent deal for the Commonwealth as long as it's going to continue leasing space. I was Just making a comment that I'd rather see the Commonwealth buy a building, even if some middleman makes a bundle, because in the long run that's ultimately a better value.
Click to expand...
Your point is a great one. I agree the state ought to give serious consideration to the % of space they own outright and take a long view on costs. The individual who lobbed the "bailout for big business" turdpost does not post in good faith. Look up his posting history. That's my only point: that it is kind of comical to give a serious consideration in responding to that.

That said, since you did get an interesting discussion started among those who actually care, I'll say that I think there are two dimensions to this. With regard to the first, generically speaking, should the state own a good % of its own operational properties toward financial optimization?, yes. But I think there's a second dimension of where are these properties and how public-facing are they? I am sorry, but I am scarred by the State Services Center and all the chain link fences and state vehicles parked on the sidewalk. If you only view the property as a line item on a financial spreadsheet, that impact on the public realm doesn't show up. However, if the property is a corrugated metal storage facility off the side of the highway, hell yeah, cut out the middle man and let the state squeeze cost if they can.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Your point is a great one. I agree the state ought to give serious consideration to the % of space they own outright and take a long view on costs. The individual who lobbed the "bailout for big business" turdpost does not post in good faith. Look up his posting history. That's my only point: that it is kind of comical to give a serious consideration in responding to that.

That said, since you did get an interesting discussion started among those who actually care, I'll say that I think there are two dimensions to this. With regard to the first, generically speaking, should the state own a good % of its own operational properties toward financial optimization?, yes. But I think there's a second dimension of where are these properties and how public-facing are they? I am sorry, but I am scarred by the State Services Center and all the chain link fences and state vehicles parked on the sidewalk. If you only view the property as a line item on a financial spreadsheet, that impact on the public realm doesn't show up. However, if the property is a corrugated metal storage facility off the side of the highway, hell yeah, cut out the middle man and let the state squeeze cost if they can.
Click to expand...
Ok, so first off absolutely no disagreement regarding the parking lot "plazas" around the Govt. Services Center, or the governments propensity for bad curb use. However, there's pretty big difference between having the Commonwealth bulldoze a neighborhood for a monument of concrete vs acquiring or building a fairly standard office building. Something like the McCormack State office building, or 100 Cambridge St (which I didn't know was state owned) or even the State Transportation Building, while each clearly a product of the 70s, aren't particularly offensive to the urban form or experience - walking by you wouldn't really know whats happening inside, just like any other office block.

Currently, DCAMM "manages more than 550 leases for 7.5 million usable square feet of leased space [for state agency use]." That's a lot of space.

Plus, I'm saying the state should buy something existing and vacant. It shouldn't matter if state employees are working out of a leased office building or an owned one, if it's already there. If the Commonwealth were to have bought 101 Arch, which recently sold, or 99 High Street, which is currently on the market, that likely doesn't change the urban experience at all. Those two were probably too big overall for the Commonwealth's immediate needs, but given their occupancy rates it could have worked out since there's nothing stopping them from keeping the tenants.
 
Last edited:
Johnnyrocket891 said:
Headlines should say "another bailout for big business (Billionaires Tishman Speyer in this case)
More tax dollars for useless Govt agencies "Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation"
that employs 400+ useless nonsense jobs for our society with their lifetime pensions and healthcare.

If the Rents were cheap then downtown would be desirable. The city of Boston is too expensive for the average Massachusetts taxpaying stiff.
What's the average rent going for downtown $4000 a month for 1-Bedroom?

Do these Govt agencies pay the taxes on the building also?
Click to expand...

The fact you pointlessly blended in discussion of the Downtown Boston residential apartment market with the Downtown Boston office market, as if there was any connection whatsoever between the two when it comes to your current hyperventilating rant, demonstrates the (as usual) substance-free nature of your "arguments."

Also, your question "do government agencies pay the taxes on these buildings" is of course asinine, given that One Federal is obviously a commercial property owned by private interests.
 
Stlin said:
Ok, so first off absolutely no disagreement regarding the parking lot "plazas" around the Govt. Services Center, or the governments propensity for bad curb use. However, there's pretty big difference between having the Commonwealth bulldoze a neighborhood for a monument of concrete vs acquiring or building a fairly standard office building. Something like the McCormack State office building, or even the State Transportation Building, while each clearly a product of the 70s, aren't particularly offensive to the urban form or experience - walking by you wouldn't really know whats happening inside, just like any other office block.

Plus, I'm saying the state should buy something existing and vacant. It shouldn't matter if state employees are working out of a leased office building or an owned one, if it's already there. If the Commonwealth were to have bought 101 Arch, which recently sold, or 99 High Street, which is currently on the market, that likely doesn't change the urban experience at all. Those two were probably too big overall for the Commonwealth's immediate needs, but given their occupancy rates it could have worked out since there's nothing stopping them from keeping the tenants.
Click to expand...
All great points. Haha, I'd even considered mentioning the State Transportation Bldg. in my original reply, but hesitated because in my mind the jury's out on how positive that really is...it's kind of a fugly superblock, but I'll hand it to you that it's reasonable enough as a proof-of-concept. Further, your point about focusing on existing vacant/under-utilized parcels pushes this into the positive in my eyes.
But, regarding your last paragraph, I'd just want to emphasize my point about how things look on financial spreadsheets. Taking on something like 99 High would need to involve substantial property/retail management responsibilities (and expenses) beyond a typical state gov. building, even if they contract all of that out. So there's additional cost line items essentially in perpetuity. My point would be the state has to seriously not shortchange itself in the "value" calculation to account for all of that stuff, including strategic preventative maintenance, etc. I think a good case study to look at might be the Bolling Bldg in Roxbury for BPS. Building came out beautifully and has ground floor retail. If that is going well, replicating that model on underutilized parcels downtown could be promising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top