Dick’s House of Sports | Prudential Center | Back Bay

[king_vibe]

Let's say someone bought the site and built a tower or two for housing. Who do you think is going to afford this housing? I'd rather see a Dicks there than another block of unaffordable apartments or condos. Given the proximity to the entire Pru complex, which to my knowledge is solely luxury housing, the pressure would be too great to make the new one affordable. And what's affordable today? IMO it ought to be anything under $2200/month for a one bed.

New housing, even new luxury housing, increases the pool of availability properties and brings down the prices for everyone, including for those who can’t even afford the new housing. This is the very reason why many NIMBYs exist! They don’t want their “investments” being diluted.

500 units of new luxury housing would push down the overall cost of housing in the metro area by a tiny amount. However, that tiny amount is infinitely more than the effect of the number of housing units actually being proposed, which is 0. Additionally, the city could extract a guarantee that some percentage of the new units are income-restricted affordable.

Also, they could just build another store at the base of the new development! In three years we could have the sports store and hundreds of new homes.

Go look at the beginning of this thread and all the people sizing up this site for its development possibilities. I obviously don’t get to decide anything, but I think it’s clear that this location has enormous potential that isn’t even close to being captured.

 

[Blackbird]

New housing, even new luxury housing, increases the pool of availability properties and brings down the prices for everyone, including for those who can’t even afford the new housing. This is the very reason why many NIMBYs exist! They don’t want their “investments” being diluted.

500 units of new luxury housing would push down the overall cost of housing in the metro area by a tiny amount.

This should probably be moved to the "Housing" thread, but one of the assumptions made by the author of that article is "I find that migrants to new central city multifamily buildings come from neighborhoods with slightly lower incomes, and migrants into these neighborhoods come from areas with still lower incomes, and so forth."

This makes sense if we're talking about a new condo/townhouse in Southie or Eastie, but the kind of housing that would be built at the Lord and Taylor site wouldn't be like that. It'd be more like the units in Millenium Tower or One Dalton. No one is upgrading to those units from Brookline or Lexington. They are bought by real estate investors and kept as stocks in the hope that they will become more valuable with time. Or they're bought by deep-pocketed parents of foreign students at a local college/university. Regardless, if people aren't actually vacating another, local property in order to move there, then it won't do jack for the overall cost of housing in the metro.

 

[JeffDowntown]

This should probably be moved to the "Housing" thread, but one of the assumptions made by the author of that article is "I find that migrants to new central city multifamily buildings come from neighborhoods with slightly lower incomes, and migrants into these neighborhoods come from areas with still lower incomes, and so forth."

This makes sense if we're talking about a new condo/townhouse in Southie or Eastie, but the kind of housing that would be built at the Lord and Taylor site wouldn't be like that. It'd be more like the units in Millenium Tower or One Dalton. No one is upgrading to those units from Brookline or Lexington. They are bought by real estate investors and kept as stocks in the hope that they will become more valuable with time. Or they're bought by deep-pocketed parents of foreign students at a local college/university. Regardless, if people aren't actually vacating another, local property in order to move there, then it won't do jack for the overall cost of housing in the metro.

I think your analysis of who is purchasing the luxury housing in downtown towers is overly simplistic. The key is to analyze whether an equivalent purchase would have happened in central Boston with or without the new luxury units.

First, the international student whose parents buy a property is competing for some property in central Boston, because the student needs a place to live, in Boston. So that unit is an alternate to some other Boston based unit (a unit that is now available to someone else)

Likewise a lot of the investment types are actually well-healed part-time residents (tech execs, etc.) looking for a pied-à-terre in Boston that is also an investment. Again, they are going to buy something to fill that need (and the need is to be in Boston), so the unit is a replacement for an alternate purchase (an alternate that is now available to someone else).

 

[Blackbird]

First, the international student whose parents buy a property is competing for some property in central Boston, because the student needs a place to live, in Boston. So that unit is an alternate to some other Boston based unit (a unit that is now available to someone else)

Likewise a lot of the investment types are actually well-healed part-time residents (tech execs, etc.) looking for a pied-à-terre in Boston that is also an investment. Again, they are going to buy something to fill that need (and the need is to be in Boston), so the unit is a replacement for an alternate purchase (an alternate that is now available to someone else).

I think you’re right about foreign families, they probably would’ve bought elsewhere in Back Bay/Downtown. I don’t think you’re correct about investors. From what I’ve heard/understood (my girlfriend’s cousin is a lawyer for a real estate investment firm) people snatch up the units because they exist, not because they ever plan on spending time there.

Either way, none of this has anything to do with the article that king_vibe shared. The author’s whole argument about new, market-rate housing lowering the cost of housing overall is based on the fact that a person moving into the new house would be vacating a house somewhere else. If you find that approach too simplistic, then take it up with Evan Mast, not me.

 

[king_vibe]

But the use of eminent domain solely for site redevelopment purposes would set a precedent which would make the public nervous. You know, the slippery slope thing.

This is true, but it’s more that a municipality has less interest picking a fight with Boston Properties than with Joe Everyman.

 

[MjolnirMan]

Let's say someone bought the site and built a tower or two for housing. Who do you think is going to afford this housing? I'd rather see a Dicks there than another block of unaffordable apartments or condos.

I understand this argument but find it to be unpersuasive. It is currently a vacant department store and maybe a future sporting goods store. How many affordable apartments or condos are there in THOSE previous or future site conditions?

Even if you don't happen to agree with the above exchanges about the overall effect of luxury units on the lower end of the housing market, this discussion isn't about replacing a mixed-affordability tower with a luxury tower. It's replacing 0 units of housing with nonzero units of housing. I agree that it would be better if they were 100% affordable, or mixed-affordable at minimum, but having 1 housing unit replace 0 housing units in the downtown core is an improvement itself. Plus, it would be much more than 1 unit, it would have tangible effects on the affordable housing market by way of payment into the city fund even IF it didn't have any on-site affordable units AND you discard the arguments outlined above.

 

[tobyjug]

I’d prefer something more exciting, but if the free market wants Dicks in the Back Bay I guess that’s how the property owner gets the biggest bang for his buck.

 

[SuffolkHeights11]

I’d prefer something more exciting, but if the free market wants Dicks in the Back Bay I guess that’s how the property owner gets the biggest bang for his buck.

That's the problem. It's not the free market deciding the most productive use of the land. It's essentially a closed market because the owner needs permission from multiple different arbitrary veto points (design commissions, shadow laws, litigious residents) and is heavily taxed in the form of IDP and other exactions from building housing. Boston Properties then chooses the path of least resistance, in this case a sporting goods store on some of the most valuable real estate in the country, which is really the only choice in the market we've created for it.

 

[bbfen]

Mods, can you split the housing convo off to that thread? This is tedious and offers no new info on the development of a site zoned for retail.

 

[shmessy]

Let's say someone bought the site and built a tower or two for housing. Who do you think is going to afford this housing? I'd rather see a Dicks there than another block of unaffordable apartments or condos. Given the proximity to the entire Pru complex, which to my knowledge is solely luxury housing, the pressure would be too great to make the new one affordable. And what's affordable today? IMO it ought to be anything under $2200/month for a one bed.

I’m always curious about the arguments against high priced luxury apartments.

If there is a dearth of new high priced luxury apartments, doesn’t that simply cause the existing non-luxury apartments to explode in price???? If humanoids are clambering to live in a hot city, the supply/demand ratio takes over no matter what.

Unfortunately, the result of this current social engineering is that NOTHING (or very little) in the way of residential units get built. The developers are like water - - they go towards the cracks. The low hanging fruit right now is to simply build huge boxes called laboratories. Congrats, Mayor Wu, we are now getting non-dynamic, box 9-5 neighborhoods with very little street/humanoid dynamic. The new Druker proposal in the South End for the two twin landscaping anonymous mega labs is the dystopian future that Boston faces for not simply opening up the spigot to residential.

In my view, whatever the hell type of apartment, just build the effing things. All these social engineers are getting it wrong. Explode the supply - - -THAT is the best way to bring down the exorbitant prices.

 

[shmessy]

This should probably be moved to the "Housing" thread, but one of the assumptions made by the author of that article is "I find that migrants to new central city multifamily buildings come from neighborhoods with slightly lower incomes, and migrants into these neighborhoods come from areas with still lower incomes, and so forth."

This makes sense if we're talking about a new condo/townhouse in Southie or Eastie, but the kind of housing that would be built at the Lord and Taylor site wouldn't be like that. It'd be more like the units in Millenium Tower or One Dalton. No one is upgrading to those units from Brookline or Lexington. They are bought by real estate investors and kept as stocks in the hope that they will become more valuable with time. Or they're bought by deep-pocketed parents of foreign students at a local college/university. Regardless, if people aren't actually vacating another, local property in order to move there, then it won't do jack for the overall cost of housing in the metro.

So those deep pocketed parents of foreign students jack up the prices of existing apartments in Allston. THAT is what we’ve been experiencing the past few decades.

Time to explode that scenario.

Again, I’ll use the water analogy. Make the container bigger and that will decrease the pressure. Right now the “good intentions” are simply making the affordability issue far worse. Do we REALLY want the result to be building labs or big box stores downtown and further encouraging automobile commuting??????

 

[Blackbird]

So those deep pocketed parents of foreign students jack up the prices of existing apartments in Allston. THAT is what we’ve been experiencing the past few decades.

Time to explode that scenario.

We aren’t talking about what increases prices, at least if we’re continuing to discuss the article that was shared earlier. It was about what causes the price of housing to decrease. It said that new, market rate housing would decrease the overall cost if people trade-up from one older unit to a newer unit, freeing up their current one for someone else to trade-up into. Like hermit crabs.

If new housing does not result in someone leaving their current house in the metro area, then it is not helping lower the cost of housing. To use your example, it is not actually making the container any bigger. Best case, as you mention, it might keep the cost from increasing as much. But I’m not even 100% sure that’s true.

In your above example, you’re assuming that someone with money would be interested in Allston if a serviced apartment at the Mandarin Oriental wasn’t an option. I don’t find that likely. People with different means will be in the market for different types of housing. And that’s exactly why adding 300 units on Boylston Street in the Back Bay won’t have the same impact on the price of a home in Medford than adding 50 townhouses in Melrose might. Even if people in Dover trade-up to the Back Bay apartments, a lot of dominoes would need to fall correctly in order for the ripples to actually have an effect on middle-income housing in places like Medford.

Do we REALLY want the result to be building labs or big box stores downtown and further encouraging automobile commuting??????

Labs without garages? Sure. City residents need places to work that are convenient to access.

Big box stores without big parking lots? Yes. City residents require paper products and cheap rotisserie chickens just as much as suburbanites.

 

[shmessy]

We aren’t talking about what increases prices, at least if we’re continuing to discuss the article that was shared earlier. It was about what causes the price of housing to decrease. It said that new, market rate housing would decrease the overall cost if people trade-up from one older unit to a newer unit, freeing up their current one for someone else to trade-up into. Like hermit crabs.

If new housing does not result in someone leaving their current house in the metro area, then it is not helping lower the cost of housing. To use your example, it is not actually making the container any bigger. Best case, as you mention, it might keep the cost from increasing as much. But I’m not even 100% sure that’s true.

In your above example, you’re assuming that someone with money would be interested in Allston if a serviced apartment at the Mandarin Oriental wasn’t an option. I don’t find that likely. People with different means will be in the market for different types of housing. And that’s exactly why adding 300 units on Boylston Street in the Back Bay won’t have the same impact on the price of a home in Medford than adding 50 townhouses in Melrose might. Even if people in Dover trade-up to the Back Bay apartments, a lot of dominoes would need to fall correctly in order for the ripples to actually have an effect on middle-income housing in places like Medford.



Labs without garages? Sure. City residents need places to work that are convenient to access.

Big box stores without big parking lots? Yes. City residents require paper products and cheap rotisserie chickens just as much as suburbanites.

I'm sorry, but there is so much I completely disagree with you in that post that it's hard to enumerate each of the instances in a short time (And, by the way, that isn't a diss, because I think you're an excellent poster and I've learned much from your posts over the years).

I'm going to leave it at that, because I feel bad to have been one who has helped to side tangent this thread. I wish this particular spot in Boston would be developed with a tall residential tower with a big box retailer on the bottom few floors.

 

[Blackbird]

I'm sorry, but there is so much I completely disagree with you in that post that it's hard to enumerate each of the instances in a short time (And, by the way, that isn't a diss, because I think you're an excellent poster and I've learned much from your posts over the years).

And I’m tired of saying that I’m just relaying (my understanding of) the “main takeaways” from that article. It’s fine if you disagree, just know (a) that it’s not my own opinion that I conjured out of thin air and (b) I’m pretty sure the thing was peer reviewed, though I didn’t look too hard.

 

[stellarfun]

Ideally, the city would indeed seize this property (and many others) through eminent domain and build housing. Perfectly legal. Since contemporary American governments (local, state, and federal) have no will for that kind of common sense approach, they could seize the property and offer to it another developer who does have higher ambitions (the Kelo v. New London approach).

At the very least, we could use a more hands-on style intervention in development. Proclamations from the bully pulpit as to what the city wants to see, incentives for building, slow-walking or denying alternatives. There’s lots that can be done given a little vision.

Kelo [the name of the property owner plaintiff in Kelo v. city of New London, in the 2005 Supreme Court decision that decided for the city] turned out to be an unmitigated fiasco. Certainly not a precedent that I would ever cite approvingly.

In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre (370,000 m2) waterfront tract of land for $1 per year)[citation needed] was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city. In the aftermath of 2011's Hurricane Irene, the now-closed New London redevelopment area was turned into a dump for storm debris such as tree branches and other vegetation.

Pfizer, whose employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies. Pfizer chose to retain the Groton campus on the east side of the Thames River, closing its New London facility in late 2010 with a loss of over 1,000 jobs. That coincided with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London site that would have increased Pfizer's property tax bill by almost 400 percent.

After the Pfizer announcement, the San Francisco Chronicle, in November 2009, in its lead editorial called the Kelo decision infamous:

The well-laid plans of redevelopers, however, did not pan out. The land where Susette Kelo's little pink house once stood remains undeveloped. The proposed hotel-retail-condo "urban village" has not been built. And earlier this month, Pfizer Inc. announced that it is closing the $350 million research center in New London that was the anchor for the New London redevelopment plan, and will be relocating some 1,500 jobs.

The Chronicle editorial quoted from The New York Times:

"They stole our home for economic development," ousted homeowner Michael Cristofaro told the New York Times. "It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away."

The final cost to the city and state for the purchase and bulldozing of the formerly privately held property was $78 million. The promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues had not materialized. As of 2021, the area remains an empty lot.

[Bolding mine]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_...was never deeded,close to downtown New London.

 

[king_vibe]

Kelo [the name of the property owner plaintiff in Kelo v. city of New London, in the 2005 Supreme Court decision that decided for the city] turned out to be an unmitigated fiasco. Certainly not a precedent that I would ever cite approvingly.




[Bolding mine]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#:~:text=The land was never deeded,close to downtown New London.

That’s like saying that Roe v Wade is bad legal precedent because Norma McCorvey never got her abortion and later regretted her involvement in the case. Or that Obergefell v Hodges is bad legal precedent because Jim Obergefell’s partner had been dead for years by the time things shook out.

Kelo is precedent by which Columbia University built their new campus over the obstinacy of some muffler shop owners, and by which numerous condo towers of Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards project have risen on the site of some holdout slumlords. Most major development projects these days have at least some level of private involvement. Municipalities hardly have the ability to design and build a doghouse on their own, and it seems like Kelo acknowledges that.

 

[Dr. Rosen Rosen]

So this is cool!

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2023/04/13/dicks-marathon-sponsor-house-of-sport.html?ana=maz

 

[king_vibe]

Mods, since nothing of significance is being built here, maybe let's move this to the retail thread.

 

[taketern]

 

[king_vibe]

Mods, let’s move this to the retail thread.