MassDOT Pike Parcels 12 - 15 | Boylston St. and Mass. Ave | Back Bay

617 said:
So what you're saying is that it took 6 years to choose a developer and have a public meeting?
Click to expand...

More like it took three years to choose a developer and 3 years for the developer to negotiate with Prudential for their adjacent air rights parcel, complete their due diligence, and create a proposal for a costly, complicated site. And have 18 public meetings.
 
Plus the time spent when MassDot threw the original proposals away, right?
 
Please tell me this is somehow NIMBY proof so that I might see this in my lifetime.
 
Downburst said:
As an aside, no new information tonight. This meeting was to check in with the community one more time before filing with the BPDA, so expect an LOI/PNF shortly. Community seems to be on the warmer side.
Click to expand...

Makes sense - this site basically has no neighbors.
 
Equilibria said:
Makes sense - this site basically has no neighbors.
Click to expand...

As an occasional driver on the pike, I am appalled by the shadow this development will cast down on the underlying highway. Lack of sunlight on highways reduces my quality of life while driving. I urge my fellow occasional pike driver community members to revolt against this proposed travesty.

(Just Kidding. Please build this thing asap!).
 
Jouhou said:
Please tell me this is somehow NIMBY proof so that I might see this in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

The NIMBY risk is not the critical risk here, just as it isn't the critical risk on any other turnpike air-rights parcel. The critical risk is on the terms of the deal between MassDOT and the developer and the City concerning the construction of the deck, the leasing of the deck (to pay for maintenance), and how all that fits in with City real estate taxes on a parcel that isn't at all regular "real" estate (i.e., the building owner not only doesn't own the dirt under the building, they don't even own the deck). On these air-rights parcels, deal after deal after deal has gotten past the NIMBYs* and completely through the approvals stage, just to fall apart in the financing stage, with the terms of the deck being the crunch point that blew them up.

There's too much arm-waving here at aB about NIMBY opposition generally, but on this particular parcel it is particularly silly. The NIMBY risk is a tiny little speed bump compared to the real risk. If we go by the experience of the past thirty years, this has about a 0.003% chance of getting built, and when the post-mortem is done, cause of death will not be NIMBY.

We should all consider that perhaps there are two reasons for mild NIMBY opposition here. First, as pointed out by others, this is far less inherently likely to generate opposition, given who the abutters are and what's proposed. But I'd argue that as a secondary factor, some percentage of the really die-hard full-bore NIMBY folks are savvy enough to know they probably don't really need to expend energy opposing this, as it's got such a good chance of being doomed already.

*Should that be spelled "NIMBIES"?
 
West said:
The NIMBY risk is not the critical risk here, just as it isn't the critical risk on any other turnpike air-rights parcel. The critical risk is on the terms of the deal between MassDOT and the developer and the City concerning the construction of the deck, the leasing of the deck (to pay for maintenance), and how all that fits in with City real estate taxes on a parcel that isn't at all regular "real" estate (i.e., the building owner not only doesn't own the dirt under the building, they don't even own the deck). On these air-rights parcels, deal after deal after deal has gotten past the NIMBYs* and completely through the approvals stage, just to fall apart in the financing stage, with the terms of the deck being the crunch point that blew them up.

There's too much arm-waving here at aB about NIMBY opposition generally, but on this particular parcel it is particularly silly. The NIMBY risk is a tiny little speed bump compared to the real risk. If we go by the experience of the past thirty years, this has about a 0.003% chance of getting built, and when the post-mortem is done, cause of death will not be NIMBY.

We should all consider that perhaps there are two reasons for mild NIMBY opposition here. First, as pointed out by others, this is far less inherently likely to generate opposition, given who the abutters are and what's proposed. But I'd argue that as a secondary factor, some percentage of the really die-hard full-bore NIMBY folks are savvy enough to know they probably don't really need to expend energy opposing this, as it's got such a good chance of being doomed already.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree, but wasn't Columbus Center killed by a neighbor? I don't think this parcel is particularly NIMBY prone, but they are relevant in air-rights parcels. Even when there isn't a neighbor sqwaking not to build, there is someone else saying "build it" with their hand out demanding neighborhood benefits.

West said:
*Should that be spelled "NIMBIES"?
Click to expand...

no
 
fattony said:
I somewhat agree, but wasn't Columbus Center killed by a neighbor? I don't think this parcel is particularly NIMBY prone, but they are relevant in air-rights parcels. Even when there isn't a neighbor sqwaking not to build, there is someone else saying "build it" with their hand out demanding neighborhood benefits.
Click to expand...


I remember Columbus Center dying of financing problems, in the end it got caught in the downdraft of the financial crisis, but had been struggling to close on loans due to the usual problems on the terms of the deck. Getting caught mid-stream bribing a public official did not help matters.

I will grant you than Columbus Center had a vastly tougher NIMBY road. So I wasn't suggesting the NIMBY factor was as low on all parcels as on this one. But in the end, financing killed Columbus Center, and I'm pretty certain if it had been on real dirt, it could have closed on the financing and gone forward. The lenders and investors couldn't get comfortable with the deck terms, Winn kept going back to the table for more help on that front, and couldn't get it either above-board or under the table.

fattony said:
no
Click to expand...

OK, that's what I thought.
 
One difference is the developer. Out of Fenway Center, Columbus Center, Copley Place Tower, and the Viola, this is the highest-credibility development team that's ever tried to deck the Pike. Samuels doesn't waste his time on impossibilities.
 
Up here in Portsmouth things get built if they actually get past NIMBYs. They've killed so many reasonable projects here... most recently it was a completely reasonable "workforce" housing development they killed. They couldn't even come up with a coherent rationale for why they were blocking it.

So I'm not a Boston resident, but as someone who lives nearby with even worse NIMBYs I do tend to see them as the biggest risk to a project, after financing.

Also it appears that perhaps this developer has already been working for the past few years getting these air rights complexities figured out.
 
Jouhou said:
Please tell me this is somehow NIMBY proof so that I might see this in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

This actually might be the best planned damned thing with the fewest negatives compared to any other of its scale in Boston; did David Manfredi hit a 2 run homer or a grand slam?

It has an intercity hub/Back Bay Station/Orange Line nearby + Hines Station 1 block away. people will live just a few of blocks from Newbury Street and Comm Ave; arguably, the greatest urban neighborhood in America.

The city is running very low on high revenue sources from it's smallest land parcels; this plan combines 2 air-rights parcels + 1 set on terra firma into 1, thus creating the opportunity for significant tax collections + affordable housing subsidy linkage....

The Mass Pike vanishes; a dark hole between a large garage and an alley road at the edge of the cliff (created by the Back Bay's unfriendly urban renewal plan of the 1950's) – is gone... people will have a place to come out of the cold on their way home to grab a latte and a bite, catch their breath, or maybe do a bit of shopping at something less formal and more open than Newbury St.... thus, they create a focal point, accessible from copious directions – instead of another residence or dormitory stump on the edge of the Metrowest transit corridor's wall.

Thus; it ranges between 11000% better and (infinity) compared to the low net gain of the previous plan. The neighborhood and City will get a beautiful slender tower with captivating features instead of another bland design tower. but, it will be set well back from the walking thoroughfares; Mass Ave and Boylston.

It will join the Pru and 1 Dalton, with the lower College of Music towers sloping down to the lower scale on the other side of Mass Ave.

Not much shadow issues; (one of the IAG persons quipped over his resentment of the lack of shadow impact to pull from his nimby handbag),

A few old farts getting up with empty rantings ain't gonna stop this. Nobody's being run over. Anyone in opposition is only exposing their extreme views in constrast to smart development. In the greater context, the tower's scale and design reflects very good urban planning.
 
Last edited:
Odurandina - though I'm a mere neophyte on this forum, I certainly agree with you.

Quick question though: as a previous poster pointed out, the lessons of the last 30 years do indeed suggest a dim future for this project. What is the % of likelihood, in your estimation, that this project gets built in this cycle? Just curious.
 
After the meeting, Lauren expressed optimism for approval by as early as the end of 2017 (but, admitted a number of things would need to 'go right'). It's an election year. Martin's loud support might not be seen until after he wins re-election. But there might be a groundswell of support without City Hall's participation. Compared the opposition against 115 Fed, there wasn't much noise, outside of a few grumblings. i'm not good at public speaking, but people were friendly in response to my words about the benefits and positive impact of the project ...and direct praise of Mr. Manfredi's design.....
 
Equilibria said:
One difference is the developer. Out of Fenway Center, Columbus Center, Copley Place Tower, and the Viola, this is the highest-credibility development team that's ever tried to deck the Pike. Samuels doesn't waste his time on impossibilities.
Click to expand...

OK, fair point, though Winn had plenty of clout, too.

I hope you're right. I like this proposal better than any previous air-rights proposal that I've looked at. By that, I do not mean I was against the earlier one, I'm saying this one is really excellent. I'd love for Samuels to prove my pessimism wrong.
 
Ha, ha, ha, ha, do not start the rumor that Columbus Center was canceled due to "one neighbor" or we'll never hear the end of it.

PS. That "one neighbor" no longer lives across the street, btw. #karma
 
If this drawing is accurate, the height on One Dalton has been exaggerated. The zoning height is shown as 691 feet with a mechanical penthouse that may be approximately 25 or 30 feet. Based on this, the overall height is no where near the 750+ feet discussed in the One Dalton thread.
 
One Dalton will be 756'. Skyscrapercity has it listed at 779' for some reason? This picture uses the old figure for 1 Dalton before the last floor was moved to 699'. Who knows when that picture was made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top