Reserved Channel Development | 300 West First Street | South Boston

[awood91]

Why does it seem like every mixed use master plan in the Boston area, of which are there quite a few now, are only like 35% housing? I assume what is proposed is an indication of what can and will get financed, but how does this make sense in an environment where we know housing is in much higher demand than lab space?

 

[DZH22]

Change the pair of pathetic 6 story residentials to a pair of 25 story residentials and this development would make a lot more sense.

 

[TallIsGood]

Change the pair of pathetic 6 story residentials to a pair of 25 story residentials and this development would make a lot more sense.

Isn’t it right in Logan flight path?

 

[itchy]

Why does it seem like every mixed use master plan in the Boston area, of which are there quite a few now, are only like 35% housing? I assume what is proposed is an indication of what can and will get financed, but how does this make sense in an environment where we know housing is in much higher demand than lab space?

Exactly - have had the same thought every time I see a big new development that's 80% 'lab space' going through.

It's a "sh** or get off the pot" moment for Michelle Wu and all other politicians. Either do something about the huge amount of real estate development happening with very little residential in your own jurisdiction, or stop grandstanding about the "housing crisis."

 

[JeffDowntown]

Exactly - have had the same thought every time I see a big new development that's 80% 'lab space' going through.

It's a "sh** or get off the pot" moment for Michelle Wu and all other politicians. Either do something about the huge amount of real estate development happening with very little residential in your own jurisdiction, or stop grandstanding about the "housing crisis."

I am curious -- what is the legal mechanism you propose the mayor use to force private financial institutions to finance a higher percentage of residential in mixed-use developments?

And how do you prevent that mechanism from simply stopping development rather than stimulating housing, which the market does not appear to want to build?

 

[DZH22]

I am curious -- what is the legal mechanism you propose the mayor use to force private financial institutions to finance a higher percentage of residential in mixed-use developments?

And how do you prevent that mechanism from simply stopping development rather than stimulating housing, which the market does not appear to want to build?

Allow higher height allowances for residentials, basically max FAA in many neighborhoods such that we are getting 20-25 stories of housing regularly here, 30-40+ around Fenway/Huntington/Longwood, etc. At the same height labs make more sense, but if we stopped demonizing height as our public enemy #1 (particularly for residential buildings) then we could actually put a dent into the housing crisis.

Isn’t it right in Logan flight path?

How does that explain that the other buildings in the development are all taller? Surely the 6 story residentials could at least be the same height as the tallest building currently proposed here.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Allow higher height allowances for residentials, basically max FAA in many neighborhoods such that we are getting 20-25 stories of housing regularly here, 30-40+ around Fenway/Huntington/Longwood, etc. At the same height labs make more sense, but if we stopped demonizing height as our public enemy #1 (particularly for residential buildings) then we could actually put a dent into the housing crisis.



How does that explain that the other buildings in the development are all taller? Surely the 6 story residentials could at least be the same height as the tallest building currently proposed here.

Isn't the residential height (6 stories) likely determined by the economics of residential construction -- we are getting almost exclusively 5 over 1's or 5 over 2's because that is what is most cost effective to build. Between 7 stories and true high rise (for luxury) is pretty much a developer no-go zone for residential due to economics because of all the additional code requirements.

And in your height limit discussion I don't disagree, but if developers built those structures, they would almost certainly be mostly luxury units due to construction costs.

 

[jklo]

And in your height limit discussion I don't disagree, but if developers built those structures, they would almost certainly be mostly luxury units due to construction costs.

It's gonna be luxury regardless.

 

[DZH22]

And in your height limit discussion I don't disagree, but if developers built those structures, they would almost certainly be mostly luxury units due to construction costs.

I personally live in a spacious, but fairly dumpy, 2 bedroom suburban apartment in an old house built in 1870. New luxury units help keep spaces like this affordable to people like me.

In my opinion none of the new housing should be "affordable" housing. The affordability component needs to come from building enough housing to keep the market rate in check. Otherwise a few lucky people "win" spots in projects they shouldn't be able to afford to live in, to the detriment of everybody else who has to pay more to cover these subsidized units.

Isn't the residential height (6 stories) likely determined by the economics of residential construction -- we are getting almost exclusively 5 over 1's or 5 over 2's because that is what is most cost effective to build. Between 7 stories and true high rise (for luxury) is pretty much a developer no-go zone for residential due to economics because of all the additional code requirements.

I think there's more difficulty making a profit around the 8-15 story range, basically buildings that require steel/concrete but don't have enough floors to offset those higher costs. That's why 20+ stories around here, 30-40+ around Fenway/Kenmore/Huntington/Longwood, 50+ for the rest of North Point, Kendall, North Station neighborhood, etc are going to make the most sense regarding both the market and the potential profit.

It's also worth mentioning that most of Boston's older neighborhoods, often in the 3-4 story range, should be close to fully protected from a historical standpoint. Thus, it's more imperative than ever not to botch the remaining open parcels, especially those on major roads within a short walking distance to the T stations. Some posters mention things like razing half the city and replacing them with 6-8 story residentials to improve density. That would obviously kill a lot of the character that makes Boston special compared to most cities outside the Northeast Bos-Wash corridor. I say we don't raze any of the city and instead fill in the remaining spots more smartly and efficiently, with 20-50+ stories. This could lead to the same overall density, but more of it in proper nodes while mostly retaining the more low-rise character of the rest of the city.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I personally live in a spacious, but fairly dumpy, 2 bedroom suburban apartment in an old house built in 1870. New luxury units help keep spaces like this affordable to people like me.

In my opinion none of the new housing should be "affordable" housing. The affordability component needs to come from building enough housing to keep the market rate in check. Otherwise a few lucky people "win" spots in projects they shouldn't be able to afford to live in, to the detriment of everybody else who has to pay more to cover these subsidized units.



I think there's more difficulty making a profit around the 8-15 story range, basically buildings that require steel/concrete but don't have enough floors to offset those higher costs. That's why 20+ stories around here, 30-40+ around Fenway/Kenmore/Huntington/Longwood, 50+ for the rest of North Point, Kendall, North Station neighborhood, etc are going to make the most sense regarding both the market and the potential profit.

It's also worth mentioning that most of Boston's older neighborhoods, often in the 3-4 story range, should be close to fully protected from a historical standpoint. Thus, it's more imperative than ever not to botch the remaining open parcels, especially those on major roads within a short walking distance to the T stations. Some posters mention things like razing half the city and replacing them with 6-8 story residentials to improve density. That would obviously kill a lot of the character that makes Boston special compared to most cities outside the Northeast Bos-Wash corridor. I say we don't raze any of the city and instead fill in the remaining spots more smartly and efficiently, with 20-50+ stories. This could lead to the same overall density, but more of it in proper nodes while mostly retaining the more low-rise character of the rest of the city.

I don't disagree with this sentiment. But the Mayor cannot do this on her own (or she won't be in office long). You need people in the neighborhoods willing to allow the up-zoning for open parcels.

Witness the multi-year fight over the Trinity 150 Center Street project in Dorchester. Right at the Shawmut T stop -- and the fight was over a four (4) story development.

 

[curcuas]

Why does it seem like every mixed use master plan in the Boston area, of which are there quite a few now, are only like 35% housing? I assume what is proposed is an indication of what can and will get financed, but how does this make sense in an environment where we know housing is in much higher demand than lab space?

The "neighbors" aka old NIMBYs and the Southie electeds threw an enormous hissy fit when the Powerplant redevelopment nearby was going to be 1100+ homes and forced it to be much more lab/office, supposedly over "parking" and "traffic" concerns, never mind that traffic and parking needs come from having jobs not next to transit rather than homes walkable to work and transit...

 

[DZH22]

......never mind that traffic and parking needs come from having jobs not next to transit rather than homes walkable to work and transit...

To be fair, the parking concerns are going to be current residents competing with additional future residents for limited street parking at night. The office workers do add to the additional traffic, but aren't competing for spots right in front of people's houses outside of business hours. If people are already driving around struggling to find spots (I honestly don't know as I don't live in South Boston) then I at least understand why they don't want more competition for this scarce resource.

 

[Justbuildit]

I get the role of loss aversion in decision making on things like this, but advocating for downzoning to keep your free public car storage on a city street is car brain at its worst. I don't recall the original plan at the powerplant, and don't have the parking numbers for this development, but surely there will be more than 0 spots available for a fee. I'll be watching the public comments on this development to see how much more of this comes out.

EDIT: 1,161 parking spaces planned across just this phase of the development (p. 220 of the PNF), and they note the construction of new roads, which could provide additional South Boston parking. Also worth noting that E Street, from Fargo to the DHL lot is an unregulated all-comers parking street, at least on the northeast side. Flipping that to resident-only could easily allay concerns at zero cost to anyone.

 

[Kinopio]

To be fair, the parking concerns are going to be current residents competing with additional future residents for limited street parking at night. The office workers do add to the additional traffic, but aren't competing for spots right in front of people's houses outside of business hours. If people are already driving around struggling to find spots (I honestly don't know as I don't live in South Boston) then I at least understand why they don't want more competition for this scarce resource.

If parking is that important to them then they can provide it for themselves or move to the suburbs where it is abundant. The answer isn't to not build desperately needed housing because some crybaby car drivers like free parking.

 

[curcuas]

To be fair, the parking concerns are going to be current residents competing with additional future residents for limited street parking at night. The office workers do add to the additional traffic, but aren't competing for spots right in front of people's houses outside of business hours. If people are already driving around struggling to find spots (I honestly don't know as I don't live in South Boston) then I at least understand why they don't want more competition for this scarce resource.

This is entirely inconsistent with all the survey research that gets done by MAPC and others on parking in metro Boston. Southie car culture, especially, is driven by older residents, not the younger new comers who walk or take transit to jobs downtown. They're the type of people who will respond to incentives to not get a car, too.

 

[Justbuildit]

Problem is the young people never get involved in IAGs or community meetings, so it's the...more mature folks with either less to do or more perceived grievances who set the policy feel of a neighborhood. Every night there are hundreds of drunk people born after 2000 stumbling home from Lincoln, but you don't see many of them at the meetings.

 

[stick n move]

Housing, lab complex proposed along South Boston channel up for discussion​

“A year after developers first pitched an eight-building complex to bring housing, lab, and commercial space along South Boston’s Reserve Channel, Boston residents will soon have a chance to hear more on the proposal for the massive, 1.7 million-square-foot campus.

Over the next several weeks, the Boston Planning and Development Agency will host a series of meetings to spotlight various components of the project eyed for nearly 12.9 industrial acres at 300 West First St. and 47B Summer St.

Open houses are set for April 23 and May 22, while public meetings are scheduled for May 8 and 15, the BPDA website shows.

Developers Oxford Properties Group and Pappas Enterprises Inc. say the project, if approved, would create three new city blocks, interwoven with open spaces and streets, according to a project notification form filed in November.

Two six-story buildings would house a total of 205 residential units, which developers said last year were still being “evaluated for a range of potential housing options,” including whether units would be offered at market rate or deemed affordable housing. The latest filings with the city did not indicate whether the units would be available for sale or rent.…”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...-boston-channel-up-for-discussion/ar-BB1ldjcU

 

[shmessy]

Housing, lab complex proposed along South Boston channel up for discussion​

View attachment 49634

“A year after developers first pitched an eight-building complex to bring housing, lab, and commercial space along South Boston’s Reserve Channel, Boston residents will soon have a chance to hear more on the proposal for the massive, 1.7 million-square-foot campus.

Over the next several weeks, the Boston Planning and Development Agency will host a series of meetings to spotlight various components of the project eyed for nearly 12.9 industrial acres at 300 West First St. and 47B Summer St.

Open houses are set for April 23 and May 22, while public meetings are scheduled for May 8 and 15, the BPDA website shows.

Developers Oxford Properties Group and Pappas Enterprises Inc. say the project, if approved, would create three new city blocks, interwoven with open spaces and streets, according to a project notification form filed in November.

Two six-story buildings would house a total of 205 residential units, which developers said last year were still being “evaluated for a range of potential housing options,” including whether units would be offered at market rate or deemed affordable housing. The latest filings with the city did not indicate whether the units would be available for sale or rent.…”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...-boston-channel-up-for-discussion/ar-BB1ldjcU

I'm looking at that picture and I'm thinking 128 Burlington. That picture above is another soul-murdering architectural homicide. Whatever happened to the idea of Boston as a CITY?

Look, I know it's the Reserve Channel and all, but 12.9 FREAKING ACRES and all they can do is 205 residential units?????? I get that LEGO is now being used by engineers and architects over at MIT, but does every new building in Boston have to look like it was built by my 1967 set????

 

[DwnTwnr]

View attachment 49734
I'm looking at that picture and I'm thinking 128 Burlington. That picture above is another soul-murdering architectural homicide. Whatever happened to the idea of Boston as a CITY?

Look, I know it's the Reserve Channel and all, but 12.9 FREAKING ACRES and all they can do is 205 residential units?????? I get that LEGO is now being used by engineers and architects over at MIT, but does every new building in Boston have to look like it was built by my 1967 set????

View attachment 49735

It's a real shame. They have Gehl on the project--some of the most interesting urban designers in the world but it very much looks like a program packing exercise with some green edges.

Until someone starts financing residential we are just stuck in this ridiculous loop of building giant lab buildings that don't seem to have a market. It's very weird.

 

[dhawkins]

This waterfront site should allow for 10 of these buildings!
shipping-container-skyscraper