L Street Station Redevelopment (née Old Edison Plant)| 776 Summer Street | South Boston

This is one of the primary problems with the new tax proposal by the District 1 city councilor. She says that "owner-occupants" will be exempt from paying 6% on any sale.

How do you track that in any way shape or form that is easy and accurate, on a new building?

And, what if the seller didn't take it but the buyer will? Or, vice versa?

(If I'm derailing this conversation, just delete it.)

JumboBuc said:
Remember that the residential exemption (ResEx) is a seriously trailing indicator of owner occupancy. To get a ResEx you need to live in a unit on January 1st of the year before the year of the exemption. So if you move into a building today (January 22, 2019) you won't be eligible for the residential exemption until FY 2021. Thus, when new buildings are opened and people move in, it takes 1-2 years before any of those people are eligible for a ResEx. A building that opened in, say, February 2018 may have filled up with x% owner occupants on day one but by rule 0% of those units would currently be eligible for a ResEx (even though x% of the units have been filled with owner occupants now for a year).

Don't think of ResEx rates as the percentage of units that are occupied by the owner, think of them as the percentage of units that have been occupied by the owner for longer than ~18 months. If a building is new, of course that rate will be low.

Also remember that rented units are ineligible for a ResEx, but that doesn't mean they aren't occupied. If you live in a condo that you rent from a landlord that unit will not be eligible for a ResEx, but that doesn't mean you don't live there. In a city where most residents rent, claiming that renters don't count as residents doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...
 
Lol the comments section is laughable. One guy clearly lives a couple streets away. Our city's politician's unofficial position on NIMBYs should be to politely listen and act supportive but largely ignore these self servers.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Lol the comments section is laughable. One guy clearly lives a couple streets away. Our city's politician's unofficial position on NIMBYs should be to politely listen and act supportive but largely ignore these self servers.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. "We need more housing"...."Just not near my place" pretty much sums it up.
 
I think this is a very nice change to what was there before.

Here is a before and after of the massing.

You can see that they have broken up Block G/E to create more space to the waterfront and an inner courtyard next to Elkins St.

They also keep (I think) the original 1898 building (labeled '1898 building')

p9RTg7rh.png


What's even more interesting is that they no longer divide Turbine 2 building, but put the Elkins road through it.

1fNVI6kh.png


I think this is a tremendous improvement.
 
How many total units? i think the original number was like 1,600 or whatnot.

TOTALS:
750 residential Units
330,090 Sq ft office
344 hotel rooms
81,220 Sq ft retail
469,810 R&D space
______________________
1.78M gsq ft
 
odurandina said:
How many total units? i think the original number was like 1,600 or whatnot.

TOTALS:
750 residential Units
330,090 Sq ft office
344 hotel rooms
81,220 Sq ft retail
469,810 R&D space
______________________
1.78M gsq ft
Click to expand...

I think its a good first start on taking advantage of a challenging but potentially significant development site

a major key change:
R&D went from 0 or very small to significant -- I think its evolving in the right direction in 20 years there will be any opportunity to "Google"* some of the smaller new buildings into more residences

aka what has happened / is happening to the MIT Coop in Kendall Sq

Now there needs to be Silver Line service [preferably in a protected ROW]
 
Local politicians apparently don't want any residential.

Article has link to a short video showing effects of sea level rise in the next 30 years on the proposed development.

For now, Redgate remains at odds with elected officials, who say they’d prefer no housing at all on the site. They’re pushing for development that they say would better complement the port and bring jobs to the neighborhood. State senator Nick Collins, who represents South Boston, said it makes little sense to put high-end condos on what is a working waterfront with a bright industrial future.

“The Commonwealth has invested a lot in the success of the port,” Collins said. “We have to get this right.”
Click to expand...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...outh-boston/mGq8TFx4ACBFHna00eoM0L/story.html
 
Last edited:
This was first proposed well over 2 years ago. It's only now that objections to residential are coming up? Throwing wrenches into the already absurdly byzantine approval process is a major blood sport here. FFS!
 
Brad Plaid said:
This was first proposed well over 2 years ago. It's only now that objections to residential are coming up? Throwing wrenches into the already absurdly byzantine approval process is a major blood sport here. FFS!
Click to expand...

From a January 2019 article in the Globe.

At issue is a deed restriction the Massachusetts Port Authority negotiated in 2014 with the site’s previous owner that prevents residential units from being built there. At the time, Massport was planning to build a bypass road for trucks to connect Conley Terminal, a shipping facility, directly to Summer Street and wanted to avoid conflicts that future development at the old plant might pose. The bypass, which opened in 2017, includes a new bridge that passes next to the property.
Click to expand...

The deed restriction is still in place. State politicians from Southie are doing their best to ensure that Massport doesn't withdraw the deed restriction. The haul road took the trucks off residential streets in Southie; this development would construct new residential fronting the haul road, negating the purpose of the haul road.

The developers had mentioned something about putting language in the condo association bylaws (or some similar instrument) prohibiting residents from complaining about the noise generated by the port, but I think such language might readily be tossed by a court.

This seems to be a case of caveat emptor, and the developers not having lined up the ducks before announcing a very big residential development. I can appreciate that high end residential would probably produce the greatest return, and condos would mean the developers recoup their costs right away, and get out from under,... but.

For now, the developers are dead in the water with respect to residential.
 
stellarfun said:
From a January 2019 article in the Globe.



The deed restriction is still in place. State politicians from Southie are doing their best to ensure that Massport doesn't withdraw the deed restriction. The haul road took the trucks off residential streets in Southie; this development would construct new residential fronting the haul road, negating the purpose of the haul road.
Click to expand...

I don't see any residential fronting the haul road, and since Massport owns it I doubt they'd allow non-commercial traffic. I see a back entrance, potentially for fire lane access, but all car access will be from Summer and 1st. It would be hypocritical for the neighborhood to make that claim anyway, since they're simultaneously lobbying to open the equally mission-critical Haul Road (along Track 61) to mixed traffic over the strenuous objections of Massport and cargo carriers.

The concern I've heard is that residents would complain about the haul road traffic noise and force Massport to restrict its use, which is pure speculation that Massport has shut down.

This is 100% NIMBY. I don't think you can buy the excuses.
 
It may be 100 percent NIMBY, but NIMBYs hold the cards.

If the current owner checked with Massport re: the deed restriction, and Massport told the then prospective owner, 'no problem', that's one thing. But no one, to my knowledge has said that Massport made such an a priori representation to the current owner.

The process of determining what manner of encumbrances may be associated with a property is called 'due diligence'.
__________________
A true story from Washington DC.

Developer intends to develop a property (the former Italian embassy and its grounds) it has purchased. Owner asks a city official with appropriate administrative jurisdiction whether the city is going to limit development because part of the property could be considered historic. City official replies there will be no historic designation.

Developer proceeds to complete design of the development. Goes to pull the construction permits, and is told the permits will not be approved. City has determined the property is historic.

Developer appeals to an adjudicatory administrative law judge. The law judge rules in favor of the city, stating that when the city official said he is not going to do something, it did not mean he was never going to do something.
 
stellarfun said:
It may be 100 percent NIMBY, but NIMBYs hold the cards.

If the current owner checked with Massport re: the deed restriction, and Massport told the then prospective owner, 'no problem', that's one thing. But no one, to my knowledge has said that Massport made such an a priori representation to the current owner.

The process of determining what manner of encumbrances may be associated with a property is called 'due diligence'.
__________________
A true story from Washington DC.

Developer intends to develop a property (the former Italian embassy and its grounds) it has purchased. Owner asks a city official with appropriate administrative jurisdiction whether the city is going to limit development because part of the property could be considered historic. City official replies there will be no historic designation.

Developer proceeds to complete design of the development. Goes to pull the construction permits, and is told the permits will not be approved. City has determined the property is historic.

Developer appeals to an adjudicatory administrative law judge. The law judge rules in favor of the city, stating that when the city official said he is not going to do something, it did not mean he was never going to do something.
Click to expand...

I believe that Massport has addressed this in their board slides. They've been very clear that they don't see an issue.

I'm not sure I see your point on the DC story - the developer got screwed as you've told it (there are other possible angles on that story that make the City and judge look better). Not sure how they failed to perform due diligence in that case.
 
reverend_paco said:
I think this is a very nice change to what was there before.

Here is a before and after of the massing.

You can see that they have broken up Block G/E to create more space to the waterfront and an inner courtyard next to Elkins St.

They also keep (I think) the original 1898 building (labeled '1898 building')

p9RTg7rh.png


What's even more interesting is that they no longer divide Turbine 2 building, but put the Elkins road through it.

1fNVI6kh.png


I think this is a tremendous improvement.
Click to expand...



According to the recent changes to the project, all the residential (in yellow) is in the rear of the development, away from Haul Rd.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/a7e226bb-4d5d-48a0-9e18-fe1da410532b
 
Block A, B, and part of E are residential. These are on the north side of the property. The Massport property parcel that is adjacent to A is where there is a gate / controlled entry /exit between Conley and the haul road.

As Beeline's photos attest, Massport is currently building a new berth (Berth 10) for Conley which is south of the present terminal, and brings Conley closer to the Boston Edison property. Berth 10, when operational, looks to be about 400 feet from the northernmost residential block.

31033290467_58baabcc25_c.jpg


^^^This is Berth 10,

To the immediate left of Berth 10 is another underutilized Massport parcel, which, across the haul road, abuts the NW corner of the Boston Edison property. Should one expect Massport to leave this parcel as is forever, or might it develop it as a Berth 11 or for some other port-related purpose?

For a developer to propose 1000, 1500 new residential units, laudable as that is, on a property that is deed restricted against constructing new residential, is ambitious, if not audacious.
 
stellarfun said:
Should one expect Massport to leave this parcel as is forever, or might it develop it as a Berth 11 or for some other port-related purpose?
Click to expand...

Why would one expect that? It's Massport's property. It has nothing to do with 776 Summer.
 
stellarfun said:
Block A, B, and part of E are residential. These are on the north side of the property.
Click to expand...

A, B, and C are on the south side of the property, along 1st St.

Current plans orient residential along 1st and away from the Channel and Freight Connector.
 
stellarfun said:
For a developer to propose 1000, 1500 new residential units, laudable as that is, on a property that is deed restricted against constructing new residential, is ambitious, if not audacious.
Click to expand...

According to the developer's new plans, it's down to 750 units.
 
JumboBuc said:
A, B, and C are on the south side of the property, along 1st St.

Current plans orient residential along 1st and away from the Channel and Freight Connector.
Click to expand...

As I read the site plan. Blocks H, F, and A are along the north property line, across from Massport property. A is low rise residential. Directly south of H, F, and A are Blocks E and B. B is residential, E, is a combination hotel, residential, A and B are each 64' high; E is 210'

The other residential block, Block C, is at the southeast corner, and is the most distant from the port. C is 63' and 206'

https://goo.gl/maps/r9cRXcURVQiw7Huw8

^^^Boston Edison property on the left of the street; Massport property on the right. The street leads directly to the haul road entrance checkpoint to Conley, and beyond that towards the Channel, is Massports underutilized parcel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top