Millennium Tower (Filene's) | 426 Washington Street | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
View from the Pru Skywalk

EnDMpmJ.jpg
 
bigeman312 said:
This is the best part of any post on the subject to date. This is the problem. This is what needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

Up zoning is not enough. It may an enabler, but it is not in itself enough.

Look at the Ink Block complex in the South End. National Development is not using all the available AS RIGHTS zoning on the site -- not even CLOSE. And this site is luxury. And we just had the BRA approve a 6 story hotel on the site, in a location zoned for at least 15!
 
bigeman312 said:
KentXie believes that these luxury developments are hurting middle-class renters/buyers prospects, by taking a resources (land) and using it for a market that does not apply to them (lux instead of middle-class). He thinks the most pressing solution is for the government to incentivize middle-class development.
Click to expand...

No, no I don't believe luxury development are hurting the middle class. As I said before, I'm saying that luxury development have zero to minimal effect. I also don't think it's taking resource away because, again, land for luxury apartments is different than affordable i.e., luxury apartments tend to be built where land value is high such as downtown, areas near the core. What I'm saying is in conjunction with luxury apartments being built, there should be a movement for more affordable development outside the city core to help alleviate middle to low income rent. What we have been seeing is a lot of luxury residential towers in the Downtown/BackBay area which is where they should be built. At the same time, there should be a push for affordable apartment towers in area such as Roxbury, Dudley Square, Allston/Brighton, etc., but we don't seem many of that.
 
fattony said:
This I don't get. We have all of human history to observe the past performance of housing markets. Why is there suddenly a fundamental class divide in housing that didn't exist 10 years ago, let alone 100 years ago?
Click to expand...

Easy, because the global economy has changed dramatically in the past few decades. It is relatively unheard of in the early to mid 1900s to have foreigners buying up houses as assets rather than for living. Not only have the rich become richer in the US, but internationally as well. Technology has help facilitate communication between buyer and seller, regardless of where the house is located or where the buyer lives. This increase accessibility has allowed wealthy people in countries like China to buy up properties in the US. Essentially, in the past where national economy exists within the constraint of the country's boundaries, like islands, these constraint no longer exists and are now only a piece of the global economy. Remember it wasn't long ago that people thought that the Big 3 automakers would never be dethroned, until people found out they can buy cars from Toyota.

The prices of luxury apartments are on the high end of a spectrum of prices. There isn't a price chasm separating peasants and aristocrats. I would want to see some kind of data to support any argument that luxury housing and "conventional" housing are not part of exactly the same market. This is another case of an overly complicated scenario when a simpler one exists.
Click to expand...

It's not the price chasm, but rather the income chasm that is causing the problem, especially since the Recession where income growth has not been consistent across all demographic. We can go even deeper and start talking about mortgages in that the wealthy experience less difficulties in obtaining and paying off mortgage loans than those of the middle and lower income, making it easier and more accessible for the wealthy to finance a house. Let's stick to simpler points, however.

And if indeed there exists a special, inelastic market for housing among the global elite and Boston is part of it - how do you propose to get out of it? Shut the world class hospitals and universities? The same zoning that would stagnate the ultra-lux market would crush the conventional housing market even worse. I would argue that that is exactly the scenario we are in right now. We have stifled the high-end of the market and in turn have decimated the low-end.
Click to expand...
Build luxury where luxury belongs but also push for affordable development elsewhere.
 
KentXie said:
Build luxury where luxury belongs but also push for affordable development elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Build housing where housing belongs. Remove barriers to entry for development and watch the free market work. In what is possibly the most desirable location in the city, that means luxury housing for people who can afford luxuries.
 
Perhaps the (very worth having) discussion on housing can be moved here, where such housing issues have been discussed before?
 
bigeman312 said:
Build housing where housing belongs. Remove barriers to entry for development and watch the free market work. In what is possibly the most desirable location in the city, that means luxury housing for people who can afford luxuries.
Click to expand...

MT might as well be a tomb for pharoahs for all I care. I just want something pretty to look at.

Towers like this are about the whims and vanity of useless rich people and rarely about wise economic decisions for society.
 
There's a next-level '36 views of Mt Fuji' thing happening in this thread and I fucking love it
 
CSTH said:
There's a next-level '36 views of Mt Fuji' thing happening in this thread and I fucking love it
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, I found a new game-winning view of the financial district while exploring yesterday. A+! I'll unveil the pics tonight. (yes I have a weekend MT photo dump coming, as usual)
 
It's probably really close to being the tallest tower in downtown.
 
KentXie said:
Bigeman, your argument is contradicting. As you point out, luxury apartment will never drop to the point that middle class family can afford them and it's unlikely that a luxury apartment in downtown will ever hit $1,800/month. In other words, building luxury apartments will not affect the rent of normal apartments as they cater to different markets.
Click to expand...

Kent -- you are over analyzing

You need to remember the basic of consumer economics:

The answer is a used Oldsmobile

  • 1A. the question was what kind of low-priced car was GM building to compete with the Japanese imports
  • 1B. there are always needs for temporary housing in our increasingly mobile and rapidly evolving society -- especially for higher income people -- so that its very hard to correlate the exact number of people with the number of housing units -- aka every Census is an estimate
  • 1C. even during bad economic times the truly long-term rich find a way to prosper and get what they want and need -- its the good times when the rest of us have a chance to "get better"



    In reality all three are different perspectives on the same underlying aspects of civilization -- and the real reason why building any housing -- even Uber Luxe -- unless you are tearing down existing housing -- no matter how high or low income what you build will always act to increase the supply of more or less affordable housing

    If the demand for Uber-Luxe is not satisfied by new construction -- being driven both by the $ and other resources available to the Uber-Class -- it will be satisfied, at least in part, by upgrading the existing housing stock -- aka gentrifying

    Building a dense collection of Uber-Luxe housing such as the Millennium, the Four Seasons or several others in the pipeline -- saves lower density existing housing from the gentrification process or the wrecking ball or it saves semi-vacant commercial spaces [often the ultimate in affordable] from being converted to Uber-Luxe

    The Converse of course is the "Mansionization Process" -- where existing mostly single family homes such as in many neighborhoods in Lexington are leveled to create buildable lots for Uber Houses
 
Still think that the best views are when you are walking up Franklin from Pearl toward Washington -- i just did it -- and the transformation from what that walk used to be was amazing

At first MT is screened by close buildings -- But then as you pass the formerly New England Telephone Building and the former Bank of Boston -- you Cross Congress and follow Franklin as it makes the slight curve to align parallel with Summer St. -- MT suddenly leaps up in front of you

and before you know it -- when you elevate your gaze -- you can't see nearly anything else but MT as you actually walk up to the DTX entrance -- am effect which you can't get from the Pru or the former John Hancock Tower

PS try the Google street view along Franklin -- when you get to the MT all there is ... is ......
 
whighlander said:
Kent -- you are over analyzing

You need to remember the basic of consumer economics:

The answer is a used Oldsmobile

  • 1A. the question was what kind of low-priced car was GM building to compete with the Japanese imports
  • 1B. there are always needs for temporary housing in our increasingly mobile and rapidly evolving society -- especially for higher income people -- so that its very hard to correlate the exact number of people with the number of housing units -- aka every Census is an estimate
  • 1C. even during bad economic times the truly long-term rich find a way to prosper and get what they want and need -- its the good times when the rest of us have a chance to "get better"



    In reality all three are different perspectives on the same underlying aspects of civilization -- and the real reason why building any housing -- even Uber Luxe -- unless you are tearing down existing housing -- no matter how high or low income what you build will always act to increase the supply of more or less affordable housing

    If the demand for Uber-Luxe is not satisfied by new construction -- being driven both by the $ and other resources available to the Uber-Class -- it will be satisfied, at least in part, by upgrading the existing housing stock -- aka gentrifying

    Building a dense collection of Uber-Luxe housing such as the Millennium, the Four Seasons or several others in the pipeline -- saves lower density existing housing from the gentrification process or the wrecking ball or it saves semi-vacant commercial spaces [often the ultimate in affordable] from being converted to Uber-Luxe

    The Converse of course is the "Mansionization Process" -- where existing mostly single family homes such as in many neighborhoods in Lexington are leveled to create buildable lots for Uber Houses
Click to expand...


  • I'm just going to stop you right there because it's clear you didn't read the rest of what I wrote. If you did, then you know that I'm not saying that developers shouldn't be building luxury apartments.
 
KentXie said:
I'm just going to stop you right there because it's clear you didn't read the rest of what I wrote. If you did, then you know that I'm not saying that developers shouldn't be building luxury apartments.
Click to expand...

+1. KentXie, I have enjoyed our debates. Don't ever put any stock into anything whigh says.
 
KentXie said:
I'm just going to stop you right there because it's clear you didn't read the rest of what I wrote. If you did, then you know that I'm not saying that developers shouldn't be building luxury apartments.
Click to expand...

Kent -- I'm not totally disagreeing with you -- I'm just trying to simplify the argument

its really quite simple -- build any [Net] housing and eventually [after whatever temporary dislocations and readjustments propagate through the system] there will be more Net housing options and opportunities for the middle and lower classes -- the rest of the arguments are like trying to predict where a "pop-up" shower will fall 4 days from now -- not worth the intellectual effort
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top