Quincy Market Update/Renovation | Faneuil Hall Marketplace | Downtown

Great improvement. The upper plaza area finally has a chance of being used for more than a brickyard after all these decades. Also getting rid of the trees in front of Faneuil Hall was a good idea, despite the need for some shade there.
 
Life Coach Mike said:
Great improvement. The upper plaza area finally has a chance of being used for more than a brickyard after all these decades. Also getting rid of the trees in front of Faneuil Hall was a good idea, despite the need for some shade there.
Click to expand...
Mike -- I like what I've seen so far both inside and outside -- However, there is only one way to test a place like that -- stroll over and hoist a pint to Sam himself-- as we are now entering the immediate run-up to the 250th of all that "hullabaloo" that King George didn't care too much about
 
whighlander said:
Mike -- I like what I've seen so far both inside and outside -- However, there is only one way to test a place like that -- stroll over and hoist a pint to Sam himself-- as we are now entering the immediate run-up to the 250th of all that "hullabaloo" that King George didn't care too much about
Click to expand...
When I next visit Boston....living in Tampa now. I miss Boston. Tampa is struggling to "get there" but has far to go. It continues to cater to conventions and tourists, but there isn't even a 7-11 downtown to buy snacks.

More discussion of Tampa's urban features in the new Tampa thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the absolutely brutal headlines of late regarding Ashkenazy's alleged gross mismanagement of Faneuil Hall, I can only assume this is a plus. If the coverage is to be taken at face value, then the only way this incoming operator could be worse is if they napalmed the joint and then left behind the smoldering toxin-strewn crater sans remediation.

LAZY JOURNALISM ALERT: note the story describes the incoming operator as the "acquirer" of Faneuil Hall. Come on, PR Newswire; it is abundantly documented that Faneuil Hall is owned by the BPDA. Do better!

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...kenazy-acquisition-corporation-302047259.html

A NEW HOPE?: [cue John Williams score and scrolling credits vanishing into hyperspace] of course, this might mean Ashkenazy is also soon to exit South Station... we shall see.
 
DBM said:
Given the absolutely brutal headlines of late regarding Ashkenazy's alleged gross mismanagement of Faneuil Hall, I can only assume this is a plus. If the coverage is to be taken at face value, then the only way this incoming operator could be worse is if they napalmed the joint and then left behind the smoldering toxin-strewn crater sans remediation.

LAZY JOURNALISM ALERT: note the story describes the incoming operator as the "acquirer" of Faneuil Hall. Come on, PR Newswire; it is abundantly documented that Faneuil Hall is owned by the BPDA. Do better!

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...kenazy-acquisition-corporation-302047259.html

A NEW HOPE?: [cue John Williams score and scrolling credits vanishing into hyperspace] of course, this might mean Ashkenazy is also soon to exit South Station... we shall see.
Click to expand...
Acquire probably *is* the right word for this. Legally / from a financial reporting perspective, Ashkenazy's 99 year lease (from 1975) of Fanueil Hall would likely qualify as a finance / capital lease, distinct from an operating lease. The rules around this just changed, but you would treat that on the books similarly to as if you'd purchased the property. What J Safra is doing is likely purchasing the right-to-use asset (and associated liabilities) which would be the remaining term of Ashkenazy's lease, and/or the operating entity. When Ashkenazy first aquired the lease for Fanueil Hall in 2011 for $140M from GGP, that's how it was structured.

Also, it's important to note that PR Newswire isn't a journalistic endeavor; they do no writing or editing of their own. Its a distribution service that exists so that companies can share their press releases (what the PR stands for) more widely than they can themselves - the companies involved write and submit their own releases. This one, for instance, was written by J Safra themselves.

That said... I'm hopeful that new "ownership" means that someone actually takes an interest in what goes on around here, and doubly so if Ashkenazy is induced to sell off the lease of South Station, but with the tower going in he'd be incentivised to keep that one. Ashkenazy's financial woes have been much publicised, and I would think this divestment is him raising cash to focus on more important properties in his portfolio like S. Station, or DC Union. Notable that a price wasn't disclosed though.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Acquire probably *is* the right word for this. Legally / from a financial reporting perspective, Ashkenazy's 99 year lease (from 1975) of Fanueil Hall would likely qualify as a finance / capital lease, distinct from an operating lease. The rules around this just changed, but you would treat that on the books similarly to as if you'd purchased the property. What J Safra is doing is likely purchasing the right-to-use asset (and associated liabilities) which would be the remaining term of Ashkenazy's lease. When Ashkenazy first aquired the lease for Fanueil Hall in 2011 for $140M from GGP, that's how it was structured.

Also, it's important to note that PR Newswire isn't a journalistic endeavor; they do no writing or editing of their own. Its a distribution service that exists so that companies can share their press releases (what the PR stands for) more widely than they can themselves - the companies involved write and submit their own releases. This one, for instance, was written by J Safra themselves.

That said... I'm hopeful that new "ownership" means that someone actually takes an interest in what goes on around here, and doubly so if Ashkenazy is induced to sell off the lease of South Station, but with the tower going in he'd be incentivised to keep that one. Ashkenazy's financial woes have been much publicised, and I would think this divestment is him raising cash to focus on more important properties in his portfolio like S. Station, or DC Union. Notable that a price wasn't disclosed though.
Click to expand...

Nice clarifications. The only thing I'd add to this is the City's ownership page for Faneuil Hall parcel--check out how the ownership entities are stacked.

https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=0303670000

With the BPDA being on the bottom line, I interpret that as meaning they are ultimately the owner (even with Ashkenazy being listed as Owner on January 1, 2023), but that's just my reading of it and perhaps that's invalid in the face of your explanation...
 
DBM said:
Nice clarifications. The only thing I'd add to this is the City's ownership page for Faneuil Hall parcel--check out how the ownership entities are stacked.

https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?pid=0303670000

With the BPDA being on the bottom line, I interpret that as meaning they are ultimately the owner (even with Ashkenazy being listed as Owner on January 1, 2023), but that's just my reading of it and perhaps that's invalid in the face of your explanation...
Click to expand...
If you want to read the full ca 1975 lease, here it is:

archive.org

Indenture of lease dated as of the 21st day of February, 1975 between Boston redevelopment authority and Faneuil Hall marketplace, inc : Boston Redevelopment Authority : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

...text of the lease; also includes the Rouse Company guaranty of payment and prompt performance of lessee of all terms, conditions, covenants and agreements...
archive.org

While I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of how this specific deal was structured, my understanding (based on 2020 reporting) is that there is a separate agreement with the city regards an owed PILOT payment. (As it's owned by a municipal entity, it's notionally exempt) its probably just for simplicity of billing that they've listed Ashkenazy as the assessed owner. Also, you don't want to rely on the tax viewer for ownership info; the registry of deeds has much more details, but which shows no deed transactions recently.

 
Last edited:
I am not very hopeful the new operator will be any different. Isn't J Safra Ashkenazy’s lender and partner?
 
BosDevelop said:
I am not very hopeful the new operator will be any different. Isn't J Safra Ashkenazy’s lender and partner?
Click to expand...
I could see both possibilities, but I am actually encouraged. If Safra just wanted more of the same, why would they not just continue to support Ashkenazy in the driver's seat?

Here's an interesting NYTimes Deallbook article from 2015 on Safra (appears not to be firewalled):
archive.nytimes.com

Two Deals Bring Attention to Banking’s Safra Family

The Safra Group, headed by Joseph Safra, recently bought Chiquita Brands International, the fruit company, and the London office tower known as the Gherkin.
archive.nytimes.com

^They are running some prestige properties globally.

Honestly, it's hard to interpret this either way.
 
Shot from 60 State Street. I was visiting Tsoi Kobus Architecture on the 18th floor.

IMG_8109.jpg
 
Visited yesterday... and while either side of Quincy market is decent, the North and South markets are kind of dumpy up close. And if you walk around to the other side of the N/S markets the street is falling apart and basically dead. I don't see how it would ever happen, but redeveloping those with perhaps a larger footprint that makes the side streets a bit thinner would be welcome. And that parking garage should obviously go.

The other thing is, if you look at the image above, walking out of the left side of the plaza towards the North End shows... an extremely long impassable stretch of highway, and then buildings with party walls that were cut off from everywhere else whenever the original highway was built. Some kind of "greenway"we have, lol. Should have just repaired the street grid.
 
We made some public records requests of the Wu administration and found that they and J. Safra are negotiating some substantive changes to the property's lease from the city, and earlier this year J. Safra began working with Elkus Manfredi on a visioning plan for the property: https://bankerandtradesman.com/new-faneuil-hall-operator-pressed-for-changes/

No deal yet, obviously, and the emails we obtained left it unclear where things stand five months later, but it's a look behind the scenes at how the Wu administration tried to put its money where its mouth was after it loudly pushed Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp. to sell.

A proposed lease amendment submitted by the BPDA to J. Safra in April would extend the lease from its current 2074 expiration through 2123. It requires J. Safra to submit a tenanting strategy every five years, subject to approval by the city.

The requirement appears to respond to Boston-based Lawyers for Civil Rights, which issued a letter to J. Safra in February with a series of requests for changes in how the marketplace recruits and selects tenants.

Lawyers for Civil Rights requested J. Safra reach a goal of 40 percent locally owned tenants by the end of 2024, and 60 percent women- or minority-owned businesses throughout the marketplace.

Roz Freeman, the entrepreneurship manager at Lawyers for Civil Rights, criticized Faneuil Hall Marketplace for lack of transparency in its leasing strategy. In the letter, Freeman asked the new owners to post all space available for lease online, host public events with potential tenants and partner with community organizations such as the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts to diversify the tenant mix.

As of February, the marketplace’s tenants included 34 percent locally-owned businesses, 23 percent women-owned businesses and 24-percent minority-owned businesses, according to the letter. Freeman did not respond to messages seeking additional comment.
Click to expand...
 
I am all for as many locally owned businesses as possible here but why the requirement that 60% of businesses also be women or minority owned? That number seems extremely high to me and could serve to limit the development here assuming anything happens. Was 1/3 women/minority owed not enough that they needed to nearly double that requirement?
 
BosDevelop said:
I am all for as many locally owned businesses as possible here but why the requirement that 60% of businesses also be women or minority owned? That number seems extremely high to me and could serve to limit the development here assuming anything happens. Was 1/3 women/minority owed not enough that they needed to nearly double that requirement?
Click to expand...
Without making any comments as to whether or not 60% is the right number, just some quick stats:
  • Women+minorities make up 75% of Boston residents, 65% of MA residents
  • Women make up 40% of MA business owners
  • Minorities make up 15% of MA business owners.
  • Following from the above, women+minorities make up 40-55% of MA business owners. Could not find stats for Boston, but I would guess the number is higher.
 
BosDevelop said:
I am all for as many locally owned businesses as possible here but why the requirement that 60% of businesses also be women or minority owned? That number seems extremely high to me and could serve to limit the development here assuming anything happens. Was 1/3 women/minority owed not enough that they needed to nearly double that requirement?
Click to expand...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg used to respond when asked how many women justices on the Supreme Court would be enough, by saying when there were nine. I'll admit that it took me some time to understand her point, which was that the court operated with 9 men on the bench for 200 years. If that was legitimate, than so should 9 women be seen as legitimate. Non-minority, male contractors, received well over 90% of contracts for a long time. Given the stats presented by @kdmc, 60% doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top