Idea for fixing the housing shortage

This week, we've got a news story and an opinion piece looking into why Boston's seen so little office-to-housing conversions when other cities are seeing a lot more success.

In theory, Gensler (the architecture firm that's done the most modeling, surveying and actual design work on these sorts of things), says between 3 million and 5 million square feet of Boston's 70 million-square-foot downtown office market could support a conversion, but we've only seen ~500,000 square feet worth of projects so far, give or take.

In part, it's money (and affordability requirements):

bankerandtradesman.com

Boston’s Conversion Conundrum

Tens of millions square feet of office space across America is undergoing conversion to apartments. So why is Boston seeing so little conversion activity?
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com

But another big factor, writes the co-head of Gensler's Boston office, is the small size of our office market relative to places like NYC:

‘Fear Factor’ Deters Residential Conversions in Boston

Boston office conversions are happening at a much slower pace than in New York City. That's partly because the city supports them more.
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com

New York simply has a much larger volume of buildings to work with. The city’s five boroughs comprise nearly 730 million square feet of office space, with the vast majority – 82 percent, or about 600 million square feet – located in Manhattan. This gives developers a broader range of potential properties to evaluate for conversion.
Click to expand...

But maybe an even bigger issue is that there's a decent amount of fear out there whether consumers will take to a large-scale conversion like the NYC ones that have gotten so much press, he says:

One of the biggest challenges in Boston is the fear factor associated with being the first to undertake a large-scale office-to-residential conversion. Most of Boston’s current conversions are relatively small in scale. In contrast, New York has already seen substantial conversions. Developers in New York have had the benefit of seeing these large-scale conversions succeed, which reduces perceived risk for future projects.
Click to expand...
 
Banker & Tradesman said:
This week, we've got a news story and an opinion piece looking into why Boston's seen so little office-to-housing conversions when other cities are seeing a lot more success.

In theory, Gensler (the architecture firm that's done the most modeling, surveying and actual design work on these sorts of things), says between 3 million and 5 million square feet of Boston's 70 million-square-foot downtown office market could support a conversion, but we've only seen ~500,000 square feet worth of projects so far, give or take.

In part, it's money (and affordability requirements):

bankerandtradesman.com

Boston’s Conversion Conundrum

Tens of millions square feet of office space across America is undergoing conversion to apartments. So why is Boston seeing so little conversion activity?
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com

But another big factor, writes the co-head of Gensler's Boston office, is the small size of our office market relative to places like NYC:

‘Fear Factor’ Deters Residential Conversions in Boston

Boston office conversions are happening at a much slower pace than in New York City. That's partly because the city supports them more.
bankerandtradesman.com bankerandtradesman.com



But maybe an even bigger issue is that there's a decent amount of fear out there whether consumers will take to a large-scale conversion like the NYC ones that have gotten so much press, he says:
Click to expand...
No mention that New York, particularly lower Manhattan 421-g tax abatement, and now all of Manhattan 467-m tax exemption is $$ billions in incentives over the next 25-35 years that make Boston's incentives seem paltry. (And the NYC incentives come with steep affordability requirements! so affordability does not cut it as an excuse. It is the State money driving conversions.)

Developers can afford to spend 2 to 3 X the purchase price of a building on conversion with those incentives (90% of the tax bill!).
 
I wonder how much of the conversion difficulty in Boston is driven by all the new construction in the Seaport, which isn't that far away, has more amenities, and is probably more prestigious. I think for most people a Downtown conversion would have to be cheaper than the Seaport to consider living there.
 
www.universalhub.com

Wu proposes $110-million loan fund to help spur more housing in Boston; could get additional money from state

Mayor Wu says she will ask the City Council to approve a $110-million rotating fund to help tip the balance on new housing developments whose builders would otherwise hold back because of the high cost of financing these days - with the first project to be a mixed-income apartment building as...
www.universalhub.com www.universalhub.com

Mayor Wu says she will ask the City Council to approve a $110-million rotating fund to help tip the balance on new housing developments whose builders would otherwise hold back because of the high cost of financing these days
[...]
In recent years, developers have won city approval for roughly 30,000 housing units that they then never built.
[...]
At least 20% of the units in any project that receives a city loan would have to be rented or marketed as affordable
Click to expand...

I think this is exactly the kind of market intervention that's needed when the Federal Reserve is trying to slow down all economic activity.
 
Agree 100%. Having 30,000 units approved and ready to go is a great head start, but if they never get built it means nothing. Our approval process is notoriously slow and conservative, so having that part already out of the way is huge, now we just need to give them the nudge they need to get going.
 
ritchiew said:
I've been wanting to reading more about this exact problem. Do you (or anyone else) have suggestions where to start?
Click to expand...
I’m a little late on this but check out these episodes from the UCLA Housing Voice podcast (they also have show notes with research links, summaries, and transcripts so you don’t have to listen in full):
 
nortor said:
I’m a little late on this but check out these episodes from the UCLA Housing Voice podcast (they also have show notes with research links, summaries, and transcripts so you don’t have to listen in full):
Click to expand...
Well, I'm even later at getting to what you posted, but thanks so much. Those resources were really interesting.

I am slightly hesitant trusting those though, mainly because they basically align with what I already assumed was correct (and jeez, that can be a trap.) Really simplifying, what those researchers are saying is that IZ doesn't work well (or maybe at all) for its intended goals, and it has lots of bad, measurable side effects. Seems right. But out of curiosity, what are the best arguments or research supporting using inclusionary zoning?
 

Boston City Council to consider eliminating parking minimums for new development; not all councilors agree, though​


“The City Council today agreed to look at eliminating current parking requirements for residential development across the city as a way of spurring new housing - although some councilors vowed to fight the proposal, warning it would destroy Boston's working class and drive low-income residents out of the city.

The city has already ended parking minimums for developments with all "affordable" units; the measure proposed by councilors Sharon Durkan (Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Mission Hill, Fenway) and Henry Santana (at large) would extend that to every new residential project.

In recent years, the Boston Planning Department and its predecessors have encouraged developers to submit projects with less parking than required by zoning codes; the Zoning Board of Appeal then typically grants the needed variances……”

https://www.universalhub.com/2025/boston-city-council-consider-eliminating-parking
 
Who would have ever thought that Ed Flynn would turn up the volume when limitations on parking come along...the disingenuous conflation of "eliminating parking mandates" with "banning parking" is peak brain-rot for the low-engagement voter perpetuated by people who know better. No one is trying to eliminate cars from Boston!
 
I still feel like it's weird that there's zero urgency around this issue. There's a lot of technocratic designed-to-fail solutions that get passed with nothing happening afterwards. I'm starting to think only like 10% of people actually care.
 
Longfellow said:
I still feel like it's weird that there's zero urgency around this issue. There's a lot of technocratic designed-to-fail solutions that get passed with nothing happening afterwards. I'm starting to think only like 10% of people actually care.
Click to expand...
It's the perfect long-term problem. The negative effects of a stagnant or declining population that is increasingly high-income are far enough out to be abstracted away. The infrastructure strain from increased commuting distance is gradual, difficult to notice suddenly. And to top it all off, the solution would result in a contraction of the wealth of some of the main stakeholders.
 
Longfellow said:
I still feel like it's weird that there's zero urgency around this issue. There's a lot of technocratic designed-to-fail solutions that get passed with nothing happening afterwards. I'm starting to think only like 10% of people actually care.
Click to expand...

If this is in response to parking minimums (vs the general issue of the housing crisis) I think the problem is it's incredibly easy to fear-monger exactly the way Flynn is, since cars have managed to be such a central part of American life, everywhere except for maybe the densest parts of NYC (and look at the handwringing around congestion pricing from the most-vocal there).

My somewhat cynical take is that this should be couched in terms that fall easier on the ears of the average American. Rather than make it about climate, or equity, or a bankshot component that will help nudge housing prices lower, just make it about freedom.

Why does the government get to tell me, private property owner, that I have to build an expensive underground garage if I don't want to? Why should I have to add huge setbacks for off street parking when I could sell that square footage for profit? Let a parking garage developer build something if the market demands it, but keep your hands off my midrise residential development. Freedom and choice to all! I'm sure there's a small time Chinatown or downtown developer who can articulate why height limitations on one hand, and mandatory parking on the other, crush their margins and prevent them from building much needed housing.
 
I believe that he is suggesting that in Boston only the privileged live or work in Town and thus are able to get to work without a car. There is some truth to that
 
Justbuildit said:
If this is in response to parking minimums (vs the general issue of the housing crisis) I think the problem is it's incredibly easy to fear-monger exactly the way Flynn is, since cars have managed to be such a central part of American life, everywhere except for maybe the densest parts of NYC (and look at the handwringing around congestion pricing from the most-vocal there).

My somewhat cynical take is that this should be couched in terms that fall easier on the ears of the average American. Rather than make it about climate, or equity, or a bankshot component that will help nudge housing prices lower, just make it about freedom.

Why does the government get to tell me, private property owner, that I have to build an expensive underground garage if I don't want to? Why should I have to add huge setbacks for off street parking when I could sell that square footage for profit? Let a parking garage developer build something if the market demands it, but keep your hands off my midrise residential development. Freedom and choice to all! I'm sure there's a small time Chinatown or downtown developer who can articulate why height limitations on one hand, and mandatory parking on the other, crush their margins and prevent them from building much needed housing.
Click to expand...
Yup this is the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top