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

[JumboBuc]

So they've scrapped the apartment building in its entirety and cut back the condo building... Typical.

Let's not pretend anyone besides rich folk are living in a 600ft tower in Back Bay. It's just rich folk screwing over rich folk unless you believe in economics.

^ There, fixed that for you.

 

[DZH22]

From 160 condos down to 108, and from 182 rental units down to 0. Yeah, that will really help with our housing crisis.

They should have just waited until after November. Once Walsh is reelected it will essentially be a mandate to get these bigger projects built without all the senseless downsizing.

The only improvement is the design of the tower itself. They should keep this design, tack the 100' back on, and bring back the apartment building. Maybe, if we're lucky, the apartment building parcel will eventually be proposed as an even larger tower down the road.

 

[Equilibria]

From 160 condos down to 108, and from 182 rental units down to 0. Yeah, that will really help with our housing crisis.

They should have just waited until after November. Once Walsh is reelected it will essentially be a mandate to get these bigger projects built without all the senseless downsizing.

The only improvement is the design of the tower itself. They should keep this design, tack the 100' back on, and bring back the apartment building. Maybe, if we're lucky, the apartment building parcel will eventually be proposed as an even larger tower down the road.

This is a Goldilocks thing - I doubt Samuels ever wanted to build it at 605' anyway. You can pretty clearly see the narrative in the document - 380' would be sqat, ugly, and unconstructable. We proposed 605' as a high end, and we've come down to 525' as a negotiating tactic. Since the comments from the neighbors are basically boilerplate for any tower (in fact, I suspect a lot of them ARE boilerplate from a NIMBY group), Samuels knew exactly what they'd say. This was always the real proposal.

If you want to solve Boston's housing crunch, you do it with mid-rise density at One Charlestown, in Southie, at Alewife, at Beacon Yards, etc. Make those developments at least 20% affordable, too. It's not like these apartments were going to be priced for mortals, and it doesn't matter whether they build 108 or 300 of them. That's just 234 fewer NIMBYs when the time comes to build on Dalton Garage.

 

[tysmith95]

Let's not pretend anyone besides rich folk are living in a 600ft tower in Back Bay. It's just rich folk screwing over rich folk unless you believe in trickle down economics.

Yah but if there aren't enough condos for rich people in the back bay they're gonna start moving into places like Southie or Somerville that should be for the middle class.

 

[BosDevelop]

That's just 234 fewer NIMBYs when the time comes to build on Dalton Garage.

+ 1

 

[Reznor]

Yah but if there aren't enough condos for rich people in the back bay they're gonna start moving into places like Southie or Somerville that should be for the middle class.

A couple hundred extra multi-million dollar condos for the wealthy in back bay would means millions more in property tax revenue for the city. Annually.

 

[odurandina]

yes, my fear of the great sucking sound has once again come down up another skyscraper parcel in the middle of the skyscraper zone of an economic powerhouse.

i saw these smug, wealthy assholes at the meetings eating their pudding, preparing the next great accomplishment of their pathetic lives.

It's just rich folk screwing over rich folk unless you believe in economics.

^ There, fixed that for you.

precisely... now it's less affordable for the developer to build the decking + the god damned tower.... less available extortion money..... greedy developer (Adam Weiner) now has to risk his economic life to build it

at the last moment; the ludicrous costs of the decking will be tallied, and the project cancelled....

and no tax revenue for the City.... and no ++ additional affordable housing units down the road. That number is not only slashed; but slashed absurdly to zero.

 

[GW]

Let's not pretend anyone besides rich folk are living in a 600ft tower in Back Bay. It's just rich folk screwing over rich folk unless you believe in trickle down economics.

So they've scrapped the apartment building in its entirety and cut back the condo building... Typical.

^ There, fixed that for you.

I don't think either of you are right, actually. It's not so much that I think 180 more units will make anything better; it's that they'll keep things from getting that much worse. Also, I believe in density, and this reduction is a blow against that.

But the idea that the "economics" is going to solve the housing crisis in this city is, in my opinion, even more ridiculous. The market is always going to serve the rich first, and our problems are way too big for the city to wait and hope that market forces - even unencumbered market forces - will do anything but drive more of the poor and middle class out of the city. [Edit: I don't know if Jumbo was making that specific argument, but enough people on here do, so I'll leave it.]

 

[odurandina]

This is a Goldilocks thing - I doubt Samuels ever wanted to build it at 605' anyway. You can pretty clearly see the narrative in the document - 380' would be sqat, ugly, and unconstructable. We proposed 605' as a high end, and we've come down to 525' as a negotiating tactic. Since the comments from the neighbors are basically boilerplate for any tower (in fact, I suspect a lot of them ARE boilerplate from a NIMBY group), Samuels knew exactly what they'd say. This was always the real proposal.

If you want to solve Boston's housing crunch.....

Except that they really castrated this thing. That other building was a lot of condo (i mean apt units/wink)......

btw, isn't this project Weiner + Pru?
(Adam Weiner Globe bio; https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...alty-boston/0KZaNA4ZxM5E0Etv0pZrGK/story.html )

i don't recall Samuels being involved on this parcel.

 

[cjbski]

What about the other building going up at Mass Ave/Boylston across from BoA - where the #1 bus stop is now?

 

[Rover]

I don't have insider info but it sure does seem the developer just negotiated against himself. Winthrop garage should be the template. Stick to a maximum height until you absolutely hit an immovable object, in that case the FAA limit. Otherwise I fail to see what's gained for anybody by cutting the building height down 80 feet or whatever? Its not like NIMBY loons are suddenly going to become advocates of the project.

 

[odurandina]

it's looking like about a 100~110 feet reduction...

The tip of the mechanical screen was actually going to be pushing 630'.

Yes, you must have been at the meeting when i asked David Manfredi if they had considered sacking the lower tower for a plaza like the Seagram Bldg in the final scene at Breakfast at Tiffany's.... and pushing 900~980' for the main tower.

You should have seen the grins on David's and Adam's faces....

and the abject horror emanating from the spoiled nimby face table.

 

[JSic]

500ish' is good here. Scales down nicely from the Pru and 1 Dalton.

 

[Equilibria]

Except that they really castrated this thing. That other building was a lot of condo (i mean apt units/wink)......

btw, isn't this project Weiner + Pru?
(Adam Weiner Globe bio; https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...alty-boston/0KZaNA4ZxM5E0Etv0pZrGK/story.html )

i don't recall Samuels being involved on this parcel.

It's both of them. I'd also disagree that they've made this a skin-of-the-teeth thing for the developers. The apartment building cost money to build that they now don't have to spend, especially considering that IIRC it was on the deck while the condo tower is on solid ground.

And it's an 80' reduction. Mechanicals will be the same height either way, so the figure they give relative to the highest floor is valid. If it was 625' before, it's 545' now.

 

[JumboBuc]

I don't think either of you are right, actually. It's not so much that I think 180 more units will make anything better; it's that they'll keep things from getting that much worse. Also, I believe in density, and this reduction is a blow against that.

But the idea that the "economics" is going to solve the housing crisis in this city is, in my opinion, even more ridiculous. The market is always going to serve the rich first, and our problems are way too big for the city to wait and hope that market forces - even unencumbered market forces - will do anything but drive more of the poor and middle class out of the city. [Edit: I don't know if Jumbo was making that specific argument, but enough people on here do, so I'll leave it.]

Keeping things from getting worse is the same as making things better. A 342 luxury unit project on a vacant lot will do more to relieve price pressure and displacement than a 108 luxury unit project on a vacant lot will. If we assume a 15% inclusionary set aside, this also means the loss of about 35 subsidized low-to-moderate income units. And as Reznor mentioned, the loss of enough property tax revenue to pay about 20 BPS teachers' salaries every year.

I also guarantee that the average price per new unit of the 108-unit project will be higher than the average price per unit of the 342-unit building would be. The most expensive units of the project are the ones that will stay. The cheapest units are the ones that will be cut. Notice that they've cut height of the condo tower by about 15% but cut units in the condo tower by about 33%. The average unit got bigger with these changes. I couldn't care less about the height (tall is tall) but I do care about unit count and overall affordability. Plus, the loss of the apartments means more amenities and better views (read: more $) for the remaining condos.

I suspect that the bottom line for the developer isn't really too affected by these changes. They now don't have to build another expensive building on a podium, and by cutting off the cheapest units and charging more for the remaining units those margins will improve. This is why the city should encourage developers to fit as many units as possible into their projects, instead of going for smaller NIMBY-friendly plans that work just as well for their bottom lines.

As for "economics" not being able to solve "the housing crisis", the housing crisis is economics. How can you say that economic forces can't be used to address a problem of economic forces? That's like saying "well, I added a couple pounds by eating too much and not exercising enough, so therefore I shouldn't expect food and exercise to play a role in helping me lose weight". I'm not advocating that the city should "wait and hope" for market forces to fix anything; they should take preemptive action (e.g., expanding public housing) while also taking advantage of market forces.

When it comes to the demand side of the housing market we absolutely let unencumbered market forces run wild. We (i.e., the City and Commonwealth) even put together huge expensive incentive packages to drive more demand into our city (see: Amazon, GE, etc.) and celebrate when demand (jobs) is added. When it comes to the supply side of the housing market, we (i.e., the City and Commonwealth) restrict restrict restrict on the basis that "the market isn't going to solve things". We can't have it both ways.

 

[odurandina]

Weiner; "we've reduced the occupied floor height from 579' to 484', sacked the 2nd tower completely and slashed the project by hundreds of units....."

Nimby's; "well, you're getting warmer on the first item, and number of units is in the ballpark..."

 

[Equilibria]

I suspect that the bottom line for the developer isn't really too affected by these changes. They now don't have to build another expensive building on a podium, and by cutting off the cheapest units and charging more for the remaining units those margins will improve. This is why the city should encourage developers to fit as many units as possible into their projects, instead of going for smaller NIMBY-friendly plans that work just as well for their bottom lines.

As for "economics" not being able to solve "the housing crisis", the housing crisis is economics.

It's not just economics, of course. If people who live in the Back Bay come to understand that developers will cut the cheapest units first, they'll oppose large developments on that basis alone. Not just economics... exclusivity, classism, and racism.

I doubt that would have applied too much to this tower, since these were all supposed to be top-of-the-market units. On the other hand, I read the community's written "concerns" and they sounded pretty hoidy-toidy ("when my neighbors and I stroll to the Common we need our sunlight...") My favorite one was the woman who said that "Commonwealth Avenue is already ruined by the overpass..." It took me a while to even remember that there was one there. She believes that Comm. Ave. is ruined by a hundred-year-old, 50-foot tunnel that you can't even walk through.

 

[GW]

Keeping things from getting worse is the same as making things better. A 342 luxury unit project on a vacant lot will do more to relieve price pressure and displacement than a 108 luxury unit project on a vacant lot will. If we assume a 15% inclusionary set aside, this also means the loss of about 35 subsidized low-to-moderate income units. And as Reznor mentioned, the loss of enough property tax revenue to pay about 20 BPS teachers' salaries every year.

I also guarantee that the average price per new unit of the 108-unit project will be higher than the average price per unit of the 342-unit building would be. The most expensive units of the project are the ones that will stay. The cheapest units are the ones that will be cut. Notice that they've cut height of the condo tower by about 15% but cut units in the condo tower by about 33%. The average unit got bigger with these changes. I couldn't care less about the height (tall is tall) but I do care about unit count and overall affordability. Plus, the loss of the apartments means more amenities and better views (read: more $) for the remaining condos.

I suspect that the bottom line for the developer isn't really too affected by these changes. They now don't have to build another expensive building on a podium, and by cutting off the cheapest units and charging more for the remaining units those margins will improve. This is why the city should encourage developers to fit as many units as possible into their projects, instead of going for smaller NIMBY-friendly plans that work just as well for their bottom lines.

As for "economics" not being able to solve "the housing crisis", the housing crisis is economics. How can you say that economic forces can't be used to address a problem of economic forces? That's like saying "well, I added a couple pounds by eating too much and not exercising enough, so therefore I shouldn't expect food and exercise to play a role in helping me lose weight". I'm not advocating that the city should "wait and hope" for market forces to fix anything; they should take preemptive action (e.g., expanding public housing) while also taking advantage of market forces.

When it comes to the demand side of the housing market we absolutely let unencumbered market forces run wild. We (i.e., the City and Commonwealth) even put together huge expensive incentive packages to drive more demand into our city (see: Amazon, GE, etc.) and celebrate when demand (jobs) is added. When it comes to the supply side of the housing market, we (i.e., the City and Commonwealth) restrict restrict restrict on the basis that "the market isn't going to solve things". We can't have it both ways.

Like I said, I wasn't sure you were arguing for an exclusively market-based approach, so I edited my comment preemptively. But plenty of people here do that - and do it in a very obnoxious, condescending way (such as "you don't believe in economics") - so I left it up.

If you want to say that keeping things from getting worse is the same as making them better, you can make an argument for that (at least in the abstract). But we're talking about one development so it's meaningless to almost everyone who is being pushed out of the Boston area. What we're really talking about is things getting worse less quickly. If someone is being priced out of the Boston area they're still being priced out either way; they're already facing their worst outcome.

You wrote: "How can you say that economic forces can't be used to address a problem of economic forces?"

I didn't say that. Read again, but carefully this time. I was talking about the idea that market forces alone can solve the problem.

As to specifics, I agree with expanding public housing, as long as the areas into which it is expanded are conducive to a decent life (i.e., a reasonable commute), and it's mixed in with higher income housing. Do anything else and we perpetuate the economic and racial segregation we currently have. That's nowhere near enough, though. We need things like density bonuses for developers, massive subsidies (ideally including federal money) for both the builders and the renters and buyers of housing, a higher mandated rate for affordable units in market-price buildings, and taxes to discourage flipping already constructed housing.

Regarding your last paragraph, we should stop subsidizing prospective corporate move-ins like GE And Amazon altogether. Boston has a housing crisis, not a jobs crisis.

 

[JumboBuc]

Like I said, I wasn't sure you were arguing for an exclusively market-based approach, so I edited my comment preemptively. But plenty of people here do that - and do it in a very obnoxious, condescending way (such as "you don't believe in economics") - so I left it up.

If you want to say that keeping things from getting worse is the same as making them better, you can make an argument for that (at least in the abstract). But we're talking about one development so it's meaningless to almost everyone who is being pushed out of the Boston area. What we're really talking about is things getting worse less quickly. If someone is being priced out of the Boston area they're still being priced out either way; they're already facing their worst outcome.

You wrote: "How can you say that economic forces can't be used to address a problem of economic forces?"

I didn't say that. Read again, but carefully this time. I was talking about the idea that market forces alone can solve the problem.

As to specifics, I agree with expanding public housing, as long as the areas into which it is expanded are conducive to a decent life (i.e., a reasonable commute), and it's mixed in with higher income housing. Do anything else and we perpetuate the economic and racial segregation we currently have. That's nowhere near enough, though. We need things like density bonuses for developers, massive subsidies (ideally including federal money) for both the builders and the renters and buyers of housing, a higher mandated rate for affordable units in market-price buildings, and taxes to discourage flipping already constructed housing.

Regarding your last paragraph, we should stop subsidizing prospective corporate move-ins like GE And Amazon altogether. Boston has a housing crisis, not a jobs crisis.

In my "How can you say that economic forces can't be used to address a problem of economic forces?" I was responding to your "But the idea that the 'economics' is going to solve the housing crisis in this city is, in my opinion, even more ridiculous."

But whatever, it sounds like we're pretty much on the same page of much of this; I didn't mean to turn it into an argument. I was mostly riled up by the "trickle down economics" comment, which wasn't yours.

 

[bigpicture7]

Regarding your last paragraph, we should stop subsidizing prospective corporate move-ins like GE And Amazon altogether. Boston has a housing crisis, not a jobs crisis.

I generally agree with much of what you're saying, but I don't think this last part is quite so simple. The bringing in of new middle-skill and tech jobs can be enablers of socioeconomic class transcendence and of increasing wealth of underprivileged groups. There is not just one variable (housing) at play here. Take for example MIT - it is one of the most, if not THE most, diverse engineering schools in the country. Yet many minority MIT graduates leave Boston after graduation. Ideally, new Tech jobs' arrival in Boston boosts minority participation in Tech jobs, which has a mentoring/facilitative effect on the local minority communities too, pulling them into the mix. This is the exception I take with Tito's politics...he thinks the only way to bring people up the socioeconomic ladder is to halt companies movement into Boston. He's neglecting the jobs aspect -- we need to pay underprivileged individuals solid salaries to facilitate class transcendence, and thus need to have jobs for them to work at, and those jobs need to be injected into a system that currently underutilizes this potential labor force.