Rose Kennedy Greenway

The city was rewarded by him paying 150 million for the site, taxes. Now does that entitle him to get what ever he wants built, I suppose not. But when the city says you were a fool for paying that much, that sends a bad message to developers. Don't pay too much around here, even though by developers paying a lot, the city gets more tax money which it badly needs.

Your opinion that his buidling is a monstrosity is just that and shouldn't factor into whether it gets built. B/c just as many people would have the opinion that they like the buildings and would like to see them there.

He offered that 50 million (maybe it was false), but the city didn't call him out on it, so speculate all you want, but the way it played out in reality was that the city will be making budget cuts, possibly closing libraries, and the wise city officals turned down the offer.

The thousands of people who CHOSE to live in a downtown area ( of a metro area of 4 million) shouldn't be so against more towers poping up over time. IT COMES W/ THE TERRITORY, kind of like bad real estate purchases live w/ your decisions. I mean don't move to the woods if you hate trees.

Coninuing on, 4 story structures are cute in small town centers, but in the heart of the city, it's rediculously undersized. And when put into the context of painful budget cuts, creating larger tax bases after billions of tax dollars in investments, seems like the non-negligent thing to do. This investment was paid for by the entire city, state, and country. So please don't act like this greenway is your front yard, b/c you DIDNOT flip that bill (something tells me you live around there). Matter of fact, to the residents the live around there, I will speak on behalf the other 300 million americans who did not directly benefit from the highway being taken out of view, your welcome.

The central business area of Boston is the economic engine for not only the city, but also greatly contributes to the state. We should try to create a larger market over time. The other 620K residents of Boston don't care about the Harbor Towers' residents' views, and should not have to pass up potential increase in tax base for your conservative suburban desires.

Finally look back a couple of posts and read the study that an independent group concluded. To paraphrase it "Make the area around it more urban and it might not suck"
 
TheRifleman said:
I think Chiofaro and pru have every intention in building this project. Remember they probably have more at stake than the city making the Greenway worth the value. The only way the Greenway will work in this area is a development of this magintude. 625ft is not that big compared to other cities. I also believe Chiofaro factoring in on giving the city 50 Million part of the development costs . Why would you write a letter to Menino asking him for an extra 200 or 400ft.

The Commercial Vacancy is defintely a problem so would be interesting how Chiofaro handles that. My bet is he wouldn't build without a bluechip tenant. I think this type of development would not suffer like Filene's or Fan Pier. Aquarim area already has the pedestrian traffic.

I really have a problem with the BRA and Mayor on this one.
Click to expand...

Chiofaro doesn't have the money; after all he filed Chapter 11 on International Place earlier this decade, on a complex that's been his (partly his) for about 25 years when he filed. Prudential Real Estate Investors doesn't have the money either. What PREI does is find a group of institutional investors (universities, pension funds, etc) who put up the money and finance a project; PREI pools their money and manages the trust for the property the investors now own, collects the money from sales or rents on the property, and pays the investors their return for pooling the money in the first place.

Back in 2007, when Chiofaro and PREI bought the garage for $155 million, there was a lot of excess capital floating around the world, which led to a big bubble and lots of people paying too much for buildings, etc. (See Broadway Partners and the John Hancock tower.)
http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/broadway-partners-races-to-unload-its-trophy-towers

Within a year though, the market had gone south, and developers and investors bailed, and if they couldn't bail, the foreclosure signs went sprouting up. They still are.

From what I read, PREI is unloading its US-owned real estate, which means the institutional investors are telling PREI 'get what you can for it, there is not going to be any return on these real estate investments for a while, and we need to get our balance sheet in better shape'. Institutional investors aren't looking to invest in new building projects, now or in the near future.

Look at Columbus Center and CALPers. I posted a graph on that thread showing how that single institutional investor has lost more than $1 billion on projects that were stopped (e.g., Columbus Center), or didn't pan out. CALPers, couldn't even finance continuing to construct the deck at Columbus Center..

$155 million was, even back in 2007, a lot to pay for 1.32 acres of land. Lets say the garage demolition costs are $20 million. So $175 million total before you start to build. Columbus Center would have been built on seven acres, and IIRC, $175 million was about what the deck was going to cost before Winn and CALPers could start building on the seven acres.
 
Um...actually, TheRifleman, you're the moron. Joe Fallon's investor is MassMutual, not Liberty Mutual - totally different companies, no relationship, none of the BS conspiracy theories you're tossing out. Again, just know your facts before posting, please.

And Chiafaro did have the money to build International Place....in 1985 when he started construction. His money partner the Hillman family later sued the pants off him and have nothing more to do with the project. Again, Chiafaro publicly stated that he DID NOT have the money to build his Greenway project so don't take my word for it, take his.

If a developer doesn't want to take the risk of not getting the zoning changed, he can buy an option on a site, then try to change the zoning and if successful actually consummate the transaction and pay for the site. Chiafaro put the cart before the horse, paying for the site and then asking for massive zoning relief. That's not how most developers do it because they know it's a risky business. Again, not the BRA's fault that he made a bad investment decision.
 
I can admit I'm wrong. I actually swore I read LibertyMutual. I'm the Moron on this topic.
 
greenwayguy1982 said:
......

If a developer doesn't want to take the risk of not getting the zoning changed, he can buy an option on a site, then try to change the zoning and if successful actually consummate the transaction and pay for the site. Chiafaro put the cart before the horse, paying for the site and then asking for massive zoning relief. That's not how most developers do it because they know it's a risky business. Again, not the BRA's fault that he made a bad investment decision.
Click to expand...

And any developer with a modicum of savvy would have had conversations with the FAA about how tall a building they would allow to be built on that site, and done so before buying the site.
 
TheRifleman said:
Does anybody know if the FAA ever okay 600ft on this site in the past?
Click to expand...

There is no indication the FAA had; in fact, Chiofaro's comment after the FAA determination was announced, was that 'it [the limit] was what we expected.' (There are other buildings near the Greenway that are 600', International Place is one, but heights allowable in one location, may not be allowable elsewhere.) After the FAA determination was announced, Chiofaro made no claim that he had been blindsided by the ruling, or that he had been told by the FAA previously he could build higher.

One could infer that Chiofaro knew of the FAA's limits at the time he bought the garage. In discussions he had with the city over a year's time during the period the garage was bought, he talked about building a tower 475 feet high. That's pretty close to what the FAA said it would allow.
 
So is this thread finished? We have a garage on the most crucial part of the Greenway. Even if a developer bought this garage for 60 Million what developer would take a shot for a 200Ft building? I would just keep it a garage especially since parking is priceless in Boston. I heard somebody paid 300K in the backbay for a spot.
 
greenwayguy1982 said:
1. Everyone seems to be forgetting that all of the sites along the Greenway are (and have been for decades) already zoned much lower than the Greenway District Planning Study is proposing. In that regard, the BRA and the mayor are actually promoting very tall towers at many places along the Greenway, like near Dewey Square, at Government Center, etc, where they are not permitted today. Even the Harbor Garage site is getting an upzoning so quit whining about how the BRA and Mayor are punishing Don Chiafaro. Besides, the state law (Chapter 91) on that site is so strict it practically doesn't matter what the city says. The state will have a field day with a coupe 600+ foot towers on that site. Never Happening. And it won't be the BRA's or the Mayor's fault. So please get your regulatory facts straight before you start opening fire on the city.
Click to expand...

Again, as I posted in the other thread, this is not the point. While current zoning law is lower, developers can negotiate to have the zoning change. The anti-shadow bill, permanently restricts developers, present and future, from building any tower of any great height. (600ft is not great height). In addition to that, the passing of the anti-shadow bill gives the community, the BRA, and whoever opposes the project another reason that it should not be allowed since the tower will cast a shadow along the park.

One more thing, even if a tower was propose at height that is under the limit, if it casts a shadow, you can bet your ass the community will raise hell against it.
 
TheRifleman said:
Fallon, biggest investor is Liberty Mutual. Why would any city give taxbreaks to a profitable insurance company? Fallon paid way too much for Fan Pier the entire real estate market is facing deflation. But Liberty Mutual sure got that tax break.
Click to expand...

They were given the tax breaks to stay in Boston rather than move out of the city/state as they more than likely would have without the incentive.
 
I know there is a massive overlap here but can we try to keep all discussion of the Greenway study here and the Boston Arch/Chiofaro talk in the other thread? Thanks.
 
greenwayguy1982 said:
Hi all, I'm brand new to archboston and enjoy reading the greenway thread. There is so much misinformation going around that I signed up and wanted to set a few things straight.

Just a few thoughts to set the record straight for all you who seem to think that the BRA's Greenway Study is a terrible planning document that will single-handedly set Boston back 50 years on the world stage. Please check your facts before you make such ridiculous and uninformed assertions.
Click to expand...

Welcome again, Jay Rourke from the BRA! Just thought that if you're double-posting, we might as well all follow suit!
 
itchy said:
Welcome again, Jay Rourke from the BRA! Just thought that if you're double-posting, we might as well all follow suit!
Click to expand...

Hi, not sure who you are itchy but I'm a planner in private practice with an architecture/planning firm in Boston...
 
Why arent they putting a tram on the greenway which will allow people to move along it a lot easier and also it would connect south station to north station which needs to happen. If they dont wanna give up anything theyve done they could even do an overhead rail that is modern and looks good with a couple station too, this would make the greenway a vital piece of boston.
 
stick n move said:
Why arent they putting a tram on the greenway which will allow people to move along it a lot easier and also it would connect south station to north station which needs to happen. If they dont wanna give up anything theyve done they could even do an overhead rail that is modern and looks good with a couple station too, this would make the greenway a vital piece of boston.
Click to expand...

A tram on the greenway would be slow with all the crossings and signals and ramps. Not to mention trams have low capacity. Also, you already have the Orange Line from Back Bay to North Station which effectively serves most south side to north side connections. And there is no way anyone wants to risk another overhead monstrosity, no matter how nice it "could" be. (Especially with the mayor we have, he would say it separates the city)
 
stick n move said:
Why arent they putting a tram on the greenway which will allow people to move along it a lot easier and also it would connect south station to north station which needs to happen. If they dont wanna give up anything theyve done they could even do an overhead rail that is modern and looks good with a couple station too, this would make the greenway a vital piece of boston.
Click to expand...

A better bet would be a dedicated lane running a trolley or bus on the existing surface road. This would reduce traffic capacity along Atlantic Ave and make it feel less like a highway median. This would also be the cheapest way to connect N & S Stations.
 
stick n move said:
Why arent they putting a tram on the greenway which will allow people to move along it a lot easier and also it would connect south station to north station which needs to happen. If they dont wanna give up anything theyve done they could even do an overhead rail that is modern and looks good with a couple station too, this would make the greenway a vital piece of boston.
Click to expand...

Great idea, do you have the half a billion $$ it would eventually cost?
 
Now if Menino could have had the foresight to insist on money trees being planted in the median...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top