Lyra (née The Huntington) | 252/258/264 Huntington Avenue | Fenway

Project is now financed, apparently:
www.globest.com

PGIM and Toll Brothers Secure $226M to Develop Boston Multifamily | GlobeSt

The joint-venture partners plan to construct a 432-unit, luxury rental community in downtown Boston.
www.globest.com www.globest.com

For the project, the partnership has secured a $226 construction loan facility from Wells Fargo N.A. as agent, along with BNY Mellon and the Bank of East Asia Ltd.’s New York branch. Toll Brothers’ in-house finance department arranged the debt and equity.
Click to expand...

Also, apparently this will be called "Lyra"
The 34-story rental community, titled Lyra, will consist of 376 market-rate units and 56 affordable units. The tower will feature a 24-hour concierge, a state-of-the-art fitness center, co-working space, a lounge and meeting room, a screening room, a pet spa, bicycle storage and a rooftop lounge with an outdoor terrace.
Click to expand...
 
Nibbles O’Plenty said:
Maybe you should investigate what the affordable guidelines are before making a comment like that. It is online…and would give you the exact requirements.
Click to expand...
Yea he's pretty far off. It depends on the ami level. 40, 60 and 80% ami is actually affordable and sort of multiplies if you have children. 100, 120 and up yea its not THE most affordable ever but in this case you get a sparkling new place and building for the price of a market rate lower end rental.
 
If I can't afford to rent in these 400 units, all it really means is that 400 people who make more money won't be competing with me directly for units that I CAN afford. Basically this is the type of housing we need for all the lab jobs we'll be gaining over the next few years. Those people are coming, whether or not there are 400 extra units for them to choose from or if they have to compete for the existing stock.

I just don't understand the notion that poor people are somehow entitled to live in gleaming new residences. I'm solid middle class myself and live in a dumpy house from the 1800's that happens to have a lot of space in a good location for me. In order for this dumpy house to remain any sort of affordable, there needs to be enough nicer/newer local residences to accommodate those who could otherwise easily outbid me.

It's more important that we keep adding enough to the total stock to overcome the insane demand, than it is what percentage of the new units are deemed affordable or what that even means. For the most part, the newest places with the best amenities can and should be among the most expensive in an area. That's ok, as long as that keeps my own rent from getting out of control then that's the true affordable component that helps the most people (and not just the housing lottery winners drawn from a massive waiting list).
 
1654252275710.png

This tried-and-tired design needs a lot of work. Boston doesn't need another bland curtain wall mid-rise.
 
DZH22 said:
If I can't afford to rent in these 400 units, all it really means is that 400 people who make more money won't be competing with me directly for units that I CAN afford. Basically this is the type of housing we need for all the lab jobs we'll be gaining over the next few years. Those people are coming, whether or not there are 400 extra units for them to choose from or if they have to compete for the existing stock.
Click to expand...

A) The people here would never have stooped low enough to compete with you for an apartment.

B) I work in a facility with lots of labs. I don't think your average lab tech is living in a place like this.

I just don't understand the notion that poor people are somehow entitled to live in gleaming new residences. I'm solid middle class myself and live in a dumpy house from the 1800's that happens to have a lot of space in a good location for me. In order for this dumpy house to remain any sort of affordable, there needs to be enough nicer/newer local residences to accommodate those who could otherwise easily outbid me.
Click to expand...

Do you think poor people in the 1800's were living in dumpy houses from the 1600's? Serious question.

Second question: when your house was built in the 1800's, was it built for a wealthy family or a poor one?
 
Last edited:
I'd love to know what the south-facing side looks like.
 
stick n move said:
It appears theyve changed the glass from the previous version.

0626_huntington_2.jpeg
Click to expand...
I'm sick of both blue glass curtain walls and asymmetrical windows (giant order or not) - but I think the latter works better than the former here.
 
Thread title updated.

Also mixed feeling on the facade which was heavily VE'd. On one hand, the prior facade aesthetic was dynamic, but on the other, it was very horizontally emphasized and made it look shorter. Now with the single glass wall and horizontal bands gone, it looks much taller. I think the original facade was slightly better and still had a sense of verticality to it.
 
I'm curious to why they chose the eastern facing front along Mass Ave to be more "mechanical", or "architectural" in nature. It seems to me like the view corridors from that vantage point would command the highest dollar. Those views would include all of Back Bay, downtown, and the sunrise over the ocean. All I've seen is the renders we have all seen, but imo, major fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top